The Moneyball/politics intersection

This is what the county commissioner election map looks like. Thanks to Jessie Palmer for compiling this info.
This is what the county commissioner election map looks like. Thanks to Jessie Palmer for compiling this info. Click on the map to see more of them from the 2014 election.
Republicans kept telling me before the election that low turnout was going to favor them in the 2014 election. I didn’t doubt that, though I wasn’t as willing to predict four incumbents getting unseated.

Once the election happened and I started asking why things turned out the way they did, all heckfire (We’re a family newspaper.) broke loose when I wrote a story that included turnout as a factor. Some Republicans seemed downright offended. I got a nice letter saying I should have mentioned discontent with President Barack Obama, and that is probably correct to some degree. But midterm elections almost always go against the sitting president. The last time one didn’t was 2002 in the post 9/11 flag-waving era that favored President George W. Bush. Before that it was 1998 after Republicans impeached President Bill Clinton.

Those two elections were freakish, because the last mid-term election that didn’t go against the president before 1998 was in 1934. The last second-term mid-term election that favored the president was in 1822, when James Monroe’s Democratic-Republican Party picked up 34 seats in the House while the Federalists lost eight. (The census upped the number of seats in Congress by 26.) Mid-term discontent with the incumbent president is a given, so much so that I likely just neglected to bring it up.

Another letter writer was not so kind, saying I was trying “to rationalize the landslide victory of the Republicans as merely a result of poor turnout.” He also wrote, “Any reasonable person would assume that changes in voter turn out would affect both parties.”

I would agree with the last sentence. It would affect both parties. And, in fact, my story pointed out other possible factors besides turnout, one of which I will reference later. But there is a reason the common perception is that low turnout, the perception that was repeated to me by Republicans before the election, is bad for Democrats. True, it’s not the only one. The mid-term elections are a case in point, because Republican presidents are hurt by them even in low-turnout years. In 2006 Bush lost 30 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

On Facebook I announced I would be diving deeper into the numbers to see if there was evidence to back up the theory that Democrats were more harmed by low turnout than Republicans. Mick Sheldon responded, “I am a numbers person also. I think it’s from liking baseball so much.”

I’m a baseball fan, too. So it gives me great joy to offer you this quote to prepare you for what I have found.

“Know what the difference between hitting .250 and .300 is? It’s 25 hits. Twenty-five hits in 500 at bats is 50 points, okay? There’s six months in a season, that’s about 25 weeks. That means if you get just one extra flare a week, just one, a gorp … you get a groundball, you get a groundball with eyes, you get a dying quail, just one more dying quail a week and you’re in Yankee Stadium.” — Crash Davis, Kevin Costner’s character in ‘Bull Durham’

When I dug into Kitsap County precinct data it showed me there was some evidence that turnout hurt Democrats, but not enough to be the sole factor. A word of warning: I am an amateur statistician. I invited people to tell me a better way to study this and that invitation is still open. First I’ll give you some stats, but after that we’ll refer to an expert on this stuff.

The first thing I tried to do was to characterize precincts by whether they leaned Democrat or Republican in 2012. Where more voters picked Obama and Jay Inslee for governor over Republican Mitt Romney for president and Rob McKenna for governor, those were Democratic precincts. I then compared the turnout numbers in those precincts from 2012 to 2014.

In red precincts, the ones that voted Republican two years ago, the turnout in 2014 was 66.85 percent what it was in 2012. In Democratic precincts the turnout was 65.76 percent.

That’s a difference of 1.09 percentage points, which I’ll agree doesn’t seem that significant. To arrive at just how much a difference it makes requires taking those percentage points and creating a multiplier that will get applied in a couple of ways. I see weaknesses with both ways. But hey, we’re kind of spitballing here.

One way is to apply the Democratic multiplier to both Democratic and Republican numbers in a race in Democratic precincts, then the Republican number to both party numbers in the GOP precincts. There is an easier way, but we’ll get to that in a moment.

Republican Ed Wolfe won his county commissioner election by 1,265 votes, but in the precincts I counted he won by 974. If you multiply using the formula I described earlier, he actually beats Democrat Linda Streissguth in those precincts by 1,316 votes.

The other and equally as imperfect way to do it is to just multiply Democratic totals by the Democratic multiplier and Republican numbers by the Republican multiplier. It doesn’t take a five-tool brainiac to figure out that will benefit Democrats. The question is by how much.
The answer is Wolfe wins by 892 votes instead of 974. The new numbers wouldn’t have made enough of a difference in the legislative or prosecutor races either. Again, turnout is a likely factor, but it’s not the only one.

Mark Smith, professor of political science at the University of Washington, said turnout is one of three factors and at least on a national level it’s clear who was turning out to vote made a difference. But the quality of candidates is huge. He said Republicans fielded good candidates nationally and Kitsap County Republican Party Chairman Chris Tibbs made that case locally.

Secondly, on the national scene the map favored Republicans, Smith said. Democrats won U.S. Senate seats in 2008 in traditionally Republican states. Those seats were likely to swing back to the red six years later. That tide will swing back, he predicted, in 2016 in states where Republicans won in traditionally blue states in 2010.

Where turnout is a factor traditionally is when you start dividing the electorate into different groups. In 2012 voters aged 18-29 made up somewhere around 19 percent of the electorate, according to exit poll data presented by the Washington Post. In 2014 they represented about 12 percent. Those voters favored Democrats over Republicans in congressional races 55 percent to 45 percent, according to New York Times data compiled by Edison Research. Black and Hispanic voters favored Democrats in large numbers in both elections, but their turnout was markedly reduced this year as well.

The Republican-Democrat percentages were reversed for voters aged 45-59, but those voters made up about 42 percent of the overall votes in 2014, compared to about 38 percent in 2012. Smith said the fact that older voters are more likely to vote in mid-terms should not necessarily be seen as a knock on younger voters. “The longer you’ve been participating in politics the more you understand the system,” he said. “When you don’t have as much experience with the political system you’re not as attached.”

Given time those younger voters will eventually buy homes, become less mobile and more stable. Whether they continue to vote Democratic is another question.

Finally, if you look at the New York Times data it is clear that there was a red tide that swept nearly every demographic. Even though the youngest voters favored Democrats by 10 points this year, that margin was 22 points in 2012. Assuming that trend played out locally as well, that would explain to a large degree the departure of four Democratic incumbents. Next election could be a whole new ballgame.

In the end of all this data mining and expert commentary we’re left with the same conclusion. It’s nearly indisputable that turnout was a factor. But it’s equally as unquestionable that the nationwide red tide and the quality of local candidates also played a role.

Two local House races watched by state for potential recount

The Washington Secretary of State’s office sent out notice it is tracking four elections for possible automatic recount. Two of them are local races, the House contest between Democrat Larry Seaquist and Republican Michelle Caldier in the 26th District. Seaquist is the incumbent, but late Tuesday Caldier led by 78 votes.

Democratic incumbent Kathy Haigh led Republican Dan Griffey in a 35th District House race by 223 votes.

To generate an automatic recount the margin must be less than 2,000 votes and less than a half-percentage point. The Seaquist-Caldier race fits well within than range. Caldier leads Seaquist with a 0.26 percentage point margin. The contest in the 35th does not, with Haigh holding a 0.68 percentage point edge.

The other races the state is watching is Initiative 1351 and a state House race in the 28th District. They are also keeping tabs on a race in the 17th and 44th District.

In county races the prosecutor contest is worth watching as well. Democrat Russ Hauge leads Republican Tina Robinson by 0.4 percentage points.

A manual recount could be ordered if the margin is any less than a 0.25 percentage point.

What to watch, then, will be how the late votes swing the contests. In the early years of all-mail-in voting late ballots favored Republicans decidedly. Those results have come close to evening out in the most recent years, however, and Kitsap Democrats expressed confidence Tuesday night that late votes will go their way. We’ll know a lot more around 5 p.m. when the county and state release the first day’s results of late-ballot counting.

Local politicos predict tonight’s results and political future

This afternoon I got to participate in an election-day tradition here in Kitsap County, a lunch organized by Gordon Walgren and Adele Ferguson. The Kitsap Sun has been excluded in the past because Ferguson wanted to write about it and wasn’t ever keen on getting beaten. She is not writing about the lunch for anyone now and when she was she was sending her columns by fax, so we would have had an edge after she stopped writing for the Sun.

There were 25 people in attendance, by my count, 11 I would identify as Democrats, including state Sen.Tim Sheldon. My guess was nine could be identified as Repbublican and there five I wouldn’t know how to ID. It was a pretty even mix.

Before they received their lunches they were asked to predict what would happen on election night. They were also asked to answer some other, perhaps more interesting, questions. Here are the questions and their answers.

What/who do you think will win in the following races.

I-1351 (Class sizes): yes 19, no 4
I-591 (Gun background checks matching federal rules): yes 6, no 16
I-594 (Expanding background checks): yes 19, no 4
Congress: Kilmer 22, McClendon 1
LD 23 House 1: Appleton 22, Henden 1
LD 23 House2: Hansen 20, Olsen 1
LD 26 Senate: Angel 21, Arbogast 2
LD 26 House 1: Schlicher 15, Young 7
LD 26 House 2: Seaquist 18, Caldier 5
LD 35 Senate: Sheldon 18, Bowling 5
LD 35 House 1: Haigh 17, Griffey 6
LD 35 House 2: MacEwen 15, Newton 7
County Commissioner 3: Streissguth 14, Wolfe 9
Assessor: Andrews 15, Cook 7
Auditor: Gilmore 22, Emerson 0
Clerk: Peterson 23, Chaney 0
Coroner: Sandstrom 21, Wallis 0
Prosecutor: Hauge 22, Robinson 1
District Court Judge 1: Bradley 18, Flood 5
Supreme Court Justice 4: Johnson 21, Yoon 1
Supreme Court Justice 7: Stephens 21, Scannell 0

They also predicted the U.S. Senate and House races, with numbers too varied to report. Generally they predicted a Republican takeover in the U.S. Senate.

You might find the following questions the most interesting.

Biggest local upset: Michelle Caldier (4), Irene Bowling (4), Tina Robinson (1), Tim Sheldon (1), Linda Streissguth (1), Ed Wolfe (1) Dan Griffey (1)
Biggest national upset: Mitch McConnell loses (2), Michelle Nunn wins (1), Democrats hold the U.S. Senate (1), Mary Landrieu (1), New Hampshire (1)
Local candidate with the most effective signs: Wolfe (3), Cook (3), Sheldon (3), Andrews (2), Emerson (1), Olsen (1), Kilmer (1) Bowling (1), Caldier (1), Appleton (1), Peterson (1)
Local candidate with the least effective signs: Streissguth (10), Olsen (5), Henden (2), Hauge (1)
Local candidate with the sleaziest campaign: Caldier (6), Seaquist (5), Henden (1), Bowling (3), Wolfe (1), Olsen (1)
Local candidate with the weirdest campaign: Chaney (5), Olsen (4), Caldier (2), Emerson (1), Henden (1)
Local candidate with the best campaign: Wolfe (4), Streissguth (3), Kilmer (2), Angel (1), Robinson (1), Sandstrom (1), Peterson (1), Hauge (1), Sheldon (1)
Local candidate with the worst campaign: Chaney (5), Olsen (5), Hauge (1), Wolfe (1), Streissguth (1)

Who will be the 2016 Democratic Presidential Nominee?: Clinton (20)
Who will be the 2016 Republican Presidential Nominee?: Jeb Bush (5),Romney (4), Chris Christie (2), Ted Cruz (2), Jon Huntsman (1), Rand Paul (1)

In 2016 who would you like to see run for what local office?: Rob Gelder-commissioner (1), Steve Gardner-county commissioner (1), Tony Stewart-coroner (1), Tony Otto-county commissioner (1), Dave Peterson-Bremerton Mayor (1), Chris Tibbs-County commissioner (1), Pat Ryan, County commissioner (1)
In 2016 who would you like to see run for what state office?: Walt Washington-state rep. (1), Chris Ryland-state legislator (1), Tim Sheldon-Lt. Gov. (1), Derek Kilmer-national senator after the ladies are retired (1), James Olsen-state rep (1), Rob McKenna-governor (1), Doña Keating-23rd House (1), Jay Inslee-governor (1), Howard Schulz-governor (1), Andy Hill-governor (1).

DC -based organization paints Tim Sheldon a deeper blue

Here Sheldon throws out the welcome mat for illegal aliens.
Here Sheldon throws out the welcome mat for illegal aliens.
In a year that has one newspaper referring to a candidate’s tactics as “sleaziness,” other candidates walking out of a debate, a county commissioner from elsewhere quitting her job there one week signing up to run for auditor here, not to mention a reporter being falsely accused of endorsing a candidate, I thought the 2014 election might have reach peak-unique.

Au contraire! I obviously don’t give the American political machinery enough credit for ingenuity and creativity. We may do a larger story for Tuesday, but I wanted to get this much out there sooner.

Voters in the 35th Legislative District are getting mailers praising state Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Potlatch, for his work in making it easier for “undocumented immigrants,” expanding federal health care reform and protecting reproductive freedom. Sheldon is running against another Democrat, Irene Bowling of Bremerton.

The ads’ claims about Sheldon are true, technically, because Sheldon said in a debate he is pro-choice, though he favors legislation that would require parents be notified if their minor daughters plan to have an abortion. He also voted for the Washington version of the Dream Act, what the Majority Coalition Caucus called the “Real Hope Act.” It allowed children of parents who came here illegally to receive in-state tuition in Washington colleges. And he voted for a budget that expanded Medicaid coverage, though he earlier voted against a bill implementing the Affordable Care Act.
The ads are paid for by American Values First, a Washington, DC-based organization described mostly on its own site as an outfit fighting voter suppression. It shares an address with the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee.

If you haven’t been paying attention, there are not many Democratic loyalists backing Sheldon. So why would this organization? If you believe the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, the ads are not trying to get Bowling backers to support Sheldon. They’re aimed at getting the 35th District’s conservative voters to sit out the election. You don’t get any nuance in the ads. What you do get is the flyover country’s Axis of Evil: Obamacare, Planned Parenthood and “a pathway to citizenship.”

“This is a dishonest and deceptive attempt to suppress Senator Sheldon’s support with Republican voters,” said Sen. Bruce Dammeier, Chair of the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, in a statement. “What’s even worse is the complete disregard for Washington State law by this dark money, unregistered political committee.”

I’ve called the Public Disclosure Commission to get clarity on the rules. The Republican group accuses American Values of several state infractions, but the organization claims to be in the right, legally. What’s more, it claims to be sincere in its support of Sheldon.

“American Values First is not a political committee, but rather a social welfare organization with a proven record of advocacy. American Values First agrees with Sen. Sheldon’s past votes seeking justice for immigrants, expansion of Obamacare, and women’s reproductive freedom. American Values First followed all applicable laws and filed all reports with the Public Disclosure Commission that are required of organizations of this type that sponsor such communications,” said Bill Burke in an emailed statement.

The organization linked to PDC reports showing it has spent just over $20,000 for direct mail ads in Washington.

We’ll update this when we have more information.

Goodbye to a father

The Inslee family had sad news today, news I have no doubt weighs heavily on the governor.

On Feb. 7, 2008 I saw then Congressman Jay Inslee campaign forcefully and effectively for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The next night, after a day of traveling from a Barack Obama campaign event at Key Arena to a John McCain rally at a downtown Seattle hotel, I boarded the Seattle-Bainbridge ferry. I was tired and it was Friday. The next day I would work the party caucuses, but this was downtime.

I hadn’t noticed that behind me on the boat sat Trudi Inslee, but I soon realized it as soon as I heard her husband’s distinctive voice. He was on the phone talking to someone about the last couple of days and he hadn’t noticed that he was talking within earshot of a reporter. His tone was animated. He was having fun, as if he were talking to a buddy. He had actually moved a few seats away on a fairly empty boat. I listened for hints of the rumors lots of people had shared, that maybe Clinton had a cabinet position for him if she won. No such luck, so I struck up a conversation with Trudi.

The congressman quit the conversation before reaching Bainbridge and he rejoined his wife. I joked with him about listening for rumors. He laughed along with the joke and told me he’d been talking to his dad. He seemed legitimately at peace. Since then I’ve only seen him or spoken to him in his official duties or campaigning, and his guard has never been down the way it was that night.

Over the next couple of years I talked to his staff about doing a story on the relationship between Inslee and his dad. But the economy had crashed and members of Congress were fighting town hall crowds over Obamacare. The 2010 election was rough and after that we took our time. Then Inslee quit to focus on a run for governor. We still considered the idea, even wondering if we could make it part of our election coverage in 2012. In the end it proved difficult. We gave up.

My interest in talking to Inslee and his dad was probably sparked by a development in my life. For more than five of the last seven years of his life my father lived with us in a house in the Illahee area. It wasn’t always an easy reality for our young family, because my dad, a former cop who also spent years coaching his three boys in the holy practice that is baseball, needed care from us. But even as the work grew harder I grew closer to my father, often pestering him to tell me stories about his childhood. We all knew the time could be fleeting and we did our best to enjoy it. My dad eventually became weak enough that we knew we could no longer provide him adequate care at home and he went to live in a local nursing home. We visited him often, but it will never seem like it was enough.

On election night, Nov. 7, 2012, the night Inslee would learn whether he had been elected governor, my father went into intensive care battling a lung infection that knocked him down. I watched the night’s election returns from Harrison Medical Center in Bremerton as my dad struggled to breathe. Four days later the infection would knock him out. He died on Veteran’s Day.

There isn’t a lot I have in common with Jay Inslee. He’s taller, better looking, is a basketball guy, was born and raised here and has always had a better-paying job. I’m not saying I’d trade lives with him. I’m just pointing out the obvious before I acknowledge there is one thing that we share. I could tell from his conversation he had on the boat that night that he loved and respected his dad, just as much as I did mine. And today he misses his dad the way I miss mine.

I don’t think I’m shedding any objectivity in sending my condolences to the governor and his family.

His official news release follows:

Continue reading

ALEC returns as a campaign issue in the 26th

perryState Sen. Jan Angel, R-Port Orchard, is getting heat from her opponent regarding Angel’s involvement with the American Legislative Exchange Council. This is something we addressed in the 2013 election, but since this treads into matters of substance, it’s worth revisiting.

ALEC is a nationwide organization that goes to great efforts to get conservative policies enacted in state legislatures. Angel is a conservative and has been affiliated with the organization for some time. She has never really denied that, but when she wrote the Facebook post you see pictured on the left here, she never let on that Rick Perry, Texas governor and one-time candidate for president who recalled two of the three agencies he planned to eliminate, was speaking at an ALEC conference when she snapped his picture and gushed, “what a champion!”

At its core the question that seems worth asking is whether Angel or Arbogast better represent the values of the 26th District, and Angel’s affiliation with ALEC could be evidence to support whatever conclusion you make. Instead much of the debate centers on whether legislators should be sponsoring what are called “model bills.” A model bill is one written in one place and used either verbatim or as a template in several states.

Some of ALEC’s model legislation would ban states from prohibiting insurance companies from using credit scores to deny or charge more for coverage, is tough on minimum wage standards, goes after Obamacare and would limit how much a state could require electric utilities to provide a certain percentage of its energy from clean energy sources.

Those are some examples. You can go to alec.org and alecexposed.org to get a bigger picture.

This issue arises from the following exchange that took place in the Oct. 7 Bremerton Area Chamber of Commerce Eggs & Issues forum between Angel and Democrat Judy Arbogast.

Question: Can ALEC really write laws that best serve a state as diverse as Washington, and if yes, how?

Arbogast: Absolutely not. ALEC provides ready-made legislation for every state and that’s the biggest problem. It’s also backed by big corporations, not the people who are trying to actually solve the problems. People who know me know that I’ve been very opposed to ALEC since I first heard about it. I certainly know that it’s not good for the people. That’s why any bills that I propose will come from the people themselves, They will not be premade as some of the bills have been presented by my opponent.

Angel: Your opponent has never offered an ALEC bill that I’m aware of, (And at this point you can hear people laughing at the statement) the only ALEC bill, seriously, the only ALEC bill that’s come to the Legislature actually came through your governor, Gov. Inslee, And I want to talk, I’m so glad this question came up, because ALEC stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council. I belong to that. The mission statement is free market and individual liberties. I am proud to stand for that. I make no apology and I actually question anyone that would question those values. As far as model legislation, we sit on task force, which I am proud to sit on Economic Development, Commerce and Insurance. That task force works on issues nationally. The last task force meeting I attended we worked on national catastrophes like the slide that we just had, how did that affect everybody ’s insurance premiums. Now if a model bill is written it is up to the legislature whether they take it back to their state. And if the state House and Senate pass it and the governor signs it, maybe it’s a good bill.

We’ll dissect those arguments later, but following the debate and after my story was written, Samara Ressler, campaign manager for Arbogast, sent me an email titled “Forum Clarification.” She then provided a list of three bills Angel co-sponsored Ressler said come from ALEC model bills. They are Senate Bills 6300 and 6307 during the 2014 session and House Bill 1804 in 2011.

SB 6300 would have required more unions to increase financial reporting requirements and does seem to have much the same language as ALEC’s model legislation, “Union Financial Responsibility Act.” SB 6307 prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting minimum wage requirements higher than the state’s. It is much the same as ALEC’s “Living Wage Mandate Preemption Act.”

The House Bill 1804 in 2011 would have prevented the state from spending any money to implement Obamacare. At the time the justification was the health care reform measure was still making its way through constitutional challenges. Supporters said they didn’t want to burden the state with efforts for a program that could become moot. I don’t see ALEC’s direct fingerprint on this bill, but it’s old enough that it might have just disappeared from the organization’s website. And ALEC wrote a lot of legislation aimed at weakening health care reform, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility this started with ALEC.

This gets to the core issue. Whether the bill was an ALEC model or not, it would have limited the impact of federal health care reform efforts. What is the more important factor to you?

When we addressed this similar question in 2013, we pointed out that lots of organizations write model bills. ALEC might do it the most, but several organizations do it. Legislators don’t write many of the bills they propose. They are written by lobbyists, lawyers and others who have an interest. And I’m willing to bet that when legislators do write their own bills, they get lots of help.

This is not to say that finding out whether a bill is a model bill is unimportant. An organization like ALEC has a specific mission and won’t typically write legislation that doesn’t forward that mission.

So let’s break down the forum comments.

Arbogast: ALEC provides ready-made legislation for every state and that’s the biggest problem.

“Model” legislation is a “problem” in the sense that it could be trying to solve a problem no one was aware anyone had. Beyond that, though, you have to give the Legislature enough credit that it will tackle issues it deems important. If a model bill, tweaked to reflect what’s needed in legislative language in Washington, addresses an issue enough legislators think is worthy of attention, the bill can make it to the governor’s desk.

Arbogast: People who know me know that I’ve been very opposed to ALEC since I first heard about it. I certainly know that it’s not good for the people.

This is the values statement that would seem to be the more important issue.

Arbogast: That’s why any bills that I propose will come from the people themselves, They will not be premade as some of the bills have been presented by my opponent.
Angel: Your opponent has never offered an ALEC bill that I’m aware of.

If Arbogast wins I suspect some on the right will watch the bills she sponsors to see if there’s anything else out there that’s similar to trace a bill at its roots. It might be a model bill from an organization on the left.
Angel’s claim that she never offered an ALEC bill rests on whether you think “offered” means she was the prime sponsor. We showed that she co-sponsored bills using ALEC bills as models, but she has not been prime.

Angel: The only ALEC bill that’s come to the Legislature actually came through your governor, Gov. Inslee.

We did address that claim last year and there is some dispute. The governor’s office said its bill dealing with one aspect of climate change did not come from an ALEC model, but a spokesman for the Washington Policy Center said that it did. Angel is off in saying the “only ALEC bill” unless what she meant by “come through to the Legislature” was “passed the Legislature.” Otherwise, her co-sponsorship of two ALEC-based bills seems to negate her statement.

Angel: ALEC stands for the American Legislative Exchange Council. I belong to that. The mission statement is free market and individual liberties. I am proud to stand for that. I make no apology and I actually question anyone that would question those values.

When Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Bershire Hathaway Energy, Intel, Bank of America, etc. decided to stop participating with ALEC I doubt any of them were troubled with the concept of free markets or individual liberties. Google’s Eric Schmidt was especially harsh answering a question from a caller to the Diane Rehm show:

Kristen: I’m curious to know if Google is still supporting ALEC, which is that fund lobbyist in D.C. that are funding climate change deniers.
Schmidt: We funded them as part of a political game for something unrelated. I think the consensus within the company was that that was sort of a mistake. And so we’re trying to not do that in the future.
Rehm: And how did you get involved with them in the first place? And were you then disappointed in what you saw?
Schmidt: Well, the company has a very strong view that we should make decisions in politics based on facts. What a shock. And the facts of climate change are not in question anymore. Everyone understands climate change is occurring. And the people who oppose it are really hurting our children and our grandchildren and making the world a much worse place. And so we should not be aligned with such people. They’re just literally lying.

I’m guessing Angel would differ with Schmidt on that.

Inslee stumps for Bowling

Just kidding. You're not really invited.
Just kidding. You’re not really invited.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee was scheduled to be in town on Sunday for a campaign fundraiser for 35th Legislative District Senate candidate Irene Bowling, a Democrat.

We asked permission to go, but were informed the event at the Rice Fergus Miller building in Bremerton was closed to the press, not unusual for a fundraiser. We were disappointed, though, because we had an invitation. It was sent to us via Twitter from the 35th Legislative District Democrats. We should have been suspicious, though, because Twitter is unreliable. Remember, it was on Twitter that we first read that Dewey defeated Truman.

Suggested contributions for the fundraiser ranged from $50 for the “guest” level to $500 to be considered a “host.” While “guest” sounds right for me, $50 does not.

Inslee’s presence demonstrates his interest in seeing the state Senate taken back by Democrats, and Bowling’s race is against Tim Sheldon, a Democrat. Let me explain. He is a Democrat, but caucuses as a Republican, a reality that demands two weeks’ time for Washington State Civics teachers. In English class it makes for a complicated sentence diagram with lots of subservient clauses and semicolons.

Inslee wants Democrats in the Senate because he has big ambitions to tackle carbon emissions and would like the 2015 Legislature to cooperate. If Republicans are in charge of one of the chambers he fears his proposal will be as popular as a Richard Sherman biography at Crabtree and Evelyn. (They sell books, right?)

To get a Democratic majority Inslee is being aided by California billionaire Tom Steyer, who this week dropped $1 million into a committee, NextGen Climate Action Committee-Washington Sponsored by Tom Steyer. Steyer’s organization followed that with a news release saying it will target 25 percent of the voters in Washington. He’s doing the same in Oregon.

So far the committee hasn’t spent any real money, but this is what the news release said about Washington:

NextGen Climate will focus on races where there is an opportunity to discuss climate issues with voters, including, but not limited to supporting Tami Green in the 28th Senate District and Matt Isenhower in the 45th Senate District.

Whether any Steyer money finds its way to the 35th depends on party polling, which will reveal whether voters in the district are bucking the common assumption that voters who picked Republican Travis Couture in the primary will mostly side with Sheldon in the general election, since Couture was eliminated from the race. Sheldon thinks he’ll pick up most of Couture’s voters because he is more conservative. Bowling believes she will get most of the Couture voters, in some part because she is not Tim Sheldon.

An earlier $250,000 contribution to an independent committee set up to campaign for Bowling made some think there were signs Bowling could beat Sheldon. That changed when $225,000 was returned, leaving some to wonder what the polling says now.

As of Friday Bowling had raised about $150,000 and still had about $55,000 of that unspent. Sheldon has raised more, about $290,000, and has about $100,000 left to spend. A word or two from the governor might close the gap at least a little.

Targeting some claims on Initiative 594

James Olsen, candidate for Legislature in the 23rd Legislative District, challenged me to fact check one of his videos. Actually, he suggested two of them, but I’ve already addressed one and don’t believe it merits more attention. Mr. Olsen disagrees with me. That’s all I have to say about that.

The Olsen video I will address is his attempt to take down Initiative 594, which extends the rules for existing background check requirements for federally licensed gun dealers to gun shows and transactions between private individuals. It also has some restrictions about temporary transfers.

If you don’t like the message on Olsen’s video, available on YouTube, you have to enjoy the Golden Earring song “Twilight Zone” that provides the soundtrack. Band members might not agree with Olsen, but I’m sure they appreciate the attention. We could start a pool to find out whether and when a Content ID claim will mute the entire video.

Continue reading

Steyer drops a million in Washington

Tom Steyer. Photo courtesy of the NextGen Climate website.
Tom Steyer. Photo courtesy of the NextGen Climate website.

Tom Steyer, a California investor who made billions and is now spending much of it on political races, dropped $1 million into the committee he established in Washington to fund races here. His committee, the Nextgen Climate Action Committee-Washington Sponsored by Tom Steyer, now has the second most political contributions this year. Only the Washington Education Association Political Action Committee has more money at this point.

Steyer’s Washington committee (“NextGen” means “next generation.”) has yet to spend any money, but the DC arm of Nextgen has, giving $50,000 each to the Kennedy Fund and the Harry Truman Fund. The Kennedy Fund is for state Senate Democratic efforts and the Harry Truman Fund is for House Democrats.

If any of Steyer’s money were to make it any of our local races the most likely target would be the race between two Democrats, state Sen. Tim Sheldon and Irene Bowling. In an earlier post we referenced a New York Times piece that made the case that Steyer money would likely go to Senate races. Republican Jan Angel’s near 14-point margin in the 26th over Democrat Judy Arbogast in the primary might seem insurmountable for those passing money around. The 35th District race between Sheldon and Bowling would seem to favor Sheldon, but it’s less clear than what happened in the 26th. Steyer wants to see the Senate go Democrat (Bowling Democrat, not Sheldon Democrat) so that Gov. Jay Inslee’s climate agenda would have an easier time getting through the Legislature.

State Sen. Jan Angel, in Nov. 2013, moments after she learned she would likely defeat Nathan Schlicher for a seat in the state Senate.
State Sen. Jan Angel, in Nov. 2013, moments after she learned she would likely defeat Nathan Schlicher for a seat in the state Senate.

During the 2013 election between Angel and Democrat Nathan Schlicher, Angel made the case Democrats have made about the Koch brothers, that he was trying to buy the election. She also questioned his environmental cred, referring to stories that he stood to benefit financially if the Keystone Pipeline project were killed, because he was an investor in another pipeline. That same claim is happening in Iowa, thanks to an American Crossroads ad. Politifact called that claim mostly false. Let’s be clear, it’s mostly false this year, because Steyer’s firm just recently got rid of its fossil fuel money sources.Last year the argument had some legs, even though Steyer had already directed his company to divest from the Kinder Morgan pipeline and other fossil fuel money.

Finally, this also gets to the anonymity question we posed a couple weeks back. Some think political contributions should all be anonymous, because it would mean those spending money could not hold their contributions over a politician’s head. The counter to that argument is because we require transparency in some situations we can make easier links between money and favors.

It’s probably not a huge surprise to you for me to admit that I lean toward more transparency. I see the point of those who want complete anonymity. And I might even one day be persuaded that it’s better. But I think knowing your contribution will be revealed to everyone has the potential of making you more cautious about who you spend money on. And it sets you up as a target. Think what you will of Tom Steyer. On Sept. 18 his committee changed its name to add “sponsored by Tom Steyer.” That’s how it was spelled out last year as well, so I had been curious earlier why his name wasn’t on it originally this year. In most cases we have to go several layers to find out where money is coming from. In state politics a name is usually eventually discoverable. They make you work for it, but you can get to it.

Tom Steyer makes it easy for you.

Cantwell tells NFL, ‘Keep the name, lose the tax break’

U.S. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash. introduced legislation to revoke the NFL’s tax exempt status. I’ll just let you read the press release, but one of her comments, “a dictionary-defined racial slur,” struck me. So I checked it out. Turns out, she’s right, as you can see in the picture.

slur

The press release follows:

Continue reading

Kilmer’s ‘Save to Win’ bill passes House test

In the not-too-distant future your bank might begin offering you an opportunity to win a few bucks, or a few thousand. You will be getting those chances just by saving money, something nearly anyone who has ever even heard of money will tell you that you should be doing anyway.

U.S. Reps. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor, and Tom Cotton, R-Ark., introduced the ‘Save to Win’ legislation nearly a year ago. On Monday it passed the House by voice vote. A companion bill awaits consideration in the Senate.

The basic idea is this: The more you deposit into savings the higher chance you get of winning a nice monthly prize and a significant annual prize. In Washington the monthly prize might be $50. The annual prize was $5,000 in 2013. And if you don’t win, you still keep the money you put into your savings account.

Arla Shephard detailed what’s happening in the state for the Kitsap Sun in April. One of the selling points of the program is it’s a lottery you can’t lose. You’re not going to collect $149 million, but let’s get real. Unless you are beyond astronomically lucky, you’re not going to get that by plunking down $2 for a Powerball ticket either. I’m not trying to dissuade you from playing the regular lottery, but it’s no secret that the most likely outcome from playing most lottery games is you pay $2 to hope for something miraculous. In some cases, it’s worth it.

Federally chartered financial institutions cannot offer a savings lottery now. In four states, including Washington, locally chartered credit unions can. Connection Credit Union of Silverdale and Peninsula Credit Union of Shelton participate. The other participants are Express, Fibre Federal, North Coast and TwinStar.

The idea has lots of support and the voice vote in the House suggests there isn’t a lot of opposition from politicians. But some will ask why isn’t saving its own reward. Why do we have to use a modified gambling mechanism to get people to save?

There is one study that shows having a system like a prize-linked savings account not only increases savings, some of the money low-income people invest in savings accounts comes from funds they used to use to buy lottery tickets. So in some cases people stop playing the lottery they almost can’t win in exchange for the one they almost can’t lose.

“Almost” in the second use is not an accident. One of the reasons some people speculate people don’t save more is because the interest rates are so bad that a dollar invested today is often worth less next year. But if you need $2,000 and the only option you have available to you is charging it on a credit card, that dollar becomes worth more. If you have it in savings and can use it in emergencies, you won’t lose 18 percent interest by plunking down plastic.

Others worry that as interest rates on borrowing start to go up again financial institutions will resist increasing rates on savings, opting to market their “prizes,” instead. That might be true. We won’t know until that day we’ve been saying for more than a decade is inevitable actually arrives. Either way, if the prizes increase savings, then that means less spending on credit. It could also prevent some people from having to move into their cars.

LD 26-2 puts on a side show, unless this is the main event we can expect from here on out

State Rep. Larry Seaquist, D-Gig Harbor, and his Republican challenger, Michelle Caldier of Port Orchard, engaged in two robust debates last week on the issues. One of the debates was in Bremerton on Tuesday. The other was in Gig Harbor on Thursday. They have at least three more forums scheduled before the election.

Before that they sat in the same room for an Aug. 29 meeting with the Kitsap Sun editorial board. In all those meetings they focused on issues one of them will try to tackle as a legislator in Olympia in 2015.

An incident after the editorial board meeting launched a side show that has picked up steam. Caldier said Seaquist is trying to intimidate her. Seaquist said Caldier’s allegations are false and that he is consulting with an attorney. Both say they want the escalation to stop.

For the Kitsap Sun meeting both candidates had driven their cars, with Caldier parking directly in front of Seaquist. After the meeting they separated to their cars and Seaquist took at least a couple of photos. Caldier said he did it as she was getting into her car. He said that is not true, that she was in the car when he snapped the shots.

This is the photo Seaquist provided. He said there is one other, but that it would look just like this one because the two shots he took were one right after the other.
This is the photo Seaquist provided. He said there is one other, but that it would look just like this one because the two shots he took were one right after the other.

Seaquist said he was checking messages on his phone when he saw the the trunk open on Caldier’s car and the hard top slide into the trunk. He said he hadn’t seen a hard-top convertible in some time and wanted to snap a quick photo to discuss the car with someone he knows. The model of the car was prominent on the car’s tail section and he said he knew he would never remember it. So he took a shot.

Caldier confronted him about the photo and both agree he acknowledged snapping a picture. Her recollection of the conversation afterward was a little fuzzy this week, but he said she complained that she had been photographed at her house. He said he told her it wasn’t anyone doing it on his behalf.

On Sept. 2, four days later, Caldier posted a Facebook entry reading: “I came out of a candidate interview and saw Rep. Larry Seaquest, my opponent, taking pictures of me as I got into my car. Wow…. I felt like I was being stalked!” Some of her Facebook friends described that as “creepy” or “gross,” and some suggested it was an act of desperation.

On Sept. 5, three days after the Facebook post and a week after Seaquist took the photo, she filed a report with the Bremerton Police Department. The report includes a couple of statements Caldier said do not reflect what she told police. The report said Caldier told police Seaquist had taken other photos of Caldier in the past and that he just laughed at her when she asked him why he was snapping more pictures. On Friday she said she told police other people had snapped pictures, that Aug. 29 was the first time Seaquist himself had done it. Also, she said Seaquist did talk to her about the photos when she confronted him.

Both candidates question the other’s motives in the incident. Caldier said she doesn’t believe his story that he was impressed with the car because she believes he has seen it before. She said it’s another chapter in a long history of the opposition trying to intimidate her. Seaquist said he hadn’t seen her car before and that he did nothing wrong, that his sole interest was the car and that Caldier is falsifying what happened to turn it into a campaign issue.

CONTEXT

Candidates can expect to have their photos taken in odd places, to be followed. One of the comments on Caldier’s Facebook post came from state Sen. Jan Angel, R-Port Orchard, who wrote: “They pulled that on me all last run. I was followed frequently and many other weird things. What a journey.”

Keith Schipper, Angel’s communications director in the 2013 campaign, said he was tasked by the state Republican party to track Angel’s opponent, Nathan Schlicher, for part of that campaign. A tracker’s job is primarily to go to all the opponent’s events possible and to film, seeing if a candidate can be caught saying one thing to one group and something else to another. Or, if the tracking yields real gold, the candidate has a “Macaca” moment, a reference to the 2006 Virginia Senate race when Republican incumbent Sen. George Allen referred to a Democratic operative as “Macaca,” which he said was gibberish, but Democrats said was an intentional racial slur. Allen lost the election.

Schipper, who also tracked Jay Inslee in 2012 when he ran for governor and is working on Republican legislative campaigns again this year, said officials from the candidate and the party are mostly polite to the opposition tracker. It’s the people hosting the events who can get hostile. So parties’ and candidates’ campaigns in larger races typically know better than to hassle the tracker.

The 2013 26th District Senate race was unique, though, in how high profile it was for a legislative race. That each side employed trackers was because it was so high stakes. It was the most expensive legislative race in state history. It was the only Republican-Democrat race in the state and affected the balance of power in Olympia. Both candidates said they were followed.

That race was a legislative exception. The Seaquist-Caldier race, while close, is unlikely to draw so much attention that the state party would employ operatives. And even if the state party did, taking pictures at a candidate’s house is unlikely.

Nonetheless, Caldier said that when she was living in a home she rented before she bought her current home she saw people taking pictures of her at her house. She said some were also taking pictures of her sister. And one day a neighbor caught people going through her mail. Since Caldier recently returned to Kitsap County after years living in Kenmore, it’s possible someone supporting Seaquist was trying to investigate whether she deserved a residency challenge.

You might remember the private investigation that went into former County Commissioner Josh Brown’s residency during his first run. When Lary Coppola ran for mayor he found matches stuck in his door, presumably a tactic to see whether he lived where he claimed his residence.

If the Caldier mail incident was campaign related, Schipper and Fred Finn, who represented the 35th Legislative District as a Democrat for four years, said it was unlikely it was ordered by the party or Seaquist’s campaign. Schipper likened it to supporters who go out and vandalize campaign signs, adding it would more likely be a supporter going rogue. Finn agreed. “Sometimes supporters have more energy and enthusiasm than common sense,” Finn said. “I can’t imagine it’s anything organized.”

MOTIVES

Whatever motive Seaquist had in taking the picture, it is unusual for a candidate to be taking a photo of another candidate. “You don’t ever see candidates doing that to each other,” Schipper said. “You don’t see their staff members doing it.”

Caldier again looked at the incident in context of the whole campaign. “I’ll take a lot, but this one was kind of the last straw. This is moving forward to November and it feels like the behavior is escalating,” she said. “I want the behavior to stop. I would never take pictures of him without asking his permission. For him to be sitting in his car taking photos of me without asking my permission is wrong.”

Seaquist makes no apologies and said he has no interest in meeting with Caldier to resolve the issue. “Everything here has been created and invented by Dr. Caldier. Nothing here was started by me,” he said. “This is not a misunderstanding on my part. This is entirely a creation of hers. I have done nothing intimidating.”

Particularly galling to Seaquist was another single assertion in the police report. Caldier, when told Seaquist had not committed any crime, said his action concerned her because “she has been told that Seaquist had been violent in the past with people.”

On Friday Caldier said that comment referred to what she heard from Marlyn Jensen, a Gig Harbor Republican who ran against Seaquist in 2008. Jensen, also contacted Friday, said her relationship with Seaquist was fine during the 2008 campaign, but repeated a charge she made in newspapers in 2009, that when she went to Olympia to lobby on a couple of issues he yelled at her in his office. She was lobbying on a property rights issue and neither he nor his legislative assistant were there when she went by, so she and others left bags of dirt from their properties with a handwritten note urging Seaquist to vote for property owners.

A few days later Jensen returned to Olympia to lobby on another issue and said she went back to his office and was told by his receptionist to go in. She said Seaquist berated her for leaving the dirt. On Friday she repeated what she said five years ago, that she feared for her safety.

In 2009 Seaquist denied he did anything to make her fear for her safety. He said he can be firm, but invited anyone to call any legislator or member of a Navy crew he was ever affiliated with and that they will confirm that he is “famous for being calm and cool under pressure.”

Caldier said she filed the police report to end the escalation of intimidation. Seaquist doesn’t believe that, because the final statement in the report is, “Caldier does not want Seaquist contacted.” He said he thinks that’s evidence she plans to use the police report to escalate her own personal campaign against him.

Seaquist said he is “prepared to launch a lawsuit. The very essence of my character is being challenged.”

NOSTALGIA

At their core you have two candidates who have fundamentally different ideas about how state government should operate. That might be the focus of the remaining campaign.

In 2013, during the most expensive legislative race in history the campaign became particularly nasty. Angel accused Schlicher of taking the low road with his ad that said she would cut mammograms. Schlicher took exception to campaigns targeting him for voting for budgets he said she voted for, too.

Schlicher’s backers put out ads saying Angel supported tax breaks first for A. deceased millionaires and B. big oil companies over education for kids. Angel’s supporters advertised that Schlicher was against early reading intervention for children because a contributor didn’t like it and that he opposed a 2/3 majority for tax increases.

All of those arguments mischaracterized the opponents’ positions, but anyone willing to make a concerted study at least could look at those claims and make a calculation as to where the candidate stood on issues that would face the Legislature. A resident of the 26th might not have appreciated the inundation of advertising that blanketed the district, but do you think that same resident might not prefer that to what we’re seeing in the 26th Legislative District Position 2 race this year?

Campaign contributions from anonymous

Amidst all the talk of campaign contribution transparency, as many call for the upending of rules and rulings that allow people to donate to political causes without fear of exposure, there is a renewed call for more anonymity.

In the Washington Post last week Bertram Levine and Michael Johnston made that case.

“The problem is not just how much money we allow into the system, or even how few individuals provide it. An equally serious, and somewhat ironic, issue is that transparency makes the appearances problem worse. If incumbents could not know the sources of contributions to their war chests, they could not “thank” their benefactors with policy “favors,” nor could they extract contributions through intimidation. Donors wanting to support challengers — who are routinely out-spent by solid margins under the current system — would not need to worry about reprisals from incumbents.”

If this solution seems ridiculous, consider this quote from a previous Post story.

Andrew Sabin gave Republicans so much money in 2012 that he accidentally went over a limit on how much individuals could donate to federal candidates and party committees.

So Sabin, who owns a New York-based precious-metals refining business, was delighted when the Supreme Court did away with the limit in April. Since then, he has been doling out contributions to congressional candidates across the country — in Colorado, Texas, Iowa and “even Alaska,” he said.

Top Republicans have taken notice: Sen. Ted Cruz (Tex.) and Florida Gov. Rick Scott have paid him personal visits this year, he noted proudly.

You have to realize, when you start contributing to all these guys, they give you access to meet them and talk about your issues,” said Sabin, who has given away more than $177,000. “They know that I’m a big supporter.”

Two years ago This American Life, a show you can hear on Saturdays on KUOW, did one of the best treatments on politics and money that I have ever heard. Andrea Seabrook asked Barney Frank if money influenced politics:

Barney Frank: People say, “Oh, it doesn’t have any effect on me.” Look, if that were the case, we would be the only human beings in the history of the world who, on a regular basis, took significant amounts of money from perfect strangers and made sure that it had no effect on our behavior. That is not human nature.

Andrea Seabrook: On the other hand, he says, there are things that influence a politician besides money.

Barney Frank: If the voters have a position, the votes will kick money’s rear end any time. I’ve never met a politician– I’ve been in the legislative bodies for 40 years now– who, choosing between a significant opinion in his or her district and a number of campaign contributors, doesn’t go with the district.

And I have had people tell me– and we talk honestly to each other, we don’t lie to each other very often. You don’t survive if you do. As chairman of a committee, I’d be lobbying for votes. I have had members say to me, Mr. Chairman, I love you. Barney, you’re right. But I can’t do that politically because I’ll get killed in my district. No one has ever said to me, I’m sorry, but I got a big contributor I can’t offend.

Keep those campaign ads and claims coming

During last year’s legislative race between Nathan Schlicher and Jan Angel we attempted to get to the truth or truthiness of the campaign ads sent by the candidates and their supporters. We also looked at claims made in debates and letters to the editor.

I hesitated for a few years to even embark on the task, because I feared fact-checking work would be an extremely challenging effort netting fuzzy results. I might have been right, but I believe the effort is worthwhile anyway. If nothing else, we provide context for the claims, and context is abundantly absent in campaign advertising.

One way 2013 was easier was that there was only one legislative race. And I had coworkers who lived in the 26th Legislative District who religiously delivered the ads that arrived in their mailboxes. One of those coworkers moved away and so far this year I’ve had one campaign ad put onto my desk. This year there promises to be plenty of advertising again in the 26th and maybe even more so in the 35th. The county races could include some ads, as will the congressional race.

So I’m asking for your help. If you receive an ad in the mail I’d love to see it. We then might engage in a fact-checking expedition, delivering our findings to you here on the Kitsap Caucus blog or in the daily paper.

There are a few ways you can deliver what you find.

1. Bring or mail the ad to Steven Gardner, Kitsap Sun, 545 Fifth St., Bremerton, WA 98337.

2. Email a scan of the ad, my preferred method, to sgardner@kitsapsun.com.

3. Email the text of the claim you wish to see vetted. Some ads include a citation (a bill, news story, etc.). Make sure to include those.

4. Call and leave a message with the ad’s content. I’m at 360-792-3343.

Thanks for your help!

Steyer money coming our way again?

The headline and photo from the New York Times story.
I don’t take lightly posting pictures from other publications, but in this case the New York Times story and photo have direct relevance to our area. And I really, really, really want you all to read the story, so click on the link.

For months Republicans have been warning about the “Ramtha money” referenced in our story about the late money into the 35th Legislative District primary. The New York Times focused on our state this week and this is what I took from it: The racist rants (taken out of context or not) of an ancient enlightened one that helped a Yelm woman make a sizeable enough living to fund Democrats can make for campaign indignation, but that money isn’t anywhere near the GOP’s biggest problem this year.

No sir.

The biggest problem for Republicans is this little piece from the Times story about the goals shared between Washington Gov. Jay Inslee and rich guy Thomas Steyer:

Mr. Inslee, who is campaigning for his agenda across the state this summer with oyster farmers in tow, is trying to position himself as America’s leading governor in the climate change fight. But Mr. Inslee does not have the support of the majority of the Washington State Senate, particularly those conservative lawmakers from the rural inland, so Mr. Steyer’s advocacy group, NextGen Climate, is working with the Washington League of Conservation Voters to handpick Democratic, pro-climate policy candidates across the state.

Steyer plans to spend about $100 million across the country to elect politicians who see it his way on climate issues and to oust those who don’t. A fair share of that will come here to Washington, and the Times speculates the candidates he chooses, working through the Washington League of Conservation Voters, will see hundreds of thousands of dollars going either to support them or against their opponents.

While chatting with Tim Sheldon Tuesday night I asked if he thought, assuming Tuesday night’s results stay as they are, any of that money would wind up in his race. He thought not. “Steyer won’t dump money into the race. I would be astounded if he did. What you see so far is 65 percent of the district is voting conservative,” he said, a reference to his vote totals plus those of Travis Couture. “I don’t care how much money he has, he can’t turn that around.”

This gets to another reason I posted the picture. You see Inslee walking the beach with Bill Dewey of Taylor Shellfish Farms. Dewey, according to Public Disclosure Commission reports, gave Inslee $500 this year toward Jay Inslee for Washington, which we can assume is his 2016 re-election campaign fund. Dewey gave $1,250 for Inslee’s 2012 campaign and Bill Taylor from the same company gave $1,000.

But both have also donated to Sheldon over the years. Dewey gave the senator $500 in for his re-election campaign in 2010 and another $500 in 2013. Taylor gave $250 in 2010 and $500 in 2013.

Most donations coming from the Taylor company, primarily Taylor and Dewey, go to Democrats, and technically Sheldon is one of those. But you know the story; Sheldon caucuses with the Republicans, giving them the majority and lessening Inslee’s chances of getting his climate agenda passed. So Inslee has an agenda designed to benefit Taylor Shellfish, but someone who votes against Inslee’s agenda is their friend, too.

Washington Conservation Voters has already endorsed Bowling in the 35th. Sheldon received a “0” score from the organization after voting for nine bills the organization considered bad for the environment and against three bills the group said were good for it. Sheldon’s lifetime score is 30. By comparison Christine Rolfes, a 23rd District Democrat, received an 83 for the session. Democrat Nathan Schlicher in the 26th received a 56 for his votes and Republican Jan Angel got a 25.

So will Steyer go after Sheldon?

That might depend on the polling. Someone is going to do some once the primary dust is settled. If Sheldon is not right in fact, in philosophy he is. Steyer will want to put money to races that are winnable, so he and his allies will decide whether to back Democrat Irene Bowling in the 35th and Judy Arbogast in the 26th. Steyer spent a lot of money against Jan Angel in 2013 and lost, but the Times story shows where he won, too, and those were not insignificant wins.

Bowling saw the same numbers Sheldon saw and had a different take about votes for Couture and was not so agreeable to the idea that those votes would now go to Sheldon. “I think that Travis represents people that are fed up with government as it stands and they want change,” she said. Her hope is she can influence Couture voters to vote her way in the general election.

The battle within local Democratic and Republican races

An alert party operative who shall remain nameless told me recently, “The fights between parties are nothing compared to the fights within them.” Here we give you two examples, one from each party.

The first fight is one those in Kitsap are more likely to know about, the one between supporters of Russ Hauge and those of Bob Scales. Hauge is the incumbent Kitsap County prosecutor and is a Democrat. Scales served two terms as a Bainbridge Island city councilman and works as an attorney for the City of Seattle.

Tim Sheldon, whose name comes up later, doesn’t like it when Democrats say he isn’t one of them. There is no party registration in Washington, he’ll tell you. Even if there were, it isn’t like there is a test you have to pass for either party. But Democrats do have at least a little bit of justification for saying that about Sheldon, especially now that he caucuses with Republicans. “They caucus with me,” he responds. Fine. Same difference. On issues that divide Democrats and Republicans in the state Senate, Sheldon sides more with Republicans than he does with Democrats. It doesn’t make him a Republican, but give the Democrats credit here for arguing with some evidence.

I’m not sure where they’re getting their evidence when it comes to Bob Scales. Debbi Lester says Scales is combative, short-sighted and mean-spirited, based on her experience as fellow member of the Bainbridge Island City Council. That might all be true, but neither party is immune from that kind of behavior. I covered the council for a year or so while Scales was on it his first time and couldn’t tell you based on that where his politics are. There is the bigger question of where that even matters when it comes to serving as prosecutor, but where Lester and others cast doubt on Scales’ cred as a Democrat come from the fact that the Kitsap Patriots Tea Party gave Scales a high ranking as a candidate.

Quick, what does the Kitsap Patriots Tea Party stand for in a prosecutor? Yeah, I don’t know either. Still, I found it curious, so I contacted the organization to see if I could get a copy of the questions they asked and Scales’ answers. I got no reply. So we asked Scales if he would provide them. He did. I’ll post those below, after the other bit about in-party fighting.

That comes from the race Sheldon is in. Sheldon received a $13,800 in-kind contribution for some polling from the Senate Republican Campaign Committee. (On Monday night I learned there was a last-minute contribution made to Sheldon by the same group. It’s for $5,126.59 and was given on Thursday.) Remember, he’s a Democrat. There is another Democrat in the race, Irene Bowling, who is not shy about questioning his Dem cred. He has received no other official Republican Party money.

Travis Couture, the Republican in the race, received $2,000 from the Mason County Republican Central Committee, but that’s about it from official sources. Official communications from the state have gone out within the district from the state party backing other 35th District Republicans, but not Couture.

Eventually, apparently that was July 31, Couture had had enough. So he sent a letter to Washington State Republican Party Chairwoman Susan Hutchison complaining. The text of that letter follows. After that is the response from the state party and then the one from Kitsap County Republican Party Chairman Chris Tibbs. After that you can we go back to the Democrats, with Bob Scales taking on the “Tea Party” issue.
Continue reading

Comprehensive spotlight on 35th LD Senate race

Crosscut launched Wednesday a series that will focus on swing districts. The first focus is on the 35th Legislative District Senate race. Knute Berger, Benjamin Anderstone and Robert Mak teamed up to provide a comprehensive look at the district as a whole and the race specifically.

The series offers historical information about the district, including how it has changed. From the Berger story:

Some observers say the politically purple Mason County, once a blue stronghold, is trending redder. This may in part be due to the aging of the population — it has nearly twice the percentage of adults 65 and older as King County. It’s not alone in that. The entire Olympic Peninsula population is aging and has — and will continue to have — the largest concentration of seniors in the state, percentage-wise. These folks trend conservative, live on fixed incomes, are often change- and tax-averse. Mason County voters have been described as socially liberal but fiscally conservative, which seems to track with the drift of 35th district politics.

The package looks at what it will take for each candidate to win and makes that case we have been making here, that for either of the challengers, Democrat Irene Bowling and Republican Travis Couture, to win they have to hope they can knock the incumbent, Democrat Tim Sheldon, out in the primary.

Full disclosure: I make a brief appearance in the Robert Mak piece.

Pulling out the Nazi card in Silverdale on the background checks initiative

Horses Ass, the political website for Washington lefties, has audio of a speech delivered Aug. 23 at a “No on I-594″ event in Silverdale that has supporters of the measure outraged.

During his speech (the audio is below.) Brian Judy, A Washington NRA official, criticized one of the measure’s financial backers ($385,000), Nick Hanauer. The initiative, if passed, would require background checks for gun sales at gun shows and for those online. It allows for some exceptions.

Judy draws his criticism from a piece Hanauer wrote in Politico arguing that America needs to raise the wages of lower and middle class Americans, that the working class is what creates rich people, not the other way around. The following section reflects much of Hanauer’s main argument.

… the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
And so I have a message for my fellow filthy rich, for all of us who live in our gated bubble worlds: Wake up, people. It won’t last.
If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us.

Judy makes the case that rich people like Hanauer want to take our guns so that poor people will only have pitchforks when they do rise up. They won’t have guns, because Hanauer wants them taken away, apparently.

And then Judy expresses astonishment that any Jewish person could believe that:

And in one of the last paragraphs he talks about his family being run out of Germany by the Nazis. It’s like, How stupid can they, you know? So he’s funding, he’s put a half a million dollars, toward this policy, the same policy that led to his family getting run out of Germany by the Nazis. You know, it’s staggering to me, it’s just, you can’t make this stuff up. That these people, its like any Jewish people I meet who are anti-gun, I think, “Are you serious? Did you not remember what happened? And why did that happen? Because they registered guns and then they took them. And now you’re supporting gun con, you come to this country and you support gun control? Why did you have to flee to this country in the first place? Hello! Is anybody home here?” Yeah, it’s just, I don’t know.

Cheryl Stumbo, a victim of the 2006 Jewish Federation shooting in Seattle, is a sponsor of Initiative 594 and issued this statement:

“The offensive rhetoric from a senior lobbyist at the National Rifle Association is out-of-touch with what the vast majority of Washingtonians want: a reasonable, productive discussion of solutions to reduce gun violence in our communities. Developing those solutions has been a major part of my life since the attack on my co-workers and me eight years ago, and I am honored to have been joined by other survivors of gun violence, gun owners, hunters, law enforcement, and current and former NRA members. We’ve come together because Washington state needs everyone working together to be part of the solution to making our communities safer – and fringe ideas like Mr. Judy’s are part of the problem.”

The Jewish Federation of Seattle issued a statement, too, part of which said:

“Eight years ago today, the Jewish Federation was the target of a violent attack by an individual harboring dangerous falsehoods about Jews – falsehoods that continue to exist on the fringes of our society. It is deeply offensive for anyone to suggest that Jewish supporters of gun violence prevention have ‘forgotten’ the history of our people. For a representative of the National Rifle Association, or any organization, to repeat the out-of-touch falsehood linking gun violence prevention to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust is not only an ignorant distortion but is exceedingly dangerous.”

This is known in technical terms as “Reductio ad Hitlerum” or “Argumentum ad Nazium.” You can read more about that by going to http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnazium.html.

The audio of Judy’s comment follows:

Continue reading

Checking on check collection

In preparing the story about Kitsap County’s program for collecting on bad checks, I quickly learned that the issue generally isn’t new, even if it is just getting attention here. There were a lot of stories out there, and the primary bone of contention in all of them is that the letter bad-check writers are getting looks like it came from the prosecutor’s office.

That implies prosecution, which even our prosecutor suggests is unlikely.

Given that the referendum on Hauge is hotly contested anyway, it was not surprising it drew out the the prosecutor’s critics. Nor should it be surprising that the program would have its defenders.

Going with that, though, is the concern of business owners burned by hot checks. While the number of people writing checks for regular retail is shrinking, there are still a fair number of them doing it and enough bad checks out there to hurt the businesses that get them.

It’s that concern that has probably sparked the seeming popularity among prosecutors for the program. All of our county neighbors that share land boundaries with us use it. Beth Terrell, attorney for the plaintiffs, said 12 Washington counties use Bounceback for the same operation Kitsap County does. They are Adams, Clallam, Clark, Grant, Jefferson, Kitsap, Kittitas, Klickitat, Mason, Pierce, Spokane, Thurston, Walla Walla, and Yakima. I couldn’t find the websites for the programs in Adams and Walla Walla.

What we found out is this is not a new issue. Some of the same issues were raised in a lawsuit we referenced in the story, the final opinion you can read here. Attorneys on this case believe they can do a better job arguing against the legality of the program than the case made before.

Crosscut did a comprehensive piece on the program in 2012 and pointed out that King County, at least back then, wasn’t doing anything similar, because the prosecutor there said he doesn’t want to mix public prosecution with private business.

Oregon passed a law prohibiting companies from sending out letters under prosecutor letterhead, which caused some Oregon counties to cancel the program. Counties in Massachusetts bailed on the program, but there are enough stories out there suggesting BounceBack and other companies like it are hurting for customers.

That could change if legislators successfully restrict these kind of operations, or if the Washington suit is successful. The attorneys for the plaintiffs in this case don’t say they want Bounceback to necessarily go out of business, but they want them to follow what they believe is the law, particularly the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. That would mean no more prosecutor letterhead and no more threatening prosecution. For those who get the letters it would at least mean they know who is really issuing the threat. And it would likely mean more customers would balk at taking the class and get away with it, which might make the business model unworkable for collectors.