- Patsy Green ~ $2,602 raised ($500:Women Winning, $500:Union, $200:DFL 45th)
- Tom Walsh ~ $1832 raised (DFL 45th:$200, DFL 43rd: $500, Union:$500
- Linda Johnson~ $1,054 raised (Union: $500, Private Couple: $200)
- Mark Bomchill < $750 raised (Union: $500)
- All others <$750 or not reported yet.
Maybe I should offer my Supervisor $500 because he is so nice... Maybe I'll get a bigger raise.
Here is CARE 281's take on it. Probably worth a read. CARE 281 RAS Board Election
Yes, their site is still apparently active.
11 comments:
John,
Thank you for pulling this information together from the existing reports available to date.
I would say that the FACTS speak for themselves. The four RFT ENDORSED candidates won with each receiving $500 from RFT. The non-RFT candidates all are under $750 each.
The post on the 281 CARE blog is right on the mark.
The BIG QUESTION is will the community do anything about it over the next two years? What do you think is the answer to how the community will reply?
I am thinking the existing board members should do some internal "Campaign Finance Reform".
"RAS board candidates are not allowed to accept campaign donations from RAS employees due to a perceived conflict of interest..."
Seems like a pretty common sense rule.
The union will probably still buy advertisement space for their endorsees, however at least they won't be giving the candidates anything directly. Remember, I believe the ads run in the SUN papers are not even included in these numbers... So the donations were significantly more.
Hmmm...all kinds of people and companies and organizations on all points on the political spectrum make contributions to candidates whom they believe will bring them benefit. Are we really so arrogant and provincial as to think our school district, or any school district, is unique in this regard? It's how our system works.
For better or worse, we have made the decision in our society to equate political contributions with free speech.
Over at the 281 Care blog, they ask, basically, where else are employees allowed to influence management decisions. The short answer to that is, a lot of places. But a broader question is more to the point. Where else are citizens allowed to influence voters? Only in places that have free elections.
I'll agree there is a problem here, but I can't think of a solution that's ultimately not worse, as in censorship.
Let it go. When an "alternative" candidate does win, there will be no doubt, i.e., will have a demonstrable mandate for change.
Since I approved of the Teacher's Union providing half the financing for the Vote YES campaign, I can definitely see your point.
The challenge here is that they are supplying 25% to 50% of an "individual" candidate's funds. Not 5% or less as you would see in other bigger races.
As for arrogant or provincial... I thought better local control was the primary benefit of local school districts. If special interests can buy elections at this level too. Maybe State control would be just as well and save a lot of money.
Here is the Conflict of Interest policy of the company I work for (modified for RAS):
"We must not engage in activities that create, or even appear to create, conflict between our personal interests and the interests of RAS. These situations arise where a personal interest or family or other relationship makes it difficult for an individual to represent the company fully and fairly. Conflicts of interest can arise in any part of RAS’s operations. The most serious conflicts of interest usually arise where an employee or former employee has authority to spend the company’s money, has authority to hire or engage a person outside the company, or has information that could be valuable to a person outside the company. A conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest very often arises where an employee is offered a gift, favor, or entertainment. While some of this activity is part of a normal business relationship, we do not accept gifts, favors, or entertainment that have a value greater than we could reasonably reciprocate or that obligate or appear to obligate us to act in any way contrary to the law, RAS business interests or RAS's ethical business practices."
It's pretty rigid, however as Roosevelt said: "Character, in the long run, is the decisive factor in the life of an individual and of nations alike"
If I were a candidate, I think using the business norms would show more character than using the current USA political norms. However you are correct that it is allowed and will probably go no further.
Though I am thinking of finding out what it would take to set up a G2A trust fund that could be used to finance opposing candidates. (ie fire w/ fire) Of course I would need to find people willing to donate. (ie have a special interest in who wins)
Any more thoughts?
R-Five,
I don't think that by not allowing direct contribution that this is CENSORSHIP. They can endorse candidates and make advertising, signs etc all on their dime and sponsored by them.
However, it would be shown that the Union or other organization was making the expenditure, not hidden in the Campaign Finance filings after the election.
Just some thoughts of quicker transparency? I would be open to others thoughts on this matter.
I love math:
Green - $1.03
Walsh - $0.66
Bomchill - $0.47
Johnson - $0.39
Brynteson - $0.37
That is amount of money spent per vote.
I included mine because I knew how much money I put into it. I figured Mark put some of his own money into it but less than the 750. I like math. I don't know what it means if anything, but its fun.
DJ
I voted for the candidates I did, because I saw them and the policies they represented as consistent with my interests, and not in conflict with them. The making of those kinds of decisions are what we do when we hold elections.
I think folks are far overestimating the actual impact of those relatively small donations. I think the results would have been identical even without any RFT donations.
A few yard signs aren't going to actually get new people voting in an off-year election. In my opinion, they're a reminder for engaged citizens to show up and vote for the candidates whose platforms/positions look solid, and who have done a good job of getting their face out in the community.
Anon,
Are yard signs, fliers and mailers(ie advertising) a key way that candidates get their face and name out into the community?
I personally received many fliers from Tom, Patsy and Linda. (and at least one mailer) It would be hard to forget their names in the polling booth.
Again I am more curious whether readers think candidates accepting money from employees they will negotiate with gives the "appearance of a conflict of interest..."? Since the appearance is what does the damage to credibility. Because we will never know what the Board Members are thinking as they negotiate.
Maybe RFT should just advertise that citizens get out to vote...
Post a Comment