I’d say that the hedging it as a possibility to be aware of, rather than asserting it as an unquestionable fact would make it very different.
The American flag is the Biden flag. It’s Trump vs. America.
During the 2016 election campaign, it came out that Trump has never asked God for forgiveness because, in his mind, he’s never sinned. This is part of his Narcissistic personality disorder, that is, to never admit mistakes. He reportedly said something to the effect to a group of religious leaders (who it should have raised alarm bells with, but apparently did not). I don’t know if there’s a good quote on it, though.
Well you have me there, I am not superior to the Trump supporters you are making fun of, and now you have made fun of me, I hope it made you feel better. I am different because I can see Trump is a danger and have every intention of voting against him. (In fact, I happen to be a moderate who actually likes Joe Biden and is glad he is the one who got the nomination.)
To be clear, I did not mean to indicate sending one letter was going to make the OP into a legitimate Political Action Group, and I admitted I was just speculating. But I often find myself trying to manage downside risk and since others were encouraging the OP to just “go for it”, I thought it might be prudent to consider the possibility that the current administration might designate him or her as some political entity because of some of the things that have come out of the mouths of Trump and Bill Barr (not that I think one anonymous letter would reach their attention). It’s not like they designate peaceful protesters as terrorists and drag them away in unmarked vehicles by unidentified federal agents. It is not like they describe a group of refugees trying desperately to walk across an entire nation to a wealthier, safer destination a “convoy” (a term with a decidedly military connotation) and that once those refugees reach the US they separate the families and lock children into cages. Obviously this administration would never do anything controversial or unprecedented, what was I thinking.
I mean, if they did things like that you might want to error on the side of caution, but with this crowd it is probably safe to just go forward without considering unintended consequences. I just thought since the entire thread was started to check to see if there was any risk I would mention the one I could think of with the disclaimer that I was indeed talking out of my butthole with no authority or even hint of backing up my suggestion. Thank you for taking me to task, lesson learned. (Lastly, my now obviously incorrect warning was based upon some postcard campaign my kid once participated in for a political entity and there were absolute rules for what could and couldn’t be said – the details of which I do not recall. I just thought that when considering a worst case scenario it might not be a bad idea to consider the possibility that sending out political information may make one a political entity – how absurd in retrospect.)
OP, please disregard any nonsense I have suggested that I know nothing about; my apologies for the suggestion.
Exapno_Mapcase, in all sincerity I am sure you are more informed on this matter than I am. If you want to educate me I will attempt to be a good student and gain from you knowledge and perhaps wisdom. I will ask you to please refrain from being as insulting as you were in your original response, it hurts my feelings. This is a genuine offer to be informed; I do not wish to remain ignorant.
I admit my suggestion that one letter might lead one to be designated as a PAC was absurd (and I did admit it was an uneducated guess). But I think your argument that any published book would be similar is a weak argument. Perhaps a tract or pamphlet may be about influencing one specific election, but any hardcover book published by a major publishing house is bigger than one election. Even Bob Woodward’s recent book (which I certainly hope DOES affect the current election) has merit beyond this election. In theory all history books and all political books are in a larger context and not about one specific election in one specific election cycle.
By comparison, a single letter composed entirely of offensive quotes by one of only two candidates, sent during the course of that election is most assuredly political speech aimed at influencing a specific presumed voter (for all we know the neighbor might be a felon who has lost his right to vote and not had it reinstated) even though as discussed extensively, it is not likely to have much influence at all except perhaps to steel the resolve of the voter. I have admitted from the beginning that I do not know enough to know if that is an individual expressing their thoughts – or if possibly by sending those thoughts unsolicited through the US mail changes that from free speech to political marketing.
I agree it is absurd that the Federal Election Committee is likely to have any interest in this at all. But do you even know where the OP lives? Is it possible there might be some state or local restrictions on what unsolicited mail of a political nature may be sent to constitutes of _____ jurisdiction? (It seems like here, there was some local regulation that was mentioned in one of those elector information guides a couple of election cycles ago – but I could be mis-remembering that.) The OP was concerned enough to ask if there was any risk so I tried to consider any danger there may be. Without reading your link I will concede the PAC thing was ill-conceived (and again, my apologies to the OP). But is it beyond the realm of possibility that some local prosecutor whom is a fire breathing Trump supporter might not consider it election tampering? Actually it is, I guess – there is no effort to eliminate the neighbors vote, only to influence it. But seeing as how diligent the current administration is about getting every vote possible and discouraging every opposing vote possible wouldn’t it be better to know for sure there is no downside before sending that letter?
My thought on the matter was this; Buy a billboard for all to see = free speech. Send as many letters as you want with a signature on it = free speech. Send an anonymous letter to specific recipients (one or many) through the mail = political messaging. That is why genuine political entities have to disclose who paid for the postcard, contact information, etc. so there is at least a hint of truth in any political messaging. I am probably wrong in every particular, but to say that the letter the OP proposes is the same as any history or political book is also wrong - at least in my opinion. Please feel free to explain how I am wrong again.
And I am not suggesting the OP would send out false information either on purpose or inadvertently. Only that it could not be properly handled if there was incorrect information. That is why genuine political entities have to disclose so much.
My note was supposed to make you think twice, or maybe ten times, before posting again on a subject you know nothing about. Instead you posted hundreds of words that are at best irrelevant, to put it mildly. If your feelings are hurt when you are told you don’t know what you’re talking about, you certainly took the worst possible route toward avoiding having that happen again.
Look, I’m not making fun of you and I don’t think you’re inferior. I just don’t think you’re correct in this matter, but if you have evidence proving the contrary, please feel free to provide it. Otherwise, this isn’t a matter you have to speculate on.
In general, the government legally cannot censor speech based on its content unless that speech is likely to incite “imminent lawless action”. The mail has a long history of being challenged on First Amendment grounds, but none of that would make mailing political content illegal. There are certainly books and personal letters that discuss specific candidates. The anonymity of a letter has no bearing on its protection under the first amendment. The Constitution in this case would supercede any state law.
The relevant laws are around electioneering near polling places, which are not viewpoint-based but reasonable time/place/manner restrictions (not my terms) and more specifically campaign finance. You are not required to disclose to anyone, except perhaps under a subpoena, who you are when you mail an anonymous letter. You are not required to self-report either because you are not a political action committee unless you receive $1000 or more in that election cycle.
I’m not saying all this because it’s some obscure law that I have a special interest in. The First Amendment is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed in our history, and its essential tenet is giving you the right to say Trump sucks, in every which way, and unless you’re spending a lot of money on it or threatening lawless action, you don’t have to report it.
That said, could assholes still try to prosecute you for saying Trump sucks mailing anonymous attack ads? Yes, they can try. But it’s entirely unconstitutional. If your fear is that certain state laws make this illegal, well, a constitutional lawyer would probably take on that case and you will likely win – in previous years. Our legal system depends on reasonable actors and fair judges, both of which are under doubt in the Trump era. The Constitution itself is probably not long of this world. But really, if we’re going down that path, do you really think the Trumper next door would need a legal excuse? Then this isn’t really a legal concern, it’s the threat of Trumpers ignoring the law and bullying people around – an altogether different, but very valid, concern.
Rather than posting “Trump sucks” quotes, it might be more effective to start a disinformation campaign: “The Dems want to steal the election by falsifying out ballots. Let’s show them up by not voting!”
In the past week a bunch of people in my neighborhood received fat envelopes with non-existent out of state return addresses, postmarked from other Minnesotan cities. Inside were stacks of photos, actual photos, someone took of pro-Trump / QAnon conspiracy theories. Yes, whoever this was, took photos of computer screens, had them printed, stuffed them into envelopes, slapped multiple postage stamps on them, and mailed them to random people. They weren’t a few photos, either. Anywhere between 20 to 40 photos in a 5" x 7" envelope.
Only one recipient had lawn signs supporting a political candidate. Most stated they don’t advertise their beliefs, none claim to have ever donated to a political party or candidate, none claim to have even volunteered for a political party or candidate.
Freaked a few people out, made many laugh. I guess the only positive is for the postal service and the laugh whoever had to develop the pictures hopefully had.
Anyone that has been conscious the last 4 years and still supports Trump is beyond help. Trying to apply any kind of logic or truth to them? You could spend time more wisely trying to lick your garage floor clean. We can’t save anyone who is beyond saving and doesn’t want to be saved.
It’s worse than that. They enjoy watching you suffer. They want you dead, and your children eliminated from history.
So this is your whole response – no lessons, no words of wisdom – just a scolding with more condescension and insults seasoned by a complete inability to read sarcasm?
I have to admit sir, I am disappointed, with all the passion you are displaying I thought for sure I would have much to learn from you. Alas, you find me irrelevant – how vexatious! Now I fear you may ignore my posts entirely, and I had such high hopes for future exchanges.
I do thank you for the object lesson, I commit to thinking two or ten times before I ever speculate again. You do make one good point however- I have never gone wrong by keeping my mouth shut. In this case I just didn’t think being incorrect was such a big deal, especially since I readily admitted it was just a possibility that occurred to me. Guess I was wrong.
Thanks to Reply , I have a much better understanding of the matter. I did offer to let you educate me despite your rude and condescending manner and in response you were dismissive and offensive. I guess fighting ignorance is not your first priority (perhaps pointing it is!) I will try not to bother you any further; you can go back to making fun of Trump supporters now. Godspeed Exapno_Mapcase !
Nayna , my very sincere apologies for both the hijack and for the ill conceived initial advice.
First of all- thank you, I understand this entire matter much better now and on a more detailed level. I very much appreciate all the time you spent clarifying this for me. I did make the original suggestion in good faith and readily admitted I was just speculating (but I didn’t make it clear I was speculating about an imagined possibility - poor phrasing). Then I dug in when I thought the idea was dismissed without due consideration. My mistake there, thank you again for explaining why the overly cautious and incorrect warning was unwarranted. It got just the consideration it deserved – not much.
Second of all, I did (and still do) believe there is a very distinct difference between a published work and a political tract or advertisement which is an apt description of any mailing the OP was discussing. But I can see now the distinction does not matter to an individual expressing him or herself, even if it is anonymous.
Third, I am moderately familiar with the Bill of Rights because my kid changed schools around the grade this was covered so I had a review of the first ten amendments twice just a couple of years ago. So you know, I have a good deal of respect for our rights to free speech and assemblage and religion with at least a basic understanding of where those rights come from. That being said, in my initial post in this thread I was thinking about some limitations on even constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Like not yelling fire in a crowed theater for example, or (in the case of the second) limits on places where loaded firearms are permitted like bars and schools.
My entire post was to warn the OP that there may be something about sending that letter that may limit his or her free speech because of a designation neither of us were aware of. Sorry for the trouble, thank you for the lesson.
Now that I am better informed, I am done mucking about in this thread, my apologies for the distraction.
I imagine they’ll get through the first one and toss it straight in the trash. So do it, if you like wasting money.
All good. I’m all for hijacks if we can all learn something in the process!
Yeah, I agree. I just truly cannot comprehend the thought process of people like my neighbor. I get the people who like Trump’s tax policies - I know a bunch of them. I get the people who think it’s funny that Trump offends liberals. I get the pro-2A people. I don’t get the actually religious people with normal jobs and kids in college and a house in a middle-class section of Pennsylvania, who would go so far as to put a TRUMP 2020 sign on the front lawn. It’s like I can only assume they’re literally not aware of some of the horrible things Trump believes.
I think the “Trump” thing is – conveniently – much like the saying about the “faith” thing:
For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not believe, no explanation is possible.
I say if it helps you feel better, do it. If not, don’t. My only caution is make darn sure they can’t trace it back to you. If they know your handwriting, type the envelopes. Mail from a nearby town. In the end, it will do as much good as baying at the moon, but if it will give you satisfaction by all means have at it.
Do you have examples of the quotes? We could look at them and determine how effective they would be.