Skip to main content

Delaware GOP supports a poll tax for all future candidates

It is presented as a "transparency" bill, but Danny Short's HB 84 is actually an attempt to make it more difficult for people who are not lifelong politicians to run for office [read "normal citizens"].

HB 84 would require all candidates--
candidates nominated by a major political party that did not file to run in a primary election, unaffiliated candidates, candidates for minor political parties, and candidates in special elections for the General Assembly...
--to submit to a Criminal Background Check to get on the ballot.

Notice that no matter what shows up on the Criminal Background Check, you cannot be disqualified from appearing on the ballot.

So why have the requirement?

Three reasons:

1.  [Their stated reason]:
By requiring that certain candidates’ criminal history information be made available to the public in advance of an election, this Bill supports transparency in government and recognizes that elected officials work for the people. Many employers throughout this State require criminal background checks during the hiring process. This Bill recognizes the importance of allowing the public to know the criminal histories of candidates seeking their trust and vote.
2.  Their financial reason--Criminal Background Checks cost $69 and require people to make an often awkwardly timed trip to visit the Delaware State Police.  Both the cost and time are specifically calculated to deter independent and minor party candidates from running.  It is nothing less than a State-imposed filing fee!

3.  Their political reason--Let's make candidates pay to do the opposition research for their opponents! They've also proposed that all candidates have to prove they've paid all their taxes before they can run.

Plain and simple:  this is the two parties in power attempting to put one more nail into the door to hold it shut against everyone else.

h/t Jess McVay

Comments

kavips said…
Would a criminal background check have picked up Bodenweiser?

No.

Would a criminal background check have picked up O'Donnell?

No.

Would a criminal background check have picked up Charlie Copeland?

No.

Anonymous said…
And yet, the feds repeal the stock act? I guess once you are in the club, all is OK.
Anonymous said…
@kavips,
Would a criminal background check have picked up Gordon?

Some people just ignorantly vote 'their' party, even if both candidates are criminals, allegedly or not.

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

Libertarian National Committee Deathwatch Part 1

As the LNC continues to lurch towards collapse, with the latest news of mass layoffs at HQ, I've decided to begin tracking those things leading the national party to irrelevance, even as state and local parties gain power. As news, rumors and rhetoric break out, I shall chronicle them in this ongoing series at Delaware Libertarian. Organizations approaching failure have a number of characteristics. One of the most striking is renunciation of their purpose and effort to reinvent themselves as a "me-too" provider of services in the marketplace. In this, the LNC has been on a collision course with destiny for a while now. Recently, for example, it hired Republican Party web site developer TerraEclipse to redesign the LNC web site . Terra created a web site very similar to those of the clients it brags most about -- far-right Republican conservatives like Tom McClintock and BJ Lawson. A quick look at the web site they built for the LNC is instructive. The tagline on the ...

Soda tax debate reveals fundamental progressive assertions about your lack of individual rights and the "responsiblities" of the State

I thought it would be at least amusing to use the Delawareliberal comments as sub-headings regarding each category of what is wrong with the proposed tax on sodas and juice drinks. But there are so many different little strands of each comment that it would be impossible to pull them all out. So, instead, I'm going to let you read them in more or less the order they appeared, and note the assumptions. pandora: I’m perfectly okay with taxing sodas and juice drinks. Mainly because they’re total crap, and one of the main reasons our country’s children are overweight. They are also dirt cheap. Assumptions here: (1) Because "I" am perfectly okay with a new tax it should be imposed on everybody; (2) it is the government's responsibility to keep children from being obese; (3) the cheapness of the product to be taxed justifies charging people more for it. John Manifold: Soda fattens your kids [and you and your husband], shortens their lives, costs more than water [a...