Thursday, March 30, 2006

Greens vs. Allen

Not exactly news, since this squabble seems to have been going on for some time, but looks like the conflict between some prominent Greens and Greg Allen has reached the boiling point. I don't know enough about the inner party politics of the Greens to comment on the fight itself.

This isn't meant as a slam on the Greens either, since we've seen similar conflicts within the local Republicans. The Libertarian Party, on the state level, has its fair share of inner party squabbles, as well.

I just wonder why Greg Allen doesn't follow the lead of Charles Douglas and go his own way? Is it a showing of blind loyalty to the Greens, or what? From the way Greg sees it, the things he's been doing, he's pretty much been doing on his own anyway. What's the point in fighting with the Green Party then?

Lori Metheny had the sense to get out of the way when she faced a rebellion by local Republicans, albeit after some hesitation. Charles Douglas pretty much parted ways with the Greens, obviously the result of some personal or political differences with the party. What's keeping Greg Allen?

I spoke with Greg on the phone a couple weeks ago, trying to get him on board with our No On Measure T Committee. One of the things that irked the Greens was Greg's opposition to Measure T.

He also suggested, instead of banning contributions from certain groups, simply placing a limit on the size of donations, as No On T Chair, Cris Crawford suggests. Seemed to me he should be a natural ally with the No On T effort.

He said he'd check out our web page. I haven't heard from him since. I suspect he didn't want to excacerbate his conflict with the Greens by publicly aligning himself with something most in his party opposed. A shame, seems to me, since it looks like they're intent on dumping him, anyway.


At 9:06 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

I've seen Greg's counter proposal,which would limit the contribution amount(isn't that restricting free speech too?). But in his proposal family members are excluded.So if Cherie Arkley got back into running for office Rob or her kids could donate whatever they wanted,whereas her opponent would be put a huge dissadvantage unless the family is more stacked financially then Arkley's.Ain't happening.I liked everything else though,but I hope he fixes this glitch.

At 9:21 AM, Blogger Fred said...

I'm not so sure I like the $500 limitation Chris Crawford proposes ,or any other limitations anyone else proposes, either. I don't know that it's so much "restricting free speech", in the constitutional sense (although most would probably disagree with me).

It seems to me campaign contribution limits automatically put the minority view at a disadvantage, insomuch as money allows one side or the other the means to get their word out.

For instance, the Wal Mart thing: I forget how many voted for the Wal Mart rezoning, 30%? Exact numbers don't really matter. They lost despite corporate backing. But, because of the financial backing of Wal Mart, they were able to make an effective campaign of it.

If the pro Wal Mart forces were limited to maximum contributions of $500, they'd be at an inherent disadvantage right off the bat, if only because of the greater number of potential contributers to the No on Wal Mart campaign.

The minority always will have an inherent disadvantage. The potential of having some rich donors in the form of individuals or corporations is the only hope they have of leveling the financial playing field.

And, yes, it can also work the other way if the big money ends up going to the majority. There's no easy answer.

Some are bound to call for publicly financed elections. they're suggesting that the same folks responsible for limiting the playing field already should be responsible for deciding which candidates get funding and which don't? Forgive me if I'm a little suspicious of that proposal.

At 9:58 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Greens eat their own. Their way or the highway. Hope Allen has had his eyes opened.


At 11:13 AM, Anonymous Max said...

Actually mr esquan's real name is Mark Konkler and he is actually affiliated with the Michael Smith bunch of loonies instigating this green purge. These people haven't done a damn thing for the Green Party but they're real good at attacking anyone who doesn't follow their orders. They want Greg Allen ousted because he's in opposition to David Cobb and his Stalinist agenda of total control over the local activist community. Lucky for the Greens, they need 80% to do anything and they are never going to get 4 out of 5 people to go along with this green purge.

At 12:14 PM, Blogger Fred said...

Funny you should say that, Max, as esquan doesn't seem all that enthusiastic about Measure T, at least from what I can glean from his writings. I get the impression the Cobb bunch is very strongly in favor of Measure T.

But, you might well know better than I.

At 12:57 PM, Anonymous Max said...

mr esquan is Mark Konkler, and he collected signatures for Measure T, which according to that bunch equates an endorsement.

At 2:20 PM, Blogger Fred said...

esquan collected sigs for Measure T? Shame on you, esquan. You should know better! I know you won't let that happen again.

No hard feelings, though. Now that you've changed your mind about Meausure T, let me know when you want your name added to our No On Measure T endorsements page.

At 6:02 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Fred,can't really say I've changed my mind on measure T. The only thing I question is why go through the whole non-local vs local issue,when it should simply be no corporate,or union contribtions at all.I told the HCCR folks that that issue would be a big with voters.The attempted recall of Gallegos really helped to hamper our elections department.When they should have been able to work on becoming HAVA compliant,and dealing with machine security issues,and other electoral functions,they had to deal with that.We had just had the statewide recall of Gray Davis,so they were already backed up,and having this unnecessary recall made things much worse.A recall heavily influenced by outside donations,and a good amount of signature influence(up to $8 paid per).Walmart,wassent packing and the Gallegos recall failed, but why should voters who overwhelmingly dissaproved of both prior to election day,have to deal with that,when we should be working on other issues affecting the community.Contribution limits don't necessarily gaurantee less spending and influence.During last April's Arcata city council special election Mark Wheatley raised over $19,000 and Michael Winkler around $18,000.That's big money considering the turnout was only 25%. Wheatley garnished around 1,300 votes and Winkler about 850. Do the math, a lot of money spent per vote.This occuring in a town which has a contribution limit. Why?It's easy to incorporate under aliases.If this initiative is a restriction of free speech,then I would assume that prop 75 would have been as well,and I really can't recall any free speech advocates jumping all over that.By the way,I consider Greg to be a friend of mine,and anything that exists between him,Michael Smith, or David Cobb, is between them. If I was in cahoots with Mike or Cobb,I would have registered myself as a green and voted Greg out,wouldn't I?Keep me out of their mess please. And who is max??Since were playing a name game??I personally don't know anyone named Max here??

At 7:47 PM, Anonymous Max said...

Yeah, you're such a friend of Greg you'll just sit back and watch your other friend Michael Smith spread lies and defame him in public without lifting a finger. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

At 9:00 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

who is max??repeat,who is max??get real.

At 8:54 AM, Blogger Fred said...

mresquan wrote:"why go through the whole non-local vs local issue,when it should simply be no corporate,or union contribtions at all?".

Good question, but Measure T doesn't do that. It doesn't affect union contributions, only corporations.

That measure (Prop 75?) requiring unions to get permission from members before using their dues for some political purposes, in the last special election, was defeated, some say, because it was unfair: affecting unions but not corporations.

This does the same thing in reverse. In fact, it goes even further, because it doesn't even require corporations get permission from shareholders to participate in political campaigns. It simply bans "non-local" corporate contributions altogether while allowing unlimited union contributions.

Doesn't seem right to me regardless of the local vs. non- local issue.

And don't expect the Measure T proponents to submit a different initiative for the November election that will ban union contributions to make up for the inequities created by Measure T. This is all about gaining an unfair advantage over what they see as an opponent. It's as simple as that.

At 9:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Fred - you are absolutely correct. I'd support a total ban on contributions from all corps, unions AND non-profits. Let the individual contribute and be noted for it. The proponents of this lopsided woefully inadequate and bizarre measure don't want fairness, they want the advantage over their opponents. Its always been about that. Think that's why we have a constitution - to limit the tyranny of the majority.

At 5:19 PM, Anonymous Max said...

Let's see mr esquan admit that he is Mark Konkler and tell us what a stool pigeon he is for Michael Smith and the loonies, then I'll give you my last name too.

At 8:53 AM, Anonymous mresquan said...

I am Mark Konkler. Like I said before,I have nothing against Greg Allen or Mike Smith.I'm not a green,they're both aquaintances of mine.Get over it.Stool pigeon,that's good.Very creative.Prove it.Again,leave me out of their mess.Again,who is max??

At 10:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Didn't I see Michael Smith and Mark Konkler on Channel 10 yesterday? They were muttering to each other in the aisle during the CR bus gabfest right before Mark went up to the podium to piss on the heads of CR student leaders!

At 4:39 PM, Anonymous mresquan said...

Oh Man!People talking to each other!What a conspiracy.Both were talking to Pat Higgins,David Elsebusch and his wife,Anna Young,and both Caroyn Crnich and Lydsey McWilliams!! Wonder what all that was about,A plan to take over the world,Watch out!!


Post a Comment

<< Home