Again, Friendly Bear over on the "Sign" thread has raised a valid point with the unlimited amount of funds corporations and wealthy River Tax supporters can give.
http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7666
Tulsa Now Forum - Sign Sign Everywhere a Sign..........
These are important issues that need to be discussed in its own thread.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
As I said before-----
$ = Free Speech.
If you believe in free speech then those that have $ get to speak without limitation, especially government limitation. This is not Burma.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Buckley v.
I suppose you could design a system that would have public financing of issues like the River Tax--pro/con, but then you might have folks like Accountability Burns and Paul Tay getting public money--not that I don't agree with them more often than not.
Well, for some reason, there ARE campaign limits on what state and local candidates can raise from individual contributors. That fact does NOT seem to violate any free speech rights.
The problem of NO LIMITS on what can be spent on Tax Issues, is that the Tax Vampires, who fully expect to be the recipients of the tax largesse, have so MUCH free speech funded by their $millions that they simply DROWN OUT the free speech rights of anyone else.
Why? Because free speech isn't really without cost?
Oh, you can stand on the sidewalk and shout VOTE NO all day, and hold up a NO RIVER TAX sign until you arms fall off.
The Tax Vampires have wall-to-wall Mass Media buys, slickly constructed multi-color litho direct mail, telephone canvassers, Push-Polls, in-kind contributions provided by Cocks Cable TV, multiple ads on Channel 862, 24x7 radio spots, and newspaper "news" coordinated with Echo-Chamber Editorials daily in the Lorton's World.
The local controlling power Oligarch can boastfully say: Ain't free speech great?
[:O]
If you will read the Buckley decision, SCOTUS indicates there can be no limit on what a individual candidate can spend of his/her own money. That would be a unconstitutional limit on free speech. We have seen several local examples of this (Don McCorkel & Kathy Taylor) and several national examples (Mitt Romney & Steve Forbes).
The Buckley Wikie article (see above) has a critique of this view:
"Criticism
Although the decision upheld restrictions on the size of campaign contributions, because it struck down limits on expenditures some argue that this precedent allows those with great wealth to effectively drown out the speech average citizens. Among those criticizing the decision on this line was philosopher John Rawls, who wrote that the Court's decision "runs the risk of endorsing the view that fair representation is representation according to the amount of influence effectively exerted." (See: wealth primary.)
On a somewhat different note, Justice Byron White, in dissent, argued that the entire law should have been upheld, in deference to Congress's greater knowledge and expertise on the issue.
From the other side, some disagree vigorously with Buckley on the grounds that it sustained some limits on campaign contributions which, they argue, are protected by the First Amendment as free speech. This position was advanced by Chief Justice Warren Burger in his dissent, who claimed that individual contributions and expenditures are protected speech acts. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, argued for overturning Buckley on these grounds, but their position has not been adopted by the court. Despite criticism of Buckley from both sides, the case remains the starting point for judicial analysis of the constitutionality of campaign finance restrictions. See e.g. McConnell v. FEC, upholding the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 ("McCain-Feingold Bill"). This legislation included a prohibition on soft money as well as limits on independent expenditures by private groups."
On the national issue side, George Soros is an example of $ and free speech being unrestricted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros
George Soros - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.) On September 28, 2004 he dedicated more money to the campaign and kicked off his own multi-state tour with a speech: Why We Must Not Re-elect President Bush[20] delivered at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
The online transcript to this speech received many hits after Dick Cheney accidentally referred to FactCheck.org as "factcheck.com" in the Vice Presidential debate, causing the owner of that domain to redirect all traffic to Soros's site. [21]
Soros was not a large donor to US political causes until the U.S. presidential election, 2004, but according to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 2003-2004 election cycle, Soros donated $23,581,000 to various 527 Groups dedicated to defeating President Bush. Despite Soros' efforts, Bush was reelected to a second term as president in U.S. presidential election, 2004.
After Bush's reelection in 2004, Soros and other wealthy liberal political donors backed a new political fundraising group called Democracy Alliance which aims to support the goals of the U.S. Democratic Party.[22][23]
Soros has been criticized for his large donations, as he also pushed for the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 which was intended to ban "soft money" contributions to federal election campaigns. Soros has responded that his donations to unaffiliated organizations do not raise the same corruption issues as donations directly to the candidates or political parties.
A Republican National Committee spokeswoman said,
"It's incredibly ironic that George Soros is trying to create a more open society by using an unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money group to do it. George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party."[24]
Harken Energy, a firm partly owned by Soros, did business with George W. Bush in 1986 by buying his oil company, Spectrum 7."
As far as I know, there is no law in any jurisdiction that would place a limit on contributions to issue elections, such as tax votes or petition drives. I would be interested if someone can direct out attention to one.
On the individual candidate level, as DoubleA points out, many jurisdictions are adopting public financing. This would be a great reform and since it is voluntary it is constitutional.
See:
http://www.publicampaign.org/node/34047
How Clean Elections Works | Public Campaign
Let's discuss/debate what reforms could be brought to issues like the river tax, where many corporations and other wealthy individuals contribute unlimited amounts and some would say drown out the free speech of the opposition.
I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.
The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.
If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.
How do we stop that?
If you will look at the suggested laws promoted at
http://www.publicampaign.org/node/34047
How Clean Elections Works | Public Campaign
you will see that there are safe guards that place reasonable and effective limitations on candidates like Burns and Tay. Generally all candidates who seek public financing are required to get a petition signed by a number of persons (something like 250-500) who commit to give a modest sum--like $50 to $100.
This has been effective and keep the "flake" candidate from getting public financing.
To encourage the other side to participate, when a non-qualified opponent of a qualified public finance candidate decides to dump a large amount of his own money or gets a huge maxed out contribution from a wealth individual--the public finance fund matches the amount and gives it to you, in effect equalizing the contributions.
This has caused a dramatic change in politics in Arizona, moving it from a state dominated by wealth special interest to one now electing progressive, reform-minded and populist candidates from both parties.
What is broken is that in Oklahoma many of our campaigns are dominated by money and those who control money, rather than ideas and public policy and "the people."
Just check out this google thread:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=arizona+public+finance+law&spell=1
arizona public finance law - Google Search
See also:
http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=507399
Thanks, Bledsoe.
I would hope that there be a slightly higher threshhold than 250 names on a petition. Even the crazy guy in the Santa suit could probably get that many and then we would all have to pay to hear his commercials.
I also don't think that that many elections are being bought...at least not yet. There was no big campaign money in any of the council races and most of the state representative races were won by regularly paid folk.
If only rich people win, how did Maria Barnes, Jeannie McDaniel, Roscoe Turner, Jack Henderson, Dennis Troyer, Eric Proctor and others win?
I am not against changing election rules, but don't make me pay for idiots just trying to get attention.
We could have clean elections for the city on the ballot to be decided by the voters in the upcoming Council elections. There's still time.
I don't have a problem with Clean Elections; however, I think it is important to point out that some interesting evidence has shown that the correlation between money and winning elections is not necessarily cause and effect. For those who have read Freakonomics, Levitt argues quite persuasively that, in fact, it is not that money = campaign success, but that a perceived successful campaign draws in more money. In other words, if most people think Obama is the most likely candidate to win, most people will give him money. Since most people think he will win, he is the most likely candidate to win, regardless of the money. If you compare that to candidates who have lots of money, but mostly their own (eg, Forbes, Perot, McCorkle), the money makes very little difference.
If true, this would go against the idea that political positions can be "bought" through campaign donations. However, you still have the problem of candidates feeling obligated to those who donated to their candidacy after the election. Clean Elections could resolve that issue; but you could also look at conflicts of interest laws as well.
I thought an opinion poll (//%22http://www.tulsanow.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7728%22) might be helpful to gauge support for this or the lack thereof.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.
The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.
If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.
How do we stop that?
How about the fact we had million dollar campaigns in the last election for a position that doesn't even pay a half of that over the course of term. If you don't see the the problem with that, you are more deluded than I thought.
It's very clear that you prefer the status qou, it's been very good to you and yours.
You pick one election (one which your candidate lost) and you want to change all the rules.
Your posts remind me of cheap beer...bitter and only good as an excuse to act stupid.
I been advocating this long before the last mayoral election. Your little sour grapes argument doesn't hold water. My statements weren't in reference to any candidate, that is your assumption. Once again, try to force your pathetic spin into my mouth and I'll chew it up and spit it back in your fat face.
Is it because you are poor you hate the rich?
I am just confused as to what has happened in your life to make you write lists of have and have-nots and obsess with hating the haves? Almost every post you make attacks everybody...from the chamber to the mayor to the banker to the commissioner including democrats and republicans...it is impressive that you remain such an equal opportunity hater.
Did you not get enough love ar attention at a crucial time in your childhood?
Are you wanting to change the rules because you really want to be one of the insiders and you think it is all connected to money?
Don't be afraid. Show what you got and run for office. If you win, you will be accepted. If you lose, you can achieve cult status up there with Paul Tay and Virginia Jenner.
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Is it because you are poor you hate the rich?
I am just confused as to what has happened in your life to make you write lists of have and have-nots and obsess with hating the haves? Almost every post you make attacks everybody...from the chamber to the mayor to the banker to the commissioner including democrats and republicans...it is impressive that you remain such an equal opportunity hater.
Did you not get enough love ar attention at a crucial time in your childhood?
Are you wanting to change the rules because you really want to be one of the insiders and you think it is all connected to money?
Don't be afraid. Show what you got and run for office. If you win, you will be accepted. If you lose, you can achieve cult status up there with Paul Tay and Virginia Jenner.
What's holding you back big boy?
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.
The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.
If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.
How do we stop that?
How about the fact we had million dollar campaigns in the last election for a position that doesn't even pay a half of that over the course of term. If you don't see the the problem with that, you are more deluded than I thought.
It's very clear that you prefer the status qou, it's been very good to you and yours.
Your reference to the last mayor's race doesn't support your argument. Granted, both candidates spent an obscene amount of money; but in the end it didn't matter. As I recall, McCorkle outspent Taylor, yet he lost. So Levitt is correct in this case--more people gave money to Taylor than McCorkle. But they both spent similar amounts on their campaign. Taylor won because more people supported her, not because she had more money. Money doesn't cause support; it is indicative of it.
Again, I tend to support Clean Elections, but mainly at the national level, where you must have a ton of money to even get your message out. But at the local level, I don't think its as big of an issue.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I don't know what is broken with current financing that would be better solved by public financing.
The last thing I want is for my public dollars to be spent for Paul Tay and Accountability Burns to run for office. They are misguided fools who think everything is a joke and I don't want to pay for them to be on stage.
If you didn't have to beg for money from your friends or open your own wallet, everybody would be a politician.
How do we stop that?
How about the fact we had million dollar campaigns in the last election for a position that doesn't even pay a half of that over the course of term. If you don't see the the problem with that, you are more deluded than I thought.
It's very clear that you prefer the status qou, it's been very good to you and yours.
Your reference to the last mayor's race doesn't support your argument. Granted, both candidates spent an obscene amount of money; but in the end it didn't matter. As I recall, McCorkle outspent Taylor, yet he lost. So Levitt is correct in this case--more people gave money to Taylor than McCorkle. But they both spent similar amounts on their campaign. Taylor won because more people supported her, not because she had more money. Money doesn't cause support; it is indicative of it.
Again, I tend to support Clean Elections, but mainly at the national level, where you must have a ton of money to even get your message out. But at the local level, I don't think its as big of an issue.
That's exactly my problem, thanks for illustrating it more clearly. There is something inherently wrong with a system where only millionaires with million dollar war chests dominate elections at the local or national levels. This only leads to candidates preoccupied with chasing campaign cash instead of connecting with their constituents.
But you worked in the campaign of one of those millionaires. Are you a hypocrite?
Here's how it's worked in Portland Oregon:
Portland, OR: Voter Owned Elections A Success
In the first primary elections held under Portland, Oregon's Voter Owned Elections law on May 17, publicly funded City Council candidate Erik Sten won his race. In addition, the new law helped make Portland elections fair, open, and accountable with a more level playing field, less campaign spending, reduced influence of special interests, and new options for genuine participation in politics by typical residents from nearly all city neighborhoods, according to the Friends of Voter Owned Elections.
With at least 3,500 ballots still outstanding, Sten, who as city commissioner authored the Voter Owned Elections law that the City Council approved a year ago, won just over 50 percent of the vote. If his margin of victory holds, he will avoid a run off race in the fall. His closest opponent was Ginny Burdick, who spent more than $170,000 in her race, and got 30 percent of the vote.
"Portland voters said no to big-money politics in their vote for Erik Sten over a candidate recruited by Portland's big business elite," said Janice Thompson, executive director of the Money in Politics Research Action Project (MiPRAP).
Amanda Fritz, a nurse and neighborhood activist, lost her race against Dan Saltzman, an incumbent who has served in the city council since 1998, and garnered 57 percent of the vote. Saltzman, however, did voluntarily limit his spending to $150,000 and his contributions to $500. Saltzman supported Voter Owned Elections when the City Council voted last May.
Portland's Voter Owned election candidates received $150,000 to run their campaigns after qualifying for the program by collecting 1,000 $5 contributions and agreeing not to take private contributions.
Here is a link to the Portland Auditors website (//%22http://www.portlandonline.com/Auditor/index.cfm?c=dhhea%22) with links to the PDF file of their ordinance.
$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.
If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...
I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.
Vote for the only party that really parties!
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I also don't think that that many elections are being bought...at least not yet. There was no big campaign money in any of the council races and most of the state representative races were won by regularly paid folk.
If only rich people win, how did Maria Barnes, Jeannie McDaniel, Roscoe Turner, Jack Henderson, Dennis Troyer, Eric Proctor and others win?
Michael, I think you are not seeing the forest for the trees. I am not saying rich people will always win. The ability to raise money from large contribution from a relative small base of donors is what I think is at the root of the problem.
Certainly we have elected some good people. Jeannie McDaniel, for example is a profit in courage, IMHO, often taking principled public policy positions that are in the immediate present at odds with the short-term thinking of the majority of folks in her district.
Yet every person who aspires to office and who wants to get re-elected, in the present system, must constantly think about raising large sums of money. If you are lucky enough to be in a safe district the present system also gives you the opportunity to form a PAC and raise money for your favored friends. This system enables the Boss Hogg or Tammany Hall syndrom--ala Todd Hiett and Lance Cargill.
Recent campaign finance stories ripped from the headlines serve to document this problem:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070921_1_A1_hItap15656
Tulsa World : Probe targets GOP finances
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070829_1_A13_spanc47868
Tulsa World : Campaign records, jewelry seized in searches linked ...
The clean government public financing system lessens this every increasing load. I believe principled representatives like McDaniel should welcome relying on a large base of small donors and public financing rather than a much smaller pool of "fat cats" who can give the $5k max.
Don't you remember the Adelson/Barlett Dist. 33 race in 2004 where over $1 million was raised and spent. I think it set a record for a state senate race.
Finally, let's look at the money in the 2006 Troyer/Mautino race in East Tulsa, Tulsa City Council Dist. 6. It is clear to me that much of Troyer's money cam from developers and those allied with this special interest. Troyer is certainly not rich, but his contributors seem to be more in that catigory.
See:
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060301_Ne_A6_Other
Tulsa World : Other fundraising reported
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=060328_Ne_A1_Elect57954
Tulsa World : Election costing lots of money
____________
District 6: Democrat Dennis Troyer, who missed deadline and filed his report Tuesday, has raised $850 and spent $174. He lists two contributions, one for $800 and one for $50, but his report does not list the sources of those contributions.
Republican incumbent Jim Mautino, who missed the deadline and filed his report Tuesday, has raised $3,495 and spent $883. He reported $420 from contributions of $200 or less and a $3,075 loan to himself.
Note: Most of Mautino's money, here and below, came from his own funds. Also, remember Mautino had a primary--Troyer did not.
________________
District 6 Council
Republican incumbent James Mautino has raised a total of $5,110.23, with $1,615 raised during the second contributions reporting period. He reported $615 in donations of $200 or less.
Among his donors of more than $200 were Bonnie and Frank Henke and James Hinkefent, giving $500.
Democrat Dennis K. Troyer has raised a total of $9,175.14 this election cycle, with $8,500 raised during the second contributions reporting period.
Among his donors of more than $200 were the David Patrick Campaign, which gave $1,500; Re-elect Auditor Phil Wood and Friends of David Patrick, which each gave $2,000; and Grow Tulsa, which gave $3,000.
Note: Auditor Phil Wood later corrected this news report. He gave $200 to Troyer (and every other democrat council candidate)--not $2K. He said these contributions were to assist with his signs.
________________
Grow Tulsa raised $4,000 this election cycle and had a carryover balance of $18,000. Its $4,000 donor was from World Publishing Co.
The committee gave $4,829.36 to the David Patrick campaign, $4,837.29 to the John "Jack" Wing campaign and $3,000 to the Dennis Troyer campaign.
I hate to be so dense, but these are relatively small amounts of money and most of the guys you mention lost.
If the money was flowing to David patrick and Jack Wing, why did they lose in the primaries?
Your examples all showed that council races are being financed in Tulsa for small amounts of money and the winners and losers for municipal elections barely spend six figures.
If a candidate can't raise $10,000 in a district of 60,000 people, can they accomplish anything for the district? We trust them to approve a half a billion dollar budget, but don't want them to actually be responsible to raise any of the money they need for their own campaigns?
I am a little worried when a state senate race costs so much money to win in midtown, but all the other state senate races in the Tulsa area spent less than than combined.
Pardon me for being such a simpleton, but I can show you example after example where average wealth people win race after race. The occassional Mayor's race or state senate race that pits two very wealthy people is not enough of an example to me to want to throw out the way we fund campaigns.
I just have a real problem with MY money going to a candidate I do not support. Public financing of elections means that my tax money gives candidates I dislike money to send me literature I don't want, yard signs that make a city ugly, and television ads that interrupt my shows.
I don't want a system that makes me pay for candidates I don't like the opportunity to annoy me.
The first step in campaign finance reform is to do away with State-sponsored primaries. I do not see why one penny of my taxes should go to helping the Parties figger out who their candidates should be.
I disagree with the notion that all losers in elections are the equivalent of Tay, Burns, or Jenner.
Michael have you even read the clean campaign and common cause web sites? If you will I think most of your questions will be answered and fears set aside that flake candidates would get public money.
The real problem is undue influence from a small group of large donors. What I want to attract are good candidates that are motivated by public policy and who raise money with a larger base of small donors.
The Dist. 6 race is a good example of the present problem even with small amounts of money--43% of one candidate's funds basically came from one allied group. The opportunity for undue influence is obvious.
As for these races being small money things--look at Dist. 9--Carter raised over $51K and his primary opponent Stava raised more than $40K--that is more than $91K just for a City Council race.
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
Michael have you even read the clean campaign and common cause web sites? If you will I think most of your questions will be answered and fears set aside that flake candidates would get public money.
The real problem is undue influence from a small group of large donors. What I want to attract are good candidates that are motivated by public policy and who raise money with a larger base of small donors.
The Dist. 6 race is a good example of the present problem even with small amounts of money--43% of one candidate's funds basically came from one allied group. The opportunity for undue influence is obvious.
As for these races being small money things--look at Dist. 9--Carter raised over $51K and his primary opponent Stava raised more than $40K--that is more than $91K just for a City Council race.
Mr. Bledsoe:
Thank you for posting this topic. It definitely needs to be discussed in its own thread.
Having NO LIMITS on what a group advocating for higher taxes of which certain of their members will gain immense financial benefit just turns democracy on its ear.
There need to be reasonable campaign limits on so-called Non-Partisan campaigns, just as there are limits for elected office.
Period.
[:O]
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.
If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...
I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.
Vote for the only party that really parties!
I think something along the lines of say taking the cumulative average of the totals spent on all Council races combined in the last 2 cycles dividing that by nine and I think that would be a fair number to settle on. Follow the same equation for issues, Mayor, and Auditor campaigns.
I really like that in order to qualify for clean election money, candidates would first have to collect 1,000 $5.00 donations from individual donors. The Paul Tays of the world(God love 'em) will have a whole lot harder time collecting those donations than mere signatures, which addresses Spincycle's problem with that.
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.
If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...
I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.
Vote for the only party that really parties!
I think something along the lines of say taking the cumulative average of the totals spent on all Council races combined in the last 2 cycles dividing that by nine and I think that would be a fair number to settle on. Follow the same equation for issues, Mayor, and Auditor campaigns.
I really like that in order to qualify for clean election money, candidates would first have to collect 1,000 $5.00 donations from individual donors. The Paul Tays of the world(God love 'em) will have a whole lot harder time collecting those donations than mere signatures, which addresses Spincycle's problem with that.
how many signatures do they have to collect right now? 1000?
quote:
Originally posted by inteller
quote:
Originally posted by Double A
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
$150,000 per candidate sounds like a lot of money. I can't imagine how many yard signs that would buy. Our rights-of-way will be filled from curb to curb.
If I had $150,000 free money to spend and all it took was 1000 people giving me five dollars each...
I would rent out the Cain's, charge a five dollar cover, and blow the entire $150,000 on kegs of beer, live music, and something fun like party hats.
Vote for the only party that really parties!
I think something along the lines of say taking the cumulative average of the totals spent on all Council races combined in the last 2 cycles dividing that by nine and I think that would be a fair number to settle on. Follow the same equation for issues, Mayor, and Auditor campaigns.
I really like that in order to qualify for clean election money, candidates would first have to collect 1,000 $5.00 donations from individual donors. The Paul Tays of the world(God love 'em) will have a whole lot harder time collecting those donations than mere signatures, which addresses Spincycle's problem with that.
how many signatures do they have to collect right now? 1000?
300 (//%22http://www.cityoftulsa.org/ourcity/charter/article6.asp%22) to get on the ballot.
The problem is not in free speech. I'm very uncomfortable with limits on spending on campaigns, and I've got problems with campaign finance reform at the Federal level.
The huge, frustrating problem is that we are having this election in the first place. Three county commissioners have the power to call an election.
At the southside library "public meeting" called by Fred Perry, one of our Self-Appointed Movers and Shakers made a statement like, "No mater how you stand on this issue, we should let the people decide." At that point, I realized what was going on. With 300 million on the table, the "Vote Yes" side could easily raise a million bucks (and it looks like they will raise more than that), and have a massive media blitz. With the typical blend of misinformation, lies, and dirty tricks, they could turn a no-brainer into a close election.
So I am very upset with my Republican county commissioners. We never should have had to go through this.