Does anyone want to go down to speak against this piece of crap?
Mike
No mention where the funding is coming from; an increase in the
Payroll Tax? I will see if I can attend.
Marcy
Does anyone want to go down to speak against this piece of crap?
Mike
From: Steven Hill [mailto:hill@n…]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:03 AM
To: 'Steven Hill'
Subject: IMPORTANT VOTE on our Public Financing Legislation - Mon.
Dec.19!
From: Steven Hill, New America Foundation
Dear Friends,
This Monday, December 19 will be a CRITICAL HEARING at the San
Francisco
Ethics Commission regarding our legislation for public financing of
the
mayor's race. The Ethics Commission will vote whether to send the
legislation to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. WE MUST WIN
THIS VOTE.
We greatly need your attendance and testimony at this hearing. Here
are the
details:
What: Ethics Commission hearing and vote about public financing
legislation
When: Monday, December 19, 6 PM
Where: City Hall, Room 408 (4th floor), San Francisco(Please forward this to you own email lists)
Update: Recently we won the endorsement of key organizations for
our
legislation, including the San Francisco Labor Council, League of
Women
Voters, and the San Francisco Democratic Party. This important
legislation
introduced by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has the endorsement of over
50
organizations and 13 elected officials, including a majority of the
Board of
Supervisors. Momentum is on our side, but we cannot take anything
for
granted.
The vote by the Ethics Commission is crucial, and WE NEED YOUR
SUPPORT!! We
need to turn out dozens of supporters in order to make sure that
the city
knows that the public supports this legislation.
This is the first agenda item on Monday night, so please arrive as
close to
6 pm as you can. Afterwards, we will head over to Soluna Lounge for
drinks,
music and celebration. Please join us.
If you don't mind, confirm your attendance on our Evite:
Evite Blog - Party Ideas, Planning Tips, DIYs & More | Evite?
inviteId=HWCIAETWOLDRLBCZGY
IP&li=iq&src=email
Please forward this to you own email lists. For more information,
visit
Dear Marcy;
The funding will most likely be a set aside similar to the funding of the supervisors campaigns from general funds.
However; where the additional funds will come from tax wise has not ever been discussed much like the supervisors campaign funding. Who will lose out when the funds are for the Mayors campaigns is something else to be discussed.
Also like the Supervisors campign funding what happens if there are a lot of candidates and how much gets split up?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian
"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@...> wrote:
No mention where the funding is coming from; an increase in the
Payroll Tax? I will see if I can attend.
Marcy
Does anyone want to go down to speak against this piece of crap?
Mike
From: Steven Hill [mailto:hill@n…]
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:03 AM
To: 'Steven Hill'
Subject: IMPORTANT VOTE on our Public Financing Legislation - Mon.
Dec.19!
From: Steven Hill, New America Foundation
Dear Friends,
This Monday, December 19 will be a CRITICAL HEARING at the San
Francisco
Ethics Commission regarding our legislation for public financing of
the
mayor's race. The Ethics Commission will vote whether to send the
legislation to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. WE MUST WIN
THIS VOTE.
We greatly need your attendance and testimony at this hearing. Here
are the
details:
What: Ethics Commission hearing and vote about public financing
legislation
When: Monday, December 19, 6 PM
Where: City Hall, Room 408 (4th floor), San Francisco(Please forward this to you own email lists)
Update: Recently we won the endorsement of key organizations for
our
legislation, including the San Francisco Labor Council, League of
Women
Voters, and the San Francisco Democratic Party. This important
legislation
introduced by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has the endorsement of over
50
organizations and 13 elected officials, including a majority of the
Board of
Supervisors. Momentum is on our side, but we cannot take anything
for
granted.
The vote by the Ethics Commission is crucial, and WE NEED YOUR
SUPPORT!! We
need to turn out dozens of supporters in order to make sure that
the city
knows that the public supports this legislation.
This is the first agenda item on Monday night, so please arrive as
close to
6 pm as you can. Afterwards, we will head over to Soluna Lounge for
drinks,
music and celebration. Please join us.
If you don't mind, confirm your attendance on our Evite:
Evite Blog - Party Ideas, Planning Tips, DIYs & More | Evite?
inviteId=HWCIAETWOLDRLBCZGY
IP&li=iq&src=email
Please forward this to you own email lists. For more information,
visit
Dear Ron,
Exactly!! The funds will have to come from somewhere. And that's why
we need to be at the meeting on Monday, to make sure that part of the
equation gets brought up, not just the seemingly innocent set aside.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, Ron Getty <tradergroupe@y...>
wrote:
Dear Marcy;
The funding will most likely be a set aside similar to the
funding of the supervisors campaigns from general funds.
However; where the additional funds will come from tax wise has
not ever been discussed much like the supervisors campaign funding.
Who will lose out when the funds are for the Mayors campaigns is
something else to be discussed.
Also like the Supervisors campign funding what happens if there
are a lot of candidates and how much gets split up?
Ron Getty
SF Libertarian"Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...> wrote:
No mention where the funding is coming from; an increase in the
Payroll Tax? I will see if I can attend.Marcy
>
> Does anyone want to go down to speak against this piece of crap?
>
> Mike
>
> From: Steven Hill [mailto:hill@n…]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:03 AM
> To: 'Steven Hill'
> Subject: IMPORTANT VOTE on our Public Financing Legislation -
Mon.
Dec.19!
>
> From: Steven Hill, New America Foundation
>
> Dear Friends,
>
> This Monday, December 19 will be a CRITICAL HEARING at the San
Francisco
> Ethics Commission regarding our legislation for public financing
of
the
> mayor's race. The Ethics Commission will vote whether to send the
> legislation to the Board of Supervisors for adoption. WE MUST WIN
THIS VOTE.
> We greatly need your attendance and testimony at this hearing.
Here
are the
> details:
>
> What: Ethics Commission hearing and vote about public financing
legislation
> When: Monday, December 19, 6 PM
> Where: City Hall, Room 408 (4th floor), San Francisco
>
> (Please forward this to you own email lists)
>
> Update: Recently we won the endorsement of key organizations for
our
> legislation, including the San Francisco Labor Council, League of
Women
> Voters, and the San Francisco Democratic Party. This important
legislation
> introduced by Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi has the endorsement of
over
50
> organizations and 13 elected officials, including a majority of
the
Board of
> Supervisors. Momentum is on our side, but we cannot take anything
for
> granted.
>
> The vote by the Ethics Commission is crucial, and WE NEED YOUR
SUPPORT!! We
> need to turn out dozens of supporters in order to make sure that
the city
> knows that the public supports this legislation.
>
> This is the first agenda item on Monday night, so please arrive
as
close to
> 6 pm as you can. Afterwards, we will head over to Soluna Lounge
for
drinks,
> music and celebration. Please join us.
>
> If you don't mind, confirm your attendance on our Evite:
>
> Evite Blog - Party Ideas, Planning Tips, DIYs & More | Evite?
inviteId=HWCIAETWOLDRLBCZGY
> IP&li=iq&src=email
>
> Please forward this to you own email lists. For more information,
visit
> www.voterownedelections.org or call 415-596-5808.
>
> Yours,
>
> Steven Hill
>---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKSVisit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
I plan to go on Monday, but
would like to know if there are
more issues than the fact that
money will be taken from poor
and sick and old people trying to
get by and given to every
pumpkin that walks off the street
and has an opinion about how
the city should be run.
Won't this increase the number
of candidates and in fact cause
the voters information overload
on the small unknown
candidates making them even
more likely to vote for the
established entrenched pols.
The small gal with real new
ideas who can get a crowd
excited by her integrity,
independence, and
anti'establishment ideas and
who can raise some funds from
excited folks on the internet like
Dean did in the early days of the
presidential race, will have a
harder time rising above the
ground clutter and into the radar
of widespread recognition. So
dear Commisioner, if you are a
progressive individual who
wants the democratic system to
work better, to remove
entrenched self serving machine
politicians, and be more likely to
permit the public to see a
sincere, competent, and
visionary challenger, then I urge
you to vote NO.
A yes vote is good for the
establishment. It will help
confuse the voters with a bounty
of poorly qualified unpopular
candidates vieing for the publics
limited ability to look underneath
the mainstream radar, further
driving the electorate to the
known established politicians. I
am very sorry to be the
messenger of this news,
because on the surface this
seems like a progressive reform,
but unfortunately it most
certainly is not.
Any thoughts , comments ,
additions or subtractions are
welcome.
Am I just talking out of my
arsse? Should I just stick to the
tax money side of the issue in
sync with Marcy?
Mike,
Thanks very much for posting this. We should all of us get our butts down there and go!
Steven Hill is undoubtedly right that this Ethics Commission vote is the critical one. If the commission sends the legislation to the full board where most members support it, with a bunch of interest groups behind them, it's probably a done deal. ut if the commission declines to endorse it, that greatly increases the political risk of voting for it. Most Supervisors will think twice before going against the recommendation of the Ethics Commission on such an issue.
Furthermore, this is one area in which the LPSF is strongly positioned to supply "expert" or "major stakeholder" testimony. Quite a few of us have actually been candidates, and/or are planning to run for office in the future, and hence would be directly affected by this legislation. Since most non-wealthy candidates will probably be expected to support legislation of this type, our testifying against it will have all the greater impact.
Finally, this is not a very "sexy" issue. Compared to hearings on things like medical marijuana, eminent domain, anti-dog leash laws, and the like, I don't believe there's a huge amount of public emotion on either side of the issue. Depending how organized Hill and his Green Party allies are (the push for this has arisen from the Gonzalez vs. Newsom campaign in 2004 which Gonzalez likely could have won if he'd had the financing that this law would have given him to match Newsom's millions), there may be a relatively small number of people present. In which case, our voices could make a big difference.
It's a shame to be put in the position of having to oppose the pet project of the guy who led the fight for instant runoff voting and supports proportional representation and other voting reforms instead of building bridges with him and other Greens, but this is a bad precedent that could cost the taxpayers a lot of money while directly enriching the political class, and we ought to do what we can to stop it.
Even if you live outside San Francisco, I encourage you to attend, especially if you are or have been a candidate. I'm deliberately copying some out-of-SF lists on this post.
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
Phil,
You asked if your talk should be in sync with mine or others.
Personally, I believe it would be good if each of us had a different
angle, i.e., bring out as many reasons as we can think of why Public
Financing of the Mayor's race is not beneficial to the people of San
Francisco.
BTW, the Green Party Website announces this meeting is at 5:30 pm,
not 6:00 pm; probably they want to meet before the meeting. But just
in case, I will try to show up at 5:30 pm.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ricochetboy" <philzberg@e...>
wrote:
Phil,
I haven't seen the details, but my impression is that this proposal would *not* result in money for just any candidate as you describe it below. They aren't trying to set this up so that people like *our candidates* will benefit. They're trying to set it up so that people like Matt Gonzalez will benefit -- popular candidates with significant fundraising appeal, but without the deep pockets of "downtown business interests" behind them (generally because they're too anti-business to attract much in the way of such donations).
Yours in liberty,
<<< Starchild >>>
I plan to go on Monday, but
would like to know if there are
more issues than the fact that
money will be taken from poor
and sick and old people trying to
get by and given to every
pumpkin that walks off the street
and has an opinion about how
the city should be run.
Won't this increase the number
of candidates and in fact cause
the voters information overload
on the small unknown
candidates making them even
more likely to vote for the
established entrenched pols.
The small gal with real new
ideas who can get a crowd
excited by her integrity,
independence, and
anti'establishment ideas and
who can raise some funds from
excited folks on the internet like
Dean did in the early days of the
presidential race, will have a
harder time rising above the
ground clutter and into the radar
of widespread recognition. So
dear Commisioner, if you are a
progressive individual who
wants the democratic system to
work better, to remove
entrenched self serving machine
politicians, and be more likely to
permit the public to see a
sincere, competent, and
visionary challenger, then I urge
you to vote NO.A yes vote is good for the
establishment. It will help
confuse the voters with a bounty
of poorly qualified unpopular
candidates vieing for the publics
limited ability to look underneath
the mainstream radar, further
driving the electorate to the
known established politicians. I
am very sorry to be the
messenger of this news,
because on the surface this
seems like a progressive reform,
but unfortunately it most
certainly is not.Any thoughts , comments ,
additions or subtractions are
welcome.Am I just talking out of my
arsse? Should I just stick to the
tax money side of the issue in
sync with Marcy?
<image.tiff>
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
+ Visit your group "lpsf-discuss" on the web.
+ To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com+ Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
<image.tiff>
Hi Phil, and others planning to go to today's meeting on Public
Financing of the Mayoral race.
There is an agenda for this meeting in the Ethics Commission website
and some great background in the website Voter Owned Elections
(www.voterownedelections.org).
The proposed legislation is not simple and has a lot of do's and do
not's that we should be at least aware of if we plan to speak.
This will be a good chance for the LPSF to start raising its public
profile in preparation for our attemps to put initiatives on the
ballot in 2006.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "ricochetboy" <philzberg@e...>
wrote:
I have to bow out of going to the Ethics Commission meeting tonight.
I just got some pretty awful news from a relative and am on my way to
see her right now.
Marcy
--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "Amarcy D. Berry" <amarcyb@h...>
wrote:
Hi Phil, and others planning to go to today's meeting on Public
Financing of the Mayoral race.There is an agenda for this meeting in the Ethics Commission
website