Get big money out of the election system!

Navigation

User login

Online users

Logarithm
emmettoconnell
The Original Yoda
FRESH
Guglielmo
Anamaria
jusbytheclown
Berd
JstPlnOnry

Support OlyBlog

OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation:

OlyBlog is powered by:

Who's new

Sara Ballard
GooseKaler
LongRider
non illegitimi ...
acreatureapart

Get big money out of the election system!

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 6:44am.

My title is sarcastic. Just thought I would post this, since most initiatives/candidates that raise a few bucks are labeled as being backed by "special interests" because they run a good fundraising campaign.

The Olympian: Opponents nearly triple I-933 backers' funds:

Opponents of Initiative 933 are about to top $3 million for their campaign, nearly three times as much as the $1.03 million flowing into the coffers of the pro-initiative camp, according to state Public Disclosure Commission records.

The Fire Inside's blog
Login or register to post comments

And it's a good thing, too.

Submitted by Rick on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 7:39am.

When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. -C.P. Snow

What's a good thing? That

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 8:47am.

What's a good thing? That those against I-933 have raised more money than those for?

Or removing private contributions from political campaigns?

Isn't this the type of stuff groups like Democracy Now protest against?

Yes Yes Yes!

Submitted by Robert Whitlock on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 8:22pm.

It's good that the anti-933's have raised more money than the "yesses." It is good to remove excessive private contributions from political campaigns (limit the contribution amount to an individual campaign from an individual donor {including donor business} to say, 10, 15, 50, or 100 bucks, something like that.) Democracy Now protests against stuff that is harmful to people and the environment, generally. Big Money in the election system is harmful to the people and the environment. But there are exceptions to that rule, and this is one of them. We live in a complex world TFI, but I won't let that discourage me. I won't give up!

Are you going to go to Amy Goodman's appearance next Friday, "Bob" (TFI)?

4 users and "1526" (no way!) guests currently.

So really nobody has a

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 8:58pm.

So really nobody has a problem with those against I-933 raising a significant amount of money because it's "for the environment," but caps should be placed when it is a "harmful" campaign. Interesting.

I would hate to see such a subjective standard actually implemented to limit campaign contributions.

I won't be attending Goodman's appearance. Will it be recorded and then shown on TCTV, I wonder?

On the guests: Is that right? And if so, is it normal? Or has been been an increase in traffic to the site and if so, is it recent or have I been asleep at the wheel?

The guest number definately got me asking a lot of questions.

A little off, TFI...

Submitted by Phil Owen on Mon, 10/23/2006 - 11:44am.

The concern about fundraising has less to do with the issue than it does with where the money comes from. As I said before, it isn't fair game for 5 billionaires to massively fund a campaign in which the opponents are common grass roots folks.

I have no problem with one campaign raising more money than another, but there needs to be a cap on the amount an individual can give. If Bill Gates opposed 933, and put 10 million into the anti933 campaign, I'd be pretty sickened by it. But frankly, that isn't the way it usually works. Typically we find that when monied interests are on one side (in 933 these are the big developers), the common people are on the opposite side.

When the interests of the few are at odds with the many, and the few have all the power, there's a fundamental breakdown in democracy. THAT'S what campaign finance reform needs to fix.

This is an issue where I

Submitted by The Fire Inside on Mon, 10/23/2006 - 1:04pm.

This is an issue where I firmly believe in the "no law" portion of the First Amendment in regard to limiting free speech.

We definitely need to crack

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 10:48am.

We definitely need to crack down on spending like this. I'd set caps on all political campaign spending, take the money completely out of the equation and we may have a democracy again.

Take the $$ out all together..

Submitted by bubbaz (not verified) on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 12:05pm.

It seems to me that *all* of these campaigns are just getting more and more expensive, with fewer and fewer end results..

Agreed,

We need to move forward and take the monied influence out of the equation..

"I don't want every break in the world. I just want justice..." Lenny Bruce

In dreamland...

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 12:01pm.

the grassroots organizing game would replace the money game in politics. I am very concerned about the role of money in politics at the moment. But the truth is, I'm not so much concerned with how much is raised as I am with who is giving it.

Financial inequality breeds political inequality. When the money game dominates politics, the slavishly rich get the extreme upper hand. CEO's and oil tycoons have far too much say in our politics. In the "special interests" world, I frankly favor those that get their money from canvassing door-to-door, such as Green Peace, NOW, and the Sierra Club, to those who have a small number of big money donors.

I disagree

Submitted by Rob Richards on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 1:24pm.

How much is just as, or more, important than who. I don't like that the anti-933 folks raised so much money and I would vote against it. When it comes to elected officials, even if they only get their money from rainbows and ponies, I'm still worried because it shows that they are willing to take money. I think it's impossible to not be biased when you are being given lots of money from certain sources. I want my politicians to want to help the environment because it's the right thing to do, not because I donated money or support to the Sierra Club and the Sierra Club then made a huge campaign contribution. It would just be hippocritical to praise one candidate for taking money from an environmental lobby while bemoaning another for taking money from an oil lobby.

It would just be

Submitted by Phil Owen on Sun, 10/22/2006 - 3:22pm.

It would just be hippocritical to praise one candidate for taking money from an environmental lobby while bemoaning another for taking money from an oil lobby.

Not at all. It's a question of representation here.

The oil lobby represents a tiny number of individuals who wield an extraordinary amount of wealth, and therefore power. And, not to mention, that they are pretty inclined to lobby for their private interests even when those interests are at odds with all life on earth.

The environmental lobby typically gets its funding from a very wide swath of people who have to combine their resources just to be in the same ball park of power as the oil lobby. And, because of the collective nature of the environmental lobby, and the wide variety of people it represents, it tends to be a bit more altruistic (less self-interested) than the narrow intentions of the oil lobby.

One represents a few individuals with a lot of wealth. The other represents a lot of individuals without a lot of wealth. Which is more vital to a healthy democracy?

Given that big oil has no intention of ending its political games, I'd say that it's really fucking important that politicians take money from the environmental lobby, just so they can get elected. Otherwise we'll end up with some yahoo cowboy from Texas who wants nothing more than to conquer the Middle East (oh, wait... shit! We've already got that. Better start giving more money to the environmental lobby.)

I will say this: if environmental/consumer/labor/public interest organizations are to continue gaining legitimacy, they must become more democratic in their internal structure. I think it's really important to give to the Sierra Club, and I think it's really important that they intervene in politics. But I'm damn sure that if they are to remain relevant, then they need to give their members a vote on how the money gets spent.

Thank you

Submitted by Rob Richards on Mon, 10/23/2006 - 12:48am.

I was playing devils advocate a bit there and was hoping to draw this out. I agree that I'd rather see our politicians taking money from earth-friendly groups, but, BUT, I'd really rather see only private donations of no more than $100 be allowed. No more corporate giving, no matter who it's from. We have a problem with the people not being truly represented. As you touched on, it comes from Big Oil as well as from BIg Earth (I think I just coined that term). Either way, a few are getting more of a voice than the many.

OlyBlog.net

OlyBlog is devoted to citizen journalism, including hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. If you care about this community and are tired of corporate media, then this is the place for you.

If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. Once you've established a record of responsible blogging, you can become an autonomous user. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here.

Now playing at: