|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The big-money power of lobbyists too often drowns out the voices of the general public and muffles voices of legislators fearful of losing campaign contributions, speakers at a “clean government” movement warned Sunday at a Palo Alto meeting that was as much a pep rally as an informational session.
Palo Alto Mayor Peter Drekmeier, who moderated the session at the Unitarioan-Universalist Church in south Palo Alto, told the 130 attendees that he has been involved in environmental causes and said lobbyists fighting environmental legislation outspent environmental groups by 30 to 1.
The event was billed as a “passion raiser” for the California Fair Elections Act, an experiment in campaign-finance reform that will be put to California voters next June. If approved, it would enable candidates for secretary of state to qualify for campaign financing if they collect 7,500 donations of $5 each from Californians. It act is modeled on systems in place in seven other states and two cities, some for a decade, according to organizers of the session.
Assembly members Ira Ruskin of Assembly District 21, Paul Fong of District 22 and Jim Beall, Jr. of District 24, former Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountan View, and Supervisor Rich Gordon of San Mateo County all said there was a strong need for such a system due to the time it takes now to raise campaign funds — two or more hours a day for the state offices, some said.
Trent Lange, chair of Californians for Fair Elections, the initiator of the act, cited examples of large amounts of money from special-interest lobbyists that flows to legislators. Financing for the special fund would be primarily from increasing the $12.50 annual fee presently collected from registered lobbyists.
The Palo Alto event was organized by Nancy Neff of the Californian Clean Money Campaign, who said she initially asked Drekmeier to help by organizing a modest house party. But it outgrew the house-scale, she said.
Local supporters of the act include the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, the Dean Democratic Coub of Silicon Valley, Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice, Peninsula Democratic Coalition, the local chapter of Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Redwood City Social Action Committee, the Santa Clara County Green Party, San Mateo County Democracy for America, and Health Care for All of Santa Clara County.
Attendees contributed $5 toward a “symbolic” 7,500 contributions that candidates would need to receive to qualify for funding and — the reason for the “passion raising” pep rally — signed up for committees and volunteer jobs for the spring campaign season.
What a bunch of hypocrites. The biggest influencer in California these days is the SEIU and its big war chest. So, are these politicians going to decline special interest money from the unions as well?
Some moderate …. the unions are under attack in American, they get bad press every which way you turn, and people are actively coerced not to join or be sympathetic to unions. The unions also do not own the media and at least the represent people. There is definitely too much money in our elections and too influence in that money, but yes if want to remove money from unions, let’s publicly finance elections, or require the media to donate time and bandwidth to canidates as part of their public duty. But I’m sure you would not want that, so your anti-union talk is really misplaced concern for the big-monied interests … like I said, some moderate.
The tactics of Bush and Cheney like attacks by the media and politicians on labor to instill public anger and fear is very active. There is a strong need for public awareness of the media instilling anti labor sentiment. The Palo Alto On line site has become one more vehicle for the sentiments of outrage over city employees who dedicate their lives to their work,family, and the Palo Alto community. We are people, we have families, we need healthcare. We as the Palo Alto Community are only as good a community as we support the weakest among us. When Palo Alto City Council stated that we are working for the common good…that means all of us.
Clean Money is a really awesome cause–supported by all the politicians, even if their lobbyists won’t let them say anything about it. Lobbyist industry groups are fighting this with everything they’ve got, so you know it’s good for California.
The easy solution is to eliminate compulsory union membership. Workers are intelligent enough to recognize when unions are working for them rather than for the democrat party. Public funding lets the ins decide who is a serious candidate, spending limits just require creative allocation of assets other than cash, like assigning full time workers to help the party.
The only real solution is to reduce the scope of government to a practical limit, thus reducing the need to influence government, either defensively or avariciously.
P.S. – Also eliminate intervenor funding or greatly increase the requirement for uniqueness of action, to stop the routine papering every project proposed with suits as a good source of revenue, AKA protection racket.
At the New England Town Meetings were the nursery and training group for our democracy, diginified, serious people of all walks of life participated in public life. Today, the loud mouth bullies on cable television, tlak radio, and the recent Health Care Town Hall meetings across our nation intimidate without contirbuting. Its time for rasoned voice of all political persuations to thell these bullies in no uncertian terms: “Shut up and sit down!”.
Bill, does Hillary know you are shacked in Midtown?
Combined money into cable TV, talk radio and conservative organizations is not a tenth what is spent by progressive organizations and unions to drown out [often by saying “shut up and sit down”] any criticism of the Party Line. Incidentally, the guy who tells the bully to shut up ad sit down is himself a bully, so you are only opposed to bullies who disagree with your programming.
The objection that “clean money candidates” will still take union money holds no water whatsoever, but here we go with the only strategies or ideas the right wing has, i.e., lies, distortions, scare tactics. If just once the right could come up with opposition based on truth. Or logic. Or reason. Or facts. What a wonderful world it would be.
I have the right to “petition my government”. Nowhere does the constitution say “petition my government in governnment approved forms”.
I am completely opposed to any legislation that limits anyone’s ability to do so, be they a corporation or a union or the PFLAG or Catholic Relief Services, or just me writing a letter and sending money to a candidate I want to support. I was and still am appalled by McCain-Feingold bill that limited campaign funding, and I am completely opposed to using any tax money at all to fund any candidate. Building support through building trust in many people, and thereby getting their money to fund your candidacy is the best way known to people so far in the history of this world for sorting out who has a chance to make it, who has the best chance to represent the most people, and who doesn’t.
As usual, I find the basic idea of “tax funded” anything to be contrary to a trust in the ability of the individual to choose what s/he wants, and band together with hundreds, thousands, or millions of others to help the cream rise to the top.
No tax funded candidacies. I don’t want to give yet more power to whichever dominant political ideology there is to continue their own political dominance through choosing who the next candidates will be…what countries will that resemble?
Ok, back to the regular name calling of these 230 year old ideas that have actually proven to work for the longest running democracy and republic in the history of the world.