Ballot Statement Costs
When you get your Official Voter's Guide for the upcoming election, you may wonder why some candidates have no more than a few words in their ballot statements and some have none at all. This article in the Capitol Weekly News explains why.
I was surprised to learn this was one of the consequences of Prop. 34, a campaign finance reform initiative passed back in 2000. For the life of me I can't recall what Prop. 34 was about, but apparently part of it was that candidates that agree to some spending limits get to have a statement in the Official Voter Guide, at a cost. Those who don't agree to the spending limits, don't.
Seems a bit nutty to me but, whatever. I guess that's one of the reasons I'm, at best, skeptical of these so- called campaign finance reform laws. Of course, I'm not alone in that. The San Diego Union- Tribune ran an editorial today against Prop. 89, the up- coming clean money in politics initiative that will be on the ballot in November.
I'll be voting NO on Prop. 89, but I was voting NO on it even before I read the U-T editorial.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 9:01 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
I believe our local cost for a ballot statement is close to $1,000.
Prop. 89 would give Libertarians a fighting chance, Fred. Why would you oppose a measure to level the playing field in a way that doesn't violate the Constitution (unlike Measure T).
I'm very skeptical of having government chose candidates, although I suppose to some extent they already do.
Besides, as the U-T editorial mentions, Prop. 89 has restrictions on donations from groups, except unions, or so I keep hearing. I haven't read the fine print yet. If union contributions are allowed but not businesses, it makes it much along the lines of Measure T.
I don't know how true that is about the union thing. I'll have to look into it further. But that U-T editorial isn't the first time I've heard this.
The fact that a number of big time unions oppose Prop 89 makes me wonder though.
LaValle wants another one of his Drug rehab. houses to take the place of THe Best Western Motel . Hey , scumbag , we already got enough of low - life's here .
Glass , prefers criminals over law and order . Woford already had 4 years & look at how fouled up this City is!!
The unions more thoroughly controlled by the Dem machine are just following orders from central command. Both the Dem and Repug elitists are very afraid of Prop. 89 because it would help break up the two party system.
yeah, prop 89 is revolutionary and not in the hippie granola crapola way of measure turkey! they did this in maine and now they have minor party reps in the state legislature.
DROZ and FLEMMING ...........GO !GO!GO!GO!GO!GO!
Well, it's to provide incentive for accepting the limitations, which could put you at a disadvantage against a heavily funded candidate. Quite frankly, I think free air time should also be offered to any candidate willing to accept the fundraising limitations.
There are provisions in Prop. 89 to raise the public financing in the event of heavy spending by non-participants.
Personally, I think it should be matched, dollar for dollar. But I'm a radical, remember?
I do not think the public should pay for campaigns. If a cnadidate cannot bolster enough support to run, it tells you something, part of the process is the honing of the metal, the strenghthening of the person, and builds the caliber that has to stand up to public pressures.
That said, I do not think candidates should have to pay for ballot statements, especially in races that do not pay a salary.
The public has to print the ballots and the information packets, it is part of our process, and should be covered by taxes.
But in no way should the government be paying for anyone's campaign expenses, not in any way shape or form.
Well, what it tells me is that the candidate isn't kissing up to the right people, or in some instances the wrong people. The idea is simply to reduce the influence of money however, not so much to produce virtuous candidates. If the big donors know that their dollars are going to be matched, they'll invest less money. And candidates would be forced to compete with ideas rather than media saturation.
What you are proposing may really be a way to make it easy on less desirable candidates who cannot attract support.
A little like the 'everybody wins' sports model as opposed to allowing real competition.
In the interests of doing good, you may be inflicting real harm, and weakening the entire unit.
How is it that voters receiving more information on more candidates is weakening the system? Sound like another Dem machine hack defending an undemocratic setup because of the fear of losing power.
Yeah, because the candidates we're getting are of such quality to write home about.
You win by getting votes. It shouldn't be determined by the the money you can get with promises you make to special interests.
Tell that to Gallegos.
Post a Comment
<< Home