Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Arcata Greens Nix Initiative

First the Eureka Greens, and now the Arcata Greens come out opposing that initiative prohibiting corporations from outside the area from contributing to local campaigns. What's going on?

I'll have to give those folks credit; maybe even apologize. I figured they'd march lock step behind any measure deemed "anti corporate". But, looks like they made a sound and reasoned judgement. Well done!

As to whether I'd support the Arcata Greens alternative proposal of limiting campaign spending to $500 per entity, I've pretty much always been against these sorts of proposals. I am sympathetic to them, though, and their proposal makes more sense to me than the other one.


At 11:02 AM, Anonymous Critter Wilkie said...

Talk about a turn about! Wasn't the Green Party's Measure M fatally flawed? I guess they learned their lesson instead of repeating mistakes. Evolution, what a miracle, I hope they continue to piss off Democracy Unlimited whenever they get the chance.

I can't see a reason not to put in contribution limits though. Anybody who needs to give ten grand to their pet politican can do it the old fashioned way and force their employees to all contribute.

At 11:24 AM, Blogger Anon.R.mous said...

I wonder if this would effect Salzman International INC? After all, he is an out of the area business.

At 12:08 PM, Blogger Fred said...

I wonder just how much animosity exists between the folks at DU and the Greens? I know there are factions, but don't know how deep the divide is and who's on what side.

As far as contribution limits, my main objection is it puts a minority at a disadvantage. Let's say 20% of the voters push an initiative of one kind or another, or even oppose some initiative; They're already at a numerical disadvantage,anyway. And all things being equal (I know they aren't) if every voter contributed $500 to their side, the minority never be able to raise anywhere near the money the majority could. The only hope they've got to compete financially is with the backing of some big guns somewhere, whether it be a wealthy individual or a business.

They may well lose anyway, even if they spend more money than the majority (as we've seen happen before around here), but at least they had a better chance to make their case.

And anon.r: That might well be part of what helped bring about the change of heart. But I see some good in that. They realized that proposals to limit outside influences in elections can be a double edged sword, which is what I've been saying for some time.

They must frequent this blog, huh?

At 10:39 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

since david cobb equals democracy unlimited it must be the pro-nader and pro-camejo greens in the current leadership who want a different course


Post a Comment

<< Home