I was planning to wait to see the debate roll out, but I do want to address one point by Terrell:
> > * A ban on non-election year fundraising. > > [TB] I have 2 objections to this. First its incumbent protection. If > nobody could have begun to raise money to run for Mayor in 2001 prior to > January 1, 2001 the challenges would have had a tremendous disadvantage > in challenging an incumbent mayor who had the opportunity to be all over > the media based on the office she held. Really? Having looked a "war chests" over the years, I think just the opposite. Most candidates don't plan to be candidates four years in advance; incumbents do. My guess - and it is only that - is that people decide to run at most two years in advance. That gives incumbents a two-year head start on fundraising. Such "off-year" war chests have scared many a good opponent away. That said, perhaps a compromise is to extend the meaning of election year from calendar year to 12 months prior to the election, for a little longer fundraising time. More importantly, though, banning off-year fundraising (in whatever your off-years are) removes one avenue for private interests to influence public officials. Money for campaign is a necessary evil, but it does distort the body politic - and we should reduce that distortion as much as possible...taking it off the table for 2-3 years would be terrific, in my view. And ethical. > Second, office holders use much of their campaign funds for constituent > services. Unless the city decides to fund these services it is to the > advantage of many of the constituents that these services (i.e. > newsletters, handouts at neighborhood meetings) be provided. Well, this is exactly what the city should do. I've heard the "I need to communicate with my constituents, so let me raise campaign funds" explanation countless times - but just as often, said "constituent services" amount to campaign propaganda. And of course, depending on such "private funds" for public business means they don't have to fall into the city's ethics code. The council's budget for constituent communication - and here, I'm talking notices of meetings, straightforward public info etc. - should be raised if it is too little. This is not a frill; this expenditure is essential in a democracy. I doubt the public would scream if they paid more taxes for what amounts to better service. I still think there should be an Office of Email so that the city can email notices to interested citizens (and, long-term) save budget on mailings. I do this for my neighborhood on a volunteer basis, but it is an appropriate role for taxpayer $$ - not campaign $$. David Brauer King Field _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
