Sometimes “no means no”.
And somebody should tell that to the Seattle Times.
Voters saw through the phony, flawed, and rich-guy funded “campaign finance reform” Initiative 1464 – despite the presence of virtually no opposition campaign to the $4 million effort to pass it. It was voted down 54-46%, losing in 37 of 39 counties, and passing only in uber-liberal San Juan and King counties.
Yet, the Times editorial writers think the legislature should ignore the voters, and implement some of I-1464’s sketchier idea.
One example, giving the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) an incentive to go after money instead doing the its job enforcing campaign laws. The Times says the PDC “needs a more generous, yet independent, source of money”, and should “be rewarded with a cut” when it chases down a rich source of funds – which would incentivize the PDC to ignore cases which might be more in the public interest, but would result in less of a “cut.”
Another bad idea is the Times suggestion that a “three-year waiting period” be imposed on lobbyists (who are already publicly regulated) going to work in government, or campaign workers being able to talk to their former employers about government policy. It seems Times editorial writers only want existing government employees to be able to talk to elected officials, else these legislators be corrupted by new voices.
Instead of ignoring the will of the voters by passing parts of a just-rejected initiative, what if the Times actually beefed up its political reporting staff, and reported on the corruption in government and campaign financing that its feels is running so rampant that the rights of citizens – even if they be lobbyists – should be trampled on.