GAB Wants to Quash 1st Amendment

The GAB continues its drive to seize power and quash rights. 

The Government Accountability Board today signaled plans to regulate so-called issue ads that tout or malign candidates just before an election but do not explicitly tell voters to vote for or against them.

Regulating those ads would limit how much individuals can give to groups running the ads and require public disclosure of who gives to those groups. It would also mean corporations could no longer fund the ads, which could greatly diminish the number of issue ads that run before an election.

Board members said at a meeting today they believe they have the authority to regulate the ads and told staff to begin to draft a rule to do so. But they cautioned that they did not know whether they could write a rule that would withstand court challenges to First Amendment rights.

Sorry, but the pathetic Government Accountability Board of Wisconsin is also bound by the 1st Amendment of the U.S.  Any judge worth a warm bucket of spit will set them straight. 

1. They work in FantasyLand, Wisconsin.

   Posted by dad29 on October 06, 2008 at 2028 hrs




2. I wonder if the same puppet-master is behind this as was behind the debacle in Missouri, or if they thought this up all on their own after hearing about it.....

   Posted by on October 07, 2008 at 0417 hrs




3. I was at the hearing.

   The Board is deeply devided on the question of whether they can craft a regulation which is consistent with Buckly v Valeo and WI Right to Life.

   The agreed the have the authority to create a rule to define the term “political purposes” under the normal rule making procedures of chapter 227.  BTW, any rule they promulgate must be reviewed and approved by the Legislature (the Joint Committie on Review of Administrative Rules).

   So the plan is to have the staff attempt to craft such a rule in time for the December 2008 meeting and begin the public hearing process see if the updated rule defining of “political purposes” would constitutional muster.

   Posted by John Washburn on October 07, 2008 at 0714 hrs




4. This board should be focused on the accountaility of goverment paid people then what the private sector is doing.

   If someone is using tax dollars for campaigns then I think they would have reason to act.

   Posted by on October 07, 2008 at 1048 hrs




5. The whole free and open marketplace of ideas thingy is based in rational choice theory (though it may not have been called that at the time) which makes several assumptions, one, which is applicable here, being that actors are on equal footing in pursuing their goals.  If this condition is not met, the natural outcome will not be produced, the greater good is not served, and it is the role of government to step in to remedy the situation.

   In the issue at hand, the actors are clearly not on equal footing.  The stark imbalance of resources creates a fixed game in favor of those who can afford more, or any for that matter, input (in this case speech).  Theory would dictate intervention to ensure all parties are allowed to play.

   By the way, all western political thought is premised in rational choice theory.  Though we may disagree at what point intervention is merited, the rules of the game are the same for all of us, both left and right, and therein we should recognize our common ground.

   Posted by jimspice on October 07, 2008 at 1453 hrs




6. Finding a judge worth a bucket of spit in Wisconsin will be the trick. I’m not optimistic

   Posted by on October 07, 2008 at 1836 hrs