I find it intriguing that, despite the knowledge that millions are being
poured into campaigns by wealthy individuals and corporations that anyone
could possible question whether or not wrongdoing is more likely than not.
People do not contribute such amounts because they just love these
candidates. They want those candidates to feel and be obligated to vote
their way when the legislative crunch comes.
Can someone tell me when this kind of money has NOT been corrupting?
As David suggests - proving wrongdoing is difficult. Proving influence is
much easier. It's the undue influences that corrupts the process by moving
policy in directions that too often have little to do with the public
interest elected officials have sworn to protect.
Mr. Stewart sounds like a lawyer who requires proof beyond a reasonable
doubt when the preponderance of evidence should the guiding principle.
Andy Driscoll
--
"Whatever keeps you from your work is your work."
Albert Camus
The Driscoll Group/Communications
Writing/Graphics/Political Consulting/Communications Strategies
835 Linwood Ave.
St. Paul, MN 55105
651-293-9039
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> From: David Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 20:38:11 -0600
> To: Mpls list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: RE: [Mpls] Clean money
>
> Ken Stewart argues:
>
>> I have only been in Minneapolis since 1992 and don't have a clear idea of
>> what went on before but since arriving here I have not felt that there was
>> corruption in city or county government Before we change campaign finance
>> laws, let's have a good reason to do so. Are R. T. Ryback and others charging
>> that there has been wrongdoing? Who has done wrongly and what were the
>> circumstances? Is there evidence of probative value? Or, is this a debate
>> around the issue of searching for material with which to attack incumbents?
>
> Ken raises some good points, but I think he misses some.
>
> Speaking as a reporter, proving corruption isn't always the point. What it
> comes down to, on some level, is letting the public decide what's going on
> by providing information.
>
> Is it important during a debate on protecting cab owners from greater
> competition to know how much was given to this mayor or that council member?
> I'd say yes. Does it mean their vote was bought, or that the taxi-cab owner
> is rewarding said official for a previously held position? Dunno; you could
> win a Pulitzer proving that. But I'd rather have you know the facts and
> decide what the relationship means.
>
> Downtown developers hold fundraisers or bundle contributions from
> like-minded business people. Does it influence policy? Unless you believe it
> absolutely doesn't - and Ken, is that what you're arguing? - I think we
> should err on the side of getting the information out there.
>
> I don't know how much it takes to be bought. I do know money seems to
> influence every facet of modern American life, so should we assume that
> politics is the one area that emerges unscathed?
>
> Look, in one election cycle, a single donor can give $600 to a council
> member and $800 to a mayor. Maybe that only earns a thank-you note, or an
> open door, or more. Because of the $100 limit, you don't know anything about
> financial pals for the first three years and two months of a four-year term.
>
> That's the big reason we need "sorta instant" disclosure is so voters can
> make informed decisions in real time. Especially before endorsing
> conventions (and overlooked facet of the law), primaries, and general
> elections. A flurry of money in the last month of the campaign can make a
> difference, but you don't know in time because (sorry Tim Bonham) we don't
> want to stress out campaign treasurers? Tough beans! If nothing else, full
> public disclosure -- information BEFORE voters cast ballots - is vital.
>
> I do think the technology allows this. Hennepin County just spent $3 million
> on a hi-tech voting system. I believe, a la Scott McGerik, that we can spend
> a sliver of that and get fast, accurate, easy-to-compile contribution data.
> (I just ran a charity banquet on Saturday and had over 200 names and some
> address data in our financial and mailing databases by today...and I do work
> for a living!)
>
> I realize Ken is arguing that we can read too much into campaign
> disclosures, but to me, it sounds suspiciously like "don't confuse me with
> the facts." I trust the public, to make better decisions when information is
> available compared to the absence of information.
>
> Maybe the Pohlad or MEA contribution means nothing, but it may well mean
> something. If not "corruption," then "who their friends are." I know when
> making judgments about people in civilian life it helps to know who they
> like - it helps me triangulate. I believe the candidate should answer any
> contibution questions before, not after the voters decide. And they should
> especially have to answer the question SOMETIME, not hiding behind limits
> that can shield up to $400 each election cycle (by giving at the $100
> reporting limit).
>
> Campaign finance is not the most important issue this election, but it's an
> important issue every election, and it's one the candidates have power to
> affect WHILE they're candidates. If it's all RT proposes, he shouldn't be
> elected. If he can make it part of a broader citizen-empowerment agenda, I'd
> say he's off to a good start.
>
> David Brauer
> King Field - Ward 10
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
> Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
> http://e-democracy.org/mpls
>
_______________________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - Minnesota E-Democracy
Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more:
http://e-democracy.org/mpls
