"Clean Money" As An Excuse For Higher Taxes
Never mind that the City will take in $800 million more this year than last: if you want "clean money" campaign financing, the L.A. City Council will make you first agree to a $9 million annual tax hike. You can read all about it in an article in the Daily News.WARNING: THE FIRST COMMENT POSTED ABOUT THIS ARTICLE IS A FAKE. Whoever posted it made it look as though it came from me, Walter Moore, but it is NOT from me. As per the article above, someone has figured out a way to make fraudulent postings. Please don't be fooled.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 7/05/2006 09:03:00 PM
11 Comments:
We know, Walter, we know.
Walter opinion share not, we Deutschlander racists not.
Deutschland uber alles!
That sounds more like Archie......
Taxes. Get a load of you. How much is that a person? 2, 3 dollars?
I think the official party line is "why pay for candidates you don't like," which is still stupid, but not that stupid. Even Howard Jarvis would be embarassed.
I knew Howard Jarvis. He was a friend of mine. Howard would have never supported taxpayer funded political campaigns. Sir, you're no Howard Jarvis.
I don't know how someone faked that comment at the top, but it constitutes defamation, and I will hold you liable.
Thank you Walter. I was beginning to think how did you get that law degree. Can't you add slander in there as well? Aren't they slandering your name by doing that?
Slander is a form of defamation; libel is another. I suppose this is a form of libel, because it is written rather than spoken. But it also reminds me of something called "false light" -- you falsely attribute statements to a person or company.
Whatever it is legally, it's very creepy! It also shows you how dishonest and intellectually limited my oppositiion/stalker is: unable to marshall arguments against what I actually say, he instead creates phony posts to mislead others. Pathetic.
I just hope there's a way to stop it, because otherwise readers will not have a reliable way of knowing who's actually saying what.
C'mon Wacko, you must hate at least on racial group who's pejorative you typed up there.
Voluntary Public Financing of Elections is needed to keep our elected officials from being beholden to the large donors who put them in office. I mean, heck, look no further than Mayor Sam's own preamble at the top of this blog:
"Inevitably some of (our officeholders) stray from the golden rule and rule for those that have the gold."
Why do they do that, Mayor Sam? Because electoral candidates need gold in order to successfully run for office. And if those candidates have no alternative but to turn to the gold-havers to get that gold, that's what they'll do. And in return, the gold-havers will always demand some payback from those who successfully get elected. And they get it, guys, at taxpayer expense. They get sweetheart contracts, permit waivers, tax and fee exemptions, preferential treatment from the City Attorney, and access to officeholders that regular schmoes like us could never even dream of getting. Believe me, it all adds up to way, way, WAY more than $9M a year out of the city coffers.
But what if we, the regular people, are the ones with the gold? What if we're the ones our elected officials owe their office to? To whom will they then be beholden? Us. You know, the way it was intended.
Our system is corrupt, folks. Voluntary public financing isn't perfect, and it's not a panacea, but it is the only legal and constitutional way that I know of to begin fixing our broken and corrupt system.
We need this.
Patrick Meighan
Venice, CA
p.s., lemme pre-empt a couple standard arguments against voluntary public financing:
1) "We don't need voluntary public financing. We just need full disclosure of donations. Let people see who's donating to who, and then let 'em vote how they vote."
This is also known as the status quo. There are currently several websites (including the city's own Ethics Division website) where campaign donations are posted. Has that even begun to solve the corruption that rips through our current system? If you believe it has, then fine, support the status quo's continuation. If you believe that it hasn't--and I think that most of us don't--then it's incumbent upon you to suggest a fix. Voluntary public financing is a fix... and a completely legal and constitutional one, at that. If you disagree with this fix, please suggest an alternative (other than the status quo... 'cause the status quo ain't workin'.)
2) "We don't need voluntary public financing. We just gotta make government so small that there'll be no incentive for a big donor to corrupt it."
This sounds nice, but it's impossible, unless you're advocating anarchy... an absolute and total dissolution of every last trace of governmental authority. But as long as any government exists (however small), and as long as said government enforces any laws whatsoever (however few and limited), and as long as said government levies any taxes whatsoever (however meager and inconsequential) there will be citizens who will wish to break those laws and evade those taxes. The wealthiest of those citizens will always attempt to turn to governmental officials for aid in that pursuit. But if we can decrease the leverage those wealthy law-breakers and tax-dodgers have on our governmental officials, we can decrease the likelihood that they'll be successful in garnering special treatment. Voluntary public financing of elections greatly decreases that leverage. And that's why we need it.
PM
By the way, I STRONGLY favor "clean money." What I do not favor is City Council using it as an excuse to hike our taxes. The City is awash in cash, and could easily fund "clean money" right now, without yet another tax hike. The career politicians are trying to sabotage it by tying it to a tax increase.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home