Letter to the Editor
Work for us
Published Sunday, August 24, 2008
Digg
delicious
Facebook
Mixx
Reddit
Stumble It!Aug. 20, 2008
To the editor:
I was appalled by the misleading and untrue claims published in the opposition statement to Ballot Measure 3 in the Voter Guide. I support clean elections for Alaska state offices through public financing of campaigns, and want to offer some clarification here.
The most glaring untruth is in the last paragraph: “Letting government divvy out tax dollars to the candidates it selects.” This is not at all how it works. To qualify for public financing, a candidate must collect a specified number of signatures and $5 contributions from voters in his/her district. Period. Government has no role in selecting candidates; only voters do.
On to the next problematic claim: “This measure is nothing more than an incumbent protection act.” Experience has shown the opposite to be true. Since public financing was enacted in Maine, the number of unchallenged incumbents dropped from 17 percent to less than 1 percent. And in Arizona, spending by incumbents has dropped from about three times that of challengers down to (most often) even spending by both candidates. With public financing in place, voters are more likely to have more choice, and challengers are more likely to have the resources to reach voters. Clearly incumbents must work for the voters, or they will be replaced by viable challengers.
Next: “Taxpayer-funded political campaigns will reduce political speech.” Not true. This system is completely voluntary. A candidate may still opt to run a traditional campaign with no spending limits funded by private contributors. (The question is, then who will they work for?)
Next: “Your tax dollars will help (a) wacko try to get elected.” Highly unlikely. Try getting 400 people to give you $5. I think you’ll find that weeds out the “wackos.”
Here’s the truth: A publicly financed candidate is free to spend his/her time working for voters, rather than schmoozing deep pockets. Yes, taxpayers fund campaigns under this system. But wouldn’t you rather have politicians working for taxpayers than for special interests? Public financing of campaigns would be a huge step toward the good government this state so desperately needs. Please vote yes on Tuesday.
Community Discussion
Newsminer.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full user's agreement.
I'll be voting "no", but thanks for the letter.
Don't people already fund presidential candidates?
Vote NO on 3
In Arizona they use money from traffic fines to support this, in Alaska the general fund would have to. It would create more State employees. It seems to me it would be cheaper to require all candidates to have to post in a local newspaper or on the web the source of all their contributions for the public to view, or at least make it know how to view APOC. Like everything in this State run by the government, it may start out small and before anyone knows it it will be a bureaucratic money drain.
shouldn't use examples of states like maine or vermont. i've been all through out those states and have been so unimpressed. i feel sorry for people who live in places like those. using those examples is just an immediate turn off for me and my first impression is to vote no. i don't want anything they have there, not even maple syrup.
Second to last paragraph of the letter, insert "Democrat" for "wacko", and you might understand my No on 3 vote. If I want to contribute to a Democrat (on rare occasion I do), I will send them a check, voluntarily. I dont want to be mandated to contribute to the other 99.8% of them.
To tell you the truth, I really dont give a dang how they do it on the outside.
Voting no on Measure 3# is the smart thing! I do not want an other state program of any kind! Let would be officals raise their own money, not be given tax money, oil money, or my money.
Ms. Zirnheld,
What you fail to understand is that you already have the power to limit your elected offcials actions. It is called a vote.
However, I do want to thank you for being a participant in the voting process rather than a non-voting naysayer.
I will be voting NO on Ballot Measure 3.
I've read other states have found interesting ways to fund this program - adding a percentage to existing fines and penalties, check off boxes on state income tax forms and the like. I think this would add more state employees, but sounds like they'd really be scrutinizing these campaigns like APOC never could before. Maybe those running for office would clean up their act, focus on their voters and stop spending so much time with big campaign donors and corporate execs from corporations like VECO!
On another note, insert "Libertarians" or "Greens" for "Wacko" and you've got people I don't want to fund either. But it's not the Dems, Greens or Libertarians that are largely under indictment or investigation right now either.
Isn't it suspicious that people that generally post left leaning comments all seem in favor of 3. People that post right leaning comments all seem opposed. I wonder why that is...
We dont need more government or a new group of public employees "fairly" distributing money.
I am on board because Wally Hickel and Arliss Sturgulewski are supporting this measure - they seem to be the only ones who are really looking out for Alaskans these days. Hickel went to Juneau to promote an All Alaska gas line and Sturgulewski never bought in to the corrupt gamesmanship in Juneau when she was in office. I trust these two over the rest.
BTW, I consider myself someone in the middle who votes for the person, not the party and works hard to understand the issues. It's time the U and N voters had a seat at the table too.
Hickel went to Juneau to find a buyer for Yukon Pacific leases. Anyone that would trust Walley Hickel needs to read his/her history during the pipeline days. Talk about lack of ethics, he never saw anything wrong with the government paying the way for his own private company. Don't you remember the ethic charges he was brought up on back then. Read your history before you say he is only in it for Alaskans.
Whatever he did decades ago is far outweighed by his efforts in recent years. There's no gain for him in his endorsing this ballot measure anyway - he often speaks first hand of returning oil company campaign contributions so he wouldn't be beholden to them in his campaign. Vote Yes on 3.
Take a look at where his contributions came when he ran for office. Easy to talk now that he is too old to do so. AK49mom, were you here when he was Governor and then Sec. of the Interior. Don't forget the trick he and Coghill pulled. Even Nixon fired him. At least my no vote will balance out your yes vote.
Sounds like it - don't think anyone no matter their stature or accomplishments could change your mind anyway. We'll see on Tuesday.
My brain's been stressed, and I can't recall...
Crazy, 'cause I am a 'super-voter.'
Have we always voted on initiatives in the primaries?
We vote on initiatives in the primaries because voter turnout is usually low. The backers of these initiatives count on that so they can mobilize their supporters and cram their crap down the throat of the silent majority who are usually too busy working to have time to even realize what initiatives are on the ballot. If these items were on the ballot during the general election when many more people vote they would be soundly defeated. It's politacal gamesmanship and it should be stopped.
Yeah, I get that, and I remember plenty of more-money-for-schools manipulated into special elections because of low-voter turnout,
but have we always done the initiatives in the primaries?
For example, when we voted on the cruise ship deal a few years back, I don't recall that being in the primary? But maybe it was--I can't remember.
Actually, I read somewhere that it was the 90 day session that put Measures 3 and 4 on the Primary Ballot. Otherwise, Alaska statutes would have put them on the General Elections ballot.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.