Yeah I have the same question. It is ludicrous. It says even in mail you can’t speak pro or con for a political candidate nor protest.Who is going to watch your e-mails or read your mind?
This must be an experiment to see how many people would believe this in today’s political strife and radical rules against America.
This must be an experiment to see how many people would believe this in today’s political strife and radical rules against America.
********************
“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.
(b) “Communication” means any printed advertisement, billboard, handbill, sample ballot, television or radio advertisement, telephone call, email, 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.
This is like when the Nazis passed a law saying that Jews couldn’t own pets — it’s not the law that’s scary, it’s the enforcement — or the idea that it can be enforced that’s scary. Everyone should jsut ignore it.
“Who is going to watch your e-mails or read your mind?”
Why, Big Brother, of course!/s;)