Hello all! I am very excited to join this great cause.. I recently
queried a GOP challenger to the incumbent state representative for my
district on their positions regarding change-congress. I quickly got a
fairly detailed response.

I am a lifelong democrat, but would rather have someone in office that
supports all four of the pledges than a democrat whose support for
these important issues is weak. I have seen first hand what happens
when one party goes without serious challenge. The old boys network
ends up ruling.

I look forward to hearing about all of your experiences. Let me know
how I can help support this great cause!

Peter HIll
www.peterjhill.net

On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:35 AM, Kim Verde wrote:

Hi Peter, thank you for your interest in the campaign. You bring up
some
great issues. Of course, as you state, these are really more
congressional
issues than state legislative, but they do have some significance in
state
politics as well so I'm happy to answer.

1. I will accept contributions from individuals only, lobbyists
excepted.

While I sympathize with you on this point I can't agree to this. I do
agree
that some of what is wrong with government comes from politicians
accepting
large donations from PACs and lobbyists, however, restricting this
form of
donation will do very little to influence how politicians vote. The
fact is,
PACs the lobbyists who represent PACs are nothing more than a group of
citizens that have the same concerns and have banded together
synergistically in order to make their voices better heard. I'm sure
you're
a member of a few groups, be they official or not (i.e., a group of
mental
health professionals or maybe a group of people who want to clean up
Greenlake, or maybe people who support independent music? They are all
examples of groups that can have PACs and/or lobbyists). Do you see
anything
wrong with pooling your money with other like minded folks to help get
someone you like and who shares your views elected?
In short, this form of restriction on campaign funding restricts 1st
amendment rights while doing little to improve government.

2. I will support the abolition of "earmarks."

I completely agree with this. Part of the reason for my feelings on
the
issue above come from my belief in small government and my feelings on
this
issue tie directly into that. While the restriction above was one
aimed at
private citizens, abolishing earmarks puts the restriction on
government. I
think the main concern that citizens have with government is how much
and on
what government is spending their tax dollars. Abolishing earmarks
would
solve a huge part of this problem. Furthermore, the biggest problem
that
most people have with donations coming from PACs and lobbyists is the
quid
pro quo of the politicians giving the companies, groups, etc. millions
of
dollars back in the form of funding for their program. If this was
removed
then a lot of the problems associated with campaign donations would
also be
removed.

3. I will support reform to increase transparency of congress.

I completely agree with this as well. The biggest problem with
earmarks
isn't the earmarks themselves (some are actually quite necessary, i.e.
funding for a new 520 bridge or viaduct, and are simply tax payer
dollars
coming back to the district.) The problem is that earmarks aren't
voted on
by the whole of congress. They're slipped into other bills, and often
times
ones that have nothing to do with the earmark themselves (i.e. corn
subsidies in a war funding bill). Transparency would clean up the
funding
process of projects and allow citizens better access to information
about
who they're voting for. I'd also support increased transparency to the
campaign donation process. I don't want to restrict XYZ PAC from
giving
$5000 to Senator Smith but if they're going to do so I want to know
about it
and I also want to know that XYZ company received $1 million in
funding from
a bill that was sponsored by Senator Smith.

4. I will support public funding of public elections.

While the people behind this movement may have their hearts in the
right
place, wanting to give "the little guy" a bigger advantage against the
big
guy, this has been proven to be not only a huge problem in most of the
areas
it's already been tried (Emilie Boyle's campaign for city council in
Portland is a perfect example of what can happen, google her name), it
is
also big government at its worst. It also may be said that this law
interferes with people's freedom of conscious, and by that I mean, do
you
really want the government telling you who you need to support
financially?
As an example, if you're pro-choice do you really want your tax
dollars
going to someone who is pro-life or vice versa? No, the best way to
address
this problem is by requiring TV and radio stations, etc. to give equal
time
to candidates in a race, which is already the case.

Thank you for your interests in my campaign. I'm always happy to see
citizens who are engaged in the process. One more bit of information
to
leave you with. I'd encourage you to visit the Public Disclosure
Commission's website (www.pdc.wa.gov) and do a search on my opponent's
filings. I think you'll agree that, no matter how he may answer the
above
questions, the proof is in the pudding. The overwhelming majority of
his
campaign donations come from lobbyists, PACs and big business.
Thank you for your support! Remember to vote Nov. 4th.

Kim Verde
Candidate, 43rd District Representative
www.voteforverde.com