Associated Press wrote a article indicating that the proponents against 695 are spending over $2 million to fight the intiative. My question is where the money is coming from? Is it our own Washington State Fund, or is it individual companies contributions? If its individual companies thats OK, but if its from the State in order to save future losses from this intiative passing, theres a big problem boiling. That is our tax dollars! And it would not be right to have our tax dollars fight a proposition. Who is truely funding the campaign against 695?

-- Mr. Bill (bspencer@kalama.com), October 11, 1999

Answers

"If its individual companies thats OK, " I don't know that I agree with that.

One of them was Boeing. I'm a Boeing stockholder (not much, I'll admit, but a few shares, maybe enough for a taxi light on a 777). No one asked me if it was OK to use Boeing money on this. But we have a law called the paycheck protection act that is supposed to protect union members from having their money spent on a cause they don't support. What's good for the goose, should be good for the gander, so to speak.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 11, 1999.

Craig,

Its no insult acknowledge wheather its ok or not for companies to pay for campaign issues. But its definitly a insult if our tax dollars are being used against us. I think we both agree that its about time we gain control of our tax future. As far as Boeing is concerned, its only their best interest to fight this proposition. Its too bad you don't have enough interest to sway their thinking. Maybe if you don't agree with their political views you should sell your stock and get out. My agruement is simple, we should not have any government funds pay for a fight against a proposition such as 695. I am glad you share the same interest in this proposition, and I hope it passes.

-- Mr. Bill (bspencer@kalama.com), October 11, 1999.

Mr Bill--

A listing of the donors who've given more than $500 to the no695 campaign is found:

here.

I chose the $500 amount relatively arbitrarily, but this account for most of the donors both $$$-wise and numerically. The list is current as of 10/5/99.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 11, 1999.

The Public Disclosure Commission would be very interested if any campaign money for or against any ballot issue, came from a public agency. Employees can contribute, and associations often raise non- tax money sufficient to assure that any contributions can not be attributed to tax revenue. The short answer is, campaigning for or against I-695 with tax money is illegal.

As for corporate money, here Craig points out the problem with the thinking that is behind section 2 of the initiative. He expects Boeing to get agreement from stockholders before it takes any political action for its own defense. Permission from everyone will never work. Even waiting for a vote of the stockholders is unreasonable. You hire a management group and elect a Board, and they are delegated the authority to make some decisions, and you can't expect to agree with all of them. The President of the Board doesn't agree with all of them, but somehow Boeing keeps building planes and making money. If they had to vote on everything, they would probably do neither for very long.

Section 2 of the initiative is like requiring a vote of the stockholders, whenever Boeing wants to increase the price of optional equipment on a 737. Instead of wasting corporate time and money, that will waste public time and money.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 11, 1999.

Mr. Bill--

In some ways, I think the huge number of $$$ spent by the no695 camp is in our favor. Even if I-695 doesn't pass, they've spent a significant number of $$$ defending against the initiative. In some ways, I think it would be better if the poll numbers weren't as good as they are. If the race appeared closer, some donors would be more likely to dig even deeper into the campaign finance pocket and have fewer $$$ available for future lobbying efforts. Furthermore, closer poll numbers would help ensure all the I-695 supporters show up on November 2nd.

WRT public money funding the no campaign, I don't think anyone is that stupid. On the other hand, I expect a large number of hours have been spent informally helping (probably being quite careful to nudge the line w/o going over) the no campaign.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 11, 1999.

db--"Section 2 of the initiative is like requiring a vote of the stockholders, whenever Boeing wants to increase the price of optional equipment on a 737. Instead of wasting corporate time and money, that will waste public time and money."

After reading this analogy, I came to the conclusion it really doesn't fit. The analogy is broken because the customer (payee) is *not* the same "person" as the shareholder. A more apropriate analogy would have Boeing asking its *customers* to vote on price increases. In effect, since Airbus is a true competitor, this "voting" already occurs.

FWIW, another fitting analogy would involve asking shareholders to vote on whether to issue further shares of stock. I've no idea if this ever happens????

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 12, 1999.