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.

April 20, 2013 at 12:22 AM
Anonymous said…
And yet, the feds repeal the stock act? I guess once you are in the club, all is OK.
April 20, 2013 at 7:07 AM
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.
April 20, 2013 at 3:05 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?
1 comment
Read more

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici...
Post a Comment
Read more

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...
70 comments
Read more