Search Results for: 10,000

In justifying the state Democratic leadership’s decision to throw the WSLC under a bus as a convenient excuse for killing the controversial Workers Privacy Act, Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown issued a statement saying we have to “draw the line” between the offending email and the “normal process.”

Huh.  Which I suppose begs the question:  what exactly is the normal process?

Back in 2004, House Democrats sent a fundraising letter to business groups that had recently given more money to R’s than to D’s, exhorting them to balance their generosity… 

“As a result of our research, we would like to ask that you consider balancing out your contribution history by writing a donation of $10,000 to the Harry Truman Fund,” concludes the letter obtained by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. “We would very much appreciate your generosity and support as we gear up for the 2004 legislative session and impending campaign season.

“Our Leadership team wants to maintain our open door policy with you.”

So, is that the normal process, encouraging the inference that money equals access?  House Speaker Frank Chopp seemed to think so, vigorously defending both the ethics and legality of his fundraising efforts.

“Since when is it a crime to talk about having an open door and bringing people together? … The only limit on me meeting with people is my time,” said House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle. “That’s hardly threatening language. … That’s pretty soft language.

“And that’s pretty common language.”

No doubt.  So if that’s the normal process, when did it become a crime for constituency groups to talk about withholding future financial support from politicians who refuse to support their agenda?  I thought that’s the whole point:  we work for and give money to only those candidates who generally vote our way.  

Of course, Frank knows as well as anybody that this is the way the system works, and for all the effort to make labor look like the unethical bad guys here, it is the business lobby that has recently honed influence peddling into one of Olympia’s most profitable professions.  So profitable in fact, that one of the lobbyists who brokered Boeing’s $4 billion 7E7 tax break, conducts workshops teaching other businesses how to “Turn Your State Government Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow.”

The seminar, presented during a portion of the annual three-day meeting of the State Government Affairs Council, taught dozens of corporate government-relations executives how to “Turn Your State Government Relations Department from a Money Pit into a Cash Cow.” Michael Press, national director of Ernst & Young’s Business Incentives Practice, and Robin Stone, former vice president of state and local government relations for The Boeing Company, delivered the Microsoft PowerPoint-supported presentation March 26 in Savannah, Ga.

The presentation includes a long list of “negotiable incentives” along with such such helpful tips as “control publicity,” “avoid legislation if possible,” and “be mindful of the election cycle,” while encouraging businesses to make a “but for” the incentives threat.  (You know, “but for a multi-billion dollar tax break, we’re moving all our jobs out of state.”)

Turning your state government relations department into a cash cow is perfectly legal, and just plain smart business, and from the lack of moralizing on the part of our politicians and opinion leaders, I can only assume that it is perfectly ethical as well.  So what’s so wrong, by comparison, about labor using the resources at its disposal to influence the legislation it wants? Why shouldn’t unions be able to say what we all understand to be true:  “If you don’t support us, we won’t support you?”  

Ethical or not, isn’t that the “normal process?”

After reading Goldy’s post below, I had to check out whether or not the number of people who voted Yes on I-25 in November 2007 outnumbered the total number of votes cast in the special election they voted to have.

Almost…

King County Initiative 25 – 11/07

YES 240998

Director of Elections – 2/09

Ballots Cast: 249086

So, either there were really less than 10,000 people who both voted NO on I-25 and then voted in this election, or there were a large number of people who went to the polls in November 2007 to demand that our elections director be elected, then didn’t even have the motivation to fill out a ballot that was sent to their house and mail it back in.

Hooray for apathy!

Speaking of partisan hacks, it looks like the stock market isn’t the only thing slumping these days…

All Washington’s major daily newspapers saw drops in circulation during the six months ended Sept. 30, according to figures from the Audit Bureau of Circulations, in Schaumburg, Ill.

The Seattle P-I’s average weekday circulation fell to 117,572, down 7.8 percent. The Seattle Times’ average weekday circulation fell to 198,741, down 7.7 percent. Sales of the Sunday paper, which contains editorial content from both newspapers, fell to 382,332, down 9 percent.

It is interesting to note that while circulation is falling at somewhat the same rate at both the Times and the P-I, the Times lost about 16,600 subscribers over the past six months compared to only about 10,000 for the P-I.

Of course, both of our dailies regularly draw over two million uniques to their respective websites each month, or about 75,000 a day.  By comparison, HA has recently been averaging about 100,000 uniques a month.

As much as we’re all appalled and disgusted by what McCain campaign worker Ashley Todd did this week in Pittsburgh, she’s not a criminal. She’s a person who likely has some mental health problems. We really need to get over this notion that everyone who offends us or does something that we find morally reprehensible needs to go to jail. No one was victimized here. No one had any money or property stolen from them. At worst, write her a fine to cover the administrative costs of having the police pursue the case and suggest a good mental health facility for her to check herself into. We’ve got too many goddamn people in jail already in this country.

UPDATE: Richard Pope in the comments provides some excellent perspective:

Isn’t $50,000 bail a little bit excessive for a misdemeanor? If Ashley Todd had really been attacked in the manner that she falsely claimed, I wonder whether the hypothetical attacker would have received anywhere near that amount of bail.

For example, a man “charged with robbery, burglary, giving false identification to law enforcement, loitering and prowling at night, simple assault, making terroristic threats, theft, receiving stolen property and false imprisonment” in Pittsburgh (Allegheny County, Pennsylvania) was only held on $10,000 bail.

There’s yet another Republican campaign finance scandal brewing in Washington state, one with the potential to lead to felony charges, and so I eagerly scanned the headlines this morning to see if our dailies had figured out the huge story that was falling into their laps.

As Josh first reported yesterday, Dave Reichert is getting his TV ads on credit, an arrangement that now appears to amount to at least a half a million dollars in illegal loans.  And what is the headline the Seattle Times chooses to slap on the story?  “Burner loans campaign $140,000 for ads.”

Really?  That’s the big story here?  Are the Times’ editors that dumb, or are they just incredibly dishonest?

See, Darcy’s short-term bridge loan is legal, and extremely common.  It’s nothing but a cashflow maneuver that permits the campaign to continue spending money as fast as it’s raising it without drawing down reserves to zero.  Darcy doesn’t have the personal wealth to fund her own campaign, and you can be damn sure she plans to pay herself back.

But Reichert’s media credit card, that’s a clear violation of FEC rules:

If you loan money to a candidate or political committee, you have made a contribution, even if you charge interest on the loan. The outstanding amount of the loan counts against the contribution limits. Loan repayments, therefore, decrease the amount of your contribution.

Nevertheless, if your loan exceeds the limits, it is an illegal contribution, even if it is later repaid in full. Endorsements and guarantees of  bank loans are also considered contributions. Endorsers and guarantors are liable for equal portions of a loan unless the agreement states otherwise. You alone, therefore, may not endorse a $10,000 loan to a candidate committee. There must be four other individual endorsers so that each one is liable only for $2,300, the per  election limit.

The point of these regulations is obvious; if Reichert can buy advertising on credit, with payment not due until after the election, that means he can pay off 2008 expenditures with money raised for the 2010 cycle… something apparently Reichert did to a much smaller extent last time around.  Now Reichert going much deeper into the hole, booking ads worth hundreds of thousands of dollars more than he has cash on hand, or any expectation of raising between now and November.  And whether it be from the TV stations or his media buyer, that constitutes a massive campaign contribution far in excess of federal limits.

This is clearly illegal, and the campaign must know it, but like other Republican campaigns in Washington state this year, Reichert has apparently determined that the inevitable fines after the fact are just a part of the cost of winning.

That our local media can’t (or won’t) see this scandal, is truly stunning.

UPDATE:
To be fair to reporter Emily Heffter, she didn’t write the bullshit headline.  And to be fair to the Times, at least they attempted to report on the story, even if they haven’t yet recognized its significance.  Meanwhile, crickets from the P-I and the TNT.

Woke up to find the Dow down over 500 points, under 10,000 for the first time in four years.  Maybe we should just buy Dow Jones, and jigger the index?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average continued its bearish slide, closing this week at 11,100, near a two-year low, and inching ever downward toward the 10,587 mark where the market stood the day President Bush was inaugurated. For those who are keeping score, that’s a seven and a half year return of 4.8%, or only 0.65% annually.

To put that in perspective, had you invested $10,000 on inauguration day in an index fund that tracked the DJIA, it would be worth $8,568 today in inflation-adjusted 2001 dollars, compared to only $8,175 had you simply stuffed that money in a mattress.

What with no bottom in sight to the housing, banking, automotive and other industries, and one of the largest bank failures in US history making headlines yesterday, that mattress is beginning to look like a pretty savvy investment. Our Republican administration on the other hand… not so much.

Larry Grant, who ran a strong Democratic campaign in 2006 in Idaho’s blood red 1st Congressional District, has withdrawn from the 2008 contest, and endorsed fellow Dem, Walt Minnick:

“My campaign has never been about my personal ambition. I have spent the last three years on the campaign trail doing my very best to build the Idaho Democratic Party from the ground up. I’m proud of what I and my campaign team have achieved.

“There isn’t ten cents worth of difference between my view of the world and Walt Minnick’s. That’s why we need to be working together to beat Bill Sali, not spending valuable time and resources in a contentious primary.”

Word is that Grant’s decision was all about the money. Minnick had raised an impressive $410,000 by the end of 2007 compared to Grant’s paltry $65,000, and the disparity is expected to dramatically worsen when first quarter results are reported next week. But you gotta admire Grant’s willingness to put the interests of the Party and the nation ahead of personal ambition. (Hmm… I wonder when that’s going to happen in the Dems’ presidential race?)

Back in 2003, I was just stretching my legs on the local political scene. I decided to volunteer for Peter Steinbrueck’s reelection campaign. At the 36th District candidate’s forum, several candidates started to mention a rezone of some residential land near Rick’s, the Lake City stripclub. Like most folks, I thought it was no big deal, and didn’t think it would play much of a factor.

How wrong I was.

Three City Council members who voted to override the planning department on a strip club’s parking-lot rezone turn out to be beneficiaries of some $39,000 in campaign contributions that the club’s owners allegedly funneled through various contributors to get around donor limit laws. The rezone is then revoted and rejected. The council members return the money and pay fines. Two of them are promptly ousted at the next election.

It’s worth noting that the city council people involved never faced any charges for wrongdoing themselves. That said, the whole thing stank to high heaven.

But what struck me about the whole affair is how small ball this was. Seattle is not like Chicago, Miama, LA, or Boston, and certainly not like New Orleans.

Our corruption is nothing like that of those cities. For example, Richard McIver had to pay a fine for allowing former Govenor Albert Rossellini to buy him lunch at Quizno’s. Quizno’s, for God’s sake. McIver got nailed for a six dollar sandwich.

So, suffice it to say I wasn’t blown away by today’s news:

With a touch of defiance, Seattle strip-club owner Frank Colacurcio Jr. and a longtime associate pleaded guilty today to criminal charges related to the so-called “Strippergate” campaign-finance scandal of 2003.

His father, Frank Colacurcio Sr., was also expected to plead guilty to the same charges, but the longtime strip-club magnate, who is 90, did not appear in court due to health problems. His attorney said Colacurcio Sr. will enter a plea by Monday.

In a plea bargain that avoided jail time, Colacurcio Jr. agreed to pay a $10,000 fine and one year of probation. His father is expected to accept an identical deal.

Those penalties are in addition to a $55,000 civil settlement approved Wednesday by the Seattle Ethics and Elections Commission.

[…]

Gil Conte, a former lounge singer and longtime Colacurcio associate, also pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor conspiracy charge and agreed to pay a $1,000 fine.

After the sentencing, Conte did a quick soft-shoe dance step for a throng of reporters, and said, “I didn’t do nothing.”

Lame.

“I didn’t do nothing.” What is this, Goodfellas? C’mon.

I’m afraid I have to take exception to this statement by Goldy:

Oh… and the fact that polls generally show Edwards as being the toughest Democrat to beat… that doesn’t hurt him in my book either.

I suppose Goldy is relying on national head-to-head polls like these. The problem with such national polls is that they don’t reflect the way we elect our Presidents.

Rather than looking at the national head-to-head polls, we should be examining state head-to-head polls and take into consideration the number of votes each state gets in the Electoral College.

In fact, I have been doing just that for a number of months. Essentially, I’ve collected the state head-to-head polls taken in 2007 and have been analyzing the polls as a way of evaluating the relative strength of candidates.

Now I am going to switch into statistical wonk mode and explain my analyses. If you just want to see the results, skip over the Methods section and pick up from the Results.

Methods

To analyze the poll data I take the last month of polls for each state as a way to increase the certainty and (hopefully) minimize biases inherent in individual polls. If there is no polls taken in the last month, I use the most recent poll available in 2007. The analysis could stop at this stage after simply tallying the number of Electoral College votes each candidate would receive for each state based on the poll data.

The one problem with this approach is that it doesn’t account for the uncertainty in the polls. For example, suppose a poll in Pennsylvania of 500 individuals gives Clinton 51% and Giuliani 49% of the vote. Clinton’s lead comes from only five individuals who went for Clinton instead of Giuliani. In fact, statisticians would tell us that there is substantial sampling error because of the small sample size and the very close percentages. The statistician would do some calculations (or simulations) and tell us that the poll indicates that Clinton has only a 69.9% chance of winning, and Giuliani has a 30.1% chance of winning.

In simulating a national election, I do this same evaluation over all states. Here is how it works. I simulate elections using only information from state head-to-head polls (with one exception discussed below). Each single election proceeds state by state, pooling polls from the last month (or the most recent poll if no polls were taken in the last month). For each person polled in the state, I randomly draw votes according to the observed probabilities found by the state’s poll(s).

After conducting such elections in all fifty states (plus Washington D.C.), the electoral vote is totaled and a winner determined from the electoral vote count.

This process is repeated 10,000 times. The result is a distribution of electoral votes for the pair of candidates that fully accounts for the sampling error in the polls used. For example, here is the distribution of electoral votes for a Clinton—McCain match-up from a few days ago:

In this example Clinton won 9,167 simulated elections and McCain won 779 simulated elections. (There were also 54 ties that would go to the House of Representatives and almost certainly result in a Clinton victory.) Thus, the poll data suggests that, if the election were held today, Clinton would have a 92.2% chance of beating McCain.

Oh…about that exception I mentioned above. Some states have had no polls taken at all. In that case, I always assign the electoral votes for the state according to the 2004 presidential election outcome. For the most part, states that have had no polls taken are not likely to hold any surprises. In any case, this procedure slightly favors the Republican candidate (since Bush won in 2004).

Results

Here are the results after simulating a variety of match-ups. (Additionally, I provide a link to my most recent analysis. In most cases the published analysis is slightly older than the analysis from today given in the table below, but the numbers are close.)

Republican	Democrat	Probability the Democrat wins	Average electoral votes for Democrat	Link
Giuliani	Clinton	100%	342	Analysis
Huckabee	Clinton	100%	335	Analysis
McCain	Clinton	92.1%	293	Analysis
Romney	Clinton	100%	385	Analysis
Thompson	Clinton	100%	354	Analysis
Giuliani	Edwards	4.90%	237	Analysis
McCain	Edwards	99.4	303	—
Romney	Edwards	100%	388	—
Thompson	Edwards	100%	358	—
Giuliani	Obama	27.7%	258	Analysis
Huckabee	Obama	88.7%	277	—
McCain	Obama	4.4%	237	—
Romney	Obama	100%	376	Analysis
Thompson	Obama	100%	329	—

Right now Clinton does better against Republican challengers—she beats every one of them with a high degree of certainty. Edwards does very poorly against Giuliani, although he does a little bit better than Clinton against McCain. Obama doesn’t do well against either Giuliani or McCain right now.

Keep in mind that the analysis only suggests what would happen if the election were held right now. (Interpret this the way you might the speedometer on a long trip—it gives you some idea of your progress even though you know your speed is going to change along the way.)

Things will certainly change in the next ten months, but what we can say now is that Clinton has some advantage over both Obama and Edwards in a general election. Is Clinton’s advantage right now important in the long run? It’s hard to say. It’s not even clear to me that her advantage should be considered over more fundamental characteristics like political philosophy and policy positions. Perhaps some readers will use this information as a tie-breaker.

As for me? I still have no idea who I will support at tonight’s straw caucus. Maybe I’ll pretend to be a Republican….

It is just another Republican attempt to gain power through tricks and exploitation, rather than through leadership. We all remember previous Republican coup attempts: the Clinton impeachment, Katherine Harris’ illegal disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of legitimate Florida voters, the Republican shutdown of recounts in Florida, the illegal mid-term Texas redistricting, the California gubernatorial recall, and even the Republican’s attempt to steal the Washington governors office by suing over made-up charges of election fraud.

This time, the Republicans are gaming the electoral votes in California. Johann Hari’s guest column in the Seattle P-I explains:

…the Republicans are trying to exploit the discontent with the Electoral College among Americans in a way that would rig the system in their favor. At the moment, every state apart from Maine and Nebraska hands out its Electoral College votes according to a winner-takes-all system. This means that if 51 percent of people in California vote Democrat, the Democrats get 100 percent of California’s electoral votes; if 51 percent of people in Texas vote Republican, the Republicans get 100 percent of Texas’ electoral votes.

The Republicans want to change this — but in only one Democrat-leaning state. California has gone Democratic in presidential elections since 1988, and winning the sunny state is essential if the Democrats are going to retake the White House. So the Republicans have now begun a plan to break up California’s Electoral College votes and award a huge chunk of them to their side.

They have launched a campaign called California Counts, and they are trying to secure a statewide referendum in June to implement their plan. They want California’s electoral votes to be divvied up not on a big statewide basis, but according to the much smaller congressional districts. The practical result? Instead of all the state’s 54 Electoral College votes going to the Democratic candidate, around 20 would go to the Republicans.

The effect would be to hand the Republicans an extra state the size of Ohio or Pennsylvania–but without so much as a single extra popular vote going to the Republican candidate. They would simply be gaming the system for a short-term advantage to win acquire the White House in 2008.

At Hominid Views, I’ve been conducting a series of simulation studies for the 2008 election. I’ve used state-wide head-to-head polls pitting, say, Clinton against Giuliani (as well as other match-ups) to repeatedly simulate 2008 elections. The results provide a distribution of electoral college votes that can be used to estimate the probability that each candidate would win if the election were held today.

For example, after 10,000 simulated elections using, whenever possible, polls from the last month, the distribution of Electoral College votes looks like this:

Clinton won the electoral vote 9,530 times, and Giuliani won only 417. (There were 53 ties that would almost certainly be a win for Clinton). In other words Clinton wins about 95.8% of the simulated elections and Giuliani wins 4.2%.

Here is the same simulation, but this time using the “California Counts” rules to divvy up the California electoral votes:

Now after 10,000 simulated elections, Clinton wins only 7,233 (plus 181 ties) and Giuliani wins 2,586. With no change whatsoever in the popular vote, Clinton’s chance of victory decreases to 74.1% and Giuliani is up to a probability of 25.9%.

Giuliani’s increased chance of winning is not attributable to some refinement of democracy, and it doesn’t better reflect the will of the people. Rather, it reflects a trick. Apparently, the Republicans are still not confident in their ability to win through genuine leadership, superior public policy, or popular appeal. That leaves them with little choice but political trickery.

Awww, gee…I hate calling someone a liar.

Even as a degenerate “far left” liberal who grew up in a household colluding with Satan to destroy America (i.e. with a divorced parent), my mother taught me to give the benefit of the doubt. I call someone a liar only after other possibilities become implausible.

I can, in good conscience, call Tim Eyman a liar. I mean, he admitted to lying about taking donor money as personal compensation. Mike McGavick earned the moniker through a whole series of fibs and “parables” offered as fact (discussed here and here).

I’m not yet ready to pronounce Mr. Rossi a serial liar—even considering that he is (1) a Republican, (2) a Washington state Republican and (3) a real estate broker salesman. Not yet…but, man, Rossi and his campaign are sure trying my good will.

Yesterday Neil Modie at the PI reported on the misleading rate of fundraising that the Rossi campaign was boasting about.

His campaign reported last week that he brought in “over $463,300 during the month of October. He announced his candidacy for governor on October 25th.”

Curt Woodward of the AP adds:

In that fundraising statement, spokeswoman Jill Strait bragged about Rossi raising nearly $500,000 “in roughly one week.” The campaign refused to offer any supporting documentation.

So reporters from the mainstream media were duped into writing about the spectacular rate of fundraising—for example, take this post from, umm…Mr. Modie:

Rossi bursts rapidly out of the fund-raising gate

A lot of checkbooks were waiting to open once Dino Rossi declared his long-expected 2008 candidacy for governor Oct. 25.

In the week between his announcement and the end of October, the Republican raised more than $463,000 for his race against Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, his campaign reported Thursday. And he raised an additional $110,000 the first two days of November.

Or, as Woodward explains:

Based on Strait’s statement and interviews, The Associated Press and other news organizations reported that Rossi’s initial fundraising burst began with his Oct. 25 campaign announcement.

The campaign never raised any issues of accuracy about those reports. But campaign officials knew, and never clarified, that Rossi had been collecting campaign donations for about two weeks by the time he officially announced his gubernatorial bid.

After examining the Rossi’s campaign finance records, Neil Modie learned that:

…[Rossi’s] campaign started accepting contributions Oct. 12 and took in $97,750 even before he announced his candidacy Oct. 25. Of that sum, $86,800 came in donations of $2,800 each, the maximum amount allowed by law for the primary and general elections combined.

An additional $60,873 came in on the day of the announcement, more than half of it in contributions of $2,800 each.

The campaign, seemingly coming to the realization that it’s not nice to fool political reporters, has now issued an apology.

“I apologize to you if you feel like you were misled,” Strait told the AP. “I agree that we could have clarified that the first check came in on the 12th.”

Yep…you could have, but you didn’t. Instead, in issuing the apology, the Rossi campaign lied to reporters again (my emphasis):

After apologizing, Strait claimed that “there was never a secret” that Rossi decided to run for governor on Oct. 11, the day before he collected his first donations.

That statement is untrue: when asked about an impending Rossi campaign shortly before the official Oct. 25 announcement, Strait refused to offer any details of Rossi’s plans, saying only that he would be talking about his political future.

Ouch! The publicly-disclosed Rossi campaign is less than a month old (or the not-secret-unless-you-asked campaign is just over a month old) and already the media is insinuating that the Rossi campaign is a pack of liars.

I’m guessing that one of the first things you learn in Becoming a Politician 101 is “Never, ever, ever piss off the press by getting caught lying to them.” (Lying to the people? Probably okay…but not the press.)

The rest of Woodward’s article sure reads like someone who feels betrayed:

The “nearly half a million dollars” raised in “roughly one week” actually referred to the approximately $365,000 Rossi collected in the last week of October, combined with some $110,000 the campaign says Rossi raised on the first two days of November.

The most recent campaign finance reports do not include November donations, making it impossible to immediately confirm whether Rossi actually raised that much money in the first two days of the month.

And Neil Modie seems a little peeved, too. In yesterday’s article deflating Rossi’s fundraising hyperbole, Neil meanders to the topic of a PDC investigation of illegal campaigning on the part of Rossi:

[Lori] Anderson [Spokeswoman for the state Public Disclosure Commission] said the commission is also investigating a Rossi campaign Web site, telldino.com, because it was registered Sept. 8, before Rossi says he decided to run. Strait, his spokeswoman, said a Rossi campaign volunteer, Thomas Swanson, registered it on his own without telling Rossi so that the Web address would be available if the candidate did decide to run.

Strait said Swanson took the action after he and J. Vander Stoep, a Rossi campaign adviser, discussed the idea of creating telldino.com to enable citizens to give Rossi their suggestions for improving government.

Wait a minute! That sure has the look and smell of a tenny-weeny little fib.

If Rossi had not decided to run by September 8th, what purpose would there be in discussing a new web site for folks to offer Rossi “suggestions for improving government?” Isn’t that exactly what The Washington Idea Bank (a wholly owned subsidiary of Forward Washington Foundation) was created for? The site has a web form for offering ideas…to Rossi’s pre-campaign organization.

Are we really to believe that on September 8th (three days before Rossi secretly resigned from Forward Washington Foundation) a (future?) campaign adviser had discussed creating a new “Rossi Idea Bank” site, but that was all “before Rossi says he decided to run,” and the site was registered for non-campaign purposes? Right.

Now the needle is pegged on my implausiometer.