Washblog

[This article is by Bill Nerin of Washington Public Campaigns.]

The first article is the lead story on the front page: "Lobbyists ante up in capital".  It gives a detailed description of how lobbyists in Olympia work especially hard at wining and dining our legislators (in order to lay) out their reasons for whomever they are representing in terms of how to vote on certain bills.  The article names names and explains the laws the lobbyists must follow in bestowing their largesse.  It notes that Washington state ranked sixth in the nation in money spent to lobby state legislators.

The second article, on page A10, "Conference trip includes resorts, golf in Hawaii" describes in some detail the attendance of 8 Washington state legislators at a conference sponsored by 20 large corporations such as Boeing, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer and Coca-Cola.  "Legislators from both parties said conference sessions on such issues as drug abuse, property rights and campaign finance reform were top-notch and balanced."

The articles deserve full reading to get the gist of what goes on in Olympia regarding these activities.  However these two quotes exemplify the effort to present both sides of the story:

Sen. Darlene Fairley, a Democrat from Lake Forest Park "said she generally doesn't have a problem with the wining and dining.  She doesn't get out much herself but worries some of her colleagues take it too far when the Legislature is in session. "I've heard some senators say...that they never have to fix dinner because they go out every night with lobbyists.  Fine, but after a while don't you think you owe them?' she said."

On the other side of the issue the article reports Senate Minority Leader Mike Hewitt's response: "Hewitt said the role of lobbyists is to give information on each side of an issue.  He said he doesn't have a problem with a lobbyist picking up a meal tab.  'Anybody who thinks they can buy your vote with a dinner is simply not well-informed,' Hewitt said."

It is clear to me that perhaps a dinner won't buy one's vote, but a large contribution to one's campaign from the entity paying for the lobbyist just might.   Does anyone today believe that large donors and special relationships with those donor"s lobbyists will not influence the way a legislator votes?

I submit that the only way to level the playing field so that the average citizen can exert as much influence with a legislator or governor as a lobbyist whose employer makes big contributions to campaigns is to pass a law in Washington that allows a candidate to run on public financing.    Maine and Arizona did it and this has proven so successful for the people of Maine that today 83% of Maine's Senate and 77% of its House are occupied by those who ran on public financing.  In the Senate 15 are Democrats and 14 are Republicans.

Obviously both Republicans and Democrats understand what people want, namely that their elected officials are beholden to the citizens who pay for their campaigns through their taxes rather than the special interests who financed campaigns in the past.

The third article in the TNT is the lead editorial, "High court contest turns ideological".  The editorial states that the big donors to (incumbent) Supreme Court Justice Gerry Alexander are labor unions.  The big donor to challenger, John Groen, is the Building Industry Association of Washington (BIAW).   Suffice it for me to simply quote what Arizona's Attorney General, Terry Goddard, who ran on public financing said: (For that) " attorney general to have to go to the very same interests that you're going to be regulating or potentially suing for your money to run for office is a disaster."  The same applies to judges who will be judging those interests that heavily contributed to your election.  It's a disaster!

To get information on the effort to get public financing for campaigns here in WA go to http://washclean.org