More Limits Needed on Campaign Contributions says WA PDC

The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission today voted to recommend that new limits be placed on large contributions corrupting the political process in Washington State. The limits would affect corporations, PAC's and associations.

According to the Seattle Times

The five-member commission voted unanimously to ask Gov. Chris Gregoire and the Legislature to consider prohibiting groups such as the Building Industry Association of Washington and the Service Employees International Union to give their general funds directly to political action committees that support or oppose candidates. The groups would also be prohibited from using general funds for independent expenditures such as TV or radio ads.
The ban would apply to state offices, including the governor, the Legislature and the Supreme Court.
The commission also wants leaders to consider limiting the annual amount of money individuals or PACs can contribute to other PACs.

We think its high time that the Legislature enact further measures to stop special interests from trying to buy votes from the public. While they may not be putting dollars in people's pockets like in old, the ability of wealthy organizations like the BIAW to saturate the political process with uncontrolled spending subverts the idea of fair elections.

We are only allowed one vote per person. Yet we know that dollars buy access to the public. Your vote becomes meaningless unless all candidates have fair access to get their campaign message before the voters and are not swamped by special interest megaspending.

The state can help this process by limiting what any individual can give, either directly or indirectly to any candidate. With computers and electronic campaign finance reporting it is easy to keep tabs of how much anyone gives to support or oppose a candidate. Being limited to giving $1400 per election directly to a statewide candidate but being allowed also to give $400,000 to a so called independent PAC that is also spending money to elect that candidate, means you really have no limits on campaign contributions.

Any limit imposed has to be calculated as a total given to a candidate, either directly to the candidate's registered committee or indirectly to any other campaign committee including a committee of one (an expenditure by a wealthy patron on his own) that is supporting the candidate. Then the influence of concentrated money by special interests is eliminated.

A balancing needs to take place between the rights of free speech and special interest domination of the electoral process such that a narrow special interest can gain an unfair advantage in placing someone they support in office who then acts preferentially toward the donor while fulfilling their duties of office.

The state can go a long way toward reducing the influence of special interest money in elections by providing more public forums and debates among the candidates. For example, State sponsored candidate forums run by the Secretary of State's Office for the public and press and media in an area that comprises one to two Congressional Districts would got a long way toward helping expose candidates to voters. That means a minimum of 5 to a maximum of 9 candidate forums before the primary and another series for the general election.

Such publicly sponsored forums would help to offset the argument that restricting large donors discriminates against certain candidates and limits their free speech rights.

Another approach is a system of publicly financed campaigns. See Washington Public Campaigns which is pushing for a bill for public financing of judicial races in Washington State in the upcoming Legislative session starting in January. A bill is currently being drafted to be introduced.

Support Big Media Ownership on Thursday in Seattle.

Are you tired of channel surfing, trying to check different news stories? How about having more than one newspaper to read like Seattle does with the Seattle PI and Seattle Times? Tired of too damn many different radio stations that give you different editorial opinions that conflict with each other?

Life is too cluttered and busy to have to figure all this out. The answer is media consolidation. Let corporate America own as many radio and TV and newspapers as they want. Eventually it won't matter whether you hear the news on Channel 5 or 7 or 4 or 13. It won't matter which radio station you listen to. And you won't ever have to read more than one newspaper. Because one corporation will own them all and the "news" and the opinions will all be the same.

Just think, you could get all the news you want on either Fox TV or FOX Radio or the FOX newspaper. Because they could own all the media in a market like Seattle or Washington State or the West Coast or the USA. And no matter whether you listened or watched or read, it would all be the same stories, same opinion, same conclusions.

Who really needs all these different news outlets and different opinions?

If you agree with this opinion I suggest you keep it to yourself and just let Fox and others decide what we can listen to, read and watch.

If you disagree with this opinion then I suggest you check out this opinion by The Nation on Nov 24, 2006 which warns that:

"... once again, media-industry lobbyists and their allies on the FCC are working to revise the rules on media ownership to allow a single corporation to own most, if not all, of the newspapers, radio and TV stations and Internet news and entertainment sites in your town. Last June, new FCC chairman Kevin Martin issued a draft policy proposal -- called a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making -- that kick-started Big Media's latest attempt to weaken the rules protecting local voices, vibrant competition and diverse viewpoints."

They suggest you visit the website Reclaim the Media which alerts us to a Seattle hearing this week on media ownership.
"On Nov. 30, a Seattle public hearing on media ownership, takes place at the Seattle Public Library, with FCC Commissioners Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. The hearing will help the FCC gather public comment as it considers revising its media ownership rules, which help protect viewpoint diversity by limiting the number of newspapers, TV and radio stations a single company may own or control. This is Seattle's opportunity to weigh in on an issue which is critical to our culture and our democracy. The hearing takes place at 6pm, Thursday Nov. 30, in the Seattle Public Library's main auditorium. Stay tuned for more details! Hearing cosponsored by Reclaim the Media, The Seattle Times, KBCS 91.3fm Community Radio, the Minority Executive Directors Coalition and the UW Department of Communication."

You can either testify at the hearing or send the FCC your statement opposing media consolidation. Click here , courtesy of Stop Big Media ,to send an e-mail. Rewrite the sample message in your own words. Comments are due by Dec. 21, 2006

Senator Maria Cantwell and Rep Jay Inslee will make opening statements at the hearing.

see also:
"FCC Hearing in Seattle" - OlyBlog 11/19/2006
"Hold the line on media consolidation" - Seattle Times Ray Blethan 11/24/2006

The Glass Ceiling for Women in Politics

Democrat Darcy Burner, who lost a very close election for Congress in the 8th CD in Washington State started the discussion. She mused on what might have happened when she lost in a Republican leaning Congressional District to an incumbent whose previous job had been as the Sheriff of King County, the state's largest county.

Problem is, she did her musing to some Seattle Times reporters and then they started spinning it around. It started with the headline on a blog written by Jim Brunner on the blog Postman on Politics. He entitled his post "A Glass Ceiling for Darcy?""

Part of Darcy's musing included the following in an e-mail she sent to Brunner.

"There has been a lot of talk about this year's Democratic wave, but it was clearly a wave that helped men more than women. A reasonable hypothesis would be that the wave was related to voter feeling about the war, and that voters responded by preferring Democratic male challengers to Republican incumbents (of either gender), but did not apply that same preference to Democratic female challengers."

Brunner then belittles newcomer Burner by pointing to Republican Jennifer Dunn previously representing the District. Prior to Dunn running for Congress she was the Chair of the State Republican Party from 1981 to 1992. Democrat Patty Murray won in the 8th in 2004 after already having been a Senator for 6 years. And Democrat Christine Gregoire won in the 8th in her Governor's race after having been Washington State Attorney General. In addition one needs to consider each of their opponents.

No one disputes, I think, that Burner did not have the name recognition or political experience that these candidates did or the name familiarity and political experience of Sheriff Congressman Dave Reichert. The district has been considered a Republican District and Burner was running against a Republican incumbent Congressman. There were a number of factors, besides these, any one of which by itself could have been the margin of difference in this race. However I thought it was rather dismissive of Brenner to question Darcy's saying that gender could have been an issue because irregardless of Darcy's experience or other factors, gender is an issue in every race a woman runs in.

In his next days post entitled "Final Thoughts on Burner" Brenner backs off some noting that the issue of gender is a factor.

"For the record, I don't think it loopy to look at the role gender can play in an election. You can see it in the "gender gap" which generally has men favoring Republicans and women leaning Democratic. Male and female candidates can be perceived differently. (Some commenters in yesterday's thread only strengthened Burner's argument by calling her "honey" and telling her to stay at home with the kid.)
But for every male chauvinist out there, there are others who prefer to vote for women. As long as I've covered politics here, I've heard consultants speak about women candidates as having an advantage. Our state Legislature ranks 3rd in the percentage of women in the Legislature, according to Rutgers University's Center for American Women and Politics, which also has loads of other data on women in elected office.
For another perspective, researchers here suggest that many Congressional districts treat Democratic women differently than Republican women. In Washington's 8th , they predict Republican women having an easier go than Democrats. The methodology is complicated, so take a look for yourself."

I think Darcy Burner raised an important point that has not been sufficiently looked at even in this state. That is not to say that any number of factors mentioned by others did not also impact this race. And I am not saying that gender was the deciding factor in this race nor did I read Darcy as saying this.

What Darcy did was raise the question. And she is right to raise the question about gender as a factor in who Americans vote for because the numbers show that she was running with an extreme handicap.

The Washington Post in an article headlined "Hill Demographic Goes Slightly More Female" says:

"The House and Senate elections .....added at least five women to the next Congress, the only notable demographic shift in an otherwise dramatic political upheaval......Women in Congress made a net gain of five seats, three in the House and two in the Senate, bringing the total to 86. At least eight new Democratic women and two Republican women were elected to the House, with the possibility of a few more in still unresolved races. Two female Senate victors -- Democrats Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota -- will bring the number in that body to 16."

But a closer look at this slight gain reveals a harsh truth of how we view women in public office.

Even with this year's election results, nationally women only make up 16% of the members in the US House and also 16% in the US Senate. There are now 16 women who are US Senators and 70 women who are Representatives in the US House. Men hold 84% of the seats in Congress.

How does this compare with the rest of the world? Well to be honest, we stink.

Internationally we rank 67th out of 189 nations in the percentage of women in national parliaments. Rawanda has 48.8%, Sweden 47.3%, Costa Rica 38.6 ..... even Afghanistan at 27.3% women and Iraq at 25.5% have more women in office. In the United States of America we only have women at 16%.
You can see the list at Women in National Parliaments.

And its not just Congress.

As Trinity University's Presidents Blog notes in commenting on Nancy Pelosi, class of 1962, becoming Speaker of the House , there is still a long way to go for more women to become part of the political power structure:

"Only 8 women are currently governors of states, including Trinity Alumna Kathleen Gilligan Sebelius in Kansas. In all 225 years of U.S. history, only 25 women have ever been governors."

Again the current numbers translate to 16% of Governors being female.

While women are working their way into state legislatures, there is still not a true sharing of the political power structure between men and women proportional to their numbers.

As the National Council of State Legislatures notes:
The 2007 session will see 1,731 women legislators serving across the country. Women currently hold 23.3 percent of legislative seats in the 50 states, a ratio that has increased only slightly over the past ten years.

Washington State has now moved from 3rd highest to 6th highest in percentage of women in our Legislature with this year's elections.

New Hampshire 36.3%
Vermont 35.6%
Minnesota 34.8%
Colorado 34%
Hawaii 32.9%
Washington 32.7%

The lowest state is South Carolina at 8.8%

In 2003 Washington State women legislators numbered 54 out of 147 or 36.7%. In 2007 the number will be 48 out of 147 or 32.7%.

We remain a country dominated by men on all levels. Women still have a long way to go until they reach any kind of parity with their actual percentage in the population, whether it be for State Legislature, Congress, Governor, Senator or President. Until then every woman, including Darcy Burner, will start and finish with a gender bias handicap that they have to fight against in election after election in addition to all the other factors that decide the outcome of an election.

In the meantime comments like Darcy Burner's noting this glass ceiling's existence speaks to the truth and points to just another reason why Darcy Burner almost won her race. She was not afraid to speak the truth which many want to deny or ignore but which is obvious in looking at the results in election after election.

See Also:
"Women, War and Darcy" Evergreen Politics

"Winning Women?" NY Times Magazine 10/29/2006

"Needed: a few good men?" Seattle Times 11/19/2006

Tell Congress to Index the Minimum Wage to Inflation.

In 1998 Washington State voters passed Initiative 688 to raise the state minimum wage from $4.90 to $5.70 in 1999 and then to $6.50 in 2000. We also became the first state in the nation to index future increases to inflation. This year the current minimum wage is $7.63.

On Jan.1, 2006 the Washington state minimum wage will increase another $.30/hr to $7.93. It will be the highest in the nation.

In 1998 the Federal minimum wage was $5.15/hr. Nine years have passed and it is still $5.15/hr.

Meanwhile members of Congress have voted several times to raise their salary for a "cost of living increase" during those same 9 years.. Their cost of living increase added $31,600 to their salary. This is equivalent to a $15/hr increase if one worked 40 hours per week for 52 weeks.

The cost of living increase Congress voted for themselves is triple the salary per hour that a minimum wage workers makes. Congressional salary currently is $165,200 per year.

Democrats tried repeatedly to raise the minimum wage but were defeated by the Republican majority. It's time now with the Democrats taking control of both the House and the Senate to raise the minimum wage. Its only fair.

The New York Times in an editorial Nov 15, 2006 asks "Will Fair Pay Have its Day?"The editorial notes that because the minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in the past that "the purchasing power of the wage has dropped to its lowest level since 1955". It also notes that "come December, the minimum wage will have remained unchanged for the longest period since it was established in 1938." The current inaction on raising the minimum wage coincides with Republican control of Congress.

But Democrats, out of the boot of Republican domination of Congress can do the right thing and make future increases in the minimum wage automatic every year to take inflation into account.

If Congress thinks it is necessary for them to keep up with the cost of living, then the same is even more so for someone making minimum wages.

Democrat Darcy Burner Concedes Election in WA-8

This morning Darcy Burner conceded her Congressional race to Dave Reichert. Vote counting reported last night showed Burner now behind by 4727 votes - too wide a margin to make up in the remaining ballots left.

Speaking at a press conference this morning Burner said, "The voters of the 8th District have spoken." She noted that this "wasn't an end but a beginning."

Darcy Burner's race was a study in running campaigns. She ran an aggressive campaign on the issues, including the Iraq War. Her main liability going in was that she had never run for public office before so she was learning on the job. As McGavick showed though, even running a winning campaign for someone else for the same seat doesn't guarantee success.

Because Burner had not been involved in politics or other activist campaigns she had to build support from the ground up. And it didn't help when it turned out she wasn't exactly a strong voter herself.

A large part of her campaign was spent early on in trying to build credibility among people in her district and among the Democrats. She wisely got involved in establishing contact with and working with Washington state bloggers to increase her name familiarity and exposure to local and national blog readers and the media that read blogs. The blogosphere also helped her raise money.

Her lack of political experience was also one of her assets. She was a fresh face and could not be criticized for taking on a difficult task. She freely spoke her mind and exuded passion. She showed that she could rise to the occasion and became a barnburner in raising money, support and credibility.

Also hitting hard at the end was the usual Republican hit ads that twist the truth and lie about candidates, like saying Burner was for raising taxes on everyone. Her position was to raise the lid on social security taxes and not support tax breaks for millionaires. The truth doesn't really matter though in attack ads..

Hopefully Burner will stay involved in politics and build on her successes to take Reichert on again in two years. Sometimes it takes more than one election to win. Seeds planted in the 2004 races finally saw fruition this year.

We strongly urge Burner to stay involved in Democratic politics and continue to build her base in the 8th. The Democratic Party needs more candidates like Darcy Burner. The election on Nov 7th was only a beginning as this country tries to undo 6 years of Republican catering to corporate America and neoconservative thinking.

Minimum Wage Initiatives win Big Across Country

This year there were six states that had initiatives on the ballot to increase their state minimum wage. And in all six states, voters passed them by wide margins. What is also significant is that the state minimum wages were also indexed to increase as inflation increases.

This is significant because in the past voters or legislatures raised the minimum wage, only to have workers see its value diminish each year as inflation increased living costs. Then the battle would have to be fought all over again.

This happened in Washington State. In 1988 after continued inaction by the Washington State Legislature, a coalition of groups, including the Washington State Labor Council, in 1988 got Initiative 518 passed. It raised the minimum wage to $4.90. Despite repeated attempts in the state legislature this remained the minimum wage for the next 10 years.

So in 1998 Washington citizens again had to file and pass an initiative to raise the minimum wage. But this time the coalition was wiser, not wanting to have to repeat this cycle over and over of going to the legislature and being ignored as inflation increased living costs but the minimum wage stayed the same and then having to run another initiative. This time the initiative was written to index the minimum wage to inflation.

Initiative 668 supporters collected some 288,357 signatures and put the measure on the Nov. 1998 ballot. I-688 overwhelmingly passed with a 66.14% approval to 33.86% disapproval.

Washington State was the first state to pass a minimum wage increase indexed to inflation. Initiative 688 to the people raised the minimum wage from $4.90 to $5.70 in 1999 and then to $6.50 in 2000.

Increases after that were calculated each Sept 30th using the consumer price index for urban wage earners and clerical workers and went into effect Jan 1st of the following year.

This year the minimum wage is $7.63. On Jan 1, 2007 it will increase 30 cents to $7.93.

State Minimum Wage initiatives passing this year:

Arizona ..... $6.75 .......passed... 66% to 34%
Colorado .... $6.85 .......passed... 53% to 47%
Missouri .... $6.50 .......passed... 76% to 24%
Montana ..... $6.15 .......passed... 73% to 27%
Nevada ...... $6.15 .......passed... 69% to 31%
Ohio ........ $6.85 .......passed... 56% to 44%


Meanwhile the Federal minimum wage is stuck at $5.15. It has not increased since 1997. Legislation to increase the Federal minimum wage was killed by Republicans in campaign politics earlier this year. The newly elected Democratic majority in Congress has vowed to raise the minimum wage in January.

Current language does not include indexing the minimum wage increase to inflation. Congress needs to do this to be fair to working class families. Their own pay is indexed to inflation.
see http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa031200a.htm "A cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) increase takes effect annually unless Congress votes to not accept it."

Write or email or call Congress and urge that they index the minimum wage to inflation. Don't hold workers hostage to future Congresses. Minimum wage workers deserve better.

previous posts by MajorityRulesBlog:
Senator Cantwell Opposes Republican's Attempt to cut Washington's Minimum Wage
US Representatives Reichert, McMorris and Hastings Vote to Cut Washington's Minimum Wage
for further history and analysis of Washington State's Minimum Wage also check out the Economic Opportunity Institute's excellent collection of policy briefs, issue papers, and other links on this issue.

Washington State Initiative Races - Post Election Commentary

Washington State Voters on Election Day exercised their collective wisdom in defeating two conservative initiatives and supporting one progressive one.

Initiative 933 - regarding private property

approve .....492,412......42.2%
reject ..........675,160......58%

This rejection of I-933 represents a significant victory. This is the second time this issue has been voted on and each time they have been clear victories for growth management and environmental protection. Washington voters strongly support maintaining growth management, zoning and environmental protections. This law was too extreme in covering both personal and real property and was a threat to community values and taxpayer dollars. The main funders of this measure, out of state New York real estate developer Howard Rich and his Americans for Limited Government, along with the Washington State Farm Bureau, were decisively defeated in their campaign.

Unfortunately voters in Arizona approved their version of the pay or waive legislation by passing Proposition 207 by a 65% to 35% vote. Meanwhile voters in 2 other states, Idaho and California rejected similar measures.
See also  Property RightsÂMeasures Rejected In Washington and Other States But Arizonans pass a regulatory takings measure.


Initiative 920 - regarding the estate tax

approve.....452,310.....38.9%
reject ..........710,415.....61.1%

This is another decisive victory for progressives. The campaign won with a clear message and a great ad that articulated that 99.5% of Washington estates as well as farms were not affected by this tax and that the tax went to fund education for Washington's children.

Initiative 937 - regarding renewable energy

approve ......602,859.....52.3%
reject ...........554,133.....47.7%

A clear win for proponents of clean energy and secure energy working to give us more energy independence. The initiative requires that by 2020 the major electric utilities in Washington receive 15% of their new energy capacity from renewable energy. Unfortunately a measure in California to create an alternative energy fund lost after huge spending by the oil industry. Now I wonder where they got all that money to oppose alternative energy.

Don't Expect Quick Outcome in Burner/Reichert Congressional Race

Democrat Darcy Burner and Republican Dave Reichert remain locked in a virtual deadheat in their Congressional race in WA- 8. It will probably be several weeks before things are clear as to who really wins. What has been decided is that whoever wins is going back to a Democratically controlled House of Representatives in Washington, D.C.

The numbers as reported by CNN as of 3:30 Wed. afternoon show Reichert with a lead of 2623 votes.

Dave Reichert (R) 61,9212...51%
Darcy Burner (D) 59,298.......49%

The reason for the uncertainty is that as of Wednesday afternoon - probably as many as half of the final ballots have not been counted. An estimated 80,000 ballots or so in hand in King County that cover the 8th C.D. have still not been counted. Over the next 3 days these will enter the vote total. Probably 8 to 10 thousand more absentees will arrive at King County elections for the 8th C.D. , from ballots postmarked but not yet received at King County Elections.

Expect that the race will tighten. Burner did better than Reichert in King County. He did better than she did in Pierce. Most of the Pierce Co. ballots in the 8th CD have been counted. The estimate of Pierce County ballots that cover the 8th CD ranges from 12 to 18 thousand.

Besides the uncounted ballots in hand and the ones that arrive in the mail over the next week or so, there are also a large number of provisional ballots that have to be individually looked at by canvassing boards and decisions made to count them or not based on their validity. There are a record number of these this year. There may be as many as 10,000.

So don't expect to see any concessions by anyone soon despite how the numbers may move over the next week. There is no requirement for anyone to concede as the election is decided by the final vote count. Obviously whoever is ahead will urge their opponent to concede. However only a fool would declare that this election is over right now.

CNN projects Jon Tester winning Montana

The last two undecided U.S. Senate races , in Montana and Virginia, this morning are front and center. CNN has projected that Jon Tester has won Montana. Who wins Virginia where Jim Webb is leading Republican George Allen will determine whether or not Democrats take control of the U.S. Senate. Democrats have already clearly taken over the US House of Representatives.

Control is vital because the party in power decides who chairs committees and what happens to bills, including even being introduced. Control of the Senate by Democrats would give them a better chance of sending legislation to Bush for him to respond to. If Democrats win, expect to see Bush exercise his veto power.

In Montana latest results as of 9:51 A.M. show Democrat Jon Tester with a slight lead. CNN is projecting Tester as the winner.

Jon Tester (D) 198,032.....49.1%
Conrad Burns (R) 194,904.....48.3%

This is a lead of 3128 votes. What is not known here is late arriving absentees and any provisional ballots.

**CNN Update 2 P.M.

Jon Tester 198,302
Conrad Burns 195,455

Tester lead now of 2847 votes


In Virginia latest results show Democrat Jim Webb with a slight lead over Republican George Allen. Democrat Jim Webb leads by 6708 votes by CNN's latest count.

Jim Webb (D) 1,170,564.....50%
George Allen (R) 1,162,117.....49%

**CNN Update 2 P.M.

Jim Webb 1,172,032
George Allen 1,165,122

Webb's lead is now 6910 votes.

Democrats now have 50 seats (including Lieberman and Saunders) to the Republicans 49. Only Virginia remains in play. Voter results are not certified in Virginia until the end of the month. After that the loser can request a recount which could take this race near the end of December.

Washington State knows all about the drama of recounts, having endured a lengthy one in its Governor's race two years ago that included a law suit. Democrat Christine Gregoire won that race with 133 votes to spare.

Washington State - Where to get election updates Nov 7, 2006

Nationally Democrats are winning races and change is coming. As of 7:30 P.M. Pacific time Democrats have picked up the Senate seats in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island. They are projected to keep New Jersey. Lieberman has won in Connecticut. So far there is a net gain of 7 Democratic seats in the House.

I'm not going to give you all the results but suggest you go to these sites for the latest results. They will do a better job of keeping you updated. I am off to the Victory Party here in Washington State. Polls close in Washington State at 8 P.M.

national results:
CNN.com
Election 2006 National Public Radio
Washington Post - they are listing a breakdown state by state of vote totals for Senate races, House races and Governors races.
New York Times

Washington State results
2006 Washington State Election Results - WA Secretary Of State
WA Secretary of State link to county auditors for election results
King5 Decision 2006
Seattle PI
KOMO TV Vote 2006 Election Results updated as they come in

FBI Investigating Voter Iintimidation in VA

It appears that intimidating phone calls were made in Virginia trying to stop people from voting. A breaking AP story says the FBI is investigating. The race between Webb and Allen running for the Senate is neck and neck.

In the article with the above story entitled FBI investigating Va. voter calls by the AP it is also noted that "New Mexico Democrats filed similar complaints in court, accusing GOP callers there of providing voters with incorrect information on polling locations in Albuquerque"

Early Reports of Voter Problems Election Day Nov 7 2006

Voting Glitches Start Early on Election Day from Time/CNN

"Problems crop up across the country as poll workers tangle with new voting machines and databases.
Programming errors and inexperience dealing with electronic voting machines frustrated poll workers in hundreds of precincts Tuesday, delaying voters in several states and leaving some with little choice but to use paper ballots instead. Many of the problems occurred as polls opened."

Polling places turn to paper ballots after glitches from CNN

"Programming errors and inexperience dealing with electronic voting machines frustrated poll workers in hundreds of precincts early Tuesday, delaying voters in Indiana, Ohio and Florida and leaving some with little choice but to use paper ballots instead.
In Cleveland, voters rolled their eyes as election workers fumbled with new touchscreen machines that they couldn't get to start properly until about 10 minutes after polls opened.
"We got five machines -- one of them's got to work," said Willette Scullank, a troubleshooter from the Cuyahoga County, Ohio, elections board.
In Indiana's Marion County, about 175 of 914 precincts turned to paper ballots because poll workers didn't know how to run the machines, said Marion County Clerk Doris Ann Sadler. She said it could take most of the day to fix all of the machine-related issues.
Election officials in Delaware County, Indiana, extended voting hours because voters initially couldn't cast ballots in 75 precincts. County Clerk Karen Wenger said the cards that activate the push-button machines were programmed incorrectly but the problems were fixed by late morning.
Pennsylvania's Lebanon County also extended polling hours because a programming error forced some voters to cast paper ballots."

CHAOS: Problems worsen, Dems seek voting extension from the Denver Post

"On a day already rife with computer glitches, long lines, and legal appeals to extend voting in Denver, provisional ballots are now running out at some Denver voting centers."

Widespread computer problems were reported, some shutting down entire voting centers, but the problems appeared to ease after 2 P.M. Democratic party leaders are in court this afternoon, seeking a two-hour extension for voting in Denver, because many were kept from casting their vote. "

Deerfield Beach voters frustrated by bad electronic ballots from the Miami Herald

"Dozens of voters who came to the Deerfield Beach Tower Club Teen Center to cast their votes this morning walked away angry, as 10 of 14 voting booths failed to work -- all of them for voters in District 23A.
''I have two words for them -- paper ballots!'' said election volunteer John Miller, 78, who said he has worked at area elections the past 10 years. ``I come from New England and they're still using paper ballots. They have no problems.''
Only three people had voted when all 14 machines stopped working. After about 45 minutes, voters in Precinct 26A were able to cast ballots on four machines. But most voters, those in Precinct 23A, were out of luck until about 8:30 a.m., when technicians brought at least some machines back on line.
In the meantime, many would-be voters left, livid."

Glitch to keep polls open until 9 p.m. from Lancaster online in Pennsylvania

"As of 10:30 this morning, 57 out of the county’s 275 eScan machines — the “paper ballot” machines — were malfunctioning. That’s about 21 percent. The machines are in polling places throughout the county.As a result, county officials decided by late morning to keep all the county’s 232 polling places open until 9 p.m."

McGavick and Kerry Swiftboating and Lapdog Press and Election Day 2006

Senator Maria Cantwell and other Democrats need your vote and deserve your vote today. It's time to have a Congress that deals with real issues not those of Republicans who have shown they will do anything for corporations and multi-millionaires and prefer to spend time critiquing one's ability to tell a joke rather than discuss solutions to Bush's Iraq quagmire.

The national Republican noise machine and the wimpy media that can't think for itself caused most Democrats and others to cut and run from John Kerry after he supposibly messed up the telling of a joke.

In Washington State Republican Mike McGavick, Cantwell's opponent, chimed in by joining the bandwagon of people willing to continue swiftboating tactics on Democrats. They speak of civility yet their actions speak otherwise.

The question today is how many voters will see through all the smokescreens and deceptions and manipulations and voter suppression efforts and dirty campaigning and decide to just walk away from Republican candidates like McGavick.

Because that is what this election is about - choosing which party you trust that has your best interests at heart and is straight forward in addressing the tough issues America face today - like getting out of Iraq or catching Osama bin Laden.

Republicans like Senate candidate Mike McGavick were so desperate for an issue to give them traction that they hypocritically resorted to literary and drama criticism. Somehow they thought that attacking John Kerry's joke telling ability was a campaign issue that voters would get excited about. The whole point was to take peoples minds off of Iraq.

Was Senator Kerry's joke telling ability really a campaign issue?

Republicans nationally turned up the right wing noise machine. As usual the media which loves to have "controversy" did their bidding - even when the controversy was contrived and artificial. The lap dog media, loving car crashes and fires and any type of controversy, followed willing and became Republican attack dogs themselves by giving the huge attention they did to this Republican diversionary tactic.

They joined a very orchestrated crowd attack by the Republicans and it worked. Senator Kerry became persona non grata - again a slickly run campaign attack about a mangled joke became an issue that took everyone's attention off of the Bush Administration's failures in catching Osama bin Laden and the failure of the war in Iraq. Bush and Rove succeeded beyond their dreams.

The media once again was cleverly manipulated to do the Rove's bidding. Bush mangles language all the time. He is socially inept and late night comedians are always supplied with lots of video clips and Bush speeches to laugh at. So why was the media so quick to do the Republicans bidding and get off covering real campaign issues?

If the issue was jokes, then was it a joke that 103 Americans were killed in Iraq last month? Or was it a joke that Republicans like Mike McGavick were still fumbling around trying to find something to talk about? What is the joke that the main justification for being in Iraq is being answered with the statement that we must support the troops?

In a recent ad McGavick attacked Cantwell for changing her position on Iraq from 3 years ago. Should she have kept her head buried in sand like Bush has done in Iraq?

McGavick's solution. "Beat the Terrorists. Partition the country if we have to and get our troops home, in victory" Besides partition the country - isn't that cut and run - beat the terrorists is supposibly what Bush has been doing the last 5 years. Stay the course.

As part of his plan to beat the terrorists, McGavick decided to use a botched joke is part of his plan to sell his lack of a plan on what to do in Iraq. Republicans are using political jutisui to turn the Democrats criticism of the Republicans back on them.

Bush's campaign attack is now asking where is the Democratic plan to win? That's just turning the question back on itself. That's just trying to take attention off his failures. Where is Bush's plan? Oh right its stay the course but we're not calling it that.

And that's all Mcgavick's position is on Iraq also. "Beat the Terrorists ....bring the troops home, in victory" His partition the country is just what's likely to happen on its own.

So it was informative that lobbyist and insurance man Mike McGavick joined the Bush Republican chorus on attacking Kerry. Same swiftboating by Republicans as before. I don't find any mention on McGavick's website of his having served in the military yet here he is "defending the troops" from "troop hater" foreign war veteran John Kerry.

What is wrong with the main stream media that it made what Kerry said an issue? What is wrong is that they joined the Republican strategy of making "waving the flag" and "supporting the troops." the patriotic thing over waging a just war or facing the reality of the hornet's nest Bush stirred up in Iraq.

Supporting the troops was only really a clever way for Bush and Rove to create another can't lose issue - like supporting motherhood issues which are falsely packaged in can't lose names like supporting 'healthy forests' or supporting 'clear skies.' That may be clever marketing by former corporate types scattered around the Bush Administration but pooh is still poop even if you call it something else.

How the hell are you really "supporting the troops" if you don't face the reality that the troops are engaged in a quagmire of a civil war that a botched effort by Bush helped create. That's where the outrage should be directed because even when Kerry stumbled over his Bush joke, he was still right.

The reality is that the military is a place that recruits people who haven't gotten a good education. If they had a better choice, do you think they would give it up to go to Iraq to spend their days worrying about being blown apart everytime they leave their base?

What is wrong with saying that? It's the emperor has no clothes. The media in joining the Republican attack on John Kerry showed that they are still unwilling to face the reality that they need to deal with the issues, not whether someone didn't tell a joke the way they had written it out on a piece of paper.

The media became Republican lapdogs when they did the bidding of a bunch of right wing fanatics desperate to justify an unnecessary war looking for scapegoats on the other side when they joined the once again swiftboating of Kerry. They should be ashamed of themselves.

Our country is being run by a bunch of nuts who have been able to use the absurd logic that we are supporting our troops by keeping our mouth shut about whether we should even be there. Its not a joke that the mainstream media types spent so much time over a joke made by a past candidate rather than dealing with the real issues involved.

Hopefully today the American voters will show the Republicans you can't fool all of the people all of the time. I think Democrats are going to win big today. They are tired of Republican lies and deception. It's time to deal with real issues, not joketelling.

Voting in Washington State on November 7, 2006

One of the biggest dangers for Democrats on election day 2006 is overconfidence. And the other is the complacency of Democratic leaning voters who don't like what the Republicans are doing to this country but who choose not to vote anyway. Added to this mix is the fact that for the last 6 days it's been raining Orcas and salmon in the Puget Sound area - reducing the doorbelling outreach of volunteers.

Too many positive sounding polls and unwarranted optimism for "change is coming" with or without me can kill the best hopes of Washington State Democrats helping to win back Congress. Republicans are fighting with everything they have to the bitter end. Democrats and progressives need to do likewise.

Ever see one of those last minute Hail Mary passes that win a game with only seconds to go? The game isn't over until the last seconds tick off.

Remember the months long Gregoire recount that finally carried the day with hardly an extra vote to spare? Gregoire was the sure winner in the beginning against a little known Republican. And the election fight to win had to continue long after the last vote was turned in.

The only poll that counts is the one taken on Tuesday November 7, 2006.

There are several ways you can still help increase turnout for change. Moveon.org has phone numbers of voters that people can call from home today and tomorrow.

You can also e-mail the Washington State Democrats to help through the polls closing at 8:00 P.M. on Tuesday.

The expectation of the Washington Secretary of State is that only two thirds of the state's registered voters will vote in what is a national referendum on Bush and Iraq. So if Republicans, even by one seat, squeak out retaining control of Congress, the next two years will be hell for Democrats as things will continue downhill. They will still run Congress and call the shots. Expect that any resolution of Iraq will pass on to the next President 2 years from now.

So get your absentee ballot in the mail now or vote in person on Nov 7th. Voters in 34 of Washington's 39 counties will vote by mail only. Voters in King, Pierce, Kittitas, Klickitat and Island County will be able to vote absentee or in person.

Absentee ballots must be postmarked Nov 7, 2006 or earlier to be accepted. Make sure you put your ballot in a mailbox that will pick the mail up on Nov 7th. Mail postmarked Nov 8 will not be counted. Put 2 stamps on the envelope as the envelope with ballot weights more than 1 ounce. The postage required in King County is 63 cents.

Most counties will also have dropoff points that you can put your absentee ballot in on Tuesday but check with your county auditor or their website to clarify locations and deadlines.
Click here to see the Washington State list of county auditors websites, e-mails and phones numbers .

If you have any questions, like verifying where you can vote in person or for other voting registration click on the same link.

Bush White House Using Taxpayer Dollars to Support Republican Candidates.

Why is the Bush White House using taxpayer supported public facilities and resources to support partisan Republican campaigns? The White House seems to be campaign headquarters for the Republican Party. The US Senate has an official policy which prohibits this type of blatant use of public taxpayer dollars to promote partisan campaigns.

Yet the official White House website is posting partisan campaign speeches as part of its news releases from the White House. These include campaign speeches by President Bush, Mrs Laura Bush and Vice President Cheney The only person who does not seem to be spending all their time giving partisan speeches is Cheney's Wife.

Were these speeches written by the White House Press Corps? It certainly has the appearance of this. Are taxpayer dollars paying for this? The postings say "For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary" Is the press secretary working for the Republican Party?

Its no wonder our country is in such a mess and Bush can't clean up the Iraq mess. The White House has become Grand Central Station for the Republican Party's desperate effort to hold onto control of the House and the Senate. It appears the President is not working to solve the problems our courtry faces but is working for the Republican Party on out tax dollars.

In stark contrast the US Senate thinks it is unethical to use taxpayer funded resources and staff to promote partisan campaigns like the White House is doing. A Senate policy link from Washington State"s Senator Maria Cantwell"s official US Senate Website details Senate restrictions on use of public resources for campaigning.

U.S. SENATE INTERNET SERVICES USAGE RULES AND POLICIES first adopted in 1996 states:

"POSTING OR LINKING TO THE FOLLOWING MATTER IS PROHIBITED
Political Matter
a.Matter which specifically solicits political support for the sender or any other person or political party, or a vote or financial assistance for any candidate for any political office is prohibited.
b. Matter which mentions a Senator or an employee of a Senator as a candidate for political office, or which constitutes electioneering, or which advocates the election or defeat of any individuals, or a political party is prohibited.

Personal Matter
a. Matter which by its nature is purely personal and is unrelated to the official business activities and duties of the sender is prohibited.
b. Matter which constitutes or includes any article, account, sketch, narration, or other text laudatory and complimentary of any Senator on a purely personal or political basis rather than on the basis of performance of official duties as a Senator is prohibited.
c. Reports of how or when a Senator, the Senator's spouse, or any other member of the Senator's family spends time other than in the performance of, or in connection with, the legislative, representative, and other official functions of such Senator is prohibited.
d. Any transmission expressing holiday greetings from a Senator is prohibited. This prohibition does not preclude an expression of holiday greetings at the commencement or conclusion of an otherwise proper transmission.
Promotional Matter
a. The solicitation of funds for any purpose is prohibited.
b. The placement of logos or links used for personal, promotional, commercial, or partisan political campaign purposes is prohibited. "

Washington State law likewise has a similar restriction on the use of public resources to promote partisan campaigns. RCW 42.17.130 says

"No elective official nor any employee of his [or her] office nor any person appointed to or employed by any public office or agency may use or authorize the use of any of the facilities of a public office or agency, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of assisting a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition. Facilities of a public office or agency include, but are not limited to, use of stationery, postage, machines, and equipment, use of employees of the office or agency during working hours, vehicles, office space, publications of the office or agency, and clientele lists of persons served by the office or agency...."

See also Guideline for local government agencies in election campaigns

While it is nice to be able to check up on what Bush and others are saying on the campaign trail this should be on the Republican Party's website not the taxpayer funded White House website. The Bush White House is posting campaign speeches given at partisan political fundraisers using publicly financed resources. This is wrong.

See below selected quotes from August partisan political "press releases" posted on the official White House website. The "campaign press releases" continue right through the present.

Remarks by the President at Lynn Swann for Governor Reception Lancaster Host Resort and Conference CenterLancaster, Pennsylvania August 16, 2006
"I want to thank those of you who have given of your hard-earned money to help these folks. You can't run unless the people are willing to contribute. That's just the way it is. And the fact that Lynn and Jim have raised so much money tonight is a good sign. I want to thank you for those of you who have helped organize this event, and thank you for giving of your money. It really means a lot to them. I know. I speak with firsthand experience how much it means to have people willing to contribute."

Vice President's Remarks at a Luncheon for Arizona Victory 2006 Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa Phoenix, Arizona August 15, 2006
"I want to thank all of you for the strong support you're giving to the Republican Party, and to the victory effort that we're mounting here in Arizona. We're headed into the fall campaign, with a lot of important offices on the ballot. We have a good roster of candidates, and we need to make sure they have the resources they're going to need in order to guarantee victory in November. A strong turnout on Election Day will be good for our party, good for Arizona, and good for the country. And in the weeks ahead, we need to make sure that our fellow citizens know about our agenda for extending the prosperity of the country, and for protecting America against those who wish to harm us."

Remarks by the President at Orrin Hatch for Senate Reception Grand America Hotel Salt Lake City, Utah August 31, 2006
"We're proud to be here with Elaine and the Hatch family. Laura said to me, she said, you get over to Utah and you help our friends come back to Washington, D.C. ....
And most of all, thanks for helping Orrin. It takes a lot of work to get this many people in the room. And for those of you who organized this event, thank you. I know how hard you worked and so does he. This is an incredibly successful fundraiser, and he deserves it.
And for those of you involved in grassroots politics, thanks a lot for your hard work. Thanks for making sure that Utah was solid in 2004, and thank you for making sure that Utah remains solid in 2006. I appreciate you putting up the signs. I appreciate you making the phone calls. I appreciate you knocking on the doors. "

Remarks by the President at Bob Corker for Senate and Tennessee Republican Party Dinner Loews Vanderbilt HotelNashville, Tennessee August 30, 2006
"It makes sense to send a man of integrity and decency to Washington, D.C. And that man is Bob Corker. (Applause.)
I'm proud to call him friend, and you'll be proud to call him United States Senator. (Applause.) And I want to thank you for your help. I thank you for giving of your money and I urge you to give of your time. I know there's a lot of grassroots activists who are here. And Bob and Elizabeth are going to be counting on your help, coming down the stretch. He's got the message, he's got the courage, but he's going to need you to put up the signs and make the phone calls and go to community centers, and remind the good people of this state, Republican, Democrat, and independent, that when you have somebody of his caliber, they need to go to the polls and put him in office. "

Remarks by the President at Lynn Swann for Governor Reception Lancaster Host Resort and Conference CenterLancaster, Pennsylvania August 16, 2006
"I want to thank those of you who have given of your hard-earned money to help these folks. I want to thank those of you who have given of your hard-earned money to help these folks. You can't run unless the people are willing to contribute. That's just the way it is. And the fact that Lynn and Jim have raised so much money tonight is a good sign. I want to thank you for those of you who have helped organize this event, and thank you for giving of your money. It really means a lot to them. I know. I speak with firsthand experience how much it means to have people willing to contribute."

Vice President's Remarks at a Luncheon for Arizona Victory 2006 Arizona Biltmore Resort and Spa Phoenix, Arizona August 15, 2006
"I want to thank all of you for the strong support you're giving to the Republican Party, and to the victory effort that we're mounting here in Arizona. We're headed into the fall campaign, with a lot of important offices on the ballot. We have a good roster of candidates, and we need to make sure they have the resources they're going to need in order to guarantee victory in November. A strong turnout on Election Day will be good for our party, good for Arizona, and good for the country. And in the weeks ahead, we need to make sure that our fellow citizens know about our agenda for extending the prosperity."

Rovian Timing of Saddam Death Penalty Just Chance?

Don't tell me Karl Rove and Bush didn't somehow have a hand in the timing of today's announcement of the death penalty for Saddam Hussein. The verdict had previously been scheduled to be released earlier. But two days before a crucial election that will determine the fate of who controls Congress? Give me a break.

What better way to try to deflect Bush's failures in Iraq than by having Saddam declared guilty today. It is brilliant election eve strategy to focus people's attention on the one thing both Democrats and Republicans can agree on - that Saddam was a murderous dictator that deserved to be punished.

You have to hand it to Rove and company for strategic timing. But American voters need to keep focused on the larger picture and keep the conviction of Saddam in perspective. His conviction was a forgone conclusion and not unexpected.

Tuesday's vote is not about Saddam Hussein. The vote is about whether Republicans deserve to control Congress. The vote is about American's future actions in Iraq. It is about many things that need to change in America.

Voters need to remember that Republicans retaining control of Congress would be a vote for staying the course in Iraq.
It would be a vote in favor of ignoring action to reduce global warming.
It would be a vote in favor of not working for real energy independence and for supporting the oil companies stealing from consumer's pockets by their record profits.
It would be a vote in favor of opposing stem cell research and opposing decisions based on science rather than politics and religion.
It would be a vote decreasing citizen protections guaranteed in the constitution and for giving the President more power.
It would be a vote for opposing an increase in the minimum wage and a vote for opposing health care for all Americans.
It would be a vote to ignore helping students get a college education at a reasonable cost.
It would be a vote for drug company profits over senior citizens' financial independence.
It would be a vote for eliminating audits of Iraq contracts

A lot is at stake. Do we want one party rule and secrecy and special interests and corporations dictating the future of our country or do we want to restore checks and balances against unbridled Presidential power and a Republican Congress that can't police itself and which doesn't address critical priorities?

Avoid the smoke and mirrors of Republican domination. A Democratic vote on Tuesday is a vote to put our country's future first rather than special interests. A Democraic vote on Tuesday would be to put Democrats in power in Congress and end one party rule. A Democratic vote on Tuesday would be restore the system of checks and balances on power in Washington. A Democratic vote on Tuesday will be a vote to resolve the Ieaq conflict now, not pass it on to some future President.

Democrats need to keep in mind that even if they win one or both houses of Congress, the White House would still be run by Bush. He would be able to veto any legislation he doesn't want and would probably now exercise this power. He would still control all the Agencies and Departments that he does now. But at least there would be a check and a balance on the Executive Branch that hasn't been present under the unchecked and unbalanced one party rule of the Republicans now controlling both Congress and the White House.

It's time for a change. Vote to put the Democrats in charge of the US House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

Vote for Democrat Maria Cantwell for US Senate.

Vote for Democrats Darcy Burner, Peter Goldmark, and Richard Wright for Congress.

Vote for Justice Susan Owens for Washington State Supreme Court

Washington State Supreme Court Justice Susan Owens survived the Building Industry Association of Washington's megabucks primary campaign but she still has to beat her general election opponent on Nov 7, 2006.

Her opponent is the BIAW endorsed conservative Republican legislator Stephen Johnson.

Why vote for Justice Owens?

Two words sum up the difference - experience and independence.

Justice Owens has been a judge for 25 years including the last 6 years on the Washington State Supreme Court. Johnson has never served as a judge on any level.

Justice Owens is not beholden to any special interest like Johnson is. He is being supported aggressively by the Building Industry Association of Washington and other special interests that want to weaken growth management and environmental protection laws in Washington State.

To get more information on this race and other judicial races go to Voting for Judges. This is a great website.

Also you can read an excellent 3 part series on Stephen Johnson done by Noemie Maxwell on WASHblog:

Stephen Johnson and BIAW Team up to Reshape Washington's Supreme Court

WA Supreme Court Candidate to 5th Graders: "I'd get rid of all the Democrats"

Religious Right wants Stephen Johnson on Washington Supreme Court


Please vote Nov. 7, 2006 for Justice Susan Owens - the candidate with judicial experience and independence. Her opponent is backed by narrow special interest groups that want an activist court only in the image of their special interest beliefs. Let's keep the Washington State Supreme Court ruling in the public interest of its citizens, not that of some special interest group.

Enough Mike, It's Time for You to Apologize!

Mike McGavick's campaign for US Senate has degenerated into a joke. I kid you not. McGavick is calling on his opponent Democratic - US Senator Maria Cantwell - to apologize for Senator John Kerry's inability to tell a joke.

I really don't think this campaign is about who can tell a joke better. But apologizing that's something else.

So if we're down to the apologizing phase of the campaign, let's forget the jokes Mike. Are you ready to apologize for a few things your chosen party, the Republicans, and Congress and President Bush have done that really matter to Washington voters? Things like:

-falsely involving us in an unnecessary war in Iraq
-not finishing the war in Afghanistan
-creating more terrorists worldwide, making us less secure
-increasing the tax burden on future generations
-not raising the minimum wage
-using earmarks to pay for pet projects
-weakening the U.S. Constitution
-giving huge tax breaks to the wealthiest and token tax breaks to the rest of us
-increasing the cost of student loans and college education
-selling out to corporate interests on environmental issues
-supporting oil companies' interests over consumer interests
-opposing efforts to decrease global warming
-opposing making cars and trucks more fuel efficient
-not working to make us energy independent
-drafting legislation behind closed doors
-unethically accepting money from corporate lobbyists
-working to divide our country rather than bringing us together
-supporting drug company profits over helping seniors on low budgets
-creating a world hostile to US interests
-not working for affordable healthcare
-pushing to reduce the security of social security
-letting legislation expire to make the polluter pay
-trying to sell off public lands to private interests
-trying to turn social security over private interests

The list could go on and on, but I think you get my point.

And by the way Mike your Iraq ad is rather pathetic, criticizing Cantwell and saying your plan is to "Beat the terrorists, partition the country and get our troops home , in victory"

Yes Mike that is some plan. Why don't you talk to your Leader and tell him to "beat the terrorists." He hasn't made much headway has he?

Any other ideas Mike?

Initiative 933 - Right Wing Extremism in Action.

Washington State's Initiative 933 on the Nov 7th ballot is a snake in the grass. It is deceptive in its intent, which when examined closer, is far beyond the message its supporters are campaigning on. And this criticism is not even related to their deceptive yard signs with false slogans of "Save our Farms" and "Save our Open Space" meant to confuse voters by using the message of their opponents.

No it seems that some people, like out of state New York real estate developer Howard Rich, hate our elected citizen government system so much that they will go to any length to destroy it. Rich is an avowed Libertarian who has so far dumped over $360,000 into Washington State to try to get us to never pass any more laws, rules and regulations affecting not just real estate but any form of private property. He has funded over one third of the I-933 campaign and he doesn't even live here.

As Howard Rich himself says, initiatives like I-933 bypassing the legislature is a good thing and will have a "very far reaching" impact on future regulatory actions. That is true because if I-933 passes it means that all levels of government will be faced with either waiving or paying to enforce any new laws, rules or regulations that affects someone's personal property as well as real property(real estate).

The vote on Initiative 933 is significant nationally because I-933 represents a radical expansion of the original campaign over land use and environmental laws affecting real property that was supposibly the issue in Oregon's Measure 37.

Why is this? The answer lies in the fact that the initiative was deliberately written to cover both personal property and real estate. The sponsors say they intended it this way. Dan Wood running the Farm Bureau's effort to pass I-933 said so himself.

This expansion of the initiative to cover both real and personal property is what makes the initiative extreme - it talks about all "private property" not just real estate.

Initiative 933 ballot title:
Measure 933 concerns government regulation of private property. This measure would require compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property and would provide exceptions or payments. Should this measure be enacted into law?

Initiative 933 definition:
"Private property" includes all real and personal property interests protected by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, Section 16 of the Washington Constitution owned by a nongovernmental entity, including, but not limited to, any interest in land, buildings, crops, livestock, and mineral and water rights.

Foster Pepper lawyer Hugh Spitzer points out in his analysis that I-933 covers many other issues not even being currently debated because of this expansion of property to include both real and personal property in the definition section. I-933 is written to cover all property not just real estate;

As such Hugh Spitzer notes:
"Claims for public compensation would likely include demands for payments as a result of:
- Regulations governing the insurance, securities and health care industries;Regulations governing professions (such as plumbing, cosmetology, and physical therapy);
- Rules controlling who is qualified to carry out other tasks that require specialized training and experience, such as installing fire sprinkler systems or operating sex offender treatment facilities; and
- Regulations governing wild and domestic animals, livestock, food crops,fertilizers, pesticides, drugs and motor vehicles "

These are just a few examples but they point out why you should vote No on Initiative 933. It is a deceptive initiative that goes far beyond what many of its sponsors say it covers.

And under I-933 anyone can bring a legal suit at no cost regardless of the outcome of the case. Taxpayers pay all expenses of both sides in any court case regarding I-933. The challenger has nothing to lose. It's a good way to get cash strapped governments to quickly cave in to anyone challeging a new law, rule or regulation which in any way affects personal and real property.

Just as the opponents of I-933 say IT GOES TOO FAR. Vote no on Initiative 933.

addendum:

from Wikipedia:
Property designates those real or intellectual goods that are commonly recognized as being the rightful possessions of a person or group. A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit. ....Private property is that which belongs to an individual or a group of individuals (often in the form of individual tradable shares); public property is that which belongs to a whole community collectively or a State.

from Wikipedia:
Real property is a legal term encompassing real estate and ownership interests in real estate (immovable property). It is a type of property differentiated from personal property.

Oregon's Measure 37 specifically refers only to "private real property" (1) "If a public entity enacts or enforces a new land use regulation or enforces a land use regulation enacted prior to the effective date of this amendment that restricts the use of private real property or any interest therein and has the effect of reducing the fair market value of the property, or any interest therein, then the owner of the property shall be paid just compensation. "