Site Meter

Archive for September 17th, 2012

Share

Ann Ravel1 California FPPCs Ann Ravel Backs Off Blogger Campaign Disclosure

California FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel

You remember the FLAP, that was resolved some months ago.

But, Ann Ravel and the California FPPC are considering new regulations which, by the way, will not apply to this year’s elections.

Here is the Agenda:

IP_Agenda_20120918_2

And, here is the Notice with background information:

Notice18421.5

Here is the exact language of the proposed regulation(s):

18421.5-1

Now, two influential California bloggers, one from the Left, Steve Maviglio, The California Majority Report and one from the Right, Jon Fleischman, The Flash Report have written a critical letter to the FPPC regarding the proposed regulation.

Here is the letter:

18421 5 Comment Letter 9-18-2012

You know I don’t know how I stand on the proposed regulation(s) and I will have to chew on this awhile. I certainly see both sides of this argument and there undoubtedly will have to be a legal analysis completed on whether the California FPPC really has the jurisdiction to regulate this type of speech.

My initial reaction is that the do not have the jurisdiction and FPPC Chairperson Ravel’s approach is an overreach of her and the FPPC’s Constitutional authority. Plus, the campaigns already have the obligation to report expenditures and because they may be hard to ferret out of the mass of data, is that really a blogger’s fault.

And, what about campaign workers tweeting or Facebook statusing a link – how about a photo at a campaign event? Do you have to file a form?

Then, there are the newspapers and their online reporters and columnists?

So, I will reserve FINAL judgment.

As I have never received any payment from a campaign for what I have published on my blog sites, this will have little or no affect on me – at least for now.

I look forward to the discussion of the issue, knowing full well that this will have NO effect on this year’s election and there will be court tests (if the regulation language is adopted) prior to 2014.

Share
Tags: ,

Comments Comments Off on California FPPC to Consider Regulations for Reporting an Expenditure for Paid Online Communications

Share

No on California Proposition 37The California Proposition 37 media campaign has begun.

From the press release:

The No on 37 campaign today launched its first statewide radio ad which highlights the many flaws and costs of Prop 37. In particular, the radio spot points out that Prop 37 was written by trial lawyers for the benefit of trial lawyers, and that it would add more government bureaucracy and red tape that will increase costs to taxpayers and consumers.

“Proposition 37 is not a simple measure, despite what proponents claim,” said Jamie Johansson, an Oroville farmer who grows olives to make olive oil. Mr. Johansson also is second vice president of the California Farm Bureau Federation.. “It’s a deceptive, special-interest measure that will have far-reaching negative consequences on consumers, taxpayers, farmers, grocers, small businesses and every Californian.”

The Sacramento Bee identified similar problems when it urged a NO vote on Prop. 37 on Sunday, saying, Prop. 37 is “… an overreach, is ambiguous, and would open the way for countless lawsuits against retailers who sell food that might lack the proper labeling.”
“Prop. 37 is about the right to sue,” said Ronald K. Fong, president, California Grocers Association. “And when it is time to sue, grocery retailers will be at the head of the line to get hit with a lawsuit. Lawyers need no proof, no damages prior to filing the lawsuit. H ow is that good policy? Consumers don’t benefit from shakedown lawsuits, the only group Prop. 37 benefits is trial lawyers.”

The radio ad, beginning Monday, will air statewide.

Here is the ad:

[youtube]http://youtu.be/0prG2KdP6uY[/youtube]

The latest polls I saw had Proposition 37 passing by a wide margin, but are California voters apt to vote yes when these ads run?

I am positive in the next few weeks, as early and absentee voting starts in California, the No on Proposition 37 folks will also go on television.

Stay tuned…..

Share
Tags:

Comments 2 Comments »

Share

Joseph Mercola

“Doctor” Joseph Mercola on the Left who has donated at least $1.1 million to support California Proposition 37

The Los Angeles Times this morning and “LEFTY” Sockpuppet writer Michael Hiltzik, no less, have a piece up decrying California Proposition 37.

You remember the issue, right?

From the Times:

Love it or hate it, the one thing you can say for sure about California’s ballot initiative process is that it’s the absolute worst way to craft policy dealing with complex scientific issues.

That doesn’t stop advocates on one side or another from constantly trying, with the result that the public’s understanding of the underlying facts plummets faster than you can say, well, “Proposition 37.”

Proposition 37 is on November’s ballot. The measure would require some, but not all, food sold in California and produced via genetic engineering to be labeled as such. (There are exemptions for milk, restaurant food and other products.)

Genetic engineering, or genetic modification, which involves manipulating DNA or transferring it from one species to another, is increasingly common in agriculture and food processing, and wouldn’t be banned or even regulated by the measure. Genetic engineering has pluses and minuses. It can increase crop yields and pest resistance. But it can also affect the environment in negative ways — pollen or seeds from genetically engineered crops can be spread by wind, birds or insects to territory where they’re unwanted, for example.

Once you’ve said that, you’ve said pretty much everything that’s known to be relevant to Proposition 37. The rest is baloney, of the non-genetically engineered variety.

It includes more information on the health nut, Dr. Joseph Mercola which is seen on television trying to persuade people to treat cancer with an eggplant extract which he hawks:

More from the Los Angeles Times:

Something else voters should be aware of is who’s backing Proposition 37. The biggest donor is Joseph Mercola, who with his companies has contributed at least $1.1 million so far. The smooth-talking Mercola’s Chicago-area company and clinic make millions from hawking “organic” nostrums and casting doubt on medical science. He’s attracted regulatory warnings from the FDA on three occasions, most recently for touting thermography as an alternative to mammograms for breast-cancer screening. Medical science regards this as dangerous advice because thermograms aren’t effective in identifying many tumors, while early detection via mammograms has saved the lives of millions of women. A Mercola spokesman says he has “worked with the FDA to resolve all concerns.”

Mercola also backs a campaign against child vaccination, and not only promotes sun exposure as a health benefit but also conveniently sells tanning beds and booths on his website for as much as $3,999.

The Proposition 37 campaign manager, Gary Ruskin, disputed the relevance of Mercola’s background to the push for the initiative. “We don’t endorse everything our supporters say,” he told me.

Sorry, that won’t do. Mercola isn’t just any backer of Proposition 37; he’s the biggest donor, and one who has built his business around some of the scare claims inherent in an anti-genetic engineering initiative. Moreover, he didn’t just write a check — he was solicited to contribute in February by Doug Linney, then the initiative’s campaign manager, who could not have been unaware of Mercola’s history.

The campaign’s founding organizer, Ruskin says, is Pamm Larry, 56, a Chico business owner and organic farmer who says she began traveling the state earlier this year on her own to drum up interest in a ballot measure.

Larry has appeared in a promotional video with Mercola and clearly has been deeply influenced by him. “I really admire the man and very much admire his integrity,” she says. She has bought into Mercola’s depiction of the FDA as a wickedly ineffective bully — she praises him for “standing up” to the agency over mammograms — but her grasp of the facts is poor.

“The FDA approved thalidomide!” she informed me during a brief interview, referring to the morning-sickness drug that produced an epidemic of birth defects in the 1950s and 1960s. Well, no. The FDA banned thalidomide, sparing the U.S. from the worst of the disaster. Meanwhile, she seems to think Mercola’s interest in Proposition 37 is entirely altruistic, despite his multimillion-dollar “natural” products empire.

Read all of the rest of the piece and you will agree with me that California Proposition 37 is a shame, devoid of the science that it touts and is just a BAD law.

Vote NO on California Proposition 37!

Share
Tags: ,

Comments 3 Comments »

Share

Mitt Romney and Chief Strategist tTuart Stevens

Chief Strategist Stuart Stevens and Mitt Romney

These are my links for September 13th through September 17th:

Share
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 1 Comment »

©Gregory Flap Cole All Rights Reserved