In that article, I had this snip:
The pervert progressive Mayor also supported a variety of limits on campaign speech limits which was the subject of litigation brought by the Republican Party. The “Director of Research, City Ethics” (Robert Wechsler holds this absurdly titled taxpayer funded position) opined that the suit to defend the First Amendment might be plain old harassment.
“the suit seems to be more promotion and harassment than an attempt to change the law. Would the plaintiffs prefer a public campaign financing program in San Diego?”
Robert Wechsler wrote me saying he was not with the city of San Diego. He is correct; he is with an outfit called City Ethics. It turns out that Wechsler is also a speech regulator. His bio describes a robust left wing background in speech regulator, which he shares with Filner:
He is also Administrator of the New Haven Democracy Fund, a public campaign financing program for the mayoral election.
For Common Cause Connecticut, he has prepared a Model Code of Ethics for Connecticut municipalities and has written reports on the state’s municipal ethics codes and on the state’s forms of municipal government and how to change them.
The New Haven Democracy Fund is a government run effort to both limit political speech in New Haven (CT) as well as force government speech. If politicians limit their political speech, they receive tax funds provided, in part, from taxpayers who disagree with that politician.
Wechsler has also helped Common Cause, an organization with a history of seeking to limit speech protected by the First Amendment.
In fact, the City of San Diego, and the progressive pervert mayor, have a well developed relationship with certain speech regulators and speech regulation schemes. Stay tuned for more on that another day.
So perhaps it is not surprising that someone with this background is unable to comprehend why a lawsuit might be brought to end speech regulations, calling it akin to harassment. There is always someone who can devise pleasant sounding reasons to restrict rights in the Bill of Rights. Speech regulators will cite all sorts of concerns and fears which justify limiting First Amendment rights. And when someone goes to court to protect those rights, speech regulators can be so convinced of the rightness of their position, they assume the lawsuit must simply be harassment.
Here is Wechsler accusing attorney Jim Bopp of trying “wanting to cause trouble.” In the same post he displays that joy of power of so many speech regulators – come ask him first for permission. Behold:
Bopp is the one who’s childish, or at least teenaged. He’s the one who thinks he’s right and the parental government is wrong to even require him to seek approval. He’s the one who takes the car keys and dares Dad to ground him, all the time shouting what a dictator Daddy is.
There is nothing more important in government ethics than asking for ethics advice from an ethics officer or commission or staff member assigned to the task. If I was told I could only have one ethics provision, that’s the one I would choose. Call me a Daddy’s boy.
This doesn’t display an appreciation of ethics, this demonstrates a love of power.