Group, known as Florida Freedom Fund, launched in May and will also be involved in school board races
The Florida governor, Ron DeSantis, has launched a political action committee that is targeting popular ballot amendments on abortion access and marijuana legalization that will be voted on in November.
The group, known as the Florida Freedom Fund, launched in May, Politico first reported. The committee is chaired by James Uthmeier, DeSantis’s chief of staff who was previously the Republican’s campaign manager during his unsuccessful presidential primary run.
In addition to targeting ballot initiatives, the committee will get involved in school board races, Politico reported, citing an individual who is familiar with the group’s plans.
Florida Republicans have attempted to maximize their political control of local school boards, especially amid book bans and far-right education laws banning discussions of race and sexual identity being passed in the state, WUFT reported.
The irony of “freedom” fund used to suppress freedom.
From the man who ran the “Never Back Down” campaign and was nearly the first to do so…
Ive noticed that almost every “freedom”, or “patriot”, named thing related to politics do just the opposite
Same with “War on Drugs” or “War on Terror”. I would like to congratulate both Drugs and Terror for their victories. I bet if they declared a War on Housing the homeless population in the US would plummet.
It’s definitely freedom. Freedom for Conservatives to tell everyone what they can and can’t do in their own homes.
Came in to say exactly that… The Irony is thick, and likely unfortunately lost on people that will approve it.
This just in: DeSantis is changing the official words prisons and jails to Freedom Centers. Their slogan is “Where Freedom meets people”
As we all know, legal weed is super unpopular and every ballot initiative to legalize it fails because of that and Republicans never have to do any sort of legal tricks to cancel that out, so this will work for sure.
I love seeing them waste money on shit that is only going to drive turnout against them.
“freedom” here is 100% orwellian
I was thinking the same thing.
The problem is that honest names, like repression fund or authoritarianism fund, don’t score well in marketing research.
women’s rights and cannabis are shunned by both parties
democrats chose a catholic who is on record stating he lives by the good Catholic book which includes no contraception and a prosecutor who has used Biden’s laws and policies from his time as a career politician to lock away cannabis users
the Demopublicans will win this election no matter which party wins and the losers as always will be the people
And the one thing they say about Catholics is: They’ll take you as soon as you’re warm
You’re so full of it your eyes are brown 💩
yeah that was quite a stretch from verdantbanana
And yet he’s taken action to protect abortion rights
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/08/politics/what-is-in-biden-abortion-executive-order/index.html
This both-sideserism is bullshit of the highest order and a 40 year old parody song isn’t strong evidence in the face of actual actions.
To anyone confused: this person votes hard R on every ballot.
Yes, it’s true. One of the two major political parties in the United States will be in charge after the election. Thank you for letting us know.
Don’t understand why it’s legal to make a PAC and have your chief of staff head it.
To be fair I don’t understand why PACs are legal at all, but whatever.
I can tell you one legit reason for a PAC. Public employees can not take campaign funds directly, so if a teacher wanted to run for local office, it’s a campaign finance violation for them to accept money directly. That means they need a PAC to accept donations for them, and the candidates can use that money for campaign related things.
PACs at their core are not bad. How they are used to influence our elections by the wealthy is.
Public employees can not take campaign funds directly, so if a teacher wanted to run for local office, it’s a campaign finance violation for them to accept money directly.
I don’t think that’s right. The main issue that PACs address is individual limits on campaign contributions. You, as an individual, can only legally give a candidate $X towards their campaign. X varies depending on the race. But you can give as much as you want to a PAC. They just have to disclose your name if you give more than $10K in a calendar year. The thing is, the FEC act used to make it illegal for a PAC to directly campaign for or against a federal candidate. The Citizens United decision overturned that clause and opened the doors to unlimited campaign contributions. Candidates aren’t supposed to coordinate with a PAC, but there’s a lot of nodding and winking going on.
I can confirm it is right because I am the chair of a small PAC for a public employee. They needed to form it to fund raise. It functions very differently than how national level PACs function. but it’s a legitimate use for them.
Interesting. What state is this in? We don’t have any restrictions like that in my state and I’m a little curious about what the justification is.
I guess I should rephrase slightly. Public employees are not allowed to take gifts / money from individuals in any capacity, this relates to bribe and corruption laws. As a result, this makes it so they can not accept campaign finance donations, which requires an entity to act on their behalf, a PAC. Sorry if my explanation was a bit unclear. This is due to blanket corruption laws and not specific campaign finance laws.
Ah, I think I understand. The potential problem here is that even a donation to a campaign fund could be seen as a bribe if the person running for office is a public official. “Sorry, I can’t accept your generous gift, but you cold contribute to my campaign for mayor!” Interesting, I’ve honestly never run across that info, but it makes sense. Thanks!
Yep! You are spot on, sorry my original post was a bit vague.
So much freedom.
Let’s see the mental gymnastics on this one, because I know quite a few hardcore republicans that loooove themselves some weed.
Let’s see the mental gymnastics on this one, because I know quite a few hardcore republicans that loooove themselves some weed.
“Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition …There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.” - Frank Wilhoit
So those hardcore week smoking republicans want to be in the first group, and want everyone else to be in the second. If weed was legal it would collapse both into a single group. Republicans don’t want that.
Its nice to know that rule about republican names holds true. If it has freedom in its name. It is trying to take freedoms away from someone they don’t like.
If they add one more F they can use Frank’s “unfortunate” flag design.
They guy is such a piece of useless shit
For fucks sake ron
Ah yes. Let’s target two immensely popular things.
A small man screaming “I’m still relevant!” as the doors begin to close on him
