You are absolutely right about the law, but I saw a newspaper article about the actual M. Dennis Moore and there’s no reason to believe he’s not using his real name.

My suspicion at first, however, was that the name was actually a reference to a Monty Python skit about an inverse Robin Hood: “Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Riding through the land
Dennis Moore, Dennis Moore
Without a merry band
He steals from the poor
And gives to the rich
Stupid bitch”In retrospect, I don’t know why I thought that — it’s awfully obscure — but hence the title of the post.

Jasmine:

HETEROSEXUALBREEDING.COM, from the second ad, is also real.

Shortly below:
251.265 Author of argument, authors organization and disclaimer to be included in voters pamphlet. The Secretary of State shall include in the voters pamphlet on the page of the printed argument on a measure the name of the person who submitted the argument, the name of the organization the person represents, if any, whether the argument supports or opposes the measure, and a disclaimer in substantially the following form:

I don’t think that’s the person’s real name. Michael Moore is a common name, but in this case, perhaps used purposefully to invoke a popular target.

Greg’s comment above sheds light:M. Dennis Moore has been doing this since 1992, when his Special Righteousness Committe got a bunch of arguments in favor of Measure 9 in the voters pamphlet. I was 10, but I remember funny stuff about eternal damnation awaiting people who eat oysters, shave their beards, or wear mixed-fiber clothes.

In each election cycle with an anti-gay measure on the ballot (1992, 2000, 2004), he’s done exactly the same thing. He sponsors a bunch of arguments in favor, makes sure they’re first by waiting in line bright and early the first stay statements are accepted, and usually putting another argument in right before the filing deadline, so he gets the last word. Each time proponents of these measure get worked up, saying it’s unfair and that he’s abusing the process. It might have been a legitimate surprise in 1992, but people should be used to it by now. Pro-Measure 36 people who, in 2004, were caught off guard are just morons.

I’m not even finishing this.

Get a clue.

Did you eat my baby?

M. Dennis Moore,

Your juvenile mockery of our voting system, is a complete disservice to the decades of military personnel who died to protect our democracy, that you so obviously take for granted.

It’s supposed to be an informative booklet, that is supposed to attemp to help people make (hopefully) rational decisions on issuse that will effect the lives of millions of people. It’s not your personal casting-call for ‘Comedy Central’. GET IT?!

I’ll bet that most hard working people (of which, you probably can’t relate to) don’t appreciate having to wade through paragraphs of the lies and misdirection that you hide behind the title of “satire”.

Please go climb back under that self-important little rock of yours, and stay there.

You, sir, are an idiot.

It’s Moore’s right to have his opinons printed, especially after he paid $1500. Would anyone actually want someone to vote if they DIDN’T understand it was a satire??

BTW, I saw hir for the first time yesterday!! i didn’t stop to intoduce my self though…late for class..

In each election cycle with an anti-gay measure on the ballot (1992, 2000, 2004), he’s done exactly the same thing. He sponsors a bunch of arguments in favor, makes sure they’re first by waiting in line bright and early the first stay statements are accepted, and usually putting another argument in right before the filing deadline, so he gets the last word. Each time proponents of these measure get worked up, saying it’s unfair and that he’s abusing the process. It might have been a legitimate surprise in 1992, but people should be used to it by now. Pro-Measure 36 people who, in 2004, were caught off guard are just morons.

Not sure why I’m responding to this, but . . .

Our veterans died for our right to engage in satire, too. It is a vital and enlightening part of political discussion, often saying more with less than an exhaustively reasoned and detailed argument can. See Rehnquist’s opinionHustler v. Falwell, on satirical cartoons:Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate. [They] have undoubtedly had an effect on the course and outcome of contemporaneous debate . . . From the viewpoint of history it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.

And get those kids off my lawn! Lawns aren’t fun! They’re serious! Arrrrrrg grumble grumble damn kids.

(and you aren’t any more convincing when it’s on.)