Mayday...Mayday...the SS TCC is taking on water! (or "What ever happened to transparency?")

Doing the right thing and being able to say you did things the right way , not by loophole is transparency Joe.

You are right Joe. The word loophole is clearly lefty word. I doubt that people on the right can even pronounce it and have never ever utter it. United we stand unless you disagree with Joe and the TCC.

Rep. Edwards states: “The campaign finance laws are pretty clear.” Indeed they are:

RIGL 17-1-2
(1) "Election" means the filling of any public office or the determination of any public question by vote of the electorate, and includes without limitation any state, town, or city office or question, and any political party primary election for the nomination of any candidate for public office; EXCEPT THAT IT SHALL NOT INCLUDE A FINANCIAL TOWN MEETING or a meeting to elect officers of a fire, water, or sewer district;
(6) "Local election" means any election limited to the electorate of any city or town, or any part, at which any city, town, ward, or district officers are to be chosen, or any elective meeting at which a question is to be submitted to the voters of a city, town, or any subdivision of a city or town, BUT IT SHALL NOT INCLUDE A FINANCIAL TOWN MEETING;

Expressly written definitions like that aren't loopholes. A loophole is when something is overlooked, silent, and exploited (i.e. a hole).

Anyways, fine by me if the law is extended to FTMs but realize it will then reach to every individual/group who spends money or in-kind value. Its not like TCC is the only group in town involved in FTM advocacy. That Rep. Edwards singles out one group of many betrays his bias, even as his job is to represent *all* of his constituents.

The TCC can put a stop to all of this by disclosing its campaign finances. If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to be afraid of.

So you would agree that every person who expends dollars or in-kind effort to affect an FTM should be required to report to the Board of Elections, and should any 2 people who come together to support a position at an FTM be required to form a PAC?

I don't care one way or another: It's fairness I'm looking for. I might also be curious to see all expenditures relating to the FTM, both inside and especially outside of town. Targeting one group, and oh by the way, forgetting to mention the application to everyone is the kind of unnecessary partisanship that makes working together so difficult in this town.

And I'm not even sure it's workable. Campaign finance laws are really meant for elections for candidates, or ballot questions known in advance, but an FTM isn't so much of an election but a quasi-legislative body. It would suggest that campaign finance laws would apply to lobbying/advocacy relating to upcoming votes by, say, town councils.

Slippery slope logic does not make a strong case. Two people discussing politics over a beer does not constitute a PAC. I would expect every other legitimate PAC in Tiverton, including the Democrats, to disclose their finances. And why is it that every time someone calls for the accountability that the TCC espouses so loudly it suddenly becomes an unproductive exercise in partisan politics?

It's always amusing to read an anonymous commenter expounding on the virtues of transparency.

"If you've got nothing to hide, then you've got nothing to be afraid of." Indeed.

The selective usage and confusion of the word “transparency” and "accountability" is remarkable here. We all have the right to call on and expect our government to be transparent.

Calling for one’s government to be open does not mean that private citizens must open their private affairs up to politically malicious opponents, or somehow be told to unilaterally follow a law which does not exist. I don’t want to know your every conversation over beer, and it’s none of my business. It’s like if you were to criticize the Town Council for having executive sessions, and I turn around and say you shouldn’t complain about transparency unless you stop posting anonymously. That just doesn’t make sense. The total failure of logic, and the singling out of one nonpartisan citizen group among many similarly situated, which makes the bias obvious. That it comes from an elected representative is breathtaking.

Maybe the TCC and their defenders here aren't guilty of violating campaign finance laws, and really who said they were? What you are charged with TCC is of fraudulently claiming to be "transparent and accountable"; what say you jury?

Once again, and I'm writing very slowly, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear. The TCC uses the word transparency. Don't use it if you won't own it.

I make no claims of transparency. Judge my words on their merit.

Wow and I thought we had issues in Portsmouth.

I agree with Mr. Edwards that "groups" organized for the specific political purpose of accepting donations to support a political position (thus the name Political Action Committee) who then use those donations to advertise and gain support for that position should be required to report those activities. He is not calling for individuals or groups of individuals to do anything. He specifically notes groups and references a PAC that he knows of that did not do so. That does not make his bill partisan.

And if you belong to a group that specifically portrays itself voluntarily as the beacon of transparency, you have to expect flack when you hide behind "well the law says ..." If you talk the talk, you have to walk the walk.

Anyway, I support this legislation. It improves the process and lets the people know which registered groups are soliciting funds and then using those funds to influence Town Meetings.

This whole dicussion is stupid. TCC should be allowed to do whatever it wants with their money no matter who it comes from. Should the animal shelter have to disclose all of its finances? Leave us alone.

Does the animal shelter try to influence the way people vote? I never got an annoying robocall from the animal shelter.

the bill should incould all TCC, Curb, NEA, all PAC that print or say anything that effects an election or bill in the state and town, THEN it would be a fair and honest bill, has MR Edwards looked into other loopholds?Just my opionin but this bill just by the mention of the TCC proves it is directed at one group,The more nameless folks knock the tcc, the more they help it,s cause

was a loophole used when the nea used town funds to send home messages from schools?

I hope Mr Edwards with go after The Friends of the Tiverton Library next, have they done full discloser?

Jiml if they did use a loophole would that make it acceptable in your opinion?

If you read the stature there is no loophole to use, the law was followed as written, by the tcc, and curb and the nea ,you can not break a law if it does not exist, to say so is like saying you can swim on dry land, It is my belief (and mine Alone) that Mr. Edwards is a friend of the NEA and i believe that may be part of this bill, but again no laws were broken, and if a loophole is there i do not see it if we follow this lto the brass tack then who brought the yellow and red shirts to the FTM, that was an atemptt to influnce an election or town meeting was it not?If the TCC or any other group had for sworn members on here advocating their view should this site be shut down?

Any friend of the schools is an enemy of mine. Its nobodys business who I give my money to whether its TCC or the animal shelter.

i wonder how Mr Edwards feels about house bill 5220 that would allow school commitees not to advertise their mettings in newspapers anymore