PDA

View Full Version : S.F. at it Again


Spotted Owl
04-04-2005, 6:46 AM
It looks like the S.F. Board of Stupidvisors isn't satisfied with going after the Second Amendment as now it appears they're going after the 1st as well:

http://www.personaldemocracy.com/node/501

RRangel
04-04-2005, 7:57 AM
These same people have the audacity to propose that you not protect yourself from violent crime. Is anyone surprised? Add this to the list of political outrageousness that comes from San Francisco.

jdberger
04-04-2005, 8:34 AM
Oh. That is a shame. I really liked Ms. Maxwell. She is always so level-headed and coherent... http://www.calguns.net/laughroll.gif

bwiese
04-04-2005, 8:36 AM
This is just the blog equivalent of document paid election advertising by printed flyers, radio, TV, newspaper, bumper stickers, etc. Expenditures above a certain $$ amount, who made them, etc., are all required to be disclosed by election law(s).

For consistency's sake, if you have a beef with this new SF proposal, you should also have a beef w/other older election law requiring older-style media expenditures to be documented. Otherwise this is just a tweak of that law.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Spotted Owl
04-04-2005, 9:49 AM
This seems to go beyond earlier law and address more personal communication such as web blogs. Due to the nature of the Internet, any such S.F. law would be unenforceable anyway.

RRangel
04-04-2005, 9:55 AM
The problem with traditional media is that it is out of the price range for most people to communicate. You're talking big money. The internet can be more accessible in that regard for the grass roots. You can say this proposed law may even be sort of elitism.


The internet can help level the playing field so to speak. With laws like this that may end.
What else can't we talk about next?

Blogs that mention candidates for local office that receive more than 500 hits will be forced to pay a registration fee and will be subject to website traffic audits, according to Chad Jacobs, a San Francisco City Attorney.

These people claim to be concerned with ethics? Ethics never stopped them before. That city is overwhelmingly politically left of center. So do you think they're worried about their own internet media?

Who's their threat? I've figured it out.
They're just eliminating what they fear. Once again they want control and it's no different when it comes to firearms.

I also don't agree with the recent so called campaign finance reform aka incumbent protection act.

500 hits? What is the time frame? Even daily that's peanuts. Registration fee? Audits? Give me a break.

bwiese
04-04-2005, 2:57 PM
I should add that these laws do have weight.

The guys that helped kick out Dave Roberti (of Roberti-Roos fame) by setting up a recall campaign didn't make some financing disclosures for their promotions/support, etc. The Calif FPPC (Fair Political Practices Commission) zinged 'em for BIG $$ ($700K if I recall correctly).

http://www.reason.com/9603/col.CAMPFIN.text.shtml

The article is not quite right - as I recall, Roberti didn't term out. Although he won the recall election, he spent 80% of his money doing it and couldn't win the subsequent one.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

Spotted Owl
04-05-2005, 6:40 AM
Fair Political Practices

Isn't that an oxymoron?

BigAL
04-05-2005, 12:59 PM
Free speech for me but not for you. http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

jdberger
04-05-2005, 5:32 PM
I think - but I'm not sure - that the idea of this blog law was to keep the Supervisors from campaign blogging on on the public's dime.

SFGATE had an article on it. Talking about how Ammiano has been blogging for a while and now how that other level headed Supe, Chris Daly, had started his own financed by the taxpayers blog..

Here (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/03/10/BAG84BMTS31.DTL) is the link.