Ginny Burdick & the Pod People from Planet Enron
Kari Chisholm
For years, State Senator Ginny Burdick was a liberal hero. Representing the citizens of Southwest Portland, she was a steadfast voice for gun control, the right to choose, school funding, sensible land use policies, and more.
But lately, it seems that the good senator has lost her way. Either that, or pod people from outer space (you know, the Planet Enron) have transplanted her brain and turned her against the good citizens of Portland.
You see, here in Portland, the citizens have taken back control of our elections. For the low, low price of less than one one-thousandth of our city budget - we've bought back the time of our candidates and elected officials. Rather than playing the Dialing-For-Dollars game, our city council candidates will be playing the Talking-To-Voters game.
And here's the amazing thing: Our city council made the tough choice and passed this law themselves - they voted to unilaterally disarm. As incumbents, they can raise massive funds and squash any challenger - but they've given up that power and future elections will be a fair fight in the Arena of Ideas. (Yes, even the ones who choose to privately fundraise anyway; since their opponents will get matching funds.)
But, the evil pod people from Planet Enron have another plan for the citizens of Portland. They don't want the public to hear from candidates. They like the Dialing-For-Dollars game. After all, if you've got the dollars, you get the phone calls.
So, they're attacking Portland on two fronts. One, they've got their own local cadre of pod people (led by the PR firm Gard & Gerber) trying to bring back the banished Dialing-For-Dollars system. And two, they've taken over the humanoid form of Ginny Burdick - and are marching her out to run against City Commish Erik Sten, a key supporter of the new election system and a key opponent of Enron's plans for our region's electrical system.
Do you doubt they've seized the formerly great Ginny's mind, body, and soul? Here's what she told Steve Duin about the Gard & Gerber pod people, in another context, earlier this week:
"We're supposed to have outside lives, and with outside lives come conflict, for pretty much all of us."
That's right... rationalizing, explaining, spinning... the signs of a pod people takeover.
Already, the citizens of Portland are rising up to support the Commish. He hasn't announced his plans, but over at OlsonOnline, for example, they're crying out "Run, Erik, Run!"
The open arrogance, the chutzpah, of the monied establishment galls me. That establishment is the real Goliath in this tale, and I would be mightily pleased to see Goliath smitten with a voter's rock to the forehead. So I say to Erik Sten, rise to the challenge. Announce that you'll run for re-election and that, in the process, you'll explain why publicly financed elections are a good thing for the city of Portland. And a good thing for democracy.
Will he run? Or will the citizens of Portland surrender to the Pod People of Planet Enron?
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
1:21 a.m.
Nov 10, '05
Planet Enron may be a slightly more rational environment than Bizarro World.
Nov 10, '05
Kari,
I certainly agree with you on the issue of campaign finance reform and strongly support the City Council in this matter.
Your attack on Ginny Burdick however smacks of the RINO (Republican in name only) tactics of Tom Delay. Ginny's record speaks for itself. She has represented my district extremely well and I would happily vote for her again.
Disagree with her on the merrits of the issue with facts and reasoned arguments but enough of the Enron smears.
Nov 10, '05
Before she was a State Senator, Ginny Burdick lead the campaign against expansion of the bottle bill to include all those non-carbonated drinks. Remember that campaign? They spent millions of dollars explaining how confusing it would be to have to return water and flavored tea bottles. Ginny Burdick didn't lead that campaign because she was confused, she lead it because she was paid to do it.
Before that Burdick worked as an apologist for the oil companies' environmental record.
Ginny Burdick is smart and its not that she doesn't have an ethical compass. Its that she doesn't always follow it. She understands she is getting this opportunity because she is a liberal who can be bought. That doesn't disqualify her from running for office, but people ought to be very careful they know whose interests she represents.
Nov 10, '05
"we've bought back the time of our candidates and elected officials."
Puh-leeze, do you really think that if they were not out raising funds they would really be talking to voters? What planet are you from? The entire council basically listens and then does what they want anyways.
This is just another taking of tax money that could be fixing streets or actually doing something for residents instead of allowing someone like Erik (yes-I know he says he is not going to take the money this time) to sit home and formulate more grand plots.
Nov 10, '05
Excellent piece, Kari. It's about time that progressive Portlanders take notice when their supposedly progressive politicos go into lapdog mode. Burdick is not some rare mutant, though. Here, as elsewhere, money has its way with democracy, which is why Portland's voluntary public financing system is so important.
This is not a matter of difference of opinion. It is a matter of difference of allegiance. Democrats who are not loyal to the demos are Democrats in name only.
Nov 10, '05
"The entire council basically listens and then does what they want anyways."
Its pretty clear that the clients of many very well paid lobbyists don't agree. They spend a lot of money to get the ear of elected officials. And they give money to candidates so they will have access for the same reason. The council listens and then does what it thinks best based on what they have heard. The marketplace seems to indicate that the access necessary to make your ideas part of what they heard is worth a lot of money.
9:47 a.m.
Nov 10, '05
Yeah,
This is huge in terms of getting power back to the governed. The only thing worse for lobbyists than publicly funded campaigns, would be if gummint were able to mandate free air time for candidates at all levels, as a condition of licensing.
It would be fun to know the aggregate number of people who would be forced to seek gainful employment if The People were allowed to get the straight dope for free regarding issues before their representatives, and the representatives' response to those issues.
The recent Franseconi vs. Potter race was a huge step in the right direction, even though Potter's limits were voluntary. The aforementioned The People appear not to be so much stupid as they are frustrated, and they demonstrated a good grasp of the infuence of big money in politics when they elected Potter.
<hr/>As far as Burdick goes, she's always seemed like a craven opportunist to me. She's gotten by for the last several years attacking gun owners, and now that the Dems are swinging toward the center.......er, make that the constitution....on the gun thing, she needs to hitch her wagon to another, hopefully more reliable, star.
<hr/>Now that she's officially for sale, supporting Sten for another term should be a no-brainer, despite a few missteps in his service to date.
Nov 10, '05
As a constituent, I am puzzled and dismayed by Burdick's signing on with the downtown fat-cats. All I can figure is she needed the money?? Another reason to pay legislators a living wage so they are not so desperate. We've got to move past the 19th century here and upgrade the caliber of our legislature. But that's another topic.
I totally support the public finance plan so that ordinary people and neighborhood activists without connections to the fat cats can have a shot at running for office. I am sick and tired of PGE and the rest of those CEOs telling Portlanders what is good for us.
Go Erik!
Nov 10, '05
What a ridiculous column, if one can call it that. Ginny Burdick has been an outstanding Senator & will be an outstanding member of the City Council. Enough of Erik Sten. Ginny has far more diversity in her life experience than Sten, who has spent his entire adult life at the public trough. She is owned by nobody.
Nov 10, '05
Friends, roman, countrymen, open your eyes!
Nov 10, '05
"Behind the Scenes" asserts that Senator Burdick ran the campaign against the expanded bottle bill. This is not right. However, she was, in 1990, the spokesperson for a corporate funded effort to kill the Oregon Recycling Initiative, which would have reduced wasteful packaging. It was a cynical effort and still illustrates the point Behind the Scenes is trying to make. Just chiming in here to correct that understandable mistake.
2:50 p.m.
Nov 10, '05
Yeah, motivations are revealing. Government officials decide to try to remove the power of incumbency and introduce more transparency to elections; lobbyists try to stop them. Even I can do that math.
3:50 p.m.
Nov 10, '05
Her firm, Gard & Gerber, ran the $3.5 million campaign against creation of a Multnomah County People's Utility District (PUD) in 2003--by far the most expensive local ballot measure fight in Oregon history. They then ran similar campaigns in Clackamas, Washington, and Yamhill counties against PUD measures there. I have not looked up the final numbers, but those campaigns costs more millions of dollars. Result: PGE is still owned by Enron and is still charging us oover $95 million per year for "income taxes" it is not actually paying to any government.
4:31 p.m.
Nov 10, '05
Pedro and Roman....
Let me say it one more time: I agree with you that Ginny Burdick has been an excellent state senator. In the first sentence of my post, I called her "a liberal hero." I hope she remains in the state senate. I hope she runs for re-election in 2008.
That's why it's so gosh-darned puzzling that she's sidled up to the Enron Gang. Puzzling and sad.
Let's be clear about what the choices are here: Either an election system in which the public pays for the election and the public hears from candidates full-time OR an election system in which candidates spend their time dialing for dollars from self-interested donors.
Sure, most of us would rather not see public dollars OR private dollars in the election system -- but that's not an option.
Nov 10, '05
Well, I strongly oppose publicly funded elections without a public vote. And I'd like to see Sten get a real job where if you cost your company $30 million you either resign or get fired, you know, actually pay some kind of price for the mistake that's costing water customers millions.
But Sten vs. Burdick? It's an easy vote for me -- Sten. Enough of the monied old guard already. Time for a break.
5:20 p.m.
Nov 10, '05
I strongly oppose publicly funded subsidies for sprawl developers without a public vote.
I strongly oppose publicly funded franchises to irresponsible corporate monopolists without a public vote.
I strongly oppose publicly funded tax breaks to gazillionaires without a public vote.
Oh wait, the folks who are want a public vote on this 1/1000th-of-the-budget expenditure... well, they DON'T want a vote on any of those things.
Puh-leeze. Why is an election a worse thing to subsidize than sprawl, rapacious monopolies, or the 'old money' gang?
Nov 10, '05
I'm not in love with the idea of friends running against each other (to quote Gandalf, "the laughter of Mordor will be our only reward"), and I disagree with Ginny and agree with Erik on campaign finance, but I am quite confident that if she wins, she will cheerfully vote against people who financed her campaign whenever she feels like it, which I suspect will be often. She was one of only three Senate votes against the Legislature's most absurd business giveaway, the pollution control tax credit, in 1999. (Kate Brown, among others, voted to continue subsidizing polluters for complying with the law.) I agree with Kari, and have told Ginny, that anyone who argues that the dollar or two per Portlander per year that will go to public financing is some kind of budget-buster is absurd and should be spanked. I wish that either Ginny wasn't running or Erik had followed through on his hints that he might hang it up and do something else, and the idea that power-brokers in a pompous snit would rejoice at beating Erik with Ginny is repulsive, but I don't doubt that Ginny would vote her conscience.
Nov 10, '05
Let's be clear about what the choices are here: Either an election system in which the public pays for the election and the public hears from candidates full-time OR an election system in which candidates spend their time dialing for dollars from self-interested donors.
Personally, I think there is a huge grey zone in the middle. But we'll see, won't we Kari? Salzman is running without financing and he has an opponent who is running with. So we'll see which one actually meets more voters, runs more informative advertisements, etc.
By the way, if Enron and PGE had bought our Council, how the heck did they lose THE critical council vote to take over PGE? If non-publicly financed elections results in corrupt government, then I suppose our current and past councils are hotbeds of corruption, right? Doesn't quite jibe, does it?
Elections are FUNDAMENTALLY different from anything else in your list, Kari. Elections are THE central mechanism for citizen control over government. That may be the reason you support public financing. But to continually bring up the amount or to compare it to sprawl is silly. One's opinion about public financing is a principled opinion about democratic government.
My prediction made before stands: the publicly financed system will change almost nothing. The well-organized, well-recognized candidates (the current incumbents, for instance) will have a much easier time raising the 1000 contributions. Those with links to large, well-organized groups will reap the rewards, since no longer can an outsider with money "buy" the power that comes with established political networks.
The system will benefit the current crop of incumbents. They took no risk at all adopting this system.
9:43 p.m.
Nov 10, '05
Paul, I don't believe that the money involved makes our elections or our elected officials corrupt.
As I testified at Council, IT'S NOT ABOUT "DIRTY" MONEY. It's about the time that our candidates - and worse, electeds - spend raising money. I don't care if they're raising it from saints and nobel peace prize winners -- it's the 30 hours a week over 6-9 months that it takes.
For 1/1000th of our city budget, we buy back the TIME of our elected officials and our candidates.
(I know that view is unlike many of the new system's supporters.)
On the question of whether the incumbents took a risk, I can only say, "ARE YOU KIDDING?!" Under the old rules, Dan Saltzman could have easily raised $300k and Amanda Fritz would struggle to raise $75k. They both would have spent thousands of hours raising that money. Now, Amanda Fritz is spending dozens of hours raising 1000 $5 checks, and then she'll spend the rest of the campaign talking to voters. She'll have $150k - and Dan will probably self-limit to $150k too. If he doesn't, she'll get a dollar-for-dollar match to what he raises.
Yes, Dan Saltzman took a tremendous risk in voting for this new system. He unilaterally disarmed. He is to be commended for it; it was astonishingly courageous and un-self-interested.
Nov 10, '05
Why are you opposed to contested elections? Erik has no claim to that seat and it is good for him to earn the right to represent us again. Portland is a one party town and we should not be alarmed or even concerned when Democrats run against eachother. In fact, it is good for the body politic for us to hear their competing visions for the future. If Erik wins, he has a mandate to continue his work. If not, then obviously the public wants change.
Both of these candidates are good Democrats and deserve better than the "pod people" slam. Ginny has had a great record in the senate and regularly takes on special interests. When legislators blocked her gun show bill she took it straight to the public and beat the NRA.
This will be a great campaign and I am looking forward to the clash of ideas. Uncontested elections are boring and lead to complacent leaders.
2:26 a.m.
Nov 11, '05
Bess.... You're right. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a contested election. A spirited campaign will be a good thing. (That's EXACTLY WHY I SUPPORT the new campaign finance system.)
It is perfectly reasonable - in the spirit of a spirited campaign - to start hammering away on the absurdity that is the nascent Burdick campaign.
She has been a good Democrat, that's true. And that's what's so sad and disappointing. She's allowing the Enron Boys to use her liberal credentials to disguise their real goal: an attack on Erik Sten (who had the temerity to suggest public power) and an attack on Portland's new campaign funding system (which reduces the role of their money in our politics.)
She's welcome in the race. But she's going to hear about the Enron Boys every single day. That's what a spirited campaign means.
Nov 11, '05
"I strongly oppose publicly funded tax breaks to gazillionaires without a public vote.
Oh wait, the folks who are want a public vote on this 1/1000th-of-the-budget expenditure... well, they DON'T want a vote on any of those things."
OK, so let me get your argument - we give away money to gazillionaires, so why not take a lesser amount of taxes and give it to those running for office?
You must have something more compelling than that. This is like saying they took the gold fillings from the corpse already, so I might as well take his Timex. It doesn't make it right. We are short of money and we need to fund campaigns also?
10:07 a.m.
Nov 11, '05
That's the latest big argument for "clean money": "We waste so many millions on other stuff, why not spend an extra million or two a year so that the politicians can go home at 5:00 instead of spending the whole night fundraising?"
12:14 p.m.
Nov 11, '05
Good summary, Jack.
Philosophically, I don't care if it's 1/1,000,000th of the city budget. Tax dollars should be spent on conducting elections, not doled out for candidate advocacy. You want more variety on the council? Then do something that doesn't swallow tax money -- put in term limits. Let's see what that does first.
Kari -- the things you "oppose" without a vote traditionally fall under the purview of an elected, representative local government. Deciding to use tax dollars to spread political messages during a campaign has never been a task designated to a local elected body. You do have a constructive argument to make, but from my view you take an odd approach to it. Voters need more choices but should not be allowed to choose whether they want this approach.
With that written, what I find most interesting about your post and Steve Duin's column and all other items related to Gard and Gerber is that it is fair to judge a candidate by the company she keeps. Opposing public power, expanded recycling and other items mentioned here and there in other blogs is just as valid to me as a legislative record and the perception of that record. We make value judgments on whom we work for and on what issues, more so the field one is in is political communications. Those judgments reveal a lot to me.
Does a candidate who, as some view, serves as an apologist for PGE do it only for the money via a professional service, or does she actually believe that PGE’s current relationship with its customers is a good thing? Either way, the answer is revealing about a candidate. It's not unlike Sam Adams when he ran -- was he a Vera Katz clone or a separate political entity? That question seemed important to voters.
12:23 p.m.
Nov 11, '05
I am supremely dissapointed in Ginny and her actions as of late. I am less upset about her run against Eric - regardless of who is supporting her - it is her right to run.
I am appalled however that she has chosen to lead the effort to repeal sensible public funding for our elections. Why not give it a few cycles and if it sucks then we can talk about repealing it?
I may need to remind Ginny of her support for the 2000 statewide public campaign effort AND the countless hours that the public campaign staff gave her ballot measure (gun-show loophole) to help them out. I personally spent more than a few hours with Ginny helping her work through the mechanics of signature gathering.
In politics it is all about what you actually do, not what you say. While Ginny's voting record in the state senate has been generally good it is not exactly a bold or daring move to cast progressive votes while reperesenting one of the most liberal senate districts in the state. It would be far riskier to NOT cast progressive votes.
In my opinion it is far more illuminating into a person's character to see what they do to make money. For some a job is a job whether it is working for the Sierra Club or Exxon. For me who you get your paycheck from DOES matter and Ginny's choice to throw her lot in with a incredibly cynical group of big money corporate interests only interested in preserving the status quo is supremely dissapointing.
Eric has my vote, my support and yes my money.
Nov 11, '05
Did Steve and Jack Bog purposely misconstrue Kari's comment comparing public campaign financing and tax breaks and subsidies for powerful interests, or did they just not read carefully? Kari did not suggest that public campaign financing was a waste. He noted that those who are attacking public campaign finance as a waste are ignoring what Kari sees as much larger wastes. Lets keep our arguments consistent with logic, reason, and accuracy.
Unlike Kari, I do believe that private campaign funding does corrupt politicians, even if some of them are, overall, well-intentioned people. Looking at the decisions made by governmental bodies at all levels, what besides widespread corruption can explain all the stupidity, shortsightedness and negligence of the public welfare?
Nov 11, '05
"what besides widespread corruption can explain all the stupidity, shortsightedness and negligence of the public welfare?" I assume you are including the Portland City Council in this statement? Can you be more specific with examples?
Once they get in with clean money, we will still have the logrolling/voteswapping (vote for my issue and I'll vote for yours) that drives most of these controversial decisions by City Council members. I guess what I am saying is once they get elected, they will pretty much insulate themselves from anyone outside City Hall.
Nov 11, '05
"I guess what I am saying is once they get elected, they will pretty much insulate themselves from anyone outside City Hall."
And if that were true - why do corporations spend so much money on high paid lobbyists whose primary asset is access to those very people? The fact is that elected officials may insulate themselves from the typical voter, they do not insulate themselves from the people who contributed to getting them elected.
The opposition from the business community to public financing reflects their recognition that candidates who don't need to come to them for money to get elected are a lot less likely to give them easy access to share their concerns about government decisions after they are elected. What is unknown is whether that will lead to more access for other parts of the community or just less community input in general.
Nov 11, '05
Nothing will eliminate all incompetence and all wrong-headedness by elected officials. They are, after all, human. What we can do is work toward a system that promotes democracy, which is a poor system of governance, but better than the alternatives. I believe publicly financed campaigns can promote democracy.
Nov 11, '05
In republican circles the local party is falling all over itself to take advantage of the opportunity to get rid of Sten. Its a fact.
The only division in the R party is in the 2nd ammendment types who would back Goldscmidt at this point if it forwarded their NRA viewpoint.
Ginny isn't the strongest legislator either. She's no Vera Katz or John Kitzhaber. When she exits the capital her legacy won't really be recognizable outside of siding with the tax and grab liberal wing of your party and forwarding unrealistic legislation.
Erik Sten has legs. With his 60-70% voter return in Portland and a little Lane County on top he could win statewide. He could easily walk over to Metro President. He is a work in progress (he's a young politician) and growing intelectually. If you think Ginny Burdick is a step up your selling your party down the river.
The only thing that would make sense given her run against Sten would be if she knew something the public didn't. Maybe Erik is about to pursue other options and the silence is to scare off a bum-rush for the seat. Maybe this is a page out of Blumenhauer's book when he helped Francisconi.
Also, I respect Erik Sten though I disagree with him. Burdick I don't respect. She doesn't even walk her district come election time. To me this is a fundamental requirement of a state Legislator and Portland's delegation usually fails at it. She will be even lazier and harder to reach if she moves to a city council seat.
Nov 12, '05
Random Elephant - That's what I call insight.
Kari - I know you mean well. Please remember Harry Reid is anti abortion. I support him as Senate Minortity Leader, I diasagree with his position (strongly) on a women's right to choose. This ability to be polite, civil, and respectfuly disagree among ourselves is one of the values that separate donkeys from elephants. We don't have to resort to name calling to disagree.
I am disapointed that Ginny has taken the money and probably won't vote for her against Erik.
10:31 a.m.
Nov 12, '05
Bearing in mind Pedro's admonition regarding respect----Am I the only one who'd pay good money to watch Steve Novick give Ginny Burdick a good spanking?
Maybe it could be arranged as one of the events for the Bus Project's upcoming ReBoot Democracy Gig.
I'm just sayin'...........
10:40 a.m.
Nov 12, '05
As I testified at Council, IT'S NOT ABOUT "DIRTY" MONEY. It's about the time that our candidates - and worse, electeds - spend raising money. I don't care if they're raising it from saints and nobel peace prize winners -- it's the 30 hours a week over 6-9 months that it takes.
With all due respect, Kari, that's about the worst argument there is for campaign finance reforms -- both at the municipal and state levels. By your rationale, we'd be better off if more politicians followed Kevin Mannix's footsteps and let the Loren Parks' of the world finance their campaigns to the tune of $500,000 per election cycle rather than raising money in small amounts from a large number of donors.
From both a legal and good government standpoint, voter owned elections and campaign finance limits are almost entirely about limiting the potentially corrupting influence of large checkbooks on the political process. When Loren Parks writes half a million in checks in an election cycle to the Kevin Mannix's of the world, he's not doing it out of a sense of civic responsibility. The same is true for any monied interest that invests large amounts of money in elections and lobbying expenditures.
There is a reason why large corporations in Oregon account for less than 5 percent of income tax revenues but drive the policy debate in 95 percent of the cases that don't involve headline grabbing hot-button issues.
Nov 14, '05
She doesn't even walk her district come election time. To me this is a fundamental requirement of a state Legislator and Portland's delegation usually fails at it.
That's a "fundamental requirement" that is utterly absent from the resumes of most of the GOP legislators; in fact Dalto is the only one I know for sure has made any real effort to personally canvass his district.
5:49 p.m.
Nov 14, '05
Salvador, you wrote: "By your rationale, we'd be better off if more politicians followed Kevin Mannix's footsteps and let the Loren Parks' of the world finance their campaigns to the tune of $500,000 per election cycle"
...Well, 90% of Eugene McCarthy's 1968 anti-war campaign was funded by only four donors.
I think there are three options here: A handful of huge-money donors, a small number of independent small donors, and publicly-financed campaigns.
The first is obviously bad - even though it may be the only way that hard left candidates have any chance in competing with the corporate right.
The second is good, but very time-consuming, and still requires candidates to spend their time raising money instead of talking voters.
The third solves both problems - it eliminates big-money influence and it puts candidates in front of voters, not donors.
7:57 p.m.
Nov 14, '05
...Well, 90% of Eugene McCarthy's 1968 anti-war campaign was funded by only four donors
Bull. I ran Kings Park (NY) "McCarthy for President" headquarters out of my bedroom as a 17 year old. No one ever tracked how much I spent. (Nor the cost of my haircuts to be "Clean for Gene.")
Besides...it wasn't McCarthy's "anti-war" campaign, it was his campaign for the presidency. And he kicked butt.
3:19 a.m.
Nov 15, '05
Chris B, you wrote: "Deciding to use tax dollars to spread political messages during a campaign has never been a task designated to a local elected body."
You're wrong - at least at the non-local level.
For over thirty years now, the federal government has provided taxpayer dollars to presidential campaigns that voluntarily choose to limit their spending - on a state-by-state basis during primaries and overall during the general.
Yeah, I don't want my tax money going to Lenora Fulani and Pat Buchanan, but it makes our politics better.
4:30 a.m.
Nov 15, '05
the federal government has provided taxpayer dollars to presidential campaigns that voluntarily choose to limit their spending
You're kidding, right? Presidential campaigns have "limited their spending"?
C'mon...this is where you have to separate the rhetoric from the reality; the nobility of purpose from the cynical manipulation of the system.
Tell us, Kari, just how much of our tax dollars went to George Bush's last election in return for his "limiting campaign spending?"
Nov 15, '05
Shrub refused public money so as to be able to spend the millions flowing in from his corporate friends. I remember that Kerry considered doing so, but don't recall his final decision. The presidential public funding system supplies a small portion of candidate spending. Some analysts believe this is throwing good money after bad. Portland's system is much better designed.
6:40 p.m.
Nov 15, '05
Tell us, Kari, just how much of our tax dollars went to George Bush's last election in return for his "limiting campaign spending?"
I'll repeat the question at the risk of being obnoxious.
No, Tom, neither Bush, nor Kerry, forgoed sucking at the public finance teat. That was for the primary. After the convention (subsidized with public money to the tune of $15 million for each Party) Bush --and Kerry-- each got $75 million dollars in your and my tax money to carry out their knuckleheaded campaigns.
$180 million to the Bush and Kerry campaigns. That's a lot of dough, folks that has not --I'll repeat NOT-- reduced the costs of campaigning.
Nov 16, '05
.......I thought I saw an "I've paid more taxes than Enron/PGE" bumper-sticker on G. Burdick's car!
.......maybe she's really an insurgent progressive?
...oh no, sorry, the bumper-sticker said, "Property of Qwest!"
I guess I got my Dems mixed up. Go Erik Go!
Nov 16, '05