Local ACLU Supports Measure T Lawsuit
The Redwood Chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union sent out a press release yesterday blasting Measure T and at least one of its proponents. Oh, they also support the current lawsuit against against it. That's the way I read it, anyway. You can read the release on their web site.
Way to go, ACLU!
*******
Addendum: I notice there's a disclosure in the ACLU release saying that Stephen Davies is on their board and he recused himself from voting on this issue since he's Kaitlin S-P's opponent in the water board election. Hmmm???I mentioned elsewhere that I'd probably vote for Kaitlin S-P in that race since she voted against water fluoridation. I wonder how Davies feels on the issue?
Over at Heraldette's blog, I got the impression Davies supported fluoridation, but that might have been because some were jeering Kaitlin S-P because she opposed it. I took an attack on her as meaning Davies supported fluoridation. No way of knowing if that's true.
When I think about it, Kaitlin's opposition to fluoride is likely more because she sees it as some sort of corporate conspiracy, not as a matter off choice. Could be wrong about that, though.
But, it looks like Davies likely opposes Measure T as a matter of legal principle. Kaitlin, of course, is outspoken in her support of Measure T, for whatever reasons.
I'll have to take another look at this race as things develop although I guess, as far as the water district goes, fluoride might be the more pertinent issue. I'm not sure.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 6:55 AM
24 comments
24 Comments:
HELL YEAH!
Now it's that much more difficult for the Measure T fanatics like Kaitlin/David Cobb to pigeonhole their critics as a bunch of Republicans.
These Democracy Limited types have no real respect for free speech, and its about time such a respected organization said as much.
Um, Fred, don't you mean "supports Measure T lawsuit" on this?
I'm pretty sure they're AGAINST Measure T, as most intelligent people are.
Ooops! How could I miss something like that? Oh well, fixed. Thanx.
As I remember, Davies stayed out of the Measure T fight -- probably because he didn't want to be subjected to the vicious personal attacks Kaitlin/David Cobb spewed at any and all opponents to their absurd and unconstitutional measure.
But he's running against the Democracy Limited/Loco Solutions machine now, so we'll be hearing comparisons of him to Charles Hurwitz and Jefferson Davis any day now, you can bet on that.
Unbelievable! The opposite of what I expected. I saw the email with ACLU and Measure T and never imagined that they were taking THIS position.
I think that Gregory Allen is a member of ACLU, and he was very much against Measure T.
Yes, Greg Allen was an outspoken Measure T opponent. We need to remember that a lot of issues the ACLU deals with are dealt with locally. I wouldn't be surprised that some ACLU chapters in the state would support Measure T, although I don't see how they could justify that support.
I don't know that other chapters feel that way, I'm just saying it's possible since locally run organizations might differ from other branches on issues. It depends on the people involved.
Kind of like the League of Women Voters: We're fortunate up here that our LOWV hosts forums where all candidates, regardless of political party, are invited. I've been told there are some counties in the state where LOWV only invites Dem and Rep candidates.
Thanks for your support, Fred...so have you renewed your ACLU membership?
Just kidding, we welcome the plaudits from members and non-members alike. You're all welcome to the election reform forum we're planning for after Nov. 4th. Let's work together on some real solutions!
Oh, and happy Constitution Day!
Please be sure to get out the info on the election reform forum. I'll be there for sure. I think there's a much more common sense approach to that then dogs like Measure T.
I don't think there's a single ACLU chapter in the entire state which would support Measure T. Remember, the ACLU is all about free speech, not blind obedience to Cobb/Kaitlin's anti-business agenda.
The ACLU deserves our collective thanks for having the courage to step forward on this issue.
I will personally work after Nov 4, and the business community will join me, in collaborating with the ACLU and other stakeholders to craft meaningful campaign finance reform. Here is my suggested starting position:
** $500 cap in city council races
** $750 cap in special district races
** $1,000 cap in mayoral races
** $1,500 cap in countywide races (supervisor, sheriff, DA, etc.)
** Races in which there is a primary and runoff, the caps apply to each election cycle (one cap in the primary, and another in the runoff)
** Husbands and wives can't "stack" donations.
** Employees and employers can
** Union members and their union can
** In-kind and auction donations, I am open to a reasonable solution.
Make no mistake ... the devil is in the details, but working together I am sure we can craft a reasonable ordinance that applies to ALL
Anyone just hear Greg Allen on KMUD News? He just knocked this one out of the park. It's about free speech, not the make-believe heroics of DUHC.
If you vote for Kaitlin because of Flouride and ignore what she is about and what she stands for, you are part of the problem. Sorry, Fred. This is the woman who brought you Measure T - and this is someone who is a big part of what is wrong with our system up here right now.
You can deal with the Flouride later - it's been there most all of your life, if not all. It can wait.
There should be a dead bang cap on unaccounted cash donations.
Anything over, say $2000 per race goes to the food bank or other local charity.
Chris and whomever else,if the ACLU doesn't support Measure T then they shouldn't support any contribution limitations,as by their own accord it would be a restriction on free speech.As a matter of fact,they should declare that Arcata's limitation ordinance is unconstitutional as well,and should back any lawsuit against that.
Rose wrote, "This is the woman who brought you Measure T - and this is someone who is a big part of what is wrong with our system up here right now.".
What does Measure T have to do with being on a water district board?
I agree Kaitlin has done a lot of bad things in general but, as far as her water district duties, fluoride is pertinent. I'd rather have someone on the board that would vote against fluoride than someone who believes or doesn't believe in abortion, if you understand the connection.
I am a card-carrying member of the ACLU and a Guardian of Liberty with the national UCLU. However, when we called our local Redwood chapter about a local matter, our phone call was never returned.
I don't understand the connection.
I'm saying that, if I'm voting for a someone running for a water board, I should be considering issues related to water. Fluoridating water is a water issue. Measure T and abortion aren't related to water.
I'm sure Kaitlin has done a lot of bad things. I don't know that having a seat on the water board is one of them, at least not from what heard so far.
Well Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap was the one on the Water Board who had the inspired idea of installing motion-sensor water cannons around the Water District building to hose down the homeless.
I wonder which Green value wasting water and furthering the suffering of the poor falls under?
Now that's an issue that is pertinent to being on a water board.
Thanks to Chris and Rose and Fred and Mark and the anony-folks who've voice their appreciation so far -- and yes, you'll all be invited to the election reform forum, which we haven't nailed a date down for yet.
The ACLU has no position on fluoride, nor on the candidates for HBMWD. As a non-partisan organization, we don't take positions on candidates for any office, so this is to be expected.
On Arcata's contribution cap, while the ACLU was neutral on the idea and would probably continue to be neutral, it is our understanding that the Arcata law, as other laws of that sort, have thus far met constitutional muster.
One thing we know for sure -- caps on candidate contributions are not the same thing as caps on donations for or against ballot initiatives. While the ACLU could simply release its members to do as they wished on the candidate contribution cap, we'd very likely be in opposition to a dollar cap on giving in regards to ballot initiatives. Remember, the ACLU of Northern California is often directly engaged in supporting or opposing measures on the state ballot. We don't want our own free speech rights restricted in these efforts.
Here's the link to today's story about the CCPOA's plan to recall the governor with whom they're locked in a salary dispute. It's relevant because Measure T would allow them to contribute in Humboldt County with no spending limit while local corporations with even one employee are barred from any contributions. http://www.sacbee.com/102/story/1246943.html
Good point, hans.
Post a Comment
<< Home