No Electioneering at Cary Early Voting

[Brent]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/3751399/


The only problems reported Thursday were at Cary Town Center and Triangle Town Center, where mall managers stopped people from handing out pamphlets on candidates, Poucher said. Managers said they don't want shoppers to be bothered by the electioneering.


Yeah, well, then perhaps they shouldn't have offered their premises as an early voting site. Not everyone cares for the pamphlet distributors, but they go with the territory of polling places in NC. I agree that shoppers not voting shouldn't be bothered, but this all should have been worked out when the early voting site was selected.

I say, back to Herb Young Community Center!

[chaboard]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/3751399/


The only problems reported Thursday were at Cary Town Center and Triangle Town Center, where mall managers stopped people from handing out pamphlets on candidates, Poucher said. Managers said they don't want shoppers to be bothered by the electioneering.


Yeah, well, then perhaps they shouldn't have offered their premises as an early voting site. Not everyone cares for the pamphlet distributors, but they go with the territory of polling places in NC. I agree that shoppers not voting shouldn't be bothered, but this all should have been worked out when the early voting site was selected.

I say, back to Herb Young Community Center!

My understanding is that there will be a bipartisan protest of some sort Saturday at 10:30 at Cary Town Center. If anyone can dispute or confirm the time please do.

Anyone know why Herb Young was changed to begin with? Parking?

[MattD]

My understanding is that there will be a bipartisan protest of some sort Saturday at 10:30 at Cary Town Center. If anyone can dispute or confirm the time please do.

Confirmed:

This is a message sent out by Doris Weaver, Chair of the Wake County Democratic Party:


The management of the Triangle Town Center and Cary Town Center malls are not allowing the Political Parties or candidates to hand out literature or engage in any campaign activity. This is a disservice to the voters, to our hard-working candidates, and to the democratic process.

Join us in a bipartisan protest this Saturday, October 18. The media has been alerted and we need a strong show of support, not only for our candidates, but also for our voters. Protests will be on going from 10am this Saturday at both mall locations.

My Republican counterpart and I will be at the Cary Town Center Mall at 10:30am and the Triangle Town Center Mall at 11:30am, for media purposes.

Please join us as we seek to preserve the fundamental right of casting an informed vote.

[DarylB]

I have to disagree in this case. I've never liked the idea of campaigning continuing at the polling places. The acts of campaigning and of voting are separate, and I think it actually chases away a lot of people who would otherwise vote. I further think it can be said that you should come to the polling place to cast your vote, not make up your mind...just like you shouldn't be deciding where to go once you're on the road. This sort of remids me of thse people who make right hand turns from the left hand turn lane.... think ahead, be informed about what you are doing, and then do it. You should have done done your homework prior to going to the voting booth, and if you have to read literature while you're waiting to vote, you're a pretty pathetically uninformed voter - just as well for these people to flip a coin, their votes will be just as meaningful. It also leaves open the feeling you are being strongarmed to get your vote.... a little like the issue of the unions and "card check". Noone should feel any sense of coercion whatever to exercise their right to vote. I do not support campaigning at the polling places, and actually commend the mall for saying "NO". It doesn't matter to me that both parties are supporting this, in this case, I think they are both wrong.

Did anyone else see the video from Harlem, where they were asking people if they supported Obama or McCain, at which point they said they were adamantly for Obama. Then they read a McCain position, but attributed the position to Obama, and asked if they supported the position...pro life, against stem cell research, Sarah Palin for VP, Iraq,,,,,, etc, etc... and they were ALL FOR IT...ADAMANTLY!!!! As Dharma says, OMG :scratch:

YouTube - Harlem voters

[Brent]

I have to disagree in this case. I've never liked the idea of campaigning continuing at the polling places. The acts of campaigning and of voting are separate, and I think it actually chases away a lot of people who would otherwise vote. I further think it can be said that you should come to the polling place to cast your vote, not make up your mind...just like you shouldn't be deciding where to go once you're on the road. This sort of remids me of thse people who make right hand turns from the left hand turn lane.... think ahead, be informed about what you are doing, and then do it. You should have done done your homework prior to going to the voting booth, and if you have to read literature while you're waiting to vote, you're a pretty pathetically informed voter. It also leaves open the feeling you are being strongarmed to get your vote.... a little like the issue of the unions and "card check". Noone should feel any sense of coercion whatever to exercise their right to vote. I do not support campaigning at the polling places, and actually commend the mall for saying "NO". It doesn't matter to me that both parties are supporting this, in this case, I think they are both wrong.

Perhaps these are fair points, in which case you should seek to have the NC statutes changed.

But the NC statutes generally permit electioneering at polling places within certain constraints. Places selected as polling places shouldn't disallow what is permitted, nor should lawful electioneering be disallowed because you and others don't like it.

I tend to agree with some of your points, but I don't agree that the mall, offering itself as a polling place, should ban legal electioneering. Work to change the law if you don't think it's right.

[DarylB]

I have to disagree in this case. I've never liked the idea of campaigning continuing at the polling places. The acts of campaigning and of voting are separate, and I think it actually chases away a lot of people who would otherwise vote. I further think it can be said that you should come to the polling place to cast your vote, not make up your mind...just like you shouldn't be deciding where to go once you're on the road. This sort of remids me of thse people who make right hand turns from the left hand turn lane.... think ahead, be informed about what you are doing, and then do it. You should have done done your homework prior to going to the voting booth, and if you have to read literature while you're waiting to vote, you're a pretty pathetically informed voter. It also leaves open the feeling you are being strongarmed to get your vote.... a little like the issue of the unions and "card check". Noone should feel any sense of coercion whatever to exercise their right to vote. I do not support campaigning at the polling places, and actually commend the mall for saying "NO". It doesn't matter to me that both parties are supporting this, in this case, I think they are both wrong.

Perhaps these are fair points, in which case you should seek to have the NC statutes changed.

But the NC statutes generally permit electioneering at polling places within certain constraints. Places selected as polling places shouldn't disallow what is permitted, nor should lawful electioneering be disallowed because you and others don't like it.

I tend to agree with some of your points, but I don't agree that the mall, offering itself as a polling place, should ban legal electioneering. Work to change the law if you don't think it's right.

Pardon me while I say :bs:to the whole concept of "change"... it's a crock, a joke, and nobody has a clue what a better system would even look like, (see my thread on same subject) much less want it and be willing to work for it. Both parties are joining in protest to stop something that's a good idea, simply because they want to scream at voters with their literature louder than the other guy. It's all about getting money, and power, and the country and service and all the rest be damned. There is absolutely NO HOPE of an honest statesman serving simply because it's the right thing to do, and who is willing to ddo anything other than put their finger in the air to see which way the political wind is blowing. In short, anyone with a REAL idea, and who has REAL LEADERSHIP qualities, is dead meat in America today. And then we complain about only having a 9% approval rating ofr our representative congress, and complain the country is on the wrong track, and all the rest of it. Well, guess what, they truly DO represent US, and WE are PATHETIC. If this country does in fact go down the toilet, it is every single one of us that has pulled the handle.

I've really got to ask the question, if these people are so politically illiterate that, at this stage of the Presidential elections, they don't even know any more about this choice than to go HELL YEAH just because you associate Obama's name to a position, how far do you think you'll get in changing the positions of a legislature elected by these same people, and hos much furhter a stretch do you think it is that they would be familiar with the Constitution as it exists, much less your or my arguments for the changes to it.. I'd venture to guess a fair majority of the population think it's a rap album!

So hi-ho the dairy-o, the cheese stands alone....or is there anyone else who feels there might still be signs of a pulse in America?

[CatherineE]

The News&Observer's report on today's protest march at 2 area malls was rather telling.

"Although representatives of both parties were present when the lease terms were approved unanimously by the three-member Board of Elections in the summer, party leaders say the rules were not clearly explained."

"I think it's a disservice to voters and a disservice to hard-working candidates," said Doris Weaver, chairwoman of the Wake County Democratic Party. "It's a ridiculous situation. The Wake Board of Elections should never have leased those buildings."

David Robinson, chairman of the Wake County Republican Party, said the mall rules hurt candidates running in races that receive less attention. "The only people losing out are voters and down-ballot candidates," he said.

While both parties are unhappy, only one shifts the blame on someone else -- Doris Weaver -- when she should own up and take responsibility for her screw up instead of blaming the Board of Elections.

[StanN]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/3751399/


The only problems reported Thursday were at Cary Town Center and Triangle Town Center, where mall managers stopped people from handing out pamphlets on candidates, Poucher said. Managers said they don't want shoppers to be bothered by the electioneering.


Yeah, well, then perhaps they shouldn't have offered their premises as an early voting site. Not everyone cares for the pamphlet distributors, but they go with the territory of polling places in NC. I agree that shoppers not voting shouldn't be bothered, but this all should have been worked out when the early voting site was selected.

I say, back to Herb Young Community Center!

The mall's policy is a major abridgment of free speech. I don't believe they can be arbitrary in forbidding inoffensive behavior. The mall is not a private home it is a public place. The mall could allow tables where those who wanted campaign literature or wanted to talk to a candidate or campaign worker could do so.

Further the mall's regulations are arbitrary to the point of ridiculousness. If I parked anywhere on the mall's property with my campaign sign visible, I would risk being towed away. But if my opponent (or myself) had a bumper sticker on my car, I'm told that would be OK. How about if I stood in front of the poll with a campaign button on my jacket?

One local candidate has been handing out copies of the U.S. Constitution. Should he be prevented from doing so?

Many voters come to the polls uninformed. Especially regarding down ballot contests. E.G. The majority of the voters I have talked to don't realize that County Commissioners run at large and that each of us has three votes this year for CC. Campaigns are about educating voters. Given the mall's reliance on the public's taxes in order to conduct their business, their property rights should be limited to measures that prevent campaigners from bothering their customers.

The mall's action is short-sighted, mean spirited and just plain unfriendly. Plain, common business sense calls for them to reverse and revise their policy.

[johnshaw]

I just voted at the Pullen Arts Center. There was the usual electioneering. I saw a few candidates and shook a few hands. Nobody twisted my arm. The strongest verbal message I received was “thanks for voting”.

That’s about how it has been in every election. In all of my years of voting, in Wake, other NC counties, and other states, I have never had any problem with the candidates and others at the polls. Today there was no line at Pullen. In other elections when I did have to wait in line outside of the “no electioneering” limit, got to chat with friendly candidates and their supports (of both parties). If anything, their presence and friendliness helped the time pass faster.

I don’t think that the mall shoppers and voters are so thin skinned that they would find a smile and friendly “Hi, I hope you will support me (or ____), or a reminder that there is a back side of the ballot, objectionable.

[DarylB]

Campaigns are about educating voters.

The "educational" phase campaigning should end the day of the election, on which day there should only be decisions on that process. It's the voters day to have their say. That should be taken also to mean no campaigning at the early voter sites.

Given the mall's reliance on the public's taxes in order to conduct their business, their property rights should be limited ( Karl Marx has spoken - 8O) to measures that prevent campaigners from bothering their customers.

The mall's action is short-sighted, mean spirited and just plain unfriendly. Plain, common business sense calls for them to reverse and revise their policy.

Once again, I think this was aright decision, even if it were for the wrong reasons. Campaigning shouldn't be about twisting arms at the voting booth. Let the vote be without pressure, and without the hype and frustration imposed on voters. You want change, then change THIS!

You’re now pissed that you might miss handing out that one last piece of campaign literature? To me, it feels like running the gauntlet at a Tailhook convention. I’m sure I’m not alone. I for one have had campaigner “exercising their rights” by pushing their literature at me as I go to vote, and frankly, I appreciate that about as much as I do having that Jehovahs Witness show up at my door espousing for all he’s worth that latest version of the Watchtower, refusing to go away until I’m saved. We really don’t need that one last flyer.

[Laurie]

The News&Observer's report on today's protest march at 2 area malls was rather telling.

"Although representatives of both parties were present when the lease terms were approved unanimously by the three-member Board of Elections in the summer, party leaders say the rules were not clearly explained."

Shame on the representatives for missing this important part of the lease. Just why were they there then? And shame on the board of election for allowing this in a lease.


The mall is not a private home it is a public place.
The mall is private property that invites the public in. The owners pay taxes on that property. And they can limit who they let in. Are you aware of the curfews for minors at some of the malls? County Commissioners need to know the difference between public and private property.

[chaboard]

The mall is private property that invites the public in. The owners pay taxes on that property. And they can limit who they let in.

Generally, yes. But that should not be the case when they are acting as a part of the electoral system. Hypothetically speaking what would happen if, for example, they
barred - excuse me, "limited" - Hispanics or blacks from coming on mall property while Early Voting was going on? Within their private property rights?

Obviously the BoE and the party reps should have read the lease better....but regardless,
political freedom of speech HAS to trump private property rights *at a public polling place*.

[Laurie]

The mall is private property that invites the public in. The owners pay taxes on that property. And they can limit who they let in.
Hypothetically speaking what would happen if, for example, they
barred - excuse me, "limited" - Hispanics or blacks from coming on mall property while Early Voting was going on?

They'd be sued out of business.

Obviously the BoE and the party reps should have read the lease better....but regardless,
political freedom of speech HAS to trump private property rights *at a public polling place*.

This is one of those sticky issues. And maybe property rights do take precedence, maybe not. But mall security can escort people off the property they think are not acting as they like. And if that person was there for early voting? Who can say? Can people who are causing a disturbance say they were there to vote so they can't be removed? Can the mall say 'certain' people were causing a disturbance to keep them from voting? (Not that I think the Cary mall would do this, just a hypothetical.) This is what can happen when you use places like the mall to vote. What if there were so many people there to vote that shoppers couldn't park or move freely throughout the mall to spend money? Will the mall limit the number of people who can be there to vote?

[Brent]

Many good points raised here so far.

My conclusion is that the mall should never have been chosen as a polling place, based on the considerations already noted in this thread.

But now that that mistake has been made, legal electioneering should be permitted.

[DarylB]

Many good points raised here so far.

My conclusion is that the mall should never have been chosen as a polling place, based on the considerations already noted in this thread.

But now that that mistake has been made, legal electioneering should be permitted.

Well, it just seems to be the season for bailing people out of the mistakes they make, now doesn't it. We've got hundreds of billions going to Wall Street for the sub-prime mortgage "mistakes", and the campaign literature being shoved in our face to elect the cretons that cause the problems, even though the agreement was clear from the start that that was not going to be permitted. Whatever happened to personal responsiblity, living with your mistakes, and "Change we can Believe In"?

[Brent]

Many good points raised here so far.

My conclusion is that the mall should never have been chosen as a polling place, based on the considerations already noted in this thread.

But now that that mistake has been made, legal electioneering should be permitted.

Well, it just seems to be the season for bailing people out of the mistakes they make, now doesn't it. We've got hundreds of billions going to Wall Street for the sub-prime mortgage "mistakes", and the campaign literature being shoved in our face to elect the cretons that cause the problems, even though the agreement was clear from the start that that was not going to be permitted. Whatever happened to personal responsiblity, living with your mistakes, and "Change we can Believe In"?

People who didn't cause the problems and truly do want change and reform are also banned from contacting voters at the polling places.

[MattD]

Talk about your unintended consequences! I’m guessing the conversation within each group went something like this:

BOE: “There will be more voters in these malls then other locations. Parking won’t be an issue. The mall sure is a great venue for early voting!”

Mall: “Think of all the voters that will come to the mall and spend money!! We’ll get free PR and new foot traffic. Parking won’t be an issue. The mall sure is a great venue for early voting!

[Brent]

Talk about your unintended consequences! I’m guessing the conversation within each group went something like this:

BOE: “There will be more voters in these malls then other locations. Parking won’t be an issue. The mall sure is a great venue for early voting!”

Mall: “Think of all the voters that will come to the mall and spend money!! We’ll get free PR and new foot traffic. Parking won’t be an issue. The mall sure is a great venue for early voting!

Yep, that sounds about right. And then I imagined it was followed by the meeting between the two groups:

BoE: "You do understand all the obligations that go along with being a polling place, right?"

Mall: "What's to understand? Just think of all the voters that will come to the mall and spend money!! We’ll get free PR and new foot traffic. Parking won’t be an issue. The mall sure is a great venue for early voting! Oh, by the way, we brought our own lease contract"

BoE: Where do we sign? The mall sure is a great venue for early voting!"

Mall: You betcha!

[VVActivist]

The News&Observer's report on today's protest march at 2 area malls was rather telling.

"Although representatives of both parties were present when the lease terms were approved unanimously by the three-member Board of Elections in the summer, party leaders say the rules were not clearly explained."

"I think it's a disservice to voters and a disservice to hard-working candidates," said Doris Weaver, chairwoman of the Wake County Democratic Party. "It's a ridiculous situation. The Wake Board of Elections should never have leased those buildings."

David Robinson, chairman of the Wake County Republican Party, said the mall rules hurt candidates running in races that receive less attention. "The only people losing out are voters and down-ballot candidates," he said.

While both parties are unhappy, only one shifts the blame on someone else -- Doris Weaver -- when she should own up and take responsibility for her screw up instead of blaming the Board of Elections.

This is yet another example of Ms. Evangelista blaming Ms. Weaver for things that Ms. Evangelista knows nothing about.

Many people - even the Wake BOE appointees - didn't know that the BOE staffers were going to sign a lease with the mall management that prohibited election-related activities. The BOE was in the mall as early as mid-September, and presumably the lease was signed before the sites were occupied. However, the Wake BOE did not ask for an exemption from the SBOE until late September, and the SBOE didn't grant the exemption until early October - well after the lease was signed.

But then again - if there was any fault on the part of Ms. Weaver, perhaps she has someone or something distracting her from her job as the county party chair? Would you know what that was?

[VVActivist]

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/3751399/


The only problems reported Thursday were at Cary Town Center and Triangle Town Center, where mall managers stopped people from handing out pamphlets on candidates, Poucher said. Managers said they don't want shoppers to be bothered by the electioneering.


Yeah, well, then perhaps they shouldn't have offered their premises as an early voting site. Not everyone cares for the pamphlet distributors, but they go with the territory of polling places in NC. I agree that shoppers not voting shouldn't be bothered, but this all should have been worked out when the early voting site was selected.

I say, back to Herb Young Community Center!

Party volunteers do more than just hand out palm cards. They are the last people that a voter can ask a question to before they walk into the polling places, and they are also the first people other than the poll workers they can ask a question when they walk out of the polling place.

We had voters who showed up to Cary Towne Center on the first day of Early Voting who had voted in Cary for years, but Same Day Registration had somehow eaten their registration records. Not all voters know enough to insist on doing an entirely new registration - many were told to cast a provisional ballot. Some left the polling place because they didn't understand what happened to their registration. By forbidding campaign and party volunteers from working the polls, they kept some voters from talking to volunteers who could call the voter protection hotlines to get an answer to their problems. Had it not been for one voter going to the NCDP booth at the State Fair, we'd have never known about this.

The mall's policy is a major abridgment of free speech. I don't believe they can be arbitrary in forbidding inoffensive behavior. The mall is not a private home it is a public place. The mall could allow tables where those who wanted campaign literature or wanted to talk to a candidate or campaign worker could do so.

Further the mall's regulations are arbitrary to the point of ridiculousness. If I parked anywhere on the mall's property with my campaign sign visible, I would risk being towed away. But if my opponent (or myself) had a bumper sticker on my car, I'm told that would be OK. How about if I stood in front of the poll with a campaign button on my jacket?

One local candidate has been handing out copies of the U.S. Constitution. Should he be prevented from doing so?

Many voters come to the polls uninformed. Especially regarding down ballot contests. E.G. The majority of the voters I have talked to don't realize that County Commissioners run at large and that each of us has three votes this year for CC. Campaigns are about educating voters. Given the mall's reliance on the public's taxes in order to conduct their business, their property rights should be limited to measures that prevent campaigners from bothering their customers.

The mall's action is short-sighted, mean spirited and just plain unfriendly. Plain, common business sense calls for them to reverse and revise their policy.

[VVActivist]

The News&Observer's report on today's protest march at 2 area malls was rather telling.

"Although representatives of both parties were present when the lease terms were approved unanimously by the three-member Board of Elections in the summer, party leaders say the rules were not clearly explained."

Shame on the representatives for missing this important part of the lease. Just why were they there then? And shame on the board of election for allowing this in a lease.


The mall is not a private home it is a public place.
The mall is private property that invites the public in. The owners pay taxes on that property. And they can limit who they let in. Are you aware of the curfews for minors at some of the malls? County Commissioners need to know the difference between public and private property.

The party leaders - both Democratic and Republican parties - were not told this would be a part of the lease. The appointed BOE members weren't aware of this being part of the lease. The BOE staff should have told the BOE members and the party reps of these terms but they didn't do that.

Mall voting is part of a larger election administration agenda of moving away from precinct-based voting and towards voting centers that would be better able to use DRE touchscreen machines instead of paper ballots. The group that is pushing this mall voting and vote centers is The Election Center - a non-profit that is supported by the voting machine makers.

[VVActivist]

The mall is private property that invites the public in. The owners pay taxes on that property. And they can limit who they let in.
Hypothetically speaking what would happen if, for example, they
barred - excuse me, "limited" - Hispanics or blacks from coming on mall property while Early Voting was going on?

They'd be sued out of business.

Obviously the BoE and the party reps should have read the lease better....but regardless,
political freedom of speech HAS to trump private property rights *at a public polling place*.

This is one of those sticky issues. And maybe property rights do take precedence, maybe not. But mall security can escort people off the property they think are not acting as they like. And if that person was there for early voting? Who can say? Can people who are causing a disturbance say they were there to vote so they can't be removed? Can the mall say 'certain' people were causing a disturbance to keep them from voting? (Not that I think the Cary mall would do this, just a hypothetical.) This is what can happen when you use places like the mall to vote. What if there were so many people there to vote that shoppers couldn't park or move freely throughout the mall to spend money? Will the mall limit the number of people who can be there to vote?

Property rights? Not hardly....at the same time the mall management wouldn't even allow the parties or the campaigns to hand out palm cards, staff from the mall-based food vendors were handing out coupons to the voters waiting in line.

And if the mall is taking taxpayer money for their rent - they had damned-well better consider at least letting the election-related activities take place in a limited area. I don't want to be standing in front of Victoria's Secret handing out Bev Perdue and Kay Hagan lit, but I also don't want to be prevented from standing out by the OS site and doing the same.

[CatherineE]

The News&Observer's report on today's protest march at 2 area malls was rather telling.

"Although representatives of both parties were present when the lease terms were approved unanimously by the three-member Board of Elections in the summer, party leaders say the rules were not clearly explained."

"I think it's a disservice to voters and a disservice to hard-working candidates," said Doris Weaver, chairwoman of the Wake County Democratic Party. "It's a ridiculous situation. The Wake Board of Elections should never have leased those buildings."

David Robinson, chairman of the Wake County Republican Party, said the mall rules hurt candidates running in races that receive less attention. "The only people losing out are voters and down-ballot candidates," he said.

While both parties are unhappy, only one shifts the blame on someone else -- Doris Weaver -- when she should own up and take responsibility for her screw up instead of blaming the Board of Elections.

This is yet another example of Ms. Evangelista blaming Ms. Weaver for things that Ms. Evangelista knows nothing about.

Many people - even the Wake BOE appointees - didn't know that the BOE staffers were going to sign a lease with the mall management that prohibited election-related activities. The BOE was in the mall as early as mid-September, and presumably the lease was signed before the sites were occupied. However, the Wake BOE did not ask for an exemption from the SBOE until late September, and the SBOE didn't grant the exemption until early October - well after the lease was signed.

But then again - if there was any fault on the part of Ms. Weaver, perhaps she has someone or something distracting her from her job as the county party chair? Would you know what that was?

Doris Weaver's rep., Michele Lewis, attended the lease-signing meeting. If you'll review my earlier post which you quoted, you'll note that of the two parties' leaders only Weaver blamed the Wake County Board of Elections. Your later post stated the mall was a public site which is completely wrong. It is privately owned and as such has the right and responsibility to contract under rules it deems proper (esp. to its store tenants). The issue seems to be that neither party representative bothered to read the contract or or understood it to question that part of the contract.

It's kinda cute how you deny Weaver's responsibility for the issue over being too busy to do her job properly. To quote President-elect Obama, a leader "is going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time." We know she was too busy persecuting a fellow officer rather than do her job properly. I think it's called a lack of prioritizing.

[CatherineE]

And if the mall is taking taxpayer money for their rent - they had damned-well better consider at least letting the election-related activities take place in a limited area. I don't want to be standing in front of Victoria's Secret handing out Bev Perdue and Kay Hagan lit, but I also don't want to be prevented from standing out by the OS site and doing the same.

Hi Chris Telesca, I've been following your posts here. The mall is a private entity. It's not taking "taxpayer money for their rent" any more than your local supermarket is taking taxpayer money in exchange for groceries. You're confusing taxpayer with customer. That's a very different thing and makes your argument moot. I'd recommend come next election that your party leaders read the contract and make the effort to renegotiate or find another location.