See, Steve got this killed… NOT because killing it was the RIGHT THING TO DO… BUT BECAUSE IT WOULD EFFECT HIM PERSONALLY.
So now, not only is Pridemore (Who called Stuart a sellout) not only guilty of voting FOR a budget HE believes is "balanced on the backs of the powerless and poor," he's guilty of allowing a democrat buddy of his, who would be personally effected by this legislation, to talk him out of it.
How about it, Steve… putting the needs of the people ahead of your own should be your NUMBER ONE JOB. One can only wonder what the next issue will be when Stuart sells us out.
Bill exempts urban candidates
Funding cap on campaigns doesn’t apply to a few major counties, ports
KENNETH P. VOGEL; The News Tribune
Steve Stuart probably would have been required to give back most, if not all, of $40,000 in campaign contributions under a bill being considered in the Legislature.But Stuart’s friend and predecessor as Clark County commissioner, Sen. Craig Pridemore (D-Vancouver), made sure that wouldn’t happen.
Pridemore removed a provision from a bill that would have limited contributions to candidates running for county offices in Pierce, Clark and Spokane counties as well as the ports of Tacoma and Seattle.
Big donors influence politics in Pierce County and other counties and port districts. But groups representing counties and ports supported Pridemore’s amendment because they contend it’s hard to raise awareness and money for local races.
The bill, House Bill 1226, also would limit the amounts of campaign contributions that could be given to candidates running for state Supreme Court and appeals court. It would require candidates running for the affected offices to return contributions exceeding the proposed limits or spend them by the time bill is signed. It’s unclear, though, whether they’d have to give back the entire contribution or just the amount that exceeds the limit.
For Stuart, who received four $10,000 contributions this year for his special election in November, the original bill would either require him to spend or return at least $37,300 – the amount that’s in excess of the proposed $675-per-election limit.
Stuart was appointed in December to the Board of Clark County Commissioners to fill a seat vacated by Pridemore, who left the three-member panel when he was elected to the Senate.
Stuart’s only declared opponent, Republican Tom Mielke, said Pridemore’s amendment smacks of special-interest lawmaking.
Stuart said he talked to Pridemore about the bill, but didn’t ask him to propose the amendment, which was added earlier this month in the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee. And Pridemore said the amendment wasn’t about Stuart, whom he recommended for the $93,000-a-year county post.
“I know it would have effected him,” Pridemore said, but he added “my concern with it was a generic thing. Very frequently, having some large donors is a good thing.”
Big donations give challengers a chance to defeat entrenched incumbents like Pridemore did in his first election to the board in 1998. A local investor gave him $5,000, Pridemore said, adding “if I had not gotten that contribution, I could not have won that race.”
HB 1226 would apply the contribution limits now in place for statewide executive races such as governor – $1,350 for the primary and $1,350 for the general – to candidates running for state Supreme Court and appeals court. And in its original form, it would have applied the campaign contribution limits now in place for state legislative races – $675 each for the primary and the general – in races for county offices and port districts in which there are more than 200,000 registered voters.
Without the Pridemore amendment, three candidates running for the Seattle Port Commission this year also would have been required to spend or return contributions that exceeded the proposed limits.
In Pierce County last year, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Master Builders Association of Pierce County and the political action committee for the Pierce County Professional Firefighters gave contributions to Pierce County candidates that exceeded the limits proposed by the original bill.
Though Pridemore said he opposes limits in judicial races, his amendment left those in the bill, which is awaiting action in the Senate.
The Senate committee chairman, Sen. Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup) called the 200,000-voter threshold “arbitrary.”
“We need to look at standards other than those that just identify two or three or maybe three or four of the larger counties and that’s it,” he said. There’s probably more need for limits in some smaller counties, he said.
The most pressing need, though, is in judicial races, he said.
Last fall, the Building Industry Association of Washington, a conservative trade group, contributed $232,000 to the successful state Supreme Court campaign of Jim Johnson. That accounted for more than 25 percent of the money given to Johnson, who previously worked on high profile legal issues for the group.
Though judges are nonpartisan offices, the BIAW is a prominent player in Republican politics. Republican lawmakers have griped that HB 1226 is retribution.
The bill passed the House and Kastama’s committee largely along party lines, with most Republicans voting against it.
But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Shay Schual-Berke (D-Normandy Park), said “I did not introduce this bill in a partisan way, and I think with only judicial candidates regulated that might appear to be the case.”
Though the bill missed a key deadline to pass the Senate on Friday, lawmakers could revive it this week because money to implement it is included in the House budget proposal. If the bill is revived this session or next, Schual-Berke said she’d push to re-insert county and port candidates.
“I’m hopeful to get the bill made whole again,” she said.
So now, not only is Pridemore (Who called Stuart a sellout) not only guilty of voting FOR a budget HE believes is "balanced on the backs of the powerless and poor," he's guilty of allowing a democrat buddy of his, who would be personally effected by this legislation, to talk him out of it.
How about it, Steve… putting the needs of the people ahead of your own should be your NUMBER ONE JOB. One can only wonder what the next issue will be when Stuart sells us out.
Bill exempts urban candidates
Funding cap on campaigns doesn’t apply to a few major counties, ports
KENNETH P. VOGEL; The News Tribune
Steve Stuart probably would have been required to give back most, if not all, of $40,000 in campaign contributions under a bill being considered in the Legislature.But Stuart’s friend and predecessor as Clark County commissioner, Sen. Craig Pridemore (D-Vancouver), made sure that wouldn’t happen.
Pridemore removed a provision from a bill that would have limited contributions to candidates running for county offices in Pierce, Clark and Spokane counties as well as the ports of Tacoma and Seattle.
Big donors influence politics in Pierce County and other counties and port districts. But groups representing counties and ports supported Pridemore’s amendment because they contend it’s hard to raise awareness and money for local races.
The bill, House Bill 1226, also would limit the amounts of campaign contributions that could be given to candidates running for state Supreme Court and appeals court. It would require candidates running for the affected offices to return contributions exceeding the proposed limits or spend them by the time bill is signed. It’s unclear, though, whether they’d have to give back the entire contribution or just the amount that exceeds the limit.
For Stuart, who received four $10,000 contributions this year for his special election in November, the original bill would either require him to spend or return at least $37,300 – the amount that’s in excess of the proposed $675-per-election limit.
Stuart was appointed in December to the Board of Clark County Commissioners to fill a seat vacated by Pridemore, who left the three-member panel when he was elected to the Senate.
Stuart’s only declared opponent, Republican Tom Mielke, said Pridemore’s amendment smacks of special-interest lawmaking.
Stuart said he talked to Pridemore about the bill, but didn’t ask him to propose the amendment, which was added earlier this month in the Senate Government Operations and Elections Committee. And Pridemore said the amendment wasn’t about Stuart, whom he recommended for the $93,000-a-year county post.
“I know it would have effected him,” Pridemore said, but he added “my concern with it was a generic thing. Very frequently, having some large donors is a good thing.”
Big donations give challengers a chance to defeat entrenched incumbents like Pridemore did in his first election to the board in 1998. A local investor gave him $5,000, Pridemore said, adding “if I had not gotten that contribution, I could not have won that race.”
HB 1226 would apply the contribution limits now in place for statewide executive races such as governor – $1,350 for the primary and $1,350 for the general – to candidates running for state Supreme Court and appeals court. And in its original form, it would have applied the campaign contribution limits now in place for state legislative races – $675 each for the primary and the general – in races for county offices and port districts in which there are more than 200,000 registered voters.
Without the Pridemore amendment, three candidates running for the Seattle Port Commission this year also would have been required to spend or return contributions that exceeded the proposed limits.
In Pierce County last year, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Master Builders Association of Pierce County and the political action committee for the Pierce County Professional Firefighters gave contributions to Pierce County candidates that exceeded the limits proposed by the original bill.
Though Pridemore said he opposes limits in judicial races, his amendment left those in the bill, which is awaiting action in the Senate.
The Senate committee chairman, Sen. Jim Kastama (D-Puyallup) called the 200,000-voter threshold “arbitrary.”
“We need to look at standards other than those that just identify two or three or maybe three or four of the larger counties and that’s it,” he said. There’s probably more need for limits in some smaller counties, he said.
The most pressing need, though, is in judicial races, he said.
Last fall, the Building Industry Association of Washington, a conservative trade group, contributed $232,000 to the successful state Supreme Court campaign of Jim Johnson. That accounted for more than 25 percent of the money given to Johnson, who previously worked on high profile legal issues for the group.
Though judges are nonpartisan offices, the BIAW is a prominent player in Republican politics. Republican lawmakers have griped that HB 1226 is retribution.
The bill passed the House and Kastama’s committee largely along party lines, with most Republicans voting against it.
But the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Shay Schual-Berke (D-Normandy Park), said “I did not introduce this bill in a partisan way, and I think with only judicial candidates regulated that might appear to be the case.”
Though the bill missed a key deadline to pass the Senate on Friday, lawmakers could revive it this week because money to implement it is included in the House budget proposal. If the bill is revived this session or next, Schual-Berke said she’d push to re-insert county and port candidates.
“I’m hopeful to get the bill made whole again,” she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment