"Hypocrisy is a bipartisan affliction.
Showing posts with label Campaign Finance Reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Campaign Finance Reform. Show all posts
7/18/12
4/1/12
Bill Moyers on John Hammer, some other local media, and what Howard Coble and Virginia Foxx just voted to kill?
"What we have is much closer to plutocracy,
where the massive concentration of wealth at the top
protects and perpetuates itself by controlling the ends and means of politics.
...The airwaves belong to all of us, right?
...We heard the other day of a candidate for office in a Midwest state
who complained to the general manager of a TV station
that his campaign was not getting any news coverage.
“You want coverage?” the broadcaster replied.
“Buy some ads and then we’ll talk!”
...The media companies and their local stations
– including goliaths like CBS and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp
– stand to pull in as much as $3 billion this year from political ads.
...[From] a letter from the deans of twelve of our best journalism schools:
“Broadcast news organizations depend on, and consistently call for,
robust open-record regimes for the institutions they cover;
it seems hypocritical for broadcasters
to oppose applying the same principles to themselves.”
Hypocritical, but consistent with a business that values the almighty dollar over public service.
The industry leaves nothing to chance.
Through its control of the House of Representatives,
it got a piece of legislation passed this past week
euphemistically titled the FCC Process Reform Act.
George Orwell must be spinning in his grave – this isn’t reform, it’s evisceration.
...There was a noble attempt by California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
to include in this bill an amendment that, like the FCC proposal,
called for stations to post on-line who’s putting up the big bucks for political ads.
Shocker — it was rejected.
Score another one for the plutocrats.
Bill Moyers
where the massive concentration of wealth at the top
protects and perpetuates itself by controlling the ends and means of politics.
...The airwaves belong to all of us, right?
...We heard the other day of a candidate for office in a Midwest state
who complained to the general manager of a TV station
that his campaign was not getting any news coverage.
“You want coverage?” the broadcaster replied.
“Buy some ads and then we’ll talk!”
...The media companies and their local stations
– including goliaths like CBS and Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp
– stand to pull in as much as $3 billion this year from political ads.
...[From] a letter from the deans of twelve of our best journalism schools:
“Broadcast news organizations depend on, and consistently call for,
robust open-record regimes for the institutions they cover;
it seems hypocritical for broadcasters
to oppose applying the same principles to themselves.”
Hypocritical, but consistent with a business that values the almighty dollar over public service.
The industry leaves nothing to chance.
Through its control of the House of Representatives,
it got a piece of legislation passed this past week
euphemistically titled the FCC Process Reform Act.
George Orwell must be spinning in his grave – this isn’t reform, it’s evisceration.
...There was a noble attempt by California Congresswoman Anna Eshoo
to include in this bill an amendment that, like the FCC proposal,
called for stations to post on-line who’s putting up the big bucks for political ads.
Shocker — it was rejected.
Score another one for the plutocrats.
Bill Moyers
8/8/11
Yes Weekly: The Business of Elections in Greensboro
Yes Weekly: The Business of Elections in Greensboro
Municipal elections are a nearly half-million-dollar industry every odd year in Greensboro. In 2007, more than $450,000 washed through the election system, raised from homebuilders, lawyers and other citizens with a stake in city politics, funneled into the coffers of candidates’ campaign and then drained back out in expenditures for yard signs, newspaper ads, billboard displays, payments to poll workers and rental fees for banquet halls.
…The cost of Greensboro municipal elections has more than tripled since 2001, with the total spent by victorious candidates rising from $73,901 in 2001 to $282,623 in 2007.
…The three at-large seats range from $19,547 to $27,889 each. Some district seats go for more than others. The District 4 seat in the city’s affluent northwest quadrant averages $15,119, while District 3 runs $13,303.
…Our campaign finance shows that the average candidate usually gets about 10 percent of their funds from small donors — meaning people who gave less than $50.
“It’s much more efficient to raise your cash from the big donors,” [‘Josh Glasser of Common Cause of North Carolina told delegates at a Greensboro Neighborhood Congress meeting on Sept. 12, Glasser continued.’] “That means courting interests that often come before the city council and ask for favorable regulations and favorable rules. If you survey the sitting Greensboro City Council, every single member would have to admit that their largest or second largest donation came from someone connected to the real-estate industry or the developers industry.”
…District 3 candidate George Hartzman, who attended the meeting, argued that reform needs to be taken a step further.
“You have these people who are wanting to do business with the government, and they’re paying for their election. And then they get elected and they put a proposal in front of the people that they paid to get elected. And then the people who got elected vote for the thing that the person wants to have passed. It’s a conflict of interest…. Why aren’t we looking at not letting the people who are contributing to elections not being able to do business with the city for X amount of time before and after they give the money? Doesn’t that seem simple? It’s basic ethics.”
Zack Matheny, the incumbent in the District 3 race, was first elected in 2007 in a contest with four other opponents in which Matheny quickly emerged as the leading fundraiser. Matheny raised a total of $46,358 [while serving on Greensboro’s Zoning Commission] and secured 58.9 percent of the vote in the general election. His opponent, Joe Wilson, raised only $13,795.
…Newspapers are not far behind printers in a ranking of sectors that financially profit from campaigns. Victorious Greensboro city council candidates spent a total of $68,615 on printing in 2007, and $61,351 on newspaper advertising. One newspaper, the conservative-leaning Rhinoceros Times, dominates the trade, pulling in $26,030 in 2007, followed by the News & Record, with $17,558; the Carolina Peacemaker, with $8,928; The Greensboro Times, with $3,690; and YES! Weekly, with $3,300.
...Adams, Jones, Johnson and Wells are among the six black elected officials who hold voting privileges on the George C. Simkins Jr. Memorial Political Action Committee, commonly known as the Simkins PAC, or simply the PAC. The PAC sends out a mailing during every election to households in predominantly African-American areas of the city that lists its favored candidates.
A white politician who runs citywide, Groat contributed $1,500 to the Simkins PAC in 2007, on top of her payments to Adams and The Greensboro Times,…the newspaper owned by Rep. Earl Jones… Her total payments to the three entities come to $3,362. The PAC reasoned that “Sandra has completed her first term and will continue to be responsive and open-minded.”
Robbie Perkins, another white politician running citywide, also received the PAC’s endorsement. He paid at total of $1,700 to the PAC and related entities.
Three other white candidates received the PAC’s endorsement. Zack Matheny spent $450 with The Greensboro Times on advertising and contributed $200 to the Simkins PAC.
Candidate spending, 2007
1. Mayor Yvonne Johnson — $97,201
2. Mayor Pro Tem Sandra Anderson Groat — $46,414
3. District 3 Councilman Zack Matheny — $45,868
4. At-large Councilman Robbie Perkins — $38,968
5. District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade — $22,595 ($38,379) *
6. At-large Councilwoman Mary Rakestraw — $16,075
7. District 2 Councilwoman Goldie Wells — $7,520
8. District 4 Councilman Mike Barber — $4,982
9. District 1 Councilwoman Dianne Bellamy-Small — $1,300 (estimated)
* Wade paid Republican consultant Bill Burckley $13,784 in January 2008, two months after the election, for mailings. To cover the bill, she raised $11,575, mainly from individuals connected to the real estate, development and building industries, and loaned herself $2,500.
Most expensive races (avg. of victors’ expenditures, 2001-2007)
1. Mayor — $33,091
2. At-large — $19,547-$27,889
3. District 4 — $15,119
4. District 3 — $13,303
5. District 5 — $11,056
6. District 2 — $8,101
7. District 1 — $3,288
Fundraising, 2007 Greensboro municipal election
1. Amount raised Jan. 1-June 30: $10,845
2. Amount raised July 1-Aug. 28: $83,706
3. Amount raised Aug. 29-Sept. 30: $124,616
4. Amount raised Oct. 1-28: $160,194
5. Amount raised Oct. 29-Dec. 31: $84,710
9/13/09
On N&R’s: Candidates call for new financial disclosures
Candidates call for new financial disclosures
…George Hartzman , who is running for a seat in District 3, said candidates shouldn’t take campaign contributions from anyone who does business with the city, including developers and contractors.
…Hartzman’s concept of voluntary “ethics reform” has met with the same kind of skepticism by other candidates — especially those who planned to raise money during the campaign season.
He got the idea from other cities with similar donation restrictions.
“The people who are doing business with the city are basically funding the political process,” Hartzman said…
Greensboro News and Record, Sunday, September 13, 2009
There seems to be a high correlation between those funding the political process and those receiving taxpayer money, which is legal in Greensboro, and which is why we should adopt Pay to Play Campaign Finance Reform, which would outlaw candidates and elected officials from accepting campaign contributions from entities with conflicts of interests, including leading members of organizations receiving taxpayer money, and/or developers, contractors or their lawyers or agents, for 12 months before and after doing business with our municipal government.
Excerpts from prepared remarks: George Hartzman, City Council Candidate Forum, Greensboro Historical Museum, September 8, 2009
Not Anyone.
Not Voluntary.
Time Restrictive.
How do Greensboro’s elected leaders explain to their kids, that they voted to spend someone else’s (taxpayer) money for contracts or grants, that benefit organizations or companies whose officers or owners contributed to their parents political campaigns?
On N&R’s: Candidates call for new financial disclosures
Candidates call for new financial disclosures
…George Hartzman , who is running for a seat in District 3, said candidates shouldn’t take campaign contributions from anyone who does business with the city, including developers and contractors.
…Hartzman’s concept of voluntary “ethics reform” has met with the same kind of skepticism by other candidates — especially those who planned to raise money during the campaign season.
He got the idea from other cities with similar donation restrictions.
“The people who are doing business with the city are basically funding the political process,” Hartzman said…
Greensboro News and Record, Sunday, September 13, 2009
There seems to be a high correlation between those funding the political process and those receiving taxpayer money, which is legal in Greensboro, and which is why we should adopt Pay to Play Campaign Finance Reform, which would outlaw candidates and elected officials from accepting campaign contributions from entities with conflicts of interests, including leading members of organizations receiving taxpayer money, and/or developers, contractors or their lawyers or agents, for 12 months before and after doing business with our municipal government.
Excerpts from prepared remarks: George Hartzman, City Council Candidate Forum, Greensboro Historical Museum, September 8, 2009
Not Anyone.
Not Voluntary.
Time Restrictive.
How do Greensboro’s elected leaders explain to their kids, that they voted to spend someone else’s (taxpayer) money for contracts or grants, that benefit organizations or companies whose officers or owners contributed to their parents political campaigns?
I believe that if Greensboro can pass “Pay to Play” Campaign Finance Reforms, a community with infrastructure like ours combined with a level playing field for business that doesn't have to grease established wheels, could become a magnet for companies looking to relocate.
If there’s less risk and higher return, in a plan fitting circumstances, than circumstances fitting a plan, acknowledge, reduce to the least common denominator, calculate risk, weigh choice, maximize what works, minimize what doesn’t, adjust, find strength in weakness, weakness in strength, and advantage in disadvantage.
Respect momentum, anticipate anticipation, protect your flanks and breathe enthusiasm.
I believe that if Greensboro can pass “Pay to Play” Campaign Finance Reforms, a community with infrastructure like ours combined with a level playing field for business that doesn't have to grease established wheels, could become a magnet for companies looking to relocate.
If there’s less risk and higher return, in a plan fitting circumstances, than circumstances fitting a plan, acknowledge, reduce to the least common denominator, calculate risk, weigh choice, maximize what works, minimize what doesn’t, adjust, find strength in weakness, weakness in strength, and advantage in disadvantage.
Respect momentum, anticipate anticipation, protect your flanks and breathe enthusiasm.
9/11/09
Is the lobbying most abhor at the federal level any different from what occurs locally in Greensboro and Guilford County?
Health care lobbying: Political power machine: Lobbying. TV ads. Political donations.
…The bill for lobbyists, television ads and political donations has topped $375 million.
….The largest chunk has gone to direct lobbying of lawmakers and other policymakers.
…$23 million has flowed…into the campaign war chests of 2010 candidates for federal office, on the heels of some $95 million raised during the 2008 cycle.
…The lobbying figures alone are on track to exceed half-a-billion-dollar mark by the end of the year, which would be a record.
The big payoff for such spending? Open doors to policy makers.
Is the lobbying most abhor at the federal level any different from what occurs locally in Greensboro and Guilford County?
Health care lobbying: Political power machine: Lobbying. TV ads. Political donations.
…The bill for lobbyists, television ads and political donations has topped $375 million.
….The largest chunk has gone to direct lobbying of lawmakers and other policymakers.
…$23 million has flowed…into the campaign war chests of 2010 candidates for federal office, on the heels of some $95 million raised during the 2008 cycle.
…The lobbying figures alone are on track to exceed half-a-billion-dollar mark by the end of the year, which would be a record.
The big payoff for such spending? Open doors to policy makers.
9/9/09
Excerpts from prepared remarks: George Hartzman, City Council Candidate Forum, Greensboro Historical Museum, September 8, 2009
Opening Statement:
My name is George Hartzman, I am a financial advisor and I teach financial ethics and CPA continuing education.
In the last few months, after becoming involved in Greensboro’s political system, I have found that our election process is seriously flawed.
Some commonly accepted campaign contribution practices that are legal in Greensboro, are illegal elsewhere, and I believe some political donations should be illegal in Greensboro.
There seems to be a high correlation between those funding the political process and those receiving taxpayer money, which is legal in Greensboro, and which is why we should adopt Pay to Play Campaign Finance Reform, which would outlaw candidates and elected officials from accepting campaign contributions from entities with conflicts of interests, including leading members of organizations receiving taxpayer money, and/or developers, contractors or their lawyers or agents, for 12 months before and after doing business with our municipal government.
Our political system is broken.
If we can get our political ethics fixed, Greensboro could attract good paying jobs because businesses will know our city provides a level playing field for companies looking to expand or relocate.
Closing Statement:
Greensboro has the highest tax rate of the 10 biggest cities in North Carolina.
Greensboro and Guilford County authorized 77% more debt for November 2008’s election.
Let’s not spend more than we make on what we don’t need.
If more debt = higher taxes, does it seem like a good idea to not spend more than we make on what we don’t need while in the worst recession since the Great Depression?
I believe that if Greensboro can keep taxes and debt low, if we can pass “Pay to Play” Campaign Finance Reforms that offer a level playing field for business looking to relocate, Greensboro could become a magnet for good paying jobs.
But we have to begin by not spending more than we make on what we don’t need.
George Hartzman, Greensboro City Council Candidate, District 3
September 8, 2009
Excerpts from prepared remarks: George Hartzman, City Council Candidate Forum, Greensboro Historical Museum, September 8, 2009
Opening Statement:
My name is George Hartzman, I am a financial advisor and I teach financial ethics and CPA continuing education.
In the last few months, after becoming involved in Greensboro’s political system, I have found that our election process is seriously flawed.
Some commonly accepted campaign contribution practices that are legal in Greensboro, are illegal elsewhere, and I believe some political donations should be illegal in Greensboro.
There seems to be a high correlation between those funding the political process and those receiving taxpayer money, which is legal in Greensboro, and which is why we should adopt Pay to Play Campaign Finance Reform, which would outlaw candidates and elected officials from accepting campaign contributions from entities with conflicts of interests, including leading members of organizations receiving taxpayer money, and/or developers, contractors or their lawyers or agents, for 12 months before and after doing business with our municipal government.
Our political system is broken.
If we can get our political ethics fixed, Greensboro could attract good paying jobs because businesses will know our city provides a level playing field for companies looking to expand or relocate.
Closing Statement:
Greensboro has the highest tax rate of the 10 biggest cities in North Carolina.
Greensboro and Guilford County authorized 77% more debt for November 2008’s election.
Let’s not spend more than we make on what we don’t need.
If more debt = higher taxes, does it seem like a good idea to not spend more than we make on what we don’t need while in the worst recession since the Great Depression?
I believe that if Greensboro can keep taxes and debt low, if we can pass “Pay to Play” Campaign Finance Reforms that offer a level playing field for business looking to relocate, Greensboro could become a magnet for good paying jobs.
But we have to begin by not spending more than we make on what we don’t need.
George Hartzman, Greensboro City Council Candidate, District 3
September 8, 2009
9/8/09
If Loudoun County Virginia can pass Campaign Finance Reform, so can Greensboro, North Carolina.
Loudoun supervisors OK transparency bill
David Sherfinski, July 2, 2008
Loudoun County supervisors Tuesday overwhelmingly approved legislation designed to increase the transparency of local government.
The provisions limit campaign contributions from groups involved in applications or appeals to the board and also require board meeting documents to be made readily available to the public.
Board members said that the first provision would help prevent conflicts of interest with respect to their responsibilities to their constituencies and their responsibilities to the county as a whole.
…Under the approved Prudence in Political Contributions policy, no board member can receive campaign contributions from any party with a standing application or appeal before the board from the time they submit the application until six months after the board comes to a final action on the matter.
…"This is about individuals writing land use applications at the same time they were writing checks," said Chairman Scott York, independent-at large. "We need to assure the public that we are doing the business we were sent here to do on the public’s behalf."
The second transparency provision stipulated that meeting documents be made public — both in paper form and online — no later than the day after board members receive them.
…The two items passed Tuesday are part of an ongoing "transparency in government" package initiated by Supervisor Jim Burton, independent-Blue Ridge, in January.
If Loudoun County Virginia can pass Campaign Finance Reform, so can Greensboro, North Carolina.
Loudoun supervisors OK transparency bill
David Sherfinski, July 2, 2008
Loudoun County supervisors Tuesday overwhelmingly approved legislation designed to increase the transparency of local government.
The provisions limit campaign contributions from groups involved in applications or appeals to the board and also require board meeting documents to be made readily available to the public.
Board members said that the first provision would help prevent conflicts of interest with respect to their responsibilities to their constituencies and their responsibilities to the county as a whole.
…Under the approved Prudence in Political Contributions policy, no board member can receive campaign contributions from any party with a standing application or appeal before the board from the time they submit the application until six months after the board comes to a final action on the matter.
…"This is about individuals writing land use applications at the same time they were writing checks," said Chairman Scott York, independent-at large. "We need to assure the public that we are doing the business we were sent here to do on the public’s behalf."
The second transparency provision stipulated that meeting documents be made public — both in paper form and online — no later than the day after board members receive them.
…The two items passed Tuesday are part of an ongoing "transparency in government" package initiated by Supervisor Jim Burton, independent-Blue Ridge, in January.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)