Article Contributed on: 6/26/2009 11:30:09 PM
Gleeful incumbents are posting emails to me telling me how they have outwitted their enemies who said they couldn't raise funds and have accumulated an incredible war chest for the 2010 election, but also need a contribution from me.
I say, "Check out the public funding for campaigns initiative website at www.cleancampaignscolorado.com" I also say until I see an incumbent stake out a tough stance on a high profile issue and discuss it from their position of courage, the incumbent candidate will not gain anything asking me for money, and implying that receiving same would signify my support for their candidacy.
I also want candidates who may seem to be beholden to Gov. Bill Ritter, Jr., to vote as if they aren't. When he doesn't want a health care panel formed that will give support to positions of Single Payer medical billing reform, he reportedly promotes for a federal appointment the statehouse legislator who would cast the deciding vote. Result: the bill was found to be one vote short of passage so it was tabled. Why is Sen. Michael Bennet unwilling to cast a positive vote for the Employee Free Choice Act, which he would seem to have initially supported at the time of his appointment as senator by Gov. Ritter, but now does not support? Note, Gov. Ritter is opposed to it as well.
Will someone please offer Bill Ritter, Jr. the federal appointment he would so much desire before having to bid for re-election as governor? I don't think he wants to go through another gubernatorial campaign. He doesn't want to have to raise donations; I have the impression it is kind of difficult for him. He would rather be helped by those he appoints who will vote favorably his way and please those who then will be asked to support him for re-election. Gov Ritter has slots to fill from the Obama administration, which acts as if they owe him something, and he submits names, but not his own name.
It would appear his office is run like a Catholic charity - revenue comes in, none goes out for much in the way of services, and he expects favors to come his way, if his support is to be granted. Former IL Gov. Blagojevich, unlike Colorado's governor, was isolated from his aides and pointedly raised the discussion of favors being granted. Very grey area this! So, asking for campaign contributions is that difficult and dicey, and reflects a glare on capitalism.
By the way, not one Colorado lawmaker has been willing to sponsor public financing of campaigns in Colorado as a piece of legislation, although there is plenty of cyclical voting history from other states on the pros and cons of such public financing. It appears in Colorado, in order to put the matter before the voters, it will have to be brought as a ballot initiative - unless you want to talk to your representative about sponsoring it next year. You will also have to ante in $5 to $20 from your tax return as your share of public financing of campaigns in Colorado and maybe even a donation to a specific potential candidate to help them meet a required threshhold of signatures and donations.
Gov. Ritter has not returned the favor to organized labor for his election; and everyone has organized labor in their family history, so the slight is obvious. He would only slight organized labor if he thought he had other friends who could provide him more tools for re-election, or appointment.
For example, reportedly he did put together a rail commission ipso factor. Transportation is important in the west and such dreams should be discussed at this juncture, regardless of high profile other issues - because the Front Range is a barrier to through traffic west. Traffic must go north or south or around the Front Range. And so it does! Aurora is the new Gateway west, because all roads lead to this (almost) deadend of Denver except for the escape through the I70 corridor of horror. The Portal to Portal Highway will run from Canada to near San Antonio. A rail line needs to run north and south as well through the short grass prairie. Spurs ought to be sent off those lines sending traffic diagonally across the state and to the west and the residents of the state should be dictating where those spurs will run to suit themselves.
The conversation doesn't need to start with how much and from where cometh the funding. The conversation needs to start with what do the residents of Colorado want in this regard for what they like and need, and how does it emotionally deepen their roots in Colorado to advocate for certain types of transport routing now. What would be the nature of future Transportation and at what speed, and what would be the price tag for that and how can they pay for it. Yes, there is federal funding to be applied in this regard. The nation needs Colorado's initiative and input on the topic of Transporation in this place. It does not require thinking capitalistic incentive will give the effort short shrift, if it is brought to the people. If most of the issues in Colorado were solved by the people, capitalism as a concept wouldn't be highly valued. It might be defunct, in favor of various methods to achieve vested interest and a fair and balanced life.
Residents usually do not deem their needs include landscape decimation and over-taxing of resources, which seem to come to the fore when capitalistic interests are applied to issues. As to such issues as Medicare for all, protection of the public education learning experience, transportation, cheap utilities, mfg. and purchase of small hybrid vehicles and planning for dedicated roads for same, we would be well served acting as a proletariat willing to identify what we want in these regards and building for it, rather than trying to figure out if capitalism might allow us what we want, let alone whether Gov. Ritter and other candidates' agendas allow us our interests and goals within their own capitalistic interests.