Great inside baseball from the Farmer article:
[quote]Typically, panel meetings run with a familiarity bordering on chumminess due to the cast of characters who populate the proceedings. The lawyers and political professionals often represent multiple clients, appear before the commission often and are well-known.
Branson, who hasn't represented a client before the commission this year, brought a more aggressive approach and was met with an uncharacteristic coldness from Ketterer, who at one point refused to answer a question or to recognize the lawyer and instead told him to sit down.[/quote]
Surprising that he commented negatively on the actions of the lawyer representing the liberal.
Anyone want to take a stab at who is paying for Carl's airfare from Texas and back (looks like two round trips or he will be staying with his mother).
The photo is a former Congressman's wife, I believe her name is Jeri Ryan and she is an actress.
Fawn, in her day, was not bad either.
You are correct Ray. I believe we had a thread about their interesting divorce preceedings and how it all showed up conveniently in the hands of the media.
Are we planning to lie down and leave the obvious questions unanswered?
Let's talk about the ethics of the TABOR opponents and true source of their funding ....the taxpayers.
I'd like to see a complete list of the guilty parties including the Maine Association of Non-profits, the MMA, the various Unions and whatever else.
I want to hear a full accounting of how "Ethical" it is to use "government money" and government "employees" to combat a citizen issue aimed at protecting the taxpayers from abuse by the government.
Or is everything perfectly above board as far as we're concerned?
[quote="Ray Richardson"]The photo is a former Congressman's wife, I believe her name is Jeri Ryan and she is an actress.
Fawn, in her day, was not bad either.[/quote]
She is the ex-wife of the Illinois Republican Senate candidate who was ahead of Obama in the polls until the divorce fiasco.
Lindemann is the former ED of the MSEA.
Lindemann is the former ED of the MSEA.[/quote]
No. That is a different guy with a different last name.
If you guys are referring to the photo on the previous page, I got it from the Google images site, after entering her name. There were others, not exactly suitable for AMG.
But that's not her.
Oh, well. You would know better than I !
Once again cleaning up Naran's mess.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
[I]n responses to the ethics commission, center staff/attorneys have steadfastly maintained they were not directly promoting passage of TABOR. They were only educating the public, Heritage officials said. Becker said that to us in October. We didn't believe it then. We don't believe it now.
I think the KJ got this right. To say MHPC didn't advocate for TABOR or that the Republican Governor's Assn didn't advocate for Woodcock makes no sense. Unfortunately the KJ, as usual, can't get over their anti-TABOR bias and extend their argument to all the opponents of the measure.
The issue is much more fundamental.
There is a First Amendment. We should not have to register with a governmental agency simply for speaking about a referendum.
[quote="Dan Billings"]The issue is much more fundamental.
There is a First Amendment. We should not have to register with a governmental agency simply for speaking about a referendum.[/quote]
Define "we" :P
Does a lobbying group have the same first amendment rights that I do as an individual?
Of course. The First Amendment also protects the freedom of association. People have a right to join together to speak as a group.
By the way -- lobbying elected officials is not the issue here. Neither is ads such as those run by the Republican Governors Association. All MHPC did was engage in speech but talking at public forums and to the press.
Lindeman and Becker will be on Thursday (not together) to explain the results of Wednesday's findings.
Should be interesting to hear both sides and find out why the Katahdin Group doesn't fall under the same rules.
Is it simply because no complaint was filed?
To my knowledge, they did not file 1056b [b](I think that is the form, but it is one of those anti-free speech forms the state and federal government has devised to discourage discussion of their actions). [/b]They certainly advocated against TABOR, on my show, at the Library when they were holding "How to defeat TABOR classes," etc.
All of this stuff is a sham, designed to keep any body or any group from speaking out against the government without them being tracked and harassed.
The feds did it with Mc-anti-free-speech, give-incumbents-all-the-advantages-gold.
Take away their tax exempt status, let them speak freely without restraint or disclosure of finances.
IF we can burn the flag and call it free speech, then we ought to be able to advocate, advertise and tell the government it stinks without restraint or financial disclosure.
[size=18][b]Frankly, this whole issue is about incumbents and their bad policies being above public crticism.[/b][/size]
MHPC wrote the bill and spent many hours of staff time advocating for it but never directly promoted it. National RGA ran an ad bashing the incumbent governor with Chandler's photo in the ad but never advocated voting for him. And people wonder why we don't trust lawyers and politicians. :D
[quote="BrentD"]MHPC wrote the bill and spent many hours of staff time advocating for it but never directly promoted it. [/quote]
That is not the position advanced by MHPC.
Sorry, I was quoting the editorial. I should have known better.
[quote]Yet, in responses to the ethics commission, center staff and attorneys have steadfastly maintained that they were not directly promoting the passage of TABOR. They were only educating the public, Heritage officials said. Becker said that to us in October. We didn't believe it then. We don't believe it now.[/quote]
That is not quite correct either.
MHPC's position is that Maine law, as read by Commission staff, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad and should be applied narrowing to those who expressly advocate the passage or defeat of a referendum (i.e., tell people expressly how to vote).
If Maine law is applied as suggested by MHPC's opponents, there are literally dozens of organizations that should file and the Commission will spend the next six months dealing with complaints concerning those groups.
[size=18]Op-Ed: Maine Heritage Policy's 'major purpose'[/size]
Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - Bangor Daily News
What is a think tank and how is it different from a political action committee? This question is more than just "inside baseball" for political junkies as the Maine Ethics Commission looks into the conduct of The Maine Heritage Policy Center, scheduled for today in Augusta. Whatâ€™s at stake is whether Maine voters are entitled to know who paid for a key player in one of the stateâ€™s most visible political campaigns, and how the money was spent.
A well-run think tank typically doesnâ€™t need to disclose finances.
Yes there are other groups out there who raise and spend amounts in the several thousand dollar range who never show up on the Ethics Commission screen. I have been told by the ethics people that local elections and school referendums are exempt but statewide referendums are not. There are several groups that I am aware of that seem to be sneaking by under the radar.
If they are going after MHPC than they better go after these smaller groups as well as they have a profound effect on election outcomes.
[quote]If they are going after MHPC than they better go after these smaller groups as well as they have a profound effect on election outcomes.[/quote]
Follow the dollar :wink: 6:1 spending?
That says it all.
[size=18]TABOR REFERENDUM Heritage Policy Center ordered to file form[/size]
By SUSAN M. COVER
Thursday, December 21, 2006
AUGUSTA -- The state ethics commission ruled Wednesday that the Maine Heritage Policy Center should have filed a form that discloses to the public how much time and money it spent to persuade voters to support the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.
In a 4-0 decision, with one commission member absent because of a conflict of interest, the commission gave the Portland-based conservative think tank 30 days to file the information.
[size=24]Carl Lindemann on WGAN aftah the 8:00 News with John McDonald![/size]
BUMPAH ~ TIME TO GO TO WGAN
Despite what Bill Becker & Dan Billings saidâ€¦â€
What the they said to the commission and what the truth was there was a broad devide,â€
[url=http://www.wgan.com/upload/carllindemann122206.mp3]FRIDAYS'S COMMENTS WITH KEN & MIKE[/url]
[i]Dan Billings to be on with John on Sunday morning after 8 am news...[/i]
Forcing me to be awake at 8 AM on Sunday!
This has really gone too far.
Should I change my AMG handle?