On June 10, U.S. District Court Judge Melissa Damian, a Biden appointee, enjoined a new Florida law requiring local elected officials to disclose (1) their net worth; (2) the value of their household goods; (3) a description of assets and liabilities of at least $1,000; (4) every source of income in excess of $1,000 along with the name and address of the source of that income. Loper v Lukis, s.d., 1:24cv-20604.
Here is the order. Thanks to the Institute for Free Speech for the link. While the case had been pending, hundreds of local elected officials had said they would resign if the law weren’t overthrown.
Adding more rules for ethics and transparency was a response for the out of control public corruption rampant in Florida. Only reducing the power of government is the answer, not more rules to be ignored.
I’m all for government transparency, but this crosses into the ridiculous.
Campaign finance and personal finance disclosure requirements actually discourage honest people from running for office. The dishonest candidates simply lie about all their assets and sources of income.
Excellent point.
THE 666 DEEP STATE WANTS MORE/MORE INFO/CONTROL –
SEE OLDE 1960S BRIT TV SERIES THE PRISONER.
** POOR** OFFICIALS TO GET MORE BRIBES/THREATS ???
https://www.thedailybeast.com/washington-post-chief-will-lewis-new-editor-rob-winnett-decides-not-to-join
WAPO ROT- *RAT BOY*.
HOW MANY WAPO TROLL MORONS / RATS / MOLES ???
Judge Damian would also like officials to include the blue prints of their house, any modifications that may have been made, a map of where each of their valuables is kept, the combination to their safe, the precise details of any firearm they either own or may be on premises, a schedule for when nobody is likely to be home, their social security number, their credit card number and their PIN /s
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2024/06/21/gop-convention-security-will-allow-guns-within-outer-perimeter-sets-parade-route-for-demonstrators/74170705007/
MILWAUKEE GOP CONVENTION WAR ZONE
CIVIL WAR II TO START THERE ???
I recall some years ago that Howard Stern was thinking of running for Governor of New York as the candidate of the Libertarian Party, but withdrew just before the state convention because he would have had to report significant information about his private employment and business contracts.
Nunya and Walter: yep!
Actually, on second read, Judge Damian enjoined the law, so it’s the legislature and Gov DeSanctimonious aka little d who want all that.
In DeSantis’ defense, I voted for him for Governor twice in the primary and twice in the general election, and would a third time, much as I did and will with Trump for President in the primary and Trump for President in the general election. Neither one is anything like perfect.
Howard Stern is a communist, not a libertarian.
Ssm: nevertheless, he was at one point a Libertarian candidate for Governor of NY.
He announced his candidacy on March 22, 1994. The LPNY assembled to nominate a candidate on April 23 that year, and Stern received 287 votes on the first ballot, ahead of Ostrowski, who was in second place with 34. 381 votes in total were cast.
Two days later, Stern withdrew from consideration. The stated reason was that the state’s financial disclosure requirements violated the nondisclosure terms of his contract with his employer. Stern sued over the state law, and lost.
Stern planned to reinstate the death penalty, remove highway tolls to improve traffic flow, and limit road work to graveyard shifts hours. Stern announced that once those three goals were accomplished, he would resign and pass the governorship to his lieutenant. I agree that these are good communist goals.
In the general election, Stern backed Republican Pataki over the Cuomosexual Democrat nominee, much as any good communist comrade should. Republicans are better than Democrats, because they will marginally accelerate the crisis of capitalism predicted by Marx vis a vis Democrats.
Unfortunately, Stern has backslid in his revolutionary communist thinking at some point in the last 30 years, which may have had something to do with his divorce from Alison Berns in 2001, his marriage to Beth Ostrovsky in 2008, how rich he has become, substance abuse, age related degenerative brain disease, blackmail, or other unknown factors, and is currently backing Joseph Biden for President over Donald Trump, the true candidate of revolutionary communists.
@Alien invaders are poisoning our nation’s blood
Nothing to do with good old DeSantis, who unlike RINO Trump has not sold out and betrayed his voters.
But rather the result of “bipartisan” RINOs in Florida’s senate: https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/774/BillText/er/PDF
Nuna,
As Governor, he has a veto pen. If it’s a new law, as this article and others state, it wouldn’t have become law without his signature. I suppose, without looking it up further, it’s possible there was a veto override, but given the composition of the Florida legislature, that’s quite unlikely.
In any case, I think you have to agree with Mr. Blood that Judgess Damian is not to blame here, since she enjoined the law, not inspired or enabled it.
My voting history and plans are, in the described aspects, the same as Mr. Blood’s, but I’ll probably switch my voter registration to Georgia again, since it’s much more likely to be a November battleground than Florida.
I own property in adjacent parts of both states, and spend enough time at my houses in each to plausibly domicile in whichever one I want to vote in in any given election, much like many of my family and friends.
Voting in Georgia was not usually very tempting prior to 2020, other than in runoffs. In 2000, I was one of those Florida voters whose vote for Patrick Buchanan was not due to any accidental misinterpretation of ballot design and which I do not regret in retrospect.
As with Mr. Trump and Mr. DeSantis, I supported Mr. Buchanan every opportunity I had, whether as an author or candidate, in a primary or general election.
The one time Trump and Buchanan were up against each other, for the Reform Party nomination in 2000, I greatly preferred Buchanan. I voted for Gary Bauer in the Republican Primary, Pat Buchanan at the Reform Party convention, and Pat Buchanan in November. I think Trump withdrew from the Reform Party in February. Had he stayed in, I’d have still much preferred Pat Buchanan.
Trump has become much better since then, and, I think, us still getting better and better. I realize we disagree on this, but I’m OK with that, and don’t particularly want to argue about it.
I was going to argue and say that I thought it was more likely that DeSantis’ veto was overridden than that he would have signed the bill. But a quick search suggests that he was indeed actually that stupid/evil: https://www.flgov.com/2023/05/11/governor-desantis-signs-thirty-seven-bills/
Worse still, it seems that of the only two house representatives who voted against it, only one was Republican, the other being Democrat; and of the five senators who voted against it, all were Democrats:
https://floridapolitics.com/archives/611685-gov-desantis-signs-bill-expanding-financial-disclosure-requirements-for-local-officials/
What is going on in Florida? Truly, it is once again “the California of the east-coast”.
As for Buchanan, I can sort of see the appeal, but his anti-semitism is a complete deal-breaker for me (much like Michael Peroutka, Chuck Baldwin and now Michael Rectenwald), and his attempts to excuse the banderite Ivan Demyanyuk’s crimes during the Holocaust are unforgivable.
But considering his age and relevance, arguing about Buchanan serves even less purpose than arguing about Trump, so having expressed my opinion about him too, I also am happy to let the matter rest at that.
Nephew: play stupid games, win stupid prizes. I eschew commenting at that site due to their propensity for censorship.
Uncle, your decision is respectable and sensible. Mine is different, due primarily to that little matter you’re well aware of. It’s not a stupid game for me, for reasons elaborating which would be far outside the scope of what some participants and lurkers should know. The prizes, however, are admittedly becoming of diminishing value and increasing difficulty, as in any well digging/pumping or mining enterprise. I’m learning things as I go, to put it succinctly.
In the particular discussion in question, the esteemed host in question has quite
…stubbornly dug in his heels, regarding his statement:
“On the bright side, I spotted a Presidential poll that included Chase Oliver. It was a bit odd in that it skipped Kennedy. It included Stein. It did not include West or the Constitution Party candidate, so it was a four-way poll.”
Indeed, his stubbornness has now extended to not approving the above quoted two comments, in addition to others which were just as politely worded.
The discussion in question, if anyone is curious, is at
https://thirdpartywatch.com/2024/06/11/mcardle-appoints-reconciliation-committee/
Repeated, polite, and tremendously reasonable inquiries as to why he names every other candidate individually, and only Randall Terry by party, were met with stonewalling and disapproval, as in not being published, much less answered.
I took pains to point out I was not implying malice, to no avail. I even asked that whatever portions of my comments would meet the inscrutable and apparently capricious publication standards be published, exciting whatever for any reason might be impermissible, likewise to no avail.
This morning, the increasingly less esteemed host passive aggressively replied to an unpublished comment of mine stemming from the above in this manner:
“a complete list of known Presidential candidates, see https://politics1.com/p2024.htm
There are, it appears, several hundred of them. If you want to list them in some order, you get to choose where to quit listing, knowing that there are many more to go. Or you get tired of typing, knowing that the remainder will feel ignored.”
The reply was so oblique that I didn’t realize at the time that it was even a reply to me at all, and wasted time composing a lengthy, polite, and entirely reasonable reply on that comment’s own terms. My reply didn’t even obliquely reference any party or candidates by name . It was likewise not approved.
Tl; Dr – upshot, at this point, I must regrettably conclude you are correct – the experiment has reached its conclusion, given the intentional pigheaded passive aggressive obstinate rudeness and intentional ignorance of that “esteemed” host.
It’s his playground, the rules are entirely at his capricious whim, so unfortunately, it is indeed a stupid game at this point, even given the matter I don’t discuss here.
‘Tis a shame, for reasons I won’t mention.
Uncle – your reply was in the wrong thread here. I didn’t notice until now , so my replies to you were consequently also in the wrong thread. My apologies to others for my error, not for my uncle’s, as apologies for his aren’t mine to offer.
For anyone curious, the replies starting with my uncle at 7:07 were meant for
https://ballot-access.org/2024/06/21/if-cnn-debate-criteria-had-existed-in-a-hypothetical-june-debate-in-1996-ross-perot-would-not-have-qualified/#comments
Which I’ll now try to transfer over.
I somehow missed 6:34 pm yesterday until now.
The most succinct answer I can think of is that in real world politics, ie where people actually get elected to legislature, governor, congress, president, etc, things are not nearly as black and white as you paint them. More like 50 shades of grey, which is terrible fiction, but sadly, the real world of politics is at least as imperfect, as is everyone in it.
That’s already getting linger than I meant it to be.
Longer
@7:56 pm transferred, and added/might add more updates.