Campaign Finance: Senator Cory Booker (D) – on the way to $1,700,000.00 by September 30th

Tags

, ,

“…Cory 2020 needs to raise an additional $1.7 million by September 30 to be in a position to build the organization necessary to continue competing for the nomination. Without a fundraising surge to close out this quarter, we do not see a legitimate long-term path forward…” – campaign memo sent to supporters and media – Cory2020

Senator Cory Booker’s (D) presidential campaign is one of about a dozen from which we receive media notices. Since March we’ve been able to cover a few of his campaign appearances in Iowa – we count him as one of the many excellent and credible Democratic Party candidates running for the party nomination for president. There are a few others who we encounter (or don’t bother to cover – you can figure it out) who we believe could be a disaster for the party, but would, in every case, be a damn sight better for the country than the current occupant in the White House.

Senator Booker, and at least ten other candidates, far exceeds that low bar.

Still a significant period out from the first votes (caucus or primary) to select the party’s nominee, it would be a disservice, up to a point, to those voters across the country who have a much later primary or caucus for the field of candidates to narrow because of lower than expected candidate fundraising numbers. Gaffs, policy missteps or differences, other issues, fine. Money? Important, but not the most important.

Senator Cory Booker (D) – Ankeny, Iowa – July 15, 2019.

This was good news for Democratic Party voters – yesterday, a press release from Senator Cory Booker’s (D) presidential campaign:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 22, 2019

Rise Together Day 1: Cory 2020 Sees Best One-Day Online Fundraising Haul of Campaign To Date
Cory 2020 is nearly 18% toward $1.7 million goal after Day 1 of critical 10 day period

Raises $300,000+ in one day after warning that if fundraising trajectory doesn’t change by Sept. 30, campaign will not be able to build organization necessary to win

Newark, NJ — Cory 2020 saw its best single-day online fundraising haul after alerting supporters in an urgent memo on Saturday morning that the campaign did not see a legitimate long-term path forward in the presidential race without a fundraising surge before September 30th.

“The stakes couldn’t be higher for the future of our campaign, and we’re absolutely blown away by the response on day one,” said Cory 2020 Campaign Manager Addisu Demissie. “People really stepped up and responded — clearly there is a desire to keep Cory in this race and help us build our organization in a way that puts us on a path to win the nomination.

“We made significant progress toward our $1.7 million goal yesterday — it was the best single online fundraising day of our campaign, bigger than even the launch of this campaign on February 1. There’s a long way to go but today showed us that, when we come together, we can tackle tough challenges. That’s how we’ll win this primary, that’s how we’ll beat Donald Trump, and that’s how we’ll change this country and change the world”

Totals for Saturday, September 21, 2019:

Percent toward goal: 17.7%
Total Raised: $300,495.79
Total Raised Online: $278,950.00
Total Donations: 8,403
Comparison to yesterday: 31.62 x bigger

# # #

We don’t know if Senator Booker’s campaign will succeed in reaching their ultimate fundraising goal. The point is, he’s trying and people are responding. That says a lot about the quality of the candidate and his voice, the confidence of voters, the quality of the Democratic Party field, and the abysmal record of the current occupant of the White House

Previously:

Sen. Cory Booker (D) in Indianola, Iowa – March 16, 2019 – “Hope is the active conviction that despair will not have the last word.” (March 16, 2019)

Sen. Cory Booker (D) – “Conversations with Presidential Candidates” – Iowa Public Television – Ankeny, Iowa – July 15, 2019 (July 15, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Are you on drugs?

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Most of us are.

Yesterday, from Representative Vicky Hartzler (r):

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
Pelosi’s one-size-fits-all approach to tackle prescription drug prices doesn’t address the root causes. Her drug price plan is filled with socialist price controls that stifles research and innovation.

This isn’t right. We can do better. We have to work together.
10:23 AM · Sep 20, 2019

Ah, socialism, the current right wingnut republican buzzword.

“…Her drug price plan is filled with socialist price controls that stifles research and innovation…”

NIH funding contributed to 210 approved drugs in recent years, study says
By Megan Thielking [….] February 12, 2018

…Federally funded studies contributed to the science that underlies every one of the 210 new drugs approved between 2010 and 2016…

Pharmaceutical corporations need to stop free-riding on publicly-funded research
By Jason Cone, opinion contributor — 03/03/18 01:00 PM EST
…Pharmaceutical companies have perpetuated a myth that high prices are necessary in order to compensate for the risks and investments they undertake when developing drugs. And governments like the U.S. — the biggest funder of global health research and development (R&D) — have let them…

Or did Representative Hartzler (r) really mean “stifles exorbitant profits and CEO compensation”?

Meanwhile, there was much hilarity in some of the comments to Representative Hartzler’s (r) Pharma Tweet:

Girl, you’ve taken $1.1M+ in farm subsidies.

Tell me about how you hate socialized programs again.

So Hartzler loves socialism…as long as she’s getting the benefits personally. Screw poor, sick, and hungry kids, though, eh?

Wrong, her [Pelosi] drug price plan protects the American consumers!!!
#UnAmerican #CorruptGOP

You aren’t trying. You aren’t working together. She could come out tomorrow and support a GOP plan and you’d still call it socialist. Piss off. This is 100% fixable and your fault for doing nothing.

Granting @HHSGov limited authority to negotiate prices on 250 *branded* prescription drugs that lack generic or biosimilar competitors & represent the greatest cost to Medicare, with a cap at 120% of market price in 6 other countries…Is “Socialism”?

Republicans haven’t done sh*t except try to take healthcare AWAY.
Your prez is trying to repeal what little we have left. Who believes anything republicans say anymore?

Hey the GOP has done absolutely nothing yet, so I’m sure after this really informed tweet you will get right back to doing nothing!

Republicans had the majority in the House for 10 years, and the only thing that happened were attempts to repeal the ACA 60 some odd times. Discuss actual policy specifics and details on alternatives, and we can talk.

You do not seem to be representing anyone but the GOP brand, GOP buzz words and your own self interests. Healthcare, insurance and prescription drug costs are unaffordable for your constituents. Not for you or Congress though. How about a Town Hall on the topic?

Open public town hall? Not gonna happen.

Good grief; is there anybody out there who buys this garbage rhetoric? Capitalism is not doing sick people any favors. Time to try something new.

Tweet out your plan that’s better in detail. I will be waiting.

We see what you did there. Tweet/detail.

It seems like the new buzz word for the republicans is “socialist”

Hey, we already said that…

Big Pharma has been paying the GOP for years to not allow Medicare to negotiate prices. I remember watching debate on the House floor in 2003 when the Medicare reform bill was passed. The Democrats wanted to include limits to rising Rx prices. The GOP would not allow it.

#socialist says what?

You mean greed, right!

You can do better? You have done NOTHING for YEARS!!!

So what is your plan because this is a serious issue and it seems like Pelosi actually wants to deal with it?

Socialist farm subsidies and bailout money is good but socialist approaches to help people get affordable prescription drugs are bad. You’re a bigly hypocrite!

You mean socialist, like the massive farm subsidies you collect?

Republicans only criticize but NEVER come up with feasible ideas for healthcare & drug costs! You are not helping the matter. If u have criticism then u better come back with a viable solution. Ur the problem!

What is your plan Vicky? That’s right, more of the same, the GOP plan of working Americans getting screwed to make the rich even richer.

Socialist? You clearly don’t understand the meaning of the word. I am beginning to doubt your abilities.

Nice cut and paste Vicky. Follow the line and deflect.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].

Campaign Finance: Five twenty-something right wingnut campaign operatives got their wings today

Tags

, , , ,

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C180492 09/20/2019 MO Opportunity PAC Rex A Sinquefield 244 Bent Walnut Lane Westphalia MO 65085 Retired Retired 9/20/2019 $250,000.00

[emphasis added]

Not much has changed.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: such an opportunity (February 29, 2019)

Campaign Finance: every time a billionaire writes a $50,000.00 campaign contribution check a twenty-something right wingnut campaign operative gets their wings (September 16, 2017)

Sen. Roy Blunt (r): what being a whore for the NRA gets the rest of us

Tags

, , , , , ,

Yesterday, in Missouri, from the mother of an elementary school student:

My 3rd-grade son just said this.

“If an intruder ever comes to my school, and if I don’t have any place to hide, I will just give up. I will let him kill me.”

Roy Blunt (r) [2016 file photo].

Blunt’s budget bill omits $50 million for gun violence study favored by Democrats
By Bryan Lowry
September 18, 2019 02:29 PM, Updated September 19, 2019 11:35 AM

Senate Republicans are pursuing a federal health budget that omits funding for gun violence research, a proposal that Sen. Roy Blunt warns is too “controversial.”

[….]

Do you wonder why?

Which lawmakers got the most NRA money?
By Soo Rin Kim Feb 20, 2018, 8:51 PM ET
[….]
Sen. Roy Blunt: $4.5 million
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., has long been one of the biggest beneficiaries of NRA money. Not only has the group donated $56,500 to Blunt’s campaign committee over the years, the group has also spent $1.4 million bankrolling ads supporting him. The NRA also spent $2.5 million in 2016 opposing Democrat Jason Kander’s bid against the Missouri Republican.
[….]

Too soon? Too controversial?

Just excuses.

18 U.S. Code § 201

Tags

, , ,

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

18 U.S. Code § 201.Bribery of public officials and witnesses

(a)For the purpose of this section—

(1)the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

(2)the term “person who has been selected to be a public official” means any person who has been nominated or appointed to be a public official, or has been officially informed that such person will be so nominated or appointed; and

(3)the term “official act” means any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.

(b)Whoever—

(1)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent—

(A)to influence any official act; or

(B)to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C)to induce such public official or such person who has been selected to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the lawful duty of such official or person;

(2)being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:

(A)being influenced in the performance of any official act;

(B)being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or

(C)being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

(3)directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, or offers or promises such person to give anything of value to any other person or entity, with intent to influence the testimony under oath or affirmation of such first-mentioned person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or with intent to influence such person to absent himself therefrom;

(4)directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity in return for being influenced in testimony under oath or affirmation as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in return for absenting himself therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or not more than three times the monetary equivalent of the thing of value, whichever is greater, or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

(c)Whoever—

(1)otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty—

(A)directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official; or

(B)being a public official, former public official, or person selected to be a public official, otherwise than as provided by law for the proper discharge of official duty, directly or indirectly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such official or person;

(2)directly or indirectly, gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any person, for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, before any court, any committee of either House or both Houses of Congress, or any agency, commission, or officer authorized by the laws of the United States to hear evidence or take testimony, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;

(3)directly or indirectly, demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally for or because of the testimony under oath or affirmation given or to be given by such person as a witness upon any such trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or for or because of such person’s absence therefrom;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than two years, or both.

(d)Paragraphs (3) and (4) of subsection (b) and paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (c) shall not be construed to prohibit the payment or receipt of witness fees provided by law, or the payment, by the party upon whose behalf a witness is called and receipt by a witness, of the reasonable cost of travel and subsistence incurred and the reasonable value of time lost in attendance at any such trial, hearing, or proceeding, or in the case of expert witnesses, a reasonable fee for time spent in the preparation of such opinion, and in appearing and testifying.

(e)The offenses and penalties prescribed in this section are separate from and in addition to those prescribed in sections 1503, 1504, and 1505 of this title.

This morning’s executive time (as of this posting):

Campaign Finance: following the money

Tags

, , , , , ,

Or, if you prefer, following the same treasurer at the same address.

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission, from a PAC, to a brand spanking new PAC:

C190972 09/19/2019 Table Rock Conservative PAC CL PAC 12026 Manchester Road Saint Louis MO 63131 9/19/2019 $100,000.00

[emphasis added]

A twenty-something right wingnut campaign operative or two got their wings!

Brand spanking new:

C190972: Table Rock Conservative Pac
Committee Type: Political Action
12026 Manchester Rd
St Louis Mo 63131
Established Date:
09/11/2019
[….]
Treasurer
Mark Milton
12026 Manchester Rd
St Louis Mo 63131

[emphasis added]

Two years ago:

C171291: Cl Pac
Committee Type: Political Action
12026 Manchester Rd
St Louis Mo 63131
Established Date: 09/22/2017
[….]
Treasurer
Mark Milton
12026 Manchester Rd
St Louis Mo 63131

You think they use the same feather quill pen for ledger entries? Just asking.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: GNDN (June 19, 2019)

Campaign Finance: a busy little PAC (July 1, 2019)

Campaign Finance: $100,000.00 or so at a time (September 3, 2019)

Campaign Finance: It couldn’t be anything we said (September 4, 2019)

Campaign Finance: spread the wealth (September 14, 2019)

Campaign Finance: every time a billionaire writes a $50,000.00 campaign contribution check a twenty-something right wingnut campaign operative gets their wings (September 16, 2017)

Campaign Finance: faster than &#@% through a goose (September 17, 2019)

Campaign Finance: spreading even more (September 18, 2019)

Campaign Finance: spreading even more

Tags

, , , ,

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission:

C171236 09/18/2019 Missourians for a Responsible Budget CL PAC 440 Medina Drive St Louis MO 63105 9/18/2019 $35,000.00

C180697 09/18/2019 Team Robert PAC CL PAC 440 Medina Drive Saint Louis MO 63105 9/18/2019 $10,000.00

[emphasis added]

All over.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: GNDN (June 19, 2019)

Campaign Finance: a busy little PAC (July 1, 2019)

Campaign Finance: $100,000.00 or so at a time (September 3, 2019)

Campaign Finance: It couldn’t be anything we said (September 4, 2019)

Campaign Finance: spread the wealth (September 14, 2019)

Campaign Finance: every time a billionaire writes a $50,000.00 campaign contribution check a twenty-something right wingnut campaign operative gets their wings (September 16, 2017)

Campaign Finance: faster than &#@% through a goose (September 17, 2019)

Campaign Finance: that’s why we make it here

Tags

, , , , , ,

Close enough, it’s the correct product.

Yesterday at the Missouri Ethics Commission for the PAC propping up Governor Mike Parson (r):

C180490 09/18/2019 Uniting Missouri PAC ANHEUSER BUSCH COMPANIES ONE BUSCH PLACE ST LOUIS MO 63118 9/18/2019 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

You think someone’s doing a happy dance?

Governor Mike Parson (r) [2019 file photo].

Previously:

Campaign Finance: ode to joy (September 13, 2019)

Campaign Finance: Even more happiness! (April 9, 2019)

Governor Mike Parson (r): April Campaign Finance Report – 2019 (April 17, 2019)

Campaign Finance: jump on that bandwagon (May 15, 2019)

Campaign Finance: make some, someone happy (May 21, 2019)

Campaign Finance: we’re running out of happiness references (May 21, 2019)

Campaign Finance: $25,000.00 and $10,000.00 (May 29, 2019)

Campaign Finance: adding to the total (June 3, 2019)

Campaign Finance: piling it on (June 4, 2019)

Campaign Finance: they intend to make the rubble bounce (June 11, 2019)

Campaign Finance: For what now? (June 21, 2019)

Campaign Finance: For who and what now? (June 27, 2019)

Campaign Finance: What’s another $45,000.00? (July 27, 2019)

Campaign Finance: “…if you know what happiness is to you…” (September 8, 2019)

Campaign Finance: obscenely happy (September 9, 2019)

Sen. Denny Hoskins (r): uninformed and selective outrage

Tags

, , , , ,

“…the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings…”

Denny Hoskins (r) [2017 file photo].

This morning, via Twitter:

Senator Denny Hoskins, CPA @DLHoskins
Yes, it’s ridiculous that high school cheerleaders are disciplined for supporting the President of the United States. What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events? Banning the Pledge of Allegiance at school?
[….]
9:50 AM · Sep 18, 2019

Apparently some moron showed up with a large Trump campaign banner at a public high school football game and prevailed upon some high school cheerleaders who were in uniform in front of the stands at the game to hold up the banner. The high school activities association admonished the school’s cheerleaders that this type of political activity did not conform with the standards of the association.

The cheerleaders were in uniform, representing their school.

Meanwhile, right wingnuttia has had a cow.

“…Banning the Pledge of Allegiance at school?”

Res judicata. Actually, stare decisis, in 1943:

WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION ET AL. v. BARNETTE ET AL., 319 U.S. 624

[….]

….To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.

Whether the First Amendment to the Constitution will permit officials to order observance of ritual of this nature does not depend upon whether as a voluntary exercise we would think it to be good, bad or merely innocuous. Any credo of nationalism is likely to include what some disapprove or to omit what others think essential, and to give off different overtones as it takes on different accents or interpretations. If official power exists to coerce acceptance of any patriotic creed, what it shall contain cannot be decided by courts, but must be largely discretionary with the ordaining authority, whose power to prescribe would no doubt include power to amend. Hence validity of the asserted power to force an American citizen publicly to profess any statement of belief or to engage in any ceremony of assent to one presents questions of power that must be considered independently of any idea we may have as to the utility of the ceremony in question….

[….]

….Struggles to coerce uniformity of sentiment in support of some end thought essential to their time and country have been waged by many good as well as by evil men. Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon but at other times and places the ends have been racial or territorial security, support of a dynasty or regime, and particular plans for saving souls. As first and moderate methods to attain unity have failed, those bent on its accomplishment must resort to an ever-increasing severity. [319 U.S. 624, 641] As governmental pressure toward unity becomes greater, so strife becomes more bitter as to whose unity it shall be. Probably no deeper division of our people could proceed from any provocation than from finding it necessary to choose what doctrine and whose program public educational officials shall compel youth to unite in embracing. Ultimate futility of such attempts to compel coherence is the lesson of every such effort from the Roman drive to stamp out Christianity as a disturber of its pagan unity, the Inquisition, as a means to religious and dynastic unity, the Siberian exiles as a means to Russian unity, down to the fast failing efforts of our present totalitarian enemies. Those who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard.

It seems trite but necessary to say that the First Amendment to our Constitution was designed to avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings. There is no mysticism in the American concept of the State or of the nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the governed, and the Bill of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority.

The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism [319 U.S. 624, 642] and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us….

[….]

That was about compulsory recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the public schools. Since 1943, in the United States, no individual can be compelled by the government to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. In any setting.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy, a socialist minister, in the late 19th century for a children’s magazine with the intent that it was to be used by children in ceremonies celebrating the Columbian Exposition. The original text: “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” Subsequent additions were made by others in the 1920s during the red scare (so immigrant children would know which flag they were saluting?) and during the Eisenhower Administration (because of fears of godless communism).

The U.S. Flag Code people keep citing as a point of law? It has the same force as Congressional resolutions commemorating motherhood, apple pie, and National Groundhog Day. By the way, that same flag code states that the image of the flag not be used as clothing or on disposable paper products (like napkins and plates) or on advertising. Good luck with that one, huh.

“…What’s next, banning our National Anthem before HS sporting events…?”

The Constitution and U.S. Supreme Court have long ago decided the primacy of the First Amendment.

So, why have the national anthem sung or performed at sporting events? As if there’s originalist intent expressed in the Constitution? Join in or not, it’s up to you. No one else. If you want to take knee, it’s up to you.

So, some questions of Senator Hoskins (r) and his uninformed and selective outrage.

Does this mean you support the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tinker v Des Moines 393 U.S. 503 (1969)?:

…It is also relevant that the school authorities did not purport to prohibit the wearing of all symbols of political or controversial significance. The record shows that students in some of the schools wore buttons relating to national political campaigns, and some even wore the Iron Cross, traditionally a symbol of Nazism. The order prohibiting the wearing of armbands did not extend to these. Instead, a particular symbol — black armbands worn to exhibit opposition to this Nation’s involvement in Vietnam — was singled out for prohibition. Clearly, the prohibition of expression of one particular opinion, at least without evidence that it is necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline, is not constitutionally permissible…

…In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students in school, as well as out of school, are “persons” under our Constitution. They are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views…

…The principle of these cases is not confined to the supervised and ordained discussion which takes place in the classroom. The principal use to which the schools are dedicated is to accommodate students during prescribed hours for the purpose of certain types of activities. Among those activities is personal intercommunication among the students. This is not only an inevitable part of the process of attending school; it is also an important part of the educational process. A student’s rights, therefore, do not embrace merely the classroom hours. When he is in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours, he may express his opinions, even on controversial subjects like the conflict in Vietnam, if he does so without “materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” and without colliding with the rights of others. Burnside v. Byars, supra, at 749. But conduct by the student, in class or out of it, which for any reason — whether it stems from time, place, or type of behavior — materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others is, of course, not immunized by the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech…

…As we have discussed, the record does not demonstrate any facts which might reasonably have led school authorities to forecast substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and no disturbances or disorders on the school premises in fact occurred. These petitioners merely went about their ordained rounds in school. Their deviation consisted only in wearing on their sleeve a band of black cloth, not more than two inches wide. They wore it to exhibit their disapproval of the Vietnam hostilities and their advocacy of a truce, to make their views known, and, by their example, to influence others to adopt them. They neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder. In the circumstances, our Constitution does not permit officials of the State to deny their form of expression.

Note that the students were acting as individuals, not as representatives of the school.

Does this mean that you disagree with the court in Bong Hits 4 Jesus?:

…We need not resolve this debate to decide this case. For present purposes, it is enough to distill from Fraser two basic principles. First, Fraser’s holding demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, it would have been protected. See Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971) ; Fraser, supra, at 682–683. In school, however, Fraser’s First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that the mode of analysis set forth in Tinker is not absolute. Whatever approach Fraser employed, it certainly did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis prescribed by Tinker, supra, at 514. See Kuhlmeier, 484 U. S., at 271, n. 4 (disagreeing with the proposition that there is “no difference between the First Amendment analysis applied in Tinker and that applied in Fraser,” and noting that the holding in Fraser was not based on any showing of substantial disruption).

Our most recent student speech case, Kuhlmeier, concerned “expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school.” 484 U. S., at 271. Staff members of a high school newspaper sued their school when it chose not to publish two of their articles. The Court of Appeals analyzed the case under Tinker, ruling in favor of the students because it found no evidence of material disruption to classwork or school discipline. 795 F. 2d 1368, 1375 (CA8 1986). This Court reversed, holding that “educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.” Kuhlmeier, supra, at 273.

Kuhlmeier does not control this case because no one would reasonably believe that Frederick’s banner bore the school’s imprimatur. The case is nevertheless instructive because it confirms both principles cited above. Kuhlmeier acknowledged that schools may regulate some speech “even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school.” Id., at 266. And, like Fraser, it confirms that the rule of Tinker is not the only basis for restricting student speech…

So, if you skip school and hold up a banner at a school event, you can be suspended. What do you think about cheerleaders in uniform, representing their school, holding up a partisan political banner?

Finally, let’s test the selective outrage. If the cheerleaders had been approached in similar circumstances and held up a sign promoting the candidacy of one of Donald Trump’s (r) Democratic Party opponents, do you think that Senator Hoskins (r) would hold the same opinion? Most probably not.

Next time, do some homework.

Republican outrage is funny that way.

Obama’s tan suit. I rest my case.

Campaign Finance: faster than &#@% through a goose

Tags

, , , , ,

Today at the Missouri Ethics Commission, for PACs, from a PAC:

C180536 09/17/2019 Old Drum Conservative PAC CL PAC 440 Medina Drive St Louis MO 63105 9/17/2019 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

C180492 09/17/2019 MO Opportunity PAC CL PAC 440 Medina Drive St Louis MO 63105 9/17/2019 $25,000.00

[emphasis added]

Just passing through.

Previously:

Campaign Finance: GNDN (June 19, 2019)

Campaign Finance: a busy little PAC (July 1, 2019)

Campaign Finance: $100,000.00 or so at a time (September 3, 2019)

Campaign Finance: It couldn’t be anything we said (September 4, 2019)

Campaign Finance: spread the wealth (September 14, 2019)

Campaign Finance: every time a billionaire writes a $50,000.00 campaign contribution check a twenty-something right wingnut campaign operative gets their wings (September 16, 2017)