Weekly Opinion/Editorial

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM IN THE PEOPLE’S HAND!
by Steve Fair

Politics and money have forever been linked and in the early years of our nation’s history that link was often corrupt. In a recent column, I mentioned the “good old boy” system so prevalent in the employment of government workers in our nation’s early history. That resulted in Congress passing the “Pendleton Civil Service Act,” in 1883, which created a class of federal employment available only through competitive exams? Up until that time, officeholders appointed their “cronies,” aka political donors, to the jobs.

After that source of “contributions” dried up, businesses such as banks, oil companies, steel firms, and railroad developers became the primary source of fund funding by candidates through corporate contributions. After his election in 1906, President Teddy Roosevelt encouraged Congress to ban corporate contributions.

In years following and during the Great Depression, WWII and the Korean War, political campaigns remained “grassroots” oriented and the big bucks didn’t enter the process until the 1960s.

By the end of the 1960s, the cost to run for Congress had skyrocketed to where only the wealthy or those closely aligned with the wealthy could run. In response, in 1971, Congress passed the FECA (Federal Election Campaign Act) that limited the amount of money a candidate could give to his or her own campaign and how much they could spend on TV advertising. The Act also provided a mechanism that required candidates to file reports on a quarterly basis on the source of their political contributions.

Proponents of the FECA expected the new regulations would stem the tide of money in politics. Not surprising Congress was again wrong. In 1968, before FECA, federal candidates spent $8.5 million collectively running for office. In 1972, under FECA, they spent $88.9 million- over ten times more.

In 2002, Senators John McCain, R, Arizona, and Russ Feingold, D, Wisconsin, sponsored BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act) to get slow down the money in politics, but in the seven years since it’s passage, the amount of money needed to mount a serious campaign for Congress has almost doubled. McCain/Feingold has created a series of loopholes that 523s have exploited and used to circumvent the process. There is now more money than ever in politics. A “shoestring” budget for a 21st century Congressional race is $500,000- for a job that pays $165,200 annually.

It would be easy to blame the candidates, big donors, campaign consultants and political hacks for the huge growth of money in politics, but to do that would be wrong. The real reason we have big money in politics is the lack of broad based financial involvement by average citizens.

With a limited amount of time to raise money for a campaign, candidates tend to take “the path of least resistance” and solicit big donors. If you need to raise $100,000 for a state legislative race, it’s easier to find twenty $5,000 donors than two hundred $50 contributors. Building a small donor base is hard work and takes patience and is often next to impossible to accomplish.

According to Massie Ritsch, communications director at the Center for Responsive Politics, “Less than one percent” of the American population make campaign contributions large enough to track.” That’s less than one in a hundred citizens care enough about a local, state, county, or federal election to give a penny to the process.

People complain about “all” the money that is in politics and how corrupt the process is, but yet they are unwilling to contribute one red dime to a candidate- even candidates they know personally and trust. They don’t put their money where their mouth is. Signs, bumper stickers, and t-shirts cost money, but often even the volunteers of candidates are unwilling to reimburse them for just the “cost” of those resources. By not contributing, they are perpetuating the “big donor/access” machine that pumps obscene amounts of money into the political process.

It’s obvious that not everyone can write a big check to a political candidate, but all can do something. If everyone would contribute some, the “big donor” money would be diluted and the process would reform itself, restoring the power to the grassroots.

In Luke 12:34, the scripture says, “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” Where is your heart?

LEAGUE HAS HEAD IN SAND!

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

ID IS NOT DISENFRANCHING!

by Steve Fair

The old saying goes - if you want to vote after you are dead- move to Chicago. The implication is that voter fraud is commonplace in the Windy City. But it appears that post mortem voting is going on in the Sooner state. The Tulsa World conducted an investigation on dead people voting in Oklahoma and found that 429 dead people are on the voter rolls and that ten of the deceased had in fact voted after their death. The World conducted the investigation after Governor Henry vetoed a Voter ID bill that would have required a voter have valid identification to cast their vote. Henry’s veto was overturned by the Republican controlled legislature and Oklahoma voters will vote on the proposal in November 2010.

"The right to vote is one of our most precious freedoms, guaranteed to all eligible U.S. citizens regardless of their race, gender, religion, income level or social status, and policymakers must be especially careful when tinkering with this fundamental right," Henry said in his veto message.

"The action just confirms the fact that their proposal wasn't strong enough to attract enough votes to override the governor's veto," said Paul Sund, a Henry spokesman. "They're (the legislature) obviously gambling they can convince Oklahoma voters to trust the Legislature more than the League of Women Voters." The Oklahoma League of Women Voters had encouraged Henry to veto the bill.

The measure would have disenfranchised thousands of voters, created long lines and burdened precinct officials, said Gloria Caldwell, a spokeswoman for the League of Women Voters of Oklahoma. Caldwell said there was no evidence there was widespread voter fraud in Oklahoma. It will be interesting to see how Caldwell responds to The World article and the findings of dead people voting in Oklahoma.

Just who is the League of Women Voters and why would they be against voter ID? The group was established over eighty years, shortly after women’s suffrage. Their public image is one of little old ladies who sole goal is better citizenship and greater participation in the electoral process by women, but that’s far from the truth.

In the past thirty years, the League of Women Voters has become an activist organization for the Democrat party. No longer just involved in voter education and non-partisan efforts, the League’s website reveals political goals well beyond that of female voter recruitment. Its comprehensive policy manifesto includes positions supporting abortion, campaign finance restrictions, gun control, reduced defense spending, and prohibition of oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Taken point by point, it bears remarkable similarity to the Democratic Party platform of 2000.

The League used to sponsor the Presidential debates, but after 1988, they only work with the Democrats in their Presidential primary. The League is no place for conservatives and no friend to Republicans.

Democrats and the League throw around the word “disenfranchise” today, but not everyone knows what it means. According to Webster, it means to deprive someone of the right to vote. I know of no Republican who wants to disenfranchise voters. Political activists want more participation in the process. We just want the process to be fair and honest. This bill would just insure that when ninety five year old John Smith votes, it’s actually John Smith voting. The bill would require that John have a valid ID to vote. Sounds reasonable, logical and sensible, because if John Smith went down to the bank to cash a check, they would ask for identification to insure he was John Smith. This disenfranchising talk is insulting and demeaning to voters. How could anyone living in the 21st century survive without a valid ID?

House Speaker Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, said, " I am confident the people of Oklahoma will support this common-sense reform and I am glad they will have the opportunity to vote on it." Senate President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, said he anticipates widespread support for the measure when it goes to a vote of the people.

Ten votes out of the thousands cast in an election is not a huge percentage, however one vote fraudently cast in an election is one too many. The person who voted for the dead person should be found and prosecuted- Republican or Democrat. The liberals who oppose this bill will attempt to trivialize the World’s findings. But when someone commits fraud by voting in place of a dead person in an election, they are stealing from you and me. That is unacceptable and a practice that must be stopped in Oklahoma. It's time we pulled our heads out of the sand and faced facts- voter fraud is happening in Oklahoma!

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

COBURN NEEDED MORE THAN EVER!
By Steve Fair

Next Monday, Senator Tom Coburn, M.D. will announce whether he will seek re-election in 2010. Now more than ever, not just Oklahoma, but America, needs Senator Coburn! Coburn will make the announcement at “The Monday Meeting” in New York City. The monthly meeting has brought together the right wing of the city's financial and intellectual elite-among the regulars are major Republican donors and members of The Wall Street Journal 's editorial board. The meeting's fund-raising clout is informal, but fearsome. The fact that Coburn will make the announcement there gives conservatives hopeful expectations Coburn will run for re-election.


Coburn is not your run of the mill politician. He really doesn’t want to be in Washington. Dr. Tom wants to be an Okie in Muskogee practicing medicine. When the U.S. Senate Ethics Committee (a contradiction in itself) after he was elected to the Senate told Coburn that he would have to quit delivering babies for free, he ignored them. The committee contended that Coburn could be “influenced” by his patients, even though Coburn received no compensation for delivering the babies. In fact, Dr. Tom paid his malpractice insurance premiums out of his own pocket.


Senator Coburn did not go to Washington to go along to get along. He has used the Senate rules to his and the American taxpayer’s advantage. Because traditional Senate rules allow a single Senator to put a “hold” on legislation for any reason, Coburn has been a thorn in the side for all big spenders in DC. A Senator may place a hold simply to review a bill, to negotiate changes to the bill, or to kill the bill. A bill can be held for as long as the Senator who objects to the bill wishes to block its consideration.


Coburn put a “hold” on so many spending bills that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D, Nevada created the “Coburn Omnibus” bill- actually 36 bills in one. The bill was a package-spending bill that according to Coburn contained “tons of waste and tons of new programs that we don’t have the money for.”


And it’s not just the Democrats that have felt heat because Senator Coburn is in the Senate. Everyone is now familiar with the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” championed by then Senator Ted Stevens, but if Coburn is not in the Senate, it’s highly likely the bridge would have funded and built.


In an August 2, 2008 article entitled, Coburn or Stevens, The Wall Street Journal stated, “They (the GOP) may not like it, but Mr. Coburn is showing Republicans how the GOP can return to its small government roots. Consider Ronald Reagan, who in 1987 vetoed a highway bill because it had a mere 121 earmarks in it. Reagan quoted a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison in 1796, warning that allowing Congress to spend federal money for local projects would set off "a scene of scramble among the members (for) who can get the most money wasted in their State, and they will always get most who are meanest." Reagan didn't think that represented good government or good politics. Republicans today should heed his warning.”


Back in December 2007, President Bush proposed lowering down payment requirements to help the FHA to insure bigger mortgages in high-cost states. Bush said, “This bill could allow the FHA to reach an additional 250,000 families who could not otherwise qualify for prime-rate financing.”


Coburn disagreed, saying the bill was not the “proper response to the housing crisis” since it would increase government-backed mortgages and increase the government’s liability by an estimated $1.6 billion. Talk about prophetic!

“I am not a go-along, get along guy if I think it is the wrong way to go,” Coburn says. “I am O.K. taking the consternation of my colleagues. I take my oath seriously.”


Life without Coburn in the Senate would be a step backward. Even the more conservative Republicans don’t have the iron rail up the shirttail to do what Coburn will do. The Senate would go back to business as usual in the most exclusive club in the world. Dr. No is needed more now than ever. Let’s hope and pray Coburn is willing to make the sacrifice for another six years- for Oklahoma and America!

Stephens County

Fish Fry

Straw Poll Results

On Saturday May 16th, the Stephens County Republican Party held their 5th annual Fish Fry. Over 400 people were in attendance and a straw poll for Governor and Lt. Governor was conducted. The questions and the responses are below:

If the election were held today, which of the following would you vote for in the Republican primary for Governor?

RECAP OF RESPONSES (total votes)

44- State Senator Randy Brogdon

68- U.S. Congresswoman Mary Fallin

74- Former U.S. Congressman J.C. Watts

40- Undecided

If the election were held today, which of the following would you vote for in the Republican primary for Lt. Governor?

RECAP OF RESPONSES (total votes)

44- State Senator Todd Lamb

14- State Representative Colby Schwartz

38- State Representative John Wright

131- Undecided

This poll was not a scientific, but an informal poll conducted at the event. Persons could have voted multiple times and the results are not be viewed as the view of the Stephens County Republican Party Executive Committee.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

TAG, you're it!

by Steve Fair

Political patronage is the use of state resources to reward individuals for their electoral support. In some countries, including the US, patronage is legal, as in the British and Canadian tradition of allowing the Prime Minister to appoint the heads of a number of commissions and agencies; in most cases, these appointments go to people who have supported the political party of the Prime Minister. In the United States, when a President is elected, he fills his cabinet with like-minded people. In the early years of our nation’s history, political patronage was standard operating procedure. In fact, political patronage was the motive in the assassination of President James Garfield in 1881 by a disgruntled office seeker who did not receive a political appointment. That spurred Congress to pass the Civil Service Act, or Pendleton Act of 1883. Up until that time, if you worked for the government, it wasn’t what you knew, but who you knew.

In Oklahoma, political patronage has been practiced so well that is almost an art form. It reached its apex in the 1980s, when 240 county commissioners in Oklahoma were indicted by a federal grand jury in the county commissioner scandal. In terms of total number of elected officials indicted, it was the largest political scandal in American history.

Oklahoma has had two Democrat Governors convicted practicing political patronage. Governor David Hall served nineteen months in prison for participating in a political patronage kickback scheme. Governor David Walters pled guilty to a misdemeanor election violation as opposed to felony charges after numerous former campaign aides testified to illegal political patronage activities in his campaign organization. The aides alleged that Walters was promising jobs for campaign donations.

One of the long-term patronage appointments in Oklahoma may be on it’s way out. President Pro Tem Glenn Coffee has gotten bi-partisan approval on a bill to end the Senate’s present tag agency patronage system. Coffee’s bill would prohibit legislators from recommending tag agents to the Tax Commission. Traditionally, the State Senator would “recommend” to the Commission those in his district he thought would be good tag agents. Seldom was a “recommendation” turned down by the agency. Often, elected officials would “recommend” the appointment of their cronies and political donors as the counties’ tag agent.

It should be noted this “bi-partisan” effort happened in the first term after the Republicans took control of the Senate. If Senate Republicans had wanted to play hardball and be “fair,” they could have continued under the same patronage system the tag agencies have operated under for the next century. After all, changing the system during their century long majority rule of the legislature, never occurred to the Democrats.

In the past, when there were less tag agents, getting appointed tag agent in a county was quite a nice political plum. Often large counties had just one agent and all car tags expired the same month, so long lines were the order the day when you had to renew your tag. Today, tag agents don’t rake in the big bucks of agents in the past, but there is still no shortage of people who are willing to be appointed tag agent.

According to the Oklahoma Tax Commission web site, “ The Oklahoma Tax Commission administers the taxes and fees associated with the registration and tagging of vehicles. Although tag agencies are run by private individuals, the services they provide come from, and monies collected go to, the Oklahoma Tax Commission.”

Finding out specifics on how the Oklahoma Tax Commission compensates tag agents is harder to find than Jimmy Hoffa’s body. Tag agents are independent businesses and the Tax Commission establishes the fees they charge, but as to how much the agent makes is not readily available information. In most states, tags are purchased directly from the state, not through private enterprise. Privatizing or using independent businesses to handle that aspect of the state’s business may be more cost effective and efficient, but until the process is more transparent, John Q Public can’t determine that.

Coffee's bill will close a chapter on Oklahoma history that was not pretty. Appointing qualified ethical, principled people to be tag agents should be the goal of all citizens, not matter what their party affiliation of level of support for a State Senator.

FOR LACK OF A HORSE SHOE NAIL!

FROM THE HILL

Former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was spotted at the Off the Record bar at the Hay-Adams Hotel in Washington on Saturday May 2nd. . Stevens appeared to be interested in the Kentucky Derby festivities on the TV, but he left before race time.But the story doesn’t end there.


Mine That Bird, a 50-1 longshot, was the surprise Derby winner on Saturday. The horse is owned by Mark Allen, who is the son of Bill Allen, former CEO of the oil company Veco. Bill Allen was the lead government witness in the prosecution of Stevens. As part of his plea deal, Bill Allen secured immunity for his son, who Allen says bribed two state lawmakers (including, coincidentally, Stevens’s son Ben Stevens, a state senator.) If Mark Allen had been charged and convicted, he would have lost his license to purchase horses in New Mexico, where he bought Mine That Bird.


And that’s not all, according to the Anchorage Daily News, which noted that Mine That Bird indirectly figured into one of the oddest events in the Stevens trial. After the jurors began deliberating on the fate of Stevens, one of them, Marian Hinnant, skipped town. She initially said her father had died, but then admitted she had a ticket to see the Breeders’ Cup, a major thoroughbred stakes race Santa Anita Park in California. Mine That Bird, which at that time had recently been purchased by Allen and his neighbor Leonard Blach, ran in the Breeders’ Cup Juvenile as a two-year-old. In that contest, Mine That Bird was true to form — he was a 30-to-1 long shot and finished 12th. Hinnant, meanwhile, was subsequently replaced by an alternate juror.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

CHANGE IS TOUGH FOR EDUCATION!

By Steve Fair

Last Wednesday, the Senate passed SB #834, the so-called “school deregulation bill,” authored by Representative Tad Jones, R, Claremore, and Senator John Ford, R, Bartlesville. The bill cleared the upper chamber by a vote of 25-23. The House passed the measure by a margin of 60-39, both votes were along party lines. Late Friday evening, Governor Henry vetoed the bill and because it didn’t pass the legislature with a large enough margin, it’s unlikely it will be brought up again this session.

Henry said the bill would have, “turned back the clock on decades of education reforms.” "While local control is an important component of a successful public education system, it is also critical to have rigorous state standards in place to produce the highest quality graduates and ensure achievement and accountability throughout the system," the governor said.

The bill would have allowed public schools to operate as charter schools and free them from many of the state “unfunded” mandates. Some school administrators and schools boards supported the bill because it would have given them more local control. The Oklahoma State School Board Association, the Cooperative Council of School Administrators, the Oklahoma Business and Education Coalition, the suburban and rural school associations, and the OKC, Tulsa, and State Chambers endorsed SB 834.

The Oklahoma Education Association, and State Superintendent for Education Sandy Garrett opposed it. They claimed the bill would have eliminated school librarians and counselors and would have made teachers “at will” employees. In reality, the bill gave local school boards and administrators the power to run their own districts and establish their own academic standards and rules. Henry said that one of his concerns was that local school administrators could ignore rigorous state standards and create their own academic benchmarks and rules under the bill. The exact opposite would have likely happened, because local school boards and administrators are very concerned about educating their children. Henry’s statement that local unpaid elected officials on the school board are not interested in education is elitist and condescending and he owes those people an apology.

Speaker of the House Chris Benge, R-Tulsa, said, "In vetoing SB 834, the governor has denied school districts much-needed freedom to meet our educational goals." "We continue to believe those locally, including parents, teachers and administrators, know what is best when it comes to education in their local communities. We aren't going to give up this fight for the children of our state," Benge pledged.

Senator Ford, chairman of the Senate Education Committee, said even though we pump millions of dollars into education each year, schools are still saddled with so many mandates that limit how these funds are used. “Senate Bill 834 is simply an education local empowerment bill that will free-up teachers to teach,” said Ford.

It’s clear something needs to change in Oklahoma public schools. We have more total school districts across the state than Texas. We spend the majority of money allocated for education on non-classroom related activities- i.e. infrastructure and administration. Oklahoma continues to score low in comparative testing vs. other states, yet when someone comes up with an idea to let local districts have more power in how to improve their school system, it’s opposed by educational unions.

According to the National Assessment of Education Programs, Oklahoma fourth graders rank 37th in Reading and 36th in Math, while our eighth graders rank 34th in reading and 40th in Math. Not exactly stellar results from an educational system that gets the majority of the state budget each year.

How do we fix education in Oklahoma? If you listen to most of the establishment educators or the teacher’s union, it’s more money. If the legislature would just tax citizens more and funnel more of our money into education, test scores will improve, the clouds will open and the sun will shine. This has been the cry of education for years, yet Oklahoma student’s test scores continue to lag near the bottom third in the country. Jones and Ford’s bill was a good start. It would have allowed local districts to “think outside the box” and given them flexibility the current system doesn’t allow. It’s too bad that Governor Henry didn’t believe local school boards or administrators were qualified and capable enough to manage their own districts. So we will continue to do what we have been doing, expecting a different result.