Comments on: Brennan Center Press Release on Connecticut Public Funding Decision is Inaccurate

By: Demo Rep

Demo Rep — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 04:11:48 +0000

Do LEFTWING legal groups ONLY support LEFTWING *reforms* ???

Same for RIGHTWING groups. Duh.

Gee — what is the *no law* — *abridging* in the 1st Amdt ??? — taking note of the MANY TYRANT attempts by the King George III regime to enslave the American colonies in 1761-1783 – in part by speech – press – assemble – petition restrictions / prohibitions.

Too difficult for the armies of party hacks to understand ???

UNLIMITED spending for speech – press – assemble – petition stuff — perhaps even to help *stimulate* the economy.

The control freaks can go directly to political HELL — do NOT pass GO.

The time for dealing with the armies of campaign finance control freak brain dead MORONS is long past.

By: billvanallen

billvanallen — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:48:27 +0000

Brennen Center continues its refusal to support using the NYS constitution to restore state-citizen rights to a non-gerrymander election in NYS.

By: Gene Silvers

Gene Silvers — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 07:11:52 +0000

In 1974 Congress made a great law limiting how much the political campaigns in America’s federal election races could spend in them and President Ford signed it. But then the Supreme Court used its questionable power of judicial review to rule those limits unconstitutional. Since then America’s campaign finance reform groups have been capitulating to that ruling by promoting voluntary public financing of political campaigns. The authors of “Rewrite Sacramento’s Pay-to-Play Rules” don’t realize: (1) giving campaigns government funding is too costly and gives the campaigns of questionable candidates funding; (2) governments that fund campaigns compensate for those two problems by giving non-major party campaigns an unfairly-low share of that funding; and, (3) the publicly-financed candidates elected to America’s political offices, ran for such low-level offices, or were so liked by the monied interests, that the monied interests didn’t bother to bankroll other candidates into those offices in campaigns that refused their government funding.

By: Rationality and Science Education

Rationality and Science Education — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:56:40 +0000

And it Der Ahnold’s California, and even cross over electoral official Democratic Party hack Debi Bowen [Secretary of State] ………

[Donald Raymond Lake]

By: Robert B. Winn

Robert B. Winn — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 07:10:48 +0000

Since federal judges and Supreme Court judges at the present time come from political parties, do not expect any of them to rule in favor of independent voters. What independents need to do at the present time is to start registering as candidates with whatever un-Constitutional election laws exist and use candidacy for office as a means of registering voters. Independent voters outnumber Democrats for the first time since 1800. Independent candidates for office would speed the process of registering independent voters.
We need to define what independent voters are. Independent voters are United States citizens registered to vote. When the United States began, all voters were independent voters. Political parties are self-created societies. They are not the government of the United States. George Washington said that parties would assume “artificial authority”. That is what they have done and what they continue to do.
The best way to oppose parties right now is to register as independent candidates for office and start registering as many voters as possible.

By: Dave Gillespie

Dave Gillespie — Fri, 28 Aug 2009 23:12:35 +0000

Bravo, Judge Underhill!

Bravo, Richard Winger, who provided excellent documentation and went to NYC for a deposition on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Bravo, ACLU, for your work on behalf of plaintiffs.

Brennan Center: Shame on you! You were in the forefront, working to prevent the disenfranchisment of those who wanted to vote for Ralph Nader. Why were you
so dead wrong THIS time??

Dave Gillespie