Comments on: Veterans Voting Support Bill Passes U.S. House Unanimously

By: DonaldRLake

DonaldRLake — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 20:20:47 +0000

The dozens of state veterans homes are just as bad if not worse —–and CALVETS is the absolute worst. If the director likes your group, you’ll get escourted around and a free meal. If you have been critical of the facility, no matter how non partisan, you’ll get arrested!

Been there, done that………..

By: Scott Rafferty

Scott Rafferty — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:19:12 +0000

I forgot to mention, the VA director testified under oath that she would “reconsider” LWV’s exclusive license to register voters if the chapter or its parent organization took a position against the War in Iraq, which both 501(c)(3)’s and 501(c)(4)’s are entitled to do.
The national LWV has been very supportive of the bill, and the Palo Alto chapter (hopefully through the Ed Fund) is trying to coordinate a comprehensive multi-group plan for Menlo Park with schools and disabled advocates.

By: Scott Rafferty

Scott Rafferty — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 14:15:05 +0000

In 2004, the Menlo Park VA said it had a “comprehensive voter registration” program, which consisted of inviting the South San Mateo County LWV Action League, a 501(c)(4) with only 10 members. SSMCLWVAL is very proprietary, and still insists that the Palo Alto league can not cross the Menlo Park line. Unlike the LWV California Education Fund, a 501(C)(3), it typically sponsors ballot questions (although it does not endorse candidates). It supports bonds for public hospitals and transportation. The VA said they selected SSMCLWVAL because these issues “were not of concern to veterans.” SSMCLWVAL had joined the plaintiff Santa Clara Democratic Party in the “One Care Alliance,” which supports single payer. Advocacy on current federal policy is “partisan” under the VA rules.
Its chair has a very dour view of political parties and testified for the VA.
On cross, she was confronted with some rather abrupt email in which she insisted that registering veterans was “not a priority,” but that SSMCLWVAL was the only group that should be allowed access. SSMCLWVAL received money from the county to maintain boxes of registration forms at the VA, but she didn’t know where they were (and I never saw them). The voter file showed that the last time any SSMCLWVAL member had registered a veteran was 1995. She confirmed this.
The judge described the SSMCLWVAL as the VA’s “sweetheart union.”

By: billvanallen

billvanallen — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:14:02 +0000

LWV is two corporations at least in NYS — under the same name — one is the “non-partisan” outfit and the other is totally partisan lobby outfit. I wonder which one will show up at the local VAMC for voter registation?

billvanallen