FREE SPEECH ISN'T FREE ACCORDING TO WISCONSIN

Noisyroom.net ^ | 8-6-2010 | AJ

[Whenifhow]

Wisconsin has enacted a law which makes political free speech subject to fees or jail time.

If you think this can’t happen in America… well… it just did. This law affects liberals, conservatives and those of every political persuasion. It affects every American, both inside and outside of WI, who communicate in any manner about candidates running for office in WI.

Whether you are supporting or opposing a candidate, gathering to demonstrate for or against a candidate, or even if you are using email or the Internet to express your opinion about a candidate, you are subject to fees or jail time.

In the dark of night, behind closed doors, WI enacted the new Government Accountability Board – G.A.B. 128 Rule which silences political free speech 60 days prior to the election. Conveniently, this law goes into effect on August 15, 2010 with little to no time for successful legal challenges prior to the November 2010 election.

The entire text of the G.A.B. 1 Rule can be found here (Sections 1.10, 1.28, and 1.42 are most revealing): http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/gab/gab001.pdf

Under this new law, individuals and groups must pay a $100 registration fee to the state of WI if they want permission to use political speech that totals at least $25 “cumulatively in a calendar year.” But it doesn’t stop there…

Individuals and groups must set up a separate depository account and file a report with the Accountability Board and Secretary of State. They then need to provide periodic reports of every communication – explaining the type of communication/action for each and every episode of political free speech.

What WI did by adding G.A.B. 1.28 to the G.A.B. 1 Rule is to define political communication and actions in order to give the government the legal ability to regulate and monitor everything you say and do.

Expenses related to political free speech will include such things as a portion of your Internet bills, your phone bills, signs you’ve made, gas/bus fare to political gatherings, fliers, mailings, etc. These types of communication and action will easily total $25 per year for every American who wishes to exercise their 1st Amendment right to political free speech.

Essentially, WI has now abolished everyone’s Constitutional right to political free speech by enacting a law to ensure free speech is no longer free, and it’s now granted (or not granted), and monitored by the government.

This unconstitutional power grab by the government should outrage everyone on the political spectrum – left, right and everyone in between.

Just as the events of the Gulf Oil disaster unites everyone who cares about our Gulf Coast, this too is an issue that unites all of us.

If this new law stands in WI, it won’t be long before it spreads to other states throughout the country. Ohio is already moving in that direction: Bloggericide: Ohio Officials Charge Blogger With Campaign Violations. Will your state be next?

Here is the list of WI legislators who are responsible for taking away our right to political free speech – you may want to contact them via phone, email or letter before our right to free speech expires on August 15:

• Senator Russ Feingold (D)

• Senator Herbert H. Kohl (D)

• Governor Jim Doyle (D)

• Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton (D)

• Secretary of State Doug LaFollette (D)

• District 1 – Paul D. Ryan (R)

• District 2 – Tammy Baldwin (D)

• District 3 – Ron J. Kind (D)

• District 4 – Gwen Moore (D)

• District 5 – James F. Sensenbrenner (R)

• District 6 – Thomas E. Petri (R)

• District 7 – David R. Obey (D)

• District 8 – Steve Kagen (D)

With 77% of WI’s elected officials coming from the Democratic Party, clearly it’s been hi-jacked and it’s no longer the party we once knew. Their actions prove that they, AND the complicit Republicans, intend to strip us of our freedom and liberty.

When we allow government to grant “rights” to the American people, we are also granting them the power to take our rights away… and they just did.

From Gateway Pundit:

It should be pointed out that political speech was the very sort of free speech that the founders of this country were talking about when they crafted the First Amendment.

[djf]

I think if someone were to speak out and get arrested, then appeal, that by itself would be a valid reason for the federal courts to throw out ALL of the election results there in November.

[Sloth]

I don’t see why this person lists Congresscritters when this obviously would be the responsibility of the state legislature.

[Tzimisce]

...what do you want me to say?

The libs who passed this will be voted right back in to office.

And the people I complain to will arrogantly lecture me about how political speak is becoming to hatefilled.

I could be wrong, but I’m probably not.

[USAHOME]

That’s what I see, too...but I may be mistaken. I live up here in the land of cheese, and I wouldn’t put it past any of the people in Madison—most of them are as crooked as anything. However, our state reps are conservative in our area. I would love, though, for them to harass anyone with Kagan or Feingold signs in their yards...starting with the guy across the street from us. If they can put up signs, so can I...all conservatives and pro-life. :)

[PghBaldy]

US Congressman are not responsible for this. This is a state doing this.

[Tzimisce]

You can’t help idiots.

In large numbers, they get what they want in our governments.

I don’t expect this to change.

[green iguana]

Under this new law, individuals and groups must pay a $100 registration fee to the state of WI if they want permission to use political speech that totals at least $25 “cumulatively in a calendar year.” But it doesn’t stop there…

Ummm, what does that mean? I see nothing in your post that explains how Wisconsin has made free speech not free. Notice I said explains.

Poll taxes don't work. 2nd amendment taxes... that's another (unconstitutional) story.

[HollyB]

GAB 1.28 Scope of regulated activity; election of candidates. (1) Definitions. As used in this rule: (a) “Political committee” means every committee which is formed primarily to influence elections or which is under the control of a candidate. billboard, handbill, sample ballot, television or radio advertisement, telephone call, e−mail, internet posting, and any other form of communication that may be utilized for a political purpose. (c) “Contributions for political purposes” means contributions made to 1) a candidate, or 2) a political committee or 3) an individual who makes contributions to a candidate or political committee or incurs obligations or makes disbursements for political purposes. (2) Individuals other than candidates and persons other than political committees are subject to the applicable requirements of ch. 11, Stats., when they: (a) Make contributions or disbursements for political purposes, or (b) Make contributions to any person at the request or with the authorization of a candidate or political committee, or (c) Make a communication for a political purpose. (3) A communication is for a “political purpose” if either of the following applies: (a) The communication contains terms such as the following or their functional equivalents with reference to a clearly identified candidate and unambiguously relates to the campaign of that candidate: 1. “Vote for;” 2. “Elect;” 3. “Support;” 4. “Cast your ballot for;” 5. “Smith for Assembly;” 6. “Vote against;” 7. “Defeat;” or 8. “Reject.” (b) The communication is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate. A communication is susceptible of no other reasonable interpretation if it is made during the period beginning on the 60th day preceding a general, special, or spring election and ending on the date of that election or during the period beginning on the 30th day preceding a primary election and ending on the date of that election and that includes a reference to or depiction of a clearly identified candidate and: 1. Refers to the personal qualities, character, or fitness of that candidate; 2. Supports or condemns that candidate’s position or stance on issues; or 3. Supports or condemns that candidate’s public record. (4) Consistent with s. 11.05 (2), Stats., nothing in sub. (1), (2), or (3) should be construed as requiring registration and reporting, under ss. 11.05 and 11.06, Stats., of an individual whose only activity is the making of contributions.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Paul Ryan has some questions to answer. What IS going on?

Paul Ryan has nothing to answer for. Paul Ryan is a FEDERAL legislator and had ZERO to do with a STATE law.

[HollyB]

I apologize the above post of the ‘rule’ is a mess. I don’t know html, so was unable to format it correctly. But, hopefully you will be able to read through it ok. Thanks in advance for being understanding and patient about it.

[Shady]

I know a hell of a lot of Badgers who will take their arms to Madison and make them hold a hearing on this very promptly...There isn’t enough police anywhere to deal with the patriots there! Bless them!

[1COUNTER-MORTER-68]

Well a man come on the 6 o’clock news
Said somebody’s been shot, somebody’s been abused
Somebody blew up a building
Somebody stole a car
Somebody got away
Somebody didn’t get too far yeah
They didn’t get too far

Grandpappy told my pappy, back in my day, son
A man had to answer for the wicked that he done
Take all the rope in Texas
Find a tall oak tree, round up all of them bad boys
Hang them high in the street for all the people to see that

(Chorus)
Justice is the one thing you should always find
You got to saddle up your boys
You got to draw a hard line
When the gun smoke settles we’ll sing a victory tune
We’ll all meet back at the local saloon
We’ll raise up our glasses against evil forces
Singing whiskey for my men, beer for my horses

We got too many gangsters doing dirty deeds
We’ve got too much corruption, too much crime in the streets
It’s time the long arm of the law put a few more in the ground
Send ‘em all to their maker and he’ll settle ‘em down
You can bet he’ll set ‘em down ‘cause

(Toby Keith)...

[sgtyork]

Massive Civil Disobediance...there’s a concept I can get behind. Especially for $ 26 bucks. I aim to misbehave.

[TheErnFormerlyKnownAsBig]

This is a state law but you name a bunch of federal office holders as responsible....was that an error or did they push this onto the state legislature?

[sgtyork]

Calm down, Ryan has nothing to do with WI state law.

[meyer]

Won't survive the first court challenge.

All they want is to get the first court hearing scheduled after the November elections. Just silence the truth long enough to get past the elections.

[Hoodat]

The US Constitution as written does not grant a right to free speech. It only grants protection against Congress from abridging that right.

[sgtyork]

The libs who passed this will be voted right back in to office.

-— No, this election is shaping up to be a very strong one for Republicans in Wisconsin.

I CAN”T WAIT FOR NOVEMBER!

[gitmo]

Darn. I was searching for the satire ping. GAB controls free speech????

[Tzimisce]

We’ll see.

But don’t try buying any ad time this election cycle. :)