Re: [Mpls] campaign finance

2005-12-12 Thread Mark Snyder

Apologies for the late response to this post, but I'm also a public union
member (MAPE 0301) as a state employee and I disagree with Tony that
limiting PAC contributions would drown out union voices or that it's somehow
wrong to suggest that elected officials should recuse themselves from votes
involving organizations they've allowed themselves to become beholden to.
Admittedly, I used to be of a similar mindset to Tony in that I thought it
was good enough to say a candidate can take money from a good PAC but not
a bad PAC. David Shove did a good job a few days ago of explaining why
that's not good enough.

There are plenty of ways for unions to represent themselves either to
advocate for legitimate union aims or to fight those who seek to undermine
unions without throwing PAC money at municipal elected officials.

And while I am a union member, at the same time, I'm also a Minneapolis
resident and voter and it's pretty easy for me to see that those can come
into conflict from time to time. When that happens, I want the elected
official who's supposed to be representing me to actually represent my
interests and the interests of my fellow Minneapolis residents (or at least
listen to them) and not the narrow special-interests of some PAC or other,
whether it be a union PAC or Faegre  Benson's Govt Fund or whatever.

One need only look at the Police Federation for an example. If I have to
choose between the candidate who tries to get ahead by promising the city
employee living in Maple Grove a bigger raise vs. the candidate whose
priority is the taxpayers of Minneapolis, who should I choose? If I have to
choose between the candidate who is beholden to the Minneapolis Police
Relief Association and the candidate who recognizes that they've been
getting away with their 13th check shenanigans for long enough, who should
I choose?

And as for the comment that unions tend to support those who support us -
I would encourage folks to take another look at Sonja Dahl's post earlier
today. Sometimes, I'm not so sure the union PAC leaders actually realize who
they're getting into bed with.

Mark Snyder
Windom Park

On 12/8/05 6:44 AM, TONY SCALLON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Many on the Issues lists forget who are some of the larger PACS.  The unions
 through their COPE committees are one of the largest contributors to campaigns
 including many of the City Council races.  Efforts to ban or restrict or force
 voluntary recusals will restrict the way many of us union members effectively
 contribute to politics.
 
 The Unions contribute directly to the campaign and also campaign separately
 for the candidates just as the two Park Interest Groups.  Unions have always
 been a mainstay of liberalism from workers rights to civil rights.  Many of
 the Unions are public employee unions such as mine (Teachers Unions).  In
 effect our voices would be drowned out in the so called reform.  Elected
 officials would be forced or pressured not to support legitimate union aims.
 And Yes we tend to support those who support us.
 
 I know of no way to separate out Union PACS from other PACS.
 
 Tony Scallon
 Howe Neighborhood.

REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] Campaign finance question

2005-12-11 Thread Andy Driscoll
I don't believe there is, David. But individual contribution limits apply to
PACs as well, meaning that, if more money is to be spent, it would have to
be the independent type - 521 - and not associated with the campaign in any
meaningful way. But we know how these things work, don't we?

Andy Driscoll
St. Paul 


on 12/11/05 12:02 PM, David Brauer wrote:

 Sincere question for those who know more than I:
 
 Is there an individual-contributor limit to a Political Action Committee
 that might spend money in a Minneapolis race?
 
 Thanks for any help on this.
 
 David Brauer
 Kingfield
 
 REMINDERS:
 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If
 you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.
 
 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
 
 For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
 For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
 
 
 Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn
 E-Democracy
 Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
 Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
 
 


REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] Campaign finance question

2005-12-11 Thread ken bradley
  David,
   

  Minnesota
§10A.27

  Unlimited
Individual ® PAC
 


  Prohibited
  Corporate/Union ® PAC

  Unlimited
  Political Party  ® PAC

  Unlimited
  PAC ® PAC Transfers

   
  The  amount of money  an individual can contribute to a PAC is unlimited in 
the state of Minnesota. Realistically you could give as much money as you want 
to a candidate as long as it is sent to the PAC first. Many large contributors 
just form PAC's. Al Franken for example just formed the Midwest Values PAC to 
raise money for progessive candidates. 
   
  http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/about/cont_to_pac.htm
   
Political Action Committees - Many states also limit the amounts that may 
be contributed to candidates by PACs - only 14 states do not. Limits on PAC 
contributions are generally similar or even identical to the limits on 
individual contributions.  Some states differentiate between two types of PACs 
and establish different contribution limits for the types. For example, in 
Arizona a PAC may qualify for super PAC status if it receives contributions 
from 500 or more individuals in amounts of $10 or more during a one-year 
period. Super PACs may contribute nearly five times the amount a regular PAC 
is permitted to contribute. Arkansas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, and 
Michigan have similar provisions. Some states also place limits on the total 
amount a candidate can receive from PACs. In Arizona, it is $75,624 for a 
gubernatorial candidate and $7,568 for legislative candidates. Other states 
that limit the total dollars a candidate may accept from PACs are Louisiana,
 Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska and Wisconsin. In Kentucky, most 
candidates candidate cannot accept PAC contributions which in the aggregate 
exceed 50% of total contributions or $10,000 (whichever is greater) in an 
election cycle. 
   
  http://www.ncsl.org/programs/legman/about/ContribLimits.htm

  

Ken Bradley
  Kenny Neighborhood



-
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] Campaign finance question

2005-12-11 Thread Terrell Brown
-- Original Message - 
From: David Brauer [EMAIL PROTECTED]




Sincere question for those who know more than I:

Is there an individual-contributor limit to a Political Action Committee
that might spend money in a Minneapolis race?



[TB]  The PAC can spend as much as it want (has) if it is not coordinated 
with the candidate or candidate's campaign.  It needs to be a true 
independent expenditure.  Its from a court decision based on free speech, 
the PAC has a constitutional right to make its opinions known.


An individual is not limited in how much s/he contributes to the PAC (for a 
candidate, technically the limit is what a candidate can accept from an 
individual).  That's essentially the same free speech thing, you can't 
regulate what I can give but you can limit what a candidate can accept.




Terrell Brown
Minneapolis (Loring Park), MN

Should any political party attempt to abolish Social Security, unemployment 
insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of 
that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, 
of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few 
Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from 
other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid. - President 
Dwight D. Eisenhower (R), 1954 



REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] campaign finance

2005-12-08 Thread ken bradley
Tony and Others,

TONY SCALLON [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many on the Issues lists forget who are 
some of the larger PACS. The unions through their COPE committees are one of 
the largest contributors to campaigns including many of the City Council races. 
   
  PAC's represent business interests, lawyers, labor, environmental group, 
pro-choice, pro-life, hate groups, civil rights groups, and so on. They 
represent many segments of our society I personally agree with but that does 
mean the current system is working the best for all the people. 
   
  Creating a public financed campaign system in our city would create a more 
participatory democratic society. It would create a level playing field for all 
citizens regardless of their economic situation or institutional influence. 
Voting would have significant more power and thus hopefully more people would 
participate.
   
  Ken Bradley
  Kenny Neighborhood
   
   


-
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] campaign finance

2005-12-08 Thread Dorie Rae Gallagher
I don't think too many people have forgotten that Unions are some of the 
biggest
contributors to campaigns and the way some did their endorsements have left 
an

indelible mark on the memory not to be forgotten.

Many Union/Labor  members are coming to realize that endorsements are not 
for the best
and the best way for anyone to effectively contribute to politics is to 
process their
own opinions, give money according to their own comfort level within the 
legal
amount and caste a knowledgable vote for the person that best represents 
them.


What some might call effectively contribute, others might call control of 
the masses.


Dorie Rae Gallagher/Nokomis


Many on the Issues lists forget who are some of the larger PACS.  The 
unions through
their COPE committees are one of the largest contributors to campaigns 
including
many of the City Council races.  Efforts to ban or restrict or force 
voluntary recusals
will restrict the way many of us union members effectively contribute to 
politics.


I know of no way to separate out Union PACS from other PACS.

Tony Scallon
Howe Neighborhood.

REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at 
http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, 
contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the 
list.


2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: 
http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html

For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy

Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls



REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] campaign finance

2005-12-08 Thread Cam Gordon

Hi folks,

It is exciting and refeshing to see such interest in this topic since the 
recent election. There are a variety of potential reforms that we could move 
towards in Minneapolis over the next few years.  A sustained, organized and 
thoughtful effort initiated and guided by a group citizen-activists will 
probably be essential to making progress on this front.


Please keep me informed about any organizing efforts made to reform campaign 
finances in Minneapolis.


In peace and cooperation,

Cam Gordon

Seward
2nd Ward City Council Member-Elect
612 296-0579


REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] campaign finance

2005-12-08 Thread David Shove
The Green Party does not accept money from PACS. ANY PACs. Not even good
ones. Not even from pro-choice PACs, or feminist PACs, or minority PACs -
or union PACs.

Good is in the eye of the beholder; if it took any and called it good
the general reply would be, Yeah, right! They would be called hypocrites.
It doesn't like PACs generally, and the only way it has any moral standing
against them is to take from none.

PACs bundle contributions from the rank and file and funnel them thru a
central giver. Then in the rush of the race, the candidate listens to the
funnal, and not the rank and file, who go forever unheard.  They should be
heard - if you want their money, listen to them.

The funnels in unions are the union bosses. They get the power. Many - not
all - of them are not very progressive, and often don't act in the best
interests of the rank and file.

The Green Party needs and accepts contributions of all kinds. Money, time,
ideas, etc. It likes the money in lots of small contributions from lots of
individual people. That way it remains democratic and responsive and able
to act in the interest of the many.

So, much as the GP supports unions and the ideas of unions and union
workers and the spread of unions, it will not take union PAC money. If you
personally want to contribute a small amount, the GP will be more than
happy to accept. It welcomes progressive union members as GP members.

(The above is my personal take on the GP's position, one I strongly
approve)

--David Shove
Roseville

On Thu, 8 Dec 2005, TONY SCALLON wrote:

 Many on the Issues lists forget who are some of the larger PACS.  The unions 
 through
 their COPE committees are one of the largest contributors to campaigns 
 including
 many of the City Council races.  Efforts to ban or restrict or force 
 voluntary recusals
 will restrict the way many of us union members effectively contribute to 
 politics.

 The Unions contribute directly to the campaign and also campaign separately 
 for
 the candidates just as the two Park Interest Groups.  Unions have always been
 a mainstay of liberalism from workers rights to civil rights.  Many of the 
 Unions
 are public employee unions such as mine (Teachers Unions).  In effect our
 voices would be drowned out in the so called reform.  Elected officials would
 be forced or pressured not to support legitimate union aims.  And Yes we tend
 to support those who support us.

 I know of no way to separate out Union PACS from other PACS.

 Tony Scallon
 Howe Neighborhood.

 REMINDERS:
 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. 
 If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
 PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

 For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
 For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
 

 Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
 E-Democracy
 Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
 Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls

REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] campaign finance

2005-12-08 Thread Tim Bonham


Creating a public financed campaign system in our city would create 
a more participatory democratic society. It would create a level 
playing field for all citizens regardless of their economic 
situation or institutional influence. Voting would have significant 
more power and thus hopefully more people would participate.


  Ken Bradley
  Kenny Neighborhood


I've been Treasurer for many party units, candidates, and joint 
campaigns over the years.


I just can't see that public financed campaigns would solve all these 
problems.  Just change to different problems.


Here's some that I see:

1. Adequacy of public financing.  Would the amounts budgeted for this 
be adequate to run a campaign?  Given that the City has trouble right 
now budgeting enough for things like police  fire, I have my 
doubts.  Especially when there is an incentive NOT to fund it -- 
incumbents are already known, and don't have to spend as much getting 
their name out, so inadequate campaign funds generally helps the 
incumbent.  Then why would they budget more money into a system that 
their opponents need more than they do?
And would the amounts stay adequate over the years?  Look at 
the State of Minnesota's Political Contribution Refund 
program.  Though a great  innovative idea when it was passed (31 
years ago), it's becoming more  more irrelevant nowdays.  Because 
the amount has only been changed once (20 years ago), inflation has 
made it so small as to be nearly irrelevant.  More  more candidates 
are deciding it's better for them to forgo participating in this 
program altogether.  And it means less and less for the contributors, too.
And remember that you can't put a limit on campaign 
spending; the Supreme Court struck down that part of the law soon 
after it was passed.  First Amendment rights are clear there.


2. Also, you can't limit the right of people (as individuals, 
political parties, or PACs) to spend their money supporting 
candidates they like.  So you would have lots more of the 
'independent expenditure' type of campaign ads or mailings.  And 
there are often questions about how 'independent' they are -- look at 
Gov. Pawlenty's campaign for an obvious example of that!
Not that the 2 Park Board groups that started this 
discussion are both of this independent expenditure type.  Public 
Financing of the candidate's campaigns would have absolutely no 
control over how these 2 groups spent their money for their supported 
candidates. So I can't see how this would be a level playing 
field.  Those with money could just stay off the field, and create 
their own independent groups to mount huge fans on the sidelines. 
Soon the official candidates' committee spending would be minor 
compared to these independent groups.


3. Finally, ay time government is giving money, they can start to put 
strings on it.
Currently, there are extensive reporting requirements for 
campaign finance.  And more are regularly suggested (often right on 
this list!).  There are fines and charges if you fail to meet these 
reporting requirements.  There is pressure from the State to use 
their suggested software to do your reporting.  (That software 
started out pretty mediocre, with at least one major security 
breach.  It's been upgraded, and now is pretty good.)  But they want 
to force everybody to use it.  There are requirements about accepting 
non-check contributions that appear to work against grassroots 
contributions from low-income people.

And these regulations could be extended.
What about adding a Davis-Bacon type restriction on this: public 
campaign funding can only be spent at businesses that pay prevailing 
('union') wages?  Our DFL candidates generally do this already, but 
what anti-union Republican candidates think of such a restriction?


I don't see this solving the problems at all.

Tim Bonham, Ward 12, Standish-Ericsson

REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


Re: [Mpls] campaign finance

2005-12-08 Thread Matty Lang


Tim Bonham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  I've been Treasurer for many party units, candidates, and joint 
campaigns over the years.

I just can't see that public financed campaigns would solve all these 
problems.  Just change to different problems.

Here's some that I see:

  ML :  (see previous post for list of problems)  
  
  There is a state-level proposal that seems to make a lot of sense that  
addresses many of Tim's concerns:  Fair and Clean Elections  (FACE).  A similar 
system might be workable at the city level  too.  
  
  We'd still have independent expenditures and candidates choosing to  forgoe 
public money in order to spend away their opponents, but  choosing this route 
looks even more unattractive with viable  alternative funding sources 
available.  It might be a challenge to  figure out the funding source at the 
city level, but consider it a  public investment in voter education and 
turn-out.  
  
  Rather than attempt to run through this complicated issue here, I'll  point 
interested parties to the following link to learn more:  
  
  http://www.mapa-mn.org/programs/face/
  
  Would this model work for Minneapolis?  
  Does it adequately address Tim's concerns?  
  What say you, Minneapolis?  What the heck, East Minneapolis can chime in too. 
 ;)
  
  Matty Lang, 
  Central 



-
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping 
REMINDERS:
1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If 
you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list.

2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.

For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract


Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn 
E-Democracy
Post messages to: mailto:mpls@mnforum.org
Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls


RE: [Mpls] Campaign finance considered in ethics report?

2002-09-25 Thread Garwood, Robin

Sorry it took me so long to respond to this...

Victoria Heller wrote, of campaign financing:

Those in the know make a $50 profit by applying for the political
contribution refund.

Sorry, Victoria, but the PCRP is not available to those who make donations
to candidates for Minneapolis offices.  The PCRP is a state program.

This kind of factual error makes your larger (and unsubstantiated) reports
less believable.  This is unfortunate, because I agree with your basic
point: money has a hugely corrosive impact on politics, including local
politics.  One point of disagreement, though, is that you seem to think that
the corruption flows entirely top-down, that is, from office holders and
candidates.  In my experience - the Dinkytown McDonald's comes to mind - the
negative influence of money is at least a consensual affair, if not sparked
in many cases by the avarice of businesses lusting for a partner/patsy
inside city government.

Which brings us to the more important question: how do we solve this?  I
disagree with your defeatist sentiment that all the laws in the world won't
make people honest.  The law against murder doesn't keep our society
totally free from murder, but it's still a really good idea.  

I believe the ethics task force is a step in the right direction.  Most
people's entrance into unethical behavior is like climbing into a bathtub -
toes first, not a cannonball.  If we make the grey areas clearer, we may
keep our freshmen CMs off the slippery slope entirely.

The next step is at least partial public financing of local elections.  I'm
glad you brought up the PCRP - it would be hugely beneficial (especially to
candidates attempting to reach out to the non-monied-interests) to have a
Minneapolis version of this astoundingly successful Minnesota program.  I
realize there are those on this list who decry any expenditure of taxpayer
money at all, but the lesson of the last decade is pretty clear: when you
compare the amount of money given in campaign contributions and the amount
of money allocated to private interests, elected officials tend to be a
REALLY good buy.  Let's pay for them ourselves.

Robin Garwood
Seward
___
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



RE: [Mpls] Campaign finance considered in ethics report?

2002-09-21 Thread Terrell Brown

 -Original Message-
 From:  David Brauer
 
 Did the mayor's ethics group consider campaign-finance 
 reform? Such as:
 
 * More timely disclosures for city candidates. (This includes 
 required electronic disclosures, such as posting on the web 
 so that voters  reporters could more fully analyze 
 contributions close to an election.)

[TB]  The city (or Henn. County where the reports are filed) has gotten
way behind on this one.  Last time I checked they still relied on paper
forms.  At least the state accepts electronically filed forms.  It would
be reasonably easy to adopt the same form statewide (most of the
information required is the same) and use the same electronic filing
system for all.

Since the State of MN already has developed the structure, why not avoid
duplication and put everyone on the same system?

 
 * Reduced or altered contribution limits. (Currently, MN 
 Statutes 211A.12 allows the mayor and at-large Parks and 
 Board of Estimate members, and all Library and School Board 
 of candidates to raise $500 per donor in an election year; 
 council members and district parks commissioners can raise 
 $300 per donor. In non-election years, the limit for everyone 
 is $100.)

[TB]  I don't think the current limits are to high.  They have been
eroded by inflation since they were originally set.  Any contributor
giving over $100 in a year is disclosed.

It costs something over a quarter of a million dollars for a serious
candidate to run for Mayor of Minneapolis.  The $500 limit is only two
tenths of one percent of that.  Unless you are going to have complete
funding of all city campaigns, I don't think giving two tenths of one
percent of the cost of the campaign is unreasonable.

 
 * 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.  

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.


 * If no non-election year ban, more frequent campaign-finance 
 reports in non-election years. (You only have to file 
 annually now, meaning a contribution received in Jan. 2003 
 isn't known until Jan. 31, 2004.)

[TB]  Since only contributions of over $100 are reported and those
contributions are prohibited in non-election years, I don't think
additional reports would give us a whole lot of useful information.
Unless you require all contributors to be listed (which I would not
oppose but would question how meaningful it really is) you don't know
contributors, just aggregate amount of contributions and how much was
spent.

I would make election year reports at least quarterly instead of just
before elections.


 Finally, since many of the rules are in state law, can the 
 city enact its own tougher standards?

[TB]  My non lawyer guess is probably not because the city only has the
power to do the things the state authorizes it to do.



Terrell


---
Terrell Brown
Loring Park
Minneapolis, MN  55403-2315
Terrell at terrellbrown dot org


___
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



RE: [Mpls] Campaign finance considered in ethics report?

2002-09-21 Thread David Brauer

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



Re: [Mpls] Campaign finance reports and Honking Pickle Seeds

2001-10-29 Thread Eva Young

At 09:14 AM 10/29/01 -0600, David Brauer asks:
Does anyone know when pre-general-election campaign finance reports for the
mayor's race are filed? I'm thinking tomorrow (Tuesday) - a week before the
election, but I'm not confident about that.
EY:
I thought October 25th was the due date.  It would be nice service -- if
the toolkit would also accept Campaign Finance Reports from candidates.
Would it?

Yup, I know -- I'm making MORE WORK for David Brauer.  

I also think it is a good thing when candidates post their campaign finance
reports on their campaign website.  Certainly it would be nice if a City
for Neighbors would do that for theirs.  How about it Joe?  

Personally I thought the City for Neighbors website provided some useful
information.  I thought the most interesting part of the site was looking
at the attendance rates for candidates (which their information wasn't
specifically designed for).  Brian Herron had the lowest attendance record
for that list of 15 or so votes.  

However as far as this comment by Don Jorovsky goes:  

But wait!  I forgot!  It's OK when RT's supporters do stuff like that!
They're the pure reformers who are going to change those terrible
things down at City Hall, so it's all justified in the name of the
greater good.  Come on.  You can bet that if some SSB supporters did any
of this stuff, people like Joe would be all over them.
=
EY:  
Is City for Neighbors specifically involved in RT's campaign?  As I recall
RT supporters on the list didn't hold SSB responsible for the posts of MA
on the list.  

As far as attacking a list member for posting to the list instead of
finishing a campaign finance report -- that's a bit lame.  

I'll agree that Barazonzi's excuse was a bit like the dog ate my
homework
I haven't gotten it in because I'm overwhelmed at work and I haven't
dropped it off.

Royally Honking Pickle Seeds:  

Wizard Marks writes:  

The very vulnerable section of the population was the
elderly. At the time, there was subsidized housing for the
elderly. The others in that section were largely dope
dealers, gang bangers, prostitutes and their children. The
others were those trying their damnedest to get out of the
way of the dealers, etc. and in fear of their lives. 
What was also true, and part of the bigger picture, was
that, demographically, Phillips was overwhelmingly the
subsidized poor and the lower echelons of the working poor.
The theory on which Portland Place and SJI were warranted
was that a neighborhood cannot survive and prosper without a
mix of incomes. That meant that there had to be an influx of
higher incomes to balance the lower incomes which prevailed.
That's the bigger picture which I have said before that
Lilligren does not get.

EY:  
I've heard Lilligren talking about housing many times.  I also know that
when people asked him how much he charged for rent for his own buildings --
he answered with a range.  (I don't recall the exact amounts).  The point
is he produced a nice mix of housing opportunities on his block.  

However let us presume that Wizard is correct on this point, and Lilligren
just doesn't get mixed income housing.  I guess what I'd like to hear are
Brock's proposals for improving housing opportunities in Minneapolis.  I've
heard a lot from Wizard Marks -- and her views -- but Wizard is not on the
ballot for City Council -- and Brock is.  So again I'd like to challenge
the elusive Ms. Brock to speak up electronically on this forum.   I'd also
like to hear what write in candidate Zack Metoyer has to say about these
issues.  To his credit, Zack has been contributing to this forum.  I don't
always agree with Zack Metoyer, but I have appreciated his postings to this
list.  

Marks continues honking about being royally honked:  

Not a rumor and the person had a phone call from Lilligren,
not a lit piece. I got the person's call on Friday or
Thursday.

EY:
Robert Lilligren has denied having the conversation Wizard Marks reports.
Wizard Marks insists that the conversation occurred.  So at this point, the
question is credibility.  It's a he says, she says situation.  So people on
the list will just have to decide.  Who has been more honest and credible
on the Minneapolis Issues list -- and if you are on the CNIA Chat list --
who is more credible on that list?   

Eva
Eva Young
Central 



___
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



Re: [Mpls] Campaign finance reports

2001-10-29 Thread Rod G. K.

The reports are due TODAY in person OR if mailed, must be postmarked today.
Thanks
Rod Krueger
Candidate for Re-Election to Library Board
12-3 SENARod 


Original Message Follows 
From: David Brauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [Mpls] Campaign finance reports 
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:14:58 -0600 

Does anyone know when pre-general-election campaign finance reports for the 
mayor's race are filed? I'm thinking tomorrow (Tuesday) - a week before the 
election, but I'm not confident about that. 

Replies to me, or the list, would be appreciated. 

David Brauer 
King Field - Ward 10 


_ 
Do You Yahoo!? 
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com 

___ 
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 
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
___
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


RE: [Mpls] Campaign Finance Disclosure

2001-02-02 Thread David Brauer

Barb writes:

In the end I wish the list would get just as heated
over the affordable housing crisis and solicit what
candidates think about that and more importantly just
how they would try to deal with the problem
Campaign finance disclosure makes for interesting
discussion but is hardly the most germane issue that
candidates should be facing in this election.

I hope people don't try to split campaign-finance reform from the important
issues they care about.

My guess is that if you asked affordable-housing advocates if RT's
campaign-finance changes would help or hurt their cause, those advocates
would say "help." Anything that reduces the role of money in politics -- and
squishes the advantage those who write checks have over those who can't --
should be a plus for helping the less well-off.

And let's not oppose every reform because it isn't the big "magic bullet"
that solves your issue. The political system is just that -- a system --
with lots of people working on lots of fronts for beneficial changes.
Individually, those changes may seem minor, but together, they could add up
to something powerful.

The biggest civic political problem is apathy, and the sense you can't make
a difference. The enemy isn't those fighting for a good idea that might not
be grand enough; it's the bad ideas, or those that keep the public tuned out
of the process. Let's support the good ideas, work together, and knit
together our positive passions. The candidate that does that is the one I'll
vote for.

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