The “geniuses” who bring you an extremely liberal blog every day are now coming after the wallets of Seattle’s property taxpayers to the tune of $30 million over 10 years. They are doing so in order to help fund political candidates who otherwise wouldn’t be able to raise money.
Alan Durning – the Executive Director of the far-left environmental group Sightline – doesn’t appear to think $30 million in taxpayer funds is a big deal. He calls the sum “budget dust.”
Durning’s dependence (and seeming disregard) for spending other people’s money has been evident for years since his blog is funded by the Progress Alliance of Washington, a secretive, big money liberal group. Now it appears Seattle taxpayers will have a choice if they want Durning to decide whether or not the oftentimes fringe candidates running in the city deserves taxpayer funding, in the form of vouchers given to all registered Seattle voters.
That’s the intent of an initiative which was filed Monday with Seattle election officials, along with 32,000 allegedly valid signatures of Seattle voters. The initiative I-122 will need 20,630 valid signatures to qualify for the November ballot.
If passed, “I-122 would set up the only system in the U.S. to give public money to citizens to encourage civic participation in campaign financing.”
That’s right, just another opportunity – building on the union-demanded $15 minimum wage experiment for Seattle voters to show the rest of the country just how whacky they are when it comes to spending taxpayer – or even private business
Fruitcakes!
Seattle voters had no say in the $15 maximum idiocy experiment. That joke was rammed through with a unanimous vote of the silly clowncil alone.
Seattle voters had no say in the $15 maximum idiocy experiment.
Seattle’s citizens declined to sign a well-funded referendum to repeal the $15/hour minimum wage law; in other words, we didn’t vote on it because we decided it didn’t need a vote. Your seething contempt for how we free people choose to govern ourselves doesn’t exempt you from knowing how our democracy actually works.
That joke was rammed through with a unanimous vote of the silly clowncil alone.
Which took months and a Mayor’s advisory committee to accomplish. Again, your loud derision for our open and accountable form of republican government doesn’t exempt you from knowing how it works.
(These events all took place less than a year ago. Are you merely a spectacularly incompetent liar, or should your doctor be really concerned about your memory?)
“Your seething contempt for how we free people choose to govern ourselves
doesn’t exempt you from knowing how our democracy actually works”
As with any subject deeper than finger painting, your woeful ignorance leaves you wrong again. Our representative republic works great. I save my contempt for the truly contemptible, you and the rest of your communist ilk, who have been trying unsuccessfully to turn our capitalist representative republic into the new soviet for 100 years.
Our representative republic works great.
I agree. Why then did you make demonstrably false statements about how it works?
I save my contempt…
Actually, you throw it around in a most liberal manner, even going off-topic to do so.
… for the truly contemptible, you and the rest of your communist ilk, who have been trying unsuccessfully to turn our capitalist representative republic into the new soviet for 100 years.
Thank you for validating my description of your seething contempt for how we free people choose to govern ourselves.
Oh, and BTW — where in our constitution does it specify a “capitalistic” republic?
Give up your money, give up your property, give up your ability to speak freely. You are a Hamster Brain Liberal.
“where in our constitution does it specify a “capitalistic” republic?”
Where does our constitution specify “From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need?
Where does our constitution specify “From each, according to his ability. To each, according to his need?
It doesn’t. Our state and federal constitutions neither require nor forbid any economic systems from operating within their territories. Certain specific economic practices are forbidden — e.g., our federal constitution no longer allows slavery, and Section 7 of our state constitution forbids governments from becoming shareholders in private corporations — but the overall form of the economy is left to the citizens to shape.
BTW, your question is a strange one, coming from someone who has relentlessly defended the legitimacy of our state taxing the wealth creators in King County to provide for the “need” of Spokane County to have a new freeway.
The state only collects gas taxes in King County? I always thought that was a state-wide deal. You know, a state-wide tax to fund roads across the state. Spokane is still within the borders of Washington State. Unless you can find a case of Washington State gas taxes funding road construction in Montana, your communist logic fails yet again.
Please do try paying attention sometime. Senator Baumgartner explicitly stated he intends to spend money from all of Washington state on his new toy freeway in Spokane:
Overall the Senate plan spends nearly $1 billion in Spokane County and provides a net return of $1.35 for every dollar Spokane sends to Olympia in the form of gas taxes and other fees.
King County provides more than 40% of all the tax money Olympia spends, so yes, Senator Baumgartner fully intends to have King County’s taxpayers fund a road most of us will never use.
“Senator Baumgartner explicitly stated he intends to spend money from all of Washington state on his new toy freeway in Spokane”
What? How dare the bastard spend Washington State gas tax money on a freeway in Spokane, WASHINGTON! It’d be much better spent funding Frank Chopp’s relatives lifestyle.
What? How dare the bastard spend Washington State gas tax money on a freeway in Spokane, WASHINGTON!
This from the subsidized motorist who claimed state fuel taxes shouldn’t pay for ferries — even though the Washington state constitution explicitly describes ferries as part of the state highway system.
If Senator Baumgartner wants to make an economic case for a new freeway in Spokane, I’ll hear him out. If he just keeps on screaming like a toddler for his nanny state to give him a new toy freeway, I’ll give him the treatment screaming toddlers deserve.
“I’ll give him the treatment screaming toddlers deserve”
Would that be the same treatment you gave toddler Frank Chopp when he pitched a hissy fit until he got taxpayer funding for his relatives lifestyle?
A screaming toddler needs to be taught, gently yet firmly, that his screaming fit will not be rewarded, and he might lose other things he values. For Sen. Baumgartner, that means no shiny new freeway until he tells us why he needs it, and maybe no seat in the majority next cycle if he keeps screaming.
Has the Choppster told us why he needs taxpayers to fund his relatives lifestyle? He probably doesn’t have to worry about his seat, though. King County liberals are tight. If he has a (D) after his name he’s in, no matter the stink wafting off.
He probably doesn’t have to worry about his seat, though.
That’s true. We voters here in the 43rd Legislative District are generally unimpressed with rumors spread by Speaker Chopp’s embittered political enemies, or the innuendoes used by anonymous posters here at this site. Your swallowing and regurgitation of these attacks does not make them any more true or relevant.
“King County provides more than 40% of all the tax money Olympia spends”
“Washington state’s regressive tax system”
So by the state’s “regressive tax system”, do you mean that taxes fall disproportionately on the poor and middle class? If the wealthy were paying their “fair share”, it wouldn’t be regressive, right? Then King County’s poor and middle class should be paying a disproportionate percentage of the lion’s share of all the money Olympia spends, ’cause it’s “regressive” and all. That means there is a substantial number of taxpayers in King County. Yet you have claimed in the past that King County (providing 40% of the state’s income) can’t dominate state-wide elections. How does that work? (here’s where you go with your two favorites, deny and deflect)
When you (wrongly, as usual) believed that motorists were paying the entire cost of their roads, you grandly lectured me that non-motorist’s opinion of road-building shouldn’t count. Faced with the reality that taxpayers in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties provide over 60% of Olympia’s funds, you didn’t jump to the conclusion those taxpayers should have an overwhelming say in how — and where — their money gets spent.
(here’s where you go with your two favorites, deny and deflect)
That’s rich, coming from a guy who here just went off-topic to Seattle’s new minimum wage, getting his facts wrong (as usual) every step of the way.
But since you’re now opposed to “deny and deflect,” you can finally answer my on-topic question you’ve previously dodged: what’s the difference between giving an incumbent a “campaign donation” and handing him a bribe?
“what’s the difference between giving an incumbent a “campaign donation” and handing him a bribe?”
The exact same difference as between I-122 and a poll tax.
“Faced with the reality that taxpayers in King, Pierce, and Snohomish
Counties provide over 60% of Olympia’s funds, you didn’t jump to the
conclusion those taxpayers should have an overwhelming say in how — and
where — their money gets spent”
Because that isn’t how it works, Skippy. You apparently think it does work that way, given your support of your billionaire commissar purchasing legislation. Still want stick with your claim that King County leftists can’t dominate a state-wide election?
The exact same difference as between I-122 and a poll tax.
Still no answer, I see. (No points for re-using the same failed dodge to deny and deflect.)
Because that isn’t how it works,
According to you — back when you were still staggering helplessly under the pitiable delusion that private automobile use hasn’t been heavily subsidized by all taxpayers for a century now — you produced the following gem of governmental theory:
… you don’t pay any Washington State gas taxes so your opinion doesn’t count on how to spend the Washington State gas tax.
Yet, strangely, you here recognize the correct answer: a moocher and net taker of tax money in Spokane gets one vote, just as a wealth creator and net tax payer in King County gets one vote.
… billionaire commissar purchasing legislation.
Money is free speech. Complain to the Supreme Court if you believe otherwise.
So, what is the connection between the ability to raise money and fitness for elected office?
If you can’t answer that, what is your basis for calling I-122 “loony”?
Heck yeah, Comrade! The bourgeois property owners who pay property taxes should fund everybody’s political campaigns. There’s such a clear connection there. Nothing loony about it.
So, you can’t answer, either. Roger that.
(But hey, at least this time, you actually identified the tax correctly.)
I forgot you need everything spelled out to grasp it. There is no connection between politicians ability to raise money, property taxes, funding campaigns and fitness for office. None. That’s why it’s called loony. It’s a bunch of leftists wanting to take from one group to give to another. Of course you think that’s great. It’s how you roll. It’s your underlying philosophy in a nutshell. To you, the only thing that would make it better is a large group of public union bureaucrats to oversee “our new program”
I forgot you need everything spelled out to grasp it.
So, I’ll try again: why should an election for public office be subject to availability of private donations?
Or, simpler still, what’s the difference between giving an incumbent a “campaign donation” and handing him a bribe?
“why should an election for public office be subject to availability of private donations?”
Why is the left’s go-to cash cow always property owners and motorists? What’s the difference between I-122 and a poll tax?
Why is the left’s go-to cash cow always property owners and motorists?
Washington state’s regressive tax system forces us to make unpleasant choices to fund our worthwhile civic projects. Too bad we can’t ever seem to get help in making our system less regressive. (Would you prefer us to raise the sales tax? That way, if you buy something in Seattle, you could help pay for I-122.)
What’s the difference between I-122 and a poll tax?
The latter is unconstitutional.
Because, if you can’t get your friends, family and acquaintances in the community to support your efforts to get elected and to then make decisions for your community’s future, then you shouldn’t be running for squat. Popular support of your direction and vision for the community start with getting that message out, and to get that message out, you have to advertise, and to advertise, you need a campaign fund.
If you’re not able to go out and articulate a vision to your circle of influence enough to fund a decent campaign, then why should anyone vote for you? This method is going to have dozens of ill-qualified people jump into the race because they think they can get uninterested voters to give them their vouchers (paid for by someone else entirely) and is going to yield a less-qualified group of elected officials than we have now.
Because, if you can’t get your friends, family and acquaintances in the community to support your efforts to get elected and to then make decisions for your community’s future, then you shouldn’t be running for squat.
So, having elected officials who understand the needs of their community is a luxury poor neighborhoods just can’t afford?
Popular support of your direction and vision for the community start with getting that message out, and to get that message out, you have to advertise, and to advertise, you need a campaign fund.
Yes, that is the purpose of that section of I-122: to ensure candidates can advertise.
If you’re not able to go out and articulate a vision to your circle of influence enough to fund a decent campaign, then why should anyone vote for you?
Logic’s not supposed to be circular. Just sayin’
This method is going to have dozens of ill-qualified people…
Community activist: not qualified. Crazy heir: totally qualified. Great method of choosing candidates you’ve got there. No need to reform that, no sirree.
“If you’re not able to go out and articulate a vision to your circle of influence enough to fund a decent campaign”
Then you need either a better vision or a bigger circle of influence, not property tax dollars. Relax, there’s enough leftists in King County to fund all the loony liberal loser candidates you want.
“You can’t have influence because you don’t have influence” shouldn’t be a defining feature of government. Also, we want the best ideas and people, not just the ones bought with the most money.
I can understand why a web site owned by two guys on Mercer Island is deeply opposed to I-122’s countering the influence of big money in politics. What I can’t understand is why anyone not wealthy enough to live on Mercer Island would agree.
“”You can’t have influence because you don’t have influence” shouldn’t be a defining feature of government”
It’s not. How did your Tsarina get elected? “Poverty-stricken communist, held down by the man, magically gets her word out and the people unite with a groundswell of support” or “Wealthy bourgeois pig bankrolled her campaign”?
It’s not.
As last line of your paragraph claims, yes indeed it is.
You guys really are tremendously afraid of what might happen if we elect candidates who don’t owe rich donors anything, aren’t you?
… Tsarina get elected …
Your use of authentic historical knowledge makes your metaphors extremely effective. (How about next time combining “tsarina,” “Bolshevik,” and “elected” for a trifecta of pure ignorance?)
Nice dodge, comrade. How did she, in the absence of I-122, get elected?
Big money can’t always buy elections. She barely prevailed over a well-funded establishment candidate because he had voted against our immensely popular law requiring paid sick leave.
Big money can buy influence, so please stop dodging and answer: what’s the difference between giving an incumbent a “campaign contribution” and handing him a bribe?
So you’d rather one group of people fund elections for everybody else that wants to play politician even if they don’t have a snowballs chance of getting elected? Right, no transfer of wealth there, comrade. It’s only what’s “fair”.
Since we’re talking purchased legislation, You won’t believe the horrifying display of felonious behavior I witnessed over the weekend. I saw two hardened criminals transfer a firearm at a garage sale with NO BACKGROUND CHECKS. I felt I, and the other 3 present needed background checks just for witnessing it. This now felon (unnamed since they’re in hiding) sold a real rifle that shoots real bullets to a complete stranger, no questions asked. You would’ve wet your pants. Better get with billionaire carpetbagger and billionaire commissar to close the garage sale loophole in highly effective I-594, ASAP
So you’d rather one group of people fund elections for everybody else …
Everyone who resides in the city pays property taxes, so the only persons whom your description fits are non-citizen residents. They already have the option of taking citizenship or leaving town.
…wants to play politician even if they don’t have a snowballs chance of getting elected?
How in heck do you know who can and cannot get elected here? You couldn’t even describe how our $15/hour minimum wage law was enacted, and that event was highly publicized just last year.
Since we’re talking purchased legislation,
Now big-money influence in our elections is a bad thing? Pick a side and stick with it, already. Sheesh…
“what’s the difference between giving an incumbent a “campaign contribution” and handing him a bribe?”
Depends on who you’re talking about. If it’s your new rock star, Hilliary, there’s absolutely no difference between the two. They’re ALL bribes. And the difference between I-122 and a poll tax is only where you pay it.
They’re ALL bribes.
Wow! Even you can stop dodging, ducking, weaving, whining and fleeing long enough to actually learn some—
Depends on who you’re talking about.
*Sigh.*
Please do tell us how only a Bolshevik Tsarina could possibly believe in the radical leftist slogan, “Equal Justice Under Law.”
And the difference between I-122 and a poll tax is only where you pay it.
So, you remain determined to add “poll tax” to the extraordinarily large — yet rapidly growing — list of basic American historical topics on which you transparently know absolutely nothing. Got it.
Your endorsement of I-122, while as relevant to Seattle’s elections as everything else ever posted here, remains appreciated.