(The following was written by John Flannery and is posted here with permission. -P13)

Dear friends and political activists,

We have an opportunity right in our own backyard, close to home, somewhat removed from the Gulf disaster, and important for each of us – if we truly care about the environment – even though it is not as obvious a disaster, as it’s moving slower than the oils crept to landfall in Louisiana.

It’s not the Gulf spill but it is a species of the same enviro challenge – reckless or wilful neglect of our treasured resources.

We are putting at risk the water arteries that run through our county where we live.

It is an issue pending before the Board of Supervisors.

We can put our e-mail talk to the test and do something and it’s really not so onerous although time is of the essence.

All we have to do is let our elected representatives know that we have to do something to create 100 foot buffers by these year round waterways — or risk losing them entirely and compromise not only the county’s water, but also the Potomac river, and the Chesapeake Bay.

Some of you may think this just came upon us – at least the discussion about how to redress and repair the damage to our streams.

But responsible members of our community have been fighting for basic reforms for years (more than five years) – and, in the meantime, our water resources have degraded.

Indeed, there are marvelous power point presentations 5 years ago stating what needed to be done, and the proposed reforms, all worthy of your consideration, have been reduced to one digestible emphasis – RIPARIAN BUFFERS.  See http://www.loudounwatershedwatch.org/subitem6_4.html.

The Chamber of Commerce and Dulles realtors say strange things about these reforms including: we don’t need any reform, we don’t want to spend the money, they ask why do you want water to be so pure anyhow, and they refuse to do anything.

But they protest at the outset of these declarations, at every turn, that they are supporters of the environment.

They just don’t explain how refusing to protect our environment is environmental.But I grow tedious.

Consider this picture of one stream site.

Is the Chamber or the realtors going to encourage their members, families, or children to step into any stream like this, much less to drink from the stream?

It should bother these folk that we can’t drink or swim in these waters.

Some of you may remember when Congressman Joe Fisher came out to canoe in our streams and vowed to protect these waters.

But that was 1980. And a lot has happened since.

I wish that this was the only such picture of our streams.

Unfortunately, it is not. Yhere are too many across our once glorious county.

Don’t get me wrong.

We have beautiful water streams that are habitable.

Our concern is, however, not about those. It’s about this spread of stressed streams that were once healthy.

We have too many streams in our county that are severely stressed, and they’ve been multiplying over the years – as our population has grown.

You can take a look at the streams near you on this watershed map – http://www.loudounwatershedwatch.org/maps/ – see if you have a red dot near your home (signifying terrible conditions), and how habitable is that stream?

See pictures like the one above, and read EPA reports on how your stream is doing – or not doing.

One near the eastern end of Middleburg had a note about how bad it smelled; another west of Middleburg was idyllic.

That’s what this is all about.

Holly and I looked at the map to review the streams near us – and we know something of our geography because we walk and hack our horses on the roads and fields near our home.

We have some challenges in our own area.

This exercise is not about throwing up your hands and giving up, but rolling up your sleeves and repairing the damage that’s been done – that we ourselves have done, or that we have allowed to occur.

If we can tell our children to clean up their rooms, we can tell ourselves to clean up our streams, or tell our neighbors they must, as we are all in this together.

What’s really scary is that an active minority of our friends and neighbors don’t believe it – despite the evidence.

If you judged by their enthusiasm, you would guess they would adamantly refuse to do anything even as the fouled waters became lifeless and stung their eyes.

I wrote a column in the recent edition of the Purcellville Gazette that i believe is a fair summary of the debate (included below).

As political types, we should all appreciate there’s more to be done – and quickly – and I believe it is to let the board of supervisors know that they should hold the course, insist on these buffers, to save our rivers that are severely stressed and at risk, and not pass the buck to anyone else.

More precisely, this is what we must think about.

After the public hearing on the 24th,  there was discussion on the Board with the following two courses suggested –

1. Send it back to the Planning Commission  (to start over again – huh?), or

2. Keep it under the BOS control and discuss next steps (of course).

The latter alternative favors a public dialogue to do what local government is challenged to accomplish in every community, the protection of our basic resources when individuals would otherwise despoil it.

The BOS has voted to discuss and decide what to do in a Committee of the Whole meeting on June 15th., either going forward or backward.

In preparation for this upcoming meeting, we need action on 2 fronts in the next week or so:

1. Inform key BOS members that we know what’s at stake here, and we want them to act, starting with a recommendation for action by the Board on the 15th,,and that they handle the issue themselves.

I am told that the following members are uncertain how to proceed, meaning, whether the Board should take this issue by the horns and continue to work the problem at the Board level until it’s resolved – namely – Scott York, Susan Buckley, Andrea McGimsey & Kelly Burk.

I think we have to tell them we support them going forward, indeed this challenge to our streams doesn’t allow of any alternative approach.

I also believe we should be talking and writing to all the board members.

My wife holly already wrote to BOS members and received the response by Supervisor Stevens Miller, and also a favorable response by Jim Burton. She hasn’t heard from the others yet.

Stevens had some terribly useful observations, and he is holding public meetings he’s already scheduled; we’ve arbitrarily included Stevens’ response but Jim’s remarks were quite constructive and helpful.

If you did no more than what Holly did, and implicitly gave support to members who want to get this right, you would be doing something worthwhile.

To combat the misinformation and disinformation that has been circulated about this issue, I am hopeful that the County staff will prepare a presentation, as they did at the last BOS appearance, that separates the facts from that kind of do-nothing fiction and junk science that has become the coin of the political realm of late.

We cannot expect there to be a reasonable discussion of the issues as long as people can keep stating untruths as truth.

We need the BOS to take charge of this issue and to hold district community meetings between now and September to stomp down these scary fictions, in other words, to clarify the issues and to clear up the misconceptions, as well as to identify the issues that need to be addressed by the BOS so they can implement this much-needed reform to save our streams.

As a citizen, my view is that we want the BOS to convene in September, reconvene the Committee of the Whole, to assess results and approve a work plan to address, and to resolve the issues and  move forward.

2.  Speak to the BOS publickly at its next hearing. You should consider speaking at the public input session on the 14th  – if that’s at all possible and it’s something you feel comfortable doing – to clarify why it is so important to take this step as part of a larger strategy to protect water quality in Loudoun and the region.

If the Gulf disaster upsets you, then you should consider doing something about this important enviro- challenge a lot closer to home – while it’s still manageable – if you care to make a difference and change that report about the stream near you house that is now severely stressed.

Thanks for considering my observations.

Warmest regards,

John

John P. Flannery II

Campbell Flannery PC

19 East Market St., Leesburg, VA 20176

Much has been made of the pothole program that Governor McDonnell put in place this year. Loudoun County Traffic wrote about it.

After repairing more than 120,000 pot holes since the launch Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s pothole blitz, the program has been extended through April 15.

“This has been a team effort starting with Virginia’s citizens who have helped identify and report potholes along their travels to VDOT’s Web site and call-in line,” said Governor Bob McDonnell in a press release. “I would like to especially thank VDOT and its contractors who have worked day and night to save many motorists the grief and annoyance, and potential damage to their vehicle. The blitz is working so we’re going to keep it up, and we ask citizens to continue reporting potholes as soon as they develop.” – Loudoun County Traffic

It may not be quite as “successful” as originally reported, however. Tammi M’s Living in LoCo blog explains.

VDOT is out in the area filling in the big cracks and a few potholes by laying down gravel and going over it with a spray of tar. It doesn’t set immediately and drivers are finding that when they drive over these “fixes” they’re spraying gravel all over the place. I witnessed one car skid around a corner and through a newly applied patch, spraying a fair amount onto kids walking home from the bus stop

A few neighbors have talked about how they’re finding bits of tar on their cars and in their houses since pets and people are walking through it unaware that it is still loose. – Living in LoCo

Follow through below to consider the implications of playing fast and loose with tar and gravel.I think kids getting sprayed with tar is pretty awful, but that’s just me. Similarly, I think getting sticky splatter all over my car is unpleasant. In my opinion, if we’re going to repair roads, we should do it in such a way as to avoid splattering kids and cars with crude oil products.

There’s a difference between doing a job fast, and doing a job right. Simply spraying tar over a gravel fill, on roads that have the level of traffic we have here in Loudoun, is more than insufficient, it’s a waste of time and money. At a time when we don’t have transportation money to waste, it seems likely that VDOT is going to have to go back and redo fills that are undone by traffic. That means that time won’t be used to fix other problems on our roads, and that money won’t be available for other critical needs.

But hey, at least Governor McDonnell is getting good press.

To report a pothole, Loudoun County motorists should visit www.virginiadot.org/, call VDOT’s Highway Helpline at 800-367-7623 (ROAD) or fill out an online pot hole repair request form.

Our immigration system is more than bent, it’s completely broken. From deporting Boy Scouts to secretly sending the comatose to the third-world, even though they’re Americans, our system creates bizzare, perverse incentives to break the law, evade responsibility and invites corruption at all levels. Here in Loudoun, our neighbors and neighborhoods are directly impacted, but not in the way you might think.

• For every neighbor afraid to call the police for fear of immigration authorities, another criminal and gang is given power and authority with a commensurate decline in the rule of law.
• For every American citizen born of undocumented migrants, another family is threatened with being torn apart.
• For every residence abandoned by neighbors living in terror of discovery, another neighborhood suffers from blight and foreclosure.

This is a crisis of justice, and needs to be addressed, now. Fortunately, Immigration Reform For America is standing up to do that. We Democrats in Loudoun will do well to join them.

REFORM IMMIGRATION USING YOUR CELL PHONE!

Text JUSTICE (or JUSTICIA for Spanish) to 69866 to receive action alerts and updates in the fight for immigration reform. Be the first to know when a bill hits Congress! We can win, but we need your help!

Follow below for some more discussion of immigration reform and Loudoun.Loudoun County has experienced significant growth in its immigrant community, and we are stronger for it. Recent immigrants pay taxes, start businesses and give back to their communities at rates equal to, if not higher than, citizens who have spent their entire lives here. And they assimilate faster than previous waves of immigrants as well.

Unfortunately for us and our neighborhoods, many of these neighbors cannot avail themselves of public safety services, even though they pay taxes. They cannot get justice from exploitative employers who hold them to a form of indentured servitude.

There is legislation in Congress that solves this problem, and 78% of Americans support it.

We Democrats should be fighting for advancement of comprehensive immigration reform. It has nationwide support, it creates a clear contrast between our Party and our opposition, and can bring a huge and as-yet unactivated population of Loudoun voters to the polls on our side, and keep them with us for a generation.

And leaving the political considerations aside, it’s just the right thing to do.

Immigrants in our neighborhoods today live in fear and have no path to justice. In a nation that ends our pledge with “and justice for all” this travesty needs to be alleviated. The time is now. Let’s get it done.  

(If there are any elected officials reading this, I humbly implore you to take the pledge to fix this problem. Ignoring the problem because it is difficult or perceived to be unpopular is not going to make it go away.)

By the way, they’re not “illegal immigrants” or “illegals.” A person cannot be illegal, and to assert that they can be is both dehumanizing and ignorant. Some of our migrant neighbors are undocumented, just like you and I are undocumented when our driver’s license expires and we drive to the DMV – under an expired license – to renew it. Or when we trespass without written permission to take a shortcut across train tracks.

I leave you with this.  

Last night at the LCDC meeting, Supervisor Andrea McGimsey gave a great presentation on the risks of energy sources that we use, and the techniques we as a county can use to mitigate and manage those risks. The presentation was informative, and stirred some local pride within me when I found out that Loudoun County is a nationally-recognized leader in energy planning thanks to the hardworking efforts of our Democratic Supervisors.

I’ve long been an advocate for a measure already used MDOT, VDOT and our neighbors in PG County: Don’t mow on Air Quality Action Days. It should be relatively straightforward for the County to prohibit its landscapers from running powered landscaping equipment on Code Orange and Code Red days. In doing so, the County can lead by example, and perhaps influence the policies and contracts of the multivarious Home Owners Associations in Loudoun to implement similar clauses in their landscaping agreements.

A second idea follows from the first: Allow liberal teleworking on Air Quality Action Days. I have an agreement with my employers to work from home on Code Red and Orange days. With the major telework programs already in place, it seems logical to extend an air quality policy option that would allow employees who can to work from home when driving to work would exacerbate an already dangerous air quality day.

If you agree with these ideas, please follow below the fold for a draft letter you can send to our elected officials.Below is a sample letter you could write to our elected officials. The best way to implement good policy is to write our elected officials with specific ideas. They’re always happy to hear from their constituents, and you would be surprised how much can get done by simply engaging with our leaders.

The address for our Board of Supervisors is:

Supervisor [Name]

P.O. Box 7000

Leesburg VA 20177

Thank you for your service to Loudoun County. Reducing our environmental impact is critically important to preserving the quality of life we have here, and I’m proud that my local government is taking action to lead on this issue with programs like the County Energy Strategy.

In the spirit of sharing ideas, I wanted to write today and offer my two small suggestions that might help further mitigate the impact of our activities on our local environment.

1. No Code Orange and Red Day Mowing – I believe that my elected leaders should take steps to eliminate mowing and other powered landscaping on days when the air quality is bad. Our government has enough purchasing power to impact the market for powered landscaping services, and should be using that power to implement contract terms with its landscaping vendors prohibiting powered landscaping on code red and orange air quality days. I understand this may lead to grass growing a bit taller than it might otherwise, but that’s a price I’m more than happy to pay to help mitigate my neighbors asthma.

2. Teleworking on Code Orange and Red Days – In a County that prides itself on a 21st century economy and workforce, it seems logical to allow liberal telework on days when keeping cars off our roads is critical to air quality. If this were implemented government-wide for all employees with the capacity to work from home, it would make a difference for our neighbors with asthma, if nothing else. We have snow days because its dangerous to drive, why not air days because it is dangerous to breathe?

Thank you for your consideration, and all you do.

One of the greatest things about the advent of blogging in our political discourse is the fact that claims and assertions can be immediately fact-checked. Of course, it means that lies and misinformation can also spread rapidly, but well written political commentary should come with links to primary sources that backup the essentials of that argument.

Media Matters has been one of the most important voices for truth in politics. It has spent years criticizing media outlets for their credulity in reporting claims by pundits, politicians and others. Now, they’re taking their skills and applying them to the politicians themselves on a new site, Political Correction. Here’s a taste.

Massey Energy, the Virginia-based coal company currently under federal investigation after an explosion at its Upper Branch coal mine in West Virginia killed 29 miners earlier in the year, has received a safety award from an industry group.

…

In a press release, beleaguered Massey CEO Don Blankenship – who several years ago spent considerable sums of money getting a coal-friendly judge elected to the West Virginia Supreme Court – gloated, “All of these awards are well deserved recognition of how our members are committed to working safely and that Massey’s safety culture is effective throughout the organization.”

The safety culture Blankenship alludes to is quite elusive. – Political Correction

Go. Read.Here at Loudoun Progress, we hope to provide a small slice of the service that Media Matters provides on a national basis. We hope to be accurate and truthful in revealing the disingenuous motives and simple falsehoods at the root of some of our political opponents’ assertions and campaigns. And when and where we are wrong, we hope you’ll give us an opportunity to get it right.

Because in politics, as in life, the truth does matter.

“We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to

tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” -Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe, 1820.

Linkarama below! Including Mr. Mister in the New York Times. No, I’m not kidding (click through the first link).

Also, school budgets and tax revolts go head to head in New Jersey. Sounds familiar…

In a year of huge reductions in state education aid, many of the council members struggled to find a compromise between those outraged by high taxes and those worried about cuts to the classroom.

“Going into this, we knew whatever we do is not going to make either side happy,” said James Major, president of the Woodbridge Council, who said he had lost sleep at night from the pressure. “As a governing body, you try to hear all sides of it. You become a little Solomon-like in trying to make a decision.” – The New York Times

• Study Finds Supplements Contain Contaminants – I have to admit looking with a jaundiced eye at herbal supplements. It’s interesting to have impressions confirmed. That doesn’t happen often.
• Anchors Away – Digby exposes the heinous racism of the “anchor babies” concept. As in, “I don’t care if those kids are citizens, deport them and their entire family anyway.”
• ‘Obese’ BMI Does Not Harm Current Health of Young Adults, Study Says – It turns out worrying about your BMI may be worse for your health than your BMI.
• Towns Challenge New Jersey Voters’ Wishes – What happens when elected officials say “no” to tax revolts that would gut schools? New Jersey is going to find out.
• Giving Credit Where Credit Is Due – Vivian looks at some of the good done by the current administration in Richmond. It’s worth reading and considering.
• Sudden Demand for Logicians On Wall Street – Our stock markets are essentially a series of computers betting against each other. That, my friends, is not a rational market. That is simply gambling, which produces nothing of sustainable value.

Yesterday, the Senate took a series of votes on border-only immigration control measures sponsored by Republicans. If you clicked through our Sign This, Send That post from Saturday, you may have helped influence our Senators’ votes on these measures. The proposals would have prolonged and extended policies that have not worked for a decade, sending good tax dollars after bad.

All three proposals were defeated, thanks to the Democratic majority in the Senate, and the voices of those Senators constiuents. Reform Immigration For America explains what was at stake.

The good news is, it looks like the majority of Senators recognize that pouring more money into already failed policies is not the way forward. The amendments today were introduced by Senators McCain, Kyl and Cornyn. Each amendment sought to fund programs and initiatives that would merely be a symbolic band aid on the gaping wound of our immigration system.

First up was an amendment introduced by Senator McCain. It would have sent 6,000 National Guardsmen to the southern border.  Federal law enforcement agencies are the real experts on border security and we should allow them to do their job, not the National Guard.

Next was Senator Kyl’s amendment. Rather than deal with the real issues of immigration, Kyl moved to expand the failed program Operation Streamline, throwing more money at a program that diverts crucial and limited federal judicial resources away from counter-drug and smuggling prosecutions.

Last, was an amendment introduced by Senator Cornyn. ­­­­Instead of supporting real solutions like comprehensive immigration reform, Sen. Cornyn offered an amendment to provide a mind-blowing $ 1,985,540,000 total in additional funding for enforcement-only operations that have been proven to be both ineffective and avoid any real solutions on the issue. – Reform Immigration For America

Senator Warner was among those voting down these Amendments. Senator Webb voted for them.In order to get to real immigration reform, we need to get through and past the fog of falsehood and fraudulent plans. We need to say no to policies that validate false assumptions first, so we can build a consensus around real reform.

The Amendments offered by Senators McCain, Kyl and Cornyn weren’t solutions. They were simply symbolic acts, feeding into the fear of migrants. America is the land of opportunity. Period. Militarizing a border which is already full of law enforcement is not an answer. Wasting two billion dollars on ineffective grandstanding is not an answer.

I thank Senator Warner for taking a stand against scare tactics posing as solutions. I thank him for his votes.

As for Senator Webb, I must ask why he chose to vote against our newest Americans and their families. I ask him why he chose to validate fear and fake answers.  

The Washington Post raises an interesting question, do Virginia’s Republican Congressmembers oppose a standard pay raise for Federal employees?

The federal pay freeze proposal is the brainchild of Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.). But the overall YouCut program is being run by Rep. Eric Cantor (R), who, in addition to being the House minority whip is also a Virginian. And Virginia is chock full of federal employees. According to the Office of Personnel Management, Virginia has the second-most non-defense federal employees in the country, behind only California. (That ranking includes only states. The District has slightly more federal workers than Virginia, while Maryland has slightly fewer.) – The Washington Post

The presence of many Federal workers in Virginia has given some of Cantor’s fellow Virginia Republicans pause, including our own Frank Wolf, who stated flatly, “I’m opposed to it.”

Herein lies the problem with Republicans’ undifferentiated opposition to (non-military) government spending and deficit fearmongering. When it comes down to what to cut, and how to cut it, no one – especially Republicans – wants to be the one to give up their money.

Follow below for some discussion of Frank Wolf, raises and spending cuts.Frank Wolf is a Republican who has voted for every tax cut proposed by George Bush, and also voted for every spending increase proposed by his Party. His entire career has been based on expanding the deficit.

Meanwhile, debt is the biggest threat to the Republic since Barack Obama, according to the Republican party. And Frank Wolf has been on that train as well.

It’s not about fiscal responsibility you see, it’s about rhetorical capability.

Frank Wolf’s own quote from the Post story expose Mr. Wolf’s inherently contradictory philosophy.

“I’m opposed to it,” said Rep. Frank Wolf (R), whose 10th district includes a wide swath of Northern Virginia suburbs.

Wolf noted that the pay freeze would apply to scores of federal employees — many of whom reside in his district — who he considers to be heroes, from the CIA employees who have died in Afghanistan, to FBI agents working at home and abroad, to National Institutes of Health scientists working to cure diseases.

As the co-sponsor of a prominent proposal to create a federal debt commission, Wolf said he was all in favor of identifying ways to cut spending. And he likes the general idea of YouCut, since “it’s good to find out what people are interested in.”

But Wolf doesn’t want federal employees put on the chopping block.

“I just don’t think it’s the right approach,” Wolf said. – The Washington Post

So create a debt commission, but god forbid you put my money on the table to solve that debt! Take a vote on what to cut, but if you don’t like the results of that vote, cry foul! (Where have I heard that before?)

[As a side note, Mr. Wolf’s answer to any problem isn’t to actually solve the problem, but to create a commission to study it. Because study is superior to solutions every time in his world.]

I am opposed to trimming Federal raises. I feel strongly that people who choose public service, and work for you and me (and not their own profit) deserve raises to keep up with the local cost of living. I am willing to increase revenue to make sure that happens. And yet, people like me are lambasted as the prodigal spenders? If only reality would reflect the rhetoric.

Jeff Barnett has a phrase, “We need to start solving our problems now. In our time. On our dime.” Our dime. That is the key difference between Republicans like Frank Wolf and Democrats like Jeff Barnett. Jeff Barnett and the Democrats live the philosophy of financial responsibility, they don’t just speak empty phrases.

So thank you, Mr. Wolf, for opposing your own Party for self-preservation. It’s clear you understand that opposing Federal raises in Northern Virginia is a bad idea. You wouldn’t have been re-elected for 20 years if you didn’t understand that.

But please, Mr. Wolf, don’t insult our intelligence by opposing raise cuts while continuing to decry the debt, and then merely proposing a commission to study the problem. That’s not leadership, that’s not even governance, that’s sheer policy cowardice. That’s not an answer, it’s an avoidance, and we voters of the 10th District deserve better.

A light week of email activism, so worth clicking through.

Follow below the fold for some of the progressive solicitations we’ve actually responded to recently.  

• No Bailouts For Big Oil – MoveOn has a campaign going to remove the liability limits on oil companies. They’re the most profitable entities on the face of the earth, they should pay when they deface it.

Bob Lazaro is the inexplicably popular, always colorful mayor of Purcellville. He’s famous for suing the County over a high school. As a result, residents of Purcellville saw their taxes going to funding both sides of a local lawsuit. Now that is fiscally conservative!

Well, it appears that Mickey Mouse took a stand against the Mayor’s antics, and is being called out for it.

Purcellville Mayor Bob Lazaro this week made good on a statement he made to the Town Council May 11 by filing a formal complaint to the Virginia State Board of Elections “with respect to apparent violations of the State Code related to Campaign Finance Disclosure.”

The mayor was referring to signs placed outside the polling station advocating write-in votes for Mickey Mouse in the uncontested mayoral race May 4. Lazaro was unopposed on the ballot, however, an unidentified group or individual paid for automated phone calls to residents and distributed fliers advocating the defeat of incumbents on the Town Council. – Leesburg Today

It is odd to find myself grudgingly agreeing with Mayor Lazaro’s call for disclosure, even as I wonder what the consequences of that agreement may be.

Please click through and join me in my deliberation.I strongly support disclosure in election spending, especially in an era when corporations no longer have spending limits. The DISCLOSE Act, which would shed a lot more sunlight on corporate political spending, and help mitigate some of the evils of the Citizens United decision, is an important part of that.

In the independent campaign against Purcellville incumbents this year, the robocalls did not provide disclosure of who paid for them.

The automated phone calls received by area residents right before the election advocating the mayor’s defeat and proposing a fictitious character, also failed to contain the legally required disclosure, Lazaro said, adding the same comment for the signs. – Leesburg Today

That lack of disclosure in the robocalls, which are quite different from fliers that an individual voter can print up at home, is simply not okay. Like TV airtime, robocalls are a form of speech that is only available to some, not all, thanks to their cost. If you’re paying for robocalls, you need to say so on the calls (in my opinion).

In the case of TV airtime, disclosure is equally important. It’s all well and good to say we all have free speech, but when some peoples’ speech is “freer” than others by virtue of access to public airwaves by spending private money to get that access, the relative prevalence or value of a particular opinion can be misconstrued or artificially enhanced by spending. After all, airtime is a zero-sum speech game (unlike, say, the Internet). Company X buying ad time during the LOST finale closes off the possibility of Advocacy Group Y having access to that time. It is critical that there is disclosure of funding when it is funding that makes some kinds of speech even possible.

That being said, I worry about the impact disclosure requirements may have on small, local elections where anonymity of authorship may be invaluable as neighbors clash over local issues. Disclosure requirements, with their attendant compliance costs, shouldn’t be used as a bludgeon to minimize a minority’s ability to dissent. Disclosure requirements could be used to quell dissent in two ways.

First, the cost of complying with disclosure requirements could, themselves, provide a barrier to otherwise free political speech. The costs of printing up a flier and distributing it are negligible, but the costs of filling out required forms with the state for having printed up the fliers and the even greater costs (fines, lawsuits) of not filing because you didn’t know you were supposed to are far from negligible.

Second, the act of public disclosure of flier authorship could lead to blowback on an individual and their family. There’s a reason a lot of Revolutionary leaders published their opinions anonymously. Even today, I wonder what distributing a pro-migrant flier in Sterling might lead to if it were signed by someone in the neighborhood. Ostracization in some places for sure, vandalism possibly. Do we have the freedom from negative reactions to our political speech? Probably not. That seems to advocate for the importance of anonymous political speech, in flier form, even immediately before an election.

The flier Mayor Lazaro takes issue with did provide authorship disclosure, of a sort.

In his letter, Lazaro cited the “apparent violations” of the disclosure act. The flier, accusing the town of “debt, debt, & more debt,” said it was “time to fight back” and advocated the defeat of incumbent Town Council members. The flier, Lazaro wrote, violates the campaign finance disclosure provisions of the state code as it did not have the legally required disclaimer identifying the person and/or group paying for it. The flier contained a statement at the bottom saying it was “paid for privately, not sponsored by any candidate, campaign or PAC.” – Leesburg Today

So the question is whether that level of disclosure on the flier is sufficient. Is it enough to assert that a flier wasn’t paid for by a PAC without making a positive statement of who did pay for it? After all, our country was founded using anonymous fliers, as The Anonymous Liberal has observed.

The whole point of pseudonymous writing is that people don’t know who the writer is. They have to judge the writing on its merits, not on the credentials of the writer. That was precisely why Madison, Hamilton, and Jay chose to use a pseudonym. They wanted their ideas to be judged separately from any opinions people had about them personally. If they wanted to cash in on their reputations as “heroically successful revolutionaries,” they would have signed their own names to what they were writing.

Indeed, we who write Loudoun Progress have debated among ourselves and with others about the relative merits of blogging publicly or anonymously.

And so I am of two minds, and have to compliment Mayor Lazaro for making me think. I am sincerely interested in hearing what the readers of Progress think about anonymous political speech, as our experiment in Loudoun group blogging continues.

(Bonus points for those of you who noticed I linked to a concurring Supreme Court opinion by Justice Thomas above.)