<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Florida Bill Advances, Would Outlaw Paying Per Signature</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 05:30:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=7734</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: rosa</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/comment-page-1/#comment-701910</link>
		<dc:creator>rosa</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 18 Apr 2009 19:29:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=5840#comment-701910</guid>
		<description>For an update, see here:
http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article993043.ece</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For an update, see here:<br />
<a href="http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article993043.ece" rel="nofollow">http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/legislature/article993043.ece</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Brandon Holmes</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/comment-page-1/#comment-701354</link>
		<dc:creator>Brandon Holmes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:56:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=5840#comment-701354</guid>
		<description>The courts have generally looked on pay-per sig bans with disfavor, striking the bans down in most cases. Most recently Ohio&#039;s ban fell in Citizens for Tax Reform v Deters where the 6th circuit said: &quot;By making speech more costly, the State is virtually guaranteeing there will be less of it.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The courts have generally looked on pay-per sig bans with disfavor, striking the bans down in most cases. Most recently Ohio&#8217;s ban fell in Citizens for Tax Reform v Deters where the 6th circuit said: &#8220;By making speech more costly, the State is virtually guaranteeing there will be less of it.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ETJB</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/comment-page-1/#comment-700917</link>
		<dc:creator>ETJB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:34:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=5840#comment-700917</guid>
		<description>I mean I can understand the need to have regulation over ballot (and public debate) access, but ....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I mean I can understand the need to have regulation over ballot (and public debate) access, but &#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ETJB</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/comment-page-1/#comment-700910</link>
		<dc:creator>ETJB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 15:25:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=5840#comment-700910</guid>
		<description>Interesting, I thought Florida did away with petition requirements for ballot access via a ballot measure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting, I thought Florida did away with petition requirements for ballot access via a ballot measure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RichM</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/comment-page-1/#comment-700576</link>
		<dc:creator>RichM</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 16:06:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=5840#comment-700576</guid>
		<description>An omnibus election bill has now emerged in the state senate (SB 956) and it includes the paid petitioner provisions contained in CS/HB497. As this year&#039;s omnibus bill, this legislation seems very likely to pass. Anyone opposed would be well advised to get busy with heavy lobbying immediately.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>An omnibus election bill has now emerged in the state senate (SB 956) and it includes the paid petitioner provisions contained in CS/HB497. As this year&#8217;s omnibus bill, this legislation seems very likely to pass. Anyone opposed would be well advised to get busy with heavy lobbying immediately.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.ballot-access.org/2009/04/14/florida-bill-advances-would-outlaw-paying-per-signature/comment-page-1/#comment-700412</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Apr 2009 08:11:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ballot-access.org/?p=5840#comment-700412</guid>
		<description>Another attempt to make it more difficult to put things on the ballot so the establishment politicians can keep more power for themselves.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another attempt to make it more difficult to put things on the ballot so the establishment politicians can keep more power for themselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

