How's that again?

[TravelGal]

We all come across this stuff. Here's the thread for it. Obfuscation 101.

In my city election ballot is Proposition H. Fairly well-named, I'd say. I quote:

Shall the Charter be amended to ...
2) build upon the city's voter-approved campaign trust fund, which provides limited public matching funds for qualified City candidates who agree to spending limits, by lifting the maximum balance in the fund while allowing the City Council by a two-thirds vote to not make the annual appropriation and temporarily transfer funds to meet City budgetary obligations in certain emergency conditions?

So whaddya think? Yea or nay? Snarky comments encouraged.

[devilmaster]

Wow, that took about 10 reads.... i'm sure there's a town lawyer proud of his language....

So let me guess.

This campaign trust fund was founded to help people run by matching campaign contributions to a candidate. This fund has an annual appropriation from the city budget.

So lets lay it out on the table. Who uses this fund? New candidates I'll bet.

So the old guard (established town councillors) is going to make it harder for new candidates. If you have a budget crunch (and lets be honest here, you can make a budget crunch) you stop the allocation to the fund and use the money to 'temporarily' shore up your budget deficit. Sorta how the Liberal Party in Canada years ago solved their deficit problems. They changed the rules so they could 'borrow' from the massive amount of money in Employment Insurance which wasn't allowed to be touched and was just sitting there.


Make it harder for new candidates to run against you while claiming its about 'balancing the budget'. As a former politician, I like their moxie.

[racer2c]

Wow, that took about 10 reads.... i'm sure there's a town lawyer proud of his language....



I'm glad I'm not the only only one. Thought for a second I've had too much to drink tonight. Although, I am having comprehension problems today...mph/degrees. :)

[Opposite Lock]

The proper response is:


I'm sorry, I have a cat.

:thumbup:

;) (with props to Paintergeek's Dad.)

[Indy]

Someone is trying to raid the kitty.

[SteveH]

The proper response is:



:thumbup:

;) (with props to Paintergeek's Dad.)

:rofl:

[Insomniac]

That seems dubious and vague.

1. They would like to remove the cap on the size of that fund.

I'd ask, if there is extra money to put into the fund to exceed the current balance, why not create a separate fund for what they want?

2. They want to be able to use the money "to meet City budgetary obligations in certain emergency conditions?"

What are those conditions?

In other words, as others have said, they want to empty out that account to pay for their benefits.

[Paintergeek]

:rofl:

Dad would be proud.

[Andrew Longman]

They want to raise the amount in the fund.

The fund is available to any qualified candidate (incumbent or otherwise) who agrees NOT to also raise and spend additional money above a certain limit for campaigning.

In exchange for raising the limit, it is telling voters that if the budget really needs it, by 2/3rd majority (presumably increasing the likelihood of bi-partisan support) the fund can be raided to pay regular bills rather than raise taxes.


Not know is why the fund limit needs to be raised.

Is it so low as to not be worth it for candidates to ask for it and accept the accompanying spending cap?

Is it so low that too few candidates are attracted to the race?

Is the gap between the available funds and the spending cap so great that it makes fund raising too important and/or time consuming?

Or do incumbents just want taxpayers to pay for more TV time to tell the public how cool a job they are doing?

[TravelGal]

I love you guys. :D Yes, you've nailed it. Indy most succinctly but the other actual explanations and ruminations were much appreciated to make sense out of it. I must say I adored the reply attributed to Paintergeek's dad. I'm going to try to remember that response.

As a reward for all your hard work, I'm going to post, in its entirely, Proposition M. Please read to the last phrase. And remember, this thread is for posting any verbiage anywhere that strikes you as nuts.

In order to fund general municipal services, including but not limited to such matters as police protection and crime suppression services, fire prevention and suppression services, park and recreation facilities, and general improvements throughout the City, shall a tax be authorized on marijuana collectives of $50 per $1000 of gross receipts recognizing that the sale of marijuana is illegal?

[Insomniac]

I love you guys. :D Yes, you've nailed it. Indy most succinctly but the other actual explanations and ruminations were much appreciated to make sense out of it. I must say I adored the reply attributed to Paintergeek's dad. I'm going to try to remember that response.

As a reward for all your hard work, I'm going to post, in its entirely, Proposition M. Please read to the last phrase. And remember, this thread is for posting any verbiage anywhere that strikes you as nuts.

In order to fund general municipal services, including but not limited to such matters as police protection and crime suppression services, fire prevention and suppression services, park and recreation facilities, and general improvements throughout the City, shall a tax be authorized on marijuana collectives of $50 per $1000 of gross receipts recognizing that the sale of marijuana is illegal?

A 5% tax to recognize something is illegal? So, break the law, no jail, just give us 5%? Or is this specifically for medical marijuana providers and dealers can't get in on the act? :)

[TravelGal]

A 5% tax to recognize something is illegal? So, break the law, no jail, just give us 5%? Or is this specifically for medical marijuana providers and dealers can't get in on the act? :)

There's the rub. The medical dealers are not illegal so what in the H is this all about? I mean, really.......... And we're supposed to vote on this stuff.

[cameraman]

It is a form of tax, just another method for raking in some cash while not filling the jail. Just fine the hell out of the potheads and let them go.

[TravelGal]

Post election update:

Prop H passed 77.57 to 22.43 %. They get to raise the limit and raid the fund. I'm sure the prop writers are very happy.

Prop M passed 59.34 to 40.66 %. Tax them potheads.