I resent ECF's campaign regarding the New Mexico State Rep. Liz Thompson

[DC2]

I resent people who would trample all over our rights while using the "save the precious children" argument.
And I resent them even more when they are attempting to gain or hold political office.

 

[VapingTurtle]

Then please, do tell what it has to do with? ...

Placing another tool of The Heartland Institute into a position of power.

 

[chopdoc]

Whether Liz Thompson is anti-vape or not, this is totally wrong to support a campaign to defeat her by Gregory Conley, a research fellow with the Heartland Institute.

The Heartland Institute is an extreme right wing political lobby organization. Their views are not representative of the majority of the United States', New Mexico's, or Liz Thompson's district.

There are a lot more issues involved in this campaign than just her incorrect stance on vaping, which is unpopular and will not pass. She is a good progressive representative, and does not deserve targeting by ECF, especially in a manner in which the members of this forum cannot respond to the one sided political lobbying behind the banner at the top of the page. Her proposed anti-vaping bill should be opposed by ECF and the vaping community, but not her position as a representative.

I strongly object to ECF becoming a tool of an extreme right wing lobby in the USA.

Just because their views dont represent your views does not mean they dont represent the majority of the United States', New Mexico's, or Liz Thompson's district.

I strongly object to you trying to turn ECF into a political forum with your ultra ....... views.

 

[TheProphet]

Placing another tool of The Heartland Institute into a position of power.

And a british corporation would care about that why? You flat out ignored the 2nd half of my post.

 

[VapingTurtle]

And a british corporation would care about that why? You flat out ignored the 2nd half of my post.

Read your own signature line. See? There is more to voting than just vaping.

A British corporation wouldn't care. But certain individuals with the power to place that banner would like to sway US elections by soliciting political contributions.

Vote one way, vote another... it is up to you. Donate within legal limits to whomever... it's up to you. Whatever. What I object to is ECF being used as a tool.

 

[readeuler]

If vapers are a sacrificial lamb to appease whomever (ANTZ and the taxman, namely), I think it's only fair that she gets to be one too. I think it'd be pretty sweet for vaping to tip the balance.

 

[TheProphet]

Read your own signature line. See? There is more to voting than just vaping.

A British corporation wouldn't care. But certain individuals with the power to place that banner would like to sway US elections by soliciting political contributions.

I never said there wasn't more to voting than vaping. I did say that vaping is the only logical reason for British citizens on a vaping forum to give a damn about an election in New Mexico.

 

[DC2]

But certain individuals with the power to place that banner would like to sway US elections by soliciting political contributions.

Certain individuals with the "power to place that banner" would be whom exactly, other than the owner of this forum?

 

[classwife]

...Attack the post...NOT the Poster

 

[twgbonehead]

The US 1st amendment has nothing to do with British Subjects. ECF is a British Corporation.

Ridiculous. The first amendment guarantees that the US government will not restrict free speech by any individual, whether they are a US citizen or not. The amendment is designed to protect the rights of US citizens to hear the words of others just as much as it is to protect the rights of individuals to say those words. And the US gov't is often quick to decry other governments which do not allow their citizens the same rights (for example, China).

 

[VapingTurtle]

...Attack the post...NOT the Poster

Classy, how do I attack the article and the banner?

The article does not allow for comment. The banner advertises the solicitation. May I make solicitations for PACs (political action committees) on ECF? I think not. May I have a banner placed on ECF requesting money be sent to Alison Lundergan Grimes to defeat Mitch McConnell? Not a chance.

If ECF wants to solicit action against an anti-vaping bill, that is proper. To solicit donations to a political party or candidate is beyond the pale.

My beef is not with the candidates in that election. My beef is with a person representing a radical right organization (The Heartland Institue) being endorsed and supported by ECF in his lobbying effort.

 

[VapingTurtle]

Ridiculous. The first amendment guarantees that the US government will not restrict free speech by any individual, whether they are a US citizen or not. The amendment is designed to protect the rights of US citizens to hear the words of others just as much as it is to protect the rights of individuals to say those words. And the US gov't is often quick to decry other governments which do not allow their citizens the same rights (for example, China).

Yeah. You are right. I was wrong.

Although the US does have limits on political donations by foreigners.

 

[spartanstew]

While I can certainly understand everyone's points, I would probably side with the OP on this one.

It's one thing to point out that the candidate might be anti-vaping and encourage voters in New Mexico to go to the polls, it's a different animal altogether to put up a blanket statement asking everyone on the forum to contribute money to the opponents campaign.

Especially when no information about the other candidate is given other than he doesn't seem as opposed to vaping as the other.

I'm sure Mr. James is a fine candidate and I admit I know nothing about either on of them, but what if (for the sake of argument) he wanted to ban all guns - would some folks donating money because of the vaping cause change their mind? What if he was for late term abortions without parental consent (again for the sake of argument) - would some folks donating money change their mind?

I understand this forum is only about vaping, but to encourage members to donate money to a large and complicated puzzle while only showing one piece doesn't seem quite right.

 

[bluecat]

Although the US does have limits on political donations by foreigners.

Yeah but it doesn't do much good.

 

[twall]

Huh. Here, I thought it was "good Progressives" that were in favor of Big Brother putting its' fingers in everyone's life, and it was the right-wingers that wanted government to get out of the way, get out of our lives, and stop taxing our "sins" (and everything else under the sun).

My bad. :shrug:

 

[TheProphet]

what if (for the sake of argument) he wanted to ban all guns - would some folks donating money because of the vaping cause change their mind? What if he was for late term abortions without parental consent (again for the sake of argument) - would some folks donating money change their mind?

Yes, I'm sure they would. However, just because ECF posts up asking for donations, does not mean anyone is forced to donate. They are in no way demanding donations. I think they're asking rather nicely honestly. As far as the candidates other stances go, I personally do not donate to anything without doing my research first. If he were anti-gun, I would not donate to him. But I would not donate to her either.

I don't see it as any different than posting the CASAA calls to action. They are putting an option out there for how people can take action regarding legislation of vaping. It's an option, not a requirement.

 

[v1k1ng1001]

There's a further argument:

The Heartland Institute is notorious for whitewashing corporate money, funnelling it into the production of pro-corporate ideology that appears to be independent scholarship. For example, Dennis T. Avery wrote the climate deniers' bible, "Unstoppable Global Warming," that informs Republican policy to this day. What the Heartland Institute doesn't say is that Avery is trained as an agricultural economist and has no expertise in science, let alone climate science. Furthermore, Exxon, Shell and Chevron were primary donors to Heartland. Go figure.

If we get a stooge from the Heartland Institute, they're likely to be pro vaping--but pro vaping as long as Big Tobacco controls the industry. In other words, likely to be for FDA regulations that put vaping in the hands of big tobacco.

In this climate (pun intended) I would vote for Thompson and increase lobbying efforts as she may in fact turn out to be a rational human being whereas anyone who has sold their soul to the Heartland Institute is surely an ideologue who has sold out to big corporate money long ago.

 

[spartanstew]

Yes, I'm sure they would. However, just because ECF posts up asking for donations, does not mean anyone is forced to donate. They are in no way demanding donations. I think they're asking rather nicely honestly. As far as the candidates other stances go, I personally do not donate to anything without doing my research first. If he were anti-gun, I would not donate to him. But I would not donate to her either.

I don't see it as any different than posting the CASAA calls to action. They are putting an option out there for how people can take action regarding legislation of vaping. It's an option, not a requirement.

Yep, never said it was required or demanding or forcing folks to do something. However, I think you and I can both agree that many folks don't research things. They see something that ecf posts and will automatically assume ecf has their best interest at heart and will blindly follow.

It's different than the calls to action, because those are usually focused on one specific thing (write or call to express your opinion on legislation). This encompasses many, many things.

And since most people (on this forum) act on those calls to action, this particular piece of info given in the same style as calls to action may also mislead some into thinking they should just do it (again, without researching).

Will you? No. Will I? No.

Many probably will.

 

[Pinggolfer]

Agreed. 1st Amendment 101.

There is no first amendment right on ECF or most forums. Read the rules. If you think you have them think again.

 

[DC2]

While I can certainly understand everyone's points, I would probably side with the OP on this one.

It's one thing to point out that the candidate might be anti-vaping and encourage voters in New Mexico to go to the polls, it's a different animal altogether to put up a blanket statement asking everyone on the forum to contribute money to the opponents campaign.

Especially when no information about the other candidate is given other than he doesn't seem as opposed to vaping as the other.

I'm sure Mr. James is a fine candidate and I admit I know nothing about either on of them, but what if (for the sake of argument) he wanted to ban all guns - would some folks donating money because of the vaping cause change their mind? What if he was for late term abortions without parental consent (again for the sake of argument) - would some folks donating money change their mind?

I understand this forum is only about vaping, but to encourage members to donate money to a large and complicated puzzle while only showing one piece doesn't seem quite right.

It might be argued that...

Donating money to a political campaign based only on the recommendation of this forum would certainly be questionable.
But getting a heads-up on where a politically aware and active voter might want to donate is very helpful.

If one desires to understand more pieces of the puzzle before contributing, they have that right.