Chairman's Corner
Welcome to the Chairman's Corner, where Committee Chair Bob Perry keeps us up on issues and actions. Check back often!
See also: NH Voter Rights Under Attack |
Although the NH State House is currently closed, I invite you to make a risk-free visit by way of Virginia Drew's guided tour sponsored by C-SPAN 3. Ms. Drew is Director of the NH State House Visitor Center.
|
Open Democracy Minute: Hear a brief update on when the Legislature is coming back into session, and what they'll consider this year. Will emergency voting measures be acted upon?
NH House Republican Leadership Obstructionism
NH Public Radio reported this week (May 26, 2020) that the minority party in the house, whose votes are needed to change looming deadlines caused by a suspension of the legislative session due to COVID, are refusing to work with the majority party, Democrats. Changing the rules requires a 2/3 vote. Democrats do not have enough members to change the rules by themselves, thus needing the votes of Republicans. Republicans in both house and senate have agreed not to support a rules change, thereby effectively killing important bills through inaction.
This is not a time for childish finger pointing. The fact remains that important COVID-related legislative work will die on the vine if Republicans continue their partisan obstruction. Republicans need to allow for rules changes and get on with the business of legislating. At risk is the opportunity to prevent gerrymandered districts to be drawn next year. Gerrymandered districts mean the votes of one party are essentially meaningless in those districts. It's blatant (but legal) election fraud, that is, fraud perpetrated upon the voter.
Statement from Speaker Stephen Shurtleff:
Today (May 26, 2020) House Republicans voted in their caucus not to change the upcoming House deadlines, thereby stopping the House from finishing its work. “We were elected by the people of New Hampshire to do the people's business, but today House Republicans voted to instead limit the work of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Their actions today could prevent the legislature from enacting department requests to ensure continuity of government in these unprecedented times. The action today also prevents the House from acting on bills that address the COVID pandemic, naming a highway after a police officer killed in the line of duty and from finishing the rest of the work Granite Staters elected us to complete.
“As Speaker, not a week has gone by where I have not been in touch with a member of the Minority Leadership team, and for them to suggest otherwise is preposterous and an outright lie. To me it is outrageous when our state is facing a pandemic for us to abandon our important work. We will still show up on June 11th in an effort to do the people's work, despite their unprecedented action. If House Republican leadership chooses to sit back and prevent the legislative process from moving forward, they can do it in public for everyone to see.”
This is not a time for childish finger pointing. The fact remains that important COVID-related legislative work will die on the vine if Republicans continue their partisan obstruction. Republicans need to allow for rules changes and get on with the business of legislating. At risk is the opportunity to prevent gerrymandered districts to be drawn next year. Gerrymandered districts mean the votes of one party are essentially meaningless in those districts. It's blatant (but legal) election fraud, that is, fraud perpetrated upon the voter.
Statement from Speaker Stephen Shurtleff:
Today (May 26, 2020) House Republicans voted in their caucus not to change the upcoming House deadlines, thereby stopping the House from finishing its work. “We were elected by the people of New Hampshire to do the people's business, but today House Republicans voted to instead limit the work of the New Hampshire House of Representatives. Their actions today could prevent the legislature from enacting department requests to ensure continuity of government in these unprecedented times. The action today also prevents the House from acting on bills that address the COVID pandemic, naming a highway after a police officer killed in the line of duty and from finishing the rest of the work Granite Staters elected us to complete.
“As Speaker, not a week has gone by where I have not been in touch with a member of the Minority Leadership team, and for them to suggest otherwise is preposterous and an outright lie. To me it is outrageous when our state is facing a pandemic for us to abandon our important work. We will still show up on June 11th in an effort to do the people's work, despite their unprecedented action. If House Republican leadership chooses to sit back and prevent the legislative process from moving forward, they can do it in public for everyone to see.”
The Devastating Impact of Big Money in Our Elections
At the heart of every issue, and at the core of everything our government in the last ten years has done or failed to do, we must consider how much political influence was exerted on lawmakers by the unrestricted flow of Big Money in U.S. elections. To what extend has loyalty to the donor class among our elected officials affected decision-making or caused our present-day gridlock? It is not a conundrum officials wished upon themselves; it is a reality most would prefer to extinguish, because they must spend, on average 4 hours a day dialing for dollars, and often face the wrath of donors who expect a quid-pro-quo.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission in 2010 by its 5 - 4 Republican-appointed jurists repealed, in a single ruling, 100 years of campaign finance regulations. Ten years of opened floodgates to political spending has spawned non-stop electioneering by corporations and wealthy individuals. Adding further to the diminished value of our votes through Big Money contributions, foreign and domestic, Mr. Trump has publicly solicited election assistance from nations that are adverse to our national interests to manipulate the 2020 election to assure his ascendancy to a second term in office.
Imagine a Congress dedicated to discovering a way to prevent or cure Alzheimer's disease; devoted to legislation allowing the government to negotiate for lower drug prices; deciding high-speed rail more important than colonizing the moon; mitigating climate change rather than protecting the fossil fuel industry. Imagine the possibilities if we worked boldly to unshackle our elected officials from the bonds of Big Money!
One way to stem this wave of legalized bribery by monied interests is to pressure Congress, beginning at the local level, town by town, to pass the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, allowing states to once again regulate money in politics as it was once able to do beginning with the Tillman Act of 1907. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907 .
To date, approximately 80 New Hampshire municipalities have successfully passed such a petition at their annual public meetings.
Legislation to allow voluntary public funding of elections is a different approach that has a greater impact. Maine, Arizona, Connecticut, and dozens of municipalities have pass these regulations, Seattle and New York City among them. New Hampshire Senate Bill 304 creating a voluntary voucher system of campaign funding lives in a study committee.
Another is to require timely registration and strict reporting of political spending - transparency - so voters can know who is attempting to influence our elections, and to what extent. Transparency in political spending is not just authorized by Citizens United, it is encouraged. However, bills requiring transparency and fix loopholes in existing law were vetoed this term by Gov. Sununu. Since the percentage of the U.S. population making political contributions is less than one half of one-percent (0.47%), corporations are happy to fill the void.
These movements are not about challenging the 1st Amendment; rather it is a grassroots and legislative effort to preserve national political autonomy, our representative Democracy, and free our elected officials so they may better serve you and me, instead of their contributors. The video below was created by a NH campaign finance reform advocate and worthy of your time to watch.
https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/grandmother-of-opioid-crisis-victim-fights-to-pass-28th-amendment?fbclid=IwAR1RFM51qsXLCh7tEhd_r9p6tJiqSN4EBoUYVuZ-rHsParNzdoY6f8saRuM
Both the New Hampshire House and Senate passed HB 504, a bill that would allow Congress and state legislatures to regulate the role of money in elections and governance to ensure transparency, prevent corruption, and protect against the buying of access to or influence over representatives. But for Gov. Sununu's veto, New Hampshire would have become the 20th state to essentially overturn the Citizens United court ruling. The legislature was not able to override the veto by the required 2/3 majority.
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v Federal Elections Commission in 2010 by its 5 - 4 Republican-appointed jurists repealed, in a single ruling, 100 years of campaign finance regulations. Ten years of opened floodgates to political spending has spawned non-stop electioneering by corporations and wealthy individuals. Adding further to the diminished value of our votes through Big Money contributions, foreign and domestic, Mr. Trump has publicly solicited election assistance from nations that are adverse to our national interests to manipulate the 2020 election to assure his ascendancy to a second term in office.
Imagine a Congress dedicated to discovering a way to prevent or cure Alzheimer's disease; devoted to legislation allowing the government to negotiate for lower drug prices; deciding high-speed rail more important than colonizing the moon; mitigating climate change rather than protecting the fossil fuel industry. Imagine the possibilities if we worked boldly to unshackle our elected officials from the bonds of Big Money!
One way to stem this wave of legalized bribery by monied interests is to pressure Congress, beginning at the local level, town by town, to pass the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, allowing states to once again regulate money in politics as it was once able to do beginning with the Tillman Act of 1907. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tillman_Act_of_1907 .
To date, approximately 80 New Hampshire municipalities have successfully passed such a petition at their annual public meetings.
Legislation to allow voluntary public funding of elections is a different approach that has a greater impact. Maine, Arizona, Connecticut, and dozens of municipalities have pass these regulations, Seattle and New York City among them. New Hampshire Senate Bill 304 creating a voluntary voucher system of campaign funding lives in a study committee.
Another is to require timely registration and strict reporting of political spending - transparency - so voters can know who is attempting to influence our elections, and to what extent. Transparency in political spending is not just authorized by Citizens United, it is encouraged. However, bills requiring transparency and fix loopholes in existing law were vetoed this term by Gov. Sununu. Since the percentage of the U.S. population making political contributions is less than one half of one-percent (0.47%), corporations are happy to fill the void.
These movements are not about challenging the 1st Amendment; rather it is a grassroots and legislative effort to preserve national political autonomy, our representative Democracy, and free our elected officials so they may better serve you and me, instead of their contributors. The video below was created by a NH campaign finance reform advocate and worthy of your time to watch.
https://nowthisnews.com/videos/politics/grandmother-of-opioid-crisis-victim-fights-to-pass-28th-amendment?fbclid=IwAR1RFM51qsXLCh7tEhd_r9p6tJiqSN4EBoUYVuZ-rHsParNzdoY6f8saRuM
Both the New Hampshire House and Senate passed HB 504, a bill that would allow Congress and state legislatures to regulate the role of money in elections and governance to ensure transparency, prevent corruption, and protect against the buying of access to or influence over representatives. But for Gov. Sununu's veto, New Hampshire would have become the 20th state to essentially overturn the Citizens United court ruling. The legislature was not able to override the veto by the required 2/3 majority.
Need for an Independent Redistricting Commission
HB 1665-Establishing an independent redistricting commission (House Bill #1665) Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Chairman Cote and members of the committee:
Having presented to this body last year in support of HB 706, I speak today in support of another in a long-line of attempts to create an advisory commission whose function would be to work on behalf of legislators’ constituents, instead of on behalf of legislators or their parties. I remind members that public opinion is sharply on the side of fairness, even if it means their preferred political party will win fewer seats.
For those who believe gerrymandering does not exist in New Hampshire:
I have opined many times that House District #3 is a gerrymandered district. It now consists of the towns of Strafford and New Durham. Before 2012, it consisted of Milton, Middleton, Farmington, New Durham, Barrington and Strafford, a much larger pool of voters, thus a more competitive district.
Strafford and New Durham meet at a point on a rock in the middle of the woods. We share no more common boundary than that point on that rock, perhaps not even a technical qualifier of the requirement that towns be contiguous.
There are only 2 ways to get from Strafford to New Durham: Drive through Barnstead to Alton to New Durham. Secondly, from Strafford, to Barrington, to Rochester, to Farmington, to New Durham. Although Strafford exceeded the requisite 3291 population, entitling it under the 2006 amendment to the NH Constitution to receive its own state representative, it did not.
Governor Lynch’s veto message specifically cited Strafford,among many other municipalities, as being denied its own state representative under the redistricting bill; instead, receiving floterial status with New Durham. Under federal constitutional law, and the one-person, one-vote requirement, I also point to the substantial difference in population between Strafford and New Durham, 3991 versus 2638.
Clearly, Governor Lynch, those dozens of municipalities not receiving their own state representative, and myself all disagree with the NH Supreme Court’s decision that the redistricting map met its standard of review. I point out, however, that in its ruling, the court noted that redistricting plans are presumed constitutional, until found otherwise on “inescapable grounds,” which should provide guidance to whichever party becomes the majority in 2020.
The importance of passing an anti-gerrymandering bill can be measured by the multiple ways districts can be gerrymandered:
1) Cracking: dispersing a group of voters into several districts to prevent them from reaching a majority;
2) Packing: combining as many like-minded voters into one district as possible to prevent them from affecting elections in other districts.Executive Council District #2 is a sprawling, heavily Democratic district created by packing.
3) Stacking: creating maps that concentrate low-income, less educated minorities together to create a perceived voting majority, but are placed in the same district as high-income, more educated white voters who turn out in greater numbers;
4) Software: What was once high-powered software, like Red Map, will be replaced in 2021 with improved versions capable of producing gerrymandered maps with even greater success. However, the same software can also be used to produce fair maps; which will it be?
Finally – last year, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its absurd opinion, concluded that “ … partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” and that asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.” Thus, creation of fair maps is left to the states.
To my disappointment, while researching New Hampshire’s history of attempts to create independent redistricting commissions, I learned that both Republicans and Democrats have resisted. But circumstances have changed. We now have a common enemy of democracy – foreign intervention in our election systems, and foreign money entering our campaigns. Together, we must rise to this ominous challenge. We must pool our resources in defense of our Republic, with more zeal than Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are pooling their resources to take down our Republic. Creating fair maps is among the tools we have at our disposal to engage voters.
Bob Perry, Strafford, NH
Chairman Cote and members of the committee:
Having presented to this body last year in support of HB 706, I speak today in support of another in a long-line of attempts to create an advisory commission whose function would be to work on behalf of legislators’ constituents, instead of on behalf of legislators or their parties. I remind members that public opinion is sharply on the side of fairness, even if it means their preferred political party will win fewer seats.
For those who believe gerrymandering does not exist in New Hampshire:
I have opined many times that House District #3 is a gerrymandered district. It now consists of the towns of Strafford and New Durham. Before 2012, it consisted of Milton, Middleton, Farmington, New Durham, Barrington and Strafford, a much larger pool of voters, thus a more competitive district.
Strafford and New Durham meet at a point on a rock in the middle of the woods. We share no more common boundary than that point on that rock, perhaps not even a technical qualifier of the requirement that towns be contiguous.
There are only 2 ways to get from Strafford to New Durham: Drive through Barnstead to Alton to New Durham. Secondly, from Strafford, to Barrington, to Rochester, to Farmington, to New Durham. Although Strafford exceeded the requisite 3291 population, entitling it under the 2006 amendment to the NH Constitution to receive its own state representative, it did not.
Governor Lynch’s veto message specifically cited Strafford,among many other municipalities, as being denied its own state representative under the redistricting bill; instead, receiving floterial status with New Durham. Under federal constitutional law, and the one-person, one-vote requirement, I also point to the substantial difference in population between Strafford and New Durham, 3991 versus 2638.
Clearly, Governor Lynch, those dozens of municipalities not receiving their own state representative, and myself all disagree with the NH Supreme Court’s decision that the redistricting map met its standard of review. I point out, however, that in its ruling, the court noted that redistricting plans are presumed constitutional, until found otherwise on “inescapable grounds,” which should provide guidance to whichever party becomes the majority in 2020.
The importance of passing an anti-gerrymandering bill can be measured by the multiple ways districts can be gerrymandered:
1) Cracking: dispersing a group of voters into several districts to prevent them from reaching a majority;
2) Packing: combining as many like-minded voters into one district as possible to prevent them from affecting elections in other districts.Executive Council District #2 is a sprawling, heavily Democratic district created by packing.
3) Stacking: creating maps that concentrate low-income, less educated minorities together to create a perceived voting majority, but are placed in the same district as high-income, more educated white voters who turn out in greater numbers;
4) Software: What was once high-powered software, like Red Map, will be replaced in 2021 with improved versions capable of producing gerrymandered maps with even greater success. However, the same software can also be used to produce fair maps; which will it be?
Finally – last year, the Supreme Court of the United States, in its absurd opinion, concluded that “ … partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts,” and that asking the top court to block gerrymandered districts effectively sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.” Thus, creation of fair maps is left to the states.
To my disappointment, while researching New Hampshire’s history of attempts to create independent redistricting commissions, I learned that both Republicans and Democrats have resisted. But circumstances have changed. We now have a common enemy of democracy – foreign intervention in our election systems, and foreign money entering our campaigns. Together, we must rise to this ominous challenge. We must pool our resources in defense of our Republic, with more zeal than Russia, Iran, North Korea and China are pooling their resources to take down our Republic. Creating fair maps is among the tools we have at our disposal to engage voters.
Bob Perry, Strafford, NH
REPEAL OF THE NH DEATH PENALTY (May 2019)
Since 1998, Robert “Renny” Cushing, current state representative from Hampton, has advocated for repeal of the state’s death penalty, even after his father and another member of his family were murdered. Cushing has traveled to other countries with the same message. Sponsors of the bill include Democrats and Republicans. Core to the intent of the bill is the analysis set forth within the bill’s framework below:
ANALYSIS
This bill (House Bill 455) changes the penalty for capital murder to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole. On Tuesday, May 21, the NH House of Representatives, by a single vote, overrode Gov. Sununu’s veto. A 2/3 vote was required to override. On Thursday, May 30, the NH Senate voted 16 – 8 to override the governor’s veto, making NH the 21 st state to eliminate capital punishment. A 2/3 vote was required to override. With the advent of DNA evidence, together with barbaric executions via botched lethal injection, public support for the death penalty has plummeted. Below is brief background justifying life imprisonment versus execution:
Illinois placed a moratorium on the death penalty, and later repealed it, after the courts dismissed the cases of 13 men placed on death row. Before leaving office in 2003, doubting the criminal justice system’s ability to prevent wrongful executions, Republican Gov. George Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 inmates to life in prison. Among the many defendants sentenced to death or extended prison described at The Innocence Project, Kirk Bloodsworth, wrongly convicted multiple times of rape and murder of a 9-year old girl in 1985, and sentenced to die in Maryland’s gas chamber, was the first to be exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 8 years on death row. Before being exonerated, an Innocence Project case study reports that Malcolm Alexander holds the record for having served the most time in prison, 38 years, for a crime he did not commit. The most common reasons for wrongful convictions are witness misidentification, government misconduct, incompetent legal counsel, and faulty forensic evidence.
The Innocence Project has concluded that among other Texas executions, Cameron Todd Willingham was likely put to death wrongfully. Willingham was convicted of intentionally setting fire to his home with the intent to kill his 3 daughters. The opinions of forensic experts regarding how the fire started was questioned before and after the execution. NPTV Frontline documentary on the Willingham investigation: https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-death-by-fire/
Many more examples of wrongful death or imprisonment: https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/
Due to the number of appeals advanced on behalf of those convicted, sometimes spanning decades, it is less expensive to sentence a person to a lifetime of imprisonment than to sentence to death. The fiscal note attached to HB 455 recognizes the statement above as factual.
View In Depth NH’s video coverage of the history-making senate session, including the views of senators pro and con on death penalty repeal, as presented by Chair of the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affiairs Committee, Rep. Melanie Levesque (D-Brookline); and Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.bewww.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.be
The three sentencing goals of long standing established by our judicial system to establish justice are punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. Vengeance and political gain are not among them. Death is final. Once executed, the result is the same, and no amount of post-death exculpatory evidence collection will ever matter.
How did Strafford’s representatives and senator vote on whether to support the governor’s veto?
Sen. John Reagan – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Michael Harrington – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Kurt Wuelper – supported the governor’s veto
“And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.” - George Bernard Shaw
ANALYSIS
This bill (House Bill 455) changes the penalty for capital murder to life imprisonment without the possibility for parole. On Tuesday, May 21, the NH House of Representatives, by a single vote, overrode Gov. Sununu’s veto. A 2/3 vote was required to override. On Thursday, May 30, the NH Senate voted 16 – 8 to override the governor’s veto, making NH the 21 st state to eliminate capital punishment. A 2/3 vote was required to override. With the advent of DNA evidence, together with barbaric executions via botched lethal injection, public support for the death penalty has plummeted. Below is brief background justifying life imprisonment versus execution:
Illinois placed a moratorium on the death penalty, and later repealed it, after the courts dismissed the cases of 13 men placed on death row. Before leaving office in 2003, doubting the criminal justice system’s ability to prevent wrongful executions, Republican Gov. George Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 inmates to life in prison. Among the many defendants sentenced to death or extended prison described at The Innocence Project, Kirk Bloodsworth, wrongly convicted multiple times of rape and murder of a 9-year old girl in 1985, and sentenced to die in Maryland’s gas chamber, was the first to be exonerated by DNA evidence after serving 8 years on death row. Before being exonerated, an Innocence Project case study reports that Malcolm Alexander holds the record for having served the most time in prison, 38 years, for a crime he did not commit. The most common reasons for wrongful convictions are witness misidentification, government misconduct, incompetent legal counsel, and faulty forensic evidence.
The Innocence Project has concluded that among other Texas executions, Cameron Todd Willingham was likely put to death wrongfully. Willingham was convicted of intentionally setting fire to his home with the intent to kill his 3 daughters. The opinions of forensic experts regarding how the fire started was questioned before and after the execution. NPTV Frontline documentary on the Willingham investigation: https://www.pbs.org/video/frontline-death-by-fire/
Many more examples of wrongful death or imprisonment: https://www.innocenceproject.org/all-cases/
Due to the number of appeals advanced on behalf of those convicted, sometimes spanning decades, it is less expensive to sentence a person to a lifetime of imprisonment than to sentence to death. The fiscal note attached to HB 455 recognizes the statement above as factual.
View In Depth NH’s video coverage of the history-making senate session, including the views of senators pro and con on death penalty repeal, as presented by Chair of the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affiairs Committee, Rep. Melanie Levesque (D-Brookline); and Sen. Lou D’Allesandro (D-Manchester): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.bewww.youtube.com/watch?v=O0V8khVppfY&feature=youtu.be
The three sentencing goals of long standing established by our judicial system to establish justice are punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation. Vengeance and political gain are not among them. Death is final. Once executed, the result is the same, and no amount of post-death exculpatory evidence collection will ever matter.
How did Strafford’s representatives and senator vote on whether to support the governor’s veto?
Sen. John Reagan – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Michael Harrington – supported the governor’s veto
Rep. Kurt Wuelper – supported the governor’s veto
“And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace, until the gods are tired of blood and create a race that can understand.” - George Bernard Shaw
Open Democracy Action
This photo was taken March 29, 2019, from the NH senate gallery as members of the public and Open Democracy Action (ODA) awaited the vote of the full senate on SB 106, a bill ODA submitted through prime sponsor, Sen. Dan Feltes (D-Concord). The bill is one of several that ODA has prioritized, as it focuses on eliminating loopholes in current law related to registering with the state and reporting of campaign contributions. Currently, a sizable percentage of expenditures that influence our elections go unreported. If the House also supports the bill and it becomes law (with or without the governor's signature), it will plug the loophole and, if enforced, provide a much greater degree of public access related to who is influencing our elections.
The senate vote was unanimous at 24 - 0, Strafford's senator, John Reagan, was among the bill's supporters.
Strafford Town Democratic Committee Chair Bob Perry submitted the following testimony:
SB 106 – relative to the definition of political advocacy organization and expenditure.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 10:30 A.M.
Rm. 102, LOB
Time: Mts. 3:10
Madam Chair and members of the committee,
I speak in support of SB 106. I first note an error in the bill at Line 1, which references RSA 644:2, IX. The reference should be to RSA 664:2, IX.
In 2015, the NH Attorney General’s office concluded that a flaw existed in law meant to require the registration and reporting of campaign contributions made by a political advocacy organization. It is the intent of this bill to remove the interpretation of language that is required by current law.
The language reflected in this bill is simple. It requires that upon making $5000 in political expenditures, together with the timing of the communication and it being directed to a relevant audience, registering and reporting is required, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate.
While Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United consisted of 57 pages, the blistering opinion of dissent by Republican justice, John Paul Stevens, consisted of 90 pages.
Justice Stevens’ parting comment: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
The majority court opinion in Citizens United ultimately held 8 – 1, disclosure to be constitutional, unless ruled otherwise in a specific case. The court held, in part, that “disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” citing Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, or “ ‘ “prevent anyone from speaking,” ’ ” McConnell, supra, at 201. The Buckley Court explained that disclosure can be justified by a governmental interest in providing “the electorate with information” about election-related spending sources.
When I last spoke in support of disclosure in January of 2017, investigations were being conducted into whether campaign contributions could be traced to China. As recently as days ago, unrelated investigations are being conducted into whether campaign contributions can be traced to China. Federal law prohibits campaign contributions from foreign sources. The only way we can know who is influencing our elections and to what extent is through rigorous reporting requirements.
New Hampshire has strong disclosure requirements for candidates for elected office. They must report the name, address, date of receipt of contributions exceeding $25, aggregate contributions to date, and if in the aggregate more than $100, the occupation and place of business of those donors. The same demands need to be made of political advocacy organizations, whose political influence is on a much grander scale than is reflected in the reporting requirements of candidates for state representative.
Bob Perry, Strafford, NH
The senate vote was unanimous at 24 - 0, Strafford's senator, John Reagan, was among the bill's supporters.
Strafford Town Democratic Committee Chair Bob Perry submitted the following testimony:
SB 106 – relative to the definition of political advocacy organization and expenditure.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019, 10:30 A.M.
Rm. 102, LOB
Time: Mts. 3:10
Madam Chair and members of the committee,
I speak in support of SB 106. I first note an error in the bill at Line 1, which references RSA 644:2, IX. The reference should be to RSA 664:2, IX.
In 2015, the NH Attorney General’s office concluded that a flaw existed in law meant to require the registration and reporting of campaign contributions made by a political advocacy organization. It is the intent of this bill to remove the interpretation of language that is required by current law.
The language reflected in this bill is simple. It requires that upon making $5000 in political expenditures, together with the timing of the communication and it being directed to a relevant audience, registering and reporting is required, regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate.
While Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United consisted of 57 pages, the blistering opinion of dissent by Republican justice, John Paul Stevens, consisted of 90 pages.
Justice Stevens’ parting comment: “At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”
The majority court opinion in Citizens United ultimately held 8 – 1, disclosure to be constitutional, unless ruled otherwise in a specific case. The court held, in part, that “disclaimer and disclosure requirements may burden the ability to speak, but they impose no ceiling on campaign-related activities,” citing Buckley, 424 U. S., at 64, or “ ‘ “prevent anyone from speaking,” ’ ” McConnell, supra, at 201. The Buckley Court explained that disclosure can be justified by a governmental interest in providing “the electorate with information” about election-related spending sources.
When I last spoke in support of disclosure in January of 2017, investigations were being conducted into whether campaign contributions could be traced to China. As recently as days ago, unrelated investigations are being conducted into whether campaign contributions can be traced to China. Federal law prohibits campaign contributions from foreign sources. The only way we can know who is influencing our elections and to what extent is through rigorous reporting requirements.
New Hampshire has strong disclosure requirements for candidates for elected office. They must report the name, address, date of receipt of contributions exceeding $25, aggregate contributions to date, and if in the aggregate more than $100, the occupation and place of business of those donors. The same demands need to be made of political advocacy organizations, whose political influence is on a much grander scale than is reflected in the reporting requirements of candidates for state representative.
Bob Perry, Strafford, NH
Committee Chair Bob Perry attends a Democracy in Action breakout session at the New Hampshire Technical Institute in November 2018. The day of training was sponsored, in part, by the Coalition for Open Democracy in Concord. Bob has been a board member of Open Democracy since 2010.
Learn more about the Coalition for Open Democracy.
Learn more about the Coalition for Open Democracy.
