Yet today there is a fundamental element of our democratic process not supported by our government; election campaigns. Election campaigns are funded through charity, people giving money to candidate supposedly out of pure good will, expecting nothing but a good representative in return. The most “charitable” turn out to be the wealthy; large corporations, wealthy individuals, or special-interest organizations.

We see our government faithfully advocate for the wishes of these entities, frequently in preference to own wishes. And actually, we’re smart enough not to wonder why. We know our elected representatives are chosen and put in place by those funders, and we are not those funders. Logic dictates that they will more faithfully represent their funders, those whom without whose support they could not even ask for the support of voters.

Prop 89 fixes this, while still deriving its funding from the corporations that support it now.

I think Prop 98 is worth going to the polls for, and even worth trying to get other people to go to the polls for, so I thought it was worth passing along some information.

About Prop89

Prop 89 is a California Ballot Proposition on the November 2006 ballot. It establishes a format for public-funding of election campaigns. It’s paid for by an increase in the corporate tax from 8.9% to 9.1%. It costs 0.02% of the state’s budget.

Candidates who chose to qualify agree to limit their spending and reject contributions from private sources. Candidates will qualify as “Clean Money Candidates,” or “participating” candidates, and receive a public grant for the primary and general elections, if they are successful in raising a required number of $5 contributions and signatures of support from residents within the district they hope to represent.

Candidates who qualify for Clean Money funding will get the average dollar amount spent by those seeking that office in recent elections. One great advantage to the system is that participating candidates will no longer have fundraising expenses, no selling tickets to $1000/plate dinners. So, Clean Money candidates can focus on discovering and fullfilling their voters wishes intead of their campaign-funders.

It empowers candidates with no personal wealth or access to big financial contributors - but who have a proven base of public support - the means to compete for office with the “usual suspects.”

So I see Prop 89 as a sort of a covert takeover of the government by the people at a ground-root level, because that’s where it’s broken. Once “we the people” are the ones paying for people to get in office and represent us, they will start doing that. And if we’re not paying for it, we can’t expect to be well represented out of corporate good-will for its consumers.

So if you don’t vote for anything else on the ballot go out and vote yes on Prop 89. It’s a no-brainer that could fundamentally improve our democracy, imo.

California Clean Money Campaign

“Please join us as we transform parking spots into PARK(ing) spaces: temporary public parks in areas that need open space – enlivening the streets and improving the quality of urban human habitat.”

Iranian Leader Challenged by Reporters

The previously title of this article was “Iranian Leader Challenges Bush to Televised Debate.” If you read the article, that’s what it’s about. But over the course of the day, the title has been changed.

Luke writes:

Now, a few hours later, and somehow the story has morphed into what is being called ‘heavy criticism by the local Iranian press’.

However, a look at the actual quotes and accounts of the actual press conference looks quite tame. Indeed, nothing –NOTHING- like recent Bush press conferences where reporters are actually irate, …but when have you ever seen a major news outlet headline news story about – gasp – reporters challenging Bush at a press conference?

This story calls out that this is only Ahmadinejad’s 4th press conference since he took office a year ago. This is used to support the idea that Iran’s government suppresses the press and freedom of information. How many Q&A press conferences has Bush personally presided over since taking office over 6 years ago?

Indeed. If we’re talking about suppressing the freedom of information, we don’t have to look any farther than the White House.

I would love to see that debate. Where’s the footage of foreign journalists asking Bush wether he will accept the debate? Bush just is a Pez candy dispenser for talking-points. It would be a battle of talking-points. Two religious-nut world leaders debating who’s more capable of bringing us Armageddon.

I mean Hizbollah’s stated reason for taking two Israeli prisoners was the over 600 Palestinian children under the age of 16 that Israel holds in prison. Israeli children routinely attack Palestinians with stones in the settlements, but Palestine doesn’t get to put them in jail and Israel doesn’t seem to care too much. Taking two prisoners seems like a pretty reserved response to me.

So, in this video, Israeli soldiers killed this man’s wife when they decided to blow open the door to their house with explosives. They attempted to suppress the video of it. Now that it’s out they say they’re really, really sorry.

To me it seems pretty obvious that if you systematically did that to some segment of the American population, say some gun-n-Bible toting militia group, you’d have a war on your hands pretty quick here too.

The US Army should start randomly shelling beaches too. I’m mean the whole point it just to get people scared so they’ll be more easy to manipulate. Hell, I bet if they shelled American beaches eventually we could invade all the Arab countries. Then there’d be McDonald’s everywhere (with drive-thru’s) and enough oil to turn the planet to big crispy tarball.

Videos like this make me root for Hizbollah. Even though I don’t share their belief in invisible deities, I guess I have a thing for the underdog. A comment on mefi complains that these videos are all too one-sided. I agree, pretty one sided. Bottle rockets against fighter jets.

“Why won’t they just give us the entire Holy Land? The Creator of the Universe specifically said we could have it in at least two of the books He wrote.”

Israel and Lebanon are countries, just like ours. I’m sure there’s many different opinions within Israel and Lebanon. We all have our nut cases. Still, the people running things over in Israel these days sure must like people hating them. Maybe we should help them build their wall around themselves. Oh, wait, we already are.

It’s got my vote, and my money actually. Religious fundamentalists regularly give, or tithe, 10% of their income to the church. I think that’s a good idea and secularists should start tithing to the issues they think are important. I decided this one was important enough to fork over some cash.

So if you’re sick of politicians begging for money, here’s the chance to put that money to a better purpose. Go on over to California Clean Money Action Fund and show your support.

BERKELEY / Bush impeach resolution on ballot / Council, with overwhelming support, OKs measure

From the speech:

Today, we are seeing hundreds of years of scientific discovery being challenged by people who simply disregard facts that don’t happen to agree with their agendas. Some call it “pseudo-science,” others call it “faith-based science,” but when you notice where this negligence tends to take place, you might as well call it “political science.”

…

“Hopkins’ motto is ‘Veritas vos liberabit‘ - ‘the truth shall set you free’ - not that ‘you shall be free to set the truth!’”

Good stuff. Check out the video.

A San Francisco suburb voted Tuesday night to use the power of eminent domain to keep Wal-Mart Stores Inc. off a piece of city land after hearing from dozens of residents who accused the big-box retailer of engaging in scare tactics to force its way into the bedroom community.

The overflow crowd that packed into the tiny Hercules City Hall cheered after the five-person City Council voted unanimously to use the unusual tactic to seize the 17 acres where Wal-Mart intended to build a shopping complex.

…

Attorneys from Wal-Mart told the council that the retailer had spent close to $1 million to redesign the property to the community’s liking. They said the council couldn’t claim it was legally necessary to take the land and that the decision set a bad precedent.

Depends on what you mean by legally necessary. It wouldn’t have been legally necessary if Walmart did buy the property. But if the community doesn’t want Walmart and Walmart doesn’t give a shit, then it become necessary to take legal action. I think it sets a good precedent. Who cares what Walmart wants, Walmart is a soleless entity.

Although Mark Morford pointed out there may be reason not to hate Walmart quite so much.

Via San Francisco Chronicle: Hercules uses eminent domain to keep out Wal-Mart