"This is more than three times the highest of the five immediate Bay Area counties, including Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara, that range from $500 to the state limit of $5,900 (for counties without their own ordinance before the state limit was enacted). Supervisor David Haubert claims that the $20,000 per election cycle was set to level the playing field, but if their proposal is enacted, the contribution limit will be more than eight times the current state limit and neighboring counties'. We need to get big money out of politics. Big money primarily benefits incumbents who, without term limits, as in Alameda County, have a huge advantage over challengers."
"Nice try, Mr. Waranoff, but the problem with your minority comparison isn't apples and oranges, it's more like apples and religion. Neither apples (nor oranges) can choose what they are: They are a product of their seed, their sun and their photosynthesis, just like people can't choose their race, their birthplace or sexual orientation. We can, however, choose our religion (or not choose a religion), just like we can choose our politics. This is akin to a faux minority of choice, not comparable to a true minority when whining about the hypocrisy of being given a plastic knife for a gunfight."
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors is considering doubling the campaign contribution limit currently set at $20,000 per election. The present $20,000 limit already exceeds three times the highest limits among five nearby Bay Area counties, which range from $500 to $5,900. A supervisor says the $20,000 figure was intended to level the playing field, while critics say increasing limits will amplify big-money influence and further benefit incumbents who lack term limits. Commenters contend that religion is a chosen identity unlike race or sexual orientation, and they note conservatorships can be appalling yet remain legal.
Read at www.mercurynews.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]