Is Unfettered Corporate "Free Speech" Coming to a Campaign Near You?

Federal law currently prohibits the spending of corporate money in Federal elections. Many states also prohibit the spending of corporate money in state elections. But this could all change soon as the US Supreme Court is considering overturning the ban on corporate money in elections put in place over 100 years ago by President Theodore Roosevelt.

Two judicial decisions, one in 1990 and the other in 2003, that supported the ban on corporate money are being reviewed and are in danger of being overturned by the current conservative majority of the court. In 1990 the US Supreme Court upheld a state law on banning corporate donations. Justices Kennedy and Scalia dissented on that case.

The second case was a 5 to 4 decision in 2003 which upheld the McCain-Feingold ban on union and corporate broadcast ads the month prior to an election. In that case Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy were opposed. Since then Justice Alito replaced Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed. The appointment of Justice Sotomayer for Souter did not result in a vote change since she is likely to vote the same as Souter did.

The case before the Court Initially involved the banning of "Hilliary: the Movie" by the Federal Elections Commission as electioneering under McCain - Feingold. The conservative Justices have succeeded in scheduling a special Court session on Sept 9, 2009 to hear arguments on overturning the corporate ban on money in elections.

The issue is one that pits "free speech" versus the influence of corporate money in elections. In an article in today's Seattle Times entitled "Corporate election spending up for review" they note that:

With the corporate-spending limits at risk of reversal, advocates of campaign-funding laws are sounding the alarm. Striking down corporate spending limits would be "a radical step" that would change the character of elections, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21.

"Banks like Citicorp, investment firms like Merrill Lynch and insurance companies like AIG would be free to spend hundreds of millions of dollars of their corporate wealth to directly support the election of federal officeholders who do their legislative bidding and to directly oppose [those] who refused to carry out their wishes," Wertheimer said.

"This could take us back to the era when people referred to the senator from Standard Oil," agreed Washington, D.C., lawyer Trevor Potter, who last year advised Republican Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign. "If you have hundreds of millions of corporate dollars flowing into these races, it could drown out the speech of ordinary voters

The New York Times article today is entitled "Justices to Revisit 'Hillary Film, and Corporate Cash in Politics" also has an in depth discussion of the issues involved. The add an additional quote by Fred Wertheimer saying that , "We're not dealing with campaign finance laws. We're dealing with the essence of power in America."

So much for the Republican conservative hypocrisy on saying they oppose activist judges. Seems the conservative contingent on the Supreme Court is ready to overturn 100 years of judicial law.

Two thoughts emerge. One is why should corporations even be considered to be accorded free speech protections under the Constitution? A corporation is not an entity in the US Constitution but people are..

The second is how anyone can consider money spent by corporations as equivalent to free speech. Multimillion dollar expenditures by corporations can easily drown out the free speech rights and voices of average citizens. There is no limit on corporations speaking out and holding press conferences and issuing press releases. The issue is one of whether corporate financial money should give their view and position on candidates an unfair advantage becasue they can buy paid media and lots of it.

Maybe this is all one more reason pushing the county toward public financing of campaigns so that candidates can compete on an equal basis on their ideas, not on the basis of whether they have corporate friends willing to support them.

Looking for Members to Join the new Seattle Urban Forestry Commission

Yesterday it was announced that the Seattle Mayor and Seattle City Council are seeking members for the newly created Urban Forestry Commission. The press release, a fact sheet, and the ordinance establishing the Commission can be found here:

http://www.seattle.gov/trees/UFcommission.htm

Anyone interested in serving on the Commission should submit a letter of interest and resume by September 18, 2009. Details about the Commission membership and the selection process can be found in the fact sheet on the link above. The Seattle City Council and Mayor are seeking members with specific areas of expertise so please have a look at the fact sheet to help identify people who you think might be interested. Please help spread the word so we can get qualified people appointed..


The positions on the Urban Forestry Commission are:

The Commission is comprised of nine members:

Position 1: A wildlife biologist, preferably with expertise in ornithology

Position 2: An urban ecologist, preferably with expertise in the field of restoration ecology

Position 3: A representative of a local, state, or federal natural resource agency or an accredited university

Position 4: A hydrologist or similar professional, preferably with expertise in the study of natural drainage, climate or air quality, or a combination thereof

Position 5: An arborist, with one or more of the following qualifications:
• Board Certification as a Master Arborist or Municipal Specialist from the International Society of Arboriculture; or
• Certification by the American Society of Consulting Arborists; or
• Background and experience in Tree Risk Assessment from a credentializing agency or a professional organization.

Position 6: A landscape architect, with certification from the International Society of Arboriculture

Position 7: A representative of a non-profit or non-governmental organization whose mission is to advocate for preservation or enhancement of urban forests, wildlife habitat or similar natural systems

Position 8: A representative of either the development community, including developers, builders, architects, or realtors, with experience in projects developed under Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), or a representative from a non-city utility

Position 9: An economist, financial analyst, Washington State licensed real estate broker, or any other similar professional, with expertise preferred in land use planning, environmental planning, or either residential or commercial development.

Creation of the Urban Forestry Commission is an example of how citizen concern and action over the continued loss of Seattle's trees is effecting change in how our city is functioning. The continued threat of the unnecessary destruction of a conifer/madrone rare plant habitat at Ingraham High School resulted in the formation of a city wide effort called Save the Trees-Seattle to save the 75 year old 100 foot tall trees at Ingraham and help to protect trees across the city..

I am the Chair of the Group and at a meeting of the King County Democrats several months back I suggested to Seattle City Council member Nick Licata that what we needed to help protect Seattle's Urban Forest was an Urban Forestry Commission like Portland Oregon has.

Nick said he liked the idea and two weeks later he introduced legislation to create an Urban Forestry Commission for Seattle

The bill went through numerous revisions, several public hearings and received comment from many citizens. In the end the Seattle City Council unanimously passed the resolution supporting the creation of the Urban Forestry Commission comprised of technical experts to help advise the Mayor and the Seattle City Council on urban forestry issues.

Council member Licata played a critical role in the process by not just introducing the bill but guiding it through numerous revisions and compromises to finally get the bill enacted.

So now the work begins on getting a functioning commission. Please help spread the word and urge people you know who are qualified to apply to be on the new Urban Forestry Commission.

Honor Senator Edward Kennedy by Passing Health Care Reform

The best way to honor Edward Kennedy's life and serrvice to America is to pass health care reform in his name.

Here's a petition by Wired for Change;

PETITION TO THE SENATE: "Ted Kennedy was a courageous champion for health care reform his entire life. In his honor, name the reform bill that passed Kennedy's health committee 'The Kennedy Bill' -- then pass it, and nothing less, through the Senate."

Click on the link above and add your name to the petition.

Initiative 1033 Offers Taxpayers Free Lunch

No one likes to pay taxes but it is how we fund public services. And who wouldn't like to get a break on your property taxes as I-1033 proposes. Yet beware, there is no free lunch.

I-1033 basically proposes to freeze government services. Government will not grow under I-1033 and it is false and misleading for Eyman to suggest it will.

Local and state government spending is frozen next year at this year level and will only increase to adjust for inflation and population. And so on for every year thereafter.

If government spending to pay for services increased exactly as Eyman's consumer price index adjustment allows, all that you're doing is paying for the same services at their increased cost due to inflation. The problem is that many services government provides like Medicaid for seniors has historically grown faster than the consumer price index.

And any population adjustment just means you can pay for providing services for new members of your community. Individual taxpayers will not see any increase in services provided to them.

So if the economy improves and more sales tax revenue comes in next year compared to this year, any revenue above the I-1033 limit will have to go to pay property taxes. But this is a reverse Robin Hood scheme of transferring wealth to just property owners despite everyone paying sales tax.

There are two problems with this. First not everyone owns property. The US Census Bureau says that only 65% of the households in Washington State are owner occupied. So 35% of households will not see any benefit from I-1033 despite paying sales taxes.

And second the real estate tax reduction covers all property. Some 40% of real estate taxes are commercial. So large corporations like Boeing or Weyerhaeuser and shopping malls like Bellevue Square will also get the same tax break. That's probably why Kemper Freeman gave Eyman $25,000 to help get I-1033 on the ballot. The more property anyone owns the more of a tax break they will get. Of course Eyman didn’t tell you that you will be helping to pay Kemper Freeman's real estate taxes.

So besides freezing government services, I-1033 is also a complex wealth redistribution scheme that benefits wealthy property owners. The average homeowner will not see much benefit and will lose much more in terms of public services that we take for granted but which are not free. These include police and fire protection, public libraries, public health, K-12 schools and college and universities, parks and open space, road repair and public transit, services for seniors and disabled people, environmental protection, clean drinking water and clean air, our judicial system and much more.

Read the initiative and understand its impacts before you vote. If you want to keep local control over the quality of life in your community, vote No on Initiative 1033 this November 3rd, 2009. If something sounds too good to be true, it probably isn’t.

for more information on I-1033 go to www.no1033.com .

Seattle Mayor Nickels Not Picking Up Votes in Latest Count

The election results released by King County Elections at 4:08 PM today August 19, 2009 did not bring good news for Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels. He actually received the least votes of the 3 candidates battling for the 2 seats in the General Election.

Joe Mallahan picked up 4725 votes
Michael McGinn picked up 3989
Greg Nickels picked up 3943 votes.

Joe Mallahan has now moved into first place with 26.76% of the vote, Michael McGinn has slipped to second place with 26.48% and Nickels remained in third with 25.19%.

You can check the results for all the candidates running for Seattle Mayor by going to the King County Elections website.

The Primary Election is being decided by dismal turnout numbers. Out of 379,721 registered voters in Seattle only 81,725 voters have been counted so far. That's a turnout of 21.52%.

The irony here is that Nickels is being defeated by 2 unknown candidates who have never run for office before. One has to wonder what kind of political campaign advice was being given to Nickels regarding the campaign he ran.

Over the years Nickels seems to have lost touch with his Democratic base which is strange. Most of his political record is very progressive and he has been a strong champion of environmental issues. Unfortunately he lost neighborhood support by his administration siding with developers over neighborhoods.

And he did not seem to be running a campaign that reached out to grassroots democrats. Many people seemed to feel estranged from Nickels. Maybe if he had spent more time campaigning and being visible things would now be different. As it is his prospects of making it through the primary don't look good and have to be a shock to someone just elected to head the US Conference of Mayors.

King County Election Results - Tuesday Evening

King County Elections posted at 9:52 PM the last results for today of ballots that were received through Tuesday in the mail and in person polling today at its three locations. The next results will be at 4:30 PM on Wednesday.

It is going to be a bad night for Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle as he currently is in third and is closely trailing two challengers Mike McGinn and Joe Mallahan. Polls leading up to the election today that showed his support was very low coming into Election Day were obviously fairly accurate in saying he was in trouble.

Here are the early numbers:

Mike McGinn 16891 26.56%

Joe Mallahan 16376 25.81%

Greg Nickels 15921 25.05%

This was an all mail in ballot and being an August Primary the turnout is very low so far. This could change if a lot of people waited until today to turn in ballots in the mail. Tomorrow's numbers will be more decisive. King 5 TV tonight thought that maybe only 50% of the potential ballots were in so far and counted.

The current mailed in ballots only comprise 17.37% of registered Seattle voters. (Ballots Cast/Registered Voters: 65942 / 379721 17.37%)

The King County Executives race in November is going to be between Dow Constantine and Susan Hutchinson. Hutchinson was the only "Republican" candidate in the race and got 37.4% of the vote Dow Constantine one of 4 Democrats running got 22.38% of the vote.

Court of Appeals Judge Anne L Ellington is easily winning with 74.16% of the vote.

Port Commission Position 3 saw Rob Holland at 50.93% and David Doud at 33.10%.

Port Commission Position 4 saw Tom Albo at 38.72%. Second was Max Vekich at 26.75% and Robert Wilkes at 24,70%. This race could still see some changes and is too close to call for second.

Seattle School Board members are elected by District. The top 2 candidates in the Primary then run citywide in November. in Position #5 incumbent Mary Bass received 38.51% of the vote with challenger Kay Smith Blum at 38.03%. In Position #7 Betty Patu received 46.31% and Wilson Chin 41.31%.

In Seattle City Council Position 4 Sally Bagshaw received 49.99% to David Bloom's 18.2%.

In Seattle City Council Position 6 incumbent Nick Licata polled 52.82% to Jessie Israel's 29.99%.

In Seattle City Council Position 8 Mike O'Brien received 35.58% to Robert Rosencrantz's 19.38%

Voters voted down Referendum 1 on bag fees by 58.09% to 41.91%

Seattle City Council Races Sorting Out in First Election Results

The three Seattle City Council races are sorting out in the first results from King County Elections being released at 8:03 PM. Because this is an all mail in ballot, final results may take a while to sort out in position 8 but the trends are pretty clear in the other races.

As we noted in our previous post The Seattle Mayor's race is a three way tie, with Michael McGinn on top, followed closely by Joe Mallahan and incumbent Greg Nickels a close third.

In Position 4 Sally Bagshaw has a commanding lead with 50.06% of the vote. David Bloom is her most likely opponent, coming in second with 18.17%.

In Position 6, incumbent Councilmember Nick Licata has a comfortable 52,54%, with Jessie Israel coming in second at 29.99%.

In position 8, Sierra Club member Mike O'Brien has a comfortable lead in the 6 person race at 35.56% of the vote. Robert Rosencrantz more allied with the business community has come in at second with 19.39%. Jordan Royer is third and David Miller is fourth. This is the tightest race for second position of the three seats in the primary and there could be some changes when mailed in ballots are counted in the next two days.


City of Seattle Council Position No. 4

Sally Bagshaw 28087 50.06%

Thomas Tobin 5706 10.17%

Brian Carver 5021 8.95%

Dorsol Plants 6853 12.21%

David Bloom 10194 18.17%

Write-in 244 0.43%


City of Seattle Council Position No. 6

Marty Kaplan 9592 16.73%

Nick Licata 30260 52.79%

Jessie Israel 17192 29.99%

Write-in 278 0.48%


City of Seattle Council Position No. 8

Mike O'Brien 19913 35.56%

Rusty Williams 3046 5.44%

Bobby Forch 6731 12.02%

David Miller 6842 12.22%

Jordan Royer 8359 14.93%

Robert Rosencrantz 10857 19.39%

Write-in 248 0.44%

Seattle Mayor Nickels in Trouble in First Election Returns

The first Election returns from King County Elections shows a three way tie for Seattle Mayor. Greg Nickels the incumbent is actually in third place. Michael McGinn is at the top right now with 26.56%. Joe Mallahan is in second place with 25.81%. Greg Nickels is third with 25.05%.

These are early results and it is likely this race will not be decided for a week or so if this closeness continues in the next count. This is an all mail in ballot so we aren't waiting for precincts to report like in the past.

King County Elections results posted 8:10 PM 8/18/2009

City of Seattle Mayor

Mike McGinn 16810 26.56%

James Donaldson 5849 9.24%

Greg Nickels 15859 25.05%

Joe Mallahan 16334 25.81%

Kwame Wyking Garrett 715 1.13%

Jan Drago 4926 7.78%

Elizabeth Campbell 1974 3.12%

Norman Zadok Sigler 592 0.94%

Write-in 238 0.38%

Former CIGNA PR Executive Details Insurance Company Strategy Against Health Care Reform

Wendell Potter is the former Head of Communications for CIGNA Corporation - one of the largest health insurers in the US. Over on Common Dreams.org he now writes about how the health insurance industry has worked to sabotage health care reform for years.

Here are some of his remarks. I urge you to read the full article, entitled, "How Health Insurance Drives Debate" . He notes how the health insurance industry has been working behind the scenes to drive the debate and most people don't see it. Their bottom line is not health care or the patients but profits. If patients are not profitable they get their policies dropped.

As Potter explains,

"... the industry funnels millions of its policyholders' premiums to big public relations firms that provide talking points to conservative talk show hosts, business groups and politicians. I also described how the PR firms set up front groups, again using your premium dollars and mine, to scare people away from reform.

What I'm trying to do as I write and speak out against the insurance industry I was a part of for nearly two decades is to inform Americans that when they hear isolated stories of long waiting times to see doctors in Canada and allegations that care in other systems is rationed by "government bureaucrats," someone associated with the insurance industry wrote the original script.

The industry has been engaging in these kinds of tactics for many years, going back to its successful behind-the-scenes campaign to kill the Clinton reform plan.

Potter is very explicit in warning Americans that the previous efforts to kill health care reform and today's opposition are not spontaneous but are coming from the health care industry efforts to continue making profits off our current dysfunctional system that is profit based not care based.

Potter ends with this comment:

"The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits.

So the next time you hear someone warning against a "government takeover" of our health care system, or that the creation of a public health insurance option would send us down the "slippery slope toward socialism," know that someone like I used to be wrote those terms, knowing it might turn many of the very people who would benefit most from meaningful reform into unwitting spokespeople for the industry."

Such a sad commentary is unfortunately the case. The very people who would benefit from health care reform are arguing against it. If they have anything to be mad about it should be the lies and lack of coverage and shady tactics and outrageous costs that create so many problems for the very citizens the current private health care system is saying they can do a better job of helping than a public option would.

It's obvious that the current health care system is class oriented in that it serves those with money best and does not believe in equality of care. Health care should be a right. Unfortunately in America it is a privilege driven by money. That is wrong.

King County Elections Last Minute Voting Help for August 18, 2009 Primary

King County Elections has issued the following press release detailing special Saturday hours, other last minute opportunities to vote, get a duplicate ballot or deal with other problems:

King County Elections News Release

Date: August 14, 2009
Contact: Kim Van Ekstrom, 206-296-1552

Megan Coppersmith, 206-296-2796

Elections Office announces special Saturday hours

With Election Day fast approaching on Tuesday, King County Elections will be open on Saturday to assist voters.

According to Sherril Huff, Director of Elections, “Even voters who have forgotten to update their addresses or lost their ballots still have an opportunity to vote. It is not too late to be part of this election.”

To accommodate voters, King County Elections will have Saturday office hours tomorrow, Aug. 15, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. Voters who have not yet received their ballot can come to have a new ballot issued to them.

King County also has options for voters with disabilities. Three accessible voting centers are available for voters who may need assistance casting their ballot. The hours and locations are as follows:

Renton, King County Elections, 919 SW Grady Way, 98057

Friday, August 14: 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Saturday, August 15: 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Monday, August 17: 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Tuesday, August 18: 7 a.m. – 8 p.m.



Bellevue City Hall 450 110th Avenue NE, Bellevue, 98009, and

Seattle, Union Station 401 S. Jackson St, Seattle, 98104

Friday, August 14: 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Saturday, August 15: 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Monday, August 17: 10 a.m. – 5 p.m.

Tuesday, August 18: 7 a.m. – 8 p.m.


Each center is operated by trained staff and has equipment designed to make voting accessible and private for everyone. The touch screen accessible voting unit features lap paddles and sip-and-puff devices, an audio option, and large and high contrast font to aid voters.

Don’t forget to vote in Tuesday’s primary. Voters can return their ballots in either of two ways: via the US Postal Service, postmarked on or before August 18, or at a designated drop boxes up until 8 p.m. on August 18. Visit www.kingcounty.gov/elections for more information on the upcoming election.

Watch Video on Why I-1033 Would be Bad for Washington State

Initiative 1033 is Tim Eyman's Washington State version of Colorado's TABOR law (Taxpayers Bill of Rights). It's been a dismal failure. It has permanently decreased Colorado's level of basic services by using the same inflation plus population growth limits. Voter's recently put the measure on hold to try to undo some of it's disastrous impacts. You can watch a great video and listen yourself to how Coloradoans now feel about their disastrous experiment. We don't need Washington State to become a Tim Eyman experiment. Vote No on I-1033 this November 3rd, 2009.

Primary Endorsements by Majority Rules Blog

The August 18th 2009 Primary is fast approaching in King County. Having been to a number of campaign events and having tracked election issues and candidates here are my recommendations on some of the candidates worthy of being given your vote. I am active in Democratic politics and progressive politics and my endorsement reflects that. These endorsements reflect my personal choices as to who I think would do the best job if elected in furthering progressive Democratic principles and goals.

Primary Election Recommendations:

King County Executive - Larry Phillips and Dow Constantine

Court of Appeals, Div 1, Dist 1, Position 3 - Anne L Ellington

Port of Seattle Position 3 - Rob Holland

Port of Seattle - Position 4 - Max Vekich

Seattle Mayor - Greg Nickels and Joe Mallahan

Seattle City Council Position 4 - David Bloom

Seattle City Council Position 6 - Nick Licata

Seattle City Council Position 8 - David Miller

Seattle School Board Position 7 - Charlie Mas

Seattle Referendum 1 (Bag Fee) - Approve


Also endorsed but on the General Election ballot:

Seattle City Council Position 2 - Richard Conlin

Seattle City Attorney - Peter Holmes

Initiative 1033 - Vote No

www.WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck - Obama's "Secret" Healthcare Website

The media seems to be working overtime to keep the new Obama "Reality Check" website on health care secret. We're publishing it up front so you can see it for yourself. Its www.WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck .

But read the print edition of the Seattle Times. today. Nowhere does it publish the link. Only if you go online and read the same article can you can find a link to the site. Why is it not published in the print edition? The article is a reprint of an article written by the New York Times.

Go to today's print edition of the New York Times of the same article and it also does not provide a specific link. It mentions that "The White House on Monday started a new website to fight questionable but potentially damaging charges that Presidents Obama's proposed overhaul of the nations health care system would inevitably lead to "socialized medicine", "rationed care" and even forced euthanasia for the elderly." But they only show a small picture of it do do not provide a web address to go to. Only by going to the New York Times article on the web can you find a link.

The Washington Post on line today notes that "On Monday, the White House launched a new online "Reality Check" on its Web site featuring administration officials rebutting critics' claims." But strangely it does not provide a link or website address for the White House website.

Various media outlets seem to be working overtime giving coverage to outrageous poster slogans and deliberate orchestrated efforts by Republicans and conservatives to kill any health care reform. Why does a picture of an absurd slogan or someone yelling to stop debate on discussion on health care deserve more coverage than the simple act of putting up the web address to Obama's rebuttal of the right wing's frantic efforts to prevent health care reform?

The media in this case seems to be more in the business of entertainment than providing the public function of information dissemination. Facts about public policy and fostering discussion lose out to slogans, and yelling and screaming by a vocal minority. How is the media doing the public a service by covering the antics of the right wing which is offering no answer to rising health care costs or lack of adequate health care coverage or loss of health care coverage.

Where's the truth here? Is the media being hoodwinked by the right wing? The right wing's goal is to stop Obama, is to stop anything that gives Obama momentum to bring about change and to re-institute the conservative policies that contributed to our present recession and multitude of problems that were not addressed while the Republicans were in control. Is the media carrying the water for the right wing conservatives by giving them so much coverage when they don't deserve it?

The question here is one the media needs to look at. Is it a circus they should be covering or is it helping to try to resolve health care problems that exist in this country? They can help the public by trying to factually deal with health care issues. They could start by helping to insure that the public has access to the proposals being considered by Congress and the President and doing simple things like providing links and web addresses to what the President is saying. Or just a simple thing like publishing the web address www.WhiteHouse.gov/RealityCheck .

The website has a number of videos where response is given to criticim of Obama's healthcare reform. Here are some of the areas covered:

CEA Chair Christina Romer details how health insurance reform will impact small businesses.

Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes tackles a nasty rumor about euthanasia and clearly describes how reform helps families.

Matt Flavin, the White House's Director of Veterans and Wounded Warrior Policy, clears the air about Veteran's benefits.

Kavita Patel, M.D., a doctor serving in the White House's Office of Public Engagement, explains that health care rationing is happening right now and how reform gives control back to patients and doctors.

Bob Kocher, M.D., a doctor serving on the National Economic Council, debunks the myth that health insurance reform will be financed by cutting Medicare benefits.

Approve the Bag Fee says Seattle Times

The Seattle Times recommends that Seattle voters approve Referendum 1. Referendum 1, on the August 18, 2009 Primary ballot would impose a 20 cent fee on both paper and plastic bags sold at large grocery stores, drugstores and convenience stores.

The Seattle Times notes that it is "a wholly avoidable fee on disposable plastic and paper bags" that will "reduce litter, landfill and environmental damage." You only pay the fee if you don't use reusable bags. Most stores have been selling reusable bags for one dollar. After 5 uses you don't pay any additional costs.

The fact is that the throwaway plastic and paper bags people now use are not and never have been free. The website www.reusablebags.com states that the "annual cost to US retailers for plastic bags is estimated at $4 billion. When retailers give away free bags, their costs are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices."

So it is no wonder that the plastic industry that makes the throwaway plastic bags is freely spending over $1.3 million to try to get Seattle voters to reject the bag fee.

Sure there is some inconvenience in remembering to bring your reusable bags to the grocery store. But we've changed our habits before and helped to lead change on the national level.

When Seattle started curbside collection of recyclable, there were people who objected and said it was too much work. A battle at the time also involved plans to build an incinerator to burn garbage and recyclables. A cost benefit analysis showed recycling made more sense and would be less expensive. Recycling and curbside collection won out and over time Seattle residents have made the behavioral changes necessary to comply with separating out recyclables. We have become one of the leaders in recycling nationwide.

The issue with reusable bags also requires social and behavioral changes. Changing our society to a more sustainable one requires action and commitment. Using reusable bags is a small step but there is no away with plastics.

Plastics not degrade but break down into small particles that become contaminants in the ecosystem, particularly the ocean where they disrupt sea life and act as material that toxic chemicals attach to. Small plastic particles with toxic chemicals adhering to them are ingested by zoo plankton and work their way up the food chain. The toxics wind up in seafood we eat. There is no away.

In a post entitled "Plastic in the Plankton" there is this comment:

Dr. Curtis Ebbesmeyer, an oceanographer and marine debris expert in Seattle, says one pound of plastic turns into 100,000 small pieces of plastic if left in the ocean. While oil spills get more attention as an environmental threat, he says plastic is a far more serious danger to the ocean's health. Oil is harmful but eventually biodegrades, while plastic remains forever, he says. Half of beach debris worldwide is plastic and its impact on the food chain is undetermined, Ebbesmeyer says. Not much is known about the effect of plastic consumption on marine life like jellyfish and fish. Plastic doesn't biodegrade, it just gets broken into smaller pieces resembling zooplankton. The plastic is eaten by jellyfish, which are then eaten by fish. In addition to substituting for actual nutrients, plastic also chemically attracts hydrocarbon pollutants found in the ocean like PCBs and DDT. Moore says pollutants accumulate in plastic up to one million times more than in ocean water.

We have a choice of what kind of future we want. Is it continuing a throwaway society with its myriad of problems or making social and cultural changes necessary for the long term health of our planet? Vote to approve Referendum 1 on August 18, 2009.

Republican Naysayers Present Challenge to Democrats on Health Care Reform

Politics is a rough and tumble contact sport and health care reform is no exception. Republicans and conservatives are rallying their right wing base and trying to change the outcome by confrontational tactics. Do Democrats and Progressives have what it takes to fight back? Do they have the tenacity to engage and fight to the finish? Questions like these are relevant and vital to the outcome of health care reform in Congress.

The basic question is whether Democrats and health care advocates going to roll over and let a few rabid naysayers determine the outcome of health care reform. If they do, then they are only fair weather advocates that ignore a vital fact in any type of reform effort. You must stick in the fight to the finish and you must engage the opposition at every turn.

It's not surprising that the battle is turning nasty and confrontational because huge amounts of money are involved. It's a continuation of the election in that it pits so called free market advocates against those that believe in fair play and regulation. Republicans and conservatives are also fighting to continue their dominance of a style of politics that is not based on fact but rather emotion and division. If conservatives can divide the American public by their "in your face" tactics, they will stop health care reform and much more.

The conservative's goal is to negate the last election by having Obama lose a major policy battle. Democrats and Progressives and Independents who want to see change need to engage now and remain engaged. They need to e-mail and call their elected representatives and voice strong support for health care reform that includes a public option and coverage for all and that reduces health care costs.

You can also contribute to efforts like those of MoveOn.org which is trying to mobilize the public in support of the Democrats Health Care Reform proposals.

As MoveOn.org notes in an e-mail sent today:

"It's getting ugly out there.

All across the country, right-wing extremists are disrupting congressional town-hall meetings with venomous attacks on President Obama's plans for health care and clean energy.

Last night in Tampa, Florida, a town hall meeting erupted into violence, with the police being called to break up fist fights and shoving matches.

A Texas Democrat was shouted down by right-wing hecklers, many of whom admitted they didn't even live in his district.

One North Carolina representative announced he wouldn't be holding any town-hall meetings after his office began receiving death threats.

And in Maryland, protesters hung a Democratic congressman in effigy to oppose health-care reform.

We've got a plan to fight back against these radical right-wingers. We've hired skilled grassroots organizers who are working with thousands of local volunteers to show Congress that ordinary Americans continue to support President Obama's agenda for change. And we're building new online tools to track events across the country and make sure MoveOn members turn out at each one. "

You can make a contribution to MoveOn.org to help by clicking here:

Make contribution to MoveOn.org

Why I-1033 Limits on Spending Growth Won't Work

Colorado has had the experience of living under the growth limits on government spending that Tim Eyman is proposing with I-1033 . The Colorado measure was called the Taxpayer Bill of Rights or TABOR. It was passed by Colorado voters in 1992 as a constitutional amendment and placed strict limits on spending by local and state government. The end result was a drastic decease in public services in Colorado.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has a good analysis of some of the many problems Colorado has had and you can go to their website for more detailed information.

I've reproduced a section below from their website which addresses some of the specific problems that exist with inflation and population only growth limits like Eyman proposes in I-1033. The magic potion Eyman claims I-1033 is, is actually a very toxic potion that will act as a poison on our state in many ways.

Limiting government spending to only population and inflation growth each year like I-1033 does creates real problems and does not provide for growth of services. It is in the best of times a freeze on government programs and in the worst of times actually decreases government services.

Here the analysis done by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorites based on the real experiment with this legislation in Colorado that points out some real problems.

"Why a Population plus Inflation Growth Formula Cannot Provide a Constant Level of Public Services

There are several reasons why states cannot provide a constant level of public services under a population-plus-inflation formula.

■No existing measure of inflation — neither the Consumer Price Index nor the GDP deflator nor any other measure — correctly captures the growth in the cost of the kinds of services purchased in the public sector. State governments, for instance, are major purchasers of health care, the costs of which are rising far faster than the general rate of inflation.
■In most states, a rising share of the state population is utilizing public services. For instance, the number of senior citizens in most states is rising faster than the general population, putting new burdens on programs such as Medicaid.
■States often face the burden of providing new or expanded services for reasons outside the control of lawmakers. These include court mandates to increase school funding or other services, response to natural disasters or public health emergencies, major economic shifts such as plant closings, or other reasons.
■In an era of large federal deficits, states are increasingly expected to finance a substantial share of new domestic priorities. Some of these expectations take the form of formal mandates, such as the additional education expenditures required under the No Child Left Behind law. Others may reflect what one analyst has called "underfunded expectations,” such as the expectation that states and local governments will provide heightened levels of security as part of the war on terrorism.
■New public priorities may require new funding from states above and beyond levels of inflation. Recent state initiatives in areas such as K-12 class size reduction, prescription drug coverage for seniors, college scholarships for students with high levels of academic achievement, and other initiatives generally cannot be accommodated under the population-growth-plus-inflation formula.
It is important to note that all state programs — not just those with cost pressures exceeding the population-growth-plus-inflation level — are threatened by a rigid population-growth-plus-inflation limit. This is because such limits typically cover nearly all areas of state and local spending. So, if one spending area is forced to grow faster than the rate allowed under the limit (for instance due to court order, federal mandate or popular demand), then another spending area must grow at a slower pace — which is to say that in terms of the level of service provided, that second spending area must actually shrink."

We don't need to repeat the Colorado experience in Washington State. Vote No on Initiative 1033 this November 3rd. Keep local control of government services and keep government flexibity to respond to changing needs.

for more information on the campaign go to www.no1033.com

Seattle School Board Candidates Mostly Low Profile and Low Fundraising.

Three Seattle School Board seats are up for election this year and two seats have Primary Elections. The School District has an odd hybrid electoral system where candidates run in a district in the Primary and city wide in the General Election.

Seattle School Board President Michael DeBell is running unopposed and will not be on the Primary ballot. In the second seat up, incumbent Mary Bass is opposed by 3 other candidates, Joanna Cullen, Andre Helmsletter and Kay Blum-Smith. The third seat is that being vacated by Cheryl Chow and has three candidates running. Wilson Chin, Charlie Mas and Betty Patu.

Despite the fact that the Seattle School District is in Seattle and of obvious interest to Seattle residents, campaign finance information for the candidates is not posted on the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission website. This is something that the city should include, especially considering how often candidates running for Seattle City Council or Mayor seem to mention the issues of our schools.

Also conspicuously absent is the fact that there are no campaign contribution limits for those running for Seattle School Board. While candidates for city office are limited to accepting a maximum of $700 per person per election cycle, no such limits exist for Seattle School Board. Two years ago this allowed some large contributions by a few individuals to influence the outcome of the races to a significant degree.

The following information is taken from the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission's website.

One candidate this year for School Board, Wilson Chin, has received 4 contributions over the limit for other city offices. Two were for $2500 and two were for $1500. All told Chin has raised only $9,938 but it is the most in his race for Position #7 in South Seattle. Betty Patu has raised $1,035 and Charlie Mas has reported no contributions to date.

In Position 5, Mary Bass the incumbent, has raised some $6,142 , including a loan of $3,000. One contribution from Nadean Bass was for $1,000. Kay Smith-Blum has raised $26,165 and spent $19,710 to date. Her fundraising includes some $10,720 from 86 contributors; a $7,200 loan and $7,000 of her personal funds. Her largest individual contribution was for $400. The other two candidates, Joanna Cullen and Andre Helmsletter reported no campaign contributions.

Two years ago the races for Seattle School District saw huge amounts of money spent, much of it coming after the primary and in contributions much larger than the $700 limit for Seattle City Council and Mayoral races. The money was a coordinated effort to put more "congenial" people on the Board who didn't ask as many questions. It worked if that was what you wanted.

Sherry Carr raised $149,130 with 31 contributions over $700 totaling some $105,700.

Peter Maier raised some $167,000 with 30 contributions over $700 totaling some $101,500.

Stephen Sundquist raised some $116,775 with 35 contributions over $700 totaling some $61,000.

The goal of this extraordinary amount of money was to defeat candidates like Darlene Flynn and Sally Soriano who disturbed the powers to be by asking too many questions and not taking the word of school administrators all the time.

Those who replaced them brought different results. You got people, for example, who did not question an administrative decision still ongoing to build in a rare plant habitat at Ingraham High School. They also were the votes that picked the fuzzy math approach for new textbooks. As the Seattle Times wrote about the math textbook vote:

"The other side, however, did not make a case for the reform text.

They argued instead that the "Discovering" books had been recommended by a committee, and that the board should respect the committee. Board member Steve Sundquist said, "I should probably not be telling educators how to teach."

They argued that textbooks aren't that important anyway. Board member Peter Maier said the books "allow a variety of teaching methods."

They argued that textbook adoption was too important to waste any more time. "How many classes are we willing to graduate while we disagree over textbooks?" said board member Sherry Carr.

So the dominant paradigm — and reform math is that — continues. Dominance has its privileges. The supporters of reform math did not have to define their terms or label themselves. They did not have to make a logical argument or show any data.

They engaged in what you might call a cooperative group activity, and led themselves to discover the books that were wanted."

So far contributions this year seem much more subdued but we could see a repeat. It would be unfortunate if once again large contributions influenced the races and produced more yes votes toeing the line of the Seattle School Administration without asking the tough questions.

Seattle City Council Acts to Protect Urban Tree Canopy

The following press release was issued today by the Seattle City Council after they voted on two measures to increase tree protection in Seattle.

Council approves new tree protection guidelines Implementation begins in 2010, establishes an Urban Forestry Commission

SEATTLE – The City Council today unanimously passed two measures to improve the management of the city’s trees and strengthen protections to ensure the health, quality, and overall coverage of Seattle’s tree canopy.

Resolution 31138 asks the Department of Planning and Development to write a new tree protection ordinance. It outlines specific policy initiatives that the Council believes critical to successful urban forest management. Council Bill 116557 establishes a nine-member Urban Forestry Commission to advise the mayor and Council and help educate the public on urban forestry issues.

"Our urban trees are an incredibly valuable resource -- and we must act if we want to keep them,” said Council President Richard Conlin. “The review by the City Auditor told us that the city must improve our system for protecting and managing trees. We need updated code that recognizes the economic, environmental, and social values that trees offer."

Both measures are in response to a dramatic 50 percent loss of tree cover over the last forty years. The city continues to lose mature trees that provide cooling shade, improve air quality, provide wildlife habitat, sequester climate changing carbon, help with drainage issues by retaining water and improve property value.

"The Urban Forestry Commission will provide well-rounded expertise to assist the city in protecting and expanding our tree canopy while accommodating growth,” added Councilmember Nick Licata.

A report by the City Auditor in 2009 highlighted that most of the implementation work outlined in the Urban Forest Management Plan has not been completed.

Resolution 31138 requests that DPD write new regulations that consider preventing tree removal in required yards and setbacks, create a permitting system and fines for non-permitted tree removal, provide clearer direction for tree relocation and develop incentives for retention. It also asks DPD to consider Transfer Development Rights to developers, giving them more flexibility for creative solutions to Seattle’s urban canopy crisis.

The Urban Forestry Commission will include a community group representative, experts with technical backgrounds in wildlife biology, arboriculture, landscape architecture, and a representative of the development community. It will be staffed by the Office of Sustainability and Environment.

Seattle City Council Creates Urban Forestry Commission

The Seattle City Council today unamiously passed by 8-0 votes two measures designed to help protect Seattle's urban forest. The two measures were Resolution 31138 to improve City tree policies sponsored by Councilmember Conlin and Ordinance 116577 to create an Urban Forestry Commission that was sponsored by Nick Licata.

Councilmember Licata sent out the following e-mail:

"I believe we must expand our urban forest canopy. Our urban forest provides benefits to drainage, air quality such as CO2 reduction, as well as aesthetic benefits. It also provides useful shade on the 95+ degree days we had last week.

The Urban Forest Commission can assist the City in meeting the challenge of expanding our tree canopy while increasing residential density, as foreseen in the Seattle Comprehensive Plan, by providing broad-based expertise.

The Urban Forestry Commission passed by the EEMU Committee would have nine members: a wildlife biologist, an urban ecologist, a representative of a local, state, or federal natural resource agency or an accredited university, a hydrologist, an arborist, a landscape architect, representative of a non-profit or NGO whose mission is to advocate for the urban forest, a representative of the development community, and an economist or real estate broker, preferably with expertise in land use or environmental planning.

The Urban Forestry Commission has the following duties:
* to provide recommendations regarding City plans, major or significant policy recommendations, and any City department’s recommendations related to urban forestry, arboriculture, and horticulture;

* to provide recommendations on any Urban Forest Management Plan, or similar document designed to provide policy direction on preserving and protecting the City’s urban forest habitat;

* to provide recommendations on legislation concerning urban forest management, sustainability and protection of trees on public or private property;

* to review and comment on any proposal to inventory trees within the City of Seattle;

* Monitor implementation of City plans and policies related to the urban forest, and provide review and comment to the Mayor and City Council

* to educate the public on urban forestry issues;

* to review programs for identifying and maintaining trees with significant historical, cultural, environmental, educational, ecological or aesthetic value; and

* comment on the proposed Office of Sustainability and Environment work program, and any work by any City interdepartmental advisory body relating to the Urban Forest.

In addition, the Urban Forestry Commission will consider making recommendations for items included in the resolution, including incentives for developers to preserve existing trees and/or plant new trees. While I understand some might prefer to not have developers represented on this commission, it would be difficult to carry out this task, and reach practical, sensible incentives that can be used by developers to preserve and add to our urban forest canopy without their being represented.

Resolution 31138 passed tree protection guidelines, with City departments due to report back to the City Council in 2010 on various tree-related policy questions."

Eyman Continues to Use Erroneous Information to Support I-1033 Overtaxed Rant

Part of the impetus behind Initiative 1033 according to Tim Eyman is his repeated rant that Washington State is overburdened with State and Local Taxes. Hence his claim that Washington State is 8th highest in terms of tax burden. He cites a recent Forbes magazine article as his source of information.

The problem is that the information is wrong and was miscalculated by Forbes. It's even noted by a number of people in the comment thread that the article presents erroneous information like saying Hawaii has no property tax when it does and someone else noting that Washington's ranking is calculated wrongly.

Here is Washington State, the Department of Revenue looked at the figures and came up with the following analysis entitled "Tax Rankings can be Misleading"

Tax rankings are a popular way of comparing tax burdens among states, but the results can be misleading. A recent report by Forbes Magazine that Washington ranked eighth-highest in personal taxes per capita is an example of how apples sometimes get compared to oranges.

The Forbes comparison purports to only count personal taxes paid by state residents, but erred by mistakenly counting Washington’s Business and Occupation Tax as a personal tax while excluding corporate income and other business taxes paid in other states. That error occurred because the Census Bureau classifies the B&O tax as a sales tax, and the Forbes analysts failed to notice that. Excluding the B&O tax as it should have done would have dropped Washington’s ranking substantially. In addition, because the ranking only compares certain state taxes and leaves out local taxes, the Forbes ranking fails to take into account some unique aspects of Washington’s tax system.

Washington has a state school property tax levy that flows into the state general fund only to be redistributed to local schools. In other states, all property taxes for schools remain at the local level. The ranking also assumes that only individuals pay sales and property taxes, when in fact businesses pay a substantial share. The only accurate way to compare tax burdens is by comparing both state and local taxes among states. By that measure, Washington ranks 19th-highest per capita and 35th-highest in taxes as a percentage of personal income, http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr163.pdf. Economists generally prefer measuring as a percentage of personal income because it takes into account economic activity and demand for services. Rankings have become a popular staple among certain national publications, but they can be misleading. The most recent Forbes ranking is one of those. After being contacted by the Department, Forbes subsequently published a tax ranking based on the Tax Foundation’s analysis.

In its August 2008 report, entitled "State - Local Tax Burden Dip as Income Growth Outpaces Tax Growth" the Tax Foundation ranks Washington State as 35th (with 1 being the highest) in terms of state and local tax burden per capita. Eyman of course ignores this analysis because its pretty hard for him to continue has rant of saying we're overburdened with state and local taxes when we rank 35th in terms of state and local tax burden compared to other states.

A similar analysis of some of Eyman's false claims can be found on the Northwest Progressive Institute Advocate.

see also our earlier post "Tim Eyman's Initiative 1033 Overtaxed Hoax"