After we succeed…

…you may never be asked for a campaign contribution again.

Until then, we need your financial support to advocate for passage of “Clean Elections” bills in the 2008 legislature and prepare the groundwork for a possible initiative campaign.

To support this effort, we’re asking for contributions of $35, $50 or $100. And if you can afford more, we guarantee it will be put to good use.

Washington Public Campaigns seeks to change our campaign system to provide equal and fair access to public office – crucial to our democracy.

Campaign costs are out of control. Recent campaign seasons have been awash in special interest money. To compete with that, candidates must fundraise incessantly.

Public campaign funding works. Maine and Arizona have proven that optional public campaigns are successful, popular and fiscally sound. Candidates win on the strength of their ideas, rather than on the greenbacks of big donors. Public financing encourages a diversity of candidates and increases voter participation. Once elected, politicians are answerable to constituents, rather than donors.

We’re asking for your help. Our grassroots organization of volunteers has grown seven times over in the last year. Our programs and outreach are more ambitious than ever. Check out last year’s legislative efforts and recent events on our website: washclean.org.

If your funds are limited, there are other ways to participate: volunteering, hosting a house party, and writing letters to your representatives and newspapers. We will provide speakers to your book club, church or civic group. WashClean is a 501(c)4 organization, but our foremost activity is public education, so tax-deductible contributions can be made through our fiscal sponsor, Institute for Washington’s Future, an IRS 501(c)3 organization.

Washington Public Campaigns Update:

Forum at University of Washington, Kane Hall, November 17th (with Paul Loeb)
Mailing list: 5,800 (from 800 in June ‘˜06)
Petition signers: 3,700 – and growing daily
Several “Clean Elections”bills introduced in Olympia in 2007 including the Governor’s proposal to publicly fund judicial campaigns
Many well-attended hearings and meetings with representatives, in support of our legislation
Eight public forums across the state from Bellingham to Seattle to Spokane
Local chapters statewide and citizen activists in 48 of 49 legislative districts
More than 150 presentations given & 1000 DVDs distributed
Two grants from The Dudley Foundation (2006 and 2007)

If this issue resonates with you as it does with all of us, we hope you will donate through this link: washclean.org/donate.htm.

With sincere thanks for your past support and interest,

Marcee Stone, President of the Board, Washington Public Campaigns

Last 2 posts in Clean elections

Thinking about Food and Food for Thought - June 20th, 2008
because the problem with our elections is voter fraud, - April 28th, 2008

Sphere: Related Content

If you liked this post, feel free to subscribe to our rss feeds

6 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

(listed oldest to newest)

GOOGLE “Bruce Brousard” and “Emily Boyles”, and do some reading.

Then figure the odds that Vancouver City Council will ever be stupid enough vote to approve a fiasco like that.

(I’d estimate the odds at somewhere between zilch point shit, and zero.)

[Reply]

1. Above comment written by Chief Wahoo on November 12th, 2007 at 12:56 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Without clean elections, we are never going to have much more than mostly the equivalent of paid prostitutes, who could care a less about the citizenry, leading us.

Unless of course the Supreme Court decides bribery is not protected speech (don’t hold your breath on this one).

And I have done plenty of reading and researching on the subject.

[Reply]

2. Above comment written by bushtool on November 12th, 2007 at 1:18 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Tool, I’d love to hear your views on how you think any influx of Public cash could have improved let’s say, the Charlie Stemper campaign. How much money do you think it would be worth spending for another one of those?

Or better yet, how about handing David Kallstrom $100 Grand to run his 11th run at City Council? Do you really want to tell me you think that’s a good idea??

Seriously.

Still waiting to see what you come up with when you figger those odds…

Stout Hearts…

[Reply]

3. Above comment written by Chief Wahoo on November 12th, 2007 at 6:07 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
First, each candidate has to qualify by obtaining a certain number of nominal contributions from registered voters.

Second, candidates only get funds that puts them on equal footing with incumbents and other pre-qualified candidates.

So it doesn’t matter much who specifically is running. It allows all qualified candidates to compete financially on an equal basis without any of them (except those that run on private money) having to sell their souls or having an unfair financial advantage.

The end result is candidates who spend their time actually campaigning instead of fundraising and are beholden to no one once elected like how Pat Campbell got elected. Unless you think the $97.30 he spent compromised him.

I say let the best person win without money being part of who is considered best. And once elected, these pols can stop selling us out to special interests, clean up the legal bribery called lobbying and do what they are elected to do, institute policies, laws and regulations that benefit us rather than some corporate coffer.

[Reply]

4. Above comment written by bushtool on November 12th, 2007 at 7:35 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
Last time I looked, Campbell distinguished himself from Tonks by under 300 votes. Hardly what I call definitive.

In any case, I’ll concede your points. Now tell me how you will sell this to either City Council or the Voters…because keep in mind you are in Washington tool, not Oregon, and things work differently on this side of the river.

[Reply]

5. Above comment written by Chief Wahoo on November 13th, 2007 at 5:56 pm (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).
That’s the challenge. Once elected, pols tend to become entrenched, not wanting to support anything they think could threaten their power.

In actuality, it frees them up from fundraising, something I doubt very many at all like doing. It also stops them from having to payback campaign contributions through legislative favors and the resulting psychic stress that should cause them.

But in the end it may be necessary for the voters to legislate this program through an initiative.

Another way to promote getting this done is to support candidates who favor the program like Tim Probst who recently announced his candidacy for the 17th LD WA State House Rep. race.

I’d hope that Pat Campbell would be open to trying out a clean election program for the city council and help “sell” this to the rest of the city government leadership. N.J. recently passed a test program that I hear is working fine. Pat, are you listening?

[Reply]

6. Above comment written by bushtool on November 14th, 2007 at 11:24 am (replies, if any, are attributed separately above).

Moderation Active: Comments are open on this post and will be moderated (i.e. the post will not appear immediately, please don't submit twice !)