• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Alert: NH State House attempting to pass the "Incumbant Protection Act": Stop SB120

Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
1,636
Likes
1,367
Feedback: 4 / 0 / 0
NHFC: New Hampshire's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization

Dear Gun owner,

After we have successfully stopped the anti-gun bills being pushed through the State House, the Anti-Gun Elite are now trying to silence us!

Clearly, success comes with a price.

This past week, the “Election Law” committee voted SB120 Ought To Pass and this bill is scheduled for a full vote in the House on May 14th!

Senate Bill 120 is the ultimate "Incumbent Protection Act". This bill is designed to specifically make it hard for grassroots organizations to report on how the NH Senators and Representatives are acting or voting in both committee and on the floor. SB120 is designed to shut us down and prevent us from telling you the inside story regarding the anti-gun actions of the politicians in Concord.

In order for NHFC to continue to inform you of threats to your Second Amendment rights SB 120 must be stopped; and fast.

The New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and its members and followers have done a good job at stopping the radical anti-gun agenda in Concord this past year.

For over ten years our grassroots, all volunteer organization has helped educate the citizens in the state and together we have successfully stopped literally dozens of bad anti-gun bills. In just this 2013/2014 session, we have seen anti-gun bills like HB135 (Repeal of Stand your Ground), SB244 (See a Shrink, lose your guns) and HB1589 (Sell a gun, go to jail) fail as the result of our members and friends taking action.

The ability of a group of like minded gun advocates frightens the Billionaire Bloomberg ilk. The anti-gun politicians are outraged that a relatively modest local organization can have such an impact! This insults their sense of entitlement to rule without being questioned or challenged in any way.


To attempt to shut us down, they have drafted and are pushing a bill that is designed to regulate the free speech of a grassroots group.

This bill would redefine non-profit organizations like ours as a “political committee” and subject us to endless accounting requirements and red tape. This would effectively silence our ability to let you know about critical votes and the last minute political maneuvering of Anti-Gun politicians.

As a 501c4 Non-Profit Corporation we are already required to report the sum of all of our receipts and expenditures to the IRS, yet now the anti-gun legislators want us to itemize how we spend our money so they can target us and target the vendors we work with.

By slowing us down and preventing you access to the fast moving information in Concord, you may not be able to act in time to prevent bad bills from becoming Bad Laws!

The only purpose of this bill is to make it harder for grassroots organizations to stay involved in the political fight!

Even worse, if NHFC is forced to disclose exactly how much we spend exposing each legislator’s record, they will be more inclined to disregard your phone calls, emails, letters and post cards when they think NHFC hasn’t spent enough to warrant their attention.

You have proven to the Legislature over the last decade that NH Gun Owners are not going to take assaults on your gun-rights lying down, so they are now trying to yank the rug out from under our First Amendment Rights, to make it more difficult to defend our Second Amendment Rights.

It has been said that the right to keep and bear arms is the right that guards the rest, and that is true.

But for firearms owners around the country, the ability to publicly criticize gun-grabbing politicians for undermining your rights is key to stopping their schemes.

You may wonder which Senators or Representatives would be so bold as to attempt such a blatant restriction on the right to freely criticize those in authority, the principle at the very heart of the First Amendment?

The answer is none other than the following sponsors of SB120: Sen. Bradley, Dist 3; Sen. Carson, Dist 14; Sen. Odell, Dist 8; Rep. Jasper, Hills 37; Rep. G. Richardson, Merr 10

Rep. Shawn Jasper is the Representative who led the charge to get this bill passed through the Election Law Committee, and he has also been one of the ringleaders in throwing gun owners like you and me under the bus during prior legislative seasons. In 2012 he voted against the bill preventing state institutions from prohibiting firearms on their properties, (2012 HB334). That year he also voted against the repeal for discharge in a compact zone. (HB1341). You see, Jasper is so anti-gun, he even voted against HB536, (Constitutional Carry) when it passed out of the house 193 yea, 122 nay.

If Rep. Shawn Jasper succeeds in his attempt to muzzle the grassroots gun owner, it will be a massive blow to gun rights throughout the state.

That is why I need you to call Rep. Shawn Jasper today, at Home (603)-595-9621 and tell him that his blatant disregard for the right to free speech is unacceptable. Let him know you will not stand by idly while he attempts to silence those who would stand against his gun-grabbing ways.

Then I need you to call your State Representative as well Click here to find out who your Representative is. Let them know that you will not stand by while your voice in support of Second Amendment Civil Rights and freedom in Concord is muzzled. Let them know that SB120 must be voted down!

Given the anti-gun sentiment of the majority of the house, you can be sure they all would love to see NHFC hampered in our ability to criticize their anti-gun votes.

Unless we come together right now, and make sure they know you will not accept any attack on grassroots organizations’ ability to criticize legislators for their anti-gun votes, you and I are going to face an uphill battle next year when they come to take your gun rights.

That is why I need you to call Rep. Shawn Jasper today, at Home (603)-595-9621 and your own Representative, today.

Demand that they vote SB 120 Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) and stop this unconstitutional restriction on free speech.

In Liberty,

Jonathan R. Evans, Esq.
President - NHFC
 
This is a Senate bill that was just voted ought to pass by committee. Would it not now be voted on in the full Senate? The email states it is going before the House.
 
This is a Senate bill that was just voted ought to pass by committee. Would it not now be voted on in the full Senate? The email states it is going before the House.

It already passed the senate. It is in the House and is on the calendar for Wednesday.
 
Are the imbeciles who are writing these not even reading what they are impacting????

Current text, for example:
I. Any political committee whose receipts or expenditures [in support of a candidate, measure, or political party] exceed $500 except, for the purposes of this paragraph only, the political committee of a political party or the political committee of a candidate, shall file with the secretary of state an itemized statement in the form prescribed by the secretary of state, signed by its chairman and treasurer showing each of its receipts exceeding $25 with the full name and [home post office] postal address of the contributor in alphabetical order and the amount of the contribution, the date it was received, and the aggregate total for each election for each contributor of over $100.

So, there is disagreement whether the term "home post office" or "postal" address should be used. The correct answer is NEITHER you ninnies! I will point out that http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxiii/664/664-2.htm XIII defines the term "Post Office Address" for what they are trying to get here. "Home post office" was the incorrect term, so they amended it with another incorrect term. It's too much to ask that people read the law before writing new ones, I know.

To further point out the stupidity...
III. “Political committee” means:
Any organization of 2 or more persons that promotes the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures, including the political committee of a political party

So, my wife and I, if we happen to agree on what we believe to be the desired outcome of an election or measure, and discuss this with some friends over dinner, are now a "Political Committee". Awesome! Hopefully it isn't an expensive dinner.
 
Why did this pass in the Senate? (Serious question)

Because there has been a lot of clamor from the libertarian base of the republican party to oust the neo-con senators for their poor votes. This bill would protect them by making it harder to legally organize against them.

As usual, the democrats eat this up because it helps them as well.

Basically: Statists gonna state.
 
So, my wife and I, if we happen to agree on what we believe to be the desired outcome of an election or measure, and discuss this with some friends over dinner, are now a "Political Committee". Awesome! Hopefully it isn't an expensive dinner.

Or OP + Reply for any given topic on NES. On top of being a completely freedom-trashing bill in the first place, it's so poorly written that even discussing coincidentally or unknowingly - the topical content of any legislation could get construed as discussing the actual legislation.

Immagine being at the ammo counter at Wal Mart and saying to the guy next to you: "I like guns" and he says "me too" and some liberal do-gooder hears that and reports them for violating the Incumbant Protection Act...
 
Last edited:
Or OP + Reply for any given topic on NES.

Yes, I agree.

Given that I fully expect that NES is a >$500 a year "business", one could broadly interpret them as being required to report. I suspect that it would be completely unenforceable in cases like NES, but let's quit creating unenforceable laws, mmmmkay?

Reps notified on both 120 and 319.
 
Yes, I agree.

Given that I fully expect that NES is a >$500 a year "business", one could broadly interpret them as being required to report. I suspect that it would be completely unenforceable in cases like NES, but let's quit creating unenforceable laws, mmmmkay?

Reps notified on both 120 and 319.

Good. Lets blitz the reps on this issue and SB 319 (linked in my sig)
 
The word is spreading.

My email to reps (this one took longer to craft):

ITL SB 120: The "Political Speech Suppression Act"


To the members of the House of Representatives:

The “Incumbent Protection Act.” The “Voter Intimidation Act.” The “Political Speech Suppression Act.”

What do the phrases above all have in common? Well they all apply to SB 120. This bill seeks to suppress political speech by redefining what constitutes a “political committee” and then subjecting that “committee” to inane and burdensome reporting requirements.

The new definition of a political committee:

“III. “Political committee” means:

Any organization of 2 or more persons that promotes the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures, including the political committee of a political party.”

So if you and your spouse stand on a street with signs supporting or opposing any candidate or any bill, you are now a “political committee” and thus subject to all kinds of reporting requirements including the requirement to register as a political committee!!!

This is insane. This goes against the very basic tenets of a republic and the first amendment. This is the kind of language that the politician hacks down in DC use not the citizen legislators of New Hampshire.

Do you trust someone else to not use a law like this to target those they do not like? Who is to say a future governor or attorney general or secretary of state doesn’t have a meltdown and decides to use this law to crack down on your speech? It isn’t so appealing when you think about how this law could be used against you now is it?

So I ask you, will you be a defender of liberty and vote to ITL SB 120 or will you be a defender of tyranny and vote for it?

Sincerely,
 
@ NHpoke: There will be a roll call, make sure he/she hears your response in November.
-Design
 
Last edited:
Reply from two reps. One is the bill sponsor and the other is the majority floor leader, whatever that is.

Bill sponsor Shawn Jasper said:
The definition of Political committee currently is more broad; "means any organization of 2 or more persons to influence elections or measures, ..." The new definition states that goal needs to be to " promote the success or defeat of a candidate..." Neither definition applies to a couple holding a sign. Under current law if that couple spent $500 they would have to register and report, under SB 120 that same couple would not have to register of file until they spent $5000.

There is a great deal of misinformation being circulated about SB 120. The provision you mention is not new. SB 120 does not change existing law in any way with respect to what people, outside groups, candidates, and political parties can and cannot say, or do, in their political campaigns. Existing law requires two or more people to register and report their expenditures if they spend $500 or more to influence an election. SB 120 raises this to $5,000. The bill has nothing to do with anyone standing and holding signs unless you spend more than $5,000 on the signs.
Gary Richardson
 
(I'm on a mobile device so some formatting may not come through correctly, apologies)

I'd love to have a Rep that I could actually have a discussion with.


To a certain extent I actually agree with Shawn. The RSA is poorly written today. The new version isn't better.
Current text
III. "Political committee'' means any organization of 2 or more persons to influence elections or measures, including the political committee of a political party as defined in paragraph V.


Proposed text
III. “Political committee” means:
(a) Any organization of 2 or more persons that promotes the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures, including the political committee of a political party;


Let's look at the applicable parts of each
"any organization of 2 or more persons to influence elections or measures"
"Any organization of 2 or more persons that promotes the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures"


The biggest problem with the existing RSA is that there is a word (a verb) missing. I don't know what it is, but I know it's missing.
any organization of 2 or more persons created to influence elections or measures
any organization of 2 or more persons intended to influence elections or measures
any organization of 2 or more persons designed to influence elections or measures
any organization of 2 or more persons whose purpose is to influence elections or measures


So, I agree, not perfect... But...
The new text doesn't work on the intent, design, or goal of the organization, but on its action.


So, if I wanted to regulate, say, weapons, I could define them as


Any object created with the intent of harming other people.
-or-
Any object created that harms other people.


Which is broader? I believe I understand the intent (maybe), but the execution sucks. My first definition of a weapon covers things that are intended to hurt people. Could be guns, knives, bows, tasers, you know, weapons. My second definition could apply to cars, sticks, hammers, bowling balls, you know, not weapons. He may not intend for it to apply to a husband and wife. It does.


Regarding registration at 5000 rather than 500 they evidently are incapable of reading their legislation.


From the bill


I. Any political committee, except the political committee of a political party, shall register with the secretary of state as provided in this section. A political committee may register for an election cycle at any time after the final report is due following the then-most-recent general election. The [[STRIKE]committee shall register with[/STRIKE]] committee’s registration shall be received by the secretary of state not later than [[STRIKE]24[/STRIKE]] 48 hours after [[STRIKE]receiving any contribution in excess of $500 or before making any expenditure in excess of $500, but in no event later than 14 days after the formation of the committee[/STRIKE]] the committee meets at least one of the criteria under RSA 664:2, III.


Since they seemingly are confused, let me rewrite this without all the confusing strike throughs.


I. Any political committee, except the political committee of a political party, shall register with the secretary of state as provided in this section. A political committee may register for an election cycle at any time after the final report is due following the then-most-recent general election. The committee’s registration shall be received by the secretary of state not later than 48 hours after the committee meets at least one of the criteria under RSA 664:2, III.


The way that this reads, regardless of intent, is that within 48 hours of "becoming" a political committee, the committee's registration shall be received by the Secretary of State. No requirement for 500, 5000, or 5,000,000 to register. Within 48 hours of "becoming".
 
According to the bill, the political committee becomes when it has met any criteria of...
III. “Political committee” means:
(a) Any organization of 2 or more persons that promotes the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures, including the political committee of a political party;
(b) Any segregated fund established by any organization the purpose of which is to promote the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures;
(c) Any organization that has as its major purpose to promote the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures and whose receipts or expenditures total $2,500 or more in a calendar year for that purpose;
(d) Any organization that does not have as its major purpose to promote the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures but that makes expenditures that total $5,000 or more in a calendar year; or
(e) Any segregated fund that is voluntarily registered with the secretary of state for the purpose of reporting its receipts and expenditures under this chapter or any organization that voluntarily registers with the secretary of state, without regard to whether such segregated fund or organization meets the receipt or expenditure thresholds described in this paragraph.
As used in this paragraph, “organization” includes, but is not limited to, one or more natural persons; entities formed under state law, except those entities qualified under section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986; committees formed by a candidate, exploratory campaign, or political party; and any other association of natural persons or entities formed under state law that is not registered as a business entity.

I suspect that the representatives are arguing that the "husband and wife" will fall under definition (d), hence the 5000 limit, however, as stated definition (a) is more broad and can be applied. They included "has as its major purpose" text in many of the definitions, but not (a) which is the broadest and most sweeping, intentional or not.

As soon as an organization has met any of these definitions it has become.
 
I really don't think that they are intending what the text of this bill is doing (but I could be wrong).

If nothing else it's just terribly sloppy legislation.
 
Also there is a NEW section being added:


IX. “Expenditure” shall mean the disbursement of money or thing of value or the making of a legally binding commitment to make such a disbursement in the future or the transfer of funds by a political committee to another political committee or to a candidate for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates and measure or measures. “Expenditures” includes disbursements constituting independent expenditures, as defined in paragraph XI. It does not include:

(a) The candidate’s filing fee or his or her expenses for personal travel and subsistence;

(b) Activity designed to encourage individuals to register to vote or to vote, if that activity or communication does not mention a clearly identified candidate;

(c) Any communication by any membership organization or corporation to its members or stockholders, if the primary purpose of that membership organization or corporation is not for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates and measure or measures; or

(d) Any communication by any political committee member that is not made for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates and measure or measures.



This means NHFC and similar organizations, that work to defeat a "measure or measures" will have to register. This bill is the politicians revenge for all the calls and emails that we have been sending out. So while the sign holders may get some relief, membership organizations like NHFC will have to file our receipts and expenditures with the state.

Also this means that NES might be required to register. While NES doesn't have leadership per se (not the same as say NHFC) we have seen Derek approve of things (like the defeat of certain bills or candidates). Therefore, NES falls under the new definitions IMHO.
 
Here is the amendment text that targets NHFC and other grassroots groups. This appears to apply to NES.

Amend the bill by replacing sections 2 and 3 with the following:

*2 Definitions; Expenditure. Amend RSA 664:2, IX to read as follows:

IX. “Expenditure” shall mean the disbursement of money or thing of value or the making of a legally binding commitment to make such a disbursement in the future or the transfer of funds by a political committee to another political committee or to a candidate for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures. “Expenditures” includes disbursements constituting independent expenditures, as defined in paragraph XI. It does not include:

(a) The candidate’s filing fee or his or her expenses for personal travel and subsistence;

(b) Activity designed to encourage individuals to register to vote or to vote, if that activity or communication does not mention a clearly identified candidate;

(c) Any communication by any membership organization or corporation to its members or stockholders, if the primary purpose of that membership organization or corporation is not for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates and measure or measures; or

(d) Any communication by any political committee member that is not made for the purpose of promoting the success or defeat of a candidate or candidates or measure or measures.

*3 Definitions; Independent Expenditures. Amend RSA 664:2, XI to read as follows:

XI. “Independent expenditures” means expenditures that pay for the development and distribution of a communication that expressly advocates the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or candidates or the success or defeat of a measure or measures, which are made without cooperation or consultation with any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate, and which are not made in concert with, or at the request or suggestion of, any candidate, or any authorized committee or agent of such candidate.

Amend RSA 664:2, XX as inserted by section 4 of the bill by replacing it with the following:

XX. “Clearly identified candidate” means that the name of the candidate involved appears; a photograph or drawing of the candidate appears; or the identity of the candidate is otherwise apparent.

XXI. “Political advocacy organization” means any entity that spends $5,000 or more in a calendar year to pay for a communication that is functionally equivalent to express advocacy because, when taken as a whole, such communication is likely to be interpreted by a reasonable person only as advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or candidates or the success or defeat of a measure or measures, taking into account whether the communication involved mentions a candidacy or a political party, or takes a position on a candidate’s character, qualifications, or fitness for office.

Amend the bill by replacing section 6 with the following:

*6 New Paragraph; Registration of Political Committees. Amend RSA 664:3 by inserting after paragraph IV the following new paragraph:

V. Any political committee or political advocacy organization that is exempt from taxation under sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986 may disclose, but shall not be required to disclose in its itemized statement of receipts, the identity of its donors.

Amend the bill by replacing section 10 with the following:

*10 New Paragraph; Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6 by inserting after paragraph VIII the following new paragraph:

IX. Any political committee or political advocacy organization that is exempt from taxation under sections 501(c)(4), 501(c)(5), or 501(c)(6) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986 may disclose, but shall not be required to disclose in its itemized statement of receipts, the identity of its donors.

Amend the bill by inserting after section 11 the following and renumbering the original section 12 to read as 14:

*12 New Section; Registration of Political Advocacy Organizations. Amend RSA 664 by inserting after section 3 the following new section:

664:3-a Registration of Political Advocacy Organizations. Political advocacy organizations shall register with the secretary of state under the same deadlines and in the same general form required of political committees under RSA 664:3.

*13 New Section; Reporting by Political Advocacy Organizations. Amend RSA 664 by inserting after section 6 the following new section:

664:6-a Reporting by Political Advocacy Organizations. Political advocacy organizations shall report with the secretary of state any funds received or expenses incurred in connection with communications described in RSA 664:2, VII, under the same deadlines and in the same general form required of political committees under RSA 664:6, IV-a.


2014-1654h

AMENDED ANALYSIS

This bill:

I. Modifies the definitions of “political committee,” “expenditure,” and “independent expenditure” and establishes a definition of “receipts.”

II. Modifies registration and reporting requirements for political committees.

III. Requires registration of and reporting by political advocacy organizations, as defined in the bill.
 
Also, in actuality, based on the last definition under the bill text that passed the senate, EVERY organization in the state that is not a 501(c)(3) has to register as a PAC if they advocate for or against a candidate or measure.

As used in this paragraph, “organization” includes, but is not limited to, one or more natural persons; entities formed under state law, except those entities qualified under section 501(c)(3) of the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986; committees formed by a candidate, exploratory campaign, or political party; and any other association of natural persons or entities formed under state law that is not registered as a business entity.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, the following may be stretching.

Also, this limits the definition even worse than the first bullet with this text: “organization” includes, but is not limited to, one or more natural persons

It applies to just ONE PERSON. And applies to "any other association of natural persons or entities formed under state law that is not registered as a business entity."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom