Monthly Archives: September 2003

The Road to Hell, they say is paved with Good Intentions. So is the path to “Campaign Finance Reform” – and both paths end up in the same place.
In fact the term “Campaign Finance Reform” has no intrinsic meaning after decades of use, abuse and misuse by political pundits, the courts, politicians and self-anointed Good People who’ve been part of the Good Intentions Road Paving Crew.
Why do I say this? Simply ask any of the aforementioned folks what that phrase means and you’ll see – you will get about a dozen, or more different responses. Most of which will conflict with each other. None of which mean anything, except a Rube Goldberg like device of laws which don’t work, and make our political system even more difficult to navigate or participate in.
I’ve had the opportunity (some might argue misfortune) of working in political campaigns for the past ten years. I’ve worked on everything from multi-million dollar US Senate and Governor’s races around the country, to smaller state and US House races, and even down to pint-sized campaigns for State House and City Council.
In every single one of these I’ve had to navigate laws that make no sense, certainly don’t “reform” politics, and make things more and more difficult for first-time politicos – and easier for well funded incumbents.
The most recent incarnation of “Campaign Finance Reform” is the McCain Feingold bill, possibly one of the most inept pieces of legislations to come out of Congress. (and to continue expressing my displeasure with the misuse of these irritating buzzwords I’m going to put it and other words devoid of meaning in quotes to make this easier to understand..)
To read of just one of many unintended consequences (and there are a LOT) of this law, check out this article from the San Francisco Chronicle’s opinion section which shows just one of the law’s most ridiculous unintended outcomes. I challenge either Sens. McCain or Feingold to explain this little bizarre Hell Road Paving away.
The problem with every attempt to “reform” the “system” is that no one can really agree on what the “problem” needing “reform” is. Ask any partisan what the problem is and what they’ll end up telling you is that “reform” usually means find a way to Screw The Other Side. It’s not about creating a system that preserves Democracy it’s all about getting the other guys so your guys can stay in power.
Examples: Liberals are offended that very rich people don’t give to their campaigns – so they try to pass laws to keep them out of the system. Conservatives are aghast that scores of like-minded liberals might get together to work for some issue they’re against so they oppose THEM out of the system.
Fringe elements are so pissed that no one reads their macramé-woven brochures at the co-op they want to find some way to obligate the state to subsidize their way to the ballot box.
And so on and so on. When the laws get proposed, each side winds up its own home-grown shouting machine. Conservatives have talk radio, Liberals get the Internet, unions and groups, and the fringers, well they have a sit in or something. Posturing and foolishness, along with a press that doesn’t cover issues in any depth (preferring instead to rehash the template in their word processor condemning all politics as evil!) end up with another rack of bad laws (oops I mean “reform”)
All we end up with as citizens are more screwball laws that end up being used not to clean up politics but instead for devious hacks (i.e. me) to use to dig up charges on The Other Guy (or Gal).
The press will cover “scandal” when the charges are leveled, but since almost any Public Disclosure Agency is overworked and overwhelmed they won’t get to investigating the charges for months, even YEARS later.
Meanwhile the campaigns get their “hit” in the papers, the press congratulates itself for being “tough” and we later find out years later the charges were BOGUS.
Head spinning now? Yes, mine too. Now do you see why I’m tired of working in campaign fundraising? You’re just reading about it – I’ve had to live it and it ain’t no fun.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com

Ah the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has done it again – today they ruled that Washington State’s “blanket primary” – a system where people can vote in any or all parties’ primaries at once – is unconstitutional. Read all about it at The Seattle Times.
I had to chuckle a little when I read the news. Especially when I read self-righteous “shock and horror” howling by provincial-minded politicos who keep on defending a system that denies the basic Constitutional rights for citizens and parties to organize and participate in civic life.
They keep on squawking and posturing and spending lots of taxpayer dollars to pander to what they perceive to be what people want – instead of using their position to explain the Constitution (which they did swear to uphold and defend!) and the ruling.
Readers acquatined with the minutiae and dementia that is Washington State politics, may possibly recall that I wrote about this topic in the Seattle PI in 2000 and warned of the consequences of self righteous howling when the state was confronted with this reality 3 years and millions of taxpayer dollars ago. They had a chance then to comply with the law, which by now would have cost much much less than doing so now after spending so much to defend it in court.
(If you do not recall, do not feel bad – it probably means you have something, ANYTHING, more important to store in your memory cells besides Seattle PI Rant Trac-oops I mean Op-Ed pieces)
For those of you not blessed (or perhaps cursed) with firsthand knowledge of Washington’s wacky primary system, a quick primer:
In most states where candidates for office are selected to run by their parties, voters participate in a primary election. For example, in California one can register Republican, and vote for the Republican candidates in the primary to select who will be the standard bearer in the fall general election.
Most imporatantly though, ONLY Republicans (or Democrats, or Greens, or Silly Party members, or whoever) can pick their nominee. You can’t have a pack of wild-eyed hippies trying to screw up the Republican Party by, say, putting a porn star on the ballot and voting for them to be the GOP nominee for State Comptroller.
Washington, however had an “open” primary. This meant that voters could vote in any primary they wanted. Thus Democrats could decide not to vote in a Democratic primary election – they could instead vote in another party (Green, Republican, World Federalist, etc.) primary instead for each individual office. You can see where this is going.
Basically Washington’s system allowed anyone to vote in any primary, even mixing up their ballot with all sorts of votes – one could presumably vote in a different party’s primary for each one of the constitutional officers for example.
It’s a bogus system designed to damage political organization, and collective action by people through a party.  It’s unfair to the voters in general election because it denies them a chance to have a real contest between the various parties in the general election who are true standard bearers of the various parties.
The fact is if Republicans want to have a vote on who their nominee for State Treasurer, Dog Catcher, or Water Commissioner, they have the right to do so and not have to contend with non-Republicans trying to screw it all up.
They have a constitutionally protected right of free speech and assembly that is being violated when they’re forced to allow people who don’t share their party’s affiliation to participate. Change “Republicans” to “Democrats”, “Greens”, “Reform Party”, or “Silly Party” or whatever party you prefer and the same rule applies.
There are all sorts of “defenses” of the system as is, but the fact is those defenses are irrelevant. The most irritating to me is the one put out by so many of Washington’s alleged “leaders” that somehow this system produces more “moderate” candidates and thus there’s a public interest in creating an electoral system that marginalizes all but the most bland of voices.
The state should not be in the business of deciding what brand of ideology gets to be presented to voters – and deciding which ones do not.  To do so is to make the state in charge of deciding What’s Best For You – instead of you deciding it yourself. That’s Stalinist, at worst, Leninist or Fascist at best.
If the candidates elected as nominees for the general election are too extreme, voters can make another choice and vote for an Independent candidate (who can be truly independent). If a party ends up nominating leftist (or rightist) wackos, that party WILL lose elections and they will have NO ONE but their own party members to blame.
Well the courts have spoken. I’m sure Attorney General (and candidate for Governor) Christine Gregoire will litigate this all the way to the Supreme Court in hopes of at least looking like she’s Standing Up For the People. Never mind that it’s a waste of taxpayer dollars, the Supreme Court will rule (in a rare moment ) with the 9th Circuit, and the whole process is a taxpayer paid sham.
Then again, as a former aide to GOP Sen. Slade Gorton, perhaps she’s hoping for some GOP votes in next year’s primary. Could help in a close race with Democrats such as Ron Sims or Phil Talmadge.
© 2003-2006 Greg Dewar | All Rights Reserved | Originally Published at www.schadelmann.com