Right At Home blog dug into the 2nd Quarter fundraising numbers for Tennessee’s freshman Republican Members of Congress yesterday:

The [OpenSecrets.org] article goes on to list the top 10 and bottom 10 fundraisers in the second quarter, and none of the four freshmen from Tennessee made either list.

Just how did they fare?

Diane Black (TN06) and Stephen Fincher (TN08) both exceeded the average in Q2, with $297,929 (#22) and $271,728 (#28), respectively. Chuck Fleischmann (TN03) and Scott Desjarlais (TN04) fell considerably further down the list, with Fleischmann coming in at #60 with $147,041 and Desjarlais hitting #63 with $141,585.

For the first and second quarters combined, the four rank a little higher compared to their colleagues, but stack up similarly against each other:

#16      Diane Black (TN06)                    $556,561

#21      Stephen Fincher (TN08)          $521,874

#55      Scott Desjarlais (TN04)            $277,875

#56      Chuck Fleischmann (TN03)   $274,540

A major reason for Black’s being at the top of the TN heap appears to be her PAC fundraising – measuring PAC contributions as a percentage of her total fundraising, she really stands out from the rest of the TN heap. She has a significantly higher percent of PAC contributions that the rest of the Tennessee freshmen:

Black – 60%

Fleischmann – 38%

Fincher – 37%

Desjarlais – 35%

It’s interesting to see that Fincher has raised nearly as much as Black (93% of her year to date total), but is almost exactly the mirror image of her PAC to Individual contribution ratio. Is that a difference that matters to voters?

RAH poses the question, does it matter where the money comes from? Writing anecdotally, I think this really only matters to opponents. I haven’t ever seen a time when people really got fired up about fundraising data, except around reporting periods or if someone took money from some shady character like Hassan Nemazee.

As a numbers guy myself, I’ve dug into the state-level reports for the 2nd Quarter. Not much there at the moment because they only recently adjourned.

Clarksville Democrat State Senator Tim Barnes looks kind of weak with only about $6,000 on hand. State Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Sargent has nearly $77,000 on hand. Rutherford County State Representative Joe Carr has about $6,000 in the bank.

I’ll dig more into these numbers in a few days.

By the way, if you’re a Republican and you want help fundraising, drop me a line.

Jeff Woods of the Nashville City Paper reports:

The Tennessee ACLU said Tuesday it will sue to overturn the state’s new cyberbullying law as a violation of free-speech protections.

Bloggers and other commentators have harshly criticized the law, which takes effect Friday, because it makes it a crime to post on the Internet any image that causes “emotional distress” to anyone.

“This new law creates a chilling effect on expressive political, artistic and otherwise lawful speech and also turns political activists, artists and others into criminals,” ACLU-Tennessee Executive Director Hedy Weinberg said. “In addition, anyone with an online presence, such as social media users, becomes vulnerable.”

The ACLU said it was “responding to numerous requests for assistance and after a thorough legal analysis.”

The law’s sponsor, Rep. Charles Curtiss, D-Sparta, has insisted it contains sufficient safeguards to prevent unreasonable prosecutions. The law is aimed at combating Internet harassment.

The spokesperson for the TN ACLU calls the law “blatantly unconstitutional.” My favorite description of the law is “comically unconstitutional,” which is what Greg Lukianoff called it last week.

I think the ACLU has taken a position on which most reasonable people can agree. While the intent of the law may have been to protect people from being “cyberbullied,” the practical application of the law could virtually extend to any manner of “offensive” online posts. Who decides what’s offensive? A judge? A victim?

It’s like when Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart attempted to define offensive speech in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) – in this case, pornography. Justice Stewart writes:

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

I blogged briefly about Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam’s desire to reduce the number of bills coming out of the legislature last week.

TNReport reports today that House GOP Leader Gerald McCormick shares Haslam’s concern:

A change in the attorney-client privilege system for filing bills in the Legislature next year could significantly decrease the amount of legislation filed and cut down on unnecessary work at the Capitol, says House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick.

Gov. Bill Haslam has called for substantial reductions in the number of bills, and McCormick says he’s “all for it.”

McCormick said the process of using a “sign-off form” the Legislature plans to utilize next year will go a long way toward that goal. Haslam recently said he would like to see the amount of bills filed to be cut by one-third from more than 2,000 bills typically entered for consideration now.

Haslam’s call brought immediate concurrence among Republican leaders, while complaints about the governor meddling in legislative affairs were heard from the Democratic side.

I still contend the problem is bills that create more government. Limit those and allow as many bills that repeal old and destructive laws as possible. Hell, let’s cut TCA by 20% or so. I’m sure there’s plenty in there that can be taken out.

Tennessee Governor Bill Haslam announced yesterday he’d like the General Assembly to propose fewer bills next year, according to the Associated Press:

The Republican governor said in a speech Tuesday that he would like the number of bills reduced by one-third, or from the about 2,200 filed this year to the 1,500 range.

“As Republicans, we’re saying we’re the party of smaller government,” Haslam told reporters after the speech. “Let’s see if we can do that in terms of bill proposals.”

As you might imagine, some people didn’t take too kindly to the Governor’s suggestion. Senate Democratic Leader Jim Kyle had this to say:

“I do not think it’s appropriate for the governor to try to dictate to the Legislature how to do its business,” he said. “I don’t believe that is the best interests of Tennessee.”

But Speaker Beth Harwell seemed to agree with the Governor’s sentiments:

But House Speaker Beth Harwell, R-Nashville, said the governor’s comments dovetail with efforts already under way in the General Assembly, where the GOP holds large majorities in both chambers.

Harwell said her office plans to send a memo to House members this week outlining a mechanism to avoid duplication of efforts.

Attorney-client privilege currently prevents the lawyers who draft legislation from informing other lawmakers that similar proposals have already been filed. Harwell said a new form will allow lawmakers to waive that privilege and allow the legal staff to divulge the subject matter of the bills they are working on.

“It’s consistent with the Republican philosophy that less government is best,” she said.

The speaker said she was pleased that Haslam shares the desire to cut down on the volume of legislation, but agreed that the governor and Legislature have different roles.

“The role of the Legislature is to develop and pass laws, and the role of the governor is to administer,” she said. “I don’t take lightly the role of the Legislature.”

Somewhere in the history of this blog, I wrote about Speaker Harwell’s efforts to reform the General Assembly at the beginning of the year. I can’t seem to find it.

[Read more →]