I have been a proponent of the legislative ethics initiative by Utahns for Ethical Government, which is in the petition stage this winter. It is a slow process going door to door because each signature usually involves a lengthy explanation. I do not begrudge the time; it shows that the voters want to be informed.
The voice of opposition to this petition has been coming primarily from the incumbent politicians. They fear the changes it would require. Its provisions for campaign finance reform, for example, prohibit individual donors from contributing more than $2500 and prohibits contributions in any amount from businesses.
Now, however, the ruling of the Supreme Court (January 21, 2010) has driven a hole into the initiative in just this area. Political contributions are seen as "free speech" and cannot be prohibited or limited and business entities are seen as having the same rights of free speech as individuals.
The UEG initiative has strong support among the voters in Utah and while the limits on campaign funding will be stripped by the severability clause, the rest of the bill, if passed in the November election, would still stand.
Although campaign contributions will be unlimited, whether from individuals or from special interest groups—including businesses, voters can learn much about the sort of representation they can expect from a political candidate by examining the sources of their campaign funds.
If he is aware of the Supreme Court ruling, my own representative is understandably relieved by this ruling. Every one of his contributions came from businesses, Political Action Committees, or other candidates’ campaign funds. These are the interests he can be expected to represent.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
A Survey or a Push Poll
As the 2010 legislative session gets underway, state senators and representatives are wise to collect information from their constituents. After all, how can they represent people whose opinions they do not know? Town Hall meetings are a great way to do this. Opinion polls and surveys, either by phone or mail, are also good options. Our household recently received the “2010 Legislative Survey” from our elected representative and senator.
Most surveys are meant to collect information. Others are “push polls” meant to look like they are collecting information but, in reality, are meant to disseminate it. A push poll is often used to promote oneself or to “push” negative information about a person or viewpoint.
The first clue that the survey I received might not be a survey to collect real attitudes and opinions was that bad news is introduced with "Due to the economic downturn," and good news with "Due to wise fiscal management".
The second clue was the fact that opinions are interspersed with the questions, such as the following: (Do you support or oppose) steps to opt out of provisions that would raise taxes and harm businesses if a 'Cap and Trade' agreement passes congress?"
The final question put to rest any of my remaining doubts about the nature of this survey. It offers six statements, next to which respondents can place a checkmark to indicate agreement. There is no space for respondents to add explanations or exceptions.
The first statement reads "I prefer having laws made through the legislative process with public hearings rather than by initiative." Of course we all prefer the legislative process over walking petitions around. There is, however, a constitutional right to petition government when the elected representatives ignore the will of the people. Two such cases produced the current initiatives: legislative ethics reform by Utahns for Ethical Government and redistricting reform by Fair Boundaries. In Utah, legislation by initiative is rare but the right to it is essential.
The second statement is "I am aware that the initiative creates and [sic] Ethics Commission that has not [sic] accountability to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch [sic] and that its decision cannot be appealed." How do you agree or disagree that you are aware of a falsehood? The proposed commission would be composed of legislative staff chosen by the legislators themselves. The only sense in which this commission would not be “accountable” to elected officials is in the fact that such officials would not completely control commission decisions. These decisions would be whether to forward submitted complaints to the Ethics Committee—formed of legislators themselves—who would then hear and rule on these complaints. Rulings could be appealed. Why would a decision to merely hear a complaint need to be appealed?
The third statement is "I am aware that the Ethics Commission would consist of members who have life time appointments." Again, how can you state you are aware of a falsehood? Commission members would serve five year terms with staggered dates of replacement.
The fourth statement is "I have/would sign [sic] the 21 page Citizens Ethics Initiative without reading it." Is this an attempt to intimidate? It shouldn't be, since the writers of this survey obviously haven't read the initiative.
The fifth statement is "I would prefer laws that create an increased transparency in lobbyist activities." The State of Utah is recognized for promoting transparency and this initiative does nothing to limit that. But the state can dump a pile of data onto a website, calling it transparency, and it would be far more obscure to voters than having the legislators sign a code of conduct.
The last statement is "I think campaign contributions should be capped notwithstanding that such a cap could prevent citizens in lower income brackets from running for office." A cap would prevent a candidate of any economic background from running a campaign financed solely by a few special interest groups. This, unfortunately, is common practice. To finance a campaign through contributions from constituents provides a candidate an opportunity to talk to these constituents and really hear what they think. If the Ethics initiative accomplished just this much, it would be worthwhile.
I have decided not to send in the survey. It will not tell my representatives anything about what I think. But then again, it wasn't meant to.
Most surveys are meant to collect information. Others are “push polls” meant to look like they are collecting information but, in reality, are meant to disseminate it. A push poll is often used to promote oneself or to “push” negative information about a person or viewpoint.
The first clue that the survey I received might not be a survey to collect real attitudes and opinions was that bad news is introduced with "Due to the economic downturn," and good news with "Due to wise fiscal management".
The second clue was the fact that opinions are interspersed with the questions, such as the following: (Do you support or oppose) steps to opt out of provisions that would raise taxes and harm businesses if a 'Cap and Trade' agreement passes congress?"
The final question put to rest any of my remaining doubts about the nature of this survey. It offers six statements, next to which respondents can place a checkmark to indicate agreement. There is no space for respondents to add explanations or exceptions.
The first statement reads "I prefer having laws made through the legislative process with public hearings rather than by initiative." Of course we all prefer the legislative process over walking petitions around. There is, however, a constitutional right to petition government when the elected representatives ignore the will of the people. Two such cases produced the current initiatives: legislative ethics reform by Utahns for Ethical Government and redistricting reform by Fair Boundaries. In Utah, legislation by initiative is rare but the right to it is essential.
The second statement is "I am aware that the initiative creates and [sic] Ethics Commission that has not [sic] accountability to the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branch [sic] and that its decision cannot be appealed." How do you agree or disagree that you are aware of a falsehood? The proposed commission would be composed of legislative staff chosen by the legislators themselves. The only sense in which this commission would not be “accountable” to elected officials is in the fact that such officials would not completely control commission decisions. These decisions would be whether to forward submitted complaints to the Ethics Committee—formed of legislators themselves—who would then hear and rule on these complaints. Rulings could be appealed. Why would a decision to merely hear a complaint need to be appealed?
The third statement is "I am aware that the Ethics Commission would consist of members who have life time appointments." Again, how can you state you are aware of a falsehood? Commission members would serve five year terms with staggered dates of replacement.
The fourth statement is "I have/would sign [sic] the 21 page Citizens Ethics Initiative without reading it." Is this an attempt to intimidate? It shouldn't be, since the writers of this survey obviously haven't read the initiative.
The fifth statement is "I would prefer laws that create an increased transparency in lobbyist activities." The State of Utah is recognized for promoting transparency and this initiative does nothing to limit that. But the state can dump a pile of data onto a website, calling it transparency, and it would be far more obscure to voters than having the legislators sign a code of conduct.
The last statement is "I think campaign contributions should be capped notwithstanding that such a cap could prevent citizens in lower income brackets from running for office." A cap would prevent a candidate of any economic background from running a campaign financed solely by a few special interest groups. This, unfortunately, is common practice. To finance a campaign through contributions from constituents provides a candidate an opportunity to talk to these constituents and really hear what they think. If the Ethics initiative accomplished just this much, it would be worthwhile.
I have decided not to send in the survey. It will not tell my representatives anything about what I think. But then again, it wasn't meant to.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Happy New Year!
Holidays are wonderful ways to end a year. It is like having dessert at the end of a meal. It leaves a good taste in your mouth. At least, that is the way it has been for me.
My almost-empty nest was filled (and then some) with children who brought their children. Coming from the East Coast, the Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest, they converged. The grandchildren played with each other, with only occasional klonks with their toys; the grown children laughed and teased each other; and even the in-laws chatted comfortably. Conversation topics ranged from potty training to college selection to hospice care -- and, of course, memories of Christmases past.
We are blessed with comfortable shelter, sufficient food, caring friends, loving family, and faith that God is watching over all.
What could be better than this?
My almost-empty nest was filled (and then some) with children who brought their children. Coming from the East Coast, the Midwest, and the Pacific Northwest, they converged. The grandchildren played with each other, with only occasional klonks with their toys; the grown children laughed and teased each other; and even the in-laws chatted comfortably. Conversation topics ranged from potty training to college selection to hospice care -- and, of course, memories of Christmases past.
We are blessed with comfortable shelter, sufficient food, caring friends, loving family, and faith that God is watching over all.
What could be better than this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
