Pridemore's campaign bill is kind of strange, considering his history. (Originally posted October 4, 2005)

.
Here's a close look at Sen. Criag Pridemore's previous efforts at campaign reform from a few years back... it's a moldy oldy, but much closer to his reality.

So now we get the first in the series of Columbian campaign pieces for Stuart

Their editorial today proves beyond doubt that the Columbian has joined the campaign organization of Steve Stuart.

Well, here's ANOTHER perception that they haven't talked about:

Bill exempts urban candidates

Funding cap on campaigns doesn't apply to a few major counties, ports

KENNETH P. VOGEL; The News Tribune - Apr 19, 2005

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.
....

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 Pridemores 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.

(THEN WHY DID HE TALK TO PRIDEMORE ABOUT THE BILL?)

And Pridemore said the amendment wasn't about Stuart, whom he recommended for the $93,000-a-year county post.

(RIGHT. IT WAS SHEER COINCIDENCE THAT STUART TALKED TO PRIDEMORE ABOUT THE BILL, IT WOULD COST STUART $40,000 IF IT PASSED, AND PRIDEMORE KILLED THE BILL. NONE OF THOSE THINGS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH STUART'S CONVERSATION WITH PRIDEMORE.)

"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."

(ESPECIALLY WHEN ONE OF YOUR BUDS BENEFITS, RIGHT, CRAIG?)

More...

Pridemore, of course, claims his move wasn't about Stuart. Pridemore is a liar. The article speaks for itself.

I actually do agree with the Columbian on this much, though: the perception DOES count. And in the midst of this blatant power-play, where Stuart let the money of his multi-$10,000 donors talk, what perception are we to gain from this effort?

Stuart sees Pridemore. Pridemore removes provision of bill that would have cost his buddy Stuart $40,000. The perception of that is this: Stuart is all about the money and screw the people.

In the interest of fairness, I'm wondering when we're going to see the Columbian's editorial about THIS? When hell freezes over?

Will done, Steve. I hope you choke on it. But don't expect us to buy into any idea that you're some kind of paragon of virtue, because you ain't.

And the Columbian's bogus crap about a bus tour... A BUS TOUR... doesn't provide you with any cover. Their bizarre editorial was done entirely to pump you up while they slam Boldt.

If environmental groups want to put on a bus tour, then they, the environmental groups, should organize it, just like the BIA organized theirs.
____________________

Yeah, the selective memory of the democratian is a thing to behold.
.