Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 years, 2 months ago
    I located the full post article conversation with the Executive Director of the Arizona Clean Elections Committee. Here it is:

    ________________________________________
    From: Eric Ehst [mailto:]
    Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 2:24 PM
    To: mailto:allan@fedupwithpc.com
    Subject: Clean Elections Act
    Allan I saw your piece about Clean Elections on the Human Events website.

    I'm curious about how your free speech rights were violated. Nobody made you take your website down. You're not being stopped from saying whatever you want about the governor. The Clean Elections Commission didn't even give her campaign any matching funds. Just how were you harmed?

    I know you probably don't agree, but the Clean Elections Act has been upheld as constitutional under both the Arizona and U.S. constitutions in 7 separate court cases.

    Eric Ehst
    Executive Director
    Clean Elections Institute
    2702 N. 3rd St., Suite 4010
    Phoenix, AZ 85004-1130
    (602) 840-XXXX
    http://www.azclean.org

    ________________________________________
    From: Allan J. Ashinoff [mailto:allan@fedupwithpc.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 11:00 PM
    To: 'Eric Ehst'
    Subject: RE: Clean Elections Act
    Hello,

    First off, Thanks for reading and taking the time to write. I do appreciate civil feedback or queries (they are rare).

    I did not say my free speech rights were violated. Had I thought my rights had been violated (and not intimidated) the article would have been followed by a lawyers letter and a suit.

    Excerpt

    "The CCEC’s request to determine the costs of my political expression in order to contribute to those I politically oppose is a violation of First Amendment of the US Constitution. The CCEC, as a faction or SIG, has every right to distribute its money how it sees fit. But to base its fund distribution against my political views is in effect a sanctioned attempt to influence my desire to speak out in the political process of Arizona. If the expression of my views results in those people or ideas contrary to my beliefs benefiting, why should I, as an American citizen, want to make my views known? If I am hesitant to make my views known (in speech, writing, or on the web) how does that benefit a free society?"

    Knowingly or not, well-intentioned or sinister, your request to know how much I spent on my website in order to put funds into the coffers of someone whose ideologies I do not support (especially when my own words were a trigger mechanism for the claim) makes me think twice about what I want to say. I recall thinking had I not said openly 'Janet Napolitano Must Not Be Re-elected" on my site, I would not have drawn the red flag which triggers your fund distribution. Its irrelevant whether your organization actually paid out anything or not (I did read the PDF via Google btw).

    I'd have had no issue whatever if you'd have given her cash without my knowledge according to your by-laws. But to contact me makes me question whether or not its worth speaking out when what I say is going to aid the opposition to what I believe this state/nation needs. In effect it is a passive attempt (knowingly or not) to lessen my voice or silence me. That's the constitutional violation (...or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ...). It also makes crystal clear that big brother is watching even the little things on the web done by an individual.

    We'll have to agree to disagree no doubt. Judging from my feedback many agree with how I see this regardless of 7 court decisions. After all, courts are fallible and peoples proposition can be unconstitutional (Prop 200, no?). This legislation stemmed from peoples futility in the democratic system. I believe we've simply traded one bad circumstance for another potentially worse one.

    Thanks again for reading and dropping a line

    Allan J. Ashinoff

    ps

    If that Warren Jeffs character ran for Governor and 500,000 websites went up against this pervert you'd be obliged by state law to see he's compensated (provide he filed with you and met your requirements) for those sites which sprung up opposing him? I'm amazed that you can't see just how inappropriate that is. (I'm not comparing Napolitano to Jeffs or any criminal...its just an absurd scenario)

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I also have all the emails and my replies to the initial query. And yes, I did comply with their information request - just not the way they wanted me to.

    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Robbie53024 3 years, 2 months ago
      Seriously? So, if I had wanted to put up a website in support of JN, could I have then applied for funding from the CCEC? What a sham. Seems like political money laundering to me (and cronyism to boot).
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 years, 2 months ago
        Because of that incident the Arizona Republic, Phoenix's last newspaper, speculated that the site was laundering for Len Munsil, Nappy's competitor. You can't make this stuff up.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Non_mooching_artist 3 years, 2 months ago
      Another interesting thing of note was that he mentioned 7 other cases of people I'm sure suing them, with the same grievances as you. Unfortunately, upheld in CCEC's favor.
      I assume you're still fighting them, and would think there are quite a few more in AZ doing the same.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 years, 2 months ago
        Nope. This issue is in my past. Nappy is long gone, leaving ample damage in her wake, and I cringe each time I hear them advertising how wonderful they are. I'm not a lawyer nor do I have the funds to sustain a legal challenge against what is essentially a collection of lawyers. I have voted to cancel this group when opportunity permits - those in my state don't see it the same way.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by salta 3 years, 2 months ago
    Freedom of speech means the right to disagree with something (nobody has to claim the right to agree).
    But saying it also means the right to not finance one's antagonists? Can somebody explain the logic of the relationship to freedom of speech. Obviously I agree that right follows naturally from property rights, but not from freedom of speech.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by  $  Maphesdus 3 years, 2 months ago
    Love it!

    One question, though: does it also include the right to publicly criticize and condemn one's own antagonists?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by  $  AJAshinoff 3 years, 2 months ago
      My understanding is that the Napolitano campaign (who was already awash in cash) submitted my site for review with the AZCEC. I would think that anyone who is running could submit a claim to the AZCEC about anyone else who is direct opposition and speaking against them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo