Mike McGavick - Know Him by his Past Business Associates

For about 6 years Mike McGavick worked for CNA Financial Corporation based in Chicago, Illinois. He started in 1995 and left to go to work at Safeco in Feb 2001. Mike McGavick is the Republican challenger to incumbent Washington State U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell.

CNN Financial Corporation is a large insurance corporation that is a 90% owned subsidiary of Loews Corporation. But Mike never mentions this relationship of CNA Financial Corporation to Loews.

Just what is Loews? The following is taken from the earliest posted Annual Report at Loews website , its 2003 Annual Report:

LOEWS CORPORATION, a holding company, is one of the largest diversified financial corporations in the United States. Its principal subsidiaries are listed below. www.loews.com

CNA Financial Corporation (90 percent owned) is one of the largest property-casualty insurance organizations in the United States. www.cna.com

Lorillard, Inc. (wholly owned) is America’s oldest tobacco company. Its principal products are marketed under the brand names Newport, Kent, True, Maverick and Old Gold.Substantially all of its sales are in the United States. www.lorillard.com

Diamond Offshore Drilling, Inc. (54 percent owned), one of the world’s largest offshore drilling companies, offers comprehensive drilling services to the energy industry around the world. It owns and operates 45 offshore drilling rigs. www.diamondoffshore.com

Loews Hotels (wholly owned) has established itself as one of the country’s top luxury lodging companies. It operates 20 hotels and resorts, of which 18 are in the United States and two are in Canada. www.loewshotels.com

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC (wholly owned) owns and operates a 5,800-mile pipeline system that transports natural gas from the Gulf Coast, east Texas and north Louisiana to markets in the southern United States and throughout the Midwest. www.txgt.com

Bulova Corporation (97 percent owned) is a major distributor and marketer of watches and clocks. Its brand names include Bulova, Caravelle, Wittnauer and Accutron. www.bulova.com

Initiative 933 - Who is Howie Rich?

Who is Howard Rich? Voters in Washington might want to know since the organization he chairs, Americans for Limited Government, has contributed $260,000 to the Farm Bureau's effort to eliminate zoning and growth management protections for property owners in Washington State.

Initiative 933 is a snake hiding in the grass. Supporters say it will prevent the government taking away your property without compensation. In reality, it allows developers to extort taxpayers to either pay them for not doing a development that zoning and growth management laws prohibit or force government to waive the laws and regulations that protect homeowners and businesses from inappropriate and environmentally damaging development.

How desperate are the supporters of I-933? The yeson933 website contains a Saturday morning cartoonist video comparing developers to the Mafia in collusion with a corrupt government. What? And it says the issue is the misuse of eminent domain.

Problem is I-933 is not about eminent domain. And one of the biggest supporters of I-933, is New York State real estate developer Howie Rich. I agree he is the villain but not as this cartoon tries to misrepresent the issue. Talk about an attempt to confuse the voters. Or maybe its really an attempt to create controversy and get media attention. The truth doesn't really matter it seems.

There has been some good work going on elsewhere tracking who Howie Rich is, because he and his cronies at Americans for Limited Government, have been throwing lots of money around to promote not just "Pay or Waive" initiatives , but also Tabor style initiatives to limit government spending and also judicial races.

One great source of information is a website www.HowieRichExposed.com On this site you will find a treasure trove of information. Areas covered include: "Howies Issues, Hidden Money, Shadowy Players and Dirty Tactics" Also there are sections on how you can fight back.

As NOW on PBS reported last week, "Organizations associated with Rich have funneled nearly $7 million into 2006 state initiatives aiming to limit government in 12 states, according to an investigation by The Oregonian published last month. Rich has generally declined to reveal how much of the money comes from his personal wealth, and is not required by campaign finance laws to report how much he privately funds his various groups."

You can view NOW's video clip here.

A check with the Oregonian figures shows that the contribution amount is dated as of Aug 4, 2006 and does not include Washington's $260,000.

A blog out of Oregon, Boregasm, has been writing prolifically about Rich and Americans for Limited Government. It is very verbose and now numbers 18 separate lengthy posts but is great reading. Clicking on the link above will take you to "Reportage on Perfidy Made Simple, or, Read the Series in Series" which provides separate links to each of the 18 posts.

NOW credits Hart Williams who writes Boregasm as the inspiration for their story. You can connect to Hart Williams interview on NOW here.

To help prevent out of state developers like Howie Rich in New York from trying to dictitate what kind of laws we have and how we choose to live in Washington State connect to the Noon933 campaign. Volunteer to help. Give them a contribution. Speak up now for local control of our future. Tell your friends and neighbors to vote NO on I-933 on Nov. 7.

More Republican Campaign Legislation

Republicans continue their cynical game playing the terrorism card in an attempt to get voter support for their candidates in the upcoming election. They continue to manufacture legislation to generate votes that they can use in attack ads challenging their opponents.

The terrorism game for Republicans emerges as an attempt to draw public attention away from the failures of the Bush Administration and Republican controlled Congress in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The House in a 253 to 168 vote approved Bush's bill for interrogating and trying terrorist suspects. Immediately the Republican Majority Leader Boehner said "It's outrageous that House Democrats, at the urging of their leaders, continue to oppose giving President Bush the tools he needs to protect our country." So the bill passes and he attacks the Democrats?

But what was at stake? The bill passed by the House, H.R.6166 , is actually entitled 'The Military Commissions Act of 2006. It deals with setting up new military commissions to try so called "illegal enemy combatants". Here's part of what the New York says in their editorial "Rushing off a Cliff":

These are some of the bill's biggest flaws:
Enemy Combatants: A dangerously broad definition of  "illegal enemy combatant" in the bill could subject legal residents of the United States, as well as foreign citizens living in their own countries, to summary arrest and indefinite detention with no hope of appeal. The President could give the power to apply this label to anyone he wanted.
The Geneva Conventions: The bill would repudiate a half-century of international precedent by allowing Mr. Bush to decide on his own what abusive interrogation methods he considered permissible. And his decision could stay secret - there's no requirement that this list be published.
Habeas Corpus: Detainees in U.S. military prisons would lose the basic right to challenge their imprisonment. These cases do not clog the courts, nor coddle terrorists. They simply give wrongly imprisoned people a chance to prove their innocence.
Judicial Review: The courts would have no power to review any aspect of this new system, except verdicts by military tribunals. The bill would limit appeals and bar legal actions based in the Geneva Conventions, directly or indirectly. All Mr. Bush would have to do to lock anyone up forever is to declare him an illegal combatant and not have a trial.
Coerced Evidence: Coerced evidence would be permissible if a judge considered it reliable - already a contradiction in terms - and relevant. Coercion is defined in a way that exempts anything done before the passage of the 2005 Detainee Treatment Act, and anything else Mr. Bush chooses.
Secret Evidence: American standards of justice prohibit evidence and testimony that is kept secret from the defendant, whether the accused is a corporate executive or a mass murderer. But the bill as redrafted by Mr. Cheney seems to weaken protections against such evidence.
Offenses: The definition of torture is unacceptably narrow, a virtual reprise of the deeply cynical memos the administration produced after 9/11. Rape and sexual assault are defined in a retrograde way that covers only forced or coerced activity, and not other forms of nonconsensual sex. The bill would effectively eliminate the idea of rape as torture.

It is politically motivated legislation that tells the world we really don't care about the safeguards our founders wrote into the Constitution. I urge you to read the bill yourself.

Here are some quotes (highlighting is mine) and issues I saw.

I could find no mention of how quickly one needed to be charged with a crime, yet a specific time period, 20 days, is all that's allotted for an appeal.

The definition of who can be tried by these commissions is very broad. The bill is also retroactive to cover any event in the past.

The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means--
`(i) a person who has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban, al Qaeda, or associated forces); or
`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense.

And while the judge presiding has to have a judicial background, the people who sit on the commission and vote need not be. "Any commissioned officer of the armed forces on active duty is eligible to serve on a military commission under this chapter."

"Evidence shall not be excluded from trial by military commission on the grounds that the evidence was not seized pursuant to a search warrant or other authorization"

" ...hearsay evidence not otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence applicable in trial by general courts-martial may be admitted in a trial by military commission..."

"The military judge may close to the public all or a portion of the proceedings under paragraph (1) only upon making a specific finding that such closure is necessary to--
`(A) protect information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities;..."

This bill is being pushed now to meet the political agenda and needs of the Republican Party and because this is the time Bush is most likely to get the least objection. I agree with the New York Times that it is full of bad policy and law for our country.

Forty Per Cent of Votes Cast in November Won't be Able to be Verified!

According to the New York Times this last Sunday "about forty percent of registered voters nationally" are expected to cast their ballots on paperless touch-screen voting machines in November. At stake in November are votes on all 435 House of Representatives seats and one third of the U.S. Senate. At stake is whether Republicans or Democrats control one or both Houses of Congress.

The concern, the NY Times notes, is that "many local officials fear that the lack of a paper trail will leave no way to verify votes in case of fraud or computer failure ". There can be no recount with electronic voting machines without a paper trail.

Do voters have a reason to be concerned? The NY Times says that "about one-third of all precincts nationwide are using the electronic voting technology for the first time, raising the chance of problems at the polls as workers struggle to adjust to the new system."

The Washington Post likewise points to voting problems this year. Overall "more than 80 percent of voters will use electronic voting machines, and a third of all precincts this year are using the technology for the first time."

The Post cites 4 different catagories of problems and highlights recent developments

1. electronic voting machines - We have previously written about tampering with voting machines and also voter machine malfunctions.
see The Winner is Behind the Voting Machine Screen or "My God, Who Really Won?"
also "Was the Georgia 2002 Election Stolen?
2. new voter registration requirements that disenfranchise legitimate voters
3. new voter id requirements at the polls which work to stop legitimate voters from voting
4. provisional ballots - where questioned registration has impeded voting.

The Republicans have essentially worked hard to put roadblocks up to prevent legitimate voters from voting. There are not specific instances of any kind of major, much less minor, voter fraud in terms of unregistered voters voting. Illegal immigrants voting has been pushed as a hot button issue, but think about it. If you were an illegal immigrant why would you risk the chance of being caught and deported? The issue has been manufactured by the Republicans as part of their campaign strategy to justify impediments to voting, which affect the elderly, recent legal immigrants that become citizens and poor the most. The reason - these people are more likely to vote Democratic.

Greg Palast writes of another major factor helping to destroy voter confidence in fair honest elections in "Recipe for a Cooked Election" on the YES Magazine website.

"A nasty little secret of American democracy is that, in every national election, ballots cast are simply thrown in the garbage. Most are called "spoiled," supposedly unreadable, damaged, invalid. They just don"t get counted. This "spoilage" has occurred for decades, but it reached unprecedented heights in the last two presidential elections. In the 2004 election, for example, more than three million ballots were never counted"

Palast discussed four major issues here:

1.provisional ballots being rejected
2. spoiled ballots
3. absentee ballots uncounted
4. voters being barred from voting

Public confidence in the validity of our voting processs and tle legitimacy of our elections are called into question by this mess. With a close election in November and the makeup of Congress in the balance, election officials in charge of our voting need to act now to correct these problems.

The stakes are too high to ignore. What is happening is reducing voter confidence in fair and honest elections. People have good reason to doubt that their votes are really being counted. They have good reason to question whether elections are really honest and fair.

The stakes are too high for people to think that if an election can be rigged, that it really won't, because this is America. Many people have learned the hard way that leaving a door unlocked is a temption for someone to enter it. Electronic voting without a paper trail needs to end. And unnecessary impediments to citizens voting is undemocratic. We need to encourage more people to participate in their democracy, not put up unnecessary roadblocks.

Was the 2002 Georgia Election Stolen?

Robert F Kennedy's new article in Rolling Stone is a must read for anyone concerned about election integrity and democracy in America. I urge that you read his full article.

The following excerpt is what a former Diebold consultant said happened in Georgia in 2002. After reading it tell me why a Grand Jury should not be convened to investigate whether or not Georgia's election was stolen.

"Chris Hood remembers the day in August 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia. An African-American whose parents fought for voting rights in the South during the 1960s, Hood was proud to be working as a consultant for Diebold Election Systems, helping the company promote its new electronic voting machines. During the presidential election two years earlier, more than 94,000 paper ballots had gone uncounted in Georgia - almost double the national average - and Secretary of State Cathy Cox was under pressure to make sure every vote was recorded properly.

Hood had been present in May 2002, when officials with Cox's office signed a contract with Diebold - paying the company a record $54 million to install 19,000 electronic voting machines across the state. At a restaurant inside Atlanta's Marriott Hotel, he noticed the firm's CEO, Walden O'Dell, checking Diebold's stock price on a laptop computer every five minutes, waiting for a bounce from the announcement.

Hood wondered why Diebold, the world's third-largest seller of ATMs, had been awarded the contract. The company had barely completed its acquisition of Global Election Systems, a voting-machine firm that owned the technology Diebold was promising to sell Georgia. And its bid was the highest among nine competing vendors. Whispers within the company hinted that a fix was in.

"The Diebold executives had a news conference planned on the day of the award," Hood recalls, "and we were instructed to stay in our hotel rooms until just hours before the announcement. They didn't want the competitors to know and possibly file a protest" about the lack of a fair bidding process. It certainly didn't hurt that Diebold had political clout: Cox's predecessor as secretary of state, Lewis Massey, was now a lobbyist for the company. The problem was, Diebold had only five months to install the new machines - a "very narrow window of time to do such a big deployment," Hood notes. The old systems stored in warehouses had to be replaced with new equipment; dozens of state officials and poll workers had to be trained in how to use the touch-screen machines. "It was pretty much an impossible task," Hood recalls. There was only one way, he adds, that the job could be done in time - if "the vendor had control over the entire environment." That is precisely what happened. In late July, to speed deployment of the new machines, Cox quietly signed an agreement with Diebold that effectively privatized Georgia's entire electoral system. The company was authorized to put together ballots, program machines and train poll workers across the state - all without any official supervision. "We ran the election," says Hood. "We had 356 people that Diebold brought into the state. Diebold opened and closed the polls and tabulated the votes. Diebold convinced Cox that it would be best if the company ran everything due to the time constraints, and in the interest of a trouble-free election, she let us do it."

Then, one muggy day in mid-August, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a "patch," a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. "We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood says. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."

Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level."

According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties - the state's largest Democratic strongholds. To avoid detection, Hood and others on his team entered warehouses early in the morning. "We went in at 7:30 a.m. and were out by 11," Hood says. "There was a universal key to unlock the machines, and it's easy to get access. The machines in the warehouses were unlocked. We had control of everything. The State gave us the keys to the castle, so to speak, and they stayed out of our way." Hood personally patched fifty-six machines and witnessed the patch being applied to more than 1,200 others.

The patch comes on a memory card that is inserted into a machine. Eventually, all the memory cards end up on a server that tabulates the votes - where the patch can be programmed to alter the outcome of an election. "There could be a hidden program on a memory card that adjusts everything to the preferred election results," Hood says. "Your program says, 'I want my candidate to stay ahead by three or four percent or whatever.' Those programs can include a built-in delete that erases itself after it's done."

It is impossible to know whether the machines were rigged to alter the election in Georgia: Diebold's machines provided no paper trail, making a recount impossible. But the tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. Six days before the vote, polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss - darling of the Christian Coalition - by five percentage points. In the governor's race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent.

Read Kennedy's full article at Rolling Stone.

Daily Kos comments on Kennedy's article

The Winner is Behind the Voting Machine Screen or "My God, Who Really Won?"

Electronic voting machines without verifiable paper voting trails are the winners. Whoever controls the machines decides the vote in the end. Robert F Kennedy, Jr. presents new evidence that electronic voting machines can't be trusted. ( 9/23 -link now corrected for most recent story) This new evidence mandates that a formal grand jury investigation be initiated into voter fraud.

Our current voting system is a scandal. Many states, including Washington State ,use electronic voting machines in one form or another to determine election results. And the public really has no reason to trust the election results controlled by secret code behind the voting screen that can be tampered with and rigged to fix elections. Without a paper record to verify accuracy, only the person who wrote the code knows who really won.

In a just released article in the current edition of Rolling Stone magazine, Kennedy picks up his attack on the disaster that continues to confront the voting public. His new article is entitled "Will the Next Election be Hacked? Fresh disasters at the polls -- and new evidence from an industry insider --prove that electronic voting machines can't be trusted"

As Kennedy notes, "The United States is one of only a handful of major democracies that allow private, partisan companies to secretly count and tabulate votes using their own proprietary software. Today, eighty percent of all the ballots in America are tallied by four companies - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic."

This article provides insider testimony from a former Diebold consultant that the 2002 Georgia election that saw the defeat of Democrat Senator Max Cleland and the Democratic candidate for Governor Roy Barnes was probably rigged. A last minute patch was secretly installed on Diebold machines. With no paper trail, only the machines programmed by Diebold, tallied the final vote.

Earlier this month, tests run by the Center for Information Technology Policy at Princeton University demonstrated just how such a patch could rig an election. The patch would not be active when the machine is tested, would activate when votes are being taken, and would erase itself when voting was done so no trace would be available. Watch the videos yourself.

Kennedy's article is a must read! After his previous article last spring in Rolling Stone questioning "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?", there was some pickup of it by the traditional media but there was no significant follow-up. In that article he detailed how votes were suppressed in Ohio and elsewhere to benefit Republicans.

His current article continues his investigation with what happened in Georgia in 2002 and discusses numerous other electronic voting machine problems . The inside account by a former Diebold consultant alone should be enough to require that a formal investigation be initiated. Because Congress is run by the Republicans, they have no incentive or motivation to pursue what appears to me to be a major scandal. Any investigation needs to be independent of Republican control. That's why I suggested a Grand Jury investigation.

Will the traditional media continue to ignore this scandal or will it start doing some investigation and reporting on its' own? When Media gets concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations and those corporations support the powers to be, investigative journalism and truth gets knocked aside. Time for the blogs to roll with this!

Seealso these recent blog posts:

Hotel Minibar Key Opens Diebold Voting Machine by CORRENTEWIRE.COM
Diebold Touch Pad Voting: Backdoor to Fraud by BLACK BOX VOTING
Who's Fixing Elections? Sequoia-Smartmatic-Unisys by CHRISTOPHER BOLLYN
Vote Machine Fraud Challenge Reaches Supreme Court by ECOTALK.ORG
Diebold VoteFraud Conspiracy Whistleblower Arrest by PETER SOBY JR.
Florida Dumps Diebold Voting (Fraud) Machines by BLACK BOX VOTING

A Simple Reason to Oppose Initiative 933.

Washington State Initiative 933 on the November, 2006 ballot is really an attempt by the development community to create something called "developers rights". Developers rights mean that individual property owners rights and community property rights disappear. That is because these developer rights would eliminate zoning and growth management regulations that protect individual property owners in a community.

The problem with I-933 is that while it supposibly says government must compensate you for any "damage" a regulation does to you, it says nothing about your being compensated for any damage your neighbor may do to you. By removing zoning and growth management protections. your neighbor can set up a motorcycle track, or a junk auto yard or a pig farm next door and you can't stop them.

If I-933 passes you lose your protections and can actually see your property values go down. When your neighbor has the right to do whatever they want with their land it means you won't be able to stop inappropriate development unless you pay them to not do it. Community and neighborhood values no longer count. The value of your land can decrease, especially when there is no longer any community certainty as to the future uses of land in the community.

Do you have the money to pay to stop a a WalMart or a junkyard or a gambling casino from being built next to you? Neither does our government. I-933 is legislation by developer interests to legalize extorsion. What happens is that local governments have to give in and let them do whatever they want. They can't afford to compensate for all alleged development.

As the Skagit Valley Herald noted in a recent editorial, I-933 is part of a national effort by libertarians like New York developer Howard Rich who pumped some $400,000 into the signature drive to put I-933 on this November's ballot. Howard Rich don't live or vote in Washington State.

I-933 is written to actually go back 10 years to determine its starting point for regulations and zoning. That in itself is a major flaw in the initiative. You're not even voting for things as they are now.

And it also means that all future zoning changes and changes to growth management laws will open up government to lawsuits over "potential development"loses. There will no longer be any challenges to inappropriate development because any attempt to stop or change a project will be taken to court asking for "damages" or the unlimited "right to build."

All because some rich East Coast Libertarians joined with the Washington State Farm Bureau - which represents corporate farmers - to argue that developers rights should trump individual and community rights.

Read more about the I-933 campaign by going to the Noon933 campaign website.

Contributions to Washington PAC's Need to be Limited

Tuesday's Primary in Washington State brought into focus a number of things that need changing in campaign finance law. The major change needed is to limit all contributions trying to affect the election to the same amount per person, whether going directly to the candidate or indirectly to any PAC trying to help the candidate.

In terms of trying to affect the outcome of the election it doesn't matter where the money goes.
Its all being used to try to elect the same person.

The Legislature needs to end this current loophole in campaign financing. They made an effort earlier this year to try to limit huge spending in judicial races but they left this huge loophole by not also limiting contribution amounts to so called "independent" PAC's.

We like to talk of the equality we all share in elections , that one person has one vote. We're equal, right. Wrong - as long as some people, groups, associations can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money trying to affect the outcome of an election, we are in no way equal.

The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) in spending a million dollars to try to anoint their own lawyer, John Groen, to the Washington State Supreme Court, vividly points out just how unequal we are in the election process.

While voters wisely appear to have rejected Groen in this election as someone beholden to a single special interest, it took a huge effort to get the word out on what was happening. And unfortunately the BIAW appears unapologetic in their belief that it is ok for them to try to buy an election with their huge financial advantage in reaching voters.

They did it 2 years ago in giving a huge financial advantage to James Johson who won his race for Supreme Court Justice against Mary Kay Becker. They also gave huge contributions to help get libertarian Jim Saunders elected to the Court. And they came close this year to electing their third candidate.

While individuals are limited by the new law to giving judicial candidates for Supreme Court $1400 per election, they still can give an unlimited amount to an "independent" PAC to try to affect the outcome of the race. Expect to see more large contributions in the BIAW's efforts to get Steve Johnson elected in November over sitting Justice Susan Owens.

The key change needed is to equalize one's ability to influence the election with money, just as we equalize how many votes we each have to one when we cast a ballot. The key to doing this is to say everyone has the ability to give money up to $1400 per person to either the candidate's committee directly or indirectly to any other PAC, association or other entity trying to influence the outcome of the election.

The BIAW will now shift its focus by trying to kick Susan Owens off the Court by helping to elect Steve Johnson in November. They will again not limit contributions they accept.

The BIAW is not alone in this. A front group calling itself Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse based in Virginia contributed $400,000 it it's newly created Washington State PAC to suppot Groen.

Two years ago the US Chamber of Commerce spent $1.5 million trying to defeat Deborah Senn who was running against Rob McKenna for Washington State's Atorney General. McKenna won
The BIAW spent hundreds of thousands of dollars independently in this race supporting McKenna and opposing Senn.

Votes decide elections and dollars help reach voters and persuade them. One person, one vote is only part of the election equation. One person, one vote means nothing if special interests can raise and spend unlimitee amounts of money.What everyone including PAC's, corporation, aassociations need to do is abide by a $1400 per person limit to be fair to Washington's voters.

Early Primary Results Give Justice Alexander Slight Lead.

Early AP results reported at 9:30 P.M. by King 5 News give Chief Justice Gerry Alexander a 53% to 47 % lead over his BIAW supported opponent John Groen. This is with approximately 44% of the vote counted. This race is still too close to call.

The AP has declared Justice Tom Chambers the winner with a 58% vote to 42% for his conservative opponent Jeanette Burrage.

The third Supreme Court race has Justice Susan Owens with 45% and next Steve Johnson 33%. With 5 candidates in this race, it was expected that there would not be anyone getting over 50%. Unless there is a drastic change, this race will appear on the November general election ballot. We can expect to see a lot more money spent in this race.

Update 11:00 P.M. results not much different, but looking better for Alexander. He now leads by 54% to 46% . Only 15% of King County voted have been counted.

With 49% of the vote: its Alexander with 252,483 to Groen 223,785.

Chambers still 58% to 42% over Burrage 271,584 to 188,855

Owens 45% to S.Johnson 33% 213,725 to 156,583

Peter Goldmark Still Riding Hard Toward Washington, D.C.

Daily Kos has a great post on up and coming eastern Washington Congressional Democratic Candidate Peter Goldmark whose chances of riding East to Washington DC are increasing. See also McCranium.org

As mcjoan notes in her post The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has added Peter Goldmark to its highly prized slate of red to blue candidates and emerging races.

As the DCCC notes in its weblog, the Stakeholder, Peter Goldmark (WA-5) has been added to a select list of 15 candidates on the emerging list. Washington State's Darcy Burner (WA-8) is also on the list of red to blue candidates , having been selected in the first wave of candidates.

"The DCCC Emerging Races list is made up of candidates who have taken traditionally non-competitive districts and, through the strength of their campaigns, put themselves in a position to win in November. Red to Blue and Emerging candidates all represent the new direction that American voters are searching for and all have pledged to put the priorities of middle class families first when they get to
Washington.

“With less than two months to go, the DCCC is excited to give our top candidates the necessary strategic and financial boost they will need to win in November,” said Congressman Rahm Emanuel, Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Americans are looking for new leadership and a new direction and these Democratic candidates will put
middle-class families first when they get to Washington.”

Goldmark is making a strong appeal to farmers and ranchers. He is one himself and understands their situation. Unlike Morris, he wants to sit on the Agriculture Committee.
As Capitol News quotes him:

"When I go back to Congress, I will be on the House Agriculture Committee, unlike my opponent. We need a strong voice in Congress that speaks out for agriculture and that will be at the table all the time," he said. "Everybody who grows food and fuel deserves respect, recognition and, yes, help from the federal government when needed."

You can help send Peter Goldmark to Washington, DC by giving him a contribution today.
Click on the link below.
Yes, I want to help Peter with a contribution.

Republican Hit Piece Coming Against Democrat Darcy Burner!

No sooner does Joel Connelly in the Seattle PI note that the Republicans are out to rip their opponents than more proof appears. Independent expenditure reports tabulated at www.PoliticalMoneyLine.org note that The National Republican Congressional Committee on Friday reported $25,587 in mailings "in opposition to Darcy Burner for Congress."

Darcy Burner is running to toss out first term incumbent Dave Reichert in the 8th Congressional District in Washington State. Just like Joel said, Don't they have something positive to say about their candidate? This is not an expenditure to supprt Dave Reichert for Congress. I could find no other recent expenditure by them supporting Reichert.

Republicans in the House are against the wall this year, with voters waking up to the fact that Republicans have been working to help their special interest moneyed backers, not middle class and lower class working people in America. Cutting student loans, refusing to raise the minimum wage and turning back years of health and environmental protections speak volumes to what another two years of unchecked control of Congress by Republicans means for our future and our children's future.

Darcy Burner is not alone in being hit with upcoming negative ads. As Daily Kos reports she is part of a $2 million buy of negative ads.

Darcy Burner represents a new and independent voice and deserves our support. You can help to counter negative Republican hit pieces that don't speak to the issues we really face in this country by sending her a contribution today. President Bush and Karl Rove have both come to Washington State to raise closed door contributions to keep Reichert alive.

While donations to Burner have exceeded Reidhert's the last three quarters according to FEC reports, independent contributions from 527's and other can quickly alter this advantage.

You can make a contribution today by clicking on the Majority Rules Act Blue Contribution page. Help keep Darcy out front.

Expect that as November gets closer the National Congressional Republican Committee will send out other mailings. On August 20, 2006 it was reported by www.PoliticalMoneyLine.org
that they had some $43,622,106 to spend around the country.

Time for Washington Secretary of State Reed to Step In!

It is totally ridiculous that 10% or more of Washington state primary ballots for partisan races can be invalid. It smacks of incompetence and neglect both at the county and state level.

As reported this week in the Seattle PI and in the Seattle Times a sampling of Snohomish County's ballots were showing up to 20% invalid for partisan races. Other counties absentee ballots were running at 10% invalid in Pierce County, 7% in Clark County, 11% in Clallam County, 5% in King County and 12% in Chelan.

The problem is that 25 of Washington's 39 counties use a consolidated mail in ballot for the primary in which all candidates are listed. Looking at King County's ballot I can see why voters may be confused. Maybe it's because the layout and use of words is confusing. Did no one ever test the ballot design to see if people understood it or if it was clear? Were problems in the previous two primary elections merely ignored even though they had a high invalid rate?

The ballot is divided into lots of boxes. The section that says "PARTY PREFERENCE" is in a box by itself asking you to "vote for one" , then has an oval for for you to fill in for DEMOCRATIC or REPUBLICAN.

A message that says "If you do not select a party preference or if you select more than one party, your votes for partisan contests will not count." is in a separate box above it. There is also a box below it saying your" selection is private and no record of your choice is maintained."

Design wise this is very cluttered. And then you are asked for your party preference. Why not something simpler like "Pick the party primary you want to vote in." or "Mark here which political party primary you want to vote in." The word preference is not very strong and is actually confusing. A Webster's College Dictionary says preference means the act of preferring. The word prefer is first defined as "to set or hold before or above other persons and things in estimation; like better: I prefer school to work."

So I am being asked to estimate which party I like better? What if I like neither party. Is this an opinion poll question? Or is this some kind of intelligence test to see if I can make a decision based on multiple meanings for a word and connect things said in different boxes before I fill in an oval.

And to top it off the vote for "PARTY PREFERENCE" does not have a colored section above it like 2 party sections do and also the nonpartisan races and measure. But a block below it in a colored block it says "For Democratic Preference Start Voting Here . Did you notice something peculiar. Namely the words - "Start Voting Here"

The Bottom Line: With such a high rate of invalid ballots and with the possible confusion, I urge the Secretary of State to show some leadership, and for his office to direct that in all cases where voters have clearly only marked for candidates in one party or the other, that they ignore the confusing "preference" designation and bad ballot design and count those votes.

It is not acceptable to run an election and have that many ballots discounted. The question is, can the Secretary of State put aside his bias for open primaries and opposition to party designations and do the right thing. After all it is his job to insure that voters votes count. Votes should not be tossed out because of poor design and oversight on absentee ballots on a problem that they have been aware of now for two previous elections.

BIAW and Cronies out to Slaughter Alexander, Anoint Groen to Supreme Court!

Everything that the Washington State Legislature tried to prevent in limiting campaign contributions to judicial candidates in Washington State has come to naught. The Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW) and its cronies are laughing at Washington's State Legislators.

One could very well ask them, Do you have no shame?

They are literally trying to bully their self anointed candidates onto the Washington State Supreme Court by steamrolling over their opponents with their voter contact and media saturation campaign. They are literally trying to cram their candidates down our throats. I guess they don't trust the voters to be able to make reasoned decisions on their own.

Washington voters should be outraged at this holier than thou money controls all challenge to fair elections by the BIAW. Doesn't it make you wonder why they think they have to spend so much money to convince voters to vote for their candidates?

Latest figures show money being raised for BIAW candidate John Groen and for opposing Chief Justice Gerry Alexander now tops $1.7 million. The latest up to date figures posted by www.VotingforJudges.org shows that the BIAW has spent almost a million dollars in their effort. Adding their $141,829 unreported C-6 expenditures for Walking for Washington to their other $807,993 cash and in-kind expenditures brings their current effort to $949,717.

The Washington State Legislature was right to fear the BIAW was trying to buy Supreme Court Justices. But they really misjudged that the BIAW would listen to the message and restrain their efforts to pack the Supreme Court with developer friendly judges. The Washington State Legislature needs to come back next year and amend the campaign laws to limit contributions to PAC's. Other states already do this.

The issue is not one of limiting spending which the US Supreme Court has frowned on. The issue is one of reasonably limiting special interests from overwhelming the media, mail and other efforts to reach voters such that they drown out the voices of anyone else who wants to have a say in the election. We have a one person/one vote system everyone agrees to.

We need a one person/one contribution amount for all campaign contributions whether directly to the candidates own campaign committee or indirectly through a so called independent expenditure. The limit needs to be the same whether you give directly to the candidate or indirectly to some so called independent PAC also trying to influence the outcome of the election.

If you don't limit also limit individual contributions to PAC's then limits to candidate committees make no sense. The law says the BIAW could only give $1400 directly to Groen. But they are spending a million dollars to help elect him. Unlimited contributions to PAC's now drown out the voice of the candidate.

The almost million dollars spent by the BIAW to try to anoint a former lawyer to the BIAW is obscene. It drowns out other peoples voices. Hopefully Washington voters will realize what is going on and reject the BIAW's attempt to take over the Washington State Supreme Court for the own narrow interests. I urge people to vote for Gerry Alexander and spread the word to others. The final chance to vote is this Tuesday Sept.19 if you are not voting absentee. This race will be decided Tuesday.

Text of PDC Complaint Filed Against Groen Supporters by Majority Rules Blog

Join the following complaint today against John Groen backers violating Washington State 's Public Disclosure laws. Just e-mail the PDC Executive Director and ask that your name be added to the complaint filed against Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse filed by Steve Zemke of Majority Rules Blog. The e-mail address is vrippie@pdc.wa.gov Please note in the comments thread below that you have done so. Thanks.

Sept. 13, 2006
To Vicki Rippie - Executive Director
Phil Stutzman - Director of Compliance
Jane Noland – Chair

Dear Public Disclosure Commission:

I would like to file the following complaint with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. An out of state PAC named Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse -WA has filed a C1PC with you and has reported receiving some $400,000 in contributions but then lists its source literally as coming from itself, namely Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse, which is filed with the Virginia Board of Elections which doesn’t require any reporting until Oct.15, 2006.

I believe that Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse is really a PAC of a Washington DC Association called the American Tort Reform Coalition. But in the C1PC filed with you, which asks “If committee is related or affiliated with a business or association, union or similar entity, specify name” it leaves this blank and does not respond other than to name itself again with the WA missing.

Besides a Cari O’Malley, it lists no other PAC committee officers’ names or title. $400,000 is a lot of money to just come from nowhere. I believe this whole filing is a pretty patent intent to hide the true source of the funds being spent against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and for John Groen. By my best estimation over $1.35 million is being spent by Groen’s campaign committee and others PAC’s supporting his election as of now.

This record spending, particularly by out of state interests, deserves to be accurately reported. Because the Washington State Liability Reform Coalition, the local state coalition affiliated with the American Tort Reform Coalition, includes members like the Building Industry Association of Washington (which is itself spending hundreds of thousands of dollars against Alexander) and the Washington State Restaurant Association (both a member the local and national group of the American Tort Reform Coalition) , there is the possibility of funds going from Washington State to the American Tort Reform Coalition and back to Washington State via Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse.

Because of what happened in the Deborah Senn and Rob McKenna race for Attorney General race, where about $1.5 million was spent against in the same manner as here and eventually revealed as coming from the US Chamber of Commerce, I believe you need to require that Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse immediately report to you their source of funding and that you announce it to the press.

The fact is that the US Chamber of Commerce is one of the members of another coalition run out of the American Tort Reform Coalition’s Office raises concern. Maybe they are involved again.

I believe you need to investigate, because of the associations involved and the attempt to conceal the true sponsors of this stealth PAC, whether any money has been funneled from Washington State to conceal its origins.

Because this race will be decided next Tuesday, Sept 19th, 2006, I urge that you act as quickly as possible to provide the voters of Washington State with the best possible disclosure you can regarding who is spending money in this race.

And I urge that appropriate fines be levied for any violations and infractions of Washington State Law.

Steve Zemke
www.MajorityRules.org/Blog

The following blog posts are added as supporting this complaint:

See: Groen Supporters Violate Public Disclosure in their Intent to Deceive and Hide who they are.
http://www.majorityrules.org/blog/2006/09/groen-supporters-violate-public.html

Record $1.3 million Spent so far to Elect Groen to Washington State Supreme Court http://www.majorityrules.org/blog/2006/09/record-13-million-spent-so-far-to.html

Majority Rules Blog Files Public Dislosure Commission Complaint Against Groen Supporters

Press Release:

For Immediate Release:
Sept. 13, 2006
Majority Rules Blog
Contact Steve Zemke
stevezemke at msn.com

Majority Rules Blog Files PDC Compaint Against "Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse"

A complaint today has been filed today with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission against an out of state PAC supporting the election of John Groen in his race to oust Chief Justice Gerry Alexander from the Washington State Supreme Court.

Steve Zemke of Majority Rules Blog filed the complaint. In his two most recent posts on the Alexander/Groen race for Washington State Supreme Court, Zemke noted that spending by Groen and Groen supporters has exceeded $1.35 million, making it the most expensive Supreme Court race in Washington’s history. And over $400,000 has now been raised and $350,000 spent by a mysterious out of state PAC calling itself Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse.

See: Groen Supporters Violate Public Disclosure in their Intent to Deceive and Hide who they are.
http://www.majorityrules.org/blog/2006/09/groen-supporters-violate-public.html

Record $1.3 million Spent so far to Elect Groen to Washington State Supreme Court http://www.majorityrules.org/blog/2006/09/record-13-million-spent-so-far-to.html

Zemke’s complaint is based on violation of RCW 42.17.020 (43) which states that the "Sponsor of an electioneering communications, independent expenditures, or political advertising" means the person paying for the electioneering communication, independent expenditure, or political advertising. If a person acts as an agent for another or is reimbursed by another for the payment, the original source of the payment is the sponsor.”

The sponsor not the agent needs to be identified under Washington law. Americans Against Frivolous Lawsuits is obviously just a phony name to hide the true identity of the funds.

Because this election will be decided in the Sept 19, 2006 primary Zemke asks that the PDC tell Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse to immediately identify to the public the source of their funding.

The US Chamber of Commerce two years ago tried to avoid identifying themselves as the sponsors of a $1.5 million spending campaign against Deborah Senn when she ran for Attorney General against Rob McKenna. The PDC ruled that they had to tell the public.

Americans Against Frivolous Lawsuits are running TV attack ads against Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and supporting John Groen.

One possible source of the funds is the American Tort Reform Coalition based in Washington DC. Zemke raises the questions of where the money against Alexander is coming from because a local Coalition calling itself the Liability Reform Coalition actually is affiliated with the American Tort Reform Coalition. And the Building Industry Association of Washington, which is itself spending hundreds of thousands of dollars is a member.

You can read more at the two blog links above.

Groen Supporters Violate Public Disclosure in their Intent to Deceive and Hide Who they Are.

A so called independent out of state PAC calling itself "Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse" has filed with the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission. They have so far spent some $357,500 to produce and run attack ads opposing Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and supporting his opponent - Building Industry Association of Washington backed lawyer John Groen.

They also intend they say to spend money supporting Stephen Johnson, another BIAW candidate in his race to unseat sitting Justice Susan Owens.

Their filing and tactics are one meant to deceive Washington voters. They list their address as PO Box 30223, Alexandria, Virginia 22310. And I believe they violate Washington's Public Disclosure Act.

RCW 42.17.020 (43) states that the "Sponsor of an electioneering communications, independent expenditures, or political advertising" means the person paying for the electioneering communication, independent expenditure, or political advertising. If a person acts as an agent for another or is reimbursed by another for the payment, the original source of the payment is the sponsor.

A phone call to 571-230-2852 - the contact number of the mysteriously named PAC supporting Groen only results in a message machine asking you to leave a message.

A call to the number that faxed the forms to the PDC, a Mike O'Malley, results in the following message. "Hi, you've reached the O'Malleys. We'll get back to you as soon as possible. And have a great day." That must be a home number. They must be rich! So far it looks like they've contributed $400,000 to their (sic) PAC.

A Cari O'Malley is the only person's name on the PDC forms filed. She lists herself as both treasurer and campaign manager/media contact.

So who is this Cari O'Malley. When I called the phone number, 425-868-2695 which was given for where campaign records will be available to look at 10 days prior to the election and asked who the ATLA -WA was, a woman said they were only a local contact and that I should call Cari O'Malley at 202-682-1163. Oops, wrong number to give out.

Because this is where it gets interesting. That number is actually the number for a Carolyn O'Malley that works for the American Tort Reform Coalition. Under their staff she is listed as:

Carolyn O'Malley Director of Public Affairs and Fields Operations comalley@atra.org
Cari joined ATRA in September of 2004. Cari was Regional Political Director for the American Medical Association. She also served as the Deputy Chief of Staff for the Co-Chairman of the Republican National Committee and spent several years working for the Illinois General Assembly and the Illinois Republican Party.

Are they the source of the money? Most likely. The reason they work the filing out of Virginia is that PAC's in Virginia only have to file quarterly with the Virginia Board of Elections and they aren't required to say much. On the last reporting they had almost nothing in the bank and the next reporting is Oct 15. In the fourth quarter last year they received $150,000 - all from the America Tort Reform Coalition. This was all spent.

Where is this new money coming from that they are now spending to try to influence the outcome of an election on the opposite side of the country that should be one decided by our own state's voters, not some special interest group in Washington D.C.? And why all the secrecy and deception trying to hide who they are? They have set up a dummy PAC , used a PO Box number for an address, set up an answering machine on some dummy phone line to give the appearance that they are an actual organization, and have an employee's husband (?) FAX PDC reports to Washington State from their home.

Maybe they have something to hide because the American Tort Reform Coalition has definite connections to Washington State. Which raises serious questions. Where is their money coming from? Has money moved from Washington State to the American Tort Reform Coalition to Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse then back to Washington State? I raise this question because it is obvious that their intent is to not be open in their dealing with Washington State voters. You don't go to all this trouble unless you have something to hide, do you?

One thing they may be trying to hide is their Washington State Connection. The American Tort Reform Coalition says that "One of ATRA's greatest assets is its network of tort reform advocates (state coalitions) that advance ATRA's agenda in state capitals"

Their Washington State coalition contact - none other than the office which said they were only a "local contact" and who did not want to talk about or tell me who Americans Tried of Lawsuit Abuse was. That is the Washington State Liability Reform Coalition

Now guess who they recommended in the Alexander/Groen race. Yep, Groen. Now guess who are members of the Liability Reform Coalition. None other than high spending Groen backers like the BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington).

Also as members, the Washington State Restaurant Association which gave $25,000 to the BIAW's PAC Walking for Washington, SAFECO (U.S. Senate candidate Mike McGavick's old company), Washington Roundtable, Association of Washington Business, Boeing, the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, and Weyerhauser. You can see a complete list here.

So who really gave the money to support Groen? The American Tort Reform Coalition only has a sample list of members which includes Boeing. All we have is Cari O'Malley's name and her direct association with the American Tort Reform Coalition. But ATRA also has another list of members associated with the Lawsuit Abuse Reform Coalition which is also run out of the offices of the American Tort Reform Coalition, using the same address and phone number.

The American Tort Reform Association serves as the Executive Secretariat for LARC. 1101 Connecticut Avenue, #400, NW Washington, DC 20036 202-682-1163. The Lawsuit Abuse Coaltion also has Washington State connections listed. Their list of members include the Washington Restaurant Association and the Washington State Liability Reform Coalition.

It also includes another big money player from 2 years ago - the US Chamber of Commerce which contributed over $1.5 million dollars to help defeat Deborah Senn and elect Rob McKenna Washington State Attorney General. And they also tried to hide that the money was coming from them. Are they involved again?

Once again a mysterious out of state special interest group is trying to influence the outcome of Washington State elections in a major way. They are deliberately making an effort to conceal the true source of the money which violates Washington State law.

It is obvious that Cari O'Malley is only acting as an agent to transfer money, probably her employer's, the American Tort Reform Coalition. And she is trying to mask this. But maybe it's somebody elses money. That is not clear. The fact that the true source of the contributions is being hidden is in violation of Washington State's Public Disclosure Law, as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found out when it tried to hide its' $1.5 million effort to defeat Debra Senn.

Record $1.3 Million Spent so far to Elect Groen to Washington State Supreme Court.

Breaking all records, reported campaign contributions and spending to elect John Groen to the Washington State Supreme Court now exceeds $1,294,608. Over half a million dollars ($557,980) alone has been spent by by the BIAW (Building Industry Association of Washington) and PAC's it controls.

The BIAW and other special interest groups are trying to defeat current Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander. Groen is running on a program of defending developer interests over those of individual property owners and comunities. The BIAW is trying to elect their third Supreme Court Justice that represents their special interests. Previously they were the main spenders to elect James Johnson and Richard Saunders to the Court.

The latest large contribution to join the Groen effort is a reported out of state $320,000 from a so called independent PAC based in Alerxander , VA called Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse. They are spending it on TV ads. Joel Connelly in an article in the Seattle PI today said the address given for the PAC is that of the American Tort Reform Association. See also the Seattle Times and Justice at Stake

A phone call to their local phone number listed at an address in Redmond said that the local contact number was for the Liability Reform Coalition. They are listed with the PDC as having spent $244,277 in 2005 doing grassroots lobbying. They referred me back to ATLA when I asked who they represented, saying they were only a local contact.

The following figures are taken from the latest Public Disclosure Commission records in Olympia WA and analysis reported by a new website called VotingforJudges.org . They have done a much better job of compiling independent expenditures and contributions for the judicial races than has the PDC website, which has been slow on getting information and reports updated.

In fact I think that the PDC should be embarrassed in their half hearted effort to provide the public with updated and current information on contributions and expenditures done by so called independent PAC's. They have done some excellent groupings of data to help the public understand who is getting and spending money by candidate committees but their reporting on independent contributions and expenditures is woefully incomplete and not timely at all. Many independent committees are not even listed in their summary reports of contributions and expenditures..

The primary election on Sept 19th will decide the Alexander/Groen race as well as the race between Supreme Court Justice Tom Chambers and his challenger Jeanette Burrage. People across the state have already received their absentee ballots and are voting. A up to date and timely analysis of contributions and independent expenditures is most helpful to voters before the election, not after it is over.

The fact that the Washington State Legislature did not extend their contribution limits legislation to include PAC's is a giant loophole that needs to be corrected. It allows special interests to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to influence a race. Current spending for Groen sets a new record for spending in Washington State Supreme Court races. So called independent PAC's are far outspending Groen's official campaign committee.

Below is a listing of money raised and spent to try to put Groen on the Supreme Court. I am using expenditure figures for Groen based on www.votingforjudges.org since the posted PDC data is not current. I have updated the Groen campaign committee information based on more current C-3 reports on the PDC website.

Groen campaign committee contributions to date 9/10 /2006 ..........$409,608

Americans Tired of Lawsuit Abuse 9/8/06 supporting Groen ..............$80,000
opposing Gerry Alexander....................................................... $240,000

Building Industry Association of Washington...................................$99,603

Central Washington Home Builders Association.................................. $5931

Committee for Judicial Restraint.................................................. $1140

Walking for Washington (1/2 of doorbelling/canvassing effort) ..........$167,000
(canvass/doorbelling effort for John Groen & Steve Johnson)

It's Time for a Change .................................................................................$291,377

Total reported so far.................................................... $1,294,659

"The Path to 9/11" - Conservatives Attempt to Re-write History.

Melanie McFarland in the Seattle PI today makes an outrageous statement about the controversial Disney/ABC movie on 9/11 slated to be aired this Sunday and Monday.

"Some groups, including members of Congress, also requested the show be pulled from broadcast altogether. Wrong move. No political body in a free society has the right to pressure any network into censoring entertainment, even one with factual misrepresentations."

There is a stange concept here. Two months before an election that could change the political party controlling Congress, McFarland considers a conservative re-writing of what actually happened on 9/11, entertainment and that one shouldn't question the truthfulness of what is depicted.

Republicans and Bush are trying to make 9/11 and fighting terrorists part of their political game plan to retain Republican control of Congress. Yet McFarlard in her article headline says "Fudged drama put 'Path to 9/11' on slippery slope". So how is it censoring something when members of Congress and others, including those actually represented,say that the movie is full of factual misrepresentations and untruths and should not be aired as written.

Does McFarland really believe that a movie entitled 'The Path to 9/11" will be seen as a fictional made up 'story' for entertainment? Most members of the public will see no distinction between a so called docudrama and and a documentary. They will see what appears to be a truthful rendition of what happened. Problem is, it isn't truthful.

Just like H.G.Wells' infamous radio reading of "The War of the Worlds", presented as if true for entertainment value, most viewers also will not notice the disclaimer by Disney/ABC which also says it based on the 9/11 Commission report.

The Washington Post on Thursday noted:

Former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright called one scene involving her "false and defamatory." Former national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger said the film "flagrantly misrepresents my personal actions." And former White House aide Bruce R. Lindsey, who now heads the William J. Clinton Foundation, said: "It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known."

ABC's entertainment division said the six-hour movie, "The Path to 9/11," will say in a disclaimer that it is a "dramatization . . . not a documentary" and contains "fictionalized scenes." But the disclaimer also says the movie is based on the Sept. 11 commission's report, although that report contradicts several key scenes.

As the Washington Post notes, Rush Limbaugh and other conservative media are not considering it fictional.

Limbaugh, saying that the screenwriter, Cyrus Nowrasteh, is a friend of his, told his radio audience that the film "indicts the Clinton administration, Madeleine Albright, Sandy Berger. It is just devastating to the Clinton administration. It talks about how we had chances to capture bin Laden in specific detail."

Elsewhere the Washington Post notes: "Nowrasteh, who has described himself as a conservative ..."

Do you start to get the picture? The screenwriter for this movie is not unbiased but is producing a movie in which he is adding made up dialogue that represents his political bias. He did not consult with the principals like Madeline Albright as to what she may have said or how she reacted but is instead putting words into their mouths to say that are not true.

And as ThinkProgress notes, while Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives received copies of the movie, requests by principals in the movie, like President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, were not given copies of the film to review, despite sending letters requesting to get a copy.

And to further call into question that this movie is not politically motivated, answer why George W Bush has scheduled a press conference at 9 P.M. on the second day of the movie. This will preempt the show on that day and move it's starting time back. Bush wants to be associated with this movie and has set himself up to be the leadin on Monday night.

See also:
The Oregonian - ABC's "Path to 9/11" problematic, no matter what
CoolAqua - Willful Deception, ABC/Disneys Partisan & Libelous Attack on History
CoolAqua - Disney Management Puts Party (RNC) Above Fudiciary Responsibilities
Evergreen Politics - The Story Behind ABC's "Path to 9/11"
PamSpalding.cpm - The Pet Goat excised from ABC's "Path to 9/11"
ThinkProgress - ABC Refuses to Provide Copies of Path to 9/11 to Clinton, Albright, Berger
Northwest Progressive - President Clinton to ABC - Pull this Trash

Reichert, McMorris and Hastings Absent as Co-Sponsors of Voter Verified Paper Trail Bill.

Some 211 members of Congress from both parties have signed on as Co-Sponsors of a Congressional Bill to require a voter verified paper trail for elections. All 6 of Washington's Democratic Congressmen have signed up as co-sponsors of House Bill 550.

Washington's three Republican Congressmen, Dave Reichert (WA 8), Cathy McMorris (WA 5) and Doc Hastings (WA 4) are absent as co-sponsors of HB 550. Congressman Rush Holt of New Jersey is the prime sponsor.

HB 550 would also require that there be a mandatory recount of 2% of all ballots to check for errors or fraud. The title of HB 550 reads Title: To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified permanent paper record or hard copy under title III of such Act, and for other purposes.

According to CNN, 27 states require by law a voter verified paper trail, 8 others do it, and 15 states have no requirements for safeguards.

There is a need for uniformity and consistency in election results. The 2000 and 2004 elections resulted in a loss of voter confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. The 2000 Presidential election was decided by a 5/4 vote of a conservative US Supreme Court. Some still question the 2004 vote also as a tainted election, particularly because of the Ohio results.

Republicans like McMorris, Reichert and Hastings don't care because their party was the winner(?) in the Presidential elections. Republicans have deliberately tried to suppress votes in Democratic areas. Questions about the integrity of voting machines like Diebold remain.

As CNN noted, legislation to create a paper trail for voters in Maryland failed to passs their Legislature. So voters will be using machines that voters touch to record votes - there will be no way to verify the accuracy of the final vote because there will be no paper ballots available for a recount.

Reichert, McMorris and Hastings are out of touch with updating our national voting system and installing safeguards to protect the voting process. Just one more reason to vote them out of office.

McMorris is being challenged by Democrat Peter Goldmark.

Reichert is being challenged by Democrat Darcy Burner

Hastings is being challenged by Democrat Richard Wright.

www.reelectjudgebecker.com

One of those lesser paid attention to judicial races this year is the re-election campaign of Washington State Court of Appeals Judge Mary Kay Becker. Two years ago she ran for the Washington State Supreme Court, only to be swamped under by special interest money from the BIAW.

Supreme Court Justice Jim Johnson won that race with the help of the Building Industry Association of Washington, which alone contributed more money to Jim Johnson than the total raised by Mary Kay Becker. And she raised over $158,000.

This year Mary Kay Becker is running for re-election to the Court of Appeals and is being challenged by a conservative pro-developer candidate named Jeff Teichert.

The Washington State Court of Appeals is comprised of 22 judges, elected to 6 year terms. Mary Kay Becker is running in Division 1, District 3, Position 1. This seat will be voted on by voters in Island, San Juan, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties.

Because there are only two candidates in this judicial race, the candidate who receives the majority of the votes in the Sept. 19th primary will be the winner.

The Bellingham Herald on Sunday endorsed Mary Kay Becker in an editorial entitled "Mary Kay Becker has proved her qualifications as a judge", noting that

" What's most important in this election, though, is Becker's reputation as a reasonable, thoughtful appeals court judge. Her decisions have been well received and influential to higher courts. She is rated "exceptionally well qualified" by bar groups.

Becker's record is the main issue in this election. She is challenged by Bellingham attorney Jeffrey Teichert, who says he is running because he feels that Becker and some of her colleagues are too "activist" in their decisions and don't look to the original meaning of the Constitution and laws when they make their decisions."

We respect Teichert, and enjoyed meeting him and hearing his ideas. We share some concern that courts too often go beyond the intent of legislation in their rulings. But we find little evidence that his view of Becker's work is accurate. In our meeting with the candidates, Teichert pointed to a couple cases in which he felt the court Becker serves on went too far. But Becker pointed out, correctly, that the decisions he cites held up on appeal. That is not because they were "activist" and approved by other "activist" judges, but because they were well grounded in state legal precedent and in the spirit of the laws passed by the Legislature.

The Bellingham Herald in June noted that "Whatcom County Republican Party Chairman Bruce Ayers said Teichert's campaign would be a focus this fall. " They also report that "Seattle Times reporter David Postman on his blog, a campaign letter from Teichert made its way onto the Web site of the Faith and Freedom Network, which works to 'advance Judeo-Christian values across the nation.' "

Teichert has also been endorsed by former Senator Slade Gorton and her former Supreme Court opponent, now Justice Jim Johnson.

Meanwhile Mary Kay Becker has been endorsed by seven of the nine current Supreme Court Justices - Gerry L. Alexander, Chief Justice, Charles W. Johnson, Barbara Madsen, Tom Chambers, Bobbe Bridge, Susan Owens, and Mary Fairhurst. Also she has received the endorsement of 4 retired Justices: Richard Guy,Faith Ireland, C.Z. Smith, and Robert Utter.

Mary Kay Becker deserves our support. Personally I would like to see her run again for the Washington State Supreme Court. Until such time however we must get her re-elected to the Court of Appeals. You can help her by either volunteering or making a contribution to her campaign. Her website is http://www.reelectjudgebecker.com/