Posted on 07/13/2019 8:09:31 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Elections come and go, but the season for political advertising sometimes seems to never end.
Facebook users in California, for example, may have noticed ads in recent months showing a woman with duct tape over her mouth and text that warns: “Legislators are leaving sexual assault survivors from public universities out to dry.”
The ads urge readers to sign a petition seeking to add public universities to legislation that would give students at private universities more time to sue their schools over sexual assaults. […]
Now, California legislators are considering a proposal by Assemblyman Kevin Mullin that would require groups buying such “issue advocacy ads” about legislation to identify themselves and major funders in the same sort of disclaimers required in election campaign commercials.
“This is about well-funded, sophisticated special interests,” said Mullin, a San Mateo Democrat.
Proponents say the measure would be the first in the U.S. to address what they see as a burgeoning issue in the world of influence peddling as interest groups seize on the anonymity afforded by the internet and social media advertising. […]
Critics argue the proposed law would discourage grassroots activism, particularly around hot-button issues. …
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
The Holnist Party would be a GREAT opposition party for California.
I have mixed feelings. I can’t disagree with people who say that foreign intelligent operatives are (successfully) tearing this country apart, and I’m generally in favor of political transparency.....
but does this mean Freepers will need to use their real name and addresses? Anonymous political messaging has been part of America since the Federalists Papers and I’m too much in favor of free speech to give that up.
For whatever problem, always take note that the Democrats always apply the wrong solution.
The proposal is for advocacy advertising. If there is something to force people like us to use our real names, it is not mentioned in the excerpt.
I actually think the proposal sounds reasonable, at least the way it is described here. I wonder what the text of the proposal really says.
The feminazis thus far have had campus rape accusations handled by college kangaroo courts, with the accused given no presumption of innocence whatsoever, his expulsion and ruination predetermined.
Now they want to abolish statute of limitations so bogus #metoo-ers (think Julie Swetnick) can come back decades later and sue universities for mega bucks.
The solution to all this crap is twofold and simple:
1.) all incoming freshmen should attend an orientation class on student code of conduct. These kids need to be told the consequences of getting blotto & having sex with random partners: regret (female) and rape accusations (male.)
2.) All campus rape accusations should be referred to local police, period. No more stacked campus committees.
Already decided by SCOTUS.
New rules in California being Republican is illegal
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.