BootForget SarahPAC.  Forget Rural Neighbors PAC.  The City of Bellingham(COB), yes our City of Bellingham is the hottest new political action committee(PAC) north of Portland.

Sure the city may not have reported  expenditures nor filed any legal paperwork.  I wouldn’t expect them to either admit to being a PAC, nor fill out any paperwork.   But, for intents and purposes they appear to be a political action committee.

Their recent actions on two current state issues bear positive  witness to their PAC status.

The council unanimously, with Councilman Gene Knutson absent, approved a resolution opposing Eyman’s Initiative 1033′…,

Members also, in a 5-0 vote with Councilman Stan Snapp abstaining, passed a resolution urging voters to approve Referendum 71

Bellingham City Council opposes Eyman’s I-1033, backs ‘everything but marriage’ law

or,

The Bellingham City Council is now officially urging citizens to vote “no” on Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1033 to limit state, county and city revenue.

KGMI: Bellingham Council Publicly Opposes I-1033, Supports R-71

There should be no doubt in our mind that when any body urges voters to approve a referendum or urges voters to vote no on an initiative they are acting politically.   But does just urging others to vote one way or another qualify the COB as a real political action committee?

In our state there is volume after volume of code, so I was pretty happy that the PDC had on record this little one paragraph summary.

A political committee is any person (except a candidate or an individual dealing with his or her own resources) who expects to receive contributions or make expenditures to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure. The disclosure law applies to most groups organized to influence an election. Political parties, political action committees (PACs), and one-issue groups that disband after a single election are all political committees.

That was definitely easier than reading volumes, and pretty clear that making “expenditures to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure” qualifies as being a PAC.  We’ve already established that the City of Bellingham is acting in support or opposition to a couple of state ballot measures, but what about the expenditure part?

I know someone will want to argue that a city resolution is just a piece of paper and hardly qualifies as an expenditure, but  I’d argue back that city resources were expended on many levels that surround the resolution put forth by CoBPAC.   Check out this little thrown together list

  • People and businesses in the Bellingham pay money in taxes and fees
  • The city of Bellingham maintains a treasury
  • Salaried people are hired to do city business
  • Paid Council members spend time discussing potential resolutions
  • Press releases are issued and or interviews are done with radio and news.
  • Forums are held in public facilities
  • Forums are recorded for later repeated broadcasts
  • Paid City personnel process necessary paperwork

All that is part of the process involved in a city resolution.  Now again, someone will argue that it is only a little bitty portion of all of that and it doesn’t really amount to an expenditure.  I’ve read enough of the Herald political blog to know that if I were to have a PAC of my own, someone would be wondering who paid for the stapler on my desk, the desk, and the staple there in.  Anything and everything has a value when it comes to PAC’s and your opposition will always point the value out to you and/or the PDC.  Value matters.

In fact let’s say there was a WallyPAC and for sake of argument I was concerned with the outcome of I-1033.  At the time of this blog post I haven’t weighed in on this issue, not that it really matters because the rules apply the same regardless of position on any particular candidate or ballot measure.  But we at WallyPAC have laid out a plan very similar to the CobPAC.  Here’s our plan:

  • First we are going to hire a few people to go out and solicit funding from local people and businesses.  We, unlike the city, will merely ask rather than demand under penalty of law.
  • We’ll open a bank account to keep our WallyPAC funds
  • We retain an attorney.
  • Then we’ll hire a small part time staff to organize our meetings and meeting places, etc.
  • All of us on the board are gainfully employed, but feel our long hours should be at least somewhat compensated, so we take a small salary for our time spent meeting and discussing issues important to WallyPAC and those who have donated their money.
  • We expect to agree on a position on I-1033, but feel a focus group or public forum should be held to solidify our position, so we reserve a room at a public hall.
  • Next our staff organizes interviews and issues statements regarding WallyPAC position and our upcoming forum
  • We hold a brief public forum which is recorded for playback on BTV10
  • More payed staff time is spent processing papers, paying bills and for sure a stack of PDC paperwork.
  • We then issue our statement on I-1033 and make sure we are prominantly placed on the Heralds front page.

So what would it cost WallyPAC to compete with CoBPAC on an issue?    WallyPAC hasn’t funded an exploratory committee yet, so I’ll just have to throw a few numbers up against the screen and see what sticks.

  • Hire doorbellers for a day ~ $300
  • bank accounts shouldn’t cost
  • retain an attorney???? $500
  • small part time staff?  gotta’ be a few hundred there
  • collect a salary?  I’m humble so I’ll call it just another few hundred
  • rent a public room  – $150 to rent a room off the library, but I’m sure city hall is a bit more steep
  • a little more staff time for another hundred dollars or so
  • BTV10 videographer and a few paid spots?  I’d guess, but I don’t want to insult anyone.
  • well, buying space on front page of the Herald will be costly.  You see Wally’s emails aren’t even acknowledged by anyone at the Herald so I will assume that WallyPAC will have to pay dearly.

What the dollars add up to is not really the point.

My first point is that WallyPAC may have to pay more for a particular item, but the value is the same.  If someone gave WallyPAC a front page Herald spot, someone would be looking at the value of the spot, not what I did or didn’t pay.

The second point is that if WallyPAC mimicked  what the City of Bellingham and the Bellingham City Council just did regarding I-1033 and Ref-71, we would without any doubt, be designated a political action committee.  So why isn’t the City of Bellingham?

If even half people of Bellingham pooled their resources to act in support or opposition to a candidate or ballot measure they’d qualify as a political action committee.  Wait isn’t that what just happened?  The people of Bellingham voted in a council that is competing with individual voters on state issues.

So again, why isn’t the City of Bellingham a political action committee?

It is.

CoBPAC, undermining your vote on state issues since at least earlier this week or maybe last August during the Santuary City project.  Oh no that was undermining your federal vote.

CoBPAC doing what they want no matter whose vote they step on.

Aug 032008

happy subA couple of weeks ago I wrote about the Subversive “No War with Iran” resolution in front of the Bellingham City Council and a few days later wrote about the council members unanimously passing said resolution which had no business being in front of the council in the first place.

As I wrote the posts I wondered just how the City Council members could not recognize their actions as subversive to our nation’s democratic government.

 

Why couldn’t they, especially as elected officials themselves, see that following our governmental rules, most fairly values everyone’s vote? How could they not see that their personal agreement or disagreement with the outcome of our democratic process is not justification for destroying the process.

 

I hate the don’t shoot the messenger cliche, but that is exactly what is going on here. Our government is delivering the message; the will of the voters who elected people to address our national defense and the members of the City Council don’t like the message, so they are taking pot shots at our democratic process; essentially shooting our messenger.

 

Well, silly me for wondering why the council couldn’t recognize their damaging actions. After seeing the photo above and reading this letter to the editor, I would guess they clearly recognized their actions as subversive and were as knowledgeable and proud of their subversion as the author of this letter.

Some have called the Bellingham City Council’s “Hands Off! Iran” resolution subversive. I agree absolutely. I believe strongly that any paradigm of war and exploitation should be subverted by any and all means necessary.

Bellingham Herald: Evan Knappenberger, City resolution needed to subvert Iran war

While “subverted by any and all means necessary” may reflect only Evan Knappenberger’s personal opinion; his strong ties to the Whatcom Peace and Justice Center (WPJC) who promoted this resolution locally, would suggest differently. I see a lot of smiley happy faces in this photo from ImageEvent’s public gallery which bore this label.

City Councilmembers Stan Snapp, Terry Bornemann, Barbara Ryan, Barry Buchanan, & Jack Weiss celebrate with constituents the passage of the Resolution Opposing Military Intervention in Iran.

With “constituents” being members of the WPJC and said letter writer, there is no doubt in my mind that the City Council was both aware and happy with their subversive actions. Their action was sad, pathetic, subversive, corrupt and without excuse.

Aug 012008

Bellingham City Council member Gene Knutson said he was surprised to hear Costco is inquiring about building elsewhere because the council allowed the 2,000-square-foot expansion. He hopes it’s not an indication the company plans to leave Bellingham.

Bellingham, Whatcom County Local News | Bellingham Herald

If no sane person around here is surprised that Costco is looking to get out of Dodge, then where does this leave Bellingham City Council member Gene Knutson?

In good company with the rest of City Council, of course.

Frankly, I’m a little surprised that all of the Bellingham City Council members fell into the subversive scheme which I talked about the other day. Not that I really expected any different, but all of them? Wowser! Not a one Council member with the integrity to stick to their job? Not one? Perhaps that’s why I’ve developed this strange compulsion to wash after visiting Bellingham.

So Monday night, in a unanimous vote, the Bellingham City Council approved a city resolution opposing military intervention in Iran. And even though the Herald subtitled their article “vote hailed as grass-roots democracy” the statements there in, actually reinforce what I’ve been saying, this resolution is anti-democratic.

“If we are not going to get the kind of leadership that we need out of Washington (D.C.),” he said, “then we have to take a leadership role at a local level to speak up.”

So essentially they don’t agree with our democratically elected leadership, but instead of resolving to work within our system of government, they are resolving to take the lead in going around our democratic government. I guess in a perverted sort of way, you could construe that they are doing the will of their constituents. Look at this from the Herald Political blog.

Many of the people who testified commended the council for its leadership in addressing a possible unprovoked attack on Iran. With national representatives ignoring their constituents, more and more people are approaching their local governments to fill the leadership vacuum.

You see, more and more of their constituents are approaching them because they aren’t getting their way with national representatives. So they are asked to be subversive and they are doing it; what more could the people of Bellingham want?

And also in the Herald blog is this twisted little piece of illogic on the resolution from someone identified merely as “Stan.”

How can we say it’s not the business of the City Council our closest elected representatives to do what we can to express the outrage of our citizens in a collective way?

Well, Mr. Stan, I’m thinking it could have gone something like this,

Regardless of our personal feelings, we the members of the City Council are not charged to represent the people of Bellingham on matters such as military intervention in Iran and/or national policy of any kind. To imply that we have been charged with such a duty, would be confusing to the public and would erode the authority of the representatives who all the people of this area elected to deal with these matters. We strongly urge each citizen to contact their senators and representatives, their closest representation in these matters, and let them know their feelings regarding our nations dealings with Iran.

Yup, that’s one way that you could say it is not the business of the City Council. May be there are other ways of saying it is not the City Council’s business, but that would have covered it well, and yet not been a bit subversive.

© 2010 Wally Wonders Why Suffusion WordPress theme by Sayontan Sinha