Friday, July 09, 2004
Victory in Arizona
This week, the Arizona Legislative Council decided on the exact language to be used in this year's ballot initiative to bring an end to Arizona's successful Clean Elections law. (See Derek's June 28 post on Clean Elections in Arizona for a little background.)
Basically, opponents of Clean Elections were up to their old tricks, trying to sneak a ballot initiative by the voters of Arizona that would have repealed Clean Elections without saying so in the initiative itself. Sneaky, underhanded, and not gonna work. The Legislative Council decided to rewrite the misleading language so that it reflected what this ill-minded initiative would actually do - make big special interest money once more the driving factor in who gets elected in Arizona.
The decision by the Leg. Council makes it less likely that the initiative to undo Clean Elections will succeed, which makes it more likely that Arizonans will continue to enjoy the benefits of a democracy whose elections aren't dominated by big money. Fans of democracy should celebrate.
This week, the Arizona Legislative Council decided on the exact language to be used in this year's ballot initiative to bring an end to Arizona's successful Clean Elections law. (See Derek's June 28 post on Clean Elections in Arizona for a little background.)
Basically, opponents of Clean Elections were up to their old tricks, trying to sneak a ballot initiative by the voters of Arizona that would have repealed Clean Elections without saying so in the initiative itself. Sneaky, underhanded, and not gonna work. The Legislative Council decided to rewrite the misleading language so that it reflected what this ill-minded initiative would actually do - make big special interest money once more the driving factor in who gets elected in Arizona.
The decision by the Leg. Council makes it less likely that the initiative to undo Clean Elections will succeed, which makes it more likely that Arizonans will continue to enjoy the benefits of a democracy whose elections aren't dominated by big money. Fans of democracy should celebrate.
Thursday, July 08, 2004
Lay's Incomplete Indictment May Cost Californians Billions
As reported here by Kristen Hays of the AP and here by Mary Flood and Tim Fowler of The Houston Chronicle, Ken Lay pleaded not guilty on Thursday to the indictment returned against him on Wednesday by the Justice Department's Enron Task Force. The indictment failed to include any counts relating to Enron's manipulation of the Californian electricity markets - this despite a wealth of evidence which demonstrates that senior Enron management knew about the manipulative trading practices as early as August 2000. As you can read here, in our news release on the indictments, Lay is getting off easy.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer said this morning that he hoped that the evidence gathered under the Lay indictment will help California in its efforts to recoup some of the billions of dollars lost during the energy crisis. However, the indictment's failure to include any charges relating to Enron's manipulation of the markets makes it much less likely that such evidence will be introduced, thereby weakening the state's chances.
The whole thing stinks like 2001, when in the midst of rolling blackouts and skyhigh electricity prices, Enron was enjoying records profits. This of course, just a few years after Ken Lay and Enron had spread millions of dollars around the country to get politicians elected to office who favored deregulation. Today's indictment, issued by John Ashcroft's Justice Department (the Ashcroft Victory Committee got $25,000 from both Lay and Enron in 2000), which ignores credible evidence that Lay knew what was his trading goons were up to in California, seems like ol' Kenny Boy Lay is once again getting a nice return on his investments.
However, the Justice Department still has the opportunity to pursue further charges. Governor Schwarzenegger, other California leaders, and all Americans should call on the Justice Department to expand its investigation of Ken Lay to include his knowledge of Enron's fraudulent manipulation of the California energy markets.
Democracy never thrust itself upon anyone. We must be ever vigilant to make sure that the various organs of our elected government do their job, which in this case, means making sure that one of the fattest cats of them all receives the justice that he, and we, deserve.
For more Enron materials:
- Our June 25 Enron Post
- Ken Lay and Enron - Factsheet and Timeline
- John Rowland, Electricity Deregulation, and Enron - Background and Analysis
- What Did Dick Know and When Did He Know It? - Derek's Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle and his related Post
Or Sign Up for our Enron Updates
As reported here by Kristen Hays of the AP and here by Mary Flood and Tim Fowler of The Houston Chronicle, Ken Lay pleaded not guilty on Thursday to the indictment returned against him on Wednesday by the Justice Department's Enron Task Force. The indictment failed to include any counts relating to Enron's manipulation of the Californian electricity markets - this despite a wealth of evidence which demonstrates that senior Enron management knew about the manipulative trading practices as early as August 2000. As you can read here, in our news release on the indictments, Lay is getting off easy.
Attorney General Bill Lockyer said this morning that he hoped that the evidence gathered under the Lay indictment will help California in its efforts to recoup some of the billions of dollars lost during the energy crisis. However, the indictment's failure to include any charges relating to Enron's manipulation of the markets makes it much less likely that such evidence will be introduced, thereby weakening the state's chances.
The whole thing stinks like 2001, when in the midst of rolling blackouts and skyhigh electricity prices, Enron was enjoying records profits. This of course, just a few years after Ken Lay and Enron had spread millions of dollars around the country to get politicians elected to office who favored deregulation. Today's indictment, issued by John Ashcroft's Justice Department (the Ashcroft Victory Committee got $25,000 from both Lay and Enron in 2000), which ignores credible evidence that Lay knew what was his trading goons were up to in California, seems like ol' Kenny Boy Lay is once again getting a nice return on his investments.
However, the Justice Department still has the opportunity to pursue further charges. Governor Schwarzenegger, other California leaders, and all Americans should call on the Justice Department to expand its investigation of Ken Lay to include his knowledge of Enron's fraudulent manipulation of the California energy markets.
Democracy never thrust itself upon anyone. We must be ever vigilant to make sure that the various organs of our elected government do their job, which in this case, means making sure that one of the fattest cats of them all receives the justice that he, and we, deserve.
For more Enron materials:
- Our June 25 Enron Post
- Ken Lay and Enron - Factsheet and Timeline
- John Rowland, Electricity Deregulation, and Enron - Background and Analysis
- What Did Dick Know and When Did He Know It? - Derek's Op-Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle and his related Post
Or Sign Up for our Enron Updates
Wednesday, July 07, 2004
Minnesotans For More Truth in Elections
As reported in an editorial by Doug Meslow and Susan Gaertner in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, on July 1, a law became effective in Minnesota which improves and expedites the way in which elections complaints are handled.
Under Minnesota's former system, complaints about the truthfulness of election ads or endorsements or a candidate's campaign finances all went through the county attorney's office. As county attorneys are generally busy folks with many cases to juggle, they often did not get around to dealing with elections complaints until well after the election, if at all.
The new law changes this, directing election complaints instead to the Office of Administrative Hearings, which must make a preliminary ruling on a complaint within three business days of receiving it for those complaints received close to elections. If the judge finds enough evidence of a violation at the preliminary hearing, it sets in course an expedited schedule for dealing with the complaint. If not, the judge will dismiss the complaint and the candidate or organization against which the complaint was directed is cleared. Either way, the voters win.
One way to judge how our democracy is doing is to look at the accuracy and effectiveness of the information voters have when they go to the polls. If one side is playing underhanded, either through evading or breaking campaign finance laws or through false advertising, voters should know about it and have the opportunity to incorporate that information into their decision at the ballot box.
Kudos to Minnesota for its efforts in making democracy work better for the people. (See yesterday's post here for an example of how inadequate our current system at the national level is for dealing with similar complaints.)
As reported in an editorial by Doug Meslow and Susan Gaertner in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, on July 1, a law became effective in Minnesota which improves and expedites the way in which elections complaints are handled.
Under Minnesota's former system, complaints about the truthfulness of election ads or endorsements or a candidate's campaign finances all went through the county attorney's office. As county attorneys are generally busy folks with many cases to juggle, they often did not get around to dealing with elections complaints until well after the election, if at all.
The new law changes this, directing election complaints instead to the Office of Administrative Hearings, which must make a preliminary ruling on a complaint within three business days of receiving it for those complaints received close to elections. If the judge finds enough evidence of a violation at the preliminary hearing, it sets in course an expedited schedule for dealing with the complaint. If not, the judge will dismiss the complaint and the candidate or organization against which the complaint was directed is cleared. Either way, the voters win.
One way to judge how our democracy is doing is to look at the accuracy and effectiveness of the information voters have when they go to the polls. If one side is playing underhanded, either through evading or breaking campaign finance laws or through false advertising, voters should know about it and have the opportunity to incorporate that information into their decision at the ballot box.
Kudos to Minnesota for its efforts in making democracy work better for the people. (See yesterday's post here for an example of how inadequate our current system at the national level is for dealing with similar complaints.)
Tuesday, July 06, 2004
Election Cheats in Oklahoma Finally Get Theirs
Six years after an Oklahoma lawyer illegally funneled over $300,000 into Walt Roberts' 1998 Congressional campaign, the FEC finally got around to fining him, as reported by Chris Casteel in The Oklahoman. In smashing the legal limits of what he could contribute to Roberts' campaign, the lawyer, Gene Stipe, used his secretaries as conduits, conducted a sham auction to buy some of Roberts' art, and loaned money to Roberts through a defunct loan company.
That year, Roberts won his way into a run-off, then won the run-off before eventually losing in the general election. Four years later, the FEC recommended the Stipe-Roberts case for prosecution to the US Department of Justice; two years after that, the agency in charge of overseeing U.S. elections finally got around to issuing fines against the men.
So what's the problem? All this is ancient history, right? Well, at the very least, Roberts' opponents in the first round of voting and then the run-off were unfairly disadvantaged. Some of his potential opponents might not have run at all because of the large amounts of cash Roberts was able to raise early on. Also, the people of Oklahoma were presented with choices on the ballot which did not necessarily represent the interests of the Oklahoma electorate, but rather the interests of one big donor - a big donor who had no qualms breaking the law to get his man elected.
What if Roberts had been elected? How many votes would he have cast ostensibly in the name of the Oklahomans in his district, but which would have been in the name of his criminal-minded patron instead? It is a scary thought.
Wealthy interests still have the ability to sway elections in their favor - for example, this year, a wealthy couple could have given Bush or Kerry $8,000, an additional $50,000 to national party committees, another $20,000 to local or state party committees, up to $10,000 to their favorite political action committees, and still have money left over for a few more national candidates. These amounts give the rich a ridiculous amount of influence over who gets elected in our country.
Regardless of where we set contribution limits however, the agency responsible for monitoring our elections and who finances them must be able to get voters relevant information - who gives to whom, how much, and when - before the election, not two or four or six years later. That is the only way to ensure the integrity of our elections; that is what the FEC and Congress must ensure happens now.
If not, who knows how many Walt Roberts's may be walking the halls of Congress.
Six years after an Oklahoma lawyer illegally funneled over $300,000 into Walt Roberts' 1998 Congressional campaign, the FEC finally got around to fining him, as reported by Chris Casteel in The Oklahoman. In smashing the legal limits of what he could contribute to Roberts' campaign, the lawyer, Gene Stipe, used his secretaries as conduits, conducted a sham auction to buy some of Roberts' art, and loaned money to Roberts through a defunct loan company.
That year, Roberts won his way into a run-off, then won the run-off before eventually losing in the general election. Four years later, the FEC recommended the Stipe-Roberts case for prosecution to the US Department of Justice; two years after that, the agency in charge of overseeing U.S. elections finally got around to issuing fines against the men.
So what's the problem? All this is ancient history, right? Well, at the very least, Roberts' opponents in the first round of voting and then the run-off were unfairly disadvantaged. Some of his potential opponents might not have run at all because of the large amounts of cash Roberts was able to raise early on. Also, the people of Oklahoma were presented with choices on the ballot which did not necessarily represent the interests of the Oklahoma electorate, but rather the interests of one big donor - a big donor who had no qualms breaking the law to get his man elected.
What if Roberts had been elected? How many votes would he have cast ostensibly in the name of the Oklahomans in his district, but which would have been in the name of his criminal-minded patron instead? It is a scary thought.
Wealthy interests still have the ability to sway elections in their favor - for example, this year, a wealthy couple could have given Bush or Kerry $8,000, an additional $50,000 to national party committees, another $20,000 to local or state party committees, up to $10,000 to their favorite political action committees, and still have money left over for a few more national candidates. These amounts give the rich a ridiculous amount of influence over who gets elected in our country.
Regardless of where we set contribution limits however, the agency responsible for monitoring our elections and who finances them must be able to get voters relevant information - who gives to whom, how much, and when - before the election, not two or four or six years later. That is the only way to ensure the integrity of our elections; that is what the FEC and Congress must ensure happens now.
If not, who knows how many Walt Roberts's may be walking the halls of Congress.
Monday, July 05, 2004
Missouri's Campaign Finance Law Was Designed to be Broken
Associated Press writer David Lieb has a good story here detailing how a bunch of New York City lawyers are getting around the law in Missouri to give big bucks to Governor Bob Holden.
The basic trick is that political parties can set up committees that have much higher limits on what they can accept than candidates do. So, a fat cat who has maxed out their giving to a candidate then just gives money to a party committee who then passes it along to the candidate. Surprise, surprise, there are now some 290 political party committees set up to do just that.
You might think this is yet more proof that campaign finance laws don't work. But, you'd be wrong.
The history here that's important to know is that Missouri's current campaign finance laws were written by politicians in an effort to fend off a grassroots citizens ballot initiative that applied the same tough limits to candidates, parties, and political action committees. The politicians crafted a law that looked tough, but really wasn't. The citizen initiative went forward anyhow, but it was thrown out by lower courts so the legislature's law went into effect. The Supreme Court eventually issued a ruling that would have re-instated the citizen law, but it had been out of effect for too long so now the current bogus law remains.
No wonder people have found a way around it.
Associated Press writer David Lieb has a good story here detailing how a bunch of New York City lawyers are getting around the law in Missouri to give big bucks to Governor Bob Holden.
The basic trick is that political parties can set up committees that have much higher limits on what they can accept than candidates do. So, a fat cat who has maxed out their giving to a candidate then just gives money to a party committee who then passes it along to the candidate. Surprise, surprise, there are now some 290 political party committees set up to do just that.
You might think this is yet more proof that campaign finance laws don't work. But, you'd be wrong.
The history here that's important to know is that Missouri's current campaign finance laws were written by politicians in an effort to fend off a grassroots citizens ballot initiative that applied the same tough limits to candidates, parties, and political action committees. The politicians crafted a law that looked tough, but really wasn't. The citizen initiative went forward anyhow, but it was thrown out by lower courts so the legislature's law went into effect. The Supreme Court eventually issued a ruling that would have re-instated the citizen law, but it had been out of effect for too long so now the current bogus law remains.
No wonder people have found a way around it.
