Apparently I’m a member of a few forum boards that in addition to being populated with people that share my hobbies, they are also populated with gun toting, flag waving, hardcore, diehard republicans. I’ve seen this tidbit pop up on three different sites
Now, I’ve looked through the PDF document that is supposedly proving that we are going to have to pay to have free speech - But I can’t seem to figure out how it affects me. Here’s the link to the PDF - which is also in the above linked article: http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/gab/gab001.pdf
I guess I don’t get it. Can anyone explain to me in plain English what that document means? Is it something to get in a huff about? Is there anything I can say to the members of my other sites to calm them down?
I’m going to try and re-read the whole document in the mean time, but any translations would be greatly appreciated.
The document to which you link concerns campaign financing groups. A group which does not receive campaign contributions does not need to worry about this.
Is there any way I can relax their hysteria? Or should I just sit back and count myself lucky that it’s not affecting me? I know it’s an uphill battle, but we are in the business of fighting ignorance here.
It’s not practically possible to debate at second-hand, but their idea that limits on campaign financing are an affront against free speech is not exactly fringe thinking.
Probably not. People get weird ideas into their heads. This is not confined only to one side or the other, of course.
Well, I don’t want to instigate any kind of board wars, so I’m not going to link to there or to here from there. I really don’t think that the folks from the other board are interested in a logic debate anyway.
It sounds like they are just taking everything in the article as truth and throwing around words like ‘dummycrats’ and ‘obummer’ to make their points. I think I’ll just stay out of this all together.
After seeing it a few different places, I was just wondering if there was anything to actually be worried about.
This looks like regulations interpreting state statutes governing political contributions and campaigns.
I don’t think this is accurate. Several provisions appear to set rules upon individuals as well. Looking only at the specific provisions complained of in the blog post.
Regulation GAB 1.10 appears to set a registration requirement upon certain PACs. Here I agree with Shodan.
Regulation GAB 1.28(2) expressly states that these statutes and regulations cover individuals as well, saying that “persons other than political committees are subject to the applicable requirements of” the statutes being interpreted by these regulations, when they make political contributions or communications.
Regulation GAB 1.42 applies to both committees and individuals. It says that any money over $25 spent by an individual or a committee on behalf of (or in opposition to) a candidate shall be reported as a contribution to that candidate (or the opponent). There is an exception: If the individual or committee signs an oath not to communicate with the candidate and indeed refrains from doing so (and says so in any political messages), the money that individual or committee spends does not get reported as a contribution. It still has to be reported separately as an independent expenditure, however.
You are correct, AFAICT, but I find it difficult to believe that these statutes mean anyone who contributes to a political campaign will have to pay $25 for doing so. Or that having a bunch of folks post to a messageboard “I intend to vote for Joe Blow and I encourage others to do the same” means the messageboard has to cough up $25 apiece or shut down.
It wouldn’t surprise me if the legislators had in mind individuals like George Soros and Richard Mellon Scaife. I agree that it seems hard to imagine the state going after tiny $25 contributors.
Wait. So it is saying what the article says that it’s saying?
If I want to say something supportive of a candidate, I have to pay $25 to do so? I don’t care if it’ll be enforced or not - I’m a bit concerned if there’s a law on the books that says that it could be.