. . . to stop a measure that wants to help take special interest money out of politics.
OH, the irony.
You’d think they were fighting Video Lottery opponents!
 Read it all here.
 . . . to stop a measure that wants to help take special interest money out of politics.
OH, the irony.
You’d think they were fighting Video Lottery opponents!
 Read it all here.
It’s got my vote.
Even though I think it’ll be difficult to find too many contractors who don’t employ a legislator or their staff (we don’t exactly have a lot of people), it still makes sense. I just look at who benefits if it fails.
If you read the small print you will realize that is not against the law either. It’s simple really, you can’t donate to a politician and KNOWINGLY get a contract in return for that donation. That’s it. The key word is KNOWINGLY.
I see the Yes on 10 people are challenging the no on 10 people to reveal the source of their funds.
Is the SDCAC who is funding this going to do the same?
This really isn’t about funding, it’s about THE LIES the opponents are spreading. I agree there is some flaws in the measure, but nothing that cannot be smoothed out in court, but c’mon, the teacher in that TV commercial is spinning the truth. Like I said above, it only applies to people who KNOWINGLY expect something in return.
Spin, Spin, Spin.
Everyone knows why it scares the crap out of the parties, because they won’t be able to get their big contributors anymore. Why would they donate money to a politician that isn’t going to return them a favor?
We saw this at Monday Night’s SF city council meeting, Special interests donated a combined $15,800 to Litz, Brown and Jamison’s 2008 campaigns (mostly housing, development and realty) and guess how they voted?
As a Secular Humanist I have a hard time believing anything that Sibby supports can be a good thing for our government.
Sibby’s people probably think the same about me.
Funny.