Duel campaign finance laws in Three Rivers?

Buck:

I happened to be thinking the exact same thing at the exact same time.

Is it safe to assume that you didn't have a problem with the two candidates addressing the city this evening? I would believe that you are supportive of them doing so, and welcome it, but I thought you should maybe make that clear to the others reading your post.

Just as almost every other issue at hand in this city, favorites are played. If Buck Hicks called Mayor Lowry and said that he was at a Libertarian Party meeting, but would be there as soon as he could to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting; do you think the Mayor would have allowed it? I really don't believe so.

It's a one-way street Buck and that's all there is to it. The freedoms guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution are only awarded to a chosen few when a select few believe it's appropriate or if they happen to support or agree with them.

I wonder if they were picked on in school?[:P]


Remind people you should not be under the watchful eye of your resident nursemaids masquerading as elected representatives; they should be under your watchful eye. - R. Lee Wrights

Is it safe to assume that you didn't have a problem with the two candidates addressing the city this evening? I would believe that you are supportive of them doing so, and welcome it, but I thought you should maybe make that clear to the others reading your post.

You are correct; I think the 1st Amendment is especially important when it comes to political speech. My problem is with all the inconsistencies in the decisions this group seems to make, one after another.

If you are going to make rash decisions based on what I consider to be self-preservation you should at least be consistent with the application of your decisions.

Just as almost every other issue at hand in this city, favorites are played. If Buck Hicks called Mayor Lowry and said that he was at a Libertarian Party meeting, but would be there as soon as he could to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting; do you think the Mayor would have allowed it?

This is not really a slam at the mayor but I do believe I would not be allowed that same privilege. It is a great example of the inconsistency I am talking about. Since the precedent is set all people should now have the same opportunity in the future.

It’s a one-way street Buck and that’s all there is to it. The freedoms guaranteed to us by the United States Constitution are only awarded to a chosen few when a select few believe it’s appropriate or if they happen to support or agree with them.

I want to go on record right now and make it clear that the 1st Amendment applies to every one on this forum.


"Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error." - Thomas Jefferson

Edited by - bhicks on 06/18/2002 9:18:53 PM

A quote I'd like to share that I believe applies here. I believe the First Amendment is more threatening to some than it is cherished.

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. -- Justice William J. Brennan

Too bad "our" local government doesn't see it that way.


Remind people you should not be under the watchful eye of your resident nursemaids masquerading as elected representatives; they should be under your watchful eye. - R. Lee Wrights

I do want to make a clarification about my previous posts. It is very easy to lump all the commissioners into one group and that may not always be fair.

I think that Kurt Web is one commissioner that has always shown honor every time I have had dealings with him. I had the opportunity to converse with him through a post on the old Three Rivers forum and he showed class even though we disagreed on CF.

He also made himself available to one of our public forums in which he was the sole supporter (at least the only one willing to get up and admit it) of Character First. He was in the spotlight of a group that was mostly in disagreement with his position but again he showed honor and class in his dealings with us.

This is not to say that I have not had positive dealings with some of the other commissioners but Kurt stands out in my mind as one you can count on to be consistent with his convictions. And the consistency does not transfer into intolerance of those who disagree with the commission.

Thanks Kurt!

(Hopefully I don't taint him with my endorsement (good thing he is not defending his seat this year! [;)]))

I should also mention that Ken Baker was at the same public forum I mentioned above and also set himself apart from the "other" commissioners. He took a stand on Character First but encouraged us to take our case (new information) to the commissioners at the next scheduled commission meeting. Some of you know that it didn't exactly go our way but he held up his part of the bargain and I appreciate that.


"Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error." - Thomas Jefferson

Buck,

I couldn't agree more that the microphone at the meeting is absolutely no different than the website forum and equal rules should apply. I am not a lawyer but as I read PA388, campaign finance act, the forum was indeed a viable place for political speech as long as any candidate was free to access it, which they are. I have been informed Mr. O'Malley, the city attorney, was given references to the sections of the act I indicated for review. I've not heard any feed back yet but if/when I do I'll post it here.

Incidentally I don't think you (or Ronda or myself) would/could be prohibited from speaking at the general comment portion of the meeting just as the two gentlemen did last night. I suppose they could consider removing the microphone for the remainder of the campaign season… <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Daryl Griffith
Candidate for Commissioner-At-Large

I couldn't agree more that the microphone at the meeting is absolutely no different than the website forum and equal rules should apply.

Therein lies the problem. More then a few commissioners have told me that they did not feel comfortable posting on the forum. Two reasons were given 1) was that they considered us hostile and were afraid we would rip their post apart and 2) they were just not comfortable with computer technology in general so they felt computer literate people would have an advantage over them.

Pretend for a second that removing the forum was not about stopping us from criticizing their support of the Character First program. Now consider this, Reason number 1 makes me laugh because when you debate with conviction or principle you are considered hostile. And even if we were hostile (passionate), do they not have any convictions of their own to make their point with us? Where is their passion? Number 2 is troublesome also because it goes back to a point I tried to make before the forum was taken down. The point was the removal was an incumbent protection act. Since they can not compete with the technologically savvy they needed to remove the advantage we geeks had over them. A challenger is almost always at a disadvantage over the incumbent and just because they are not comfortable using one medium over another they should not have penalized those challenging them.

I have been informed Mr. O'Malley, the city attorney, was given references to the sections of the act I indicated for review. I've not heard any feed back yet but if/when I do I'll post it here.

I for one will not be holding my breath. They got exactly what they intended to get. Except I am sure that they did not expect that a citizen would put up a forum where the citizens of Three Rivers really can enjoy their First Amendment right and this time there is nothing they can do to stop it.

Incidentally I don't think you (or Ronda or myself) would/could be prohibited from speaking at the general comment portion of the meeting just as the two gentlemen did last night. I suppose they could consider removing the microphone for the remainder of the campaign season.

I did get your point but I do not think they would try and prevent you or Ronda from using the microphone. Which is exactly the point of this post, there is no consistency in their stated reasoning which is why I believe that the intention was for self protection and not any campaign law compliance.

After all it was their website and they could of done what ever they wanted with it. All they had to say is that, they do not appreciate the way it is being used and taken it down. No lie would've been necessary for this.

Edited by - bhicks on 06/19/2002 3:56:13 PM