NPR had a report last week on Seattle's successful Initiative 91, prohibiting taxpayer subsidies of sports teams.
The report quotes initiative organizer Chris Van Dyk and Tom Montgomery, described as "the Chris Van Dyk of Minnesota". Montgomery successfully held off taxpayer subsidies for the Twins baseball team for years, but eventually lost the war:
It's hard to maintain the level of indignation and outrage necessary. Ultimately they kind of wore people down and figured out an end run around the voters.No surprise, really. A sports franchise and other interested parties can invest millions to procure millions more from the public treasury. Hardly a fair match for the majority of citizens who hate this stuff, but can only afford to do so much to protect themselves from what these subsidies cost per individual. That's how government by the people is supposed to work, isn't it? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 19, 2006 12:32 PM | Email This
Shortly after I moved here 15 years ago, a couple was charged with scalding their infant daughter to death. Trial #1, hung jury. Trial #2, hung jury. Trial #3, conviction. If these people did kill their daughter, I can't think of a punishment severe enough. And I have consistently supported Norm Maleng in his position as county prosecutor.
But how many bites at the apple does the government get? By trial #3, the defendant's money was exhausted.
Gummint has the power to wear us all down.
Posted by: Joe Waldron on November 19, 2006 01:09 PMThe theory is that if the trial is done properly, the jury will agree on whether the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. (Of course a wacky juror can throw this theory off.)
Once the defendant is found not guilty, the government can't appeal. But if he's found guilty, the defense can appeal. That's a (reasonable IMHO) bias in favor of defendants.
Finally, I should note that the government doesn't always have better resources than the defendant. Rich defendants can afford more and better attorneys than the government, and have more incentive to do hire them. But you're right: the poor are often represented poorly.
Posted by: Bruce on November 19, 2006 01:36 PMWe just lost I-933 as well. Even if you don't want do do something, someone out there does and Joe said it right: they just wear you down.
And I don't how this differs from complaining about "the overall scheme of attitudes and rules that invite such financing". The attitude is rational self-interest; the rules are the problem.
Posted by: Bruce on November 19, 2006 03:25 PMTo tackle the distorting effect of money on politics, go back to the root cause -- the fact that it is too easy for government to confiscate and transfer.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on November 19, 2006 03:33 PMIn western Europe, doesn't government have far more economic power than in the US, yet doesn't money have less influence on politics? That's my impression, though I'm sure there are data points to argue otherwise.
Ironically, while you rail against transferring wealth from the many to the few, conservatives seem more upset about transferring money from the few to the many (estate tax, land use regulations, etc.). I suppose you just don't like transfers, period -- but then don't claim to be such a populist.
Posted by: Bruce on November 19, 2006 04:24 PMI'm not buying this. There are examples where the weaker a government is the more elections matter. Just look at the Seattle Monorail Project election in 2002. That election meant everything to SMP - literally its existence vs. no existence - and SMP was an inherently weak government.
Money was spent in that election, but only by the self-interested proponents (the contractors, financiers, and labor unions). There was basically no money spent in opposition. The many who were harmed by SMP - the taxpayers who had $120,000,000 taken from them and wasted by that government - had no means to collectively oppose that ballot measure. No one told us how we would be ripped off if it passed.
Campaign spending is basically even when candidates from two political parties square off in an election. But when a tax measure goes on the ballot, the money only gets spent by one side. The "Bridging the Gap" and "Transit Now" measures several weeks ago fit the same pattern as the SMP ballot measure.
The RTID/ST2 ballot measure next year will have millions spent in support (by self-interested, deep-pocket proponents). Little, if any, will be spent in opposition. That election will matter a great deal, but since money equals speech, one side will be yelling and one side will be silent. The spending there will be huge, and profoundly uneven. All that spending will have nothing to do with whether ST or RTID is a "strong" government.
One of my points was unclear. By "strong" govt I meant a govt that has a lot of spending power. The more power, the more everyone (including special interests) cares. I was agreeing with Stefan that, if you limit govt's power, then special interests would care less about elections. But I still don't think most people want to limit govt's power.
As for the monorail, it's hard to design a political system that will protect you from the idiocy of so many public officials and the majority of voters. At least it didn't kill thousands of people, maim tends of thousands, cost a trillion dollars, and cause the whole world to hate us. (Oh, sorry, cheap shot.)
Spoken like a true fascist.
Of course people want to limit governments' power. The example of monorail proves why governments should be limited. That entity sold itself to the voters as having limits that would protect them (a bonding limit, a limit on not spending tax money on operating subsidies after 2020, etc.).
What the public really needed was a spending limit.
If monorail had had one of those it would not have spiraled out of control for three years. The big problem that everyone saw when the taxing started would have stopped it then.
If you remember, the taxes immediately started coming in 30% below projections. It was immediately apparent to everyone at SMP that the only way to finance the project would be to spend far too much on interest. But without spending limits, that government just kept on taxing and wasting money.
What do you think is wrong with spending limits? They might have prevented the monorail debacle.
And sure, the monorail plan should have been more specific in funding details, but those would invariably have contained some flexibility, so I doubt they would have killed the project much earlier than it got killed anyway.
Posted by: Bruce on November 20, 2006 11:53 AMBruce,
There is no question the monorail project should have had spending limits. The cost projections (before the vote) were in something called "ETC Seattle Popular Monorail Plan." That August 5, 2002 document was in turn adopted by the board of SMP right after the voters approved the formation of SMP three months later.
On page 2 that document says: ". . . the ETC estimates that project costs to build the Green Line would be $1.29 billion (in year 2002 dollars) and that all project capital costs - including project costs plus financing costs, agency costs, project reserves, a construction escalator to account for construction over time, and a planning allowance - would total $1.749 billion (in year of expenditure dollars)."
That is the spending budget that should have been part of the ballot measure. Sure, a little above or below, fine. But three and a half years after the vote, the actual numbers SMP released involved up to $11,000,000,000 in taxes. That is a $9 billion increase over what voters were told. Some flexibility, fine, but a spending limit would have most definitely cut this fiasco short and saved the taxpayers money.
SMP knew the increase would be on that magnitude once the first tax collections came in so low, but it did not pull the plug. It would have had to if there was a spending limit (say, $2 billion - giving them some cushion over their pre-vote estimate).
THAT is why transportation projects need spending limits - to protect the public.