Tag: Ruth Johnson

Particularly on issues of such magnitude as transparency or government influence in our daily lives. Yet a presumed difference between private and government monetary involvement on any issue seems to be enough to persuade its scholars that transparency is not an absolute.  Where government monies are spent it seems, is far more important to your freedoms than that which is expended to influence those expenditures or other acts. And that personal monies expended to influence government are not necessarily an impact on any personal liberties to warrant a demand for transparency.

We DO agree that limits should be removed from campaign finance. We agree that limiting to an arbitrary amount can impede free speech and political expression. What is considered a fair contribution into the process is a completely subjective matter that can only be resolved by the person who is willing to contribute into that process.  A person's individual priorities and where a subject reaches a level of importance are hardly the providence of external assignment.

Thus the most accurate manner in which to protect what is a sovereign right is to allow, nay, PROTECT, that person's ability to engage in the process at a level appropriate to that person alone. Our place, and that of government should be to prevent that which would infringe on such activity and instead encourage a stake in the game.

In other words, if an individual wishes to personally expend $1 Million on a county commission race for a friend, there should be no objection from government. If it was to advocate bonding for a new swimming pool in a community, that money expended by itself guarantees no votes, and it is that person's right to seek such approvals.

And anyhow, some things can be overdone.

"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

A legitimate perspective, .. to a degree.

Arguing with the pseudonyms "Publius" and "the Federal Farmer" James Madison John Jay, and Alexander Hamilton raised awareness to the design, purpose, and intent of the new Republic in the federalist papers. Ideas cast back and forth, laying the groundwork for proper historical perspective from identities only revealed years later.  Arguing as I have, and using the federalist papers for reference, and guidance to what was meant in certain cases of constitutional debate, I could hardly be one to deny their importance.

However, the anonymous nature of that exchange, hardly stands as justification for powerful advocacy remaining out of the sunlight in our current political climate.  Neither does a claim that free speech rendered anonymously must be protected as anything more than free speech.  Under certain conditions, it becomes more than simply opinion, and is affective on others.

Consider the writings of the federalist papers.

In doing so he has laid bare a probability only hinted at just yesterday.

"Oh, and as for Ruth in 2014?  They ask the question:

"Will Ruth Johnson pay a political price for her stance on disclosure? To seek reelection, she has to be nominated next year at a Republican convention. How will GOP delegates respond to this sort of renegade behavior?"

If ANY Republican elites even suggested such a move, She would be well served to take her momentum that much more forward and shoot for Guv, where Mr 36% is extremely vulnerable.

Today's message is straight forward WAR.

"But if big-government extremists in Lansing, like Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, have their way, issue advertisements like the Federalist Papers would be illegal in the state of Michigan."

They were a little smarter than you then.

Going further and quoting a leftist?

"Even far-left Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens noted: "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority." This is not a left and right issue; this is an American issue.

Defending minorities from the tyranny of a majority is the point of our Bill of Rights and an important responsibility for those who support social justice and personal liberty."

From Its Just Politics:

"Finally, just to make all of this a little more high school: both sides say Governor Rick Snyder told them he's on their side. But the Governor's spokeswoman responded that that's not quite true; says he likes transparency, but he also supports free speech."

Right.  Because transparency is a high priority in his world.

Oh, and as for Ruth in 2014?  They ask the question:

"Will Ruth Johnson pay a political price for her stance on disclosure? To seek reelection, she has to be nominated next year at a Republican convention. How will GOP delegates respond to this sort of renegade behavior?"

A recent in-box treat from the "Michigan Freedom Fund" declares a victory in the name of free speech.  The release says:

"LANSING, November 14, 2013 - Michigan Freedom Fund President Greg McNeilly today released the following statement after Senate Bill 661 passed 20-18 in the Senate:

...

"Government has no right to target and punish the free speech of individuals, whether or not it is unpopular or delivered through an unpopular medium.  Today, the Senate did the right thing by standing up for our rights and putting the Constitution first." "

Ruth Johnson apparently triggered a legislative action with a recent press release and intent on expanding reporting by shadow groups.

" LANSING, Mich. - Saying the public has a right to know who is behind some of the most negative advertising in political campaigning, Secretary of State Ruth Johnson today proposed a sweeping new disclosure rule.

"In a country where free speech is protected, these ads are part of the political landscape and we can't stop them - but when they try to influence an election, we can make sure the public knows who is paying for them," said Johnson, a long-time fighter for transparency in elections.

Specifically, Johnson's proposal targets political ads that try to persuade voters about the worthiness or unworthiness of a candidate or proposal without actually using the words "vote for" or "elect." They often encourage voters to contact a specific candidate, as in "call candidate Smith and tell her she shouldn't ignore senior citizens" or "go online to let candidate Jones know you care how he is wasting tax dollars."

Because of a loophole in Michigan law, those electioneering ads - which are carefully crafted to meet the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law - do not currently require any campaign finance reporting. "

You have seen her on the Harley biking around the state before, and now Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson is Kayaking across the Mackinac straits in an effort to promote the Online ExpressSOS.COM site and online services provided by the Secretary of State.  The trip, a Seven-mile voyage across the straits in 18-foot kayak is expected to take 3 hours. A potentially cool venture with the backdrop of the Mighty Mac, she will be starting her trek at roughly 4pm.

Weather permitting, TOMORROW Ruth will kayak from the Mackinac Island State Harbor to the Mackinaw City - Straits State Harbor.

The online services are designed to provide greater efficiencies and make use of the increasingly technological possibilities and advantages. Ruth says:

"Our staff levels are 25 percent below what they were a decade ago so it's critical to promote online services. The more people we have online means fewer people in line, reducing wait times at our branch offices."

She's using her personal boat, a kayak that can be paddled, pedaled, and is also outfitted with a sail that features ExpressSOS.com. Decals on the boat highlight organ donation, the Pure Michigan license plate, the state Recreation Passport and Ruth's initiative on behalf of active military and our veterans, OPERATION: Our Troops Count.

Updates on Ruth's progress across the Straits will be posted on Twitter at www.twitter.com/michsos using the hashtag #Kayakinac and Facebook at www.facebook.com/michigansos.

You may remember me mentioning a couple of weeks ago that the grassroots are just a tad ticked at 29 "republican" squishies who caved on House Roll Call 11 and brought this state one step closer to what is perhaps the single biggest government intrusion into private lives that I can recall in my lifetime.  While I'm not going to go into too many technical details here, I will say that one particular organization isn't screwing around.