U-T Weighs In On County Supes’ Folly and Grassroots Republicans React

Guest Column Guest Column 15 Comments

Share

From the Republican Party of San Diego County…

A quick update on reactions to the County Supes’ decision to curtail our Party’s ability to elect Republicans…

1) Ron Nehring’s OpEd ran yesterday. It’s a must-read:

New Rules Unfairly Limit Contributions For Supervisor Races

2) Today the U-T weighed in and called the proposal “naive and doomed to fail”:

County Contribution Limits Won’t Achieve Goal

Quoting:
“…the rules are built on an assumption at odds with modern American history: that people who want to use their money to pay for political speech to advocate their interests won’t be able to find a way to do so.”

3) Grass roots Republicans are making their voices heard via email and phone calls to the Supervisors. According to our records…

* Greg Cox received 23 calls in opposition yesterday
* Ron Roberts received 40 calls
* Dianne Jacob received 78 (!!) calls

And Bill Horn has been receiving praise from throughout the county and has received at least 52 calls thanking him for standing with us.

Of course we don’t know about all the calls and we have no idea on how many emails, but needless to say those of us who work hard to elect Republicans to all levels of government are FURIOUS.

So keep the calls and emails going!

By-the-way, at the hearing on Tuesday, there was NOT ONE SPEAKER IN FAVOR. I doubt they’ve received any phone calls or emails in favor since, so this attack on our Party solely rests with Greg Cox, Ron Roberts, and Dianne Jacob.

Hmm… I wonder who’s been whispering in their ears? Tom Shepard and another “brilliant” idea of his? I mean the last couple of them worked out so great for Nathan Fletcher and Bob Brewer after all.

Finally, I’ve already heard of at least one group that has dis-invited one of the Supervisors from addressing them. I suspect it’s just the beginning.

After all, the Supes filed divorce papers with their vote this week. One just wonders if they’ll be finalized or not at the second reading on Tuesday?

Anyway, have a great Friday – and weekend! And thank you for all you do to help elect Republicans throughout San Diego County!

To be continued…

Tony Krvaric
CHAIRMAN (volunteer)
Republican Party of San Diego County
Croatian by blood, Swedish by birth, American by choice

PS. Thank you for the many phone calls and emails in support. Judging from the caliber of the folks reaching out to me I can tell that there is a LOT of frustration with the Supervisors and this latest stunt seems to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.

*****
Here are all the Rostra entries on the subject.

Share

Comments 15

  1. This is where Supe Dave Roberts is coming from (in his newsletter)…

    Caps approved for parties’ campaign funding

    I was pleased on Tuesday to support Supervisor Ron Roberts’ proposal to cap the contributions political parties can make to candidates for county offices.

    After hearing spirited testimony and deliberating at length on the dais, Supervisors voted 4-1 to set limits of $25,000 for Supervisors’ races and $50,000 for countywide races, such as those for Sheriff and District Attorney.

    The contribution limits, in my opinion, do not compromise free expression and can make all the difference in keeping elections competitive. In the words of Supervisor Ron Roberts, the cap “gives the public confidence that political parties cannot dictate opinions to candidates.”

    I couldn’t agree more.

    A second vote to authorize the revisions to our campaign financing ordinance is set for Tuesday.

  2. That would be a great argument if political parties weren’t made of people and their contributions aren’t how they practice free speech.

  3. Michael,

    I am not necessarily a fan of contribution limits, but answer me this: If The Constitution guarantees free speech, why should the wealthy have access to more of it?

  4. I have an idea. Let’s regulate free speech so everyone has the same equal ability to espouse it. In other words, if your financial wherewithal only gives you the ability to state your opinions to your neighbors or on a makeshift soap box at the park, no one else would be allowed to do any more than that to state theirs. Since some can’t afford computers and cell phones, no one should be allowed to use them for expressing an opinion or for advocacy. Those who’d like to use their resources to buy advertising won’t be allowed to, since many can’t afford to purchase advertising. Can’t afford to donate to a candidate or a cause? — No one should be allowed to, then. This would not only guarantee the same level of free speech, but it would also be fair to all. Unfettered? That shouldn’t matter. The government needs to guarantee no one is allowed more free speech than anyone else.

  5. free
    adjective
    1.not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes.
    2.not physically restrained, obstructed, or fixed; unimpeded.
    3.not subject to or constrained by engagements or obligations.
    4.not subject to or affected by (a specified thing, typically an undesirable one).
    5.given or available without charge.
    6.using or expending something without restraint; lavish.
    7.(of a literary style) not observing the strict laws of form.
    8.(of the wind) blowing from a favorable direction to the side or stern of a vessel.

    adverb
    1.without cost or payment.
    2.with the sheets eased.

    First Amendment:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    There really isn’t anything in the definition of “free” or the First Amendment that would imply that anyone should be limited or supplemented. It is saying that governments cannot encumber though…which is what limitations on speech are.

  6. Good answers all. Now tell me why political parties should have the legal right to contribute without limitation, but individuals, businesses and other groups are limited in and in some cases prohibited from making political contributions directly to candidate campaigns.

  7. No answer from me. I don’t agree with those limitations on free speech either.

    A wise man recently put it this way: People and organizations of people should be able to voluntarily give money to whomever or whatever they please, in any amounts.

  8. Michael and Brian,

    I wish Tony K. had spoke out for individual freedom and not just freedom for the Party. After all, what could be more transparent (his and Ron Nehring’s stated concern) than an individual giving directly to the candidate of his/her choice.

  9. Ron Roberts is “spot on” in his analysis of Ron Nehring’s opinion piece. As a lifelong Republican, I, too, am surprised and disappointed that Mr. Nehring chose to criticize the County for taking this action in the public interest. The County has a $750 limit an individual can donate for a candidate in the election of our Supervisors, but Mr. Nehring would prefer giving political parties the ability to accept money on behalf of a candidate and then pass huge amounts through to his hand-picked candidate! How is this fair or in the spirit of transparency as he suggests? I find it most interesting that we did not hear Mr. Nehring complain or question this same cap on political contributions that was passed by San Diego City Council in 2013…Does he have a vested interest in this election…a candidate for Supervisor he wishes to support with Republican money? We’ll wait and see! I would encourage all who are in favor of limiting the amount a political party can donate to a candidate to join me at the BOS meeting and make your voice be heard!

  10. If the Supervisors were REALLY interested in getting special interest money out of politics, they’d choose to no longer have the county serve as the labor unions’ collection agency. Let the unions bill their members, and let the members decide whether or not they want to pay the dues.

    For when it comes to sheer volume, the money from labor unions spent in Supervisor campaigns DWARFS the candidate support from political parties. And unlike the parties’ support, there is a HUGE conflict of interest for any politician supported by labor union IE campaigns.

    As H.L. Mencken once put it, “Every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.” Those Supervisors supported by the unions were simply the highest bidders for union financial backing — with us paying the bill many times over.

  11. Mrs Mulder,

    You and Mr Cassinelli really seem to have a problem with those of us who criticize Ron Roberts, Dave Roberts, Cox, and Jacob for limiting speech. I can’t help but notice that you and he serve on the Jamul-Dulzura Community Planning Board (and you on the School District board).

    Now it could be a coincidence, that of the half-million registered Republicans in the County, the two loudest supporters of this law are political allies of the incumbent Mrs Jacob — or it could be that your actions confirm that Mrs Jacob is passing this law to bolster her upcoming re-election campaign.

    A conspiracy theorist might think the latter; I just think it’s an odd coincidence.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *