Joni Balter on KUOW Weekday this morning as an alleged "expert" on the Supreme Court races. (audio clip @ 5:58)
Hands down, the group that's spending and spending this year is the Building Industry Association of Washington. And you know, I don't think the story's been written and I don't know the answer myself, but what is the agenda here specifically? Is this about growth management? What is this actually about?(What's it all about, indeed). Expert Balter's first step should have been to telephone the BIAW and ask. But she didn't bother.
I called BIAW spokeswoman Erin Shannon to ask (1) "Did Joni Balter ever contact you or any other BIAW official to ask about your agenda with the Supreme Court?",and (2) "What is the BIAW's agenda with the Supreme Court?". The answer to (1) was "No". The short answer to (2) is: "Judges legislating from the bench, property rights and public disclosure." There is undoubtedly more of a back story, but it's not all that hard to understand why the heavily regulated building industry might be interested in property rights, open government and judicial restraint. Especially when the executive and legislature are dominated by adversarial interests and where the Supreme Court, as Joni Balter's own editorial board wrote this weekend, "has been too deferential to those in authority":
The BIAW has posted a more detailed series of articles about its concerns with the Supreme Court. Naturally, there are other sides to these issues, but you'll learn more from reading the BIAW's own analysis than you would from listening to the ignorant fulminations of Joni Balter and that other lazy contumelious liberal columnist.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 18, 2006 08:01 PM | Email ThisBalter and Connelly are mostly just frustrated, like the rest of the MSM, because their once powerful voices are fading fast.
Posted by: Jeff B. on September 18, 2006 08:33 PMProgressive Majority and SEIU, through Working Families Who Have Had Enough have spent a lot of money to knock off Groen. Don't suppose Joni is concerned about what their motives are.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2006 08:41 PMAnd btw, SouthernRoots, my kid is vaguely looking at Auburn University. Is it worth looking at for a college choice?
Posted by: Misty on September 18, 2006 08:49 PMStefan makes the best point - why didn't Joni just pick up the phone and talk to BIAW? Isn't that what real journalists do?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 18, 2006 10:35 PMThe local lefties reliably complain about the "name calling," yet never offer solutions as to how one appropriately labels the obvious inadequacy for the assigned task, such as in the case of Balter. There is simply no way to soft pedal loopy incompetance and myopic partisanship.
Posted by: scott158 on September 19, 2006 03:50 AMI would also reference this post as well
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/006880.html
Reading the BIAW's articles it is pretty clear they want the court to overturn legislative action that they feel threatens property rights.
Personally I think the court should at times overturn the legislature, but it is a bit diseneguos to call that judicial restraint. You can't call it judicial activism when the court overturns laws you like, and not when they overturn ones you don't.
Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 06:53 AMAll this talk about "builders' agenda" is nonsense - there's just a group of public sector leaches that get what they want from the Court - and they want more.
Posted by: Working Stiff on September 19, 2006 07:10 AMEvery concrete guy, construction worker, framer, electrician, plumber, roofer, septic installer, landscaper, etc ad infinitum knows they have the BIAW looking after their interest. Do you see that anywhere else? This is on private jobs, BTW.
From unemployment compensation failures with the solution to bail out Boeing to Costco/WalMart special benefits from the ergonomic law or to a stupid listing of salmon as "endangered", the BIAW is there as a lone voice.
The battle by BIAW against the establishment all benefits the workers and the consumer. It appears they got the attention of the power elite.
Posted by: swatter on September 19, 2006 07:14 AMMy error was that SEIU was buying a lot of ads for incumbent justices and at the same time, it appears as if they were the seed money that got WFWHHE started.
But, that makes this a Lucas/Sheldon story, not BIAW.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 19, 2006 09:32 AMUnion dues pay for union bosses' good times
By DEROY MURDOCK
Labor Day, this country's mislabeled national work stoppage, inspires union bosses to march in parades honoring America's employees. Union members should use this occasion to learn where union chiefs spend their hard-earned dues.
Just as transparency rules now obligate corporations to pry open their books, the Bush administration insists that unions more thoroughly disclose their expenditures. This spending mainly comes from dues forcibly collected from rank-and-file members.
The Center for Union Facts (UnionFacts.com) has analyzed the Labor Department's "LM-2″ records for fiscal year 2005 and organized them in a user-friendly database. It details Big Labor's twin commitments to liberalism and luxury.
During the 2004 elections, the Center for Responsive Politics (OpenSecrets.org) reports, unions spent at least $61,484,080 in political contributions _ 87 percent to Democrats, 13 percent to Republicans. That year, a CNN exit poll found, 61 percent of union members voted for Democrat John Kerry, while 38 percent supported Republican George W. Bush.
Labor often backs very liberal causes. The National Education Association (NEA) contributed $1,210,000 to progressive groups, including the Fund to Protect Social Security ($250,000), People for the American Way ($51,000) and the Gay Lesbian and Straight Education Network ($5,000). Gay, straight or betwixt, it would not be immediately evident to anyone how any of this helps instructors teach kids to read and write.
If this money seems Mickey Mouse, just wait.
Seventeen unions spent $1,322,378 at various Disney resorts. The NEA paid $62,036 for events at various Disney properties. The American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees shelled out $100,999 for its Disneyland convention. And the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) dropped $125,467 on conferences at Disneyland and Disneyworld.
Even beyond Disney's reach, union honchos seem to inhabit a permanent Magic Kingdom. For them, the good life includes their salaries, the seas, and the skies.
One hundred top union executives made at least $280,000 annually, not counting benefits. And among them, 93 percent are male. NEA president Reg Weaver made $438,920, plus benefits. At his headquarters, 335 officers and employees scored $100,000 or more, averaging $140,977, before benefits. The typical teacher makes $47,808, NEA calculates.
Unions floated $109,286 on yachts. The NEA spent $11,797 to charter a yacht from a Hollywood, Fla., company. The Carpenters and Joiners paid the Montauk Yacht Club $27,099, while the International Association of Machinists (IAM) gave World Yacht $70,390 for a national conference.
Common workers ride in cramped airline cabins. The union bosses' slogan seems to be: "Let them fly coach."
While the UAW spent $5,386 for luggage tags and $55,168 on briefcases, even more fun ensued once captains of labor became airborne.
The Teamsters spent $24,958 for Cincinnati-based Executive Jet Management. According to its Web site, it offers "in-flight catering, from wine and cheese to gourmet meals" plus "ground transportation, including limos." Meanwhile, the IAM appropriated $256,749 to lease, insure, and maintain a Lear Jet.
Labor czars love plowing their members' money into gambling dens, specifically $1,933,534 in expenditures for events and parties at the Aladdin, Foxwoods, MGM Grand and other hotel-casinos. The Teamsters left at least $312,318 at various betting parlors, including $287,929 at Bally's Las Vegas.
Last February, the AFL-CIO's executive council gathered at San Diego's Hotel Del Coronado, a beautiful, Victorian, sun-splashed landmark. Its limited-view rooms start at $415 nightly, exclusive of food, bar and spa charges. But the Del Coronado is not Carpenters Local 1506's favorite place. In a handbill featuring a rat devouring the U.S. flag, the union denounced the resort "for Desecration of the American Way of Life" for hiring a non-union contractor. So, AFL-CIO leaders shrugged. They crossed the Carpenters' picket line and enjoyed their beachside retreat.
This is a matter of social justice.
If workers volunteer their money to underwrite this extravagance, so what? However, mandatory dues are extracted from employees who must join unions as a work requirement. Using dues to improve wages, benefits and safety is one thing. Shaking down employees so union leaders can live like royalty recalls the material conditions that made Karl Marx's blood boil.
As union members savor the late-summer sun this Labor Day, they should ask themselves if their well-merited dollars don't belong in their own pockets rather than in those of America's insatiable union bosses.
(New York commentator Deroy Murdock is a columnist with the Scripps Howard News Service and a senior fellow with the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in Arlington, Va.)
Copyright © 2006 Capitol Hill Blue. All rights reserved
From here on out, I shall refer to this as the "CUC(KOO) PAC"
Posted by: CUC(koo) PAC on September 19, 2006 10:13 AMOr perhaps you can recall Democrat Gov Mike Lowry who overruled the will of the voters when he forced Safeco upon the voters? Or does you memory only get cloudy when it is a Democrat involved?
Oh and he also wrote the majority opinion on the decision to allow killers to go free when it is determined that they "never meant to kill". Who recalls the Kristopher Kime case in which he was beast to death by a thug at the Mardi Gras celebration in Pioneer Square? His killer got off thanks to Judge Alexander. Who knows, tomorrow it may be your son, or your daughter killed at the hands of a thug who only needs to claim they never "meant to kill".
Posted by: pbj on September 19, 2006 10:23 AMBy the way in a representative democracy the will of the people is never paramount, nor should it be. While I believe the courts and the legislature, should for the most part defer, there are time when they should not.
Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 12:29 PMThat might apply in some versions of representative democracy, but our state constitution makes clear that the people are paramount in this state:
ARTICLE I, SECTION 1 POLITICAL POWER. "All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.and
ARTICLE II, SECTION 1 LEGISLATIVE POWERS, WHERE VESTED. The legislative authority of the state of Washington shall be vested in the legislature ... but the people reserve to themselves the power to propose bills, laws, and to enact or reject the same at the polls, independent of the legislature, and also reserve power, at their own option, to approve or reject at the polls any act, item, section, or part of any bill, act, or law passed by the legislature.Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on September 19, 2006 01:04 PM
BS! Your only point was in partisan hacking. I called you on it and you made up some crap about judicial restraint and representative democracy. You could care less about anything but ensuring the union socialist democrat apratchik continues.
Posted by: pbj on September 19, 2006 03:48 PMHowever in making laws the legislature is paramount. Notice how the provisions for initiatives come after the power to the legislature. Additionally the legislature can, although it would probably not be a smart thing, revoke laws made by the people. Additionally the limits placed on initiatives make them rather difficult to implement, meaning that the huge majority of laws come from the legislature. some of which likely would not garner public support. (both liberal and conservative laws).
Posted by: Giffy on September 19, 2006 05:56 PMYou've got it all backwards. Overturning laws of any sort is not judicial activism, unless you believe the NY Times:
http://patterico.com/2006/09/12/5124/new-york-times-performs-sleight-of-hand-on-judicial-activism/
Making laws from the bench in spite contrary of legislation based upon the "opinion" of a judge is activism. Overturning legislation with respect to property rights that is not in line with the constitution is the courts job. It is not activism. Creating extra or expanding the rights of the government to take private property either under eminent domain or "the public interest" or other more subtle form of takings, particularly without compensation is absolutely against the constitution and constitutes judicial activism.