Monthly Archives: July 2011

If you’re not already reading Beth Spotswood’s column at the Chronicle, or at the Appeal, or now at the Huffington Post (with Melissa Griffin on video!), you’re missing out on some great observations about San Francisco. Her column today, on the San Francisco Young Democrats meeting was rather entertaining, and reminded me of an incident years ago in Seattle.
Young Democrats (known popularly as YDs) can have some intense meetings, and not about who to endorse for US Senate or something, but on internal matters. It’s easy to belittle, but it’s really no different than a condo association, a bowling club or whatever, because in the end, if you’re a devoted member of any group,and you want to be a leader in said group, you’re going to take this seriously. So I have no doubt that Beth’s account is rather accurate in its description of the events. More importantly it wasn’t all about the internal workings of the YDs – it’s also about the race for Mayor.
That’s because the YDs are one of many endorsements a politican can put on his or her junk mail. If the group’s leadership favors one candidate over the others, it can make a difference. In this case, it would seem that a pro-Yee slate seems to have won, so if you hear about a YDs endorsement later on, well you can figure that one out.
This reminded me of one of the all time death match meetings I’d ever attended in my life – the Washington State Young Democrats in 1996. The YDs up there were smart – they timed their annual election to an early endorsement for the Governor’s race, which featured four major candidates. Playing off the “first endorsement of the year” meme, campaigns went into a panic and started having their supporters sign up to buy a membership by the deadline to be eligible to vote. Needless to say this meant the YDs had one heck of a party fund afterwards.
However, on the day of voting for their officers and the endorsement, all Hell broke loose. First off was the fight for the YD offices, which had an unforseen wrinkle – so many people had joined in the months previous who weren’t acquainted with the candidates, the votes started to shift back and forth and the speechifying and whatnot was out of control. In the end, the “new” members began voting for people based on which school they went to (UW vs WSU, and believe me, that is a Big Fucking Deal in Washington State) and to the shock of the “regulars” they suddenly had people in office they hadn’t expected to win. That thing Beth said about people losing limbs in these fights almost came true that day.
The biggest bloodbath was the run up to the endorsement. Four major Democratic candidates (a former congressman – who is likely to become Governor in 2012 ironically after being Congressman from Elsewhere- a state senator,a King County Executive, and a Mayor of Seattle) had their minions out there scrounging for votes. I’d shown up mostly to hang out with my friends and go to the after parties, but since I was a member, suddenly people were barking at me about who to vote for. I remember one partisan literally screaming at me, face red, veins pulsating merely because I cracked a joke or two about how silly the whole thing was.
I can’t remember who won the endorsement, and in the end it really didn’t matter, but the fact the press bought into this as much as it did made me realize how easily they are to manipulate. I was more impressed at how the YDs figured out a way to make themselves relevant, and make a few bucks, just like those silly straw polls in Iowa before the caucuses.
I put most of this out of my mind until I read “Zioncheck for President,” an account of my friend Grant’s run for Seattle City Council in 2001 and Beth’s piece, because I always tended to regard party functions of any sort (Democrat, Republican, Whatever) as things to be aware of but not invest too much time or energy into, because in the end, once you leave the multi-purpose room these things are held in, no one really cares.
Because, really, when did you, the average voter, give a damn about the internal workings of political parties who are about as concerned about you as, say, Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner?
Seriously.

In the declining days of Our Republic, political parties and rabid ideologues of all persuasions are in agreement on one thing – coming up with ways to rig the electoral system to benefit Their Side, and keep The Other Side from winning. Cloaked in goody-two-shoes terms like “reform,” it is in fact Third World-like in the attempts to suppress votes or ensure Certain People win.
There’s just one problem with all of these half-baked efforts – rarely do they work as advertised, and the unintended consequences are significant. Some make one laugh, most make one wonder if burning the electoral code and doing a reboot with the concept of “majority rule through free and fair elections” as the guiding principle for a change.
Today’s case study: the so-called “Clean Elections” law that the Supreme Court recently ruled unconstitutional. Arizona isn’t the only state with such a law – this was a scheme pushed on various states (including California) by various non-profity, think thank-like groups that know what’s best. If you’re not familiar with the scheme, here’s a very simplified explanation:
Candidates have the option to run as a “clean money” candidate. This means they raise money with limits on how much a donor can give, there’s usually other conditions, and the candidate gets money from the state in the form of matching funds. Most importantly, they agree not to spend more than a certain amount. The caveat, however, is that if any other candidate, even one not participating (since you can’t mandate participation in these things), blows the cap, the state starts matching the funds the (usually rich) candidate is pouring into their campaign.
Now, the people that have been pushing this (now unconstitutional) scheme were generally of the liberal variety. The irony in Arizona? The super-right wing, anti-government, anti welfare types were elected largely because of this law. Yes, you read that right – people who want limited government and don’t like welfare or subsidies could only get elected in Arizona due to a government handout.
The Defenders of Small Government scrambling to figure out how to get their consultants paid without government cheese. Oh, the irony. (By the way, people in the political ad game like these laws because if you follow the rules, you know you won’t be stuck with a warehouse full of mail that’s unpaid).
Locally, the impact of the ruling is a bit more muted. San Francisco’s public finance law (one of many gimmicks to help a Matt Gonzalez run for Mayor in 2003 that never happened) doesn’t give out tax cash to candidates unless they abide by rules and raise private money first. They have to agree to a cap, but they don’t get that cash payout if someone else busts it.
Then again, San Francisco rarely enforces campaign laws on real lawbreakers. They’ll rack up some underfunded schmo who can’t afford a lawyer and has to figure out San Francisco’s crazy-ass laws on their own (they make the IRS look like paragons of simplicity) and nail them for fines. Meanwhile, you can run illegal fake campaigns for non-candidates for Mayor and take buckets of cash to the bank, free of worry.
Ah, but thats yet ANOTHER story….