rmcooper4: I wore this shirt to the polls in 2008. I was asked to turn it inside out by one of the officials.
[theworstpageintheuniverse.com image 640x271]

/hot

According to my mother, the laws against electioneering aren't wholly inclusive. You can wear and say political stuff, as long as it's not specific to any party, candidate, relevant to the ballot at that place and time.

I have a small collection of old political buttons, and I like to wear one to the polls. I have my own rule, that the campaign represented needs to be at least 20 years in the past. I've never gotten in trouble for it, and people get a kick out of it. I wore an "I Like Ike" button once. A Kennedy button another time. A Nixon-Agnew button. Even a Dukakis-Bentsen button.

In practice, though, it's usually up to the discretion of whoever's in charge, and their word goes. (As long as they're not breaking the law themselves, as in my CSS above.) If you make a scene about it, you're out of line just for that. Being disruptive in a polling place, even if you're in the right, is its own actionable offence. TFA is vague on details, but it sounds a bit like the guy might have made a scene, at least according to some people there. (I'm not saying he did, only that that's possible.)

IronTom: It's the law, even if he is senile.

Yeah, that's not quite true, either, Mr. Prosecutor. Certifiably feebleminded people are not held to the same legal standards that staggering geniuses like you are.

We have the same law here in Ohio, but during the 2004 election a couple were not only allowed to vote while wearing their homemade bright red Bush shirts, with Bush's vapid mug hugely enlarged and outlined with gold puffy paint with W's, stars, and Bush written all over in blue and white glitter puffy paint; they were also allowed to walk along the line of us waiting to vote, hugging their friends and chattering about how great Bush was.

/didn't say anything
//call me a coward, but it was after work, i was tired, and they were out the door soon anyway.
///I still see those hideous shirts when I close my eyes, sometimes.
////I do occasionally wonder how butthurt they are about Obama and what hand-crafted horror they have made to express their feelings

Mentat: cmunic8r99: [dumbimages.net image 640x424]

Wait, marriage is a threesome with God?

Or a foursome, if you like golf.

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry meat, but a sign does not constitute "a significant portion...of activities." You'd have a tough time finding any revenue agent that would take you seriously.

I might offer the argument that the sign is placed on real estate they own: They are providing the venue for the speech in question, and I'm sure its value is a substantial part of their whole assets. Perhaps a look at their books might clear it up.

Ball's in your court.

mikdeetx: CSB - Went to early voting last year. The community center had a large parking lot, where there were hundreds of signs supporting this or that candidate. Walking to the door, I was accosted by 3 candidates looking for my vote. Everything was legal because they drew a line where the 100 foot perimeter was.

Law needs to be passed that electioneering of any kind cannot be done on public property where the community has a polling place.

*gets off soapbox*

This guy deserved better. Turn the shirt inside out or have another shirt handy. Son was having a black and proud moment. The entire metro area is under duress because an all white jury let a cop off after being filmed beating a black teen that was on the ground and not resisting. It's a powder keg about to go off here.

Sounds like my friends got out of there just in time.

Tellingthem: [2.bp.blogspot.com image 500x418]Approve?

Trust you can rely on....

IronTom: It's the law, even if he is senile.

That's not really how mens rhea works, but thanks for playing Fark's GED in law thread today.

You're consolation prize today is:



The travel-edition of "Cat." This adorable pet will keep you company everywhere you go and make women think you're sensitive. From the makers of "Dog."

firefly212: The travel-edition of "Cat." This adorable pet will keep you company everywhere you go and make women think you're sensitive. From the makers of "Dog."

wambu: firefly212: wambu: cman: Where is the respect?

Veteran or no, this man is a senior citizen. Is this how people were raised to treat their elders?

Since when did being old or a veteran get you a pass on acting like a dick or break the law?

/you have to be a cop to do that

The guy didn't know the community center was going to be a polling place,

Once he found out, that should have been the end of it

then some other dickbag grabbed his shirt while talking to him.

not cool

I'm not a big guy, and I may well end up getting my ass kicked, but I can tell you with great certainty that if you grab my shirt whilst talking to me, your next move had better damn well be to protect your left side, because I'm already throwing from the right. If we're going to consider the old mans actions, let's consider them with context.

Now you're going to jail as well.

/too much dickage in one place

Really, find a jury that's going to jail a guy for hitting someone who has already assaulted him. Once you lay your hands on people, you better be damned ready to fight, because you already started it. You can't go around grabbing other people by their clothes and think you're gonna get away with it. You get all kinds of leeway with your words, but once you make it physical by pushing, pulling, and grabbing at people, no cop or jury in the world is going to care if the person you're attacking uses a reasonable amount of force to get you to back the f off.

North_Central_Positronics: Mentat: Wait, marriage is a threesome with God?

Holy Trinity, isn't it?

In that case it's a man, a woman, God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I think that qualifies as an orgy, no?

Mittenfreaks?

1. I don't believe this is a real thing

2. This theoretical concept requires a better name. Roofdoggers? Mittbots? RINOs? Teahadi Sellouts? Magicunderwearers? Mormons?

The My Little Pony Killer: optikeye: Sorry, He should have known better. Anyone of that age should know the laws about wearing campaign stuff on election day at the polling place and raising a stink about it was got him arrested, not the shirt.

My Dad is a WWII vet and into politics and one thing he made clear to me is that you don't even wear a campaign button to the polling place on election day--doesn't matter who's side of the political fence your on.

RTFA. He didn't know the community center he regularly goes to was going to be the polling place.

They usually put up signs... DON'T ELECTIONEER PAST THIS POINT.

cman: Where is the respect?

Veteran or no, this man is a senior citizen. Is this how people were raised to treat their elders?

The law is the law. The way I see it, the older you are, the more time you had to learn what the laws are.

They don't change based upon your service record.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry meat, but a sign does not constitute "a significant portion...of activities." You'd have a tough time finding any revenue agent that would take you seriously.

I might offer the argument that the sign is placed on real estate they own: They are providing the venue for the speech in question, and I'm sure its value is a substantial part of their whole assets. Perhaps a look at their books might clear it up.

Ball's in your court.

Assets don't come into question with regards to the IRC Section cited in this thread. Only a "substantial portion...of activities..." If electioneering does not constitute a substantial portion of the church's activities, their tax exempt status is not in jeopardy.

This was attempted with the LDS Church in the Prop 8 fight. They failed as well, and the Mormons contributed a whole lot more than just a sign.

Bucky Katt: rmcooper4: I wore this shirt to the polls in 2008. I was asked to turn it inside out by one of the officials.
[theworstpageintheuniverse.com image 640x271]

/hot

Since when is bad taste illegal.

If a silly shirt is enough to get your panties in that much of a bunch you should probably stay away from the protest signs thread.

cman: Be that as it may, this man is a senior citizen. They should have not arrested him. It would be like arresting a 9 year old for throwing a temper tantrum in a shopping center. The situation should have been handled differently.

Is that hate speech against senior citizens? I think you just said they are not adults. Elder abuse farking sucks.

Sylvia_Bandersnatch: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry meat, but a sign does not constitute "a significant portion...of activities." You'd have a tough time finding any revenue agent that would take you seriously.

I might offer the argument that the sign is placed on real estate they own: They are providing the venue for the speech in question, and I'm sure its value is a substantial part of their whole assets. Perhaps a look at their books might clear it up.

Ball's in your court.

The IRS says that the only political activities tax-exempt churches may never engage in are those advocating for or against a candidate. (As far as they're concerned -- states may or may not have their own more restrictive laws.)

"Section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in a limited amount of lobbying activity, but this cannot be a substantial activity of the organization. These organizations can choose between two tests of what is 'substantial.' One test, the 'expenditure test,' is based solely on the amount of money an organization spends for lobbying. The test sets out a sliding scale of permissible expenditures based on the organization's exempt purpose expenditures, with total lobbying capped at 1 million dollars. The other test, the 'substantial part test' looks at all the activities of the organization, including monetary expenditures and volunteer activity on behalf of the organization.

Finally, section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to engage in general advocacy about their issues when it consists of educational activity because 'educational' is one of the accepted purposes and activities listed in section 501(c)(3)."

The IRS will, at least in theory, have an issue with a church saying "vote for Romney", but not with them advocating on a ballot issue unless it looks like they're actually a PAC masquerading as a church.

So let me get this right, unlimited bribes are protected political speech but a t-shirt supporting your candidate is grounds for arrest? Somehow I'm thinking this is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind....

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry meat, but a sign does not constitute "a significant portion...of activities." You'd have a tough time finding any revenue agent that would take you seriously.

I might offer the argument that the sign is placed on real estate they own: They are providing the venue for the speech in question, and I'm sure its value is a substantial part of their whole assets. Perhaps a look at their books might clear it up.

Ball's in your court.

Assets don't come into question with regards to the IRC Section cited in this thread. Only a "substantial portion...of activities..." If electioneering does not constitute a substantial portion of the church's activities, their tax exempt status is not in jeopardy.

This was attempted with the LDS Church in the Prop 8 fight. They failed as well, and the Mormons contributed a whole lot more than just a sign.

Good points. I think we might both be on the wrong track, though. My read of the IRS's advice on this suggests to me that it's about candidates, rather than issues. Without consulting a lawyer, I'd suppose that a church is free to politick on issues only, including ballot questions, so long as that doesn't support or appear to support any specific candidate.

I've only just started reading about this, but it looks to me like the "substantial portion" argument is a theory based on the Citizens United ruling, and not yet an established point of law. But again, I haven't read as much about it as you seem to have, so if you can fill in anything, I'm grateful.

Kensey: Sylvia_Bandersnatch: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Sorry meat, but a sign does not constitute "a significant portion...of activities." You'd have a tough time finding any revenue agent that would take you seriously.

I might offer the argument that the sign is placed on real estate they own: They are providing the venue for the speech in question, and I'm sure its value is a substantial part of their whole assets. Perhaps a look at their books might clear it up.

Ball's in your court.

The IRS says that the only political activities tax-exempt churches may never engage in are those advocating for or against a candidate. (As far as they're concerned -- states may or may not have their own more restrictive laws.)

"Section 501(c)(3) organizations may engage in a limited amount of lobbying activity, but this cannot be a substantial activity of the organization. These organizations can choose between two tests of what is 'substantial.' One test, the 'expenditure test,' is based solely on the amount of money an organization spends for lobbying. The test sets out a sliding scale of permissible expenditures based on the organization's exempt purpose expenditures, with total lobbying capped at 1 million dollars. The other test, the 'substantial part test' looks at all the activities of the organization, including monetary expenditures and volunteer activity on behalf of the organization.

Finally, section 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to engage in general advocacy about their issues when it consists of educational activity because 'educational' is one of the accepted purposes and activities listed in section 501(c)(3)."

The IRS will, at least in theory, have an issue with a church saying "vote for Romney", but not with them advocating on a ballot issue unless it looks like they're actually a PAC masquerading as a church.

Yeah, that was my read on it, too. Interesting. You'd think I'd know that, too, after years in noncommercial radio, but we just stayed out of poll politics across the board, so it never came up.

KanedaJD: no, no subby, we can't agree on that.

OH HAI GUYS IT'S ELECTION TIME AGAIN

Kaneda JD 2008 flashback

[wavy fingers Wayne's World style]

MindfulModeration Quote 2008-09-27 02:25:49 AM
StreetlightInTheGhetto: KanedaJD:
Sorry if I offended you by suggesting that McCain won the debate. But he did. :-)

I'm not a troll/sock puppet/ alt/ whatever you want to call me.

If your name and location in your profile is indeed real, then you may want to check with your county clerk as you are NOT a voter in Michigan, unless you registered within the past 2 years.

/FOIA for the win

Oh snap!

[/wavy fingers]

/hope the RNC is paying you for your time

Nabb1: palladiate: Old_Chief_Scott: palladiate: Wait, he was banned from the community center? Is it even legal to ban someone from their legally-designated polling location?

Maybe he was being a dick.

Just because he's a veteran doesn't mean he can't be some kind of dick. I'm a veteran and sometimes I'm a dick.

I'm not saying he wasn't a dick. I'm just asking if it's legal to disenfranchise people that way. Because if it was, I'm pretty certain we would have seen it explode before now.

We have a law like that in Louisiana. It was challenged but upheld. When I worked at polls, you just asked people to remove their buttons or what not. If they had a t-shirt, you asked them to leave and return without wearing any candidate's shirt. In the years of doing it, though, I can't recall ever having to invoke it. Well, once, but they were law students and they were being rude chiding another worker that they "knew the law" at which point I said, "If you know the law, then you know you're breaking it by wearing a (candidate X) t-shirt in here." At that point, we threw them out. And we had already let them vote and let the t-shirt slide and so in thanks they decided to get cocky. Law students. Yeesh. They're like cockaroshes, meng.

Curious how it would work if you had five guys, each with one letter from O-B-A-M-A. I mean, none of them (alone) can be said to be electioneering....

firefly212: That's not really how mens rhea works,



Que?

Extra points for the submitter's anti-partisan unbiased sarcasm. Well done, chap.

GAT_00: I'm surprised they enforced the electioneering rules. They seem pretty lax about them here. Well lax in one way anyway.

But this is an elderly vertan we're talking about. . . might as well be Osama Bin Laden. America, fark yeah!!!


/sarcasm
//No, I absolutely don't support Obama, and I think that anyone still supporting him are either taking part in extreme racism (voting for him only because the color of his skin, not by his actions), extreme party fanaticism (voting for him because he has a D after his name, not by his actions), or just plain collective masochism.

cmunic8r99: It's odd that the electioneering law in Texas is more restrictive during early voting than it is on election day.

§ 85.036. ELECTIONEERING PROHIBITED. (a) During the time
an early voting polling place is open for the conduct of early
voting, a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate,
measure, or political party...


I don't see how an Obama shirt qualifies as electioneering. Obama is neither a candidate nor a party. Neither party has even nominated a candidate yet.

OnlyM3: cman

That's not the point. Arresting someone should be the last resort. This arrest was excessive. I mean, what kind of danger is he to society?

Normally I'd agree with you about arrests being FAR to common in this police state. However, if the property owner/manager tells you to GTFO and you don't, it's immediately trespassing. If you don't enjoy the silver bracelets don't be an a-hole.

The only reason he was asked to leave was because his shirt violated some blatantly unconstitutional voting law.
He should have never had to be told to leave because his shirt shouldn't have been an issue in the first place..... You know the whole freedom of speech part of the First Amendment and all that.

Am I the only one who finds subby's grasp of prepositions questionable?

Warlordtrooper: OnlyM3: cman

That's not the point. Arresting someone should be the last resort. This arrest was excessive. I mean, what kind of danger is he to society?

Normally I'd agree with you about arrests being FAR to common in this police state. However, if the property owner/manager tells you to GTFO and you don't, it's immediately trespassing. If you don't enjoy the silver bracelets don't be an a-hole.

The only reason he was asked to leave was because his shirt violated some blatantly unconstitutional voting law.
He should have never had to be told to leave because his shirt shouldn't have been an issue in the first place..... You know the whole freedom of speech part of the First Amendment and all that.

Those laws are in place so people going into the polls don't have to run through a gauntlet of people advocating for or against any candidate or measure. Suppose there is a ballot proposition that if passed would reinstate slavery. Do you think it would be acceptable for blacks to have to walk through a gauntlet of KKK members? Now turn it around. Suppose there's some black candidate. Do you think it's acceptable for Black Panther's to stand outside the door massaging billy clubs? Oops. That one's perfectly legal.

AssAsInAssassin: cmunic8r99: It's odd that the electioneering law in Texas is more restrictive during early voting than it is on election day.

§ 85.036. ELECTIONEERING PROHIBITED. (a) During the time
an early voting polling place is open for the conduct of early
voting, a person may not electioneer for or against any candidate,
measure, or political party...


I don't see how an Obama shirt qualifies as electioneering. Obama is neither a candidate nor a party. Neither party has even nominated a candidate yet.

There's a reason we make fun of the mountain states.

oh long johnson

Arresting the old man for Electioneering makes less sense than arresting the person who touched him for Assault.
The old man lacked intent.
The person who touched the old man did not.
Police got the wrong guy.

unlikely: I'm curious how a person wearing a Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, or Hillary Clinton shirt would have fared.

or if the dude was white. that counts too.

Britney Spear's Speculum: For those of you playing the home game:

Wearing Obama T-Shirt at a community center that happens to have early voting underway =/= wrong.

Tea Party shirt while actually voting = ok

actually not just 'ok', to try to stop a tea party member from wearing it would be soshlust kenyan gubmint oppression of their eleventyith amendment constitutional something constitutional!

cman: Where is the respect?

Veteran or no, this man is a senior citizen. Is this how people were raised to treat their elders?

No. That's how baby boomers were raised to treat their elders.

optikeye: Sorry, He should have known better. Anyone of that age should know the laws about wearing campaign stuff on election day at the polling place and raising a stink about it was got him arrested, not the shirt.

My Dad is a WWII vet and into politics and one thing he made clear to me is that you don't even wear a campaign button to the polling place on election day--doesn't matter who's side of the political fence your on.

It wasn't election day. It was "early voting" going on. He didn't know. I wouldn't have known. Normal people who aren't politics junkies or who don't need to use early voting for some practical reason wouldn't have known.