Bloomberg'$ $peech

[Pertinacious Tom]

Grassrootsy "Nevadans" for Gun Control

Following a court victory striking down arguments over petition wording, supporters of a background check initiative in Nevada will begin collecting signatures, the Associated Press reported Saturday. Nevadans for Background Checks is attempting to gather enough signatures by Nov. 11 to require state lawmakers to vote on their petition, and plan on putting the matter before voters in 2016 if the legislature rejects it.

While citing the group by name, as well as referring to individuals behind the petition drive as “supporters” and “backers,” the AP story does nothing to inform readers who the individuals behind the effort are. NRA noted the group is “likely affiliated with New York City ex-Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety,” a speculation that can be tested with a few simple internet searches, some resulting in curious dead ends.

Looking for the organization’s name leads to a one-page safenevada.org website, with no other information outside of what it is they’re trying to do and why, a press contact email, and that the information is “© Paid for by Nevadans for Background Checks.” Who these “Nevadans” are is left unstated.

A Who Is domain registry search shows the site registrant is masked through Domains By Proxy, LLC, of Scottsdale, Ariz. The “Nevadans” trying to influence public policy evidently do not want that public to know who they are.

Looking the group up in a Nevada Secretary of State corporation search shows the “Reservation Holder” for the business entity name is one Margaret Rohlfing, who provided an address of “575 7th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20004. That is the address for Venable LLP, the law firm representing Michael Bloomberg’s Everytown in trademark registration. Again, how anyone involved can claim to be a "Nevadan" is not addressed.

Looking further, the Secretary of State’s site shows the president of the domestic non-profit corporation is one Tara Paone. The entry there, along with the PAC Registration form (which lists Paone as “director”), gives a Las Vegas address of 455 E Pebble Road #231566. That’s a box number at a local United States Post Office, which again, provides masking cover for who the "Nevadans" are.

The Federal Communications Commission website lists one Tara Paone as Treasurer of Everytown for Gun Safety in New York City. BizPedia lists Tara Paone as Director with Everytown For Gun Safety Action Fund For I-594 in Washington State (an initiative covered in detail over past months by Seattle Gun Rights Examiner Dave Workman.)

...

Sometimes, people want to engage in anonymous political advocacy, including by giving money.

My sockpuppet and I think that this is OK. Others disagree, at least sometimes...

Sincerely,

Publius

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

If the message is good - it will gain traction. If not, then it won't. Regardless of who's backing it.

I couldn't agree more. The message, not the messenger, is what matters. So why do we care that the messenger is Bloomie? I don't.

Sincerely,

Publius

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Even without any disclosure, one look at "Nevadans" For BG Checks should tell anyone their agenda.

I do agree that it's disingenuous, though my sockpuppet resents that characterization of his anonymity. He and his buddies wrote anonymously specifically to prevent people from evaluating the message in light of the messenger.

Of course, people went right to work guessing who "Publius" really was for each essay. We're pretty sure now which ones were Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Ray. That was the opposite of the intent. So is pursuing disclosure for some of the same reasons.

The Money Megaphone argument is more persuasive to me than the "identifying the real agenda" one. Bloomberg is $o friggin' wealthy that he can just make sure ten advertisements go out from his group for every one from other groups.

OTOH, who are we all to tell him not to do that? Just because he's rich? I don't think of myself as rich. I live in a trailer in Florida for cryin' out loud. Still, I have more resources at my disposal than many and I'm the top (potential) contributor to a (potentially) powerful SuperPAC. Money to burn, I tells ya. So I have more speech at my disposal than many. Who are the "many" to tell me what to do with it?

Sincerely,

Tom & Publius

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Bloomberg $peaks Against Milwaukee County Sheriff Clarke

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's political action committee, Independence USA, has purchased $150,833 in television ads in an effort to defeat Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. and support his opponent, Milwaukee police Lt. Chris Moews.

In response to the news of Bloomberg's ads, Clarke said in a statement: "I trust the voters. The voters can't be bought."...

There are a few former Colorado Senators who learned that even out$peaking your opponents with BloomBuck$ by 4:1 does not guarantee victory. :lol:

 

[Raz'r]

Seems like a one sided article. How many nra $s for his opponent?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Seems like a one sided article. How many nra $s for his opponent?

Are you counting contributions by individual members or just NRA money? The number could be large if you mean the former. The article notes that Clarke has received a large number of out of state contributions. With millions of members, it could be that the individual contributions match the 400 grand spent by Chris Abele. Or someone. It's not clear.

Milwaukee County Sheriff David A. Clarke Jr. is lashing out at a liberal group that is spending nearly $400,000 to air radio and TV ads attacking his record.

"Special interests are spending hundreds of thousands to defeat me," Clarke said in a statement. "They know when it comes to protecting Milwaukee County residents, I won’t back down. And I won’t let the career politicians in Milwaukee or Madison play games with our budget nor their safety."

The Greater Wisconsin Committee, a liberal advocacy group based in Madison, is spending nearly $400,000 to broadcast an ad critical of Clarke on Milwaukee-area TV and radio stations, according to WisPolitics.com.

...

It is not clear who is paying for the Greater Wisconsin campaign.

Asked if he was helping to underwrite the issue ads, Milwaukee County Executive Chris Abele asked: "Greater Wisconsin Committee is doing something with Clarke?" He did not respond to follow-up questions.

Abele, a multimillionaire, and Clarke have clashed repeatedly in recent years.

Clarke, who is running for sheriff for the fourth time, also has the strong support of the National Rifle Association, which sent out a fundraising solicitation for him.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Apparently, the NRA bought online ads for Clarke. If you can believe Fox News.

Clarke, who is running as a Democrat but regularly aligns himself with conservative Republicans, spoke at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting in April. The NRA, who calls Clarke a “rising national star,” has come to Clarke’s defense, soliciting donations from its members on his behalf and buying online ads for his re-election bid.

“Make no mistake: Sheriff Clarke is fighting the reelection battle of his life right now because he dared to stand on principle by standing up for you, me and the NRA,” Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said.

“Am I big on a person’ right to be able to defend themselves? Yes. You know why? Because it’s a natural right,” Clarke recently told Wisconsin News Radio 620 WTMJ.

Good answer. I can see why he got so many out of state donations.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I guess online ads are more effective $peech than tens of thousands spent on all the local TV stations. Clarke won.

But not to worry, Bloomberg will $peak on and I will continue to support his right to do so and continue to laugh my ass off when he fails again.

Meanwhile, out west, we could discuss how fundamentally wrong it is that Ballmer has so much more $peech than the rest of us.

The WA Alliance for Gun Responsibility continues to pad its war chest.

The independent spending group is leading the push to get voters to approve in November I-594, a measure that would require background checks for gun sales.

Ex-Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer (and new LA Clippers owner) and his wife Connie were already big donors to the group, but they kicked in an additional $250,000 between them, according to public records.

That brings the group’s total fundraising to about $3.2 million, records show. The group has spent about $2.2 million and still has about $1 million still on hand.

Meanwhile, the two spending groups opposing I-594 continue to lag and don’t appear to be actively fundraising, according to records. The independent spending group known as the National Rifle Association of America Washingtonians Opposed to I-594 has spend about $17,500 of the original $25,000 that it has raised.

A call to NRA lobbyist Brian Judy, whom we last wrote about when he told I-594 opponents gun control caused the Holocaust, went unreturned. Likewise, a call to Chris Cox, the NRA’s executive director for lobbying and who is listed as campaign manage for Washingtonians Opposed to I-594, did not return a call seeking comment.

Meanwhile, another group opposed to I-594, Washington Citizens Against Regulatory Execess (WECARE), has spent nearly all of the $63,000 it had. Almost all of that group’s funding comes from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, records show....

The gun nutz only have tens of thousands, their opponents have millions. I'm fine with it, but doesn't someone want to speak out about how we should level the playing field here?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Bloomberg's White Whale

...Like so many who share his distaste for the Second Amendment and its apologists, Bloomberg is still laboring under the rotten misapprehension that his political opponents’ advantage is tactical and financial rather than structural and philosophical. But the simple and unsexy truth is that Sheriff Clarke managed to withstand the attempt to unseat him for precisely the same reason as have others who have found themselves in his position: not because he has allied himself with shady and wealthy figures, but because he was defending a basic civil right, and because that civil right is popular.

...

The most famous of the Right’s recent victories came in Colorado, where formerly apolitical residents reacted to the passage of an unworkable background-check regime and an arbitrary limit on the size of magazines by recalling three of the lawmakers who had spearheaded the changes. This, perhaps, was Bloomberg’s most stinging defeat. But it was not an aberration. Last November, Bloomberg elected to involve himself in mayoral races in the states of North Carolina, Florida, and Pennsylvania — not merely backing and bankrolling gun-controlling candidates in all three states, but slamming their pro–Second Amendment challengers, too. Not a single one of his chosen candidates prevailed. In Virginia’s 34th House of Delegates district, meanwhile, he loudly backed Kathleen Murphy, a Democrat who transformed her race into a referendum on firearms law. Murphy lost. Officials in Virginia, MSNBC’s Chuck Todd reported, were irritated by Bloomberg’s interference, many going so far as to wonder aloud whether he was becoming a liability. For his part, New York’s senior Democratic senator, Chuck Schumer, suggested that Bloomberg’s scheme was “not effective.”

Sheriff Clarke’s defeat, then, was to be the victory that turned the tide — the example that Bloomberg needed to make the case that taking a hard-line stance in favor of gun rights is a recipe for electoral disaster.

...

The fight was a brutal one. Among those who joined the offensive against the incumbent were the mayor of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett; the Milwaukee county executive, Chris Abele; and the influential editorial board of the city’s paper of record, the Journal-Sentinel. Money flowed freely, a progressive PAC called the “Greater Wisconsin Committee” spending a remarkable $400,000 on anti-Clarke television advertisements, which, together with Bloomberg’s personal contribution of $150,000, brought the total allocated for attack ads to $550,000 — a quite astonishing number for a sheriff’s race in the Midwest. Clarke’s defenders, meanwhile, raised less than one-fifth of that number, the NRA injecting $30,000; a local conservative group, Citizens for Responsible Government buying $55,000 in television time; and a black advocacy group, Citizens for Urban Justice, spending $15,000 on radio spots. Elsewhere, the Journal-Sentinel records, Clarke received “a great deal of campaign funds — $20, $50 and $100 — from many out-of-town contributors.”

As per usual, this was not decided by money, but by preferences. Clark was returned by 52 percent to 48, and will go on to run unopposed in the general election. After this term, he has hinted, he will consider running for mayor. Michael Bloomberg, meanwhile, will remain, like Ahab before him, “tormented with an everlasting itch for things remote,” and resolved to “smite the sun” should it have the temerity to defy him. “For all men tragically great,” Herman Melville wrote, “are made so through a certain morbidness . . . all mortal greatness is but disease.”....

I find him more comic than tragically great. Man the harpooooooons!

 

[jocal505]

In spite of Sheriff Clarke and his vocal posse, Colorado's magazine limitation laws were upheld recently.

DOCUMENT: Read the judge's decision on Colorado gun laws.

And Clarke and company are saying nothing new here, just mouthing the usual pro-gun talking points.

(The Denver Post)

Colorado Attorney General John Suthers' office represented defendant Gov. John Hickenlooper, who signed bills into law last year that expanded background checks and created ammunition magazine limits.[...]

(Judge) Krieger noted that no evidence was produced at the two-week trial that indicated a person's ability to defend himself is seriously diminished if magazines are limited to 15 rounds.

"Of the many law enforcement officials called to testify, none were able to identify a single instance in which they were involved where a single civilian fired more than 15 shots in self defense," she noted.

Defendants argued that legislators passed laws to increase public safety following mass shootings including the Columbine High School massacre in 1999 and the Aurora movie theater shootings in 2012.

Advocates for the legislature's tougher gun laws, including Dave Hoover, the uncle of AJ Boik, who was killed in the Aurora Theater shooting, lauded Krieger's decision.

"As I have said repeatedly, no one is losing their rights by having to reload their gun, but with this simple measure we can reduce the number of victims killed in mass shootings," Hoover said in a statement.

Eileen McCarron, president of Colorado Ceasefire Capitol Fund, said the lawsuit was a waste of time and resources.

"This was a politically-motivated lawsuit that has been grasping at straws from day one," McCarron said in a statement. "These laws are reasonable protections against gun violence that many states have adopted and have repeatedly passed the test of constitutionality."

Denver Post Staff Writer Kurtis Lee contributed to this report.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Jocal seems to have gotten lost on his way to the Colorado Recalls thread. Gee, I wonder why?

Jocal, your post has nothing at all to do with $peech. Try to stay on topic.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The fourth amendment is not about spending either.

The first amendment turns out to be about spending sometimes and I don't want to see the war on $$ turn into a war on our rights of expression. I'm already seeing too much of that, with people like Al Franken wanting to amend the constitution to get rid of those pesky first amendment protections. Or possibly to reverse Citizens United. He seems to think those are the same thing, but they're not.

Whether the money is for initial election or is for re-election/a run for higher office matters little to me. I think people who have been elected and those who have not have the same rights to $pend and $peak, so receiving a political donation while in office or prior to entering office is the same thing to me.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...Money buys access to OUR representatives that you and I simply don't have an never will. $$ buys a seat at the table that we don't get. $$ buys airtime with the politician we don't get. That $$ sets legislative priorities, funding priorities, and it even buys the ability for companies to actually write new bills such as Aetnacare errr I mean obamacare.

An example of what you're talking about would be the SAF working on the language of the Manchin-Toomey bill, would it not?

How would you propose to prevent that kind of $peech?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

A related question would be why prevent it?

If a gun bill comes up, gun groups are likely to have opinions and suggestions. If a bill regulating aviation comes up, AOPA is likely to have opinions and suggestions.

The people being regulated might just want representation to go along with their taxation. Do we really need to prevent that?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I don't recall ever using the word "prevent".

You identified a problem. I assume you want to DO SOMETHING about it. Possibly prevent the problem you identified.

Was that a wrong assumption?

If not, what is SOMETHING in your case?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...its the piles and piles of $$ that go to the congress critter once in office that I believe needs the most regulation. Its that $$ that buys influence and access - which = speech that you and I don't have. To me that is not right.

OK, what kinds of regulations would you like to see to control things like the SAF contributing to gun bills and AOPA contributing to aviation bills, or to regulate the money that enables that access?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Hmmm. I thought that as a libertarian, it was my job to have the utopian, unrealistic views.

The actual sausage-making process of writing laws is not something that can or should be done in the public arena. Aviation is a good example. Most people really don't give a shit whether or not Spatial Ed can fly his airplanes around and no amount of public discussion will make them give a shit. We're lucky to have a strong private aviation lobby that does pay attention and does get behind those closed doors. In the rest of the world, they're stunned that we can just get in a plane and go fly. We would not be able to if preserving that ability meant convincing at least 51% of Joe Sixpacks.

Politicians are sort of human too. They're at the very least social critters. As such, personal relationships can't be ignored. If an AOPA lobbyist happens to notice that the guy across the table is worth hiring because he knows the issues and the people, is that really so bad?

 

[Sean]

FFS Tom, does EVERY thread have to be about guns?

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

Sorry, forgot to mention that Ed should be allowed to have guns on his planes.

There we go. Now my most recent post fits with your complaint, Sean.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

FFS Tom, does EVERY thread have to be about guns?

Well, there's the one on photographing government at work that has little to no gun content and zero replies from you.

And one on our insane war on marijuana, also with little gun content and zero replies from you.

We managed to discuss the relative merits of freedom of the press for some vs freedom of the press for all without touching on guns.

I haven't mentioned guns once in the fifth amendment thread that only JBSF responded to.

Where ya been in the asset seizure thread? I haven't been going off about guns there.

I have pretty thoroughly hijacked 2slow's Snowden thread. Where are the gun posts you're complaining about in that one?

The FBI and hair evidence thread is completely free of mentions of the word gun and posts by Sean.

So the answer to your question seems to be: No, and you don't care. FFS why did you ask?

This one is about $peech, btw...