Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (138119)	9/9/2005 3:34:59 PM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793559

See Lady Lurksalot's post detailing how numerous cars with Louisiana plates began showing up in Houston after FEMA announced it's $2,000 debit card giveaway. Dollars to doughnuts a number of those folks are not even from striken areas, but want to cash in on the government largesse. IMO, it would be better to give people "seed cash" to get them on their way once they have made arrangements for other shelter, work, etc. Message 21688510

To: KLP who wrote (138119)	9/9/2005 4:00:14 PM
From: JDN	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793559

What kind of idiot would not know his/her SS number by memory haha, it IS the big easy, you know. I can ONLY deduce the govt wants to get a lot of money in circulation and is using these victims to accomplish that purpose. The number they are tossing around now is $200 BILLION. Started out 100 billion a few days ago, wonder when it will hit ONE TRILLION? jdn

To: KLP who wrote (138119)	9/9/2005 4:48:13 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793559

<<What kind of idiot would not know his/her SS number by memory...? >> Those on welfare probably have it tatooed on their palms. Can't get that free money without a number.

To: KLP who wrote (138119)	9/9/2005 4:56:33 PM
From: Volsi Mimir	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793559

VOTES, LIES and ADVERTISEMENTS (can you believe this!!!! just in time for King County and Sims) Local News: Thursday, September 08, 2005 Truth-in-campaign law struck down By David Postman Seattle Times chief political reporter OLYMPIA — A state law prohibiting political candidates from lying about their opponents is an unconstitutional violation of free speech and chills political discourse, a state appeals court ruled yesterday. The decision from the Court of Appeals Division II stems from a 2002 legislative race and puts in jeopardy one of the state's remaining truth-in-campaigning laws. The court, in an opinion by Judge C.C. Bridgewater, said the law is unconstitutional because it punishes false political claims whether or not they damaged a candidate — a legal standard for slander or libel claims. The court also said that because the law allows candidates to "proclaim falsehoods about themselves" the state cannot argue that the law meets its interest "in promoting integrity and honesty in the elections process." The case began in a state Senate race in the 35th Legislative District. Marilou Rickert, a Green Party candidate in the Southwest Washington district, challenged the longtime incumbent, Democrat Tim Sheldon. In the campaign Rickert sent voters a brochure claiming that Sheldon "voted to close a facility for the developmentally challenged." After the election, which he won easily, Sheldon filed a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission saying Rickert's campaign flier was false. A PDC investigation determined that Sheldon had not voted for closing the institution and that the facility she referred to was not for the developmentally disabled. The PDC found that Rickert acted with "actual malice or reckless disregard" for the truth because she did not attempt even a cursory check of the facts. Rickert appealed to a Thurston County Superior Court judge, who upheld the PDC ruling. But on appeal, Rickert claimed the law was unconstitutional on its face and in the specifics of how it was applied in her case. While the Court of Appeals did not address all Rickert's claims, it did rule that the truth-in-campaigning law is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The court relied heavily on a 1998 state Supreme Court decision that struck down a similar law prohibiting false statements in initiative and ballot-measure campaigns. The Supreme Court said then, "In this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false for us." Rickert said the appeals court delivered a clear message: "The government doesn't have any right to tell political candidates what they can and cannot say." She said existing defamation laws will suffice to protect people against false claims that damage reputations. The ACLU, which helped represent Rickert in the case, agreed. "American democracy thrives, in part, because people running for office can say very strong things critical of their opponent or critical of the government and the government itself shouldn't be sorting out what is true and false," said spokesman Doug Honig. The disclosure commission will review the decision at its regular meeting next week and decide whether to appeal, said PDC executive director Vicki Rippie. She said the commission's attorneys argued that the law promotes credible campaigns. "It helps people keep the facts or the issues straight if the speakers can be held to a standard of accuracy and truthful comments," she said. There are three other truth-in-campaigning cases pending at the PDC, and Rippie said the staff will continue to investigate the claims until the commission gives further direction. David Postman: 360-943-9882 or dpostman@seattletimes.com archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com