<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for psimonson</title><link>http://disqus.com/people/psimonson/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:11:16 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: Bingaman, Udall want to reform the PATRIOT Act</title><link>http://nmindependent.disqus.com/bingaman_udall_want_to_reform_the_patriot_act_43/#comment-16889691</link><description>This is welcome news.  Sen. Udall has been a champion of reforming the USA Patriot Act since the bill originally passed in October, 2001.  The ACLU applauds both his and Sen. Bingaman's leadership on this vital issue.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">psimonson</dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:11:16 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Disenfranchisement comes for the archbishop</title><link>http://nmindependent.disqus.com/disenfranchisement_comes_for_the_archbishop/#comment-8154203</link><description>Thanks for the kind words.  As the the Church lobbying out of its 501(c)(3), it's not as if the Church was spending money taking out ads and so forth against the death penalty.  Archbishop Sheehan and other members of the clergy went to the statehouse to lobby personally, wrote letters and made phone calls -- much as you or I or any other citizen is free to do, no matter what church or organization they may belong to.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">Brigette_Russell</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 14 Apr 2009 00:07:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Disenfranchisement comes for the archbishop</title><link>http://nmindependent.disqus.com/disenfranchisement_comes_for_the_archbishop/#comment-7953006</link><description>Brigette you sum up the issues nicely.  The Archdiocese is no more restricted in how they lobby the legislature than is our organization, the ACLU.  Indeed, we may not agree with their positions all the time, but we would defend their free speech right to voice those opinions.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Things get a little muddier around strictures imposed by the tax codes.  Assuming the church lobbies out of its 501(c)(3), it can devote only a minor portion of its funding to lobbying activities.  If it exceeds that amount (and that all depends on the size of its budget and whether it has made certain elections available to it under the federal tax code), then the church could be in violation of its tax status.  But that's for the IRS to decide, not a court (at least in the first place).</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">psimonson</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 07 Apr 2009 16:43:46 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Bill to ban mixed martial arts called &amp;#8220;a slap in the face&amp;#8221; to New Mexico</title><link>http://nmindependent.disqus.com/bill_to_ban_mixed_martial_arts_called_8220a_slap_in_the_face8221_to_new_mexico/#comment-6654547</link><description>This bill may well be unconstitutional.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">psimonson</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:08:17 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: Caging the vote?</title><link>http://nmindependent.disqus.com/caging_the_vote/#comment-3488197</link><description>The ACLU was not involved in the case challenging the Las Cruces seal.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">psimonson</dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 11:19:20 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>