Antone's Nightclub
Another Take on Clarke Funding
RECEIVED Fri., May 27, 2005
Dear Editor,
I was quite unhappy with the treatment given to the $91,000 that Margot Clarke will receive for the run-off campaign. In "Headlines," May 20, [News] you wrote, "But the funds are not taken from taxpayers, but from lobbyist and candidate fees to which she is entitled for abiding by city Fair Campaign Finance rules." This sentence contains two pieces of information, both wrong.
Clarke is not receiving money for abiding by rules. She was definitely not required to abide by the rules and it is my impression that she did not. She is being rewarded for agreeing to abide by the spending limit rules if each and every one of her opponents did so. As she has admitted that she knew that some of her opponents would not agree, she is actually being rewarded for making an offer that she knew would never be accepted.
Yes, she is entitled to the money, but not for doing anything wonderful. What we should be asking is whether we like the result. A spending cap in this race would clearly have favored the candidate with the highest name ID, i.e., Clarke - especially since Dealey and Kim had their own money and Knaupe had the most well-heeled supporters. Rewarding a candidate who agrees to rules that favor her is kind of bizarre, don't you think? It is a bad law.
Finally, this is taxpayer money. Making lobbyists pay fees to create a campaign finance fund that I'm sure they don't even want is called taxing them. There are fees, e.g., car registration and state park admissions, but just calling something a fee doesn't make it a fee.
I was quite unhappy with the treatment given to the $91,000 that Margot Clarke will receive for the run-off campaign. In "Headlines," May 20, [News] you wrote, "But the funds are not taken from taxpayers, but from lobbyist and candidate fees to which she is entitled for abiding by city Fair Campaign Finance rules." This sentence contains two pieces of information, both wrong.
Clarke is not receiving money for abiding by rules. She was definitely not required to abide by the rules and it is my impression that she did not. She is being rewarded for agreeing to abide by the spending limit rules if each and every one of her opponents did so. As she has admitted that she knew that some of her opponents would not agree, she is actually being rewarded for making an offer that she knew would never be accepted.
Yes, she is entitled to the money, but not for doing anything wonderful. What we should be asking is whether we like the result. A spending cap in this race would clearly have favored the candidate with the highest name ID, i.e., Clarke - especially since Dealey and Kim had their own money and Knaupe had the most well-heeled supporters. Rewarding a candidate who agrees to rules that favor her is kind of bizarre, don't you think? It is a bad law.
Finally, this is taxpayer money. Making lobbyists pay fees to create a campaign finance fund that I'm sure they don't even want is called taxing them. There are fees, e.g., car registration and state park admissions, but just calling something a fee doesn't make it a fee.
Raymond Heitmann
[News Editor Michael King replies: Mr. Heitman disagrees with our interpretation of the campaign finance ordinance, and the law itself, as is his right, but that doesn't mean the information we reported is incorrect. We stand by our story.]