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 — ...

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...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...