« 2006-2008 City Budget Is Online | Main | Bar-B-Q Away, But Don't Forget the Soldiers »
May 19, 2006
Is the Chico Greenline Coalition "Astro Turf"?
 |
| Hmmm… where do I go from here? Tovey who signed the Chico Greenline
Coalition endorsement letter posted on the Kirk web site responded to my
previous post. He says he’s local, and the coalition is real. So is it “grass roots” or “astro turf” (fake grass roots)? For now I’m going to have to go with astro turf but I’m still willing to be convinced otherwise. Here's why I came to this decision... |
| 1. The Kirk campaign and the Chico Greenline
Coalition are working together. They’ve used the same images and text in
their mailer/web sites. That doesn’t occur with a grass roots group
that fashions its own identity over time.
Since the coordination is known and acknowledged (by Tovey) the Kirk campaign should have to report the receipt of a nonmonetary contribution for the mailers produced. If they fail to report it they could be in violation of campaign laws. 2. Tovey wrote “The Chico Greenline Coalition is a local, primarily formed recipient committee.” and ”Coordination between committees is allowed, according to my treasurer Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk.” From the Fair Political Practices Commission (www.fppc.ca.gov): A “primarily formed committee” is a committee that supports or opposes a single candidate or a group of candidates all being voted on in the same election but is not controlled by the candidate(s) supported. Since the greenline is not a ballot issue the Chico Greenline Coalition must be in business to support a candidate in the coming election. That would be Kirk. This is a PAC formed to support Kirk, not the greenline. 3. Word on the street is that Tovey interviewed for the job of political consultant for a local PAC a while back (one I am now a member of). The move from "political-expert-about-town" to endorsee of a grass roots Greenline group is a bit much for me to swallow. Not impossible, but very hard. 4. Michael’s point that the Bidwell Ranch decision endangers the greenline is true. Why would you support candidates that take land available for housing out of the inventory, especially when it is far from the greenline? That does nothing but apply greater pressure to grow elsewhere, and most likely along the greenline. On a side note, why support open-space locked to the public in lieu of fully funded parks and more RDA money going to street improvements? 5. The Greenline endorsement letter mentions protecting the greenline and the foothills. The foothills comment pays homage to the environmental groups who want growth constrained there as well. The attempt is to marry farmers and environmental groups so you can have money as well as enthusiasm in your campaigns. Just watch out for any genetically modified foods ballot issues, because then the wheels come off that bus. |
| Summary: The greenline is not on the ballot,
and none of the candidates have suggested “breaking” it”.
All implications along those lines are designed to create a campaign
issue where none was before. You want an issue that really makes people
mad, try high density infill housing. I think this was an attempt to manufacturer a campaign issue in order to help the Kirk campaign. There's nothing wrong with that, but lets be honest about it. I’m willing to learn more about this group. If it is a real grass roots group, and they continue to exist after this election, then I’ll be sure to post an update. For questions about the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) call 1-866-ASK-FPPC. |
| Pre-Vacation Statement: I’m leaving this issue here as I go off to Boston to visit some of the sacred ground of American history. As a one time infantry soldier it makes me proud to have been part of an army that fought so hard for freedom. I’m looking forward to taking in the sites and sounds of that historic place. But not looking forward to the plane ride. |
Posted by Lon at May 19, 2006 12:12 AM