Go Mark Bunker! We are so with you!

Exactly right. “Dark money”.

Scientologists in Clearwater will vote for whom they are told to vote by Scientology. They wouldn’t want to be considered suppressive. They believe that cherchie knows best and is looking out for them. They’re like children; they’ll feel guilty for disobeying and that guilt will hamper their Bridge progress or even put a “stop” on their “flows” (income). They don’t want to undergo an ethics cycle and have to write up O/Ws. They believe it is their duty to support their cherch on every dynamic. And last but not least, if they’re OTVII they’ll be totalling the extra hours and expense for their next sec check and you bet they’ll pull the lever for whomever the cherch tells them they should. They’re idiot children in old bodies. No offense to real children who need their elders and trust them.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

In the unlikely event that the latter is the paramount concern of the city council, a few questions are in order:

When a mayoral candidate exercises his freedom of speech and sends out a questionnaire, how does that create any problems with ANY of the amendment?

When a campaign–one that’s more than a bit co-opted by these first amendment warriors, no less–shouts down a rival candidate, can you spot the first amendment problem? Call me touchy, but I can!

When a candidate regurgitates verbatim the deceptive talking points of a cult, such as “hater” or “bigot”, is he exercising his freedom of speech. Or is he just simply giving up his freedom of speech to be another’s mouthpiece?