Category: Uncategorized

Jerry LeClaireAug 1

Between 5 and 6PM this Monday, August 2, Rep. McMorris Rodgers (CD5, eastern Washington) is holding a town hall at Spokane Convention Center, Centennial Ballroom, 334 West Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99201. On Tuesday she’s in Republic and Colville (where she’s usually more comfortable).

She is making one of her rare visits to “her” district in eastern Washington for a couple of days during the August recess. These chances to see her and ask her questions are not widely advertised. She claims these gatherings as outreach even as she manages to avoid much controversy or pointed questions by careful advertising. I encourage people to attend and to record and share the interaction. 

There are certainly some uncomfortable questions she ought to confront: 

Global Warming: Why did she recently vote to let oil and gas companies release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere instead of requiring them to collect it so they can sell it as natural gas? For details see Cathy’s Climate Sabotage. McMorris Rodgers denies the scientific reality of human induced global warming, but cleverly resists plainly saying so—even as her constituents breathe smoke summer after summer. Perhaps a direct question, “Do you believe that methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases and that their release into the atmosphere is the major cause of the global warming behind the smoke we’re breathing?” would help her constituents pinpoint her denial. (McMorris Rodgers flustered in response to the direct question, “What is your take on evolution and science? Do you believe the earth is more like 6000 years old or four and a half billion years old?” Her “I can’t say how old the earth is” response raises the question of whether she is doctrinally incapable of understanding climate science.)

McMorris Rodgers recently advertised in an email sent out by her office that she was “Holding Big Tech Accountable”. She and her crew recognize that people are concerned over the role of electronic platforms, so “Holding Big Tech Accountable” sounds like the right thing to do. One might be lulled into thinking that they are addressing the truth of speech advanced by electronic media or the marketing algorithms that draw Facebook readers down conspiracy theory rabbit holes. No. Take time to visit the Energy and Commerce Republicans webpage where they lay out their propaganda. There you’ll find that McMorris Rodgers, allied with nervous Jim Jordan (R-OH), is proposing to amend the Communications Decency Act in order to punish electronic media companies if they take down blatant lies (clothed as “free speech”):

Preserving constitutionally protected speech, led by Republican Leaders Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), to remove liability protections for companies who censor constitutionally protected speech on their platforms, require appeals processes, and transparency for content enforcement decisions. 

There is zero chance of these bills passing the current House, but in 2023, who knows? For the moment this is clever messaging to the deluded wing of the Republican Party to signal support to punish electronic media companies for taking down, banning, or labelling blatant political lies (which these people read as “truth”). Meanwhile, the messaging lulls the general populace into thinking that Republicans are actually addressing the worrisome issues around electronic platforms. 

Those are just two lines of questioning. Here are a few more with links where one can research the specifics:

SJ Res 15-True Lender Disclosure. CMR voted NO. Cantwell and Murray both voted YES in the Senate. This bill would require lenders to disclosure their true source of funding for primarily residential loans.  Think Mortgage Broker funded/owned by a bank. Who is your true lender? Disclosure would lessen rate gouging.

HR 239-Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act. CMR voted NO. Think about that.

HR 2662-Should IG [Inspector General] be Removed for Cause.  CMR voted NO. This would strengthen the political ability of a rogue President to remove an IG for purely political purposes. In other words, in the past administration with Trump, an IG could longer be fired when they provide an unbiased, factual report.

H. Res. 503-Select Committee to Investigate January 6th.  CMR voted NO. The heading provides all you need to know.

HR 3684-Invest in America Act. CMR voted NO. The bill would reauthorize surface transportation programs, water infrastructure projects, and funds for highway and rail projects. She then touts the funds coming to WA under this package even after voting against it.

Look into her votes and rhetoric. Attend the town halls. Ask her for honest answers to straightforward but pointed questions.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. I regret that I am unable to attend in person but I hope to review and share what occurs from a recording or video from the event.

From McMorris Rodgers’ website. Her staff always says “Space is limited”, but it rarely is:

Monday, August 2, 2021

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall
When: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Where: Spokane Convention Center, Centennial Ballroom, 334 West Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99201
**Space is limited. This event is first come, first served.**

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall
When: 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM
Where: Northern Inn, 852 S Clarke Ave, Republic, WA 99166
**Space is limited. This event is first come, first served.**

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall
When: 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM
Where: Stevens County Ambulance Center, 425 North Highway, Colville, WA 99114
**Space is limited. This event is first come, first served.**

Jerry LeClaireAug 1

Between 5 and 6PM this Monday, August 2, Rep. McMorris Rodgers (CD5, eastern Washington) is holding a town hall at Spokane Convention Center, Centennial Ballroom, 334 West Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99201. On Tuesday she’s in Republic and Colville (where she’s usually more comfortable).

She is making one of her rare visits to “her” district in eastern Washington for a couple of days during the August recess. These chances to see her and ask her questions are not widely advertised. She claims these gatherings as outreach even as she manages to avoid much controversy or pointed questions by careful advertising. I encourage people to attend and to record and share the interaction. 

There are certainly some uncomfortable questions she ought to confront: 

Global Warming: Why did she recently vote to let oil and gas companies release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere instead of requiring them to collect it so they can sell it as natural gas? For details see Cathy’s Climate Sabotage. McMorris Rodgers denies the scientific reality of human induced global warming, but cleverly resists plainly saying so—even as her constituents breathe smoke summer after summer. Perhaps a direct question, “Do you believe that methane and carbon dioxide are greenhouse gases and that their release into the atmosphere is the major cause of the global warming behind the smoke we’re breathing?” would help her constituents pinpoint her denial. (McMorris Rodgers flustered in response to the direct question, “What is your take on evolution and science? Do you believe the earth is more like 6000 years old or four and a half billion years old?” Her “I can’t say how old the earth is” response raises the question of whether she is doctrinally incapable of understanding climate science.)

McMorris Rodgers recently advertised in an email sent out by her office that she was “Holding Big Tech Accountable”. She and her crew recognize that people are concerned over the role of electronic platforms, so “Holding Big Tech Accountable” sounds like the right thing to do. One might be lulled into thinking that they are addressing the truth of speech advanced by electronic media or the marketing algorithms that draw Facebook readers down conspiracy theory rabbit holes. No. Take time to visit the Energy and Commerce Republicans webpage where they lay out their propaganda. There you’ll find that McMorris Rodgers, allied with nervous Jim Jordan (R-OH), is proposing to amend the Communications Decency Act in order to punish electronic media companies if they take down blatant lies (clothed as “free speech”):

Preserving constitutionally protected speech, led by Republican Leaders Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) and Jim Jordan (R-OH), to remove liability protections for companies who censor constitutionally protected speech on their platforms, require appeals processes, and transparency for content enforcement decisions. 

There is zero chance of these bills passing the current House, but in 2023, who knows? For the moment this is clever messaging to the deluded wing of the Republican Party to signal support to punish electronic media companies for taking down, banning, or labelling blatant political lies (which these people read as “truth”). Meanwhile, the messaging lulls the general populace into thinking that Republicans are actually addressing the worrisome issues around electronic platforms. 

Those are just two lines of questioning. Here are a few more with links where one can research the specifics:

SJ Res 15-True Lender Disclosure. CMR voted NO. Cantwell and Murray both voted YES in the Senate. This bill would require lenders to disclosure their true source of funding for primarily residential loans.  Think Mortgage Broker funded/owned by a bank. Who is your true lender? Disclosure would lessen rate gouging.

HR 239-Equal Access to Contraception for Veterans Act. CMR voted NO. Think about that.

HR 2662-Should IG [Inspector General] be Removed for Cause.  CMR voted NO. This would strengthen the political ability of a rogue President to remove an IG for purely political purposes. In other words, in the past administration with Trump, an IG could longer be fired when they provide an unbiased, factual report.

H. Res. 503-Select Committee to Investigate January 6th.  CMR voted NO. The heading provides all you need to know.

HR 3684-Invest in America Act. CMR voted NO. The bill would reauthorize surface transportation programs, water infrastructure projects, and funds for highway and rail projects. She then touts the funds coming to WA under this package even after voting against it.

Look into her votes and rhetoric. Attend the town halls. Ask her for honest answers to straightforward but pointed questions.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. I regret that I am unable to attend in person but I hope to review and share what occurs from a recording or video from the event.

From McMorris Rodgers’ website. Her staff always says “Space is limited”, but it rarely is:

Monday, August 2, 2021

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall
When: 5:00 PM to 6:00 PM
Where: Spokane Convention Center, Centennial Ballroom, 334 West Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane, WA 99201
**Space is limited. This event is first come, first served.**

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall
When: 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM
Where: Northern Inn, 852 S Clarke Ave, Republic, WA 99166
**Space is limited. This event is first come, first served.**

“Conversation with Cathy” Town Hall
When: 3:00 PM to 4:00 PM
Where: Stevens County Ambulance Center, 425 North Highway, Colville, WA 99114
**Space is limited. This event is first come, first served.**

Links to Resources

Jerry LeClaireJul 30

ERRATUM: In Monday’s post, Money Talking in the Spokane Primary, I incorrectly named Riley Smith as a candidate for the City of Spokane City Council from District 1 (NE Spokane). The excellent candidate I failed to name for that position is Luc Jasmin III. Riley Smith is another excellent candidate, but he is running for one of the seats on the Spokane Public School’s Board of Directors. I apologize for my error and thank the reader who noted it.

POST:

This coming Tuesday, August 3, is the turn-in deadline for the primary election. A wide variety of local seats on city councils, school boards, fire districts in Washington State are on the ballot. This year we have an additional resource, newly required by state law, the county-wide “Official Voters’ Pamphlet”s. Spokane County’s Pamphlet is helpful, but voting solely on this guide is guesswork. Here’s the link to get you to a digital copy (as well as other election resources). The result of this “top two” primary will determine which candidates appear on the ballot this November. Do some homework and vote—if you don’t you have no grounds to complain that you don’t like any of the choices this fall. 

A great deal of information about these candidates, who they are, where they’re coming from, whether they’re qualified, and some idea of what they mean to accomplish can be had by visiting a few websites. 

My starting point is The Progressive Voters Guide. The Guide’s assessment is well worth reading even if you don’t consider yourself a progressive.

The Washington Public Disclosure Commission offers a huge trove of information on the candidates’ fund-raising and alliances. Reporting to the PDC is required by law. Since it covers the entire State of Washington navigating the site is a little complicated, but it is definitely worthwhile because the data is authoritative. Click my Primary Guides for help in locating the race and candidates you want to learn about. One addition: Be sure to explore the “Independent Expenditures” tab on a candidate’s page to get a glimpse of special interest support.

WeBelieveWeVote.org is also useful, but perhaps not for the reason one might think. Digging into the site as described in Primary Guides will eventually lead the reader to a copy of the Questionnaire any candidate who responded at all was required to fill out. This Questionnaire is a straightforward litmus test for hard right Republican pseudo-religious ideology. The website speaks of “our Christian values”. The Questionnaire reveals those values to include things like protecting “States Rights”. I do not recall that as a Christian value I was taught in Sunday School. The survey responses are revealing—and there to see if you dig.

Vote 411. On the non-partisan end of things, the League of Women Voters’ Education Fund offers another great voters’ guide and pages of voting information on its Vote 411 website. On that page just enter your street address under Personalized Voting Information to see whom of the candidates appearing on your particular ballot have responded and what they had to say. 

The Spokane Public Radio website is a little clunky to find one’s way around, but you can listen to interviews with many candidates by going to SPR’s search page and entering the candidate name. 

Don’t procrastinate. Do your homework and turn in your ballot over the weekend (if you haven’t already). Let’s have the best choices we can get for the November general election.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

WA State Realtors Are Trying to Buy the City Election–Again

Jerry LeClaireJul 28

Spokane must be special. The Washington Realtors Political Action Committee (WaRPAC) is weighing in with independent expenditures in favor only three candidates in this year’s primary races in the State of Washington—and two of those three races are in Spokane. As Adam Shanks writes in his Spokesman article “It’s 2019 all over again.”

It’s not chump change, either. 

Realtors have contributed more than $53,000 to [Jonathan] Bingle in District 1 (NE Spokane] and $49,000 to [Mike] Lish in District 3 [NW Spokane] from two sources, the Washington Realtors PAC and the National Association of Realtors Fund.

For perspective, fifty thousand nearly doubles the direct contributions each of these two candidates have reported to the Public Disclosure Commission. The Realtors “independent expenditures” are perfectly legal as long as they are reported to the PDC and the spending is done without “coordination” with the candidates’ campaigns. (On a federal level this represents the huge loophole blown into campaign finance law by Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) on the grounds of First Amendment rights and money as a form of speech.) There is no contribution limit to “independent expenditure” PACs, whereas there are limits to legal direct contributions to candidates (both at the federal and Washington State level). Big money, big voice. So much for the voice of the average citizen.

A candidate like Mike Lish (NW Spokane), with only $21,700 in individual contributions, can, by saying the right words, attract special interest spending that dwarfs the monetary voice of individual contributors. Both of Lish’s opponents have exceeded his individual contributions [Lu Hill ($36,087.24) and Zack Zappone ($24,212.09)]. The Realtor’s candidates Lish and Bingle, by hewing to the Realtor’s libertarian line dissing urban growth boundaries and the city’s Centers and Corridors plan, more than double their money in Realtor “independent” support. I urge you to visit pdc.wa.gov and explore [Here’s the click pattern: all campaigns / election year 2021, MUNICIPAL / CITY OF SPOKANE / CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF SPOKANE; then click candidate names and the CONTRIBUTIONS tab for the candidate.]

Why is Spokane in the crosshairs of the Realtors PACs? A Spokane politico controls the Realtor’s monetary spigot. Tom Hormel is not only the president of the statewide Washington Realtors but also a member of the Washington Realtors Political Action Committee’s legislative steering committee. The Spokesman article notes that “Spokane Association of Realtors’ members make the decision on who [sic] to support.” Do the assembled members of the Spokane Association of Realtors take a vote? More likely the decisions are made by a committee of politically interested realtors and developers who have been chaffing at the City of Spokane’s urban growth boundaries, political types who see an opportunity to steer the Council in their favor. The check box for $35 as a Realtors PAC contribution on the annual Washington Realtors’ membership renewal provides the funds. Most realtors in the state likely pay minimal attention to the exact use to which their money is put.

Building tract housing on open land (i.e. “urban sprawl”) is far easier and more profitable than building infill housing under the Centers and Corridors Plan. From a let’s-make-lots-of-money-quickly perspective, trashing Centers and Corridors is the way to go. In the Realtors vision the main streets in Spokane need to be publicly funded high speed thoroughfares to funnel tract house suburbanites to their jobs in town. Walkable cities and local shopping opportunities accessible on public transportation? Not so much.

The National Association of Realtors’ Realtors Political Action Committee (RPAC) is clear on what it stands for:

The REALTORS® Political Action Committee and other political fundraising are the keys to protecting and promoting the real estate industry. 

The interests of RPAC do not include supporting policies for comfortable, walkable, attractive, sustainable cities. Their mission is to promote maximal profits. The national RPAC is consistently the largest contributor to political candidates at the federal level. (For reference, the National Rifle Association isn’t even in the top ten.)

Tom Hormel’s efforts as President of the Washington Realtors and a member of the WA RPAC steering commitment bring realtor money from all over Washington State and focus that money on the City of Spokane City Council races. Bear that in mind when you vote. Cruise through the Public Disclosure Commission’s “Independent Expenditures” tab on the various candidates to see who agrees with the Realtors’ vision of progress—then vote for Lu Hill or Zack Zappone in the NW or Riley Smith or Naghmana Sherazi in the NE. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. This is not Tom Hormel’s WA Realtors’ PAC’s first attempt at buying a City of Spokane election. In 2019 WA RPAC broke records in independent expenditures in favor of four candidates, Woodward, Wendle, Cathcart, and Rathbun. That met with only 50% success (Nadine Woodward was elected Mayor and Michael Cathcart represents NE Spokane on the Council.) Apparently, 50% success from spending member money was good enough for Mr. Hormel to try again. 

WA State Realtors Are Trying to Buy the City Election–Again

Jerry LeClaireJul 28

Spokane must be special. The Washington Realtors Political Action Committee (WaRPAC) is weighing in with independent expenditures in favor only three candidates in this year’s primary races in the State of Washington—and two of those three races are in Spokane. As Adam Shanks writes in his Spokesman article “It’s 2019 all over again.”

It’s not chump change, either. 

Realtors have contributed more than $53,000 to [Jonathan] Bingle in District 1 (NE Spokane] and $49,000 to [Mike] Lish in District 3 [NW Spokane] from two sources, the Washington Realtors PAC and the National Association of Realtors Fund.

For perspective, fifty thousand nearly doubles the direct contributions each of these two candidates have reported to the Public Disclosure Commission. The Realtors “independent expenditures” are perfectly legal as long as they are reported to the PDC and the spending is done without “coordination” with the candidates’ campaigns. (On a federal level this represents the huge loophole blown into campaign finance law by Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) on the grounds of First Amendment rights and money as a form of speech.) There is no contribution limit to “independent expenditure” PACs, whereas there are limits to legal direct contributions to candidates (both at the federal and Washington State level). Big money, big voice. So much for the voice of the average citizen.

A candidate like Mike Lish (NW Spokane), with only $21,700 in individual contributions, can, by saying the right words, attract special interest spending that dwarfs the monetary voice of individual contributors. Both of Lish’s opponents have exceeded his individual contributions [Lu Hill ($36,087.24) and Zack Zappone ($24,212.09)]. The Realtor’s candidates Lish and Bingle, by hewing to the Realtor’s libertarian line dissing urban growth boundaries and the city’s Centers and Corridors plan, more than double their money in Realtor “independent” support. I urge you to visit pdc.wa.gov and explore [Here’s the click pattern: all campaigns / election year 2021, MUNICIPAL / CITY OF SPOKANE / CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, CITY OF SPOKANE; then click candidate names and the CONTRIBUTIONS tab for the candidate.]

Why is Spokane in the crosshairs of the Realtors PACs? A Spokane politico controls the Realtor’s monetary spigot. Tom Hormel is not only the president of the statewide Washington Realtors but also a member of the Washington Realtors Political Action Committee’s legislative steering committee. The Spokesman article notes that “Spokane Association of Realtors’ members make the decision on who [sic] to support.” Do the assembled members of the Spokane Association of Realtors take a vote? More likely the decisions are made by a committee of politically interested realtors and developers who have been chaffing at the City of Spokane’s urban growth boundaries, political types who see an opportunity to steer the Council in their favor. The check box for $35 as a Realtors PAC contribution on the annual Washington Realtors’ membership renewal provides the funds. Most realtors in the state likely pay minimal attention to the exact use to which their money is put.

Building tract housing on open land (i.e. “urban sprawl”) is far easier and more profitable than building infill housing under the Centers and Corridors Plan. From a let’s-make-lots-of-money-quickly perspective, trashing Centers and Corridors is the way to go. In the Realtors vision the main streets in Spokane need to be publicly funded high speed thoroughfares to funnel tract house suburbanites to their jobs in town. Walkable cities and local shopping opportunities accessible on public transportation? Not so much.

The National Association of Realtors’ Realtors Political Action Committee (RPAC) is clear on what it stands for:

The REALTORS® Political Action Committee and other political fundraising are the keys to protecting and promoting the real estate industry. 

The interests of RPAC do not include supporting policies for comfortable, walkable, attractive, sustainable cities. Their mission is to promote maximal profits. The national RPAC is consistently the largest contributor to political candidates at the federal level. (For reference, the National Rifle Association isn’t even in the top ten.)

Tom Hormel’s efforts as President of the Washington Realtors and a member of the WA RPAC steering commitment bring realtor money from all over Washington State and focus that money on the City of Spokane City Council races. Bear that in mind when you vote. Cruise through the Public Disclosure Commission’s “Independent Expenditures” tab on the various candidates to see who agrees with the Realtors’ vision of progress—then vote for Lu Hill or Zack Zappone in the NW or Riley Smith or Naghmana Sherazi in the NE. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. This is not Tom Hormel’s WA Realtors’ PAC’s first attempt at buying a City of Spokane election. In 2019 WA RPAC broke records in independent expenditures in favor of four candidates, Woodward, Wendle, Cathcart, and Rathbun. That met with only 50% success (Nadine Woodward was elected Mayor and Michael Cathcart represents NE Spokane on the Council.) Apparently, 50% success from spending member money was good enough for Mr. Hormel to try again. 

Inform us or push our buttons?

Jerry LeClaireJul 26

We are molded by the perspective that we more or less passively consume. Much of what we “know” we know through the eyes and the filters of the reporters, pundits, and commentators who present us “news”. News and commentary manipulates our emotions—and our voting patterns.

Few of us follow the actions of the Washington State legislature closely enough to have a clear picture of laws passed this session with the intention of reining in police excesses. The discussions in the legislature were in the wake of a series of documented police killings of unarmed citizens, including a young, unarmed mentally ill acquaintance of mine shot dead by one of Sheriff Knezovich’s deputies in Spokane Valley. 

Recently, several articles have appeared in local Spokane media concerning the resultant changes in state law that are about to go into effect. The slant of some of this reporting is deplorable.

One of my readers saw this posted on NextDoor. It was titled by the person who posted it “People get ready”.

SPOKANE, Wash. — Thirteen laws passed during the 2021 legislative session will directly affect law enforcement, when a majority of them go into effect on July 25.

Across the state, concerns are already being raised by local police departments because of their impact on public safety.

For example, military equipment of weapons 50 caliber or greater cannot be used, eliminating current shotguns and the less lethal beanbag shotguns used in situations of de-escalation.

Tear gas, which was used during the protests, can only be used for barricades, a hostage situation, or for riots outside a correctional facility. However, before law enforcement can use it, they have to get permission from the highest jurisdiction. For local police departments, this will mean the mayor.

911 calls relating to domestic violence and mental health will not be responded to, unless certain conditions are met. Also, police pursuits are now limited.

“The new policy that impacts the entire state only allows pursuits for a handful of violent crimes, and you have to have probable cause that the person who committed the crime is in that vehicle,” said Spokane Police Chief Craig Meidl. “Reform to me means that something is broken, to me. I don’t think, that majority of law enforcement in Washington State is broken. I think what we need to do, and what we are obligated to do, is constantly evolve.”

Spokane Police Department has already been putting these laws into effect. While Chief Meidl understands the reasoning behind the laws, he’s also concerned.

“I do feel like, based on the language of the bills that were passed and will become law on July 25th, I think this has gone too far, and I think this is going to create dangerous communities,” Chief Meidl said.

Liberty Lake Police Chief Damon Simmons has been keeping a close eye on these bills that were passed. He believes, some of these laws directly contradict their police oath.

“We in law enforcement are going to experience the inability to protect the public in the matter that which we’ve been sworn to do so,” Chief Simmons said. “It actually sickens me to think that people are going to call 9-1-1 and ask for assistance and they’re not going to get it.”

Liberty Lake Police Department will be discussing these new laws and how they will affect the community during their city council meeting on July 20th. The meeting will be available on Zoom.

The post was followed by more than thirty outraged comments, including the usual one’s about the “liberals are coming for your guns”.

Googling the first line of the post takes one back to its source, KXLY.com, where at least the article’s title was a little less inflammatory: “New police reform laws raise concerns for local police departments.”

This KXLY presentation is worthy in its bias of a Fox News, a Sean Hannity, or the Epoch Times. The author, Rania Kaur, offers not a hint of the reason the laws were passed by the state legislature, no detail on the rest of the content of the laws, or any voice to the legislators who wrote and passed the new laws. She presents only the opinion of certain members of law enforcement, people who, being human too, are not likely to be in favor of any law that poses limits on their actions. 

The Spokesman’s Emma Epperly and Sydney Brown in their later article, “As police-reform laws go into effect, sheriffs and activists disagree on their effectiveness”at least offered a voice from among those who wrote, debated, and passed the legislation:

Rep. Jesse Johnson, D-Federal Way, the co-sponsor of several police reform bills that passed the Legislature this year, said he wanted these laws to increase police accountability and address historic racial bias against communities more likely to be on the receiving end of police violence.

Better still, Epperly and Brown offer a glimpse at the process by which laws are interpreted, rolled out, and applied:

The Washington state attorney general will give a formal opinion about parts of the law both police and lawmakers agreed were unclear, Johnson said. These concerns include a ban on .50 caliber weapons and new standards for whether officers can take someone to a treatment center during mental health calls.

“As long as they understand our legislative intent … that will help clear up those questions,” Johnson said.

Even with that acknowledgement of legislative intent and interpretation of details, the Spokesman article starts with:

A group of 20 sheriffs and police chiefs expressed concern at a news conference Thursday about police reform legislation they say will hurt their ability to do their job, while community activists and families affected by police violence say this should only be the start of accountability.

The leaders of law enforcement agencies from across Eastern and Central Washington said during the press conference at CenterPlace Regional Event Center in Spokane Valley that the legislation will hinder their ability to respond to mental health and domestic violence calls.

This lead-in to the article inevitably feeds the confirmation bias of “law and order” Republicans, many of whom harbor an abiding distrust of government in general. A press conference does not occur by accident. A press conference is a soapbox designed to present a narrative to the press. Epperly and Brown write as if this press conference materialized out of thin air. Who organized it? Who paid for it? Who chose CenterPlace in painfully conservative Spokane Valley as the venue? What do the assembled eastern Washington police chiefs and sheriffs mean to accomplish with this grandstand? Do they wish to instill fear, worry, and distrust of state government as a political statement? Whatever their intent of this press conference, for the casual reader both these articles fan division and stir fear rather than consider the value of the making of laws and the rule of law in helping to solve society’s problems. 

Read and listen to the news. Consider its emotional effect. Ask what the coverage leaves out. Complain. Write letters to the editor. Otherwise the media lead us around by the nose…

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. An article in the July 23rd Spokesman, “Hundreds of new Washington laws go into effect on Sunday covering areas from police accountability to wildfires to education” by Laurel Demkovich offers better context for the legislative actions the assembled eastern Washington police chiefs and sheriffs were complaining about from their press conference soapbox.

Inform us or push our buttons?

Jerry LeClaireJul 26

We are molded by the perspective that we more or less passively consume. Much of what we “know” we know through the eyes and the filters of the reporters, pundits, and commentators who present us “news”. News and commentary manipulates our emotions—and our voting patterns.

Few of us follow the actions of the Washington State legislature closely enough to have a clear picture of laws passed this session with the intention of reining in police excesses. The discussions in the legislature were in the wake of a series of documented police killings of unarmed citizens, including a young, unarmed mentally ill acquaintance of mine shot dead by one of Sheriff Knezovich’s deputies in Spokane Valley. 

Recently, several articles have appeared in local Spokane media concerning the resultant changes in state law that are about to go into effect. The slant of some of this reporting is deplorable.

One of my readers saw this posted on NextDoor. It was titled by the person who posted it “People get ready”.

SPOKANE, Wash. — Thirteen laws passed during the 2021 legislative session will directly affect law enforcement, when a majority of them go into effect on July 25.

Across the state, concerns are already being raised by local police departments because of their impact on public safety.

For example, military equipment of weapons 50 caliber or greater cannot be used, eliminating current shotguns and the less lethal beanbag shotguns used in situations of de-escalation.

Tear gas, which was used during the protests, can only be used for barricades, a hostage situation, or for riots outside a correctional facility. However, before law enforcement can use it, they have to get permission from the highest jurisdiction. For local police departments, this will mean the mayor.

911 calls relating to domestic violence and mental health will not be responded to, unless certain conditions are met. Also, police pursuits are now limited.

“The new policy that impacts the entire state only allows pursuits for a handful of violent crimes, and you have to have probable cause that the person who committed the crime is in that vehicle,” said Spokane Police Chief Craig Meidl. “Reform to me means that something is broken, to me. I don’t think, that majority of law enforcement in Washington State is broken. I think what we need to do, and what we are obligated to do, is constantly evolve.”

Spokane Police Department has already been putting these laws into effect. While Chief Meidl understands the reasoning behind the laws, he’s also concerned.

“I do feel like, based on the language of the bills that were passed and will become law on July 25th, I think this has gone too far, and I think this is going to create dangerous communities,” Chief Meidl said.

Liberty Lake Police Chief Damon Simmons has been keeping a close eye on these bills that were passed. He believes, some of these laws directly contradict their police oath.

“We in law enforcement are going to experience the inability to protect the public in the matter that which we’ve been sworn to do so,” Chief Simmons said. “It actually sickens me to think that people are going to call 9-1-1 and ask for assistance and they’re not going to get it.”

Liberty Lake Police Department will be discussing these new laws and how they will affect the community during their city council meeting on July 20th. The meeting will be available on Zoom.

The post was followed by more than thirty outraged comments, including the usual one’s about the “liberals are coming for your guns”.

Googling the first line of the post takes one back to its source, KXLY.com, where at least the article’s title was a little less inflammatory: “New police reform laws raise concerns for local police departments.”

This KXLY presentation is worthy in its bias of a Fox News, a Sean Hannity, or the Epoch Times. The author, Rania Kaur, offers not a hint of the reason the laws were passed by the state legislature, no detail on the rest of the content of the laws, or any voice to the legislators who wrote and passed the new laws. She presents only the opinion of certain members of law enforcement, people who, being human too, are not likely to be in favor of any law that poses limits on their actions. 

The Spokesman’s Emma Epperly and Sydney Brown in their later article, “As police-reform laws go into effect, sheriffs and activists disagree on their effectiveness”at least offered a voice from among those who wrote, debated, and passed the legislation:

Rep. Jesse Johnson, D-Federal Way, the co-sponsor of several police reform bills that passed the Legislature this year, said he wanted these laws to increase police accountability and address historic racial bias against communities more likely to be on the receiving end of police violence.

Better still, Epperly and Brown offer a glimpse at the process by which laws are interpreted, rolled out, and applied:

The Washington state attorney general will give a formal opinion about parts of the law both police and lawmakers agreed were unclear, Johnson said. These concerns include a ban on .50 caliber weapons and new standards for whether officers can take someone to a treatment center during mental health calls.

“As long as they understand our legislative intent … that will help clear up those questions,” Johnson said.

Even with that acknowledgement of legislative intent and interpretation of details, the Spokesman article starts with:

A group of 20 sheriffs and police chiefs expressed concern at a news conference Thursday about police reform legislation they say will hurt their ability to do their job, while community activists and families affected by police violence say this should only be the start of accountability.

The leaders of law enforcement agencies from across Eastern and Central Washington said during the press conference at CenterPlace Regional Event Center in Spokane Valley that the legislation will hinder their ability to respond to mental health and domestic violence calls.

This lead-in to the article inevitably feeds the confirmation bias of “law and order” Republicans, many of whom harbor an abiding distrust of government in general. A press conference does not occur by accident. A press conference is a soapbox designed to present a narrative to the press. Epperly and Brown write as if this press conference materialized out of thin air. Who organized it? Who paid for it? Who chose CenterPlace in painfully conservative Spokane Valley as the venue? What do the assembled eastern Washington police chiefs and sheriffs mean to accomplish with this grandstand? Do they wish to instill fear, worry, and distrust of state government as a political statement? Whatever their intent of this press conference, for the casual reader both these articles fan division and stir fear rather than consider the value of the making of laws and the rule of law in helping to solve society’s problems. 

Read and listen to the news. Consider its emotional effect. Ask what the coverage leaves out. Complain. Write letters to the editor. Otherwise the media lead us around by the nose…

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

P.S. An article in the July 23rd Spokesman, “Hundreds of new Washington laws go into effect on Sunday covering areas from police accountability to wildfires to education” by Laurel Demkovich offers better context for the legislative actions the assembled eastern Washington police chiefs and sheriffs were complaining about from their press conference soapbox.

The Effort to Spotlight Corporate Hypocrisy

Jerry LeClaireJul 23

We are all familiar with the methods elected officials and political candidates use to convince swing voters that they are worthy of trust. McMorris Rodgers (R-CD5, Eastern Washington State), when there is any talk of climate change, consistently uses soothing terms like “renewable” and “alternative energy sources”. If a swing voter squints they could almost imagine that McMorris Rodgers understands the threat of climate change and will vote accordingly. Instead, she counts on constituents not paying too much attention when she casts a vote in favor of oil companies freely releasing methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. All politicians, especially those in the service of and in debt to corporate donors, hide their true colors to some degree in order to build trust. How many votes would Cathy lose if she openly declared, “Climate science is a liberal plot to damage industry”? With politicians the proof of the their beliefs is in their voting (and sometimes in obscure speeches that don’t get much coverage).

Many corporations engage in the same clever deceit, but the proof of corporate deceit lies in political donations and lobbying, not in voting patterns. Despite the Citizens’ United U.S. Supreme Court case declaring that corporations are persons with free “speech” rights, a corporation is obviously not an individual person with a single brain that has to deal with its own hypocrisy. A corporation is a conglomeration of many people, essentially a small government with people serving on a corporate board and working in the corporation’s marketing department, all paid with corporate receipts to pursue one thing: profit for shareholders. The individual persons working in the marketing and public relations department of a corporation might sincerely believe what they tell the public about corporate intent. Those same people have very little knowledge of people in another department that send out political donations and hire lobbyists. The corporate “person” in corporate personhood is like a body (Latin “corpus”) in which “the left hand doesn’t know [or might not know] what the right hand is doing.”

Without legislation (which the Republican Party staunchly opposes) to reverse Citizens’ United, how can we learn of and influence the actions of corporations? The tools exist in campaign finance law requiring disclosure of political donations. (The tools do not reveal additional vast amounts of dark money sloshing around in Republican propaganda tanks like the Washington Policy Center but these tools are nonetheless a good start.) Data on corporate donations to politicians and political action committees (PACs) is readily available online—but the format and intricacy of the shoveling of money from one coffer to another is byzantine. For starters, each state has its own reporting requirements and website (in Washington State it is the “Public Disclosure Commission”, pdc.wa.gov). On a national level there is the Federal Elections Commission, fec.gov, also with its own rules. It is all there, but digging deeply enough to extract telling information is a full time occupation. 

Fortunately, there is at least one independent reporter for whom deciphering and reporting on campaign contributions and corporate hypocrisy is a full time occupation: Judd Legum of Popular Information. His investigations of corporate donations have consequences. Major media pick up on the evidence he presents. The resulting negative public relations get corporate attention. Following the January 6 insurrection many companies announced they would not contribute to those members of Congress who supported Trump’s Big Lie by voting against certification of Electoral College votes. Popular Information has been diligent in spotlighting corporations that have backslid on that promise. A recent example is Lockheed Martin. Recently, Popular Information also published a list of 35 companies that have NOT gone back on their promise. Making oneself aware of corporations practicing and not practicing corporate hypocrisy and spreading that awareness in conversation has an effect on public perception of a corporation, an effect that can influence corporate behavior because it potentially threatens corporations’ reason for being: protecting the bottom line. 

I urge you to visit Popular Information, check out Legum’s missives, sign up for his email, and financially support his effort by buying a subscription. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

The Effort to Spotlight Corporate Hypocrisy

Jerry LeClaireJul 23

We are all familiar with the methods elected officials and political candidates use to convince swing voters that they are worthy of trust. McMorris Rodgers (R-CD5, Eastern Washington State), when there is any talk of climate change, consistently uses soothing terms like “renewable” and “alternative energy sources”. If a swing voter squints they could almost imagine that McMorris Rodgers understands the threat of climate change and will vote accordingly. Instead, she counts on constituents not paying too much attention when she casts a vote in favor of oil companies freely releasing methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere. All politicians, especially those in the service of and in debt to corporate donors, hide their true colors to some degree in order to build trust. How many votes would Cathy lose if she openly declared, “Climate science is a liberal plot to damage industry”? With politicians the proof of the their beliefs is in their voting (and sometimes in obscure speeches that don’t get much coverage).

Many corporations engage in the same clever deceit, but the proof of corporate deceit lies in political donations and lobbying, not in voting patterns. Despite the Citizens’ United U.S. Supreme Court case declaring that corporations are persons with free “speech” rights, a corporation is obviously not an individual person with a single brain that has to deal with its own hypocrisy. A corporation is a conglomeration of many people, essentially a small government with people serving on a corporate board and working in the corporation’s marketing department, all paid with corporate receipts to pursue one thing: profit for shareholders. The individual persons working in the marketing and public relations department of a corporation might sincerely believe what they tell the public about corporate intent. Those same people have very little knowledge of people in another department that send out political donations and hire lobbyists. The corporate “person” in corporate personhood is like a body (Latin “corpus”) in which “the left hand doesn’t know [or might not know] what the right hand is doing.”

Without legislation (which the Republican Party staunchly opposes) to reverse Citizens’ United, how can we learn of and influence the actions of corporations? The tools exist in campaign finance law requiring disclosure of political donations. (The tools do not reveal additional vast amounts of dark money sloshing around in Republican propaganda tanks like the Washington Policy Center but these tools are nonetheless a good start.) Data on corporate donations to politicians and political action committees (PACs) is readily available online—but the format and intricacy of the shoveling of money from one coffer to another is byzantine. For starters, each state has its own reporting requirements and website (in Washington State it is the “Public Disclosure Commission”, pdc.wa.gov). On a national level there is the Federal Elections Commission, fec.gov, also with its own rules. It is all there, but digging deeply enough to extract telling information is a full time occupation. 

Fortunately, there is at least one independent reporter for whom deciphering and reporting on campaign contributions and corporate hypocrisy is a full time occupation: Judd Legum of Popular Information. His investigations of corporate donations have consequences. Major media pick up on the evidence he presents. The resulting negative public relations get corporate attention. Following the January 6 insurrection many companies announced they would not contribute to those members of Congress who supported Trump’s Big Lie by voting against certification of Electoral College votes. Popular Information has been diligent in spotlighting corporations that have backslid on that promise. A recent example is Lockheed Martin. Recently, Popular Information also published a list of 35 companies that have NOT gone back on their promise. Making oneself aware of corporations practicing and not practicing corporate hypocrisy and spreading that awareness in conversation has an effect on public perception of a corporation, an effect that can influence corporate behavior because it potentially threatens corporations’ reason for being: protecting the bottom line. 

I urge you to visit Popular Information, check out Legum’s missives, sign up for his email, and financially support his effort by buying a subscription. 

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

How to sort the candidates

Jerry LeClaireJul 21

The following is directed primarily at the races for two seats on Board of Spokane Public Schools (District 81), but the pattern of research is applicable to any race.

In the new (this year) Spokane County Official Local Voters’ Pamphlet the profiles of candidates for various school board races in the county take up eight of twenty-three pages of candidate profiles, more than a third of the space. Profiles of candidates for two “Spokane SD 81 Director Positions” (Spokane Public Schools School Board) take up five of those eight pages and present a head-turning thirteen candidates. (Remember this primary election Voters’ Pamphlet only shows candidates for positions for which more than two candidates have filed to run.)

What is this job, anyway? A seat on the Spokane Public Schools (SD 81) Board is a volunteer position (no salary). The term of service is six years. The Board meets once a week, judging by the SPS webpage that is supposed to show the meeting minutes. That is a considerable time commitment, not something to be taken lightly. The SPS Board consists of five elected, voting members and two “Student Advisors” (click to review the current composition). The Board elects a board president (currently Jerrall Haynes)and vice president (currently Mike Wiser) from among the five elected members. Jerrall Haynes’ and Aryn Ziehnert’s six year terms on the Board are ending and neither is running for re-election. An open seat in any position is an invitation for candidates and will tend to generate more interest than running against an incumbent.

There are thirteen candidates for the SPS Board positions, eight for “Director Position 3” and five for “Director Position 4”. Who are these people, what do they offer, and what is their level of support? I recommend a visit to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission’s website for a good start. Here’s the click pattern: all campaigns/(be sure the election year is set at 2021) SPECIAL / SPOKANE CO / SCHOOL DIRECTOR, SPOKANE SD 081. (A parallel route will get you analysis of other candidates’ fundraising, too.)

First, note that Cangelosi (who takes up a third of one of the pages in the Voters’ Pamphlet) did not even file with the PDC, something required by law for a real campaign. Five other candidates taking up space in the pamphlet report zero contributions. That leaves five candidates who have raised at least some funds from supporters, which can be taken as a measure of seriousness and community engagement. 

Of those five, two are running for Position 3, Bedford and Geffken. (Daryl Geffken is incorrectly listed as contending for Position 4 at the PDC.) He will likely advance to the general election along with Melissa Bedford (who is, without a doubt, the most qualified candidate).

Position 4 offers three candidates who have raised some campaign funds, Ametu, Smith, and Dean. Dean already has a smattering of campaign signs out on the South Hill and she’s the best funded (by a small margin) over Smith. Dean is likely to make it to the November general election ballot. So who is she and what values does she represent? 

To answer that question I recommend a visit to WeBelieveWeVote.com. Here’s the click pattern: Voter Guide / Spokane / scroll to Kata Dean and click “More” / scroll down and click “Survey Responses”. (I recommend the exercise of getting there, but here is the direct link to the questionnaire.) First, note that Ms. Dean is the only candidate for this position who even responded to this questionnaire. Then note Ms. Dean’s level of agreement with the 14 position statements, particularly those few that would seem to pertain to education, numbers 4, 7, 8, and 13. This candidate is a certified Republican culture warrior, an adherent to the creed. 

A similar click pattern will get you to Daryl Geffken’s questionnaire, candidate for the other open seat on the SPS Board, Position 3, and the only one of the Position 3 candidates responding to the questionnaire. 

Dean and Geffken not only share creeds, but they also share the samecampaign treasurer, Emily Ling, a fact one can ferret out on the PDC website. Sharing the same campaign treasurer is no sin, but it might be indicative of shared ideology and support.

This primary election for two seats on the SPS Board is nominally non-partisan, but the partisan ideological underpinnings of two of the candidates are abundantly clear. 

I recommend similar routes of inquiry as those I’ve presented here with the PDC and WeBelieve, to better understand where are candidates in this election are coming from.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

How to sort the candidates

Jerry LeClaireJul 21

The following is directed primarily at the races for two seats on Board of Spokane Public Schools (District 81), but the pattern of research is applicable to any race.

In the new (this year) Spokane County Official Local Voters’ Pamphlet the profiles of candidates for various school board races in the county take up eight of twenty-three pages of candidate profiles, more than a third of the space. Profiles of candidates for two “Spokane SD 81 Director Positions” (Spokane Public Schools School Board) take up five of those eight pages and present a head-turning thirteen candidates. (Remember this primary election Voters’ Pamphlet only shows candidates for positions for which more than two candidates have filed to run.)

What is this job, anyway? A seat on the Spokane Public Schools (SD 81) Board is a volunteer position (no salary). The term of service is six years. The Board meets once a week, judging by the SPS webpage that is supposed to show the meeting minutes. That is a considerable time commitment, not something to be taken lightly. The SPS Board consists of five elected, voting members and two “Student Advisors” (click to review the current composition). The Board elects a board president (currently Jerrall Haynes)and vice president (currently Mike Wiser) from among the five elected members. Jerrall Haynes’ and Aryn Ziehnert’s six year terms on the Board are ending and neither is running for re-election. An open seat in any position is an invitation for candidates and will tend to generate more interest than running against an incumbent.

There are thirteen candidates for the SPS Board positions, eight for “Director Position 3” and five for “Director Position 4”. Who are these people, what do they offer, and what is their level of support? I recommend a visit to the Washington State Public Disclosure Commission’s website for a good start. Here’s the click pattern: all campaigns/(be sure the election year is set at 2021) SPECIAL / SPOKANE CO / SCHOOL DIRECTOR, SPOKANE SD 081. (A parallel route will get you analysis of other candidates’ fundraising, too.)

First, note that Cangelosi (who takes up a third of one of the pages in the Voters’ Pamphlet) did not even file with the PDC, something required by law for a real campaign. Five other candidates taking up space in the pamphlet report zero contributions. That leaves five candidates who have raised at least some funds from supporters, which can be taken as a measure of seriousness and community engagement. 

Of those five, two are running for Position 3, Bedford and Geffken. (Daryl Geffken is incorrectly listed as contending for Position 4 at the PDC.) He will likely advance to the general election along with Melissa Bedford (who is, without a doubt, the most qualified candidate).

Position 4 offers three candidates who have raised some campaign funds, Ametu, Smith, and Dean. Dean already has a smattering of campaign signs out on the South Hill and she’s the best funded (by a small margin) over Smith. Dean is likely to make it to the November general election ballot. So who is she and what values does she represent? 

To answer that question I recommend a visit to WeBelieveWeVote.com. Here’s the click pattern: Voter Guide / Spokane / scroll to Kata Dean and click “More” / scroll down and click “Survey Responses”. (I recommend the exercise of getting there, but here is the direct link to the questionnaire.) First, note that Ms. Dean is the only candidate for this position who even responded to this questionnaire. Then note Ms. Dean’s level of agreement with the 14 position statements, particularly those few that would seem to pertain to education, numbers 4, 7, 8, and 13. This candidate is a certified Republican culture warrior, an adherent to the creed. 

A similar click pattern will get you to Daryl Geffken’s questionnaire, candidate for the other open seat on the SPS Board, Position 3, and the only one of the Position 3 candidates responding to the questionnaire. 

Dean and Geffken not only share creeds, but they also share the samecampaign treasurer, Emily Ling, a fact one can ferret out on the PDC website. Sharing the same campaign treasurer is no sin, but it might be indicative of shared ideology and support.

This primary election for two seats on the SPS Board is nominally non-partisan, but the partisan ideological underpinnings of two of the candidates are abundantly clear. 

I recommend similar routes of inquiry as those I’ve presented here with the PDC and WeBelieve, to better understand where are candidates in this election are coming from.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry

More Local Primary Election Detail. 

Jerry LeClaireJul 19

In case you missed it, here’s the link to last Friday’s post. It contains links to resources that might be of use in assessing the candidates. Many readers said they found Friday’s post helpful. 

Vicky Dalton (the Spokane County Auditor—the person in charge of Spokane County Elections) wants to remind everyone that ballots sent in by mail must be postmarked by Election Day (August 3) if mailed (so, if mailing, be sure to put it in the mail a day or two before just to be safe). Or, to be even more sure, deposit your ballot by Election night (Tuesday, August 3) at 8:00 pm in one of the many white ballot drop boxes. (Click here for drop box locations.)

This is the first election for the new local voter’s pamphlet, the “Spokane County Official Local Voters’ Pamphlet” your household should have gotten in the mail around the same time as your ballot. A voters’ pamphlet with every election was mandated by Washington State HB 2421, Section 6 that was signed into law on April 3, 2020. 

One reader pointed out that the Progressive Voters Guide does not cover the City of Spokane Valley. That is unfortunate. There are four seats up for election on the City of Spokane Valley City Council, with Positions 4, 5, and 7 appearing on the primary ballot. (Position 1 is mentioned below.) The hard right is making a play for Position 7 to unseat the much more moderate incumbent, Linda Thompson, backing Laura Padden, wife of Mike Padden, the incumbent hard right Republican state senator from legislative district 4 (Spokane valley north to Mt. Spokane). The contributors to Ms. Padden’s campaign are a list of right wing locals that should give anyone some pause. (Beyond Linda Thompson and Laura Padden other two candidates for position 7 have reported no contributions at all, so, although they are the justification for this race appearing on the primary ballot, they are not waging active campaigns.)

Many readers found it confusing that candidates they’ve been following did not appear on the primary ballot they received. Here’s the rule: If a seat is up for election but no more than two candidates have filed for that seat then that contest won’t appear on the primary ballot. We have a “top two” primary system in Washington that determines who will appear on the November general election ballot. If one, two, or no candidates have filed for a given seat, we already know that they will appear on the general election ballot (so why clutter the primary?). 

The example I gave was the City of Spokane City Council District 2 seat, for which only Betsy Wilkerson (incumbent) and Tyler LeMasters have filed to run and, hence, do not appear on the primary ballot. There are other examples in the county. The City of Spokane Valley City Council Position 1 seat race has only two filers, Rod Higgins, the far right incumbent and attendee at Northwest Grassroots, and the more centrist candidate, James “JJ” Johnson. It requires some clicking, but this orientation is supported by checking out the contributors to the two campaigns by visiting pdc.wa.gov. Here’s Higgings. Here’s Johnson. Higgins and Johnson will also appear only on the November general election ballot, not in the primary.

The PDC (Public Disclosure Commission) is a great resource that should be more used. One might ask what good sunshine on campaign finance is if hardly anyone looks at what is illuminated. (The PDC website is not terribly user friendly, but it is accessible with a little perseverance. See Primary Guides or Primaries!! for some tips.)

In the western part of Spokane valley signs have appeared for Chris Cargill for City of Liberty Lake City Council. Yes, that’s the Chris Cargill who is the Eastern Washington Director for Washington Policy Center (WPC), a Koch-funded, right wing “think tank”—and Cathy McMorris Rodgers’ policy and propaganda provider. There are three seats up for election in the City of Liberty Lake. Only one of those seats has two filers and, as a consequence, the Liberty Lake’s City Council seats also do not appear on the primary ballot. The Spokane County Elections website rather cryptically says, “The August 3, 2021 Primary Election is a partial county election” and one finds that the City of Liberty Lake is not listed as “participating”. The reason Liberty Lake isn’t “participating” is simply that there is no position in the city’s government for which more than two candidates have filed. 

More on election, especially the races for two two positions on the Spokane Public Schools (District 081) Board. Although my focus is on Spokane area elections, I hope what these posts provide is useful ideas for researching candidates for these sometimes rather obscure positions. Representative government works because we elect people whom we trust to represent our values and interests on boards, councils, and legislatures. Our homework is to figure out who will best represent those values and interests.

Keep to the high ground,

Jerry