Another vanity opportunity for our AG!

They can sure afford a fuckovalotta Free Speeech,
those souless Corps; who ARE peeps, too. Mine Friendo.

The Judicial Activists on the Roberts Court [SCROTUS] have decided/declared the United States is no longer just a Country -- It's now a Business. [so we can ALL be Corps!] And Business is currently very very VERY Good. Friendo!

(Anybody wanna buy the Social Security Administration?
It's gonna go for Pennies on the dollar!)

(Need to buy a Lawmaker? They couldn't be any cheaper!
Get in line, and make YOUR Deals, Today!)

Go, Repubs. MORE trillion dollar Tax Cuts!
(just for the Rich) (sorry!)

And remember, Ladies, being female
IS
a pre-Existing Condition!

Sorry!

@3 kristofarian: Are you being bitingly sarcastic or did you join the dark side?
JESUS! Let's Make America THINK again! Comprendez, mis amigos?

Big Oil sure seems to be running scared.

RCW 42.17A.335 provides:
Political advertising or electioneering communication—Libel or defamation per se.
(1) It is a violation of this chapter for a person to sponsor with actual malice a statement constituting libel or defamation per se under the following circumstances:
(a) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that contains a false statement of material fact about a candidate for public office;
(b) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that falsely represents that a candidate is the incumbent for the office sought when in fact the candidate is not the incumbent;
(c) Political advertising or an electioneering communication that makes either directly or indirectly, a false claim stating or implying the support or endorsement of any person or organization when in fact the candidate does not have such support or endorsement.

Natalie....the title of the article and its text is simply wrong. As documented by the Seattle Times, the No on 1631 campaign has a signed permission form for every individual or business that is mentioned in the leaflet/flyer. The permission slip signified both agreement with the No campaign and permission to use their names in communications. Now it is possible that some folks were confused about what they were signing. It is possible that some were pressured to make a statement. But the No campaign has acted in an ethical and straightforward way...cliff

"Now it is possible that some folks were confused about what they were signing."

Que?

"It is possible that some were pressured to make a statement."
Pressured? By whom? (the folks who just wanna Frack their Aquifers?)

"But the No campaign has acted in an ethical and straightforward way."

Really?

Well then, they Obviously wanna make sure all those folks who may have "mistakenly" signed up, who now wanna get the fuck OFF the Catastrophic Climate Change Enablers Club, they'll surely address them with all due Speed?

Publicly, where it Counts?
Seems like, then we might more easily bandy about 'ethically.'

(After all didn't EXXON or BP or whichever KNOW they were gona fuck up our Biosphere in the 1970s, and, then, KNOWINGLY persue profits over a Habitable Planet? This is the same guys, right?)

Kristofarian.... let me clarify. I mean pressured to say they never signed it. They did sign it...that is clear. So the No campaign did absolutely nothing wrong. But the Yes campaign is pushing a very deceptive narrative....suggesting things that are not true. The Yes campaign is actively deceiving folks on who will pay, suggesting that the oil companies will not pass on the fee. Absolutely untrue. ..cliff

@7, can you clarify your comment? How is it ethical to straightforward to, as you say, a) pressure someone to make a statement, or b) ask someone to sign a statement before making sure that they understand what they are signing?

By what standards do you and the No on 1931 campaign, judge ethical behavior and straightforward communication?

Okay, Cliff, just saw your clarification; I guess you agree that it is not okay to pressure people, but it is okay to get them to sign something they don't understand.

Follow up question: How do you know that the No campaign did absolutely nothing wrong? Why did several businesses think they were endorsing an initiative related to soda tax (per the Seattle Times article)? Did you collect all the signatures from businesses? Do you know everyone who did so? What is your relationship with the leadership of that campaign, that you have such certainty on the inner workings?

I think that in the science field they call it "bias" when you assume 100% pure intent on the part of your "side", but imply intentional deception (e.g., "pressure") on the part of your opponents. What evidence do you have that business owners were pressured by the Yes campaign? Seems like you just throwing that out there in case it sticks.

Also, it is laughable to complain that the Yes campaign has been deceptive, and claim that your campaign has been "straightforward". I've received plenty of those "No" flyers; their faux concern for families and small businesses is totally transparent. As a simple, relatively semantic example, they constantly refer to 1631 as a "tax" when it is not, legally a tax. Obviously that is intentional, and literally not straightforward.

Jude... I have talked to the folks on the No campaign...which includes a LOT more than oil companies. For example, the Ironworkers union. There is real concern in the No coalition about the regressive nature of I-1631. That is a big element for me and was a big element for the I-732 group (CarbonWa). I am TOTALLY against pressuring folks to sign ANYTHING. But there is something called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. You should read something before you sign it. We know the No campaign is on strong ethical grounds....they have the SIGNED sheets and even showed these to the Seattle Times. It is outrageous (and deceptive and manipulative) for the YES campaign to attach the No campaign about it. I have been very disappointed in the ethical performance of the YES campaign....so many falsehoods in the advertisements. And then they have the nerve to say the oil companies are lying. Talking about the pot calling the kettle black.

@12, sorry, your moral outrage sounds hollow and you are either blinded by your politics, or intentionally arguing in bad faith.

Question: What percentage of No funds were raised by non-oil interests? (please cite a source). All the flyers that have come in my mail are funded by Western States Petrolium Assn. keeps saying in their flyers. When did these companies become committed to investing millions advocating for small businesses and against regressive taxes?

BP America: $9,596,031
Phillips 66: $7,201,186
Andeavor: $4,362,827
American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers: $1,000,000
Valero: $995,000

(https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/see-whos-donating-to-washingtons-big-initiatives/281-608186618)

Abnother simple question: What is their motive for fighting this initiative?

And please, don't go on about personal responsibility - pretty soon you'll be complaining about pigs feeding at troughs.

By the way, you forgot to address why the No campaign keeps calling I-1631 a tax when it is not?

@12 I would say I'm surprised Cliff Mass is defending this but that would be a lie. Read the now nearly a dozen stories on this: Yakima Herald has nearly a dozen reports of businesses having no idea they were on this and that when they couldn't get the owner they asked his teenage sign to sign instead. Nice company you keep their Professor: https://www.yakimaherald.com/news/business/local/latino-business-owners-say-they-didn-t-give-permission-for/article_a790717e-dd56-11e8-869f-2f09c29e6447.html

@15, thanks for the link. Cliff, the articles says: "Flores said he found out that the same person who approached him returned, but Flores was not in the restaurant. The man then persuaded his son to sign the consent form, claiming that he already received approval from Flores."

But Cliff, how could this be? You assured us that the No Campaign did absolutely nothing wrong! You TALKED to the folks there so it's impossible that this is anything but an upstanding, 99%-oil-funded coalition inspired to invest millions into protect working class families from a "tax". Because the Western States Petrolium Association CARES, folks. They have no monetary interest in this issue whatsoever.

Obviously, Mr. Flores was pressured or paid off by the Yes Campaign. He's lying; that's the ONLY explanation, because the No campaign has SIGNATURES (from... someone)! Or maybe it's an issue of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY on the part of these minority groups. If they don't want their name misused, they shouldn't have let their son manage the store. While we're at it, maybe it's a big liberal media ploy. These business owners are being paid by George Soros, am I right? Cliff, I think I am starting to understand your perspective on this issue!

Jude.... the point is simple. It is about personal responsibility. You don't sign stuff without reading it. You don't sign stuff if you don't agree with it. The No campaign has signed endorsements for every name on their mailer. Now what about the deceptions of the Yes campaign? They have told many falsehoods. Such as that "big polluters" and the oil companies will pay? Total lies. ..cliff