1. Financing these very expensive campaigns discourages many, many well-qualified candidates. There are many other reasons, but I think if the financing thing can be worked out, you would see better candidates running for office- even against Bob Ferguson, the main proponent of public financing.

Full financing doesn't sound right to me, though. Kind of like getting a Public Defender- you get what you pay for.

Posted by: swatter on May 12, 2008 07:14 AM

2. Thanks for listing this Eric

Warren Peterson was one of the last Rs elected in Seattle along with former King County Executive Tim Hill who retired Jan-1993

Posted by: Green Lake on May 12, 2008 07:19 AM

3. My favorit line is this

"The latest comes from King County Councilmember Bob Ferguson for a "pilot program" to use tax dollars to fund King County Council campaigns"

Talk about a conflict of interest. It sounds to me like either someone has a hard time raising money or just does not like to do it.

Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 12, 2008 07:26 AM

4. Monday, May 19th

Shoreline Room, Shoreline Conference Center

18560 1st Ave NE Shoreline

Informal reception with KC Councilmembers at 6:00 PM. Townhall meeting begins at 6:30

I guarantee the Democrats will be there in force. The district GOP has been rallied, but may be outnumbered. Please come and boost their numbers!

Posted by: Camille on May 12, 2008 07:32 AM

5. What is funny is that the State law "allows" public financing of election, but it does not provide any boundries on who will be eligible or how the funds distribution will take place and in what amounts. Every entity for itself. Incumbants get to make the rules. About the only positions not eligible for public financing are School Board Positions.

Ask yourself this question, would you realistically get any different representation at any level of government that this applies to? Or will you simply get the privilege of having your tax dollars diverted to people you totally oppose.

Posted by: Huh? on May 12, 2008 08:09 AM

6. Instead of public financing of campaigns, how about term limits?

Posted by: AP on May 12, 2008 10:22 AM

7. Wouldn't spending limit on how much one can spend on a given campaign be far more efficient than public financing to curb off the money influence issue? Surely, there will have to be a limit on the public money, and if the campaigners are still allowed use money from his own coffer or fund-raising, what's the point of publicly supported campaign other than providing an extra source of money?

Posted by: DopioLover on May 12, 2008 10:40 AM

8.
No way. Do you know many lazy layabouts there are in Seattle who would just love to use this system to get an elected paid post at no expense? Please, our wallets are pilfered enough by Brightwater Sims and Light Rail Nickles.

Posted by: John Bailo on May 12, 2008 03:13 PM

9. We spend billions on drug 'interdiction,' yet any high schooler can easily obtain whatever drug he/she wants. As long as there is a strong demand for drugs, the supply finds a way through.

By the same token, campaign finance reform is a perhaps noble effort to eliminate the legalized corruption that we have. But even if successful, it just will mean that some new form of corruption will emerge. As long as there is so much money flowing through gov't, people will find ways to get access to politicians, and in turn all that money.

Thus, the only way to ultimately reform campaign financing is to reduce the size of gov't.

Posted by: russell garrard on May 12, 2008 05:16 PM

10. Any restriction on donating or spending on campaigns is a violation of the first amendment. This includes McCain Feingold and is a primary reason i oppose his canadicy.

Real campaign reform would come in reducing the power of government. When policians can not hand out political favors there is less desire to become one. unfortunately Rossi and McCain have yet to suggest one place where government power should be cut back. hence another prime reason i do not support these canidates.

Posted by: Lysander on May 12, 2008 05:59 PM

11. You have a high standard there, Lysander. Can anyone meet your standards and still be an effective legislator or executive in government? I don't think so.

Same thing with the Ds?

I'll also tell you that even if an L got into office, he/she wouldn't accomplish much. Even Jess the Body accomplished little as governor of Minnesota even though we were all rooting for him.

Posted by: swatter on May 13, 2008 08:17 AM

12. Before Lysander suffocates of his own hyperventilation, let me clarify that I wasn't advocating spending limits on campaign. I was just pointing out the logical fallacy of publicly financed campaigns. It's just an additional source of funds because government cannot provide unlimited fund, and it does nothing to stop the special interest with money.

Posted by: DopioLover on May 13, 2008 01:09 PM

13. DupioLover @ 12:

Your suggesting is a violation of the first amendment as well. Freedom of speech not only means the right to spend money on political speech but also the freedom from being forced to spend money on political speech you disagree with. Publically financed campaigns forces everyone to pay for politicians we disagree with campaigns.

Swatter @ 12:

What is a high standard? Allowing unlimited campaign contributions and spending? How does any less make sense? Would it make sense to say we have the right to bear arms but can only buy and use 6 bullets a year? Of course not.

Or are you suggesting that my opposition to McCain Feingold and calling that unconstitutional is a high standard? Bush agreed it was unconstitutional before he signed that one!

Posted by: Lysander on May 13, 2008 09:27 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?