Chair - Chad Shue
Vice-Chair - Jackie Minchew
Vice-Chair - Cliff Wells
Secretary - Debbie Shue
Treasurer - Jeff Sutro
At-Large - Nancy Sosnove
At-Large - Eric Teegarden
At-Large - Luis Moscoso
As incoming Chair, I look forward to working with these fine Progressive Activists to move DFSC forward into this exciting election year.
Peace,
Chad Shue
Chair (elect) DFSC
The Komen Community Challenge is coming to Seattle on Thursday, November 8!
Join breast cancer advocates and special guests at the Town Hall in Seattle to discuss the state of breast cancer care in Washington.
We’ll hear from breast cancer survivors and community leaders, as well as speakers such as Mary Selecky, Washington State Secretary of Health. And you’ll have a chance to meet and mingle with other advocates from across the state!
What: The Puget Sound Komen Community Challenge - “Close the Gap!” Town Hall Discussion
When: Thursday, November 8, 6:00 p.m.
Where: Town Hall Seattle ~ 1119 Eighth Avenue (at Seneca Street)
Who: Breast cancer survivors and families, health care officials, breast cancer experts – and you and your friends and family! Reserve your place HERE
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-Chair
Democracy for Snohomish County
Go HERE to find out how to help.
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, DFSC
Join us for a day of enlightening solutions that sustain our lifestyles while preserving our natural environment.
The Green Everett Sustainable Engery Fair and Solar & Green Building Tour is a solution based, hands-on, family oriented event designed to educate people of all ages and backgrounds about Sustainable Living Practices and Renewable Energy.
Cecile Andrews founder of the Phinney EcoVillage will energize the Fair as our Keynote Speaker. We will feature two panel discussions and the kick off for the 2007 Snohomish County Solar Tour. Exhibitors and demonstrators will present for us a variety of options in the field of renewable energy.
Where: Everett PUD Building, 2320 California Street, Everett.
When: Saturday, October 6. 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m.
Phone: 425 341-1061
Web sites:
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Sustainable Everett:
http://www.sustainableeverett.com
Peace,
Chad Shue
Back on June 30th, citzensteve posted "MADness in Everett" about the impending visit to Everett by Minutemen founder, Jim Gilchrist. The keynote speaker for an event billed as an "Illegal Immigration Summit", Gilchrist was invited to speak by "something called "the Reagan Wing" and a MAD woman named Shawna Forde who's trying to take her insanity to the Everett City Council." Others in attendance at the "Summit" included former 2nd CD Republican Congressional Candidate, Doug Roulstone and current Snohomish County Sheriff's candidate, Tom Greene (whom I had previously written about here.)
After the event was reported in the Everett Herald, local educator and human rights activist Ed Glazer wrote the following letter to the editor bemoaning the silence of local leaders:
"Published:
Sunday, July 8, 2007
MINUTEMAN RALLY
Why didn't leaders denounce group?
With the recent gathering of the right wing, anti-immigration, racist group here "in River City" (July 1 article, "Minuteman rally draws 100"), I find it most interesting, and yet par for the course, that apparently not a single local elected official has one word to say about this group and what they represent.
Does their overpowering silence indicate acquiescence?
Does their "commitment" to a multicultural/pluralistic society only come out every January when they spout "... keep the dream alive ... "?
I am disappointed and disgusted in the supposed "leaders" of our community.
For, to quote Pastor Martin Niemoller: "First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."
School board members, mayors, city council members, the county executive and county council members and county officials - your silence is deafening!
Ed Glazer
Everett"
While the Everett Herald has not seen fit to print my response to Mr. Glazer, I offer it for you below.
"I share the sentiments of Ed Glazer when he bemoans the silence of our elected officials before, during, and since the arrival of the racist vigilante Minuteman gang to our city. I would add a couple of personal observations. Inside the Elks Lodge; embracing Mr. Gilchrist, were two candidates for local elective office. One is a candidate for Everett City Council; the other a candidate for Snohomish County Sheriff. It is the latter that most concerns me.
While it is the duty of all law enforcement personnel to protect and defend the rights - both legal and civil - of all the citizens they serve, in Tom Greene we find a man who publicly embraces the likes of nationally recognized anti-gay activist, Rev. Ken Hutcherson (keynote speaker for Greene's campaign kick-off breakfast) as well as noted vigilante leader Jim Gilchrist. This is not a matter of defending "gay rights" or "illegal immigrants" but, rather a case of maintaining a perception of "equal protection under the law" while enforcing the law equally toward all. What message would be sent to the members of our minority communities if Mr. Greene moves beyond the primary ballot in August? What leadership message would be sent to the officers of the Sheriff's Department about defending the rights of all the citizens they serve? More importantly, what picture of our diverse Snohomish County would be painted with the election of Tom Greene to the position of Sheriff?
Finally, while there was also a city council candidate inside the Elks Lodge, it should be noted that there was one candidate joining the group outside the event. Jackie Minchew, candidate for Everett City Council, stood proudly with those who denounce the welcoming of Jim Gilchrist and his ilk into our town."
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
When the 38th LD Democrats sent questionnaires out to prospective candidates who might be seeking our endorsement one of the first to respond was Tom Greene, candidate for Snohomish County Sheriff. At that time Greene was in a two person race with Rob Beidler. Both gentlemen are currently serving in different areas of the Sheriff's department and, with the departure of Rick Bart due to term limits; they are seeking the top spot there. On paper, Greene's credentials are tremendous with many years of service in law enforcement in California and in Snohomish County. His list of endorsements reads like a who's who of law enforcement. Beidler offers himself as the "trooper's trooper" and wears his endorsement from the rank and file as a badge as shiny as the one on his uniform. Unfortunately for both of these gentlemen, their endorsement prospects from the 38th (as well as any Democratic organization in the county) were doomed from the start by "the elephant in the room" which was the expected (and now realized) announcement of candidacy from 44th LD Democrat, John Lovick. In the end, the 38th confirmed the endorsement committee's recommendation of "No Endorsement at this Time" for the Sheriff's position at our Tuesday night meeting. While I am not very comfortable with withholding an endorsement because we are waiting for someone else to decide what they are going to do, last night I received an email that made me feel much better about our decision not to endorse Tom Greene.
It seems Greene will be having a "Breakfast Kick-off" on Tuesday morning, May 15th at the Holiday Inn in Everett. Because that is a workday for me and the start time is listed as 7:00am, I was simply going to respectfully decline due to the time conflict. However there was a flyer attached to the email and, as the flyer was created in jpg form, part of it became obvious to me while I was reading the email. A photo of someone whom I recognized was coming onto my viewing screen. There under the heading "Tom Greene for Sheriff Breakfast May 15th" was the next line:
"Featuring former Seattle Seahawk, Ken Hutcherson, Pastor of Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, WA"
My reply to Tom Greene's email took a somewhat different slant. I explained to him that, while I do not believe anyone should be judged on their own personal beliefs, I felt that bringing someone with Hutcherson's notoriety into the political arena was simply unacceptable - especially when he, Greene, is seeking election to a position where he will be responsible for protecting the rights - legal and civil - of all the citizens. It is inconceivable to me that he would be unaware of Hutcherson's opposition to the recognition of equal rights and protections for all of our citizens. In my email I told him that, even though our meeting was brief, my impression was that he is a personable and sincere man and that it would be difficult to believe him guilty of such political naiveté.
I almost wish that I did not have a workday conflict now. The Holiday Inn in Everett is where we held our "Un-welcome Wagon" for Dead-Eye Dick Cheney last year. I wouldn't be surprised if someone wanted to host a similar event for Pastor Hutcherson on Tuesday, May 15th.
Peace,
Chad (The Left) Shue
Opinion
Published: Saturday, April 21, 2007
Global warming's elusive elephant
By Jim Mitchell
The savvy old sheriff called me over to his cruiser when I, as a 12-year-old boy, came out of the brush with my .22-caliber rifle just a few yards from where he was parked. In those days a boy with a rifle was not uncommon but the sheriff made occasional contact with us kids just so we knew we were not entirely without adult supervision. He asked me what I was hunting, if I had a license, and made some adult-to-child chit-chat. What followed is a lesson I have found applicable to many political discussions, especially global warming.
The sheriff asked if I had seen any elephants. I was incredulous, not having expected to see elephants in the Arizona sagebrush. I answered that I had not. "They sure do hide well for such a big critter, don't they?" I could hear him chuckle as he drove away.
Today we are being asked to accept that the global climate change we see is unusual, and by its existence proves man is the cause, just as the fact that I had not seen an elephant proved their concealment skills. We are also expected to believe that if the Western industrialized countries would limit their industrial pursuits, climates will go back to "normal."
Computer models that were fed known climate conditions of the past have not projected from that data what we know to have been the result. Where is the proof that climate change will bring desertification and wild weather? Why should we be forced to subjugate our economy to projections of the future which are essentially computerized speculations?
On what does former Vice President Al Gore, the most visible "prophet" of this issue, base his assertion that if we take the lead by making the huge economic sacrifices necessary to bring us into compliance with the Kyoto Treaty, those such as China will follow our lead? We have proof to the contrary.
Clouds of toxin-laden dust that originate from China's expanding deserts, themselves largely caused by agricultural methods that America outlawed or abandoned decades ago, have shown up in air monitors on our Pacific coast. China is more likely to let us decimate our own economy with our strangling regulations, then, smiling sweetly, simply absorb our global market share rather than follow our lead.
The fact that when testifying on Capitol Hill Al Gore spoke to a standing-room-only crowd, while a leading skeptic of the global warming hysteria, Bjorn Lomborg - whom most people have never heard of in spite of his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist" - testified to a nearly empty room, should warn us that although the science is not settled, the political "reality" is.
If this is such a critical issue for the future of the planet, why not have nationally televised debates and let people hear from both sides? Mr. Gore has refused to debate Mr. Lomborg. Is Gore's position unassailable simply because his disciples consider it the moral high ground?
Suppose "greenhouse gas" emissions are taxed, as is being proposed by some. What happens to the money? Will it be used to fund research into finding a "cure" for carbon dioxide pollution; perhaps developing technology to harvest and recycle or reconstitute CO2? You already know the answer.
Why are we not talking about what we need to do to protect ourselves from the effects of climate change just in case we discover that man hasn't caused it and cannot control it? (Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans was, at its root cause, a failure to prepare for such a storm.) Are you ready to learn water conservation if the predictions of drier summers come true? Rather than convoluted schemes of "greenhouse gas" credits and taxes, shouldn't someone be trying to figure out a way to manage how we do things that will minimize the change's impact? No amount of CO2 credit-swapping or taxation will make derelict flood control apparatuses more functional or drought-resistant food more plentiful.
Not seeing any elephants during my boyhood excursion into the Arizona thickets did not prove their existence, however reclusive. Neither is a rise in the planet's temperature proof of an impending disaster, or of a man-made cause. We should be careful of the conclusions facts lead us to, but most of all we should be very suspicious of politicians posing as pundits who promise to save us from their fears - for a price - and ask that we trust them as gatekeepers of the "moral high ground."
Oh, the punchline for those who have been waiting.......
Jim Mitchell lives in Darrington. He spent many years working in the mining industry, and now works in the forest products industry.
Click here for complete text.
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, DFSC
1 AN ACT Relating to use of public funds for political purposes; and
2 amending RCW 42.17.128.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 42.17.128 and 1993 c 2 s 24 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 Public funds, whether derived through taxes, fees, penalties, or
7 any other sources, shall not be used to finance political campaigns for
8 state or local office, except that the legislative authority of a city
9 may establish a program allowing the use of public funds to finance
10 campaigns for local office.
--- END ---
p. 1 SSB 5278
Senator Rosa Franklin (D 29thLD), the Prime Sponsor, introduced the bill, reminded members that this was the virtually the same bill they had seen last year (except that it had been reduced to cities only). She also reminded the members that the city of Seattle had actually participated in a public financing process before the enactment of Initiative 134 in 1993 and that the legislature had been trying since then to reinstate the process.
Senator Joseph Zarelli (R 18thLD) then rose in opposition. Sen. Zarelli started out by reminding the senators that they were talking about tax dollars. He then told the story of a Portland, Oregon city councilwoman who had been elected under that city’s public financing plan and then, a year later, was convicted of fraud after it was determined that she had abused the system. Now I’m not sure that Zarelli was inferring that anyone who runs under public financing might be a crook but he certainly didn’t indicate that there might be elected officials who were not elected with public money who might have been convicted of anything.
Senator Harriet Spanel (D 40thLD) then spoke in favor and, once again, reminded the senators that Seattle used to do this.
And then “My Senator” – Senator Jean Berkey (D 38thLD) rose to speak in opposition to the bill. Senator Berkey said that, while the underlying goal of public financing of campaigns was “laudable” the “timing is not.” She said that our state’s economic vitality is precarious and she worried that cities might have to cut services or raise taxes to provide for public financing. She said that she could not support public financing while there were better things to spend the tax payers’ money on. However Senator Berkey (perhaps harkening back to her days on the Government Operations and Elections Committee) ended by saying that she would support a public vote to see if the citizens of Washington would like to have their tax dollars spent on political campaigns.
After Senator Berkey spoke, Senators Ed Murray (D 43rdLD) and Eric Oemig (D 45thLD) rose to speak in favor with Oemig offering that, as businesses see the advantage in “investing in candidates”, shouldn’t citizens be afforded the same opportunity to invest in candidates who would represent them.
And then we fell the rest of the way down the rabbit hole. Enter Senator Pam Roach (R 31stLD) – Cue Darth Vader theme –
Senator Roach began by suggesting she was speaking by popular demand of Senator Bob McCaslin (R 4thLD) who insisted that she MUST speak to this bill. Roach, after demanding that passing SSB 5278 would be, “One of the worst things that we could be doing.” spoke thus:
”Do you understand what we are talking about doing here? We are talking about a bill that will allow public funding of our elections.” She continued that public financing would be, ”completely contrary to the system we have had in this country…”
At this point I must remind you that SSB 5278 would only allow cities to consider and possibly adopt public financing for political campaigns.
At this point, Senator Roach began to channel Karl Rove. She charged that allowing public campaign financing would “end the need for candidates to speak directly to their constituents.” In fact, Roach asserted that publicly financed candidates, “will essentially grab the check and be elected and never have to face the electorate.” She said that, with public financing, there will be, “no more Ice Cream Socials or Spaghetti Dinners.”
Senator Roach then went on to worry about the lack of fraud protections in the bill. She said that public financing will advance “non-viable candidates.” She referred back to Senator Zarelli’s story of fraud and abuse in Oregon and then suggested that public financing might be, “A good way to fund your college education.” Senator Roach ended her floor time with (perhaps) a nod to Senator Berkey; ” Taxpayers should not be “forced” to pay for political campaigns.”
Apparently sensing imminent defeat of what should have been a simple vote to allow cities to assume local control over how they would administer and finance elections within their municipal jurisdictions, Senate Floor Leader Tracey Eide (D 30thLD) abruptly moved to defer the bill for further consideration.
I freely admit that I am not the sharpest tool in the shed but I am absolutely lost here. How do we get from “allowing consideration of public financing” to “non-viable candidates” waiting in the wings to de-fraud the tax payers? How do educated people who have been elected to the position of State Senator somehow believe that by simply allowing the citizens of the City of Everett to discuss public financing with their elected representatives, we will immediately jump to a situation where we have drained the city treasury? In an email from Craig Salins at Washington Public Campaigns we are reminded that there is no such thing as a “sure thing.” Salins offers:
” Even though in the Senate it is 32-17 (Ds-Rs), if 8 or more Ds vote No, we lack a majority to pass the bill, or if some are absent, we lack votes.
Three Ds have declared opposition (Berkey, Hargrove(24th) and Hatfield(19th )); several more are shaky or unknown (Hobbs(44th), Kauffman(47th), Marr(6th), Rasmussen(2nd)).
With Prentice(11th) and Tom(48th), we're unsure. And with one or two absences, we lack a majority.”
In checking on the current status of this bill, it appears that a couple more amendments are being circulated in hopes of reaching final passage. Senator Franklin has introduced the “Berkey Amendment” that would put any effort to enact public financing at a city level to a referendum of the people. Then we have Senator Mark Schoesler (R 9thLD) who is offering what we shall refer to as “the Surgeon General’s Warning on Public Financing of Political Campaigns at the City Level.” Senator Schoesler’s amendment calls for all publicly financed candidates to provide the following disclaimer on all political advertising: “Paid for at taxpayer expense.”
Folks, as you can see, the information that is being spread on this bill is mis-leading, false, or just mis-informed. If you have not called your senator, please call them now! If you know someone on the districts mentioned here, please call them and have them call their senator! If this bill fails, it cannot be because we did not act!
Peace
Chad Shue
Vice-chair,
Democracy for Snohomish County
Dunshee (D-44thLD) offered this:
”…Perhaps some day Snohomish County will have an independent university.
That would be fine with me. Communities with branches debate this option but so far none have seen it as desirable.
I do think the reality of Olympia is that a four year independent is not possible. This is just handicapping the probability of success. Since
Evergreen was created in the 1970s the legislature has not created a stand alone but has used branch campuses to meet need. These have been very successful and well received in their communities. I think it will be very hard to convince legislators from across the state to return to an option turned away from for some very good reasons. We are moving to a unified system in higher education like California and many other states. It is best for students and taxpayers…”
From Mike Sells (D-38thLD):
”…Finally, I don't know of too many 4 year stand alone institutions which are opened up in this day and age without some previous affiliation. Generally, they are grown starting from different permutations of 2 year programs that go beyond community college type AA degrees. In talking with Jerry Cornfield of the Herald last week, he noted his bias for a 4 year stand alone. I asked him where he went to school to get his degree. It was UC Santa Barbara. "How did it start?" I asked him. He said it started as a two year type community college. I suppose that begs the question of why not turn a community college into a 4 year baccalaureate delivery institution, and we do have some pilot programs going on in the state to deliver those degrees within community colleges. (Senator Kilmer, Kitsap County, also introduced a bill this week for a study of 4 year institution in his area.) My concern would be the loss in the process of the mission of those community colleges, particularly with regards to workforce education in skilled trades areas. In the beginning, however, they can be a great feeder into a new baccalaureate degree institution, especially in the area of liberal arts…”
And this from Senator Berkey (D-38thLD):
”…Our community is strongly behind this project and I believe the opposition to this proposal is overstated. The existing research universities, regional institutions, and community colleges will all have different missions and a different student mix than a new regional polytechnic institution. The most serious opposition is coming from the UW-Bothell (as we expected)…””… I do not want to spend a lot of time and space here rehashing the arguments for the four year university option or the community college/upper division option. A thorough analysis is contained in the report to the Higher Education Coordinating Board by NBBJ and MGT of America, Inc. You can find this report at the HECB Research website at http://www.hecb.wa.gov/research/issues/NSIS-RFPpage.asp then click on Final Report-Assessment of Higher Education Needs of Snohomish, Island, and Skagit Counties (SIS), which I would encourage you to download and read. Our Local Advisory Committee voted 9 to 1 to recommend the four year university option (Alternative 1) and the branch campus option was ranked 5 out of the 8 alternatives studied…”
I strongly encourage you to read the comments from each of these legislators in the original post here.
At the time, I was a bit curious that I hadn’t seen anything from Jerry Cornfield, political columnist for The Everett Herald about this; especially since Rep. Sells had mentioned him in his comments. Then, in his February 18th column, came this:
How to institute our own institute By Jerry Cornfield – Herald Columnist.
Cornfield opens up with a quick, three-step plan to achieve the goal of a new State College in Everett:
"1. Close the University of Washington's Bothell campus.
2. Move everything not bolted down to a site in Snohomish County.
3. Give the campus a new name, say Washington Institute of Technology, and then market it madly.
It's simple and not so theoretical…”
He goes on to say that he has ”… learned the idea of shuttering UW-Bothell is coming up in conversations among those most deeply engaged in this university debate.” He suggests that proponents of the above mentioned proposal take a page from Sonics team owner Clay Bennett who wants the state to help him move the basketball team from Seattle to Renton. He writes:
”…Bennett argues it's all about protecting a valued community treasure. The bottom line is he wants the state to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in an underperforming asset.
Washington Institute of Technology backers should be able to do better than the cellar-scraping Sonics.
UW-Bothell, through the actions and inaction of others, at this point is likewise an underperforming asset of the state higher education system.
Moving it from anonymity in a suburb to prominence in a city such as Everett will give it the visibility needed for success.
Slapping on a new name and giving it a new mission will create a buzz, and you can leave the University of Washington in charge…”
Cornfield lays out a pretty interesting chess board. He has obviously given this some serious thought (or has listened intently to some very interested people). He ends with this:
”The University of Washington would seem stronger with a campus devoted to technology under its wing. Political victory can be shared equally by those pushing a four-year university and those pushing the UW franchise.
I see the board set and pieces in place. Time to make a move.”
It seems the game is in play. Cornfield writes today:
”University of Washington President Mark Emmert set me straight this week:
No one is talking about shutting down the Bothell campus and moving it north as a new four-year university.
There are plenty of people - Emmert is one of them - talking about the UW opening a branch campus in the Everett area with a curriculum bent toward polytechnic instruction. A formal announcement may be made soon...”
According to Cornfield, Emmert was in town last week to meet with Everett Mayor, Ray Stephanson as well as a contingent from the House – Dunshee, Sells, and Rep. Bill Fromhold (D-49thLD), Chair of the Capital Budget Committee (Dunshee and Sells are on the committee as well). From what Cornfield writes, it would appear that the folks who are pushing for the “UW-Everett” route are working quickly to ensure that that plan doesn’t somehow get de-railed by some competing vision.
”Fromhold's presence was pivotal. He is writing the House of Representatives capital budget and will propose a sum of money for a new higher education option in north Snohomish, Island and Skagit counties.
Previously, Gov. Chris Gregoire placed $2 million in her proposed budget for developing a plan on where to put a regional university and how it should be run.
State Sen. Jean Berkey, D-Everett, responded with legislation steering those dollars toward one outcome: a four-year university run independently of the UW.
Fromhold is not of that mindset. Neither are Sells, Dunshee and Stephanson. They're fans of branch campuses as a faster means of increasing college instruction in a community.
When Fromhold rolls out his proposed budget next month, look for at least $2 million plus a directive that it be spent pouring the foundation of a branch campus.”
From what I am reading, it would appear that Everett is destined to become a college town. The only question that remains is will your sweater say “UW-Everett” or “W.I.T.”
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
I have just posted the following over at Washblog
According to a story by Melissa Slager in the Everett Herald, "Bible essay stirs trouble for teacher", it is fine to teach about the nature of God in a high school American Literature class if you are perceived to be a person of faith but, when your atheism becomes known, what was before considered an academic exercise is now criticized as `denigrating Christianity.'
If you would like to read more of this post and/or offer your comments or opinions, please check it out at Washblog
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
"You know how you can use MoveOn or Working Assets to write letters to congress, and the reply from staff comes back to you? They've spent a lot of time building tools for us to use at the grassroots level that does most of the work for us." He continues, "Have you ever wanted to write a letter to all members of the Government Operations & Elections committee in the Olympia Senate, but all you could find is one email at a time that you had to laboriously add to the To: line in an email? Annyoing, isn't it?" Well Chad has created a tool for us to patch that hole in the communiations loop.
Currently hosted at the 46th LD, PDWC, and DFW websites is a form that will allow you to select any State Senate Committee, identify the members, and create and send your own message to any one or combination of senators on that committee. And now, if you look to the links on the sidebar of this Blog you will find that same tool listed as "State Senate Committee Contact Form". Simply "right click" on the link, select "open in new window" and you are ready to send off a letter to a committee of your choosing. So let's begin...
It happens that there is a need to contact the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee to request they bring the senate version of the "comprehensive" bill (on Public Financing of Campaigns) up for a hearing. In this case, we want to send an email to the Chair and Vice-Chair of the committee (Sen. Fairley and Sen. Oemig) and ask them to bring SB5510 before the committee for a public hearing. For more information on the bill, please refer to this post.
After you have sent you emails to the Chair and Vice-Chair, you might want to send an email to the other members of the committee to let them know that you are a supporter of this bill and hope to see it pass during this session of the legislature. Even though most of these members will not be in your district, because they are sitting on a committee they realize that they will be hearing from a statewide audience.
Whether you use this tool today or not, I appreciate the efforts of Chad Lupkes to bring us something like this for our use. Thanks Chad!
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that this state is not graduating enough folks with engineering degrees. Thompson writes: ”A $500,000 study last year concluded that 15,000-18,000 students in the three-county area (Snohomish, Skagit, and Island) will be unable to get four-year degrees by 2025 even if the state's existing universities and community colleges expand to capacity.” She continues: ”Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon said (in testimony before the committee) the state is No. 1 in the nation in engineering jobs, sixth in jobs for computer specialists and ninth in physical- and life-science jobs, but 38th in producing graduates in those fields.”
So, why the division? Even though State Senator Jean Berkey (D-38) was able to move legislation that she co-sponsored with State Senator Paull Shin (D-21) through the Higher Education Committee that would begin the process of securing land in Everett or Marysville for a new four year college, ”… House members Mike Sells, D-Everett (38), and Hans Dunshee, D-Snohomish (44), said given the opposition of existing state institutions, the Berkey bill could be defeated in the Senate, jeopardizing $2 million in the governor's budget to develop a plan to meet the region's higher-education needs.” She quotes Sells, "It's a risky strategy." "If we get stuck on a stand-alone university, we could lose it."
I am not sure on what Senator Berkey bases her optimism in securing a stand alone university in Snohomish County. According to Thompson, ”Sells said that other underserved regions in the state lobbied for years for new colleges but had to settle for less-expensive branch campuses of existing state schools. Those communities are unlikely to support a new, comprehensive college in Snohomish County. "They couldn't do it in Vancouver. They couldn't do it in the Tri-Cities. Do you think they'll stand for us getting our own college? I don't think so," Sells said.”
I made an effort to contact Sen. Berkey to get a comment for this but, so far, she has not responded to my request for a statement. As a Snohomish County resident I would certainly enjoy the prestige of housing “our own” university. I also appreciate pursuing the option of reaching for the highest goal rather than “settling” for what is offered. However I understand the argument that Representatives Dunshee and Sells make when it comes to the potential for entrenched forces of opposition to completely derail this course of action; which brings us back to the beginning.
Why haven’t our legislators (County and State) come together before now to nail down a unified course of action for this important legislative session? In my opinion, the County Executive should have invited the entire delegation (ok, maybe just the Ds) to a “family get-together” prior to the beginning of the session and worked out the strategy for moving forward. All arguments should have been laid upon the table and debated until consensus was reached. As I stated before, the goal of establishing a four year college here is not new and most of the players are the same.
Finally, where do you stand on this and are you willing to join the discussion and the fight to achieve this goal? The folks in Olympia need to hear from all of us. Start with your own legislators and then start working on the rest. Reach out to friends and family in Skagit and Island Counties (as well as North King County) to talk to their delegations. So far, Senator Berkey’s is the only legislation I have seen. Having passed out of the Committee on Higher Education, it has now been referred to Ways and Means. Snohomish County representatives on that committee are Senator Darlene Fairley (D-32) and Senator Steve Hobbs (D-44).
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
The group at the rally was treated to pep talks from three Prime Sponsors of public financing legislation, Rep. Shay Schual-Berke (with megaphone in the photo below), Rep. Mark Miloscia, and Sen. Jim Kastama.
After the rally, the group headed into the Committee Hearing Room, filling it beyond capacity. Rather than give you a complete blow by blow, I will direct your attention to TVW to see the video of the entire two hour hearing. The bills discussed were 1186 and 1589 (Judicial), 1360 (Comprehensive), and 1551 (Local). There was much ground covered and, as you will see, there is considerable resistance from the Republican side of the aisle. I was pleased to be able to testify on behalf of the local bill (I come in at the one hour, 47 minute mark). Because time was severely restricted by the time I got there and I had really prepared to speak about the comprehensive bill, I wasn't at my best but it was good practice for what I hope will be many more efforts on behalf of our fine organization.
[UPDATE] For more photos and additional information on the day, Dina Johnson has posted her account at Washblog
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
It seems mobile home parks are being bought up around the county, and the residents are simply evicted. I urge you to read Chad’s blog before continuing.
At root in this issue is a cultural imperative that declares profit to be more important than people. It is all about the right of the owner to make as much profit as possible, with the fewest possible restrictions. Such restrictions as do apply are generally intended to protect society at large, with little or no regard to how individual citizens are affected.
You see this imperative at work when thousands and thousands of jobs are outsourced to foreign job markets where labor costs are lower. This is done in the name of “remaining competitive,” and the families that are devastated by the loss of income and benefits simply don’t matter.
You see it when the huge WalMart store comes to town, especially in smaller communities, and the mom and pop stores have to close up shop because they simply can’t compete. Never mind the WalMart policy of utilizing part time employees for the majority of their positions so they can pay minimum wage and avoid paying benefits. It’s called “externalizing costs.”
In the case of Mariner Village, the prioritization of profit over people is glaring! A “group of investors” looked at the profit potential of the park in question, without regard to the human cost, which would simply be “externalized.” They purchased it at a whopping $1.3 million (if memory serves) and set about surveying and consulting with the planning department. The pesky little matter of 158 residential households was a minor inconvenience, easily disposed of under current law.
The articles I have read on this subject couch it mostly in terms of the rights of owners. That was the point of the Supreme Court ruling cited in Jerry Cornfield’s article. While the plight of the residents is vividly described, there is little or no mention of their rights. This is because, for all practical purposes, they don’t have any.
Let me go on record here and now as declaring this to be much more that an ownership issue. This is about HUMAN RIGHTS and SOCIAL JUSTICE!
Let’s take a look at the people involved. I have only spoken with two of the residents of Mariner Village, but am prepared to make a few generalizations that I would expect to hold up under close scrutiny. This being a Seniors Only park, most of the residents are retired and living on fixed incomes. There are probably more widows than widowers, and a large proportion of couples who have been together for 30, 40 and even 50 years. These people have worked all their lives and paid their dues. Some will have owned businesses. Most will have owned their own homes at one time or another. Upon retiring, they were forced by economic reality to “downscale” their lives in various ways, one of which was to buy an affordable manufactured home and park it in a clean, well-maintained park where the space rental was something their fixed incomes could support.
Now they face eviction. They are responsible for moving their homes or paying to have them demolished and carted away. The “group of investors” bears no part of this responsibility. Costs externalized. With nine other mobile home parks in Snohomish County facing the same problem, there are no spaces available. Can they buy a lot to put it on? Not likely with property values being what they are. They can put their homes up for sale, but who will buy under these circumstances? And what would they be willing to pay?
Finally, consider the previous owners of this mobile home park. With spaces renting for $500 and up, they probably had a monthly income in the neighborhood of $80K or so. Property taxes and maintenance costs were passed through to the renters, so it is safe to assume a comfortable monthly income in the $30-$50K range, if not more. And they had the pleasure of knowing they were providing a valuable service to 158 households.
Ultimately, this is about who we are as Americans, Washingtonians and citizens of Snohomish County. This is about the cultural imperative that we create. These people are us, folks. We are them. They are being downscaled right out of their homes and the communities they love, even as those same communities - you and I - are upscaling our waterfronts, riverfronts and downtown cores.
Who are we, really?
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much, it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
In his piece from January 28th, Chircop writes about Mariner Village Mobile Home Park, a seniors-only park south of Everett that was sold to a group of investors in August of last year. Chircop writes,
"A representative with Fort Maier Homes, a Maryland homebuilder, recently approached Snohomish County planners, asking questions about traffic circulation, an early step in the development process. The representative also submitted mock-ups of a subdivision map with 363 townhouses, 38 cottages and 176 senior apartments. Tiscareno Associates, a Seattle architecture firm that has designed new townhouse developments in Everett, Bothell, Kent and Redmond, drafted the maps." Chircop adds, "Richard Beresford, of Mariner Village Mobile Home Park, LLC, says plans to develop aren't solid, and that they may choose to preserve the park."
The story points out that it is common in this state for the residents of these parks to own their mobile homes but only rent the land on which it sets. This arrangement leaves them increasingly vulnerable to the lucrative development market. When the park is slated for closure, the residents are forced to relocate. In many cases the mobile homes are too old to move, leaving the owners with no choice but to pay to have them demolished. In some cases residents could still be saddled with mortgage payments after tearing down their own homes. Chircop introduces us to Tony Carnaghi:
""I'm sick," said Carnaghi, 64, who paid $20,000 for a mobile home at Mariner Village in May. Carnaghi and his wife left Maine this summer to settle in Washington for its milder winters and to be close to his stepson and six grandchildren in Bremerton. They had just hung up the last photo on their wall when they learned of the possible development." ""Where do you go from here? You put your last dime into a place that you thought you were going to stay for the rest of your life ... "said Carnaghi, his deep voice trailing off."
The Carnaghis and other residents of the Mariner Village Mobile Home Park are far from alone in this situation. Between 2006 and 2008, 10 mobile homes in Snohomish County are slated to close, displacing 533 families, according to the state Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development. Statewide 36 parks, with 1,342 households, are scheduled to close in that time frame, according to the department; which brings us to Rep. Brian Sullivan (D-21st LD):
According to back-to-back columns from Jerry Cornfield on January 28th and January 30th state lawmakers, led by Rep. Sullivan, are looking into ways to help ease some of the potential hardship created for these mobile home park dwellers when they are faced with the eviction notice. Cornfield points out that Sullivan has introduced HB 1621 which would provide for a one year window of exclusivity for the residents of a mobile home park to secure a financing stream to purchase the park before it could be sold to outside investors. However similar legislation has been struck down in the past as unconstitutional on the grounds that it might limit the property rights of the park owners. Already the Manufactured Housing Communities of Washington, a group representing owners of 500 mobile home parks in the state, is lining up in opposition to this measure. Cornfield writes of Sullivan, "Sullivan said he "tried to craft this bill so maybe we can get around the constitutional question. I admit it's still a little fuzzy at this point." Cornfield writes about a group in Snohomish County, SOS Homes:
""We're not asking for anything but a fair chance. We'd pay the market rate," said (Kylin) Parks (president of SOS Homes, a coalition of mobile park homeowners associations in Snohomish County), who helped Sullivan model the bill on laws in New Hampshire and Minnesota." ""We don't want to take any property rights away, she said.” We just want a chance to save our homes.""
Another bill, HB 1668, co-sponsored by Sullivan, would require park owners to increase the minimum lease option to tenants from one year to five and, Cornfield points out, "Lawmakers and the governor also want to put $4 million into the fund used to help residents relocate from shuttered parks. That fund is now empty. The money, if available, can be used to move a mobile home to a new site or demolish it if there is nowhere for it to go."
As a sort of exclamation point to this post, I reprint this Letter to the Editor from today's Everett Herald:
"I live at Evergreen Estates, a mobile home community in Lynnwood. I have lived here for over 14 years. I was dumbfounded to get a notice terminating my residence because the land had been sold for commercial use.
Lynnwood Properties, LLC has given us one year to move or sell our homes or pay to have our homes demolished.
They were kind enough to list the relocation assistance address and phone number on their notice. We who live here have applied for relocation assistance funds; only to find out that there is no money remaining in the relocation assistance fund.
All of us who reside here have medical problems, are retired, low-income or have no extra money.
Most of us have tried to sell our homes. I have run ads in the paper and had my home on Craig's List. Once people find out my mobile home has to be moved, they have no interest in buying. They are closing so many communities in Snohomish County that we cannot find a place to move our home, even if we had the money. I have sent letters to several mobile home communities requesting information regarding available open spaces, along with a photograph of my home and a self-addressed, stamped, return envelope. I received a few back, stating they have no open spaces. Most did not even answer my request.
The assessor's office has been no help, as zoning has changed in Lynnwood. The value of our homes has dropped to almost nothing - great for claiming a loss on your taxes, but not for selling.
The remaining residents will ask the new owners for assistance, but there is no guarantee that they will help us.
All of us here feel left out in the cold; we are sick, old, tired, scared and nervous wrecks. We need help.
PAT HAYES
Lynnwood"
Regardless of the outcome in the state legislature, I am guessing this issue won’t stop there with Sullivan who has already announced a run for Snohomish County Council later this year. With the issues of over-development and affordable housing always at the forefront in the largely rural county, Sullivan can only enhance his standing with the Progressive community there by becoming the champion of this cause.
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
The Senate Committee on Government Operations and Elections will hold their first public hearing on SB 5278 - Concerning use of public funds to finance campaigns for local office.
This bill is Prime Sponsored by Senator Rosa Franklin and is vital to allowing races for city and county council, as well as fire distrct, school district and other local races to be publicly financed.
On the same day, the committee will discuss SB 5226 Providing for public funding of judicial campaigns. (Governor Gregoire's proposed legislation). The public is invited to sit in but not engage in the discussion.
Wednesday, February 7th:
The House Committee on State Government and Tribal Affairs will hold its first public hearing on HB 1360 - Regarding public financing of campaigns.
This bill is Prime Sponsored by Rep. Mark Miloscia and would allow for full public financing of all state-wide and legislative races. (The Comprehensive Bill).
For those who are able to make the trip to Olympia, these are critical hearings to show the legislature that the citizens are backing this legislation. For information on the best way to get there and to add to the "united we stand" effect, go to the Washington Public Campaigns website to connect with them on ariival times and procedures. Unfortunately, these hearings take place in the afternoons so it would be best to attempt to make carpooling arrangements so that you have the least hassle with traffic on the way home. The folks at WPC may be helpful with that as well.
Whether you can get to Olympia or not, Contact Your Legislators to let them know you support Clean Elections. If you are going to Olympia, let them know you will be there and try to arrange a visit with them on this subject.
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-Chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
In the Washington Senate, the following bills have been filed:
SB-5278 – Concerning use of public funds to finance campaigns for local office.
The Primary Sponsor of this bill is Sen. Rosa Franklin from the 29th LD. Co-sponsors include: Jim Kastama (25th LD), Adam Kline (37th LD), Harriet Spanel (40th LD), Karen Keiser (33rd LD), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (36th LD), Rosemary McAuliffe (1st LD), Debbie Regala (27th LD), Craig Pridemore (49th LD), Erik Poulsen (34th LD), Karen Fraser (22nd LD), Marilyn Rasmussen (2nd LD), and Phil Rockerfeller (23rd LD). This bill is the same one that passed out of the Senate last year but did not get out of the House due to the short session. The bill will allow for local and regional governments to voluntarily create mechanisms to publicly finance campaigns at that level. This bill has been referred to the Government Operations and Elections Committee
SB-5226 - Providing for public funding of judicial campaigns.
This bill was requested by Governor Gregoire and the language, in large part, was crafted by her legislative affairs office. The Prime Sponsor in the Senate is Eric Oemig (45th LD), Vice-chair of the Government Operations and Elections Committee. Co-sponsors include: Darlene Fairley (32dn LD), Chair of that committee, Phil Rockerfeller (23rd LD), Jeanne Kohl-Welles (36th LD), and Adam Kline (37th LD). Although I believe that some of the financial thresholds in this bill are a bit on the high end and, therefore, do not quite embrace the true nature of Clean Elections, the fact that it was requested by the governor and is sponsored by both the Chair and Vice-chair of the responsible committee increases its chances for passage and may well be the first step toward state-wide public financing.
SB-5510 – Regarding Public Financing of Campaigns.
Senator Jim Kastama (25th LD) is the Prime Sponsor of this bill that would call for public financing of all state-wide and legislative campaigns in Washington State. The co-sponsors include: Eric Oemig (45th LD) and Adam Kline (37th LD). This bill will require the most work on the part of concerned citizens but will produce the biggest result. As you can see, the list of sponsors is short. However, Senators Oemig and Kline are both on the responsible committee (Government Operations and Elections) and should be very influential in this effort.
If you see your senator in the names listed above, please call and/or email them and thank them for stepping forward. If your senator’s name is not included above, call and/or email them and ask them to give their attention to these bills and help get them to the governor’s desk for signature this session.
On the House side we will start with the companion bill to SB-5510. HB-1360 – Regarding the Public Financing of Campaigns.
HB-1360 contains almost identical language to SB-5510. The Prime sponsor for this bill is Mark Miloscia (30th LD), a member of the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee where this bill will be referred in the House. Co-sponsors include: Maralyn Chase (32nd LD), Ruth Kagi (32nd LD), Joe McDermott (34th LD), Bob Hasegawa (11th LD), Eric Pettigrew (37th LD), Tim Ormsby (3rd LD), Sherry Appleton (23rd LD), Jim McIntire (46th LD), and Roger Goodman (45th LD).
HB-1186 – Modifying Provisions on Judicial Campaigns
Shay Schual-Berke (33rd LD) is the Prime Sponsor of this bill that, in my opinion, gets us closer to the spirit of Clean Elections for the State Court of Appeals and the State Supreme Court races. The co-sponsors for this bill include: Sam Hunt (22nd LD), Chair of the State Government and Tribal Affairs Committee, Hans Dunshee (44th LD), Helen Sommers (36th LD), Jeannie Darneille (27th LD), Eileen Cody (34th LD), Mary Lou Dickerson (36th LD), Tami Green (28th LD), Sharon Tomiko Santos (37th LD), Patricia Lantz (26th LD), Phyllis Kenney (46th LD), Mary Helen Roberts (21st LD), Joe McDermott (34th LD), Maralyn Chase (32nd LD), Ruth Kagi (32nd LD), Eric Pettigrew (37th LD), Mark Miloscia (30th LD), Sherry Appleton (23rd LD), and Tim Ormsby (3rd LD). In addition, I have been told by Mike Sells (38th LD) that he is in support of this bill.
As of this writing there is no House companion bill to SB-5278 for local elections. However, Joe McDermott (34th LD) has indicated that he will have that bill introduced shortly and Mike Sells (38th LD) has informed me that he will be signing on as a co-sponsor.
[UPDATE] HB-1551 - Allowing Public Funding of Local Office Campaigns was just filed today by Joe McDermott.Co-sponsors are: Miloscia, Dunshee, Sells, Cody, Green, Ormsby, Appleton, Hunt, Chase, Schual-Berke, Roberts, Hasegawa, Kagi, McIntire, Bill Fromhold (49th LD), Jim Moeller (49th LD), Jamie Pedersen (43rd LD), and Christine Rolfes (23rd LD).
Again, if you see your representative mentioned above please thank them. If your representative is not mentioned, please contact them and ask for their support. On Thursday, January 25th, the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee will be holding their first public hearing on SB-5226 (you obviously get quick action when you’re the governor). From the email notification sent out by WPC:
First Clean Elections Bill Hearing in Olympia:
Thursday, January 25 3:30 p.m.
Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee
Senate Hearing Room 2
J.A. Cherberg Building
Olympia, WA
Public Hearing:
1. SB 5226, Providing for public funding of judicial campaigns
===================================
IMPORTANT: If you can attend, RSVP to:
Sarajane Siegfriedt (WPC Lobbyist)
sarajane3h@comcast.net
Arrive at the Hearing by 3 p.m. to sign in as PRO and get a seat.
All Clean Elections supporters who can come early:
Rendezvous (optional) from 1:00 p.m. on, in the Cherberg Building or a nearby church, location to be posted soon on our website
(www.washclean.org).This will be a pre-hearing briefing, with information packets for everyone.
EVERYONE: Prior to Thursday, please email each of the legislators on the committee with a few sentences saying why you support this bill.
Use the bill number in the subject line and give your legislative district with your signature.
========================================
Members, Senate Government Operations & Elections Committee:
Darlene Fairley, Chair (D) - 32nd LD fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov
Eric Oemig, Vice Chair (D) - 45th LD oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov
Pam Roach, Ranking Minority Mbr (R) 31st LD roach.pam@leg.wa.gov
Don Benton (R) 17th LD benton.don@leg.wa.gov
Adam Kline (D) 37th LD kline.adam@leg.wa.gov
Craig Pridemore (D) 49th LD pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov
Dan Swecker (R) 20th LD swecker.dan@leg.wa.gov
4 Democrats and 3 Republicans
Please copy Sarajane Siegfriedt bcc on your emails.
Sarajane3h@comcast.net
=================
Craig Salins
WPC Executive Coordinator
206-784-9695
craig@washclean.org
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Democracy for Snohomish County
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-chair, Director of Communications
Democracy for Snohomish County
Seattle Town Hall Panel: From left: John King, WPC Policy Committee Chair; WA Rep. Mark Miloscia; AZ Sen. Ed Ableser, WA Sen.-elect Eric Oemig; WA Rep. Shay Schual-Berke; Keynote Speaker David Sirota; Emcee Ken Alhadeff; WA Sen. Jim Kastama; ME Rep. Linda Valentino. (Photo courtesy of Dina Lydia)I am a big fan of Sirota’s so I was especially pleased to see the following on Saturday morning from Sirota's Blog:
Democrats, Corruption & the Difference Between Two Washingtons
”The difference between what happened late this week in Washington, D.C. and what happened at the very same time in Washington State is a good example of how people in our nation’s capital are still very much oblivious to what the rest of society thinks is acceptable behavior.”
In his post, Sirota writes about an article from MSNBC about a Democratic fundraiser in Washington DC held only hours after they had passed so-called “Lobby Reform” measures in the newly Democratic controlled congress and compares that to the event he had just headlined in Seattle, Washington.
”As I sit here in a hotel room reading the MSNBC report after being at this terrific event here in Seattle, I am simultaneously embarrassed and proud to have worked in Democratic politics. I am embarrassed that, at a time state legislators are putting their political capital on the line to truly clean up politics, many (though not all) of their counterparts in Congress clearly think “reform” is the punchline of a joke. Public Campaign’s David Donnelly says, “It sends a very mixed message to be on one hand saying that they’re clamping down on lobbyists, but then raising money from those very same lobbyists that they say are part of the problem.” I’d say that’s putting it mildly - it’s really making a mockery out of our party’s name by insulting the public’s intelligence and so openly trying to pull a fast one on the American people.
But I am also proud. I met legislators tonight who have guts - real guts - to indict a system they themselves have come up through, and that they are now willing to admit is inherently corrupt. Make no mistake - these are not big-time congresspeople with the huge staffs of yes people and K Street entourages that now insulate our federal representatives from their own constituents, and make sure there is a reelection support system no matter how often they sell out. No, these are actual citizen legislators - people who live out here in the Real World, who can’t bring themselves to lie with a smile about reform like so many folks in D.C. It will be up to the people of Washington State to help these legislators push public financing of elections by creating the grassroots political energy necessary to enact such power-challenging reforms - but after such an energetic showing tonight (and subsequent forums in cities across the state), I’m hopeful public financing is going to happen here, if not this year, then soon in the future.”
Knowing that folks like the panels in Everett and Seattle (especially our own state legislators) are willing to put themselves on the line for something as important as ensuring the ownership of our democracy and electoral system remains in the hands of the citizens, I am more inspired than ever that we can make this happen. I hope you will join the movement to “Take our Country Back!”
Peace,
Chad Shue
Vice-Chair - Director of Communications
Democracy for Snohomish County
(Photo and Button courtesy of Dina Lydia Johnson)
The evening began with a presentation by John King from WPC. King is the Chair of the Policy Committee for WPC and, as such, is responsible for helping to develop legislation and find legislators who will be willing to sponsor that legislation (with or without some modification) through the legislative session. This year WPC is proposing three pieces of legislation. The first will be, as mentioned, a repeat of the effort to repeal the current ban on local financing. This bill would only allow for cities and counties, as well as various regional elective boards (schools and fire districts for example) to voluntarily establish public financing plans for those elections. The hopes for passage are high based upon the voluntary nature and the fact that the details would be left to the local and regional authorities. The second piece of legislation is a plan to publicly finance judicial campaigns at the State level - Court of Appeals and Supreme Court. The proposed legislation is based on the successful model set in North Carolina where such a policy has been in place for the past couple of election cycles. The hopes for passage here are also high based on a request from Governor Gregoire that some form of this legislation be passed this year and the public outcry over the overt efforts of some to influence the outcome of certain Supreme Court races by pouring extreme amounts of money into the process. State Representative Shay Schual-Berke (D-WA 33) will be the prime sponsor for this legislation in the Washington House.
The third proposal is for a comprehensive bill that would allow for public financing of all statewide races from Governor to Secretary of State to the same judicial races noted above as well as all legislative races. The effect of this legislation would be to make Washington the 4th state in the country (after Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut) to have full public financing of political campaigns. It should be noted that in all of these cases, the access to such public funds would be completely voluntary and that there are no provisions to curtail the ability of any individual or group to spend any funds except as currently exist under state law. In other words, the only people who are subject to any limitations are the candidates themselves. But then, after all, aren’t those the folks we should be most concerned about? The hopes for passage of this legislation, at least in this session, are not very high even though there are already prime sponsors lined up in both the Washington House - Rep. Mark Miloscia (D- WA 30) and Senate – Sen. Jim Kastama (D WA 25).
Representative Valentino and Senator Ableser spoke quite eloquently about the impact of Clean Elections on them personally as well as on their respective states. One of the most encouraging themes was the fact that participation in the system has been growing each year and is embraced by the major political parties in both states. Valentino spoke with great pride in the fact that, of the 151 seats in the Maine House of Representatives, 149 were contested in the last election and Ableser was quick to point out how the make-up of the candidates in Arizona has shifted from the independently wealthy to citizens from every stripe; true testimonials to the intent of Clean Elections in returning the democratic process back to the people. A surprising (at least to me) fact to come from both of their presentations was the financial impact on the voters of their states with regard to publicly financing political campaigns. In each case the cost per voter was determined to be less than $3.50 per year**. Reassuringly, this is approximately the same estimate on the part of John King and WPC for their comprehensive proposal.
**CORRECTION**
The cost should be stated as "PER CITIZEN" and not "PER VOTER". Thanks to "The Seagull" for pointing this out in the comments.
Imagine that, for less than one grande mocha per year, the citizens of Washington State could ensure that their elected representatives could stop having to listen to lobbyists on either side of the political spectrum, could stop spending their campaign time seeking out large dollar contributors, and start spending the their valuable time speaking directly to their constituents and voting on legislation simply because it is the right thing to do and not worry that it could have a negative effect on the funding for their next campaign.
What can you do to make this happen? For starters you can and should phone, email, and snail mail your legislators in Olympia and let them know that you are concerned about the negative impact of money on our political process. As early as next week, you should let them know that you are hoping that they will vote for any Clean Elections legislation that comes before them. Then, as soon as we have the actual bill numbers, contact them again with the specific bill number and ask them to sign on as a co-sponsor to ensure that leadership will bring these proposed bills to the floor of each body for a vote. To be informed of any action that is taking place on this legislation, you should be signed up to receive email alerts from WPC by going to their website at http://www.washclean.org/. In addition to reaching out to your specific legislator, if you have the time, you should consider traveling to Olympia to attend the public meetings of the various committees where these bills will be debated. The dates and times for these meeting will be announced by the WPC as soon as they have the information. Where possible, “legislative day caravans” will be organized to allow for the largest turnouts possible.
Finally, and probably most importantly, talk to your neighbors or, if you do not feel comfortable doing this on your own, contact groups such as WPC or Democracy for Snohomish County to find out when and where there will be other public forums on this issue and encourage your friends and neighbors to attend. We Washingtonians pride ourselves on our “populist bent” yet our most precious right – the right to determine our system of governance - is being allowed to drift into the wallets of those who are willing to pay to achieve their specific goals. It is time to step up and sacrifice that yearly latte to ensure that we, the people, own our government and our democracy.
Peace,
Chad Shue,
Vice-Chair – Director of Communications
Democracy for Snohomish County
