Folks, something strange is happening in America's heartland, where it appears that attorneys have threatened a Nebraska radio network with FCC action if it airs a radio ad opposing the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, the ballot measure backed by Howie Rich's Americans for Limited Government and, one-step-removed, by Laird Maxwell's America At Its Best of Montana. In other news, USA Today has succeeded where PBS NOW failed; it won a conversation with Howie Rich of New York City, but it didn't ask really big questions and focused only on stroking Rich's sweet spot for "takings." More fact-based studies have led to fact-based resolutions from city councils and school boards opposing TABOR in Maine, and mere hours before PBS NOW blew the cover off the Rich network's operations in Montana and other states, Montanan property owners got a state senator to admit that Rich is behind the "takings" provision in Big Sky Country.
Rich also got a little help from his family when brother-in-law Paul Jacob devoted a column to the value of "outsiders" invading a state to change its government, and he got an especially vigorous defense from petition circulator Eric Dondero/Eric Rittberg, who's now down to his last nine bucks and sleeping in his truck in Wal-Mart parking lots. Yes, reader, stay tuned for a very special edition of Sandlapper.
First, I smell a story cooking in Nebraska, where it appears that Rich's pro-TABOR folks have successfully bullied a radio network, for the moment, to pull anti-TABOR ads from the public airwaves. Kevin O'Hanlon of the Lincoln Journal Star has this enticing item: http://www.journalstar.com/....
"A radio network has stopped airing ads against a proposed state spending lid after being threatened with a lawsuit claiming the spots contain lies. The ads were distributed by Learfield Communications Inc., through its subsidiary the Brownfield Network, as part of its `Ag Report for Nebraska' and the `Nebraska Radio Network' to some 40 Nebraska stations. Learfield spokesman Stan Koenigsfeld said the ads were pulled to protect the radio stations from liability," O'Hanlon writes.
What? What could these ads have said about TABOR and who's behind it? Does anyone have a script? Is there an mp3 online?
"Radio stations WJAG and KEXL in Norfolk pulled the spots before Learfield decided to, said Bradley Hughes, vice president and general sales manager of the stations. Hughes said he has never been asked to pull a political ad because of concerns about accuracy."
So this is a first-of-its-kind request, and it's all about the TABOR ballot measure in Nebraska. Look at what Hughes tells O'Hanlon: "That certainly gets your attention. I certainly don't want to put our license in a position of trouble."
This is deep and vaguely Orwellian, folks. A radio network's license has been threatened if it runs anti-TABOR ads? Again, I ask, what did these ads say?
"The ads were pulled after Gene Summerlin, a Lincoln lawyer representing Stop Overspending Nebraska supporters, sent a letter to Learfield on Friday. Summerlin's letter said: `The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the 423 Issue Ad contains demonstrably false and misleading information. Unless you immediately stop the broadcast of this false and misleading information, we will file complaints with the Federal Communications Commission against the stations airing these statements and seek civil remedies for any damages resulting from such publications."
"The 423 Issue Ad makes three demonstrably false statements: 1. That signature gatherers were paid $10 per signature; That Measure 423 `was not created in Nebraska, it's from a special interest group in New York City'; and 3. That Measure 423 `will increase our property taxes.' "
Well, heck, each of those assertions can be proven or disproven. If they're proven, then it means that lawyers hired by Rich's Nebraska organization have successfully intimidated a radio network by threatening FCC action! And after the PBS NOW program on Friday night, who doubts the second assertion at face value alone? (Catch that clip here: http://www.pbs.org/...)
"Karen Kilgarin, a spokeswoman for the Coalition Against 423, said the group is calling individual radio stations to try to get them to air the ads. `We've got documentation that everything in the ad is accurate,' she said `These guys are just trying to bully radio stations. They don't want the truth out there.' She said the coalition would publicly release the documentation later Monday at a news conference."
Why does this not surprise me?
If anyone has links to the press conference coverage, would you shoot it my way?
Now I know what you're asking: Why would Howie Rich of New York City speak to USA Today but not to PBS NOW? Each has a national audience, and each has a respected reputation. In fact, the biggest difference is that PBS NOW has cameras and USA Today reports in bite-sized nuggets. Oh, well, there is the fact that PBS NOW was asking why Rich was trying so hard to hide his involvement behind the various shell ballot campaigns across the nation, and USA Today was asking a bland question about "property rights." Nothing indepth. A-ha. Maybe that's how USA Today got Rich to speak.
Unfortunately, USA Today's Martin Kasindorf asked no tough questions about the likelihood that the so-called Taxpayer Bill of Rights, if adopted, will severely diminish public services in Oregon, Nebraska and Maine. But he did ask about the various "takings" initiative campaigns Rich has mounted in the states, and he did identify Rich as the guy writing the checks.
The flames are being fanned, Kasindorf writes, "by libertarians and conservatives who advocate limited government power. The spate of ballot proposals is being bankrolled largely by libertarian organizations controlled by New York City real estate investor Howie Rich. The groups, Americans for Limited Government and the Fund for Democracy, have donated $4 million to ballot drives in eight states."
Then - cue the theme from Wagner's "Thus Spake Zarathrustra" - Rich speaks! ""It's about one of the core freedoms that our country was built on," Rich says.
Hooray! (Actually, I was expecting him to tell Kasindorf, "It's all about the ideology.")
With the money shot in the can, Kasindorf doubles back to tell us some more about Rich's involvement and their petitioning tactics: "Rich's allies in California, Arizona and Idaho combine eminent domain on the ballot with a separate land-use issue at the heart of the property rights movement," he writes here http://www.usatoday.com/.... Hmm. Wonder why it was necessary to combine the two? Wonder what would've happened to "takings" if it was uncoupled from "eminent domain"? Hey, come to think of it, that's exactly what the Nevada Supreme Court did recently, it uncoupled "takings" from "eminent domain" and booted the "takings" part off the ballot. And now I remember that Rich's allies in Nevada then asked the Court to take the rest of the thing off the ballot too! I think even Scooby Doo would smell something fishy here, don't you? Sounds like the "takings" business is their primary concern, but something tells them that the public won't vote for the "takings" measure by itself.
What could be their goal? Kasindorf asked John Echeverria of Georgetown University Law Center, and Echeverria had the answer: "The property rights advocates have exploited Kelo to advance a broader anti-government agenda."
Well, there you go. It's all about the ideology, after all.
Attorneys have now spoken to part of that ideology and its budget cuts under TABOR in Maine, which means that TABOR-inspired litigation has already begun, and it hasn't even been voted on yet. "Portland attorney Richard Spencer of Drummond Woodsum prepared his analysis at the request of the Maine School Management Association, an advocacy group comprised of school board members and superintendents," reports the Portland Press Herald here http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/.... And what did counselor Spencer tell his audience? "The proposed spending cap known as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights would likely result in widespread cuts and inadequate funding for Maine's public schools."
O, who couldn't see that coming from a mile away? Facts is facts.
Of course, there was the heckler from the Maine Heritage Policy Center to bring the contrarian view. You know, the contrarian view says that easy access to electricity will lead to the break-up of families, listening to loud music will lead to laziness and sloth, and that "nothing in there causes any local district to reduce its budget from the prior year." This particular view was paid for by the MHPC and delivered by attorney Michael Duddy. (Your stalwart correspondent will take the high road at this juncture.)
But Spencer's study says what it says, and it takes existing fact as its basis. Reporter Trevor Maxwell writes, "Voters in three out of four school districts would have to override the bill's spending caps to keep up with inflation, Spencer concluded in the 23-page review. The law also would require an overhaul of school budgeting processes, adding weeks or months to the timetable, he said."
"It is going to be very damaging to the school systems," particularly in rural areas, Spencer said. "Whether that is going to help rebuild the economy in those areas is a question people should be asking."
"TABOR would present a logistical nightmare in the short term, Spencer told the audience, and a gradual erosion of programs and infrastructure in the long term," Maxwell reports.
This concerns Mark Eastman, superintendent for the Oxford Hills School District, who worries about trying to draft an annual budget based on fluctuations in annual enrollment. "I can lose 10 percent of enrollment, going from 22 to 18 students. I still have to maintain a classroom teacher, heat the room, light the room and provide supplies for those 18 remaining students," Eastman tells Maxwell.
Eastman is chair of the Maine School Superintendents Association, which issued a resolution recently opposing TABOR, and the Maine School Boards Association has issued a similar resolution.
Forgive me, reader, but MPHC's attorney M. Duddy is mystified "why these organizations won't reach out to the other side."
MSMA Executive Director Dale Douglass is not bothered by M. Duddy's confusion. "We didn't ask this (legal analysis) to be done in order to build a case either for or against TABOR," Douglass tells Maxwell. "We asked for an analysis from a board attorney, on what the impacts would be on our members. We have not asked for any other analyses at this point, as we felt that what was produced was thorough."
I wonder if the Portland City Council "reached out to the other side" and consulted the MPHC's attorney M. Duddy before adopting its resolution opposing TABOR last week.
"The City Council passed a resolution Monday night to oppose the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights and to ask Portland residents to vote against the proposed legislation on Nov. 7. The council voted 8-0 on the resolution, which called the bill unnecessary, ill-conceived and destructive. The council weighed in after hearing nearly two hours of public testimony for and against the bill," reports the Portland Press Herald here http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/....
More letter writers feel the same way about outsiders' formulas to keep Maine's economy in the hole, but maybe they're also in need of consulting MHPC's attorney, M. Duddy. William Cutler of Auburn writes here http://www.sunjournal.com/... that Mainers "don't need such a formula to keep city councils and towns financially accountable. We have town meetings to do that. We have open sessions with city council members to do that. We can elect people who will do that (and not elect those who won't). The way to keep government responsive and accountable is to be involved in government, not through passing a formula that is arbitrary and unresponsive to local needs."
From letter writing in Maine, let's go to radio broadcasting in Montana.
In case we needed more confirmation that Howie Rich is the "main one" bankrolling Trevis Butcher's one-man-band, Montanans in Action, Yellowstone Public Radio delivers once more. Constant reader will recall that YPR aired a live debate last month between Butcher and Eric Feaver, spokesman for Not in Montana, in which Butcher labored mightily to avoid confirming that Howie Rich even existed, much less had anything to do with his ballot campaign. YPR followed up that debate with a second installment last week, this one focused on the "takings" measure and featuring the pro-takings MT Senator Joe Balyeat and the anti-takings Bruce Farling, spokesman for Property Owners Against I-154.
Farling fired off his question: "I don't think it's asking too much for the people who are funding a campaign, who are going to change the bedrock legal institution of this state, the Constitution in two measures and I-154 in law, to divulge who they are... Let's say who's funding this thing. What's so difficult about that?"
Balyeat, in his response, says to host Jackie Yamanaka, "If I could get back to the question Bruce just addressed. Again these individuals, the main one Bruce (Farling) has already mentioned by name on this program...ok."
"That's Howard Rich, real estate developer from New York City," Farling offers.
"That's right," Balyeat confirms.
Sort of anti-climactic, after all the heavy lifting that's been done to hide him from view, but there it is anyway. Catch the whole debate online at http://www.yellowstonepublicradio.org/...
There really is no transition to this bit of news; it's just plain funny, and I recommend we file it in the "family has to help family" file. An editor at Free Market News picked up and capsuled a recent column by Paul Jacobs, now the president of Citizens in Charge, here http://www.freemarketnews.com/....
"When locals petition for change in their communities should outsiders be allowed to help? Some say no, however, as Paul Jacob of Common Sense wonders, why should this be a problem? He cites his own tireless efforts in gathering petition signatures over the years, in a number of different states, which only gained him the label of `outside influence'."
"Oh, horrors," Jacobs writes. "What strikes me as funniest about such complaints is how hypocritical most are. They are often made by newspapers owned by out-of-state corporations ... by politicians who accept support from anywhere ... [and] by groups that have accepted money from out of state for other initiatives."
"Meanwhile, [Jacobs] asks, what is so wrong about Americans helping Americans? He decries the `implied isolationism,' and says, `Each state is supposed to be cordoned off? Nonsense. The United States was conceived as one vast free trade zone, and the free trade of political ideas is as important as any other kind of trade.' Meanwhile, he notes that `the very independence of our federal republic is owed, in part, to certain French interests who helped fund our revolution'."
First, let's not tell President Bush about the "certain French interests" that helped establish America.
But second, what makes this column so amusing is that it refers to the various challenges to petitions that were filed in Missouri, Oklahoma, Montana and elsewhere by out-of-state petition circulation companies. Who hired those companies? Shell organizations based in the various states. And who funded those shell organizations based in the various states? Committees and organizations controlled or managed by Howie Rich of New York City. And who is Paul Jacobs, that this topic should command attention from one of his syndicated columns? Heh heh.... He's Howie Rich's brother-in-law. Sometimes, family has to help family, folks.
And sometimes, you have to get help where you can.
You may want to get a cool drink before settling down to this part.
Dan Richardson, writing for New West Politics, offers a thoughtful account of what's happened to the Rich network's ballot campaign efforts across the West this year, and I highly recommend the article for his insight here http://www.newwest.net/.... But what makes Richardson's article particularly awe-striking is the vitriol it inspired from one Eric Dondero, aka Eric Rittberg, a petition-circulator/signature-gatherer who worked on the ballot measures in question. Dondero/Rittberg apparently knows Rich personally - hey, he's a step ahead of Laird Maxwell of Idaho and Mike Groene of Nebraska, then - and Richardson's characterizations struck several nerves in the fella.
First, a sample of Richardson's notes: "Sheesh. The quality of help these days. I mean, you spread around a few million dollars to fuel 20 or 30 political initiatives, you expect your hired help to get the job done right. Then, you have a bunch of the initiatives thrown out because your hired signature-gatherers faked, gamed and defrauded the system. Man, what a month. It was only a week or two ago that the machine of libertarian political initiatives was rolling swiftly around the West. We recently wrote about the "Kelo-plus" property rights initiatives funded by a New York real estate developer and longtime Libertarian Party activist, Howard Rich. Rich and his allies have pushed those and also parallel initiatives to limit government spending and institute term limits in states from Oregon to Arizona.
"But the hired help has fouled up the works. Courts in Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Michigan and Missouri have disqualified part or entire initiatives that otherwise would have gone to voters. The decisions come in reaction to complaints about petition-circulators' problematic, or illegal, signature-gathering tactics. Some are said to have tricked people who would sign one of Rich's petition by into signing others ("we need to get multiple copies, ma'am") or by misrepresenting the initiatives themselves. The Nevada Supreme Court struck the Tax and Spending Control (or, TASC) measure from the November ballot, for example, when activists there filed one version with the state and sent out another for residents' signatures. And because Rich, his front organizations like Americans for Limited Government and U.S. Term Limits, and fellow libertarian activists, shared not just ideas and money, but also nomadic signature-gatherers, some of the same problems hopped from state to state."
See, straightforward stuff. Richardson knows what he's talking about. He covers Judge Dirk Sandefur's ruling to boot the measures from the ballot, and the debate challenges issued by Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski and Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer. And he notes correctly that "Ironically, Rich and company's money-shuffling secrecy -- fund a campaign here, have it send money to another group there -- has gained them much more publicity than any of the out-in-the-open wealthy donors opposed to the initiatives."
Essentially, it's journalism 101, truth-in-context sort of coverage.
But here comes Eric Dondero/Eric Rittberg, who was profiled some weeks ago by Ray Ring in High Country News. For those who don't remember, here's a clip: "He claims to speak at least smidgens of 15 to 20 languages, and has self-published several language and travel books. For six months recently he held a `normal job' at a Houston insurance company, just to build up money for his political travels. He flew into Montana in April, set up his base camp in a Butte apartment, and bought a low-key 1984 Nissan for $700 at a local pawnshop. Then he picked up Montana plates and a bumper sticker: `Proud to be an American'." Catch the rest of Ring's profile here: http://www.hcn.org/....
In the online comment board below the article, Dondero/Rittberg unleashes all manner of hell. (Some gentle readers, due to the graphic language that follows, may have their sensibilities offended. Please note, additionally, that I'm not even going to try to correct the violations of various Strunk & White principles. What you see is what Dondero/Rittberg wrote.)
"Mr. Richardson's article is full of lies and gross distortions. I am one of the petitioners Mr. Richardson speaks of. I collected nearly 10,000 signatures on the ballot initiatives in Montana, Oregon, and Missouri."
"The difference though between us Fiscal Conservative petitioners and socialist petitioners, is that those of us who are libertarian petitioners, ONLY CARRY LIBERTARIAN AND FISCAL CONSERVATIVE PETITIONS. The Left-wing petitioners are almost to a person petitioning whores. They will carry whatever comes their way so long as they pay the most money. But us Fiscal Conservatives only carry those initiatives that we believe in."
"Also, contrary to what Mr. Richardson asserts, the pay we receive is pittifully low. On paper it appears that we make some good money. But that's only before you figure in our hotel bills, gas (!!!), food and the massive amount of other expenses that come up in these efforts. And those of us who are Fiscal Conservatives petitioners, many times petition or campaign without pay."
"The last two nights for instance, I've been living in my truck sleeping in Wal-Mart parking lots. I'm down to $9.00 to my name. I'm here campaigning for the Stop the Over Spending and Property Rights Initiatives CAUSE I BELIEVE IN THEM!!! And wish to see them pass. I'm not some mercenary as Mr. Richardson implies.
"All this big money coming in to these campaigns is being spent on lawyers to fight all the Big Government backers who want to see the initiatives thrown off the ballot. Very little of it is spent on those of us who are fighting for these causes on the grass roots level. If it was being spent on us, then I wouldn't have to sleep in my truck and take showers at truck stops."
"Furthermore, Mr. Richardson implies that we Fiscal Conservative petitioners are idiots; that we're just out for a buck and are more than willing to misrepresent an issue to "get a sig." Nothing could be further from the truth. We libertarian/fiscal conservative petitioners are smart to the games of the Democrats and other Left-wing freedom-haters. We know that they've got an army of lawyers waiting in the wings. Thus, we are extra, extra, extra, careful to make sure that we honestly and straightforwardly represent these petitions to the voters. We want these initiatives to pass! Why in the world would we want to screw it up, just for one extra sig? Mr. Richardson has deeply offended those of us who support freedom and human liberty."
"How dare Mr. Richardson insult us by this disgraceful article by insinuating that we engaged in shenanigans, and misrepresented these issues to voters. How dare he insult those of us who believe in freedom and liberty, as our founding fathers did, and want to see our government limited rather than become some socialist behemoth."
Whew. Well, in point of fact, it was Montana District Court Judge Dirk Sandefur who found evidence of these "shenanigans" and "misrepresentation to voters," but hey, I don't want to get in the way of fury.
"Mr. Richardson, you are a horribly biased and incredibly inaccurate reporter. You spread filthy lies. And anyone I know I will be sure to tell them not to read your rag of a publication," Dondero/Rittberg writes.
But, constant reader, for those of you who are fascinated by the machinations of the reclusive Howie Rich and the admiration he inspires among these devotees, here's a chunk of pure 24-carat from Dondero-Rittberg:
"Mr. Richardson's column is riddled with horrible inaccuracies and gross overstatements. Here's just one: He identifies Howie Rich as a `Libertarian Party activist.' This is laughable. Howie has not been involved with the LP since 1983. Howie was essentially purged cause he and others like Cato Institute President Ed Crane wanted to mainstream the LP. Howie is a much more of a middle of the road centrist libertarian. In fact, many Libertarians hardly consider Howie to be a libertarian at all, for his support for term limits and other middle-of-the-road stances. The Stop the Over Spending initiatives for instance, don't even cut spending. They're just mild limits on growth in spending. Hardcore Libertarians believe this is a sell-out. They laugh at Left-wingers, and even some Conservatives who portray these initiatives as `deep spending cuts.' I have Libertarian Party friends who won't vote for Howie's initiatives cause they view them as too mild, and phony spending cuts."
"Purged?" Because he and Ed Crane wanted to "mainstream" the National Libertarian Party?
Richardson demonstrates manners in his online response to Dondero-Rittberg.
"Let me address just two points," he begins. "First, please notice that those statements in the article that the signature-gathering process (certainly not by you, of course, but others) involved `substantial illegal participation of out-of-state circulators', and that the `signature-gathering process was permeated by a pervasive and general pattern and practice of deceit, fraud and procedural non-compliance' -- those are not my words. They are quotes. They were written by these other people. Judges, I guess you'd call them."
"Secondly, it is true that the documentation (party minutes, newsletters, etc) for Mr. Rich's Libertarian Party involvement comes from the 1970s and 1980s. He and his wife, however, until about two years ago operated a bookstore (Laissez Faire Books -- see http://www.lfb.org/...), which sells and promotes the usual libertarian library. (Ayn Rand for all!) The Party may not have found Howard mainstream enough for them, but it's pretty clear that he and they share basic ideas about government. Not to mention reading preferences."
"I do thank you for your Navy service, Eric, and sympathize with your personal situation. Sleeping in a truck in parking lots is hard on the back. (I've done that.)"
"You know, seeing the kind of money being thrown around (by groups of all political affiliations) might make you and your fellow signature-gatherers demand better treatment and support. At least better pay. It's probably a labor of love for you, but, shoot, you shouldn't have to spend yourself into bankruptcy driving from state to state, injecting yourself into other peoples' politics."
"Why should the lawyers and political activists get all the dough? Maybe you could unionize."