County, Pacific Legal Foundation reach Measure T settlement Measure T: 'Null and void'
The Pacific Legal Foundation announced Monday that it has agreed to a settlement with Humboldt County over the legality of Measure T.
Passed by county voters in 2006, Measure T aimed to ban political contributions from out-of-county corporations to local campaigns. But, the measure quickly came under fire from those who believed it to be unconstitutional.
...Reached Monday, Interim Humboldt County Counsel Wendy Chaitin said the county felt compelled to fight the case because it stemmed from a citizen-passed initiative, despite the fact that many worried from the beginning that the measure may not past constitutional muster.
”The county felt it was necessary to defend Measure T and they did,” Chaitin said. “But, there's a point where you have to balance the reasonable likelihood of winning the lawsuit versus what kind of effort and county funds -- basically taxpayer money -- you want to put toward that effort.”
Illston's initial ruling on the injunction, Chaitin said, plainly showed the proverbial writing was on the wall.
”It was clear from the preliminary injunction ruling that the U.S. District Court Judge Illston, in granting that preliminary injunction, was pretty strong and clear in her language that there were many distinct grounds on which she concluded that Measure T violated the Constitution, both on First and 14th Amendment grounds,” Chaitin said.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the county will have to pay $44,000 in Pacific Legal Foundation legal fees, but Chaitin said the total cost of the case for the county is closer to $100,000, not including county staff time.
heraldo has the press release from DUH C MEASURE T: Finished
Press release from the backers of Measure T:
HUMBOLDT COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CAVE TO CORPORATE PRESSURE:
AGREEMENT TO SETTLE OVER MEASURE T FILED IN FEDERAL COURT
Eric has a thread going.
And That POS Measure cost the county HOW MUCH? Kaitlin?
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap's blame shifting at the Supervisors is simply atrocious, and indicitave of the fact that none of them are dumb enough to have supported Measure T in the first place. Democracy Unlimited never came up with their "free lawyer" to defend the "carefully crafted" Measure T, instead raising money off of the challenge for David and Kaitlin's mortage, and not to cover the taxpayer's bill on this.
ReplyDeleteOnly if this decision had come out two weeks earlier, things might not have turned out so well for Kaitlin on election night. At least her plans to run for Jeff Leonard's Council seat in 2010 are toast now.
Their free lawyer was never an option. Just another lie that fooled the voters. Spread by unscrupulous shysters.
ReplyDeleteI'll be interested to see the final tally - how much did it cost the County?
Will DUHC fork over the dough they've raised in all their solicitations for "help" fighting the lawsuit?
"Democracy Unlimited never came up with their "free lawyer" to defend the "carefully crafted" Measure T,"
ReplyDeleteI asked over on H's blog is the poster could provide some evidence of this,any chance I can get my request?
Hmmm.....I used to think that one reason behind the American Revolution was to fight against the courts determining the lives of citizens.Do you truly want to be ruled by a small body such as a court system?
Their 'free lawyer' was never an option. It was a sham from the get-go, Mark.
ReplyDeleteNo. this fell on the County. Much as Cobb and Co. like to play house, and play at reinventing government, reality - REALITY - is quite different from the little socially engineered world they invent. Do you really want to go down that path? Because that way lies egomaniacal insanity.
That they manage to draw people along, with false rhetoric is truly sad. And, in this case, very costly.
Coulda been worse, coulda cost millions to defend all the way to the Supreme court.
esquan wrote, "Do you truly want to be ruled by a small body such as a court system?".
ReplyDeleteDo you truly want to be ruled by a 50.5% majority vote with no recourse? Are you going to join and support any of the lawsuits against Prop 8, or just say, The people have spoken?
mesquan's lame excuses smell almost as badly as he does.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes Mark, checks and balances are part of our system. Your ignorance of this is a good example of how civics education has fallen off the radar in this country.
So is there any way YOU can prove that Measure T was carefully crafted, as opposed to the work of rank amateurs, none of whom are even attorneys in this state?
"none of whom are even attorneys in this state?"
ReplyDeleteWhat does that have to do with anything?
Fred,haven't quite decided yet whether I'll support the lawsuits.I probably will,reluctantly,very reluctantly.The populace had the opportunity to vote it down handely,didn't happen and I've yet to see there were incidents preventing voters from doing so.Makes a bit more sense to me to eduacte the supporters you know about their bigotry and how it affects the lives of those who differ from them.
Was Measure T carefully crafted, Mark?
ReplyDeleteI love how you're dodging the question.
The bottom line is that we need campaign reform. Measure T was a straight on push for just that. A well organized grass roots effort to effectually change/level the local political campaign finance issues.
ReplyDeleteRose, it may have been flawed, but you take this way too personal. Bring forth your "positive” ideas for campaign reform, and how to make it an even playing field locally. Personally, I feel that the Arcata $170 limit per person is a good idea for Eureka. And I think a $25,000 spending limit for Supervisor races is fair.
Jeff Leonard is hosting a meeting for dialogue on this issue at the Warfinger this Wednesday at 7pm.
Yes it was.And I don't give a rat's ass if it was carefully crafted by an "attorney" of your acceptance.If it wasn't for attorney's there would not be so much imbiguity and vagueness in constitutional,or most laws for that matter.Attorney's need that survive,and are the primary reason that northing in the system can change....and before you get all hissy,I'll tell you that there are good and needed attorney's out there,just not nearly as many as you'd think.
ReplyDeleteIt's not 'personal' at all.
ReplyDeleteI have yet to see a campaign finance reform idea that will work - that will allow people to support the candidate of their choice, that will allow the candidate to raise enough money to pay for ads, that addresses the fact that some people can afford to bankroll their own campaigns - just for starters.
McCain-Feingold is a disaster - and LOOK at what just happened with Barack promising to abide by certain rules and then breaking that promise - I don't hear any complaints about that - nor about the illegal donations, nor any of that - seems it's all cool with you guys when it is on your side...
You just want to cripple any conservative candidates - stop people you don't like (Arkley, Palco) from donating, but allowing those you DO like...
Then there's the tribes - HUGE donations on a local scale. and who gets them - oh, "progressives" - so not a PEEP out of you guys.... sorry.
We do not need "reform" like that.
Richard wrote, "Personally, I feel that the Arcata $170 limit per person is a good idea for Eureka. And I think a $25,000 spending limit for Supervisor races is fair.".
ReplyDeleteSo, if Eureka had such a per- person limit, your candidate George Clark wouldn't have been able to come close to Frank Jager, at least in contributions. As it was, he was able to tap on a few heavy hitters and (I believe) raise a bit more money than Jager.
I'm much more sympathetic to spending limits and can't help but wonder if such limits would be doing regular contributors a favor. Hey, they'd only have to worry about being hit up for so much money.
Measure T was a grass roots effort to challenge corporate personhood and to rein in the power that legal entity has to trample, rough shod, upon individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The arguments defending corporate personhood is that money is free speech and labor unions use money to support political candidates. I do not ride the corporate personhood bandwagon. Corporations that have publicly traded stock exist for one purpose only - to make a profit for its absentee stockholders. Profit is good. I prefer to earn a profit for my labor and my investments. Profit at the cost of environmental devastation which costs jobs and effects quality of life for everyone is bad. The power of corporate personhood is seen in the halls of congress when powerful, moneyed corporations use their assets to to fund political party elections that sway lawmakers to write laws that allow corporations to move their factories to China, give tax breaks to the richest among us, while leaving the forgotten middle class who are struggling under stagnant wages in an era of rising prices, holding the paper on soaring government debt. Corporations used to have their licenses revoked when upon review they were found guilty of doing harm. The designation of corporate personhood gives license to powerful entities to do harm to our government and by extension to real people. Spending caps are only a partial solution.
ReplyDeleteDred
Your definition of "harm?" We're supposed to go by that.
ReplyDelete'K - just make it fair, no donations by ANY businesses, corporate or not. period.
No Los Bagels. No Holly Yashi, No Healthsport.
And make sure, NO Orgs, No Unions. No Humboldt Watershed Council, No Alliance for Ethical Business, No CREG. No Local Solutions.
Just people. Individuals.
Period.
Measure T was designed to hogtie any opposition to the Orgs, the activists, while allowing free rein to the unregulated Orgs and the Unions.
I say again - we do not need reform like that. A bunch of guys sitting around at the Pancake breakfast cooking up ideas to increase their power and suit their view of the world - given credence by the press who only post the press releases, and do not examine the content.
No Los Bagels? No Holly Yashi? What harm are they doing? You seem to have something against local Orgs and activists. Unions? If they aren't local then let their members become activists and join Orgs.
ReplyDeleteDred
Measure T was cloaked as campaign finance reform, but was only special interest advocacy using strapped local government legal fees.
ReplyDeleteReasonable people can disagree on what campaign finance reform should be, but it would be refreshing to at least try to do something more substantive.
Personally, I favor caps applied across the board, not unlike Arcata's but perhaps a little higher.
However, even caps wouldn't preclude workarounds such as 527-like advocacy groups. But should this stop us from trying?
Local 527s if locally funded would reflect the concerns, values, and wishes of local constituencies. Even caps wouldn't preclude workarounds from moneyed non-local corporations.
ReplyDeleteDred
No Los Bagels? No Holly Yashi? What harm are they doing?
ReplyDeleteNo harm. The point is, though, that you level the playing field entirely, no value judgements, this is a good business (by whose standards?) this is a bad one (again, by whose standards?)
Just say no.
Oh! But, I think a level playing field is a good thing. Ain't it?
ReplyDeleteDred
Glad you agree!
ReplyDeleteJust make it fair, no donations by ANY businesses, corporate or not. period.
No Los Bagels. No Holly Yashi, No Healthsport.
And make sure, NO Orgs, No Unions. No Humboldt Watershed Council, No Alliance for Ethical Business, No CREG. No Local Solutions.
Just people. Individuals.
Period.
Level playing field.
In Arcata with a $170 limit, candidates were able to get the word out for under $5,000. And around the same amount of votes were cast in Arcata and Eureka. I believe the same cap would bring sanity to Eureka City Council races. Cap spending at $10,000.
ReplyDeleteNeed I point out the Kerrigan & Bohn race a few years back. The both spent around $100,000 each!
While candidates can choose to cap spending in exchange for a certain level of public financing under some lawful finance systems, hard caps on campaign spending imposed by the government have been shown not to withstand court muster (although those were tougher cases, not the slam-dunk ditzy stupidity Measure T was).
ReplyDeleteThat's why Greg Allen, Chris Crawford and now, evidently, Jeff Leonard, are all promoting reasonable campaign contribution caps on the Arcata model. Arcata's law has been with us for almost 20 years, and is based on other laws down south which have long withstood court challenge...not to mention the cap on presidential candidate contributions, which is virtually the only part of federal campaign finance law to survive the mess of the last few years.
Measure T legal ignoramuses made so many erroneous statements regarding state law and federal constitutional protections. But perhaps none of these were quite so stupid as the claim that some county ordinance would have forced Arcata or Eureka to do a damned thing. Measure T no more applied to city elections then Arcata's contribution cap law applied to Mark, Bryan and Paul's race for Supevisor earlier this year in the Arcata area -- it was a county election where city-based rules don't apply.
Eureka moving forward with an Arcata model is fantastic, and probably has the votes on the council between Leonard, Glass and Atkins.
The County isn't going to be so easy since the Supes are too invested in the big money game to help themselves (especially Neely and Geist facing re-election, and Clif & Mark swimming in Loco Solutions bucks) -- there'd probably have to be a summer ballot drive to get the 15% required to force a special election to coincide with the Harbor District/School Board races in Nov. 2009. Otherwise, no new County law would have any impact on the 4th and 5th Dist. races, or Paul's big showdown for DA in 2010 against a well known former prosecutor.
But wait a minute. What about Humboldt Watershed Council and other Orgs that organize to protect local environments from rapacious outside forces that influence locally elected officials by other means than campaign donations? What if these rapacious entities also influence state agencies at the same time with political donations?
ReplyDeleteWell, Richard, why don't you tell us how you mount a serious campaign when you cannot afford ad space and time, mailers, signs etc....
ReplyDeleteHow many ads can a candidate buy for ten grand? A few in the TS, a week's worhta radio and TV, maybe?
In a County race, Richard, you need more than just the TS, you need the Arcata Eye, the Journal, The McKinleyville Press, The Independent, the Beacon, The Redwood Times, The Ferndale Enterprise... and more...
You need radio, and not just on one station, you need a broad spectrum...
Then there's TV, two or three 'local' stations plus cable... then there's direct mail, walking pieces... etc...
...and in this market you don't even have the added expenses of campaign managers and campaign staff...
What is it you are capping?
And aren't you ensuring that then only wealthy people, who can finance their own campaign, can run?
OK, so you want to buckle that down, too, restrict restrict restrict restrict, all out of fear.
Fear of what?
The big money has not prevailed here.
The big money did prevail in the Lovelace-Plumley-Pitino race, Rose. And it will certainly prevail for Gallegos again unless something is done.
ReplyDeleteWhat, corporate sponsorship?
ReplyDeleteDred
Rose: You can run a supervisor campaign for under $25,000. You just need to spend the money wisely. I came close twice at under $15,000 and did not accept any corporate dollars. Another ten grand and my campaign would may have won.
ReplyDeleteThat was for a Primary election Richard. Had you won, you would have then had to spend, at minimum another $15,000.
ReplyDeleteIt can be done, yes. Jill did it last round. (And without any involvement by any apologetic special interest whackos)
But, a challenger has a much tougher go, and will need to spend more. What for? What are the ads for? What is the money for?
It's for getting your message out, Richard, acquainting people with your name, letting them know who you are and what you are about. You can walk every single house in your District, or you can try to reach more people faster with ads. You can do both, of course.
Or, maybe you'll get lucky, and have the media in the tank for you, and all the news coverage about your can be about how you are the chosen one - but hey, that never happens...
if you want to and can, raise $100,000, why should anyone stand in the way? They're basically interfering with your ability to communicate with the voters in your District, making it a free speech issue.
If the Local Solutions folks are against you, you may need more, and should you be prevented from raising what you need to overcome their edge? - 'course the alternative is, you get in with them - but that then is a whole 'nuther issue isn't it?
Rose: Good points! Can't argue with you, and yes, I am from the outside looking in.
ReplyDeleteDUHC=Karl Rove! Dave Kirby had a great comment today over at SoHum that made this point. He said anything else from Democracy Unlimited would go in the round file. I sure hope he includes Local Solutions and the Humboldt Green Party on that auto-recycle list, since it's all the same group at this point.
ReplyDeleteIf you can believe it, the Greens refused to endorse a Green for Arcata Council because he wasn't hardline pro-Measure T, so we can see a real pattern with this Stalinist purge of theirs continuing for years now.
dave kirby said...
ReplyDeleteI for one was put off by democracy unlimited sending me two "oaths" to sign regarding funding my campaign. First of all I don't know or care who democracy unlimited is and secondly I didn't raise a dime to spend on my campaign, which may be why I lost. I was told that if I didn't sign them my name would be published in an ad showing I didn't support measure t. My answer to democracy unlimited is screw you and your lame attempt at political extortion. I don't know who you think you are but anymore spam from you will end up in the round file with the previous mailing. This shit smacks more of Karl Rove than progressive politics.
Wed Nov 12, 07:38:00 AM