February 24, 2010

FOLLOW THE MONEY -- BIG BUCKS FROM OUT OF TOWN. Cheating the system...

 

We've learned that unFair Vote and VPIRG are funding pro-IRV.

VT Yankee is leaking, people are donating to VPIRG figuring they are a VY watchdog, and VPIRG is sending thousands of $$$s to influence a Burlington ballot initiative to Repeal IRV. (Wonder how Brattleboro donors feel about that?)

There's also money pouring in from the ubiquitous Fair Vote known as "Unfair Vote" (among repeal irv advocates) because unFair Vote was fined for violating election laws [*The election law violation was about the validity of using celebrity donors.] But every state has different laws, and wanting to keep a low profile in Burlington's election is probably for a good reason.

It's like the state reps who claim per diem when they didn't incur the expense -- if you're underpaid, or worth more than other reps, or above the law, the per diem is fair game, a matter of definition, right?
50%'s paid staff, questioned about outside funding, claims that "local is a matter of definition."  Like majority is a matter of definition, real is a matter of definition (as in real run off), etc etc etc..... See the justification?

In Burlington, the main gripe about unFair Vote is that its donors are not disclosed. In VT we're required to list donors, but when a donor is a group like unFair Vote, the individual donors are secret.

6 comments:

loyal said...

The people who want to keep IRV know they are trouble so they are getting outside money. I have no repect for VPRG any more they should stay out of our elections.

Anonymous said...

They have very few pro-IRV Burlington donor. The Repeal-IRV donors listed as living out of town are long-time Burlingtonian civic leaders. As for "local depends on the definition" -- that's typical. 50% depends on definition, majority depends on definition, runoff depends on definition, and winner depends on definition.

Anonymous said...

Oh yeah, and 'per diem expenses' depend on definition, 'justified' depends on definition, it goes on ad nauseum. IRV winner is more accountable to the voters -- that was a good one, too. So accountable that 17 mil was secretly borrowed from cash pool, and BTV has no recall provision in the city charter. Recall and citizen initiatives make politicians accountable, not phony IRV.

Anonymous said...

Can't wait for VPRG to come knocking on my door this summer like they always do. It's gonna be fun to say the least.

-Owen

Owen Mulligan said...

RBJ, I can honestly tell you there is no "big money" involved from the anti-irv side. We got big, colorful signs, sure, but they are paid for by voters.

This isn't a Republican movement and the pro-irv side needs to stop trying to frame it that way.

It's sad and misleading and almost as bad as Mark Larson's milk analogies.

Anonymous said...

Repeal IRV is citizen initiative (2000 signatures), a true grassroots campaign funded by many small local donations, and fueled by lots of energetic volunteers. The OPPO print material must have been created by people far from Burlington, because who locally in their right mind would write that IRV keeps our mayor accountable to the people, produces higher turnouts (10% decline in voter turnout from first IRV election to this recent one),and eliminates the spoiler effect. Reality check, please! NONE of that is true! Only ideologues and people who don't know what's been going down in BTV could say that stuff.