TINCUP 2: Making Campaign Finance Enforcement Less Accountable To Voters
Posted by: Jubal | 01/23/2008 10:14 AM
The OC Register published an editorial today about the proposed TIN CUP 2 ordinance developed by Shirley Grindle and Sup. John Moorlach's office. It expresses philosophical opposition to TINCUP 2 and a preference for a simple regime of no contribution limits and immediate online disclosure (which I also favor), but altogether it's a pretty milquetoast editorial. But, better than nothing.
This line from the editorial -- "We don't have problems with the specific changes to the TINCUP law..." -- leads me to wonder how carefully the OCR editorial staff has thought through TINCUP 2.
Let's take the proposed Orange County Fair Campaign Practices Commission, for example.
Currently, enforcement of TIN CUP is primarily in the hands of the District Attorney, who is elected by the voters. TIN CUP 2 would shift that responsibility to an un-elected commission dominated, by design, of people who will know little about political campaigns.
Why should those who favor liberty over regulation want to take responsibility for enforcing campaign finance compliance -- political speech -- from an elected official who is accountable to the voters to five unelected commissars who are not?
The Register echoes Ms. Grindle's frequent lament that the District Attorney Tony Rackauckas "mostly ignores the law", i.e. Tony Rackauckas hasn't unofficially deputized Grindle the same way his predecessor, Mike Capizzi, did.
Tony Rackauckas defeated Mike Capizzi's hand-picked successor Wally Wade in 1998 in part by campaigning against Capizzi's over-zealous and abusive prosecution of political "crimes."
Ever since, Shirley Grindle has been assailing what she believes is his less-than-enthusiastic enforcement of TIN CUP, even campaigning for his opponents in 2002. And Rackauckas has been overwhelmingly re-elected in 2002 and 2006.
It would seem the voters of this county are perfectly happy with the District Attoreny's enforcement of campaign laws -- and when they aren't, they can register that discontent in the voting booth. Campaigns are all about voters, but voters would have no such remedy if enforcement is taken from the elected D.A. and given to an unelected commission of political eunuchs.
Another "specific change" the OC Register apparently doesn't "have problems with" is giving this unelected commission -- which unlike other county commissions, isn't even appointed by the elected Supervisors -- the power to issue subpoenas and compel testimony. Does the Reg really want to that kind of power to an unelected commission that isn't even indirectly accountable to the voters?
Hopefully the OC Register editorial staff will give this misbegotten measure a closer reading and inject some vinegar into its opposition.
This line from the editorial -- "We don't have problems with the specific changes to the TINCUP law..." -- leads me to wonder how carefully the OCR editorial staff has thought through TINCUP 2.
Let's take the proposed Orange County Fair Campaign Practices Commission, for example.
Currently, enforcement of TIN CUP is primarily in the hands of the District Attorney, who is elected by the voters. TIN CUP 2 would shift that responsibility to an un-elected commission dominated, by design, of people who will know little about political campaigns.
Why should those who favor liberty over regulation want to take responsibility for enforcing campaign finance compliance -- political speech -- from an elected official who is accountable to the voters to five unelected commissars who are not?
The Register echoes Ms. Grindle's frequent lament that the District Attorney Tony Rackauckas "mostly ignores the law", i.e. Tony Rackauckas hasn't unofficially deputized Grindle the same way his predecessor, Mike Capizzi, did.
Tony Rackauckas defeated Mike Capizzi's hand-picked successor Wally Wade in 1998 in part by campaigning against Capizzi's over-zealous and abusive prosecution of political "crimes."
Ever since, Shirley Grindle has been assailing what she believes is his less-than-enthusiastic enforcement of TIN CUP, even campaigning for his opponents in 2002. And Rackauckas has been overwhelmingly re-elected in 2002 and 2006.
It would seem the voters of this county are perfectly happy with the District Attoreny's enforcement of campaign laws -- and when they aren't, they can register that discontent in the voting booth. Campaigns are all about voters, but voters would have no such remedy if enforcement is taken from the elected D.A. and given to an unelected commission of political eunuchs.
Another "specific change" the OC Register apparently doesn't "have problems with" is giving this unelected commission -- which unlike other county commissions, isn't even appointed by the elected Supervisors -- the power to issue subpoenas and compel testimony. Does the Reg really want to that kind of power to an unelected commission that isn't even indirectly accountable to the voters?
Hopefully the OC Register editorial staff will give this misbegotten measure a closer reading and inject some vinegar into its opposition.
