I’ve had my disagreements with some of the individuals at Washington Public Campaigns, but I certainly support their efforts to promote a broader debate about public financing of campaigns.
In any case, they’re holding a “Clean Elections” forum tonight at Town Hall, and any panel that includes David Sirota is well worth the five buck admission.
Washington Public Campaigns is an organization founded to promote the passage of legislation establishing public financing of campaigns. Maine and Arizona have instituted publicly financed campaigns, which, after three election cycles, has resulted in more competitive races and more women and minority office holders. Following a short video narrated by Bill Moyers, author and political strategist David Sirota, Representative Linda Valentino (Maine), and Senator Ed Ableser (Arizona) and a panel of experts discusses how public campaign financing is working elsewhere and how it could work in Washington.
That’s tonight, Friday Jan 5, 7:30 at Seattle’s Town Hall, corner of 8th & Seneca. Admission $5.00 at the door.
any panel that includes David Sirota is well worth the five buck admission.
Amen to that.
Then go out an buy your copy of “Hostile Takeover” ASAP.
So, Goldy… um, what disagreements? Just curious.
Will @2,
Let’s just say Gentry Lange and I don’t always see eye to eye.
Another Delusional GOP Drug Addict Exposed!
“Rehnquist Addicted to Painkillers for Years
“By PETE YOST
“AP
“WASHINGTON (Jan. 5) – A physician at the U.S. Capitol prescribed a powerful sleep aid for William Rehnquist for nearly a decade while he was an associate justice of the Supreme Court, according to newly released FBI records.
“The records present a picture of a justice with chronic back pain who for many months took three times the recommended dosage of the drug Placidyl and then went into withdrawal in 1981 when he abruptly stopped taking it.
“Rehnquist checked himself into a hospital, where he tried to escape in his pajamas and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him, the records indicate. …
“The justice was weaned off Placidyl … in a detoxification process that took a month, according to the records. … The FBI documents … were released by the agency in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act. …
“A psychiatrist told the FBI that Rehnquist’s family in 1981 noted ‘long-standing slurred speech which seems to coincide with administration of Placidyl,’ one FBI interview report stated. The psychiatrist also indicated that Rehnquist’s chronic back pain led to his heavy use of such substances as Darvon and Tylenol 3, which the psychiatrist said also played a part in Rehnquist’s condition. …
“The hospital doctor who successfully weaned Rehnquist from the drug told the FBI that the toxicity of Placidyl causes blurred vision, slurred speech and difficulty in making physical movements. Once a patient stops taking the drug, the withdrawal symptoms of delirium begin, which is what happened to Rehnquist at the hospital.”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete story and/or copyright info see http://tinyurl.com/y4h89d
Roger Rabbit Commentary: It probably fucked up his legal reasoning, too.
Another Market Failure
Electricity consumers in the N.E. United States are getting screwed by the Bush administration’s regulation of for-profit power companies:
“HARTFORD, Conn. (Jan. 5) – Connecticut and Massachusetts are taking federal energy regulators to court over a surcharge that will cost electricity consumers in both states hundreds of millions of dollars over the next four years … to stop the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from imposing the surcharge, Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said Thursday.
“The fee was designed to encourage development of new power plants to help meet growing demand, but Blumenthal said the money will go to existing power generators without requiring them to build new plants or produce more electricity.
“Blumenthal and Massachusetts Attorney General Thomas Reilly claim the surcharge violates a section of the Federal Power Act that requires electricity rates to be ‘just and reasonable.’ … The fee, which is expected to begin showing up on consumers’ bills this month, will cost Connecticut ratepayers about $200 million a year and their counterparts in Massachusetts about $500 million a year. …
“Energy issues have come to a head in Connecticut, where … electricity rates are … double the national average. … The state … last month approved rate increases … of 7.7 percent for Connecticut Light & Power and 50 percent for United Illuminating. CL&P rates increased 22 percent last year, while UI’s went up 4.9 percent. Blumenthal said a majority of the surcharge money from Connecticut consumers would go to the owners of the Millstone nuclear plants in Waterford and a coal-burning facility in Bridgeport. He said the companies already earn profits of 44 percent to 120 percent. …”
Quoted under Fair Use; for complete story and/or copyright info, see http://tinyurl.com/y9jzqb
Roger Rabbit Commentary: There are two long-established legal principles involved in this. A “just and reasonable” clause is found in all utility regulation statutes because of constitutional prohibitions against “taking” private property without “just compensation.” Regulators can’t arbitrarily require private companies to sell power below cost. But in exchange for an officially-sanctioned monopoly, states have the right to regulate prices and limit profits to a reasonable return on equity (ROE), which usually is based on free market interest rates. The utility industry is capital-intensivem and a free market and competition are impractical because it is economically wasteful and prohibitively expensive to build duplicative infrastructure.
The other principle is that investors, not ratepayers, pay for capital investment or improvements. This doesn’t stop private utility companies from trying to pad their rate requests with money for capital financing. But regulators, if they’re on the ball, invariably reject these requests. The reason is simple — if ratepayers have provide the company’s capital, they should own the company, and get the profits. Since they don’t, the company’s owners (i.e., shareholders) shouldn’t be permitted to shift capital costs to ratepayers – they would, in effect, get paid a return on equity someone else invested, which is grossly unfair to ratepayers.
For example, the last time Verizon or Qwest (I forget which) submitted a rate increase to Washington’s Utilities and Transportation Commission, they padded it with $220 million for capital improvements they wanted phone customers to pay for – representing over 90% of the total rate requests. Phone bills would have gone up over 25%. WUTC threw out this part of the rate request, and the company got an increase in the range of 3% to 4% for increased operating expenses (salaries, supplies, etc.). The $200 million of capital enhancements is properly the responsibility of the company’s investors.
This principle of rate regulation is so basic that an attorney reprsenting the public interest who fails to object to efforts to recover capital investments from ratepayers is guilty of malpractice, and any regulator who fails to disallow such rate demands is incompetent to serve on a regulatory board or body. Yet, it sounds like that’s exactly what Bush’s FERC appointees are inflicting on New England ratepayers. This one looks like a winner in court for the ratepayers and state attorney generals representing them – and more egg on the face of the incompetent, thieving Bushies.
Public financing of campaigns represents a modest investment of taxpayer funds to buy back our democracy from corporate interests. Until W came along, there seemed to be little difference between the two major parties — as both were captives of moneyed interests. (We now know better.) But even after (not if, but when) the neocon-fascist era of American politics has run its course, the problem of corporate-money dominance of political system will continue to fester — unless we undertake revolutionary campaign finance reform. The current system is terminally broken and has severely damaged, and nearly destroyed, our democracy itself. The only question is what kind of reform will get the job done. It isn’t optional if we want the people to have a say in how we are governed.
There are, however, some very complicated and difficult philosophical, legal, and constitutional problems in how you keep private money from influencing campaigns or running independent propaganda offensives for or against candidates without compromising free speech.
Rehnquist’s own suffering from addiction, medication-related mental illness, and chronic pain failed to have any influence on his own sympathies toward others suffering from such afflictions. None of his judicial decisions reflected any understanding of human weaknesses and frailties. That is hard to understand, unless we view old Bill as simply not human.
What I think is most ironic about the recent revelations about Rhenquist is that his first bought with the painkillers came at a time when Gerald Ford, at the urging of then-attorney general John Mitchell, sought to force the removal of Justice William O. Douglas from office because he was “incapacitated by age and senility” (their words). Perhaps Mitchell knew Rhenquist was vulnerable, and wanted to make sure at least one liberal position on the court was also open, if Rhenquist was forced to resign? Of course, Douglas’ mind was sharp until the end, even though his body gave out. Apparently you can’t say the same thing about Rhenquist.
@ 3
He’s the guy who’s working with Stefan to fight vote by mail? What a douche.
Hyrax @ 4: the pajama thing seems odd, however old Bad Back Bill could not have been far wrong if he was worried about the CIA “plotting” against him. It’s not much of a stretch to think that GHW Bush XLI, as the director for Saint Gerald of Rudolph’s CIA, was plotting against all of the Beltway operatives & functionaries.
When appointed by Nixon in 1971, Rehnquist became the only racist, homophobic, sexist, reactionary on the court & his solo dissents seemed bizarre. When Ford inherited Agnew’s presidency (nyuk, nyuk, nyuk), it may have seemed expedient to hatch a plot of some kind just so it would appear the wingnut really had something to fear. After all, it’s not paranoia if they actually are out to get you.
When Saint Ronnie of RayGun annointed the new Chief Justice in 1986, the FBI had been watching Placid(yl) Bill for some time. Apparently, he had so many enemies that keeping tabs on them was a way of identifying which dissenters to suppress about segregation, abortion & voter rights.
If you need a little capstone to any argument(s) about what a dipshit Rehnquist really was: Bill had been a heavy cigarette smoker. He could be a poster boy for preventing throat cancer.
5 Sounds like the spirit of Enron hiding behind a different name.
Hey…has the new Congress put it on its agenda to force the release of the proceedings of the Cheney conspirators’ club…excuse me, the “energy task force”?
I wonder how many of the wingnuts in Snohomish County would be willing to donate the additional amount they’d be paying in electric rates if Cantwell hadn’t helped prevent SnoPud from being forced to shell out to the ghost of Enron for goods never delivered.
David Sirota’s blog and Working for Change for Sirota commentary. He’s the best and maybe the only real Democrat out there. He’s working hard to keep the new Democrats on track and keeping their promises. He spares no one.
Also, Seattle Channel will undoubtedly have the video of tonights appearance soon. They usually do tape these things.
Socialized elections; Bad idea
Why should all of us get taxed, in order to let gungho “I wanna serve” types run for office.
Anytime the gov’t steps in, to control something, we’d better think long and hard, as the consequences (e.g. free speech, more gov’t control) seem ominous..
and by the way, how do you reconcile
a) socialized election campaigns
b) denial of citizen initiatives (and/or overturning the results).
Maybe a good quasi commies you see no problem; the Party can determine good candidates, and what should be voted on..
Hi Goldy,
Thanks for supporting Public Campaign financing. Did you make it to last night’s event?
As much as Goldy and I disagree on one issue, I’m glad we can agree on public financing. I was inspired by last night’s panel of speakers to believe that maybe left, right, and center could all begin to understand public financing. Because once you can understand it, both Republicans and Dems, and Greens support it.
And as Goldy brought up the subject, to those that think I am “working with Stefan” to fight vote by mail. Well, Stefan and I agree on this issue. It happens that I also agree, it would seem, with Bev Harris and Greg Palast–two well known voting journalists, on the vulnerabilities of Vote By Mail systems. At least it would seem that way by all of their recent writing on the subject. So why just pick on me? Why not call out Bev Harris AND Greg Palast, and demand why it is that they think voting through the mail is not such a great idea.
I know Bev would probably come on your show, as would I, and maybe even Mr. Palast would join in the fun. And you could pick your panel of experts that support it…. like, um Dean Logan, Ron Sims or Sam Reed.