Here's a challenging website to get your mind around. Every now and then you run across something shocking when you're digging around the net.
Steve Harry. A Democrat running against incumbent Joan Bauer of the 68th District (most of Lansing itself, including highly unionized populaces in south Lansing).
But this is no usual Democratic race - Harry is anti-union. Very anti-union. More anti-union than I've ever been accused of being (and I have considerable respect for what unions did and sometimes continue to do - having grown up in a union household).
It's as if Harry has a death wish (sorry about the movie pun). In an interesting liberal context, here's what Harry writes:
First, I want to thank the nearly dozen folks who responded to my ads here, on RightMichigan.com, and on Facebook to go to Missouri to help out the petition drive. Of that group a handful took a week or two out of their schedules and traveled to Missouri.
Unfortunately, according to the Kansas City Star, the blockers from ACORN, unions, and even another paid petitioning firm, precluded the Ward Connerly inspired drive from achieving a comfortable enough margin to submit signatures. And without ridiculous margins - the powers that be will simply kick you off the ballot - so I presume a strategic decision was made not to try to push a close call in Missouri and spend money chasing it.
What it proves is how difficult petitioning has become - and it will require serious thought by our forces on how to regroup - but we can look to Michigan's own experience with optimism - we qualified for the November 2006 ballot only after being delayed by stalling legal actions in 2004. While I personally have not been formally employed in these efforts since early 2006, there are a number of Michiganders involved in the national movement who deserve our support. There are still active efforts in Nebraska and Arizona to get on the ballot - and Colorado has already qualified its initiative for the ballot.
I'm going to jump out on a bit of a limb here and critique corporate welfare in Holland. Why a limb? While I generally support Chambers of Commerce, they do occasionally hold their hand out for government goodies. In Holland, they're doing so, according to WOOD-TV here:
"Times are too tough in this area to ask for higher taxes right now," said Al Friend of Holland Area Taxpayers. "We disagree on how it should be funded. There are other airports in the state and the region and the nation that do not use local millages and grow."
Friend questions the necessity of the millage: the airport operational and making money. Millage supporters argue federal aviation money is at stake.
"For every two-and-a-half cents that you spend you can be eligible for 97-and-a-half cents in federal and state grants. But you have to raise the two-and-a-half cents," said Jim Storey of Jobs & Economy Team.
That's $384,000 annually for land acquisition, U.S. customs, and upgrading Tulip City Airport's 15-year old instrument landing system.
Storey said, "$1,975,000 of it would be paid for by the feds, and for $25,000 you get a state-of-the-art instrument landing system."
The airport is currently funded by fees and state and federal dollars - corporate users footing the bill for major improvements like extending the runway.
In a paid advertisement, supporters like Holland's Chamber of Commerce, Lakeshore Advantage and business leaders claim an up-to-date airport will maintain and attract new business and grow jobs in an increasingly competitive world economy.
You wonder why the Chamber is paying for an advertisement and campaign, rather than just raising the money. Why can't the local businesses and commercial and amateur aircraft owners and users pay for it? Why not raise some cash through good old-fashioned fundraising. I mean, if the benefit is really that great - if the leveraging of investment 25 to 1 - the Chamber should pony up and donate and encourage its members to donate. Then, if that's not enough - raise user fees enough to pay for the improvement - but not the general taxpayer.
Let's look at a different model occasionally for funding improvements. While an extra $10 a year for a homeowner might seem trivial - such taxes themselves have their own marginal economic and job effects.
Mayor of Detroit Kwame Kilpatrick - facing felony perjury charges - now faces an active petition to recall him, according to the Detroit News.
The Wayne County Election Commission -- county Clerk Cathy Garrett, Chief Probate Judge Milton Mack and county Treasurer Raymond Wojtowicz -- voted unanimously that Brown's language was clear enough to proceed.
The commission had rejected another petition from Brown this month.
The approved petition reads: "Kwame Kilpatrick is too preoccupied to be effective as mayor of Detroit with felony perjury charges."
The contrast betweent his and the petition against Andy Dillon is interesting, and it will be interesting to see whether any Democrats get behind doing the right thing in Detroit - something that should be bi-partisan and a consensus builder - but I suspect its going nowhere. Certainly, without money it won't succeed.
Kevin Elsenheimer is back in the 105th state house race, running now for his final term, after backing out of his bid for Michigan Court of Appeals. That effectively quashes the multi-person primary of interesting personalities - including Dennis Lennox of Central Michigan University videotaping fame, and John Ramsey, of national fame for being the father of murdered child Jon Benet Ramsey.
"Monkey". In reference to a human it is clearly a derogatory term subtending the thought inferior intelligence.
If a white person calls a black the term, it will create an explosion of charges of racism - and rightfully so. In historical context the term has been used to equate blacks with monkeys.
"MichiganLiberal" dot com [ed: we do not link to ML because they refuse to reciprocate even when referring to OutsideLansing work or its author in newsworthy situations] has not only repetitively used the term "monkeys" in referring to Drolet's team of individuals (which includes black circulators, although we're sure ML's owner, Eric Baerren, will claim ignorance of that and assert he thought he was only referring to white people), but it combined the phrase with a criticism of Drolet hiring "crackheads from Detroit". That latter phrase alone would have its own racial connotation (how do we know people "from Detroit" happen to be "crackheads", and the term itself is disrespectful to persons of lower economic status who happen to be addicted to crack), but combine it with "monkeys" and I have no problem calling out Mr. Baerren for repetitively using racist language and racial codewords.
Mr. Baerren has repetitively refused to allow us to comment on his website, exercising his private property (so-not-liberal as well, but we agree with him that he has that right) rights to restrict access. So I comment here. Mr. Baerren - are you courageous enough to admit your language is inappropriate and to amend your tone to a more civil discourse? Whether "monkey" is racist or not - its not civil discourse. And whether "crackheads" are addicts, bad people, or some combination thereof - the term shows no "liberal compassion".
I'm pretty sure I know the answer to that question.
"MichiganMessenger.com", a George Soros-funded entity, Rich Robinson, a left-leaning director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network have made false legal claims against Leon Drolet and his Michigan Recalls committee, accusing him of a felony.
Michigan Campaign Finance Act is an incredibly obtuse and winding maze of regulations, but this essay will demonstrate the error in their claims, which seem politically motivated to cast aspersion and doubt on Drolet's character. While one may disagree with Drolet's tactics generally, or specifically in this recall, false allegations have become par for the course.
First, Michigan Messenger reports it here, passing it off as "expert says" the law was violated. The "expert," of course, is Rich Robinson, who admittedly has done some good work for the non-profit Michigan Campaign Finance Network in the past, but has a reputation for being biased toward the left. Here, he flaunts the reputation with a sloppy allegation of an actual felony violation of the law.
Here's how Michigan Messenger parses Robinson's "clear" violation of the law:
According to the documents, the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance Foundation gave $11,000 to the Michigan Liberty Club, a political action committee (PAC) controlled by Drolet, on November 20, 2007.
Michigan Taxpayer Alliance Foundation, as well as Michigan Taxpayer Alliance and Michigan Recalls Organization and Michigan Liberty Club share the common address of 46116 Lookout Drive in Macomb. This is also the address listed for Leon Drolet's home residence on Michigan Recalls Organization.
The problem, says Rich Robinson, executive director of the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, is that the Michigan Taxpayer Alliance Foundation is listed as a corporation in Michigan said, "That makes its contribution to a PAC illegal."
Michigan Taxpayer Alliance Foundation is indeed listed in state records as a Michigan corporation. The listing says the group is a nonprofit, but a search on Guidestar.org brings up Americans for Prosperity as the listing for the group. The group is listed as both a 501(c)3, which is a tax-exempt charitable organization, meaning donations to it are tax deductible. The organizations' IRS filings show a parallel 501(c)4, which is a nonprofit charitable organization which is exempt from paying income tax on its fundraising efforts, however donations are not deductible.
Whether the organization is a (c)4 or a (c)3 designated organization, Robinson says, it is still a corporation and Michigan law is clear in banning corporate donations.
That link above to the law which is so "clear" takes you to this. I've added underlining of my own, and bracketed commentary.
MICHIGAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACT (EXCERPT) Act 388 of 1976
169.254 Contributions, expenditures, or volunteer personal services by corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization, or by persons acting for corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization; independent expenditures as to ballot questions; violation; penalty.
Sec. 54.
(1) Except with respect to the exceptions and conditions in subsections (2) and (3) and section 55, and to loans made in the ordinary course of business, a corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization shall not make a contribution or expenditure or provide volunteer personal services that are excluded from the definition of a contribution pursuant to section 4(3)(a)[ed: in this case, section 4-3a relates to food and volunteer-type services, so doesn't protect Drolet in this case - however, subsections (2) does protect Drolet].
(2) An officer, director, stockholder, attorney, agent, or any other person acting for a labor organization, a domestic dependent sovereign, or a corporation or joint stock company, whether incorporated under the laws of this or any other state or foreign country, except corporations formed for political purposes[plainly, a corproation called the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance Foundation was likely formed for a political purpose, hence, it is excepted through this section and no violation of the law has occurred], shall not make a contribution or expenditure or provide volunteer personal services that are excluded from the definition of a contribution pursuant to section 4(3)(a).
(3) A corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization may make a contribution to a ballot question committee subject to this act. A corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization may make an independent expenditure in any amount for the qualification, passage, or defeat of a ballot question. A corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization that makes an independent expenditure under this subsection is considered a ballot question committee for the purposes of this act.
(4) A person who knowingly violates this section is guilty of a felony punishable, if the person is an individual, by a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both, or, if the person is not an individual, by a fine of not more than $10,000.00.
As you can see from the bolded, italics, plainly, Drolet's organization, essentially donating money to itself given its political purpose, is within its rights to make this donation. Contrary to Michigan-(not-so)Libera's declaration that "Recall monkeys" (racist - see next story) are 'going to jail', the law is clearly on Drolet's side here.
Since the organizations are all controlled by Drolet, the "donating to itself" point carries a different legal resonance. Michigan campaign finance law has another section that identifies multiple entities and corporations under singular control, and treats them as one for limit purposes. This is interesting because the language also reinforces the notion that this particular "transfer" by Drolet - which appears to me an internal transfer of funds from the corporation to the PAC (both under the same individual's control, and which is the correct way to report the expenditure in a timely way) - also appears to protect Drolet. Follow:
(10) For purposes of the limitations provided in subsections (1) and (2), all contributions made by political committees or independent committees established by any corporation, joint stock company, domestic dependent sovereign, or labor organization, including any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department, or local unit thereof, shall be considered to have been made by a single independent committee. By way of illustration and not limitation, all of the following apply as a result of the application of this requirement.
(a) All of the political committees and independent committees established by a for profit corporation or joint stock company, by a subsidiary of the for profit corporation or joint stock company, or by any combination thereof, are treated as a single independent committee.
That clearly implies a corporation can create its own committee (PAC), it just may not donate to other PACs. Whether this segment of law "conflicts" with section 54 or not isn't clear - I'm not a lawyer - but MCFA is an arcane and winding maze of regulations that often contain such "loopholes" and this section at least reinforces the exception for political purpose corporations. It would seem a corporation could establish a PAC "for political purposes", and hence evade the corporate contribution ban. Indeed, there are hundreds of such beasts in Lansing doing business representing special interests. Regardless, Drolet's corporation was created for political purposes, unlike most for-profit entities, so it 's protected at the second level of analysis.
Robinson, after pointing out the $11,000 donation he questions, which is certainly worthy of serious concern based on the amount, then nitpicks two $25.00 donations by an RV company and a family held insurance company (which we do not know is incorporated).
Ironically, Robinson suggested there would be "backpedaling", and ironically he gives Drolet a backhanded compliment for "their transparency but not particularly their smarts":
In addition to the donation from Michigan Liberty Club, Michigan Recalls Organization shows a $25 donation for Breckenridge Insurance, 126 Eaton St., Breckridge Michigan. The filings also show a $25 donation from Kim Kinnie Eastside RV, Inc., 26288 Groesbeck Highway, Warren Michigan. Robinson said both are clearly violations of the law.
"You have to assume they reported this faithfully and they have essentially fingered themselves on it," said Robinson. "One must admire their transparency but not particularly their smarts."
"I suspect once you bring this up there will be some rapid backpedaling," Robinson said. "(The back pedaling will be) Something along the lines of 'oops wrong bank account.' I think for most people that is a serious amount of money."
That quote proves how arrogant and initially biased Robinson is on Drolet. In addition to having no evidence of knowledge or intent as required by law, Robinson himself either isn't reading the law or intentionally ignoring. "Fingered themselves" is also language that suggests bias and that Robinson badly wants to see a campaign finance violation here for a cause he probably loathes - but it just ain't there (except the two $25 donations, which are certainly trivial and certainly errors). Maybe his "smarts" are lacking? Maybe Robinson should be backpedaling?
A lot of people on both sides would be in jail if Robinson is right on Drolet. Come to think of it - that might not be a bad trade. Drolet in jail with 80% of all sitting members sitting next to him?
Regardless, Michigan Messenger and Rich Robinson got this one wrong. Bzzt. Next player.
Fulfilling a promise to campaign outside of the states that are normally considered within reach of Republican presidential candidates, John McCain will make an appearance in Rochester this Wednesday. A candidate well-respected among moderates and an election year in which the Democrats have been particularly bone-headed here in Michigan may put this normally blue state in play (the last time MI went for a Republican was in 1988, George HW Bush). I don't see how either of the Democrats could run a real 50 state campaign with any chance of success (though they have less to lose by trying since they are awash with dough). McCain, on the other hand might actually pull off some surprising upset victories...
Get this, for those who look to remove every risk from life. Exposure to germs at an early age reduces the risk of leukemia later in life. We've known for some time that exposure to germs reduced the risk of allergies later in life, but this study takes it a bit farther.
This is not to say you should massively expose your child to germs, or not have them practice cleanliness, which, in the long-run, is probably the single-largest explanatory variable for lifespan increases during the industrial revolution era. But an overly protective environment can be counter-productive too.
Now if only government could grasp that principle. There's a fine line between reasonable pre-caution (or regulation) and obsessive levels that stunt growth (economic or human).
Stay tuned - we're working on a FOIA exclusive on stem cell science at - guess where - U-Michigan. The results - or more tellingly - the precisely located lack of results - is likely to (re-)prove some very interesting points.
Great story in reporting terms by Chris Christoff and Dawson Bell of the Detroit Free Press providing tons of details on the Andy Dillon recall effort be lead by the Wayne County Taxpayers Association.
In the meantime, the Detroit News details how Andy Dillon hired convicted armed robber and thug to obstruct the recall effort. The Democratic Party humorously says there's "nothing illegal" about hiring a felon:
Party spokeswoman Liz Kerr acknowledged that Marcel L. Mitchell -- who has been convicted eight times of armed robbery, gun charges and other offenses since 1990 -- was hired to inform residents about the Redford Township lawmaker's voting record. She said there's nothing illegal about hiring Mitchell, who got out of prison last year and is on parole.
Foes will file petitions with the state May 1 to recall House Speaker Andy Dillon, they announced Tuesday. Leon Drolet, who leads the Michigan Taxpayer Alliance, says the group has more than enough of the required 8,724 signatures to put the issue on the Aug. 5 primary ballot. Dillon, a Redford Township Democrat, is under fire for playing a key role in a budget-balancing bailout that resulted in $1.4 billion in new taxes. A spokeswoman for the Democratic Party said it will challenge the validity of the signatures.
If true, its only the beginning of a lot of rhetoric about the way the signatures were gathered, and a number of other issues.
You may hate Leon Drolet. You may love taxes. But most of us still want that First Amendment, and when we exercise our right to speech or protest, we shouldn't have to pay for it just because some dork in city government thinks we might "need protection," or get "out of control."
If we get out of control during a demonstration, the police should document the unlawful behavior and then make you pay for the consequences. For example, when BAMN protestors flipped over a table in 2005 during a Board of Canvassers meeting, or broke windows at the Michigan Hall of Justice housing the Supreme Court, they should have been made to pay both for the damage and the incidental increased police presence brought on by their lawlessness. But they were on the "right side" of the issue according to the elite power structure (even though 58% of the people of Michigan disagreed with that structure), and there was no way they were going to be made to "pay" for what they cost the state.
Lawful protest doesn't mean the city should be able charge you for it. But Redford Township Supervisor Miles Handy not only wants to, but actually plans to send Leon Drolet a "bill", somewhere less than $10,000, because he chose to protest in Redford.
No arrests. The protest was peaceful. Leon didn't ask for extra police coverage. Send him a bill? You might as well shred the Constitution and send him the paper chips with it, Mr. Handy.
One report claims Dillon had three times as many folks at his pig roast across the street (I don't know - I wasn't at either event). If so, Mr. Dillon needs to receive a bill from the Township Supervisor and police for 3 times the amount sent to Drolet's group. The Equal Protection Clause demands it.
And for those on the left who revel in hating Leon Drolet - maybe he's wrong. But that's his right. Think about whether you want to receive a bill next time you want to protest something. I implore those on the left to draw a line on this one. Standing up for your opponents First Amendment rights -when they are actually in play (they aren't when they initiate violence or use "any means necessary") is the most American of things to do. If you don't, don't be surprised when the governmental beast you helped create suppresses you.
I rarely do the "action alert" thing, but here's how you reach Mr. Handy. I recommend the phone for this one. Be polite and professional, but tell him he's wrong on this one. Let us know you did, either by cc'ing us or a note here.
SUPERVISOR'S OFFICE Redford Town Hall - second floor 15145 Beech Daly, Redford, Michigan, 48239
REDFORD TOWNSHIP - An anti-tax group planning a protest this evening at the Redford Post Office was notified Tuesday that township officials plan to deploy police to maintain order during the demonstration and will send them the bill.
Redford Township Supervisor Miles Handy said police protection was required to maintain order on what is perhaps the busiest day of the year – tax filing day – at the post office on Beech Daly Rd. Handy said the groups sponsoring the demonstration, the Wayne County Taxpayers Association and Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, are “outside protestors.”
“We plan to send them a bill for orchestrating an event and costing Redford Township precious resources,” Handy said. The precise cost will be tallied later, but is likely to be under $10,000, he said.
Leon Drolet, director of the Michigan Taxpayers group, said the township’s threat to send a bill was outrageous and unconstitutional, but not unexpected.
When you get the nasty robocall against you or your candidate, its a sign that they are taking you seriously and you are getting your own message out.
Just such a sign appeared this week, with a police lobbying organization (some of the groups are good, legitimate advocates for law enforcement, but there's a maze of them and some are just political shills that use the name "police" and "association". I really don't know much about MAPO (POAM is more well-known), but they've decided to enter the fray in the Andy Dillon recall effort.
A transcript was sent to OutsideLansing.com this morning. Here's what voters in Redford are being subjected to by automated telephone calls.
Hello, this is Rich Wyler, president of the Michigan Association of Police Organizations, the state's largest law enforcement group. An extremist group is circulating petitions to recall State Representative Andy Dillon. Troopers and officers across the state support Andy Dillon and urge you not to sign a recall petition. These paid out-of-towners are using illegal and deceptive tactics to get you to sign. Don't let them get away with it. The Michigan Association of Police Organizations strongly opposes a recall and we urge you not to sign a recall petition.
Of course, "deceptive" is in the eye of the beholder, but "illegal"? You'd think police officers of all people would know the law and know that you don't accuse people of illegal tactics without evidence.
I challenge Mr. Wiley to produce the evidence of illegal tactics his message asserts. Perhaps he has some - but let's see it. Regardless, these types of charges have become "playbook" for petition-blockers, and aren't surprising.
But Leon Drolet's efforts have earned the dreaded robo-call response, and that suggests the Dillon forces believe he's close. I have no real idea how close the recall is - but I suspect its like all such things. Right on the boundary of success and failure. Recalls are hard, but possible.
Rarely does this site do pitches for advertisers, but Ward Connerly's special to us. Yes, I worked for him in the past - but this site is an activist site in addition to providing original investigative news and opinion analysis. And Ward Connerly certainly has relevance to Michigan - even though the battle is currently joined in Missouri. And National Review Online considers Ward's "call to action" news as well, over at the Corner.
At right, I've created a clickable banner ad at the right while the offer lasts. Ward realizes that when he asks people to work they need at least some compensation - even while they are ideologically motivated. Even left-wing petitioners and blockers pay their people - and in Missouri, the blockers are getting heavily paid, or are permanently payrolled union and BAMN thugs. The anti-equality forces are throwing all they can at Ward, and he needs committed individuals to go to Missouri to help him collect signatures. Missouri is a "non-residency" state, so anyone can petition. And Ward's PAYING TRAVEL and you can easily make a thousand or more a week.
A few posts back we mentioned Paul Jacob in a post about why Ward Connerly failed to gather enough signatures in Oklahoma for his Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative (OkCRI) effort, modeled after the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) and its predecessors in Washington and California.
Ward failed largely because Paul Jacob, a leader of the 1990s Term Limits movement, was indicted for a 10 year felony in Oklahoma during the middle of Connerly's group's drive last fall. Sure, there were other reasons as there are always a thousand things that can go wrong, but this was the main one. The Attorney General of Oklahoma, Drew Edmondson was (IS) using Paul Jacob as a signal. Sacrifice him at the altar and the blood will be a symbol to scare every future sane petitioner and petition management company.
Jacob, a nationally syndicated columnist now, also talks about term-limits and the process of "annointing" candidates based on "electability" in this TownHall.com column. "Electability" and winning previous races as a "resume" qualifier to offices is used at all levels - while I do think "experience" is important, we need to be careful what we define as "experience." "Government experience" is necessarily what I want of my state representatives - in fact, it can be a bad thing. Do I want Lansing insiders running Lansing - or people who THINK FOR THEMSELVES. I'd rather have small business owners and even successful boardroom leaders, just to name a few. You might ask yourself then why this blog is named OUTSIDE-Lansing?
The Washington Post's Fact-checker has just exposed the latest whopper from the Clinton campaign. Speaking in Missoula Montana, Senator Clinton said "Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote (referring to 1920 ed.). So who says men don't vote for a woman?". Rankin, a Republican, was elected to Congress 2 years after Montana women secured the right to vote. For this, she was awarded two Pinocchios.
If you are anywhere near or in Ottawa County, you should make it abundantly clear that this shouldn't stand. The County Road Commission believes it has found a law from 1909 that would allow it to levy a new road millage WITHOUT A VOTE.
Sure. Flies in the face of the people's 1978 Constitutional amendment - known as the Headlee Amendment - to require votes of the people before new local taxes are implemented. It's hard to fathom the legal theory.
But let's give the County some practical theory. Raise some stink over there.
At least one sane person in government realizes the problem with the idea:
Ed Noyola, deputy director of the Lansing-based County Road Association of Michigan, said Ottawa County should avoid using the old law. It's important to be honest and upfront with county residents in difficult economic times, he said.
"It's just better to go to the people," Noyola said. "I think it's more successful and you get better opportunities to explain what you are going to do with the money."
The Holland Sentinel, again, provides that gemmer. Below is the full text of the article, or linked, because its so important. I'm keen on hearing the legal theory of how a law trumps Michigan Constitutional amendments, but alas, I may lack the creativity to understand it.
It's nice to see Leon Drolet's Michigan Taxpayer's Alliance protest will be held outside Lansing this year. On the steps of the Redford post office from 5-7pm on April 15. That's the frontlines of the Dillon recall battle, where WDIV TV recently caught Dillon staffers "blocking" recall gatherers on government time.
Well, their own expert admitted there was no good definition of hate speech (true). And a courage citizen of Grand Rapids called the Commission out for trying to "drum up" complaints, recalling a 3 year old discliplinary proceeding at Grand Valley relating to one of those evil "affirmative action bake sales" (I recall blogging it on Zarko Research, which, for readers, I apologize is temporarily down for refurb).
We criticized the Commission for this meeting weeks before it occurred because they said they were exploring where the "line" between "hate speech" and "free speech" was. I don't remember that line in my trustee copy of the Constitution.
Paulette Granberry-Russell, director of the Office of Inclusion at MSU, said it was easier for colleges to prosecute hate speech once it constituted harassment of individual students.
"Where's the definition of hate speech?" Granberry-Russell said. "If there is one, I haven't found it yet."
Event organizers said the commission meets at a variety of locations and didn't choose GVSU as a forum location for any particular reason. But a 2005 incident, in which the GVSU college Republicans lost their funding after an "affirmative action bake sale," was referenced by panelists and audience members several times.
Donald Zerial, a Grand Rapids resident, submitted a letter to the commission in which he said he was disturbed that the commission was trying to seek out victims of hate speech, almost three years after the bake sale incident.
Go Donald Zerial. Must be that last name beginning with Z.
Don't go into a gun fight with knives is an old piece of wisdom. Perhaps it was invented in the old West or even Oklahoma.
Today, Ward Connerly's group in Oklahoma withdrew its application to the Oklahoma Supreme Court to consider roughly 141,000 signatures for a ballot proposal similar to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (see the Chronicle of Higher Education here, or the Tulsa World here). They need roughly 139,000 valid signatures, which is way too slim of a margin given that some signatures are people have moved, made errors in filling technical parts out, or otherwise rejected for technical reasons. So Connerly did the right thing and withdrew, rather than trying to squeeze out the signatures in a protracted legal battle that would have cost the taxpayer (and Ward) more money.
I'm sure my some (but a surprising number won't) not-so-liberal (anti-vote, anti-equality) "liberal" readers will send up three cheers, but I'm going to provide a post-mortem for both them and conservatives. While I'm not in the direct "loop" of the 5 state effort, I'm certainly one of the very few observers with the insight of 3 plus years of work for MCRI and many years of observing the issue. The failure of the Oklahoma initiative was therefore not surprising to me once I saw the numbers submitted.
The biggest reason this drive failed is that Ward walked into a thermonuclear weapon fight in Oklahoma, where a fascist dictator of an Attorney General named Drew Edmondson (Democrat) had created a chilling environment in October 2007 by arresting three petition coordinators from a 2005 effort and charging them the ever-so-flexible "conspiracy to defraud the state" charge, a 10 year felony. They're known as the Oklahoma 3 now, while their trial proceeds, and include well-known libertarian petition circulator Paul Jacob (most known for engineering a number of Term Limits drives in the 1990s).
Jacob's crime? Helping organize a TABOR-style petition - a taxpayer protection law. Every elite on the planet - or in Oklahoma - was threatened, and far more than MCRI, which of perhaps more hated but less critical to elite pocketbooks. And while TABOR can reasonably be debated as good or bad public policy, they collected almost 100,000 signatures more than necessary. But the Oklahoma system of verification rides on a "referee" appointed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, and he threw it off, citing some signatures alleged gathered by non-state residents. The petition firm had followed instructions of the Oklahoma Secretary of State in accepting gatherers who recently moved into Oklahoma and declared residency (the SoS office told them that anyone could become a resident). The referee rejected a number of signatures on the grounds that those declaring residency must "intend" to live in Oklahoma pretty much forever, and even rejected signatures of people who had moved and were still in Oklahoma and reachable at the time of the review.
But the reason was irrelevant. Had it not been that, it would have been something else. Some other reason. Because the establishment was threatened. And ultimately that is why Oklahoma went the way it did for OkCRI.
So Jacob and the local group he was assisting were thrown off the ballot. You'd think the victory would be enough for the left. But after two years, and after OkCRI was declared a goal by Connerly and other drive possibilities appeared on the horizon, the Attorney General decided he could both send a message to future petitioners and make it impossible for those on the street (by chilling even the signature gatherers).
Jacob's battle continues, and involves both federal and state Constitutional questions. It is one of the front lines in a long-term battle over petitioning rights. But it also means Connerly's group faced an uphill battle, and no doubt that they thought they had brought some guns to the fight but realized that in Oklahoma you need really big guns in the fight against the bureaucracy controlled by a nepotistic "old boys" club (most of organs of state government are blue, despite the "redness" of its presidential votes) that dates back to the era old south (when the Democrats were the true racists of Jim Crow).
So I implore my freedom-minded readers to keep an eye on the Jacob story, and remind readers that MCRI itself wasn't smooth going and faced its own temporary road blocks and wouldn't be worried about a single-temporary setback. Still, on that note, it is very likely that the decision to proceed with 5 states this year might have been a bit of a stretch, and that there were organizational things that could have been done better. In every failure there are lessons to be learned to improve the chances for success. These petition drives are very, very hard things, and the boundary between success and failure, even when large numbers are submitted, can be just a tiny input or factor.
