January 18, 2007
And I'll spend the money on strippers and booze
House Democrats yesterday introduced a bill, HB 1360, to provide public financing to campaigns for the legislature and statewide offices. This is a reprehensible attack on civil liberties. Not only does this force citizens to pay for objectionable political speech, but seems specifically designed to favor campaigns for expanding government and the redistribution of wealth. The proposed system is a transfer of assets and political voice from the minority which currently pays the most in taxes, primarily benefitting candidates who would seek to raise taxes even further.
The proposal is not just morally repugnant but wasteful. If it's enacted, I'll break my earlier vow and run for state office on an anti-public financing platform. To illustrate how stupid public financing is, I will obtain public financing and spend the money on the most lavish campaign event imaginable, featuring lots of strippers and free booze.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 18, 2007
11:10 AM | Email This
1. Sign me up!
2. And Gregoire is going to spend our money on a new stadium for the Sonics.
3. My God, the grand American Experiment is almost dead - isn't it?
4. strippers! free booze! that's a candicacy that will win!
5. Not a big booze and stipper kind of guy but add to that free bucket of balls at the driving range and count me in.
6. Hey, I'll run against you - every year! Nothing like a 3 month taxpayer-financed party every 12 months...
7. If you are going to quote Scott Kurtz, at least get it right:
"Despite the fact that my weapons and armor are in desperate need of repair, I blow the entire reward on ale and whores."
8. Toby Nixon, where is the State Republican party in all this? State income tax proposed by a Democrat? State funding campaigns?
You think the problem is nationals? Well, rise above them and attack these whack jobs!!
Sing to the tune of "where or where has my doggie gone...." and add "where or where has the Republican party gone....".
9. Well, if you include male strippers you might be surprised how many votes you get from certain quarters of The City. The Europeanization of our politics continues at a frightful pace whereby Ted Kennedy represents the center and concepts like small government are passed around as samizdat literature amongst a handful of true believers. I see the Dems in DC now want to register bloggers. Why do liberals dislike those first two amendments so much anyway? Oh, if you have the party in October Ayinger Oktoberfest (merely the finest beer in the world) will be available in draft form. One for each hand please....
10. I just read the bill. It appears to pretty effectively take away any potential financial benefit to not being publicly financed and to create additional reporting burdens for those who opt out.
11. They just can't stop themselves, can they? Give 'em this kind of majority and they WILL go crazy (even tho they said they won't)
12. Speaking of morally repugnant, trying to buy a seat on the Supreme Court takes the cake.
Good thing you guys lost.
13. Jim, we won. We bought the judgeship.
Signed,
Unions, WEA, Moonbats
14. I am in! Booze and Strippers, the life for me.
15. Public financing, free condoms for prisoners, and an income tax. And they say they are holding themselves back? I can't imagine what is next!
16. Sharkansky for Governor! It's about time somebody brought the Party back to politics!
17. Having Stefan run for office would be the ONE good thing that would result from this atrocity a.k.a. HB 1360 making it into the RCWs.
SIDEBAR: Checkbook ready, if Stefan runs.
18. Stefan,
Hugh Foskett made the COVER of the Stranger Jan 2007. Given your party, could you make the cover too?
We have three open spots on the 43rd slate. GOP v Jami Pete.. GOP v Chopp GOP v Ed.
G.
19. **free condoms for prisoners**
How about giving the prisoners a cold shower?
20. If you're worried about the influence of unions, WEA, MoveOn, or any of the other Special Interest groups, you have to see that public campaign financing is a pretty good idea. This is about letting regular people run for office, without selling their souls and their votes to some gang with a big pot of money.
In Maine and Arizona, where the people passed public financing by Initiative because their Legislatures wouldn't go for it, they've been able to elect farmers, firemen, school teachers, homemakers -- real people who understand the problems of their neighbors. Their candidates actually talk to voters, instead of spending all their time dialing for dollars and making deals for donations. That benefits all kinds of voters.
In fact, in those states that have public financing, both Republicans and Democrats run "clean" campaigns, and win. In Arizona elections over the last 3 cycles, 68 Republicans and 61 Democrats won seats using public funds.
Citizens pay for reprehensible political speech every day. You don't think a group like the SEIU backs a candidate out of the goodness of their hearts, do you? No! They expect a payback, with interest. That payback comes out of your pocket and mine, when the legislators they buy pass laws that profit them at our expense. Wouldn't it be better, if lawmakers had to pay US back?
The only way to accomplish that, is for US to fund their campaigns. That's what public financing means.
21. 19: free are ok--providing legislators themselves are required to deliver them personally to our state's 'guests' i.s. their constituents.
a little gift from your legislator. sure beats a calendar with pictures of landscapes.
22. Stefan could file to run against Frank Chopp. Then get 200 people in the 43rd district to donate $5.00 to his campaign. This would give him $55,000.00 in public funds to spend -- $25,000.00 for the primary and $30,000.00 for the general. A 55-to-1 return on investment! NOT BAD!
23. I think Stefan should run for governor. That would be $500,000 for the primary alone. Instead of strippers and booze I think he should "hire" all of us regular posters as "consultants." I'll donate $5.00 for 1/200th of $500,000.
24. Did you catch the part about moving Veterans Day to election day in election years? That's right, they want to make sure all those government workers who get V-Day off have all day to get to the polls, while people working in the private sector who DON'T GET VETERANS DAY OFF will have to squeeze voting in before or after work. Just another power grab to assure democrats never lose another so-called "election".
25. HOpe you will consider public office. And keep blogging from the inside.