The name of the political game is money, money, money.   What it buys is access and legislation that does not necessarily benefit the people of the district the politician reportedly represents.

Here are two cases in point:

1.     Don Benton, a Republican incumbent in the 17^th Legislative District, has now amassed in excess of $180,000 in his bid for re-election.   Before the general election in November, it will surely be in excess of $300,000.   The salary of a State Senator is $42,106 per year.   Most of the money comes from corporations (tobacco companies, Wal-Mart, insurance companies, major banks, etc), PACs, and well-to-do individuals.  But, there are also plenty of smaller contributors who obviously believe in contributing to the Republican party.  It is these people to which I can feel a real affinity.  Don Benton does not need their money and will not necessarily vote in their best interest.  Assuming that a person living on a limited fixed income is comfortable making a $25 donation, it would take 64 such persons contributing to make up for one well-to-do person, PAC or corporation giving $1,600 (the limit).   Only a fool would be willing to knowingly contribute to this charade.

2.     Brian Baird, a Democratic incumbent in the 3^rd Congressional District, has now amassed $1,083,000 in his bid for re-election.   The salary of a member of Congress is $169,300.    He is facing three opponents in the primary but is not campaigning at the present time.   Apparently he is saving campaign funds for the general election.   The largest amount of money that any of his primary opponents has raised is $24,275.    Corporate and PAC contributions to his campaign are not much different than contributions received by Benton.   Indeed, he gives a lot of it away.  http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/can_com/H6WA03135. Recipients have been the Democratic Congressional Campaign ($42,860 in 2007), the Washington State Democratic Party ($5,160 in 2007) and members of the Democratic party running for election.   Only a fool would knowingly contribute to his campaign since it is clear he does not need funding.

People wishing to help elect true representation in Congress can contribute to Cheryl Crist who is not taking corporate or PAC money and is running against Brian Baird.     Citizens in the 17^th District can contribute to David Carrier (Benton’s opponent).   Carrier is not accepting corporate money or PAC contributions.   Neither of these candidates currently has adequate funding to counter-act the advantages that big money can buy.   Carrier states that he needs $30,000 to mount a campaign - as of 7/28/08 he has received $8,693.  Crist has raised $19,195.

The time is long overdue for public financing to be implemented throughout the U.S. and for the influence of corporations to be outlawed.    How can citizens possibly be represented in the halls of government by those auctioning themselves off to the highest bidder?     It is time for the charade to be over and for citizens to stand up to the puppeteers and start cutting the strings.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At July 30, 2008, Tom Sharples wrote:

  The candidate running against Brian Baird who raised $24K is Michael Delavar, the anti-war Republican.

  That $24K was raised entirely via private, grass-roots donations (no PAC or other special interest money) is about 3x the amount raised by Cheryl Crist.

• At August 1, 2008, Rosy wrote:

  It is gratifying to know that Michael Delvar is not taking

  any PAC money or special interest money. Thank you for your post.

  Delavar has raised $24,275 and Crist has raised $19,195 -- not

  sure how you computed that Delavar had raised 3x as much.

Letter to the editor today in the Columbian about their misguided dual endorsement of Webb and Baird:

Congress needs change

Regarding The Columbian’s July 22 endorsement of Democrat Brian Baird and Republican Christine Webb for the 3rd Congressional District’s U.S. representative, this paper believes these two are the best hope for their parties because they spurn extremists. As one of the ranting liberals referred to, I would like to point out both the Republicans and Democrats have one of the lowest approval ratings in our nation’s history.

Could it be that the wars were unnecessary? We now see $3 billion a week of our tax dollars being spent to occupy and rebuild the infrastructure of Iraq and Afghanistan and at the same time being told to pay more taxes for our own infrastructure. These two candidates will be the same ones who will be supporting cuts in Social Security and Medicaid for our seniors because they will say we need to pay for our war debts. I want change.

As this letter alludes to regarding the reference to the ranting liberals, just who exactly are the “angry extremists” referred to in the original Columbian endorsement?  Are they most of the people of the United States since only 9% of us approve of our Congressional representatives?  The editors of the Columbian should be ashamed that they have so little regard for the views of most of us and resort to such petty, divisive labeling in order to justify their misguided endorsement.

Our congressional district does have a choice for positive change on the ballot.  Vote for Cheryl Crist.

Cheryl Crist

She is someone who cares about the 91% of us who are “angry extremists” in the opinion of The Columbian editors.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At July 30, 2008, Tom Sharples wrote:

  I agree that the last thing we need is more business-as-usual. I'm a supporter of Michael Delavar, the anti-war, anti-corporate-subsidies republican running against Brian, who was also labelled an "extremist" by the Columbian, not because they actually bothered to examine any of his public positions, but just because he was a supporter of Ron Paul. And since then, the Columbian has refused to publish any pro-Delavar letters or press releases. Boy do we need another newspaper around here!

• At July 30, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  Thanks for your comment.

  I submitted a Brian Baird/Cheryl Crist lte that is not going to be published either it appears. The Columbian probably has some policy regarding when it is close to an election to censor all lte's about candidates.

  Re The Columbian my experience has been quite good with their reporters but the editorials are extremely ill-considered imo.

  But it is a newspaper and an editorial means they can do and endorse whatever and whoever the you-know-what they please. And we can choose to ignore them and admonish them for their short-sightedness and bias.

Tim Probst

You’re invited to help elect a leader we can be proud of as our voice in Olympia!  Please join us for the summer kick-off for Tim Probst, Candidate for State Representative, 17th District, Position 1.

Peggy Sheehan, Karen Ciocia, and Jeanne Kojis invite you to join us for a fun evening as we celebrate the candidacy of our friend Tim Probst.

Tuesday, July 29

5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

In the beautiful backyard of Peggy Sheehan’s home

714 E 22nd Street, Vancouver, WA 98660

Please RSVP today to Steven Sparks at 360-989-7817 or steven@ElectTimProbst.com.

Not tax deductible. Paid for by Elect Tim Probst, 14300 NE 20th Ave, Ste D-102-285, Vancouver WA 98686-1446

We need your strong support! $35 suggested donation, any amount greatly appreciated!

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

The race for State Senate in the 17th legislative district will be heating up soon after the general election officially ‘starts’ after the August 19th primary.  The primary, designed to produce a candidate to take on incumbent senator/serial fund raiser Don Benton, was rendered moot when software developer Martin Hash dropped out in favor of David Carrier, economics instructor and political activist.  Hash worried about splitting the party in two and felt stopping Benton was more critical than personal achievement at that level.  After Hash’s gesture, the real concern for Democrats shifted to how to keep pace with Benton in terms of money.

Benton is widely regarded as the most prolific fundraiser in the Washington State legislature.  He even released a DVD in 2006, “How to Raise More Money Than You Ever Dreamed Possible.”  While the title sounds more self-help than selfless begging for money, Benton does bring home the bacon.  The question is, where does all that delicious bacon (er, money) come from?

The answer?  Not from you, dear district…who Don Benton so proudly claims to work for.  Don Benton’s campaign is funded by some less-than savory industries: banking and insurance companies, PACs and the omnipresent “Big Tobacco” (Phillip Morris, R.J. Reynolds, et. al.).  Lets not forget some other notable Benton contributors: Wal-Mart, the National Rifle Association and numerous cell phone carriers, like AT&T, Motorola and T-Mobile.

Okay, no surprise here, just basic Republican skullduggery.  As unfortunate as it is, we’re already numb to corporations and special interests when they fill GOP campaign coffers.  The real head scratchers in the Benton contributor list are the donations from payday lending firms like Money Tree, and their employees.  The Seattle Times ran a story a while back detailing Benton’s coziness with the industry and how that may play into their legislation seeing greener pastures.  Since then, companies like Money Tree have continued their financial influence.  In fact, according to the Seattle Times, “during the 2004 election, the state’s top 10 payday loan companies boosted their political contributions almost eightfold to nearly $200,000.”

Money Tree president Dennis Bassford has seen first hand the increase of donations from these companies, as his was at the forefront during the 2004 election.  Collectively, politicians statewide picked over $122,000 from Bassford’s Money Tree…up from just $17,200 in 2000.  Bassford attributed the increased contributions to the “maturing industry” of pay day lending.

One of the political benefactors of the “maturing” payday lending industry?  Senator Don Benton.  After siding with the industry’s legislative positions on bills aimed at reigning in payday lending’s most controversial practices, Benton sounded a lot like his buddy, Dennis Bassford.  Payday lending firms’ political contributions were growing “proportionate to the business.”  Hey Don, your talking points are showing!

What is payday lending anyway?  In the most basic sense, payday lending is a short term loan service, designed to get people over the hump until pay day.  The catch is that most loans are offered at incredibly high interest, sometimes forcing borrowers to keep borrowing loans to pay off loans.  This locks them in a cycle of credit dependency and erases any hope of financial independence.  Critics decry the business as profiting from financial hardship…kind of like robbing an old lady of her purse.  Then taking her shoes and making her walk home.  In the winter.  In Alaska.

While the reality of payday lending may not be nearly that bad, it isn’t exactly the kind of “good neighbor” you’d expect to donate to the campaign of a State Senator.  Its okay though, because it’s a maturing business.  How can a business like Money Tree not mature in an economy like this, where we routinely see people out of work and losing their homes.  Its okay…just borrow from tomorrow to pay for next year.  It’ll all work out!

In an election where Benton’s opponent, David Carrier, has pledged not to accept ANY donations from PACs or special interests, contributions like this and others will be heavily magnified, and for good reason.  Maybe with all this talk about change this election season, voters will send Sen. Benton to the unemployment line and to Money Tree…where he’ll be asking for money again, but for an entirely different reason.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

4 Comments

• At July 28, 2008, Lillian wrote:

  I've posted this same comment on David Carrier's blog, since he posted about it as well:

  This information is all very interesting, and luckily, the PDC swings both ways. As an Independent, I think it’s interesting that everyone seems to think listing Don Benton’s PAC contributions is a big negative to his campaign when there are twice as many Democrats receiving the same contributions from the same people.

  Has anyone looked at Sen. Pridemore or Rep. Fromhold’s contributions? How about Sen. Margarita Prentice’s? They’ve all received checks from either Phillip Morris or RJ Reynolds. Wal-Mart’s also given hefty contributions to both Fromhold and Prentice. In addition, all of them, including the Democrat Majority Leader Sen. Lisa Brown, have received contributions from the big cell phone companies.

  And what about the Governor? Christine Gregoire has received ridiculously generous donations from every organization above, and Gregoire shows bundled contributions from Moneytree totaling $4750 – how far from the Moneytree has her apple fallen?

  The fact is, these kinds of contributions are being given out across the board, and, if a candidate is smart, they take them. Each of these candidates, both Democrat and Republican, has a record of winning elections over and over again so they must be doing something right.

  Blasting Benton for accepting contributions that are also accepted by a number of Democrat leaders is absolutely ludicrous and, by definition, completely hypocritical. I’m not a huge Benton fan, but let’s at least try to be fair and objective here.

• At July 28, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  I notice you have not mentioned anything about the payday loan issue. Do both Ds and Rs take money from these legal loan sharkers?

  Completely agree that campaign contributions are a problem on both sides of the aisle. That is why supporting public financing of campaigns is so important.

  If I understand correctly, David Carrier is not and will not accept these types of campaign contributions so it is legitimate for him to point out this difference between himself and Benton.

• At July 28, 2008, Lillian wrote:

  I did mention, actually, that Christine Gregoire has received a bundled contribution of $4750 from Moneytree employees. So yes, both Ds and Rs take money from these contributions.

  I believe David Carrier has made this pledge -- it just seems to be a moot point to use it as an attack when his colleagues and endorsed candidates are accepting the contributions that he condemns.

• At July 28, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  If Gregoire is taking money from the loan sharks she should be criticized for that.

  My point is David Carrier does not deserve any similar rebuke.

  The Wa State Supreme Court just ruled that police cannot arrest passengers simply for being in a car that smells of marijuana. Seems to me that if Dr. Carrier isn't smoking it, then he isn't guilty even if his colleagues are lighting up around him.

Click below to listen to audio segment of post:
Download audio file (Public_Financing_Conversation20080619.mp3)

Image via Wikipedia

Above is an audio segment of The Conversation from KUOW Public Radio up in Puget Sound. The first 41 minutes deals with current food issues. At around the 41 minute mark, there is a conversation with Craig Salins, Executive Director of Washington Public Campaigns (WPC) about public financing of campaigns.

Obama has opted out of the Federal system of campaign financing because of the expectation that right-wing 527 organizations and the Republican Party will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to turn him into Satan reincarnate.  It is just a current reality that the Federal system of campaign financing is seriously broken and ineffective.  If you search around the net, there are plenty of explanations about how the present Federal campaign finance system is dysfunctional.

Obama making this decision to opt out does not mean he does not support public financing of campaigns.  In fact, the opposite is true. He is big supporter of public financing, just not the system that is in place now.

The failure at the Federal level is why the work of Washington Public Campaigns is so important. This organization has recently been able to push through the state legislature voter-owned election legislation.

WPC is working on instituting a public finance election system for the mayor and city council of Seattle and other cities around the state. Once these programs are in place and prove successful, a statewide program will be next.

Eventually effective use of these programs will translate into reforming campaign finance at the Federal level and controlling the use of money to legally bribe our elected representatives at all levels of government.

What is the purpose of doing this? As an example, look at what just happened in Congress. They voted to retroactively allow the telecoms to violate the 4th amendment of the Constitution. Do you think this might be related to the influence of money exerted by the telecoms on our representatives? You bet it was.

If we are ever to have a representative government in the United States, the influence of money must be controlled carefully.

Washington Public Campaigns is working hard to do just that.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

2 Comments

• At June 21, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  Here is an example of how Obama's influence is changing campaign finance for the better.

• At June 22, 2008, bushtool wrote:

  And here is an article which does a pretty good job of explaining Obama's "murky" decision to opt out.

Candidate filing period

The in-person period to file a Declaration of Candidacy for elective public office will begin on Monday, June 2 and end on Friday, June 6, 2008. Elective positions subject to this new candidate filing period in 2008 include U.S. Representative, statewide offices, State Supreme Court, state legislative positions, two county commissioner positions, all nine Superior Court judge positions, Clark Public Utility District Commissioner for District No. 3 and 179 Republican and Democratic precinct committee officer positions. Anyone interested in filing for an open office should plan on visiting the Clark County Elections Department between 8:00 AM, Monday, June 2 and 5:00 PM, Friday, June 6. We are located at 1408 Franklin Street, Vancouver.

This year’s Primary will be held on August 19, the third Tuesday in August. The General election will be held on November 4, 2008.

More information concerning filing for elective office, including a copy of the 2008 Clark County Elections Guidelines, can be found at the County Auditor’s internet web site at http://clarkvotes.org.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Image via Wikipedia

Despite several PCO votes against the motion, the 17th Legislative District Democrats put their bylaw on hold that bars endorsing a candidate before the primary and bowed down to the Democratic State Party’s edict to nominate ONE candidate per race in the primary election.

Politics seems to be local only when it suits the powers that be. Washblog also has a post on this failure to abide by democratic principles appropriately entitled:

A bad taste in my mouth. . .

Hope no one is surprised. Given the way the party leaders have treated certain primary challengers in recent memory, this is just more of the same old same old.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

I don’t believe we are practicing any recognizable form of democracy in this country and here is just another example.

Let me say at the outset that I don’t blame anyone for this mess besides perhaps a justice system that is more concerned about promoting a “dog eat dog” world than administering wise jurisprudence.

I am a Democratic Party Precinct Committee Officer (PCO) in the 17th Legislative District. There are exactly 22 PCOs in the 17th LD.

Last week I attended a nominating convention on who the 17th LD Democrats will “nominate” for the primary elections.

And this is where the trouble begins. A couple of years ago, the 17th LD passed new bylaws prohibiting endorsement of any candidate prior to the primary election. This bylaw was intended to try and treat even-handedly all primary candidates and keep the primary a democratic process.

Well the Supreme Court has changed all this. Now we have a “top two” primary system where the two highest vote getters, regardless of party affiliation, automatically advance to the general election.

This causes a problem with regard to democratic principles. If you have two Republicans and four Democrats running in the primary, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the two Republicans are statistically more likely to both be the top two vote getters since the Democrats will split their Democratic voting base four ways and the Republicans only by two.

So it behooves the political parties to try to have only one candidate or one “viable” candidate going into the primary to prevent such a result.

Now why does any of this matter? Whoever gets the nomination of the party will very often actually become the winner of the primary. This is because that person will get money, publicity, endorsements from various organizations and other perks that will lend a significant advantage over the others running. The non-nominated candidates will also find themselves under pressure to withdraw so as to not split the vote as mentioned above.

As a reaction to this top two primary system and the potential undemocratic results it permits, the state democratic party is requiring all legislative district organizations to pick a nominee for each race in the primary.

This violates the bylaws of the 17th LD Dems against endorsing a candidate prior to the primary election. Some would argue a nomination is not the same as an endorsement. I agree they are not exactly the same but a nomination certainly implies an endorsement and would thus violate the intent of the 17th bylaw against such an act by the organization.

So now we are voting at the next meeting to remove the endorsement provision of our bylaws in order to comply with the autocratic mandate of the Democratic State Party Chair Pelz to nominate a candidate. And if we don’t, Pelz will pick the nominee for us. Now how is that for grassroots empowerment!

Seems like it would be more democratic if we just abolished the two party system and the primaries, let people run on their own and let the best person win. Instant runoff voting anyone?

Got Democracy? Nope.

More to come…

Related articles:
It’s not just the 17th - Grassroots Dems balk at party orders - With ‘Top Two’ primary thrust upon them, Democrats struggle over how to nominate

PS: This is just a small part of the story. Please comment about what we want to do about this quagmire.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At May 4, 2008, My new WordPress MU Site » Blog Archive » Confessions of a Precinct Committee Officer (part 1) wrote:

  [...] Infidel753 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptA couple of years ago, the 17th LD passed new bylaws prohibiting endorsement of any candidate prior to the primary election. This bylaw was intended to try and treat even-handedly all primary candidates and keep the primary a democratic … [...]

The bill before the state legislature to allow local jurisdictions to use voluntary, “clean election” type, voter approved public funding of campaigns passed through the state house this evening and now goes to Gregoire’s desk for enactment into law.

As Craig Salins, Executive Director of Washington Public Campaigns, said after passage today:

… one huge stride toward democracy by people instead of money. This is how we will REALLY advance a people’s agenda in America.

A big thank you to the state legislators, the Washington Public Campaign organization and all the people who supported this effort.

Please visit washclean.org, join the movement and help take back America from special interest money!

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At March 5, 2008, Craig Salins wrote:

  Dear Friends,

  We have a legislative VICTORY! - on the Local Option bill!

  How sweet it is!

  Late today, the House approved E2SSB 5278 - which moves this bill toward signing into law by the Governor, likely within days. In 90 days, this bill will take effect as law in Washington State.

  And now, after 16 years of a state ban, local towns and counties can create programs with modest use of public funds for campaigns for local office. The benefits?

  * Public financing cuts the undue influence of money in politics - and restores governance of, by and for the people.

  * Ordinary people with good ideas can run for office, without needing personal wealth.

  * Candidates spend time with voters instead of courting big donors.

  For today's action, we are grateful to legislative leaders and champions, who courageously took the time (over 80 minutes!) to debate and vote on the Local Option bill, despite passionate - although uninformed - opposition. If opponents wanted to run out the clock, they failed.

  Watching the debate, it is obvious we still have a challenge - public awareness, correcting the myths and misinformation:

  Opponents say public financing is "incumbent-protection." Others say it is "throw the bums out."

  In fact, it is neither. Instead, public financing restores the voice of people, rather than money, in election campaigns. And as a result, local budget, land use and governance decisions are made in the interest of the community, rather than as payback for campaign contributions.

  Public funding of campaigns is NOT a misuse of taxpayer money .. it is an essential step to RESTORE our democracy and curb the undue influence of money in politics. This is a fundamental reform that is essential for progress in many other areas of public policy!

  How does it work? Visit our website

  We encourage Governor Gregoire to sign the bill quickly - and with fanfare. This law embodies the principle of local choice, local-decision-making, with trust in voters and local elected officials to make thoughtful decisions for the community, where the state does not need to micro-manage the process.

  Next steps? We are already consulting with several cities and towns - Seattle, Spokane, King County, and others - to design and create programs of public financing for local races. Under the Local Option law enacted today, these programs must be submitted to local voters in a referendum, for voter approval or rejection, to ensure local voter and taxpayer support. Although an organizing challenge, this will help us, to build a stronger base for future statewide action! Read The Road Ahead.

  To continue, we need your financial support! Washington Public Campaigns is a shoestring operation with less than two staff, a hardworking board, wonderful volunteers, and a mailing list of 7,400 supporters. To take full advantage of the Local Option opportunity, we need funds for consulting assistance to selected towns and counties, public education literature and communications, and continued field organizing toward public financing for state supreme court races.

  Please help us continue this important work: Contribute to WashClean

  Friends, thank you! It has been grassroots support - informed, mobilized and focused - that brought us this far. It is humbling, and wonderful to behold. And roll up your sleeves - there is more to come!

  - Craig

  _________________________

  Craig Salins, Executive Director

  Washington Public Campaigns

  wpc@washclean.org

  206-784-2522

Nick Nyhart is the Executive Director of Public Campaign, a national organization dedicated to public financing of elections. Last Wednesday Nick came to Seattle and met with Washington Public Campaigns (WPC) staff and volunteers. WPC videotaped his 20 minute talk about what is happening in other states and nationwide concerning the public financing movement.

For those of you frustrated that the “people” have been forgotten in politics, this clean campaign movement is gaining tremendous momentum and imo is one of just a few available ways that we (meaning “we, the people” are going to take back political power. If you think phoning or emailing your Congressperson is going to overcome the massive amounts of campaign and lobbyist contributions and influence, this movement is not for you.

If you truly want to make a difference and change our absurdly corrupt political system for the better, please get involved by supporting Public Campaign and Washington Public Campaigns. For more information, please visit WPC’s website. Be sure to sign up for their mailing list there also on the site to stay informed.

Nick Nyhart, Seattle 5dec. 1 of 2

Nick Nyhart, Seattle 5dec. 2 of 2

If you have questions about public financing, please leave a comment and I will be glad to provide an answer for you.

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

The Outsider

A Newsletter for the Overburdened Taxpayers of Vancouver Washington

November 9, 2007

My Thanks to All

First, I wish to thank everyone that supported my campaign, next my thanks to all that participated in this election process. I feel that I did my best and did attend every meeting to which I was invited with the one exception. My views on taxes were expressed in a blunt way with CVTV and the “sweet heart” deals with developers, which to this day have not been refuted. I ran my campaign as I do my personal life. It was a balanced campaign with contributions matching expenditures. It was a clean campaign that presented the issues without personal attacks on my opponent.

The only regret that I have was something that I can’t control. It is the apathy of the register voters that did not vote. Change only occurs if informed people become involved and exercise their right to vote. If you don’t use that right, there is a possibility that it could be lost over a period of time.

The election process is a journey of meeting different people and it definitely brings out the best and the worst in some people. During this journey, I was impressed with one remarkable person who was at one time an opponent but became a good friend. He is Donald Yingling. If he ever decides to run again he will have my complete support. He is a man of honor and integrity which is rare in today’s society. Our basic philosophy on government is very similar.

On a personal level, I am thankful for the people who voted for me because you had the confidence to know that I would work for your benefit, not my own. Will the “Outsider” stop because of this election? No, it won’t stop because people need to be aware of what is happening in our community besides a view by the Columbian. You need to be informed so that you can make the right decisions for Vancouver’s future.

Charlie Stemper

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

Latest results on the Clark County election site this evening show Campbell’s lead has increased to 226 votes.

I am calling him the winner here, Congratulations Pat!

You have made it to the top again.

“Because Vancouver accounts for 34 percent of the county’s registered voters, virtually every one of the remaining Vancouver ballots would have to go to Tonkovich for the 16-year incumbent to win.” per the Columbian.

Another upset in the making in Battle Ground:

P. Zandamela 0 0.00% 1,010 51.32% 1,010 51.32%
John G. Idsinga 0 0.00% 946 48.07%

Zandamela was at a Clark County Chamber forum I attended recently and he very much impressed me with his demeanor and eloquence.

The times they are a-changin’ - Bob Dylan

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

3 Comments

• At November 9, 2007, Pat Campbell wrote:

  It is certainly looking like a win at this point. I want to thank each one of you for being involved and voting. I also want to thank great candidates like Charlie Stemper and Donald Yingling who represent what is good about America. I will need their and your council in the days ahead. One person cannot be or do all things. - Pat

• At November 10, 2007, bushtool wrote:

  The Columbian agrees the races are over with Campbell and Zandamela the winners.

• At November 11, 2007, Chief Wahoo wrote:

  Just like the neighborhood dog who chases the same car day after day after day, and finally catches it, I wonder what Campbell will do with his "victory"?

  I believe it will take some time before people see what a true Political chameleon they just elected to City Council, and realize that the only difference between Tonks and Camps is Tonks won more elections.

  I weep no tears for the departure of Tonkovich, and I know a day will come when some people, whether they have the guts to admit it or not, will realize just what an enormous error in judgement they just made.

  But then again, many of them vote to reelect Jim Dunn too...

  I predict a short honeymoon....

  Stout Hearts.

I knew it was just a matter of time. The Columbian has finally printed an Editorial (SPEAK UP VOTERS) I can agree with.

The Columbian is also right that there are some crucial races and issues on Tuesday’s Ballot. Too bad they have taken the role of Cheer Leaders for the Incumbents and increasing taxes instead of just printing the facts.

In Friday’s Sport’s Section you may have missed the article “Transportation cost drive Pioneers out“. Who are the Pioneers? They are Vancouver’s Hockey Team that apparently had to withdraw from the World Hockey Association because of lack of support and funds.

Now what does hockey have to do with the current election. A Lot. Hockey is but one instance of the current Council’s inability to prioritize spending and unwillingness to listen to those they claim to represent, brings to light their past misdeeds and what we can expect from them if re-elected.

Not long ago our current City Council Members over the objection of Voters and Petitioners spent hundreds of thousands of your tax dollars trying to bring, without a vote of the people, a Hockey Rink to Downtown Vancouver. In their futile attempt to raise required private matching fund, they agreed to enter into a shady deal that would, without following standard legal procedures such as “Request for Proposals” favor special interest. This deal would have allowed an Anonymous Group of Donors, in return for 5 million dollars in matching fund to be granted the Naming Rights to the Hockey Rink along most of the money making service contracts such as, Food and Beverage, Advertising, Janitorial, Cleaning and Maintenance, etc. Fortunately for the tax payers, the council was forced to drop the Hockey Rink idea.

Do we really want to re-elect those who would support shady deals, agree to by pass the voters or whose only solution to problems or ideas is to raise our sales, property and other taxes. Can we rely on a news medial that glosses over the misdeeds of incumbents? I think not.

If just those who voted to overturn the Port of Vancouver’s outrageous attempt to raise our property taxes 132% takes the Columbian’s advice, we can and should defeat the incumbents and the legislatures attempt to eliminate among other ballot measures the 60 % majority requirement to increase school taxes. Please join me in voting for Charlie Stemper, Pat Campbell, David Kallstrom, and Jerry Oliver.

We deserve to be represented not dictated to.

L. M. Patella
CDR USN (ret)

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

1 Comments

• At November 3, 2007, Chief Wahoo wrote:

  I think it is significant to note that yesterday was the sixth anniversary marking Larry Patella's defeat in court after the City of Vancouver sued him and fove of his close personal friends.

  Mr. Patella and C. paid an attorner $60,000 to lose that lawsuit. This piece of his today is in stark contrast to the facts, as were related from this piece that ran in the Columbian on November 2, 2001...

  The entire article was retrieved from the columbian archives, and can be viwed in it's entirety at this Clarkblog link:

  http://clarkblog.org/index.php/topic,2218.msg10936.html#msg10936

  Judge rules against Events Center opponents on two issues

  JEFFREY MIZE, columbian staff writer

  November 2, 2001; Page c3

  It took Superior Court Judge Robert Harris just a few hours to reject the latest legal challenge to Vancouver's proposed special events center. Harris heard oral arguments Thursday morning and ruled in the afternoon, slapping down both procedural arguments attorney Mark A. Erikson raised in court.

  Larry Patella, a leader in the so-far unsuccessful effort to force a public vote on the $62.7 million project, said he wasn't surprised.

  "What happens next is we appeal," Patella said. "I left the courtroom with the impression the judge made up his mind before the thing even started because there's no way he could have digested all that information and make a decision so quickly."

  City Attorney Ted Gathe said he was confident the city had complied with all procedural requirements and will be ready to defend the city's position should Patella take the case to the Washington Court of Appeals.

Having just returned from a dredging conference in Hawaii, I was a not disappointed reading article in the Columbian that were saved for me. They (THE COLUMBIAN) continue to support the tax and spend crowd, make feeble attempts to discredit those challenging incumbents and of course, support the wasteful spending of our hard earned tax dollars.

John Laird in his column asked he question, how would you like the challengers to serve on your jury. In my opinion, anyone being tried would be better served with individuals like challengers, Stemper, Campbell, Kallstrom, and Oliver on any jury. They would at least examine all the fact, (not vote in lockstep with others) and make intelligent decisions.

The Editorial on Property Tax Assessments left one important question out. Why are they, (Politicians) in this important election year waiting until after the election to publish the new property tax assessments. Could it be that to air that information prior to the elections would be harmful to the incumbents.

And, how about Tom Koenninger’s article on the “Bridge to Nowhere” (Land Bridge Spans Our Rich History). He once again glosses over the fact that this bridge is being built with tax dollars that could in my opinion be better spent on curbing such things as increased crime and gang activities. He apparently doesn’t think that State, Federal, and City of Vancouver Tax dollars come out of our pockets.

And what about “Downtown Spanky’s store to close?” How can that be? Didn’t our three incumbent council members, who are running for re-election based on their past accomplishment, assure us that if we did it their way downtown would be flooded with people 24 hours a day, seven days a week? That has not and will not ever happen. Downtown is void of people.

However a closer look at their record reveals that when they voted to bypass the voters and spend hundreds of millions of our hard earned tax dollars to “resuscitate a mummy” (revitalize downtown) and give away millions of dollars of property and tax incentives to developers they only succeeded in Plunging us deeper into debt.

We are because of their actions currently subsidizing the People’s (Hilton Hotel) to the tune of approximately 2,000,000.00 a year, the new Library to the tune of $500,000 a year for 25 years, and have obligated the taxpayer to give Millions and Millions of dollars in Property tax breaks to developers.

And in case you don’t think that the Columbian is anti-people, Check their record, they are in favor of every tax increase proposed and yes asked the voters to approve the Port of Vancouver’s outrageous 132% property tax increase.

If you have not yet voted, don’t let the Columbian and the Incumbent Rascals tax you out of your home.

Vote for: CHARLIE STEMPER, PAT CAMPBELL, DAVID KALLSTROM FOR CITY COUNCIL AND JERRY OLIVER FOR PORT COMMISSIONER.

LARRY PATELLA
A PROUD MEMBER OF THE HOUNDS OF WHINERVILLE

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver

3 Comments

• At November 1, 2007, Chief Wahoo wrote:

  I was enjoying the silence for a change...

  What a deeply, deeply unhappy man. That much time in Hawaii, and all he can offer is his usual long-winded laundry list of failed political causes and complaints.

  I find it extremely entertaining that Larry Patella and his conStemperary's writings are so popular of late here at D4V...

• At November 1, 2007, arturo wrote:

  Concur Chief. I was nearly roped into the Stemper camp, that is until I did a little research. And I agree. Patella sounds like a deeply unhappy man whose life formula is based on a rather paranoid assumption.

  Why any self respecting grown man would find it prideful to consider himself a "whiner" is beyond me. I would much rather consider myself a man discerning quality who long ago discovered the pitfalls of ad hominem attacks, one who is reasoned, wise and capable of intelligent dissent. Frankly, this rant sound like something I would read on little green footballs.

  We need better candidates.

• At November 2, 2007, TPain wrote:

  I thought for a second this was a parody piece, based on some right wing blog (though the lack of drool stains and a few complete sentences soon cleared up that confusion), but it appears to be a true opinion.

  Luckily it is only opinion and one akin to the other discredited opinions coming from the likes of "The Club for Growth", etc. We don't have to agree on all the uses of public money, but many of these projects are showing results. abandoning downtown would be a more serious mistake than investing some of our tax dollars in it.

  The answer is not to decry all taxes but to work on better prioritizing things. This dull screed does not deserve to be posted on the front page, it should be a comment attached to another post so it can be properly troll rated.

The Outsider

A Newsletter for the Overburdened Taxpayers of Vancouver Washington

October 29, 2007

Something’s Askew

In the Sunday’s Columbian Business section, there was an announcement that property owners in the city of Vancouver can anticipate an average of a 12% increase on the assessed value of their home. I’m sure that will surprise everyone considering the slowdown in sales of homes and property in this area. Values have not been adjusted to kept up to the reality of the situation.

The one part of this that worries me is the continuous plan to provide favored downtown developers ten year exemptions and property giveaways while we the taxpayers get an increase on our home on an annual basis no matter what the circumstances. This is not fair to the citizens of Vancouver especially to our honored citizens on fixed incomes who try to keep up with tax increases without any increases in their income.

Since the city council has at least four representatives of the senior age group, you would think that they would relate to the senior and change the direction of the city by establishing a Senior Commission to help the senior. Parks for seniors could be an innovation long due for our community. In the city you see a lot of parks for kids and dogs but never a park for seniors. These forgotten members of our community need more help than downtown developers whose only motivation is profit for their own welfare.

My solution is to create a Senior Citizen Commission to help the seniors that have helped us in the community. We as a community have an obligation to see that they are not taxed out of their homes. We owe them the respect and dignity they deserve as seniors and members of this growing community. Please take time to mark your ballot for your choice in this and every election. Make you vote count. Let’s not make voting something that is “askew”.

Charlie Stemper Candidate for City Council Position #5 City of Vancouver USA

Post from: Democracy for Vancouver