Tim Eyman has scored a bull's eye calling bullshit on Secretary of State Sam Reed's dishonest attack on citizen initiatives.
As noted earlier, Reed's government-salaried lobbyists testified in favor of criminalizing per-signature compensation to initiative petition circulators on the grounds that such compensation promotes fraud -- even though Reed's office already acknowledged that they have no evidence to support this claim.
Eyman has further exposed Reed's lack of credibility on this issue. See the recent e-mail exchanges between Eyman and Reed's office, which Eyman cc:ed to his distribution list.
Eyman on January 31 calls out errors on the Secretary of State's spreadsheet purporting to show that signature invalidity rates on submitted petitions are higher on paid campaigns than on volunteer campaigns. Column O of the spreadsheet indicates whether the signature gathering was Paid "p", Volunteer "v", or a combination. In the forwarded correspondence of January 31, Eyman explains that some of the information in the spreadsheet about paid vs. volunteers is incorrect. The Secretary of State's office refuses to correct the spreadsheet, claiming that the characterization of signature gathering was "self-reported" by the campaigns. Eyman provided a corrected version of the spreadsheet here.
In his February 2 email, Eyman provides more information showing that the Secretary of State's claim of "self-reported" information is bogus. For example, the Secretary of State's spreadsheet claims that the WEA's "Protect our Public Schools" referendum campaign used only volunteer signature gatherers. But as Eyman notes, the campaign self-reported to the PDC that the WEA made a $211,000 in-kind contribution to the campaign for signature gathering. See this PDC report as one example. [A $40,000 in-kind contribution from the WEA for "Signature Gathering" reported by Protect Our Public Schools in its 07/07/2004 Schedule B Amendment].
In summary, Reed apparently has an agenda to stifle citizen initiatives. His tactic is to criminalize fair and effective compensation to initiative signature gatherers. But there's no real case against this practice, so he is making his argument by providing false information to the citizens and the legislature.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 03, 2007 12:01 PM | Email ThisNo. And that's the way it should be ... despite Reed's apparent dishonesty.
Posted by: jimg on February 3, 2007 12:11 PMIf the signature verification process is per the SOS good enough to prevent fraudulent BALLOT signatures, then how come the same process is NOT good enough to also prevent fraudulent PETITION signatures ??
Even completely aside from the infuriating support by the SOS for the ongoing full-court press by the (D)-controlled Legislature to take away one of our fundamental Constitutional rights, the above position is completely illogical.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 3, 2007 12:20 PMinfiltrator. time to clean house. like an intelligence agency security breach. who are they REALLY working for & representing?! the SOS is resembling the compromised Iraqi "security forces."
time to test loyalties. watch them under the microscope.
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on February 3, 2007 01:14 PMWhose fault is it? The people who gather signatures (without any ID requirement), or the people that purposely try to torpedo the petition?
How would the proposed law change this?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 3, 2007 01:17 PMAt least, that's what "in kind" suggests to me...is there any way to clarify this?
Posted by: Patrick on February 3, 2007 02:26 PM(c) Contributions other than money or its equivalent are deemed to have a monetary value equivalent to the fair market value of the contribution. Services or property or rights furnished at less than their fair market value for the purpose of assisting any candidate or political committee are deemed a contribution. Such a contribution must be reported as an in-kind contribution at its fair market value and counts towards any applicable contribution limit of the provider.
(b) "Contribution" does not include: ... (vi) The rendering of personal services of the sort commonly performed by volunteer campaign workers, or incidental expenses personally incurred by volunteer campaign workers not in excess of fifty dollars personally paid for by the worker. "Volunteer services," for the purposes of this section, means services or labor for which the individual is not compensated by any person;So like I said, the signature gathering reported by the WEA would not have been performed by unpaid volunteers. Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 3, 2007 04:09 PM
Reporting in-kind contributions is a way that campaigns have of making it look like they've raised mare money than they actually have because they report the fair market value of the service as if it were a contribution. Keep talking though because I love it when you demonstrate your stupidity.
Posted by: PDC expert on February 3, 2007 04:51 PMGiven the tone and content, I find this at least mildy interesting:
The email address that shows ''underneath'' the above self-styled ''PDC expert'' is:
pdc@pdc.wa.gov
That is the same ''mail to:'' address that comes up under the ''Forms and copy requests'' link on the PDC web site at:
http://www.pdc.wa.gov/Home/About/agency_person.aspx
Now of course this email address could have been spoofed. But if it is legitimately coming from that official pdc@pdc.wa.gov email address and was sent on a State government computer and on State government i.e.: TAXPAYER time, then IMO at least one State bureaucrat needs some remedial training on how to deal with the public in his or her official capacity..... It sez here.
SIDEBAR: There is NO SUCH THING as sending a ''personal'' email to any public destination from a government computer on government time.
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 3, 2007 05:41 PMThey used paid signature gatherers, but they also used volunteers (just like every other campaign in the past eight years, other than our I-695 in 1999 and I-912 in 2005).
The information the Secretary of State is providing to legislators is demonstrably false and yet even after being provided the campaign reports, they continue to mislead legislators.
As to the other campaigns, we sent the following email to the Secretary of State on Friday: [linked here]
The SOS owes Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Mike Fagan (and all the rest of us) a substantive answer; and an effort as Tim requested to correct their prior mis-information.
Tim, I hope you will update SP.com on whatever reply you receive (or lack of same, as the case may be).
Posted by: Methow Ken on February 3, 2007 08:17 PMIn this campaign, charter-school opponents have raised $332,056 in cash and in-kind donations, of which $265,985 has come from the WEA, Evans said. The group spent most of that money to pay signature gatherers to help get the referendum on the ballot. Its balance is roughly $36,000, she said.Remind us again, "PDC expert" -- who's the idiot? Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 3, 2007 09:14 PM
Protect our Public Schools received over $291,000 of in kind money with more than $242,000 coming from WEA.
WEA also directly donated over $347,000 in cash.
On one of the B forms for a WEA in kind entry was the entry of $46,025 for sginature gathering.
I didn't bother to look through all of it, but I think it is clear that there was paid signature gathering occuring.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 3, 2007 09:54 PMWhy aren't they proposing similar laws to avoid these problems from affecting elections other than initiatives?
The problem is ill defined. Other than rejected lines on a petition, nothing else has been done to determine malice, mistake, or negligence. Since the due diligence has not been done, why are we proposing laws?
What is on a petition form?
Basically, Name, Address, and Signature of a Registered voter.
What can go wrong?
Name - Duplicate, not found, not the same as voter reg DB for the address, voter reg was cancelled.
Address - Not found.
Signature - Doesn't exist, Doesn't match.
Anything else?
Which of the above are deemed "fraud" and prosecuted during a general election?
Which of the above are deemed "fraud" and prosecuted voter registration?
Why are the Dems so bent on "cracking down" on these forms of "fraud" during the petition process, but could care less about them during an actual election?
Ken Jacobsen is the only "honest" Dem - his bill would outright repeal Article II Section 1 - the peoples right to referendum and initiative. All these other bills are doing the same, but by nibbling away at it over time.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 4, 2007 07:19 AMMore like
How cute, we have found a legislature who fear anything Tim Eyeman and the people of this state have to say.
Posted by: GS on February 4, 2007 09:01 AMIn 2004, Governor Gary Locke signed the charter schools legislation into law. So the WEA (teachers union) filed a referendum, seeking a public vote. They vowed NOT to use paid circulators -- they quickly abandoned that promise, and spent BIG BUCKS (R-55's Schedule B reports) to get their referendum signatures. The WEA was clearly embarrassed by their flip-flop so they didn't have the R-55 campaign pay for the paid signature gathering; instead, the WEA itself paid for them. That way, if challenged, they'd say "The R-55 campaign didn't pay a penny for paid signature gathering." Stefan showed that even the Seattle Times didn't accept that dodge (post #21). It's clear that R-55 would not have qualified for the ballot if not for the WEA's decision to use paid circulators. R-55's low invalid rate was directly attributable to the fact that they used paid circulators.
The Sec of State knows this. But these facts undermine his rationale for backing the various anti-initiative bills. He's 'hanging his hat', and misleading legislators, both one-on-one and in testimony before house and senate committees, on the erroneous fact that volunteer signature drives are 'cleaner' than paid signature drives. Again, that is demonstrably untrue, yet, he, his leadship team, and his two lobbyists continue to mislead legislators, the press, and the public.
Now that they has been exposed for presenting false information -- that is verifiably untrue -- we're hopeful that legislators will demand the truth from the Secretary of State.
Posted by: Tim Eyman on February 4, 2007 09:28 AM"Buffy, grab the dogs - oh, and don't forget the kid, what's - her - name! Everybody hide under the bed. Tim Eyman's here! It's our worst nightmare! Rossi, Rove and Gingrich can't be far behind!!
.
Posted by: Tyler Durden on February 4, 2007 09:56 AMThe secretary of state has approved a proposed ballot measure that would require married couples to have children within 3 years of marriage.
Boy, the GOP just gets dumber and dumber.
Posted by: Cato on February 5, 2007 11:05 AMBoy, the GOP just gets dumber and dumber.
From Cato's link:
"For many years, social conservatives have claimed that marriage exists solely for the purpose of procreation," said WA-DOMA organizer Gregory Gadow in a printed statement. "The Washington Supreme Court echoed that claim in their lead ruling on Andersen v. King County. The time has come for these conservatives to be dosed with their own medicine. If same-sex couples should be barred from marriage because they can not have children together, it follows that all couples who can not or will not have children together should equally be barred from marriage. And this is what the Defense of Marriage Initiative will do."
Doesn't sound like a GOP group to me.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 5, 2007 01:36 PM