We're Slugging It Out
(I was going to post on this yesterday, but the Eureka reporter didn't have their web page updated until later in the day so I gave up on it.)
I'll have to admit to being somewhat surprised at seeing the headline in yesterday's Eureka Reporter: Measure T Groups Duke It Out, in big letters across the front page. Made it look like things are really picking up in this fight. I suppose they are.
We then read of the same stuff coming from the Measure T proponents that we've read before:
Kaitlin Sopoci- Belknap refers to some supposed skullduggery in the Flemming campaign for 4th District Supervisor, where someone used some corporate loophole to get around the voluntary $500 contribution limit. She's quoted as saying:
“Measure T is about asserting our community’s right to define itself. Is the NOT campaign really opposing Humboldt citizens’ right to do that?”
Funny to hear that from the same people who's District Attorney candidate has taken his biggest contributions, so far, from out of the area. I know, we'll be hearing from the Measure T folks, "What's wrong with that? It's not corporate money".
So what? Isn't the theme of Measure T supposed to be Vote Local Control?
Kaitlin then goes on to say, “After looking at the changes NOT made to their Web site over the weekend, it is obvious that they intend to run a dirty campaign that misrepresents the truth. They are not the kind of people we trust to enter into deals with.”
Excuse me? Kaitlin, I'm hurt. What changes did I make to the web site over the weekend that misrepresents the truth?
Towards the end the article quotes Kaitlin: “We will stand by our support for the idea of a contribution limit for Humboldt (County) elections, and once Measure T passes and our community is assured LOCAL CONTROL OF ELECTIONS, we would support any effort to pass a complementary law that will also limit campaign contributions,”.
What that means, is once they tweak the playing field to their advantage, THEN they might consider contribution limits. That, of course, after they've silenced a fairly sizeable chunk of their potential opposition and still allow their side to take contributions from unions and other special interest groups from across the country.
This is a troubling development, although actually it's been going on for some time. The most troubling thing is they see nothing wrong with trying to control political activity from one group while protecting their own. In fact, not only do they see nothing wrong with it, they defend it.
It must be because they know what's best for us.