NPI's Cascadia Advocate

Offering commentary and analysis from Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, The Cascadia Advocate is the Northwest Progressive Institute's unconventional perspective on world, national, and local politics.

Friday, July 22nd, 2011

RE: Grassroots missing from this year’s initiatives — What about last year?

Near­ly one hun­dred years ago, pro­gres­sives suc­ceed­ed in amend­ing the Con­sti­tu­tion of Wash­ing­ton State to pro­vide for three pow­ers of direct democ­ra­cy: The ini­tia­tive, the ref­er­en­dum, and the recall.

The pur­pose of estab­lish­ing these three pow­ers was not to sup­plant or replace our repub­li­can form of gov­ern­ment, but rather, to give the peo­ple a way to get the gears of rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­ra­cy turn­ing in case they got stuck.

A cen­tu­ry lat­er, the reverse is hap­pen­ing. Cor­po­ra­tions and wealthy inter­ests are hijack­ing the ini­tia­tive process and using it to force votes on schemes that would pad their prof­its or advance their agen­da at the expense of the rest of us. And appar­ent­ly, the Seat­tle Times has only just noticed this.

I say this because the Blethens’ mouth­piece pub­lished a strange edi­to­r­i­al this morn­ing half­heart­ed­ly bemoan­ing the fact that the three ini­tia­tives like­ly to appear on this Novem­ber’s bal­lot were guar­an­teed place­ment thanks to the use of paid sig­na­ture gath­er­ers by the spon­sors:

Busi­ness, labor or cot­tage-indus­try ini­tia­tive writ­ers are behind all three pro­pos­als. Con­sid­er, for exam­ple, the labor effort to boost train­ing and pay­ments for home-health-care work­ers, backed by the Ser­vice Employ­ees Inter­na­tion­al Union. Think, too, about, the Cost­co-backed mea­sure to get the state out of the liquor busi­ness or the anti-vari­able-tolling mea­sure, advo­cat­ed by Tim Eyman and heav­i­ly under­writ­ten by Belle­vue busi­ness­man Kem­per Free­man.

As Wash­ing­ton approach­es the 100th anniver­sary of its ini­tia­tive process in 2012, it is fair to say this year is no excep­tion. The process has been shift­ing from bot­tom-up gov­ern­ing to essen­tial­ly ini­tia­tives as part of big­ger lob­by­ing efforts.

The process has been shift­ing”? We’d say the shift took place a long time ago. Where has the Seat­tle Times been?

We’ve been point­ing out for years that Tim Eyman runs on big mon­ey, not small dol­lar dona­tions. Near­ly every sin­gle one of his ini­tia­tives has been under­writ­ten by a sin­gle wealthy guy or a cabal of cor­po­ra­tions, includ­ing last year’s Ini­tia­tive 1053. The top donor to I‑1053 was actu­al­ly BP, one of the greed­i­est and most irre­spon­si­ble cor­po­ra­tions on the plan­et. Oth­er major donors includ­ed Cono­coPhillips, Shell, Tesoro, JPMor­gan Chase, Bank of Amer­i­ca, and Wells Far­go.

I‑1053’s lack of grass­roots sup­port did­n’t both­er The Seat­tle Times. The Blethens and their edi­to­r­i­al writ­ers enthu­si­as­ti­cal­ly endorsed Tim Eyman’s uncon­sti­tu­tion­al plan to sab­o­tage major­i­ty rule with­out dis­clos­ing to its read­ers who had paid for it. Nor did the Blethens reg­is­ter any con­cern about who had bought and paid for I‑1082 and I‑1100, two oth­er mea­sures we tar­get­ed as part of our Stop­Greed cam­paign. (The BIAW was behind I‑1082; Cost­co was behind I‑1100).

We can only con­clude, then, that cor­po­rate hijack­ing of the ini­tia­tive process real­ly does­n’t both­er them. If it did, it would fac­tor into their endorse­ment deci­sions, and they’d be using their edi­to­r­i­al page to advo­cate for ini­tia­tive process reform.

Telling­ly, the edi­to­r­i­al they pub­lished this morn­ing calls for no reform at all. It just ends by stat­ing the obvi­ous: The ini­tia­tive process has become a way for pow­er­ful inter­ests to force votes on laws they want passed.

The edi­to­r­i­al that they’ve pub­lished might best be described as the writ­ten ver­sion of a shrug. It lacks con­vic­tion and con­cern.

The author sug­gests that the demise of the cit­i­zen ini­tia­tive is a bad thing, but his or her response on behalf of the paper basi­cal­ly amounts to indif­fer­ence.

What a weak com­men­tary on a seri­ous dilem­ma.

Adjacent posts

  • Donate now to support The Cascadia Advocate


    Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local pol­i­tics.

    Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than fif­teen years. The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you: we have nev­er accept­ed adver­tis­ing or place­ments of paid con­tent.

    And we’d like it to stay that way.

    Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy jour­nal­ism.

    Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

    Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time dona­tion