Sunday, January 31, 2010

Many Miles To Go

A big thank you for all of the support I've received via e-mail and comments today. You guys make it easy to get the motivation to keep this conversation going. Nothing is going to change here.

I posted earlier today about fundraising numbers. It's been sitting on my mind ever since. On one hand, candidates would be hard pressed to reject a funding offer. On the other, they should be willing to accept the appearance of impropriety and respond. I refuse to accept the excuse that "my donors can afford large cash donations." Well...uh...Ken, you've got a growing homeless population with diminishing funds for community service organizations. For some reason, these public minded folk don't seem so interested in being "over-wealthy" in that respect. But obviously, the money has nothing to do with influence. Obviously.

We have backwards liquor laws that affirmatively hurt the consumer. We are one of 12 states that does not allow direct shipping. Yet, our liquor lobby is one of the most frequent contributors to our delegates and senators. But obviously, the money has nothing to do with influence. Obviously.

The largest set of lobbying interests in our county are land developers and real estate attorneys. But obviously, the money has nothing to do with influence. Obviously.

More importantly, why can't we talk about this? Why do we have a President that was on every T-shirt from here to San Fran that promised to accept funding, re-neg'ed on that promise, and is accepted as the "people's president"? Why is he allowed to portray himself as one to rail against Wall Street when they were his biggest donors?

So readers, what do we do? Try to buy influence back?

4 comments:

  1. THAT is the right way to approach sanctified money for favors that makes up our campaign finance.

    IGNORE money unless it's to cast your ballot for the UNFUNDED candidate. The funded candidate will work against your interests, voters.

    Throw out campaign literature, and mute TV commercials. The money to pay for them comes with a steep price for each regular voter and we've seen far too much and are feeling the pain of decades of bad decisions that even a capitalist democracy could no longer shoulder.

    Our standard of living is changing and it's due to the decision makers we've allowed ourselves to believe. No more. Use technology to overcome the million Ulman is raising - spend time which will be much more valuable than money. Attend meetings, make phone calls join the inside out campaign.

    I think this campaign needs a kick off just after the primaries.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Know this, West County voters: Greg Fox is 100% in favor of not touching campaign law and does not even want us discussing it.

    He abhors citizens organizing particularly where it can do the most good: across the county on land use issues.

    He is your council member. If we're to clean house, Western voters must consider a democrat or independent.

    Any district where you find one party rule you also find higher levels of arrogance and corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Let's not forget the tale of Long Reach. Last year the Columbia Association races netted two candidates for the Long Reach area. One was a liberal activist with no money ties and one was ultra pro developer interest with high powered resources.

    The activist won. After the developer candidate mailed between one and three glossy postcards to every residence, the activist won. Do you realize how expensive the developer canidate's tactics were? Mailing is prohibitively expensive.

    The activist had 5 volunteers knocking on doors. And he WON!

    The day is coming, people. Voters are going to show you what they think of that money.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Glenn Beck on "I forgot that he was black for an hour":

    http://www.baltimorereporter.com/?p=7492

    Go in about a minute 45:

    "My surgeon was so good, that I forgot that he was black for an hour".

    Funny stuff!

    ReplyDelete