State Senate Democrats introduced SB 6221 today, "Revising limitations on use of public funds for political purposes". Notice what is stricken:
Sec. 1. RCW 42.17.128 and 1993 c 2 s 24 are each amended to read as follows:Some might say that this "campaign finance reform" would only corrupt the system by making it easier for government workers to misuse public property for self-serving political purposes. The jaundiced cynic in me says that all it would do is take an unenforced law off the books.
Public funds, whether derived through taxes, fees, penalties, or any other sources, shall not be used to finance political campaigns for state ((or local)) office.
If any readers wish to e-mail sponsoring Senators Franklin, Kline, Kastama, Keiser, Regala and Jacobsen to express your opinions about this bill, please forward me their responses.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 09, 2006 03:40 PM | Email ThisIs this some type of coverup for Port expenditures?
Posted by: sgmmac on January 9, 2006 05:06 PMWhy would any campaign for local office need to be supported by public funds?
and
Is there any law that designates public funds to be uses for local campaigns? (even if it is split evenly amongst the candidates)
To correct sgmmac and respute, there is a distinction between public funds and tax money.
Posted by: grog on January 9, 2006 07:01 PMAt one time the City of Seattle had public financing of campaings. Maybe this is the beginnings of another shot at it.
Posted by: SP Fan on January 9, 2006 08:48 PMRemember this in November - you leftist pinheads who are going to be holding onto your wallets - vote all of mentioned legislators out. Hello ? They are not and don't care about looking out for you.
Posted by: KS on January 9, 2006 08:52 PMIt's sickening.
Posted by: Robert Dean on January 10, 2006 07:00 AMWhy shouldn't the government be allowed to use public funds to lie, indoctrinate and overwhelm public opinion in favor of government plans?
This idea was applied in the Gregoire vs. Washington State and I-912. It worked to consolidate the power of the Washington State government to enforce unaccountable taxes against its citizen’s interests in responsible taxation from that government.
Why should a liberal democrat political leader in Washington State be accountable?
They clearly lied . . . but the public believed them, because the propaganda was excellent so exhaustive . . . and sooooo expensive.
No problem . . . we paid for it . . . with the proceeds of the 9.5 cent gas tax increase.
Realistically and with all due respect, why would they tell us?
Those in power recently determined once and for all, (I-912) that their influence is substantial enough such that they are not required to have a good reason.
One thing is for damn sure . . . unless you are a government official here, you can bet your life that their “good reason” has nothing whatsoever to do with any interests in which you or I share. Consolidation of political power for its own sake.
A whole lot worse is coming soon.
No . . . not spell check . . . meaning check.
I'm asking you what you mean when you corrected Robert J by saying, "the distinction between taxes and public funds is that taxes are just one possible source of public funds. Not all public funds came from taxes."
You also say, "there is a distinction between public funds and tax money." What is important about this with respect to the issue of misuse of public property for self-serving political purposes? What "public funds" don't come from some sort of taxation?
What is your point?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 11, 2006 03:06 PMEnlighten us please.
You say, ”My point is that the source of the funds is not necessarily taxes, and that statements such as, "Tax money being spent on local election campaigns" are both incorrect and misleading.”
Once again:
What "public funds" don't come from some sort of taxation?
What does your contention have to do with the issue of misuse of public property for self-serving political purposes?
How is any of this “incorrect and misleading?”
"ALL" public funds come from some sort of taxation.
In the Gregoire vs. Washington State and I-912 campaign of 2005, use of public funds derived from taxes
were paid to the MSM that produced a blitzkrieg of ads against the public interests.
The government is not supposed to take sides against the people.
The result consolidated the power of the Washington State government to enforce additional
unaccountable taxes against its citizen’s interests in responsible taxation from that government.
Ultimately, as citizens, we can all expect these types of legislative schemes combined with the electoral grant
of excessive power through the defeat of I-912 to the Governor and legislature to seriously damage our state economy.
Thanks Grog for helping to underscore the facts.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 13, 2006 12:15 PMUsage fees, leasing of property held by a public entity, etc. If you can't figure it out, go read the budget.
What does your contention have to do with the issue of misuse of public property for self-serving political purposes?
I never stated anything about misuse of those funds for self serving purposes. However, like SP fan said, "Public financing of campaigns is a great way to level the playing field."
It may be a better idea to state that any public funds used for local campaigns must be distributed evenly among the candidates.
Posted by: grog on January 13, 2006 12:23 PMIn America, and Washington State, government is not a chartered corporate profit center but a solely publicly financed constitutional institution. "Usage fees, leasing of property held by a public entity, etc," are all forms of taxation, direct with respect to usage fees, and indirect in the instance of public property leases because the property is held and maintained at great public expense and in the public trust. Did you receive any dividends from the lease revenues of property held by a public entity, etc., last year? Of course not. Wise up.
Nevertheless, because all public property is held in trust for all of the public, it should never be used for the advancement of the agenda of a faction or political party in power. I hear liberals scream bloody murder that Republicans are doing just this when their is absolutely no evidence of it, and yet when misuse from the left is this obvious, people like you refuse to acknowledge it.
You ask, "What does your contention have to do with the issue of misuse of public property for self-serving political purposes? " Apparently you are too groggy to read. The defeat of I-912 is a perfect example. If you can't figure it out, I won’t waste my time repeating the facts for you.
Further you cite, "Public financing of campaigns is a great way to level the playing field. " Public financing of campaigns can never possibly level the playing field if the government is a party to the campaign with a vested and controlling interest in the outcome (as in the I-912 campaign).
Then you comment, "It may be a better idea to state that any public funds used for local campaigns must be distributed evenly among the candidates. "
In a democracy, the people are sovereign, and public funds should never be used for political campaigns. Why not simply do the right thing and prohibit government from taking active part in any aspect of campaigns except oversight?
Either you are too dense to understand the issues or prejudiced in favor of the misuse of public funds by the current administration . . . maybe both.
Thanks again for helping to underscore the facts.
"Usage fees, leasing of property held by a public entity, etc," are all forms of taxation.
False, by definition taxes are a contribution for the support of a government required of persons, groups, or businesses within the domain of that government.
Property is held and maintained at great public expense and in the public trust. Did you receive any dividends from the lease revenues of property held by a public entity, etc., last year?
What is the public expense?
Why do you believe people have the right to dividends?
Nevertheless, because all public property is held in trust for all of the public.
False, not all property held by public entities is public property. Though I'm sure most of us would rather this be the case, it is not.
It should never be used for the advancement of the agenda of a faction or political party in power.
Agreed.
I hear liberals scream bloody murder that Republicans are doing just this when their is absolutely no evidence of it, and yet when misuse from the left is this obvious, people like you refuse to acknowledge it.
There is clear evidence that D's and R's are both guilty of this, I never refused to acknowledge it.
You ask, "What does your contention have to do with the issue of misuse of public property for self-serving political purposes? " Apparently you are too groggy to read. The defeat of I-912 is a perfect example. If you can't figure it out, I won’t waste my time repeating the facts for you.
Comprehension again, you were the one who asked me that question. BTW, I gathered sigs for I-912.
Further you cite, "Public financing of campaigns is a great way to level the playing field. " Public financing of campaigns can never possibly level the playing field if the government is a party to the campaign with a vested and controlling interest in the outcome (as in the I-912 campaign).
Actually, I think it was the unions that killed 912 with their false statements.
Then you comment, "It may be a better idea to state that any public funds used for local campaigns must be distributed evenly among the candidates. "
Yes, this way if any contribution is made, and equal opposing contribution must be made.
In a democracy, the people are sovereign.
By that definition we don't live in a democracy.
Public funds should never be used for political campaigns.
Why?
Why not simply do the right thing and prohibit government from taking active part in any aspect of campaigns except oversight?
Why is that the "right thing"? The government must to much more than oversight for an election to even occur.
Either you are too dense to understand the issues or prejudiced in favor of the misuse of public funds by the current administration . . . maybe both.
Neither, I understand the issues, and the current administration is definitely not my administration. I despise the idea of the government actively supporting any specific campaigns. However, public funds supporting campaigns can severely reduce the impact of special interests such as those that attacked 912.
Invincible ignorance strikes again!
Posted by: alphabet soup on January 14, 2006 01:15 PMTrue enough.
At least he finally explained that he is pointless.
If you wish to refute my point please make an attempt at a sound arguement. As you likely do not know what that is, I will spell it out for you.
An arguement is sound if an only if the argument is valid and all of its premises are true. An arguement is valid if and only if it cannot lead from true premises to a false conclusion.
Making uninformed statements about my political affiliations or my stance on other issues only shows your ignorance. Especially since the only comments I have made, other than my support of some variant of The Citizens' Clean Elections Act, have been correcting fallacious statments made by others or requesting they support the opinion or arguement they have stated.
Posted by: grog on January 15, 2006 03:44 AMWhile it is apparent that you prize formal logic 101 erudition,
your scholarly disquisition would be more persuasive if you spell argument correctly.
I won't waste time and energy refuting your pointless nonsense . . . obviously it would be lost on you.
Nevertheless, thanks for saving me the trouble by illuminating your outlook.
P1 - Taxes are, by definition, involuntary contributions for the support of a government required of entities within the domain of that government.
P2 - Revenue generated by usage fees, leasing or sale of government assests, and in some cases fines, are voluntary and can be sourced from entities outside the domain of that government.
Therefore - Usage fees, leasing or sale of government assests, and in some cases fines are not taxes.
P3 - Public funds are, by definition, all moneys, including cash, checks, bills, notes, drafts, stocks, and bonds collected or disbursed under law, including funds maintained outside the state treasury.
P4 - Taxes, usage fees, leasing or sale of government assests, and fines are moneys collected under law.
Therefore - Moneys from taxes, usage fees, leasing or sale of government assests, and fines are public funds.
In conclusion - Tax moneys are public funds, but not all public funds are tax moneys.
Public funds != Tax money
Pointless nonsense? Only to those who are either ignorant or too lazy to understand.
Would a counter-argument be lost on me? Doubt it, so please enlighten me.
Posted by: grog on January 15, 2006 01:48 PMCongratulations!! You won an argueyment against yourself, and spelled it all correctly.
Thanks again for saving me the bother of refuting your pointless nonsense.
I'm happy that you were saved of the burden of attempting to make a point against the sound arguement I provided for you.
Continually stating that my comments have been pointless nonsense does not make it a fact. If you would like to show that you can be above willful ignorance, then please, provide some rational support for you comments.
P.S. - Thank you for checking my spelling, those corrections have been most accurrate and constructive comments you have made this thread. :)
Posted by: grog on January 15, 2006 03:40 PMDon't care . . . you have no point . . . but . . . thanks.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on January 15, 2006 04:21 PMIf you close your eyes and cannot see the world, does that mean it no longer exists?
look over here ... there's a point...
Public funds != Tax money
Uh oh, did you see it? Oops. I see you are too proud to accept the facts placed right in front of you, better go back to the only thing you know... denial.
As I re-read this thread I realized that you:
- made allegations of my political affiliations based on my correction of someone's misuse of terms
- failed to comprehend what point was made after it was made several times
- quoted yourself as if you were quoting me
- made a clear display that you are oblivious to how our government works
- stated that you "won’t waste my time repeating the facts for you" without first stating any facts
- and best of all, you repeatedly asserted that I would not understand your explanation, while showing a clear inability to formulate a rational arguement or even comprehend the definition of the word taxes
Pointless nonsense 4 teh w1n OMGWTFPWN!
Posted by: grog on January 15, 2006 06:21 PMKeep working at it and wasting your time.
Don't care . . . you have no point . . . but . . . you are becoming humorous.
Come on, display that you are even competent enough to make a reasonable arguement that I don't have a point. Until you do so you will appear as nothing more than a bumbling fool.
Posted by: grog on January 16, 2006 12:39 PM