Baldwin Urges Voters To Re-register To Aid AIP Candidate Nightingale

[Twoller]

I'm not sure how posting at the forum confronts SOS's 501C status. If you post here at the forum, how is it that you represent SOS? If this is a public forum, then opinions expressed here can't represent SOS, even though it is SOS's forum. If it is not a public forum, then how does expressing support for a candidate make SOS as an organization responsible for endorsing a candidate? Members of a 501C organization are going to vote and discuss among themselves who they think people should vote for. This kind of behavior is not representative of the organization itself. It is only when the 501C organization start formally representing a candidate as an organization publicly that I think a violation occurs.

[tim55]

Watchit, or I'll ban myself on you.

[Kathy63]

She's having trouble getting on the ballot!

Coulda seen that one coming a mile away. Really, look at it. If there really was overwhelming support, there would be no problem getting on the ballot. There isn't overwhelming support, nor will there be.

I would have hoped that the goal of Californians would be to prevent the democrats from holding both the legislature and the governorship. When that happens, Californians will be fleeced down to their last ha'penny.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

...

....

From: John M Baldwin
Cc: zim711@peoplepc.com
Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 1:57 PM
Subject: Very Important: AIP voter registration for 2010 must be done ASAP for Chelene Nightingale to be on the ballot.

...

Chelene Nightingale and this campaign NEEDS YOU SUPPORT NOW MORE THAN EVER. One of the MOST IMPORTANT things to do right now for Chelene Nightingale and this campaign is to re-register into the “American Independent Party” if you are not already a member. With the primaries closing in fast, Chelene NEEDS all the AIP signatures she can get to place her on the ballot. Re-registering into the “American Independent Party” and signing the petition which allows Chelene Nightingale to be on the ballot is the most IMPORTANT step in her campaign. This will ensure that SHE IS the constitutional candidate in the California General Election come this November. Re-Registering is not hard and can easily be changed.

....

- You will receive notification by mail within three weeks that you have re-registered. You will now be able vote in the American Independent Party primaries. MORE IMPORTANTLY, you CAN NOW VOTE FOR CHELENE NIGHTINGALE, as she is the only candidate who fully embraces the idea of a “Part-Time” Legislature, Absolutely Securing our Borders (not forming a comprehensive plan that models AMNESTY), and RESTRORING CALIFORNIA’S SOVREIGNTY. (opposing Bills like AB 32). If you register into the AIP and vote for Chelene in the primaries, THIS WILL ENSURE that Chelene Nightingale has a chance to run against the “TWO-HEADED” monster that has dominated California’s politics for far too long!

....

There are some very important points to be made in this. First, once again, remember that this June is only a primary election. It is not necessary for Chelene to be in the June primary elections in order for her to be on the November ballot. All that is necessary is that the AIP decide that she is the candidate they want to run. Unless there is some other candidate in the American Independent Party that also wants the AIP's candidacy, then what is point of there being any election between the American Independent Party candidates.

Remember, once again, that the primary elections are not necessary except as an appartus to cloud the political process and subject people more and more to the parasite government institution called the "two party system". Subjecting the AIP to the primaries only reinforces the two party system as it is represented in the primaries. We do not need primary elections. Political parties, like the AIP, should be running their elections for their candidates within the party. If the AIP does not make the primaries, why should they care as long as they can decide who they want to run for the governer's race in November?

Let's get rid of the two party system. Let's get rid of the primary elections. Let the political parties run and pay for their own internal elections.

[Eagle1]

"I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness."

Oddly enough my original post was intended to represent what I had received in the form of email with little other added from me since I wanted to post the message along with its title in as pure a fashion as possible.

I am not inclined to support Nightingale for governor in the least bit.

I am more of a first amendment advocate than anything else. The person I quote above is pretty much like myself.

Though I do believe this person to be 100 percent correct I also factor in
my concern for those that keep the board up and have to take heat for what may be posted here.

The points brought up pro and con for the type of post that I put up originally and subsequently changed due to possible 501C violations are valid.


So are we right to assume that the posting of a member pro or con a candidate is or is not a violation? As mentioned the posting reflects a persons point of view not that of SOS.

How do we find out just for our own information?

Freedom of speech is not a good thing to give up.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Eagle1

"I don't care if I am a member of SOS. I first came to the SOS forum because I wanted to talk about illegal immigration and immigration in general. That's the only reason. I found the forum by searching Google. If I sympathize with SOS or post advocacy of the organization, it is entirely incidental. None of my opinions should be considered the voice of SOS or some member, they should not be considered advocacy by SOS, just my personal, private opinion. And restricting the ability for me to express support or opposition to some political candidate on this forum seems to me to be an editorial or forum administrative policy and not a legal obstacle. Such restrictions do risk the accusation of political correctness."

Oddly enough my original post was intended to represent what I had received in the form of email with little other added from me since I wanted to post the message along with its title in as pure a fashion as possible.

I am not inclined to support Nightingale for governor in the least bit.

I am more of a first amendment advocate than anything else. The person I quote above is pretty much like myself.

Though I do believe this person to be 100 percent correct I also factor in
my concern for those that keep the board up and have to take heat for what may be posted here.

The points brought up pro and con for the type of post that I put up originally and subsequently changed due to possible 501C violations are valid.


So are we right to assume that the posting of a member pro or con a candidate is or is not a violation? As mentioned the posting reflects a persons point of view not that of SOS.

How do we find out just for our own information?

Freedom of speech is not a good thing to give up.

Obviously we need to place more clarification in this section so everyone will be informed. Just for everyones information, it is not a capitol offense to have unintentionally posted something. Many of our forum guidelines are still a work in progress, and we will undoubtedly make alterations to reflect our values and agenda.
Stating ones' opinion about a candidate is acceptable, having taken into consideration all other posting rules.

"I'm supporting Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx for office and I'm doing so because" is your opinion and welcome.

"Please support Xxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx for office" takes on an aura of advocacy and is not the best wording for the SOS forum

It's a little more important to consider the wording in the thread titles than in the body also.
And one last thing is that prominent associates in management should take extra care when stating personal support, because potential donors or grant managers might see that as the same as organizational support or advocacy.

[Borderwatch]

I believe it to be a waste of my time, money and energy to support a completely unqualified candidate who will not get more than 3% of the vote, and therefore will not even have an impact on the debate.

[Kathy63]

You really think that much? 3%! That kind of showing would be impressive.

On the other hand, adding "former candidate for California governor" might be an impressive addition to a resume too.

[Dawes]

Originally Posted by Borderwatch

I believe it to be a waste of my time, money and energy to support a completely unqualified candidate who will not get more than 3% of the vote, and therefore will not even have an impact on the debate.

The only way she is going to get 3% is if a lot of people go to the polls drunk and mark the wrong circle, thinking they are ordering a "Cheap Night and an Ale