• 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

My response (with better analysis thanks to the posts here and on FB).


Rep. Richardson,

This bill would still affect organizations with membership if they support or are against candidates or measures, even if that is not the primary purpose of that organization.

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.

The definition of such organization is so broad it incorporates every business and non-profit if said business or non-profit decides to spend money endorsing or opposing any candidate or measure.
Here is the definition that is extremely broad and does not exist in current law (except for section (a) which has been slightly changed):

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.

One must register as a political committee if one meets any of the criteria listed above.

So yes my nickname for this bill, “The Political Speech Suppression Act” is correct. This bill suppresses the speech of every business or non-profit (except 501(c)(3)) because it threatens to make them a PAC if they decide to engage in the political process, even if the political process is not their primary function as a business or non-profit.

It also could be applied to an individual who decides to spend money supporting a candidate or measure: “organization” includes, but is not limited to, one or more natural persons.

The comment about raising the existing limit of $500 to $5,000 not entirely true since a $500 limit still exists in the RSA.
From the bill:
7 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, I to read as follows:
I. Any political committee whose receipts or expenditures exceed $500

9 Reporting by Political Committee. Amend RSA 664:6, IV-a to read as follows:
IV-a. Any political committee whose independent expenditures, in aggregate, exceed $500 shall file an itemized statement with the secretary of state which shall be received by the secretary of state not later than 48 hours after such expenditures are made, and thereafter each time a further $500 is expended.

Based upon the overly broad definition of a “political committee” virtually anyone can be considered a political committee and thus required to submit to these burdensome regulations.

Or they can be silent, effectively losing their first amendment and article 22 and 30 rights under the United States and New Hampshire Constitutions.
There will be court cases based upon this bill if it is passed, further wasting New Hampshire taxpayer money. This House and Senate seems to be doing that a lot lately.

So while the current RSA isn’t exactly great, this bill makes it far more confusing and overly broad (The courts have a term for that, “Unconstitutionally vague”) and therefore the bill should be voted ITL.

Regards,
Click to expand...
 
My senator (Jim Rausch) opposed SB120 in the Senate... one of only 4 to do so. Good man... will donate and support him when up for re-election.

This is the email going out to my representatives:

I am writing to you today to express my strong opposition to two bills that are going to be voted in the House soon: SB319 (The Free Speech Rights End Where Politicians Feel Like Act) and SB120 (The Political Speech Suppression Act).

I prefer not to write a long, detailed email explaining the many ways in which those two proposed pieces of legislation violate the constitution and attempt to remove our freedoms, so I will just briefly say this:


What incident or incidents do the supporters of SB319 list to justify the need to supress free speech in an arbitrarily defined zone (today - abortion clinics. Tomorrow... who knows?) in which protesters had not already violated other laws? A vote for SB319 is a vote for taking our freedom away in the name of convenience... never an acceptable reason.


Please oppose SB319 and any other attempt to limit free speech any further, or we'll end up like the students at the University of Hawaii, where students handing out pocket constitutions "were told that if they wanted to protest, the proper place to do so would be in UH Hilo's "free speech zone," a sloping, one-third acre area on the edge of campus. The "free speech zone" represents approximately 0.26 percent of UH Hilo's total area and is muddy and prone to flooding in Hilo's frequent rain. The administrator further observed, "This isn't really the '60s anymore" and "people can't really protest like that anymore.""


http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/24/hawaiian-student-sues-after-being-ordere


On SB120, I am shocked that this passed the Senate - I guess that when incumbents feel threatened, they change the rules of the game to make it harder for their opponents. There is NO need for SB120 - we all have the right to be involved in the political process without being subjected to arbitrary, burdensome regulations whose only purpose is to discourage people and organizations from exercising their right to free speech. The definiton of a PAC in that proposed law is so wide that it could cover anybody at any time - the wet dream of authoritarians... a society where everyone is guilty and can thus be thrown in jail whenever they try to make waves.


Please join Senator Jim Rausch in his principled stand against this horrible idea and vote to kill SB120 before it kills the political discourse in NH.


I will be monitoring the vote on those bills, and will absolutely spend my time and money in the fall to oppose every candidate that votes in favor of those anti-freedom bills and to support the candidates who vote to protect and expand our freedoms.


I much appreciate the time you took to read this email, and thank you for your previous support.


Best regards,
Click to expand...
 
Got a reply from one of my reps:

Thank you for your e-mail and the information you provided.

With the goal if the Bill being to increase the transparency of all PAC's, it appears the law as proposed may restrict small group participation.Would that be the primary issue based on your submitted information?

I will listen today and see what further information the debate (if any) provides.

Thank you again.
Click to expand...

My reply:

As per http://legiscan.com/NH/text/SB120/id/952640, SB120 as proposed makes EVERYBODY a PAC - individuals, small businesses, etc. as soon as they get involved in politics - this is ridiculous. We oppose asking people to show ID to vote because it's an unreasonable burden on their right to vote, but we impose huge compliance and legal costs on anybody who gets involved in politics?

The costs imposed are so high that SB120 is clearly designed to suppress political speech from everybody except the established political parties who are conveniently exempt and largest of PAC's that have the lawyers, accountants and money needed to satisfy those ridiculous reporting burdens,


And one more point - do YOU report how much money you spent supporting or opposing every individual bill or candidate? You do not, and the bill EXEMPTS political parties from the law... so why should we respect a legislature and political parties that attempts to hold us to a higher burden then themselves? The Legislature should be held to a higher standard that regular people... and since they are unwilling and unable to comply with this proposed law themselves they have no business passing this legislation, This is a shameless attempt to protect incumbents, and anti-constitutional on its face under the equal protection, free speech, etc.


Vote for this law at your own political peril... this is bad, bad legislation. We'll see how many of the legislators who pass onerous laws on the rest of us while exempting themselves from the law are still legislators next year.


Best regards,
Click to expand...
 
I didn't start streaming until 11:30ish but I have seen no update on the website for either bill. House is back from recess. Bills not up yet. Currently, someone has resurrected the repeal of the death penalty and that is being debated. I think it might be an amendment to a senate bill.

EDIT: the death penalty bill is SB 202 (amendment does this, would still have to pass the senate).

Baldasaro called for a roll call and was seconded.
 
Last edited:
Death penalty amendment on SB 202: 218 - 117. Amendment adopted.

Now voting on bill as amended. Division vote. Cushing requested roll call vote. It was seconded. I will update this post with the vote.

And the vote was: 226-110. Bill passes as amended.

Edit:

Still waiting for SB 120 and SB 319 to come up for debate.
 
Last edited:
Fattman said:
streaming it where?
Click to expand...

House (Video and Audio): http://gencourt.state.nh.us/houselivevideo.asx
House (Audio only): http://gencourt.state.nh.us/houseliveaudio.asx

If those don't work try these below. Note: I've never gotten the pegondemand website to work.

Alternative streams of NH House and Senate sessions

For live and archived Senate and House sessions courtesy of Pegondemand.tv, click here*

http://www.pegondemand.tv/list.html?category_id=3134

For live House Sessions courtesy of Manchester Public Television, Channel 22, click here*

http://www.manchestertv.org/channels/22.html

EDIT:
SB400 is up. There was a mixup. The chair went too fast and did not see that there was debate scheduled on SB400 and held the vote. There was then a vote to reconsider and now there is debate on this bill (even though it passed via voice vote).
 
Last edited:
Committee amendment passed.
JR Hoells amendment failed.
Now debating the bill as amended by committee.
 
Roll call vote to indefinitely postpone.

- - - Updated - - -

Rep. Peterson for PI.

- - - Updated - - -

Now Richardson (Sponsor) for PI.
 
Vote to indefinitely postpone: 114-191 Motion fails.

- - - Updated - - -

Shurtleff wants roll call. Seconded.

- - - Updated - - -

Rep Sanborn for PI. Opposes.

- - - Updated - - -

Rep. Richardson for PI (sponsor).
 
soloman02 said:
And the vote to pass the bill as amended is: 186-119. Passed.

Political speech is now suppressed if the Senate agrees with the House Amendment (which they will as it passed 19-4)

- - - Updated - - -

Roll call votes to suppress political speech in NH:

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bil...=&txtsessionyear=2014&txtbillnumber=sb120&q=1
Click to expand...


Ladies and Gentlemen,

We lost this one, but I am proud to let you know that the Windham Senator and all 4 Windham representatives votes against this bill. Makes me all warm and fuzzy about my all Republican town (especially for Southern NH)... and more committed to helping them get re-elected.
 
Rep. Lambert called for a motion to add the remarks from the debate on SB120 added to the permanent Journal.

The motion failed.

Once again, tyrants trying to hide from the public.
 
soloman02 said:
Rep. Lambert called for a motion to add the remarks from the debate on SB120 added to the permanent Journal.

The motion failed.

Once again, tyrants trying to hide from the public.
Click to expand...

Why would they allow any public record/debate to not be recorded. How can we make people notice and care what these tyrants are doing to our country?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
 
Fattman said:
Why would they allow any public record/debate to not be recorded. How can we make people notice and care what these tyrants are doing to our country?

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It was recorded on video but the written remarks will not be added to the journal. Their remarks are partially hidden this way. This would have been worse if it were 50+ years ago when there was no video recording of house sessions.

Sent from Tapa talk on my campaign phone.
 
Sorry guys- the tumor has mestasticized to NH.

Once the State Legislature is corrupted, you have no protection from the nationalists in DC. I havent lived in NH since 2005, but I have the feeling this didnt happen overnight.
 

Similar threads

Colorado House Democrats Pass Bill Banning AR-15s and 9mm Pistols with Threaded Barrels
2
Replies
49
Views
1K
Amputee Marksman
Amputee Marksman
Amber Alert Chicopee
2
Replies
42
Views
746
Garys
Garys
Maine gets close to implementing 3 Day Wait Period and makes it illegal to do Paramilitary Training in the State
2 3 4
Replies
94
Views
2K
track65
T
Florida House Passes Bill to Lower Legal Gun Purchase Age to 18
Replies
0
Views
85
Reptile
Reptile
Nebraska lawmakers pass bill that would allow smaller school districts to arm staff members
Replies
0
Views
43
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom