Friday, October 24, 2003
Congress Gets an Automatic Pay Raise
The U.S. Senate voted today to give themselves a raise. They didn't call it that, of course, they said it was a cost of living adjustment, just like folks in the military are getting. The fact of the matter is that congressional salaries will go up from $154,700 to $158,000. Sounds like a pay raise to me.
The median four person family income in America is $63,278, according to charts from the U.S. Census Bureau available here. So, each member of Congress will make more than double what most families of four take home.
It's understandable why our men and women in uniform would get a cost of living increase, especially this year when they have performed so admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. But why should politicians get an automatic pay raise, especially when the economy is on the skids and they're running up record deficits? And, even if they do deserve a raise sometimes, isn't it a bit of a conflict of interest for them to approve their own pay raises?
Thirty-four Senators voted against the increase. You can see the vote record here.
The U.S. Senate voted today to give themselves a raise. They didn't call it that, of course, they said it was a cost of living adjustment, just like folks in the military are getting. The fact of the matter is that congressional salaries will go up from $154,700 to $158,000. Sounds like a pay raise to me.
The median four person family income in America is $63,278, according to charts from the U.S. Census Bureau available here. So, each member of Congress will make more than double what most families of four take home.
It's understandable why our men and women in uniform would get a cost of living increase, especially this year when they have performed so admirably in Iraq and Afghanistan. But why should politicians get an automatic pay raise, especially when the economy is on the skids and they're running up record deficits? And, even if they do deserve a raise sometimes, isn't it a bit of a conflict of interest for them to approve their own pay raises?
Thirty-four Senators voted against the increase. You can see the vote record here.
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Cheaters and Blind Referees
Even when citizens get their act together to pass campaign finance reform, there are those skuzzballs who don't want to live by them. So, for instance, in 1994 Missouri voters enacted a ballot question that said nobody was supposed to give more than $300 to a candidate for Governor. Well, today's Saint Louis Post Dispatch reports here that somebody named S.W. Creekmore, Jr has given some $20,000 bucks to the current governor of Missouri. He's cheating big time and getting away with it.
How is this possible? Well, first of all the 8th Circuit Court of appeals through out the law passed by the voters. A weaker law, crafted intentionally by the legislature to derail the citizen initiative then went into effect. That law had much higher limits (now up to $1175), plus other loopholes like including no limits on contributions to parties. So, the courts and lawmakers, who are supposed to be the people's referees, instead weakened the rules.
Missouri's law does not ban corporate contributions, so Creekmore is having each of his corporate subsidiaries give a maximum $1175 contribution. Creekmore is in the nursing home business, and operates under a number of different corporate entities. I did a search on the Missouir Ethics Commission site and was able to locate a number of these contribututions -- go here to take a look.
Missouri's law also does not restrict or ban contributions from outside of the state. So, even though Creekmore lives in Arkansas, he and his corporations can still give to the Missouri Governor's race.
Now, Democratic and Republican campaign consultants think that the best way to deal with cheaters like Creekmore is to just get rid of the rules. That way, nobody would break them. Another approach would be for Missouri citizens to go back to the ballot box to pass tighter rules, as folks in Colorado did in 2002 and ppl in Alaska are doing now. Maybe we'll need to get some new refs as well.
But until then, maybe the rest of us should write Mr. Creekmore a letter and ask him to stop cheating and to give only one contribution. His disclosure records say his address is:
SW CreekMore JR
PO Box 3068
Fort Smith, AR 72913
Even when citizens get their act together to pass campaign finance reform, there are those skuzzballs who don't want to live by them. So, for instance, in 1994 Missouri voters enacted a ballot question that said nobody was supposed to give more than $300 to a candidate for Governor. Well, today's Saint Louis Post Dispatch reports here that somebody named S.W. Creekmore, Jr has given some $20,000 bucks to the current governor of Missouri. He's cheating big time and getting away with it.
How is this possible? Well, first of all the 8th Circuit Court of appeals through out the law passed by the voters. A weaker law, crafted intentionally by the legislature to derail the citizen initiative then went into effect. That law had much higher limits (now up to $1175), plus other loopholes like including no limits on contributions to parties. So, the courts and lawmakers, who are supposed to be the people's referees, instead weakened the rules.
Missouri's law does not ban corporate contributions, so Creekmore is having each of his corporate subsidiaries give a maximum $1175 contribution. Creekmore is in the nursing home business, and operates under a number of different corporate entities. I did a search on the Missouir Ethics Commission site and was able to locate a number of these contribututions -- go here to take a look.
Missouri's law also does not restrict or ban contributions from outside of the state. So, even though Creekmore lives in Arkansas, he and his corporations can still give to the Missouri Governor's race.
Now, Democratic and Republican campaign consultants think that the best way to deal with cheaters like Creekmore is to just get rid of the rules. That way, nobody would break them. Another approach would be for Missouri citizens to go back to the ballot box to pass tighter rules, as folks in Colorado did in 2002 and ppl in Alaska are doing now. Maybe we'll need to get some new refs as well.
But until then, maybe the rest of us should write Mr. Creekmore a letter and ask him to stop cheating and to give only one contribution. His disclosure records say his address is:
SW CreekMore JR
PO Box 3068
Fort Smith, AR 72913
Wednesday, October 22, 2003
Politicians try to Weaken The Recall
I guess this should come as no surprise, but some politicians now want to make it harder for their constituents to recall them. California Assemblymember Mark Ridley-Thomas has introduced a bill to increase the number of signatures required to hold a recall election in California. (see details in this Sacramento Bee story.)
Now, many people think the recall of California's Gray Davis was a mistake. That's fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But in this case, those folks were in the minority, so out Davis went.
So now some folks are saying it was too easy for the recall question to get on the ballot in the first place. After all, we wouldn't want a situation where incumbents who really did have the support of most people were effectively unable to govern because some radical fringe was constantly subjecting them to recall elections. A recall should only make the ballot when a sizeable chunk of the electorate thinks its warranted.
But California hardly has a run-away recall process. The Washingon Post reported on June 10, 2003 that activists have tried 31 times to recall California's governor in recent history. And guess what, only one of those made it to the ballot. From the day that recall qualified, a majority of voters polled were supporting it, so this was not a case of the state being hijacked by some minority faction.
In fact, if anything, this most recent California recall was too HARD to qualify. It would probalby not have succeeded without millions of dollars from an ultraconservative politician, Darrell Issa. The specter that one single rich person could qualify a recall simply by paying signature gatherers, no matter how many signatures are required, is cause for concern.
So rather than looking to make it harder for regular citizens to use the recall process, perhaps the Assembly should lower the signatures needed but then place limits on the use of big money to fund signature drives.
See also this story from Wisconsion where a Senator is facing a recall that appears to have been qualified by paid signatures.
I guess this should come as no surprise, but some politicians now want to make it harder for their constituents to recall them. California Assemblymember Mark Ridley-Thomas has introduced a bill to increase the number of signatures required to hold a recall election in California. (see details in this Sacramento Bee story.)
Now, many people think the recall of California's Gray Davis was a mistake. That's fair enough, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But in this case, those folks were in the minority, so out Davis went.
So now some folks are saying it was too easy for the recall question to get on the ballot in the first place. After all, we wouldn't want a situation where incumbents who really did have the support of most people were effectively unable to govern because some radical fringe was constantly subjecting them to recall elections. A recall should only make the ballot when a sizeable chunk of the electorate thinks its warranted.
But California hardly has a run-away recall process. The Washingon Post reported on June 10, 2003 that activists have tried 31 times to recall California's governor in recent history. And guess what, only one of those made it to the ballot. From the day that recall qualified, a majority of voters polled were supporting it, so this was not a case of the state being hijacked by some minority faction.
In fact, if anything, this most recent California recall was too HARD to qualify. It would probalby not have succeeded without millions of dollars from an ultraconservative politician, Darrell Issa. The specter that one single rich person could qualify a recall simply by paying signature gatherers, no matter how many signatures are required, is cause for concern.
So rather than looking to make it harder for regular citizens to use the recall process, perhaps the Assembly should lower the signatures needed but then place limits on the use of big money to fund signature drives.
See also this story from Wisconsion where a Senator is facing a recall that appears to have been qualified by paid signatures.
Tuesday, October 21, 2003
Voter Deprived of Choice by Big Money
In a democracy, voters are supposed to be the ones who decide who among them should represent their state in the U.S. Senate. But most of the time, we don't really get the chance. Instead, big money donors decide what candidates they think will be "viable," and you can bet that anyone who rocks the boat too much won't fit the bill.
Here's an example from South Carolina. Bob Cobble is the mayor of Columbia, South Carolina. He thought he'd run for Senate, but dropped out today after seeing that he'd only raised $115,000 while his lead opponent for the Democratic nomination has $327,000. Meanwhile, four different Republicans have raised more than $3 million. More details can be found in this story in the Columbia State.
Now I don't know whether Bob Cobble would have made a great Senator or not. But, it does seem like that decision should be made by the voters, not based on who has raised the most money from special interests a full year before the election is even held.
In a democracy, voters are supposed to be the ones who decide who among them should represent their state in the U.S. Senate. But most of the time, we don't really get the chance. Instead, big money donors decide what candidates they think will be "viable," and you can bet that anyone who rocks the boat too much won't fit the bill.
Here's an example from South Carolina. Bob Cobble is the mayor of Columbia, South Carolina. He thought he'd run for Senate, but dropped out today after seeing that he'd only raised $115,000 while his lead opponent for the Democratic nomination has $327,000. Meanwhile, four different Republicans have raised more than $3 million. More details can be found in this story in the Columbia State.
Now I don't know whether Bob Cobble would have made a great Senator or not. But, it does seem like that decision should be made by the voters, not based on who has raised the most money from special interests a full year before the election is even held.
Monday, October 20, 2003
Why Developers Love Money in Politics
This column from a current and former elected official in Maryland reveals why some private interests find campaign contributions so useful. The candidates who got elected to the Maryland Senate spent on average twice as much as their opponents. Big housing developers dumped $1.7 million bucks into the coffers of their favored candidates, which accounted for about 60% of all funds raised by those candidates. Guess what? Every developer-backed candidate won. Part of the problem may be Maryland's sky high limits on political contributions. At $4000, its pretty easy for private interests to get a bunch of employees, family members, and what not together to fund big portions of a campaign.
This column from a current and former elected official in Maryland reveals why some private interests find campaign contributions so useful. The candidates who got elected to the Maryland Senate spent on average twice as much as their opponents. Big housing developers dumped $1.7 million bucks into the coffers of their favored candidates, which accounted for about 60% of all funds raised by those candidates. Guess what? Every developer-backed candidate won. Part of the problem may be Maryland's sky high limits on political contributions. At $4000, its pretty easy for private interests to get a bunch of employees, family members, and what not together to fund big portions of a campaign.
