To make official what is obvious to any regular reader: I'm posting lightly through the holidays. That'll continue until after the new year, when things will quickly get busy again.

I'm going to D.C. next week to watch the first days of the new Congress. I'm looking for story ideas for when I'm there so send me any suggestions.

I'll return in time to see the 2007 Legislature convene on the 8th.

Thank you all for making 2006 -- at least the last half of it -- a challenging and often rewarding year for me. I've written nearly 500 posts since May and you have left close to 8,000 comments. Not a bad start.

Happy New Year.

Much has been written and said since last night about Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon. It was clearly the defining moment of the Ford presidency.

But there was another piece to Ford's efforts to "bind up the Nation's wounds" that gets far less attention. He established a limited clemency for Vietnam draft resisters and military deserters.

Ford's proposal was attacked by the left and the right and the program met only with limited success. But Ford's commitment to the "rebuilding of peace among ourselves" and how he went about trying to convince the American people it was the right thing to do, says a lot about the high aspirations of Ford's brief presidency.

Ford brought up clemency for draft evaders before he pardoned Nixon. And he did it in front of a crowd that he knew would find it objectionable. It was just 10 days into his presidency, on Aug. 19, 1974, when Ford spoke to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention in Chicago.

He said that young men who were hiding or on the run because of military-related crimes were, in a sense, casualties of war, "still abroad or absent without leave from the real America."

One of the last of my official duties as Vice President, perhaps the hardest of all, was to present posthumously 14 Congressional Medals of Honor to the parents, widows, and children of fallen Vietnam heroes.

As I studied their records of supreme sacrifice, I kept thinking how young they were.

The few citizens of our country who, in my judgment, committed the supreme folly of shirking their duty at the expense of others, were also very young.
All of us who served in one war or another know very well that all wars are the glory and the agony of the young. In my judgment, these young Americans should have a second chance to contribute their fair share to the rebuilding of peace among ourselves and with all nations.

So, I am throwing the weight of my Presidency into the scales of justice on the side of leniency. I foresee their earned re-entry — earned re-entry — into a new atmosphere of hope, hard work, and mutual trust.

TIME Magazine reported that the VFW crowd cheered when the President said "unconditional, blanket amnesty for anyone who illegally evaded or fled military service is wrong."

But the veterans sat in shocked silence as Ford went on to say that he wanted the deserters and draft dodgers who fled abroad during the Viet Nam War "to come home if they want to work their way back." Pledging to throw "the weight of my presidency into the scales of justice on the side of leniency," he added: "I reject amnesty, and I reject revenge."

The VFW reacted quickly and the next day passed a resolution opposing any sort of amnesty. TIME reported:

On the way back to Washington, Ford, in shirtsleeves and with his tie loosened, strolled aft to Air Force One's press section to explain his change of policy and why he had picked such a hostile audience for his announcement. He said that his thinking had been shaped in part by the views of his children and those of former Defense Secretary and close friend Melvin Laird, who had unsuccessfully tried to get Nixon to modify his hard-line stance. More over, Ford had concluded that his pledge to bind up the nation's wounds required a new approach. He explained: "You can't talk about healing unless you're going to use it in the broadest context."

His choice of audience was equally deliberate. Said Ford: "I thought that the right audience would be an audience that might be difficult. It would have been a little cowardice, I think, if I'd picked an audience that was ecstatic."

When was the last time you saw a major political figure do something like that? This was much more real — hitting raw nerves of a frayed country — than anything Bill Clinton did with his vaunted "Sister Souljah moment."

When Ford formally announced the clemency program at the White House Sept. 16 he said:

The primary purpose of this program is the reconciliation of all our people and the restoration of the essential unity of Americans within which honest differences of opinion do not descend to angry discord and mutual problems are not polarized by excessive passion.

My sincere hope is that this is a constructive step toward a calmer and cooler appreciation of our individual rights and responsibilities and our common purpose as a nation whose future is always more important than its past.

The program was administered by the Presidential Clemency Board. In some cases it required an offender to complete some alternative service to the military in order to get a clean record. It does not appear to have worked very well. According to a document guide at the Gerald R. Ford Library at the University of Michigan, the board, known as the PCB, completed 14,514 cases.

While the PCB claimed to have succeeded in its assigned task, many people disputed this statement. Only about 19 percent of the eligible people even applied for the program. Many draft evaders and deserters attacked the program for not going far enough and demanded an unconditional amnesty. At the same time many people in the military and in veterans organizations were unhappy with any form of amnesty or clemency.

The American Friends Service Committee, which counsels young people on terms for conscientious objector status and worked with draft resisters, says the program was a failure in part because it required all deserters to get a less than honorable discharge from the military and to lose all benefits.

Most exile groups based in Canada, Sweden, Britain and France endorsed a boycott of the Ford program because of its punitive nature. The "oath of allegiance" requirement was considered especially offensive given the generous treatment of Nixon. Nixon received a pardon, pension, and was not required to swear allegiance to the U.S. despite his role in undermining democracy.

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said the clemency program was one of two great contributions Ford made to healing Vietnam divisions. The other was to recognize "Congress and the American people had had enough" and he "let Vietnam fall."

Jimmy Carter would later grant a blanket pardon for draft evaders that was welcomed much more by anti-war factions in the country than what Ford did.
Sabato said this morning:

"But it was the right thing at the right time — a parable of Ford's Presidency. He was a moderate Republican — in today's terms, a liberal Republican, the last one to serve in the White House. Ford did the right things for the right reasons, for the most part, and paid with the elected term he otherwise would probably have won in 1976. Not a bad legacy at all."

A side note: I met Ford once, long after his presidency was over. He was on a rough, little golf course in Juneau in 1989 or 1990. He was there vacationing with James Callaghan, the former British foreign minister.

He was staying on a massive luxury yacht docked in the harbor. The yacht was said to be owned by Texas developer Trammell Crow.

Ford was as pleasant and unassuming as I imagine any former president could be. He talked with a couple of reporters about his golf game, about his long friendship with Callaghan, and about his aging body. He said he had a recent artificial hip (or maybe it was a knee) that he said could set off metal detectors at the airport.

And then he said something like, "You should see this," and reached toward his waist. For a moment I thought he was going to drop his pants right there on that scrub of a golf course to show off his doctor's handiwork.

But no, he was a man of dignity, if not of pretension. He pulled out his wallet and showed us a card that verified his artificial part that he said was to prove to he wasn't trying to smuggle anything through security.

Ford showed us his swing, and he was off for a rough round of golf.

Gov. Christine Gregoire's proposal for public financing of judicial races has some people asking,

"Why stop there?"

Lynn Allen at Evergreen Politics writes:

The timing is good to jump on public financing for the judicial races given the insane amounts of money that was spent on the three Supreme Court races between the primary and the general elections. I understand that. Plus, Gregoire is cautious by disposition. But what an opportunity to go all the way and ask for public financing of all statewide and legislative races.

There's a group that's been pushing for that in the state for three years. Washington Public Campaigns has run a low-profile effort to get public financing here. But Gregoire's effort could bring attention to the group's more ambitious goals.

Early next month Washington Public Campaigns has four town hall meetings scheduled to talk about publicly funded campaigns. The main event is at Seattle's Town Hall Jan. 5, and is headlined by David Sirota, author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Have Conquered Our Government — and How We Can Take It Back.

The panel will also include Democratic legislators from Arizona and Maine, where public financing is already in place, as well as Washington Democratic lawmakers Sen. Jim Kastama and Rep. Mark Miloscia. Miloscia has said he will introduce legislation next year for public financing of all campaigns, not just the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals that would be covered by Gregoire's plan. Kastama is also a supporter of the Arizona and Maine models.

The moderator will be Ken Alhadeff, a Seattle businessman and philanthropist who has long been among the top Democratic donors in the state.

The panel, minus Sirota, will also be at events in Everett, Tacoma and Olympia.

There's nothing radical about Miloscia, Kastama or Alhadeff. But public financing has also caught the attention of the more aggressive left-wing of the Democratic Party.

The Sirota event is being publicized on the liberal washblog in a post by dinazina. The headline is, "MAD AS HELL and not going to take it anymore!" There's a graphic of protesters with pitchforks, torches and a guillotine that says:

The People's Revolt

We demand

Clean elections

Universal healthcare

Real science

End to warmongering

End to spying

End to stupidity

Impeach 'em all

dinazina then adds:

The time for polite dialog is DONE!

You want Christmas, America?

THERE'S your Christmas!

YOU CAN START RIGHT HERE

Gregoire may have hoped to avoid that sort of ideological rabble rousing by focusing on a pilot program for public financing of judicial races. But nonetheless, her efforts are likely to be a boost for groups like Washington Public Campaigns and others that are looking for wholesale changes.

The left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities released a report today showing that the states that cut taxes the most in the 1990s failed to see the promised economic benefits of the cuts.

Washington is included as the 13th highest on a list of cumulative tax cuts from 1994 to 2001. CBBP says:

Contrary to the promises of tax-cut proponents, the tax cuts failed to improve those states' fiscal and economic health, particularly after the U.S. economy ran into trouble in 2001. In fact, the big tax-cutting states generally faced larger fiscal problems, and have had worse economic performance, than other states that were more cautious about tax cuts.

Washington's experience may be somewhat of an exception. The center's figures show that among the top 16 tax-cutting states, Washington had the second highest percent job growth and the biggest drop in the unemployment rate.

And that's probably one reason why Gov. Christine Gregoire has largely stopped talking about repealing tax breaks and exemptions. During her campaign Gregoire said, as one of position paper put it, that there "are many exemptions that have outlived their usefulness."

This was a stark difference between her and Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi. During the campaign Gregoire said she would take a "hard-nosed and long-overdue" look at tax breaks and said she'd only keep those that serve a social purpose or create or retain jobs.

"The rest go," Gregoire said.

Her budget plan doesn't call for any changes in the billions of dollars in tax breaks approved in the past decade. At her press conference this week, when asked if there were any tax breaks she wanted to end, Gregoire first answered by touting the success of recent tax cuts. Asked a second time, she was far less enthusiastic about ending any breaks than she was during the campaign.

"We talk about it. I have yet to see a consensus built on what we can do. ... There's frustration around the state about, well, are they really producing the employment that they suggested. We have to keep being diligent about looking at that. If business wants a tax break and they're making a promise that it'll bring jobs and opportunities to workers then we need to be diligent and make sure that's true."

There is a committee created by this year's Legislature looking at tax breaks. They are supposed to set a schedule for review of every break on the books. Every break except:

The commission shall omit from the schedule tax preferences that are required by constitutional law, sales and use tax exemptions for machinery and equipment for manufacturing,research and development, or testing, the small business credit for the business and occupation tax, sales and use tax exemptions for food and prescription drugs, property tax relief for retired persons, and property tax valuations based on current use, and may omit any tax preference that the commission determines is a critical part of the structure of the tax system.

The first report is due by Dec. 30.

The self-proclaimed grassroots organization that helped fund property rights campaigns in four states including Washington this year has relied on a few big donors for its money.

Americans for Limited Government, the tax-exempt organization that bankrolled a series of controversial ballot initiatives this year, raised 99 percent of its $5.4 million in total contributions in 2005 from just three donors, the Center for Public Integrity has learned.

The number of ALG's major donors in 2005, but not their identities, was disclosed in financial statements obtained by the Center.

The Center for Public Integrity has been following the property rights movement closely with its Taking Initiatives Accountability Project.

Americans for Limited Government, a tax-exempt non-profit headed by businessman Howard Rich, gave $360,000 to the campaign for Washington's Initiative 933. The initiative was defeated at the polls in November.

Americans for Limited Government has not disclosed its donors, nor has other groups controlled by Rich. But there have been repeated claims that the money comes from a vast movement around the country. As the group's website says, "Grassroots volunteers and donors make up the heart and soul of our organization."

The Center for Public Integrity reports:

And in an October 24 e-mail to the Center, John Tillman, ALG's president, said that the organization's "funding comes from thousands of Americans all over the country." Tillman went on to say that "we are also proud of the fact that our support is broad and deep."

Right before November's election, voters in the 35th Legislative District, covering chunks of Kitsap and Mason counties and small pieces of Thurston and Grays Harbor, got a mailer opposing Republican House challenger Randy Neatherlin.

Neatherlin supporters suspected the photo of their candidate was altered by Democrats. It was a small change, and subtle. But it was enough to prompt them to file a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission. At the Kitsap Sun, Steven Gardner has written about the controversy in the paper and on the paper's Bremerton Beat blog. But this video he produced tells the story best.

UPDATE: Some have suggested that the headline is misleading since Mason has more voters in the district than Kitsap. The story came out of Kitsap, though, so that's where it got placed. (Boy, I hate that facts got in the way of my clever pun. in the headline)

The state Supreme Court ruled this morning that King County's controversial critical areas ordinance cannot be repealed by voters. In a 7-2 decision, the court said the ordinance was designed to implement the Growth Management Law, which is mandated by the state, and cannot be subject to a voter referendum.

Writing for the majority, Justice Tom Chambers said:

The people of this state, through their legislators, recognized that each local area is unique and placed considerable power and responsibility onto counties to develop comprehensive land use plans according to procedures that required an enormous amount of deliberative public participation. Local exercises of power are often subject to rejection by local referenda. But while the GMA places considerable power and responsibility in local hands, it is still a state power that is being exercised to further state mandates.

The legislature certainly could decide that local ordinances implementing the GMA should be subject to local referendum. But it is for the legislature, not the courts, to amend GMA procedures. Until such an amendment is enacted, we hew to our holding that ordinances such as these are not subject to local referenda.

Joining Chambers were Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and justices Susan Owens and Bobbe Bridge.

Justice Charles Johnson wrote a concurring opinion, signed also by justices Barbara Madsen and Mary Fairhurst. Johnson did in little more than two pages what it took Chambers 30 pages to do:

The majority reaches the correct result which is compelled by our prior case authority. The majority opinion, when stripped of its unnecessary rhetoric and hyperbole, can be summarized simply: where the state law requires local government to perform specific acts, those local actions are not subject to local referendum.

Madsen also filed a separate concurrence.

The critical-areas package of land-use laws was passed by the Metropolitan King County Council in 2004.

The most controversial provision requires rural landowners to keep 50 percent to 65 percent of their land in native vegetation, depending on the size of the parcel.

Other parts of the package widen no-development buffers around streams, adopt a new buffer formula for wetlands and tighten regulations on storm-water runoff. The laws apply throughout the unincorporated areas of King County, but the most significant changes are in areas designated as "rural residential" under zoning laws.

The ordinance quickly was targeted for repeal byreferendum. But in 2005 a King County Superior Court judge said the ordinance could not be repealed by voters.

A suit stopping the referendum was filed by King County and two environmental groups,1000 Friends of Washington, a group now known as Futurewise, and the Center for Environmental Law and Policy.

Fighting for the referendum was the Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights and its president, Rod McFarland. The case is titled "1000 Friends of Wash. v. McFarland."

In her concurrence, Madsen notes the growing tension between concerns of eroding property rights and the need for land use planning. But she says the Legislature has had "many opportunities to amend the Growth Management Act ... to allow greater participation by voters on local land use measures" but has declined to do so.

Justice Jim Johnson wrote a dissent, which was joined by Justice Richard Sanders.

Recognition of the people's inherent political authority requires courts to construe law in favor of the people's reserved legislative powers. Referenda allow the people to directly check legislative power. "The people, too, have directly charged us with a duty to be mindful of their sovereign rights." State ex rel. Mullen v. Howell, 107 Wash. 167, 171, 181 P. 920 (1919).

...

In upholding the superior court's judgment preventing an election on these proposed referenda, the majority of this court has used a strained reading of the GMA and the King County Charter to deny these rights. The majority undermines our constitutional presumption favoring the people's right of referendum.

Headlines from the morning papers:

Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Education wins in Gregoire budget

$30 billion plan also boosts health care, environment

The Longview Daily News, on an AP story:

Gregoire's $30 billion budget focuses on education

The News Tribune:

Budget plan gives, takes education

Gov. Chris Gregoire gets the first shot at setting the state's agenda for the next two years, planning to spend nearly $64 billion in an overall budget that adds millions for education, health care, economic development and criminal justice.

14.5M slated for Bellingham Bay in Gregoire's budget

Several papers ran more than one story to focus on local "wins" in the budget.

The Yakima Herald-Republic:

Educators applaud spending priorities

And this about Yakima's minor league baseball team's stadium:

Bears get a win in Olympia

The Olympian:

Education, children dominate governor's budget plan

And,

South Sound scores in Gregoire plan

The Herald put a little context in its headline.

Gregoire proposes tapping surplus

The governor's $30 billion spending plan invests heavily in education and creates an emergency fund.

Along with the sidebar:

$114 million proposed for local projects

The Spokesman Review had the only headline I saw that reflected any criticism of the budget.

Budget has millions for Spokane

Critics call Gregoire plan a 'spending splurge'

And a sidebar:

Budget proposal targets Spokane-area projects

I'm not sure what The Columbian meant to say with this headline:

Gregoire: It's time to invest in future budget quick browng

And The Seattle Times? I'm not one to spend a lot of time using this space to brag on my paper, and have criticized Times headlines here before. But I was glad to see the headline on our story this morning:

Gregoire proposes $4 billion increase in spending

It is clear that a proposal to spend more money on something is seen as a "win," without much sense yet of the details of how the money would be spent. It's also worth remembering that this is just a proposal, sure to be modified by the Legislature, and nobody or no thing has won anything yet.

In announcing her budget yesterday, Gregoire said someone once told her she needed to love her budget, and she expressed those feelings for the document with great enthusiasm. That someone was the late Ed Penhale, who led the budget PR effort for Gregoire and her predecessor, Gov. Gary Locke. Penhale died earlier this year after battling cancer. If he can see the headlines today, you can be sure he loves it, too.

UPDATE: At the Association of Washington Business blog Richard Davis rounds up responses to the budget from editorial boards.

This was the first time I had a look at the AWB's Olympia Business Watch and it looks like Davis, who recently left the Washington Research Council, where he had been the long-time president, is taking the blogging side of his new job pretty seriously. Good to see.

Sometimes the question mark is a journalist's best friend. Here's what the graphic said Tuesday for a piece on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:

"Do-Nothing Dems?"

Says the liberal Media Matters:

In the report, CNN correspondent Lisa Sylvester asserted that, despite Democratic campaign pledges to "implement all of the 9-11 Commission recommendations," Democrats are "now conceding that's harder than they thought." But rather than showing a clip of a Democrat presumably affirming Sylvester's lead-in, CNN cut to Rep. Tom Price (R-GA).

But see, the Lou Dobbs show is not saying the Dems are do-nothing, they're simply asking the question. Of course the question came weeks before Democrats will have a chance to do anything since Congress has yet to start its new session. But maybe CNN just trying to be the first to suggest that congressional Democrats have failed as part of the sometimes less than noble journalistic pursuit of "staying ahead of the story?"

It doesn't take any kind of expert to know that the 8th Congressional District is likely to provide a high profile race again in 2008. Rep. Dave Reichert's final tally — 7,341 votes ahead of rookie candidate Darcy Burner, but thousands of dollars in fundraising behind her — guarantees that.

But the district is already getting attention. An analysis done by Congressional Quarterly senior writer Greg Giroux shows the 8th to be a rare bird:

The House campaign strategists for both major parties undoubtedly are already dissecting the results of this year's elections to determine their top districts to target for the 2008 campaign. And as they do, they surely will look closely at districts that favored their party's nominee for president in 2004 but this year favored the other party for the House.

...

The 2006 results intensified an already existing partisan skew. Of the 68 split districts, 60 voted for a House Democrat last month and also voted for Bush in 2004. That is up from 40 "Bush-Democratic" districts going into the Nov. 7 elections.

On the other side of the ledger, there are now just eight "Kerry-Republican" districts — those that voted for a House Republican in 2006 but backed Kerry for president in 2004. That is down from 18 going into Election Day 2006.

The 8th is one of those Kerry-Republican districts. Kerry only did a little better than Bush there in 2004. But Gore beat Bush in 2000 and Democrats have picked up legislative seats in the area, too. A Republican congressman is becoming more of an anomaly, which is certain to attract national attention and money to the race.

Here's CQ's full spreadsheet on the split districts around the country.

In explaining her budget for 2007-2009 to reporters this morning, Gov. Christine Gregoire said that because of an expected slow down in the state economy, her budget office was forecasting a $300 million shortfall in the subsequent budget for 2009-2001.

But that didn't worry her:

"We're investing in our economic future. We're putting savings aside. So I think we have done the exact, fiscally responsible thing.

"As we project out over the budget, if that's your fundamental question, it looks like in 09-11 we could have a $300 million shortfall. In a $30 billion budget, I don't think that in any way says that we're not moving toward getting off the roller coaster, getting rid of the booms and busts and being responsible in respect to the state budget."

What about twice that?

Soon after Gregoire finished the press conference, her Office of Financial Management e-mailed legislative fiscal committee staffers to say there was an error in the long-term outlook. The budget staff seriously underestimated pension costs in the six-year outlook, and wrote:

This means we're in the hole another $332 million more in FY 2011.

That means the $300 million shortfall Gregoire talked about is actually forecast at $632 million.

The balance sheet posted on the OFM Web site was removed and replaced with this message:

The six-year outlook is currently being updated and will be posted shortly.

UPDATE: The actual number on the updated outlook, which was just posted, shows a $653 million shortfall. And that's the shortfall if the entire $553 million, brand-new, rainy day fund is spent, too.

Gov. Christine Gregoire proposed today a pilot program for public financing of judicial campaigns.

She wants to use $4.4 million so "judges can be free from money influence — real or perceived," according to material released by her office this morning. What the governor calls the "Judicial Independence Act," or JIA, is not yet in final form. But a memo from her policy office outlines how it would work:

To qualify for the JIA, candidates must raise a specific amount in qualifying contributions. Qualifying contributions must be between $10 and $50, and must come from individuals (not PACs, unions, or corporations). Contributors must designate the contribution as a qualifying contribution, and must submit name and address along with the contribution. Only campaign volunteers can collect qualifying contributions.

• Court of Appeals: Must raise at least $2,000 (and no more than $5,000) from at least 100 contributors.

• Supreme Court: Must raise at least $10,000 (and no more than $25,000) from at least 500 contributors.

There would also be public money available for exploratory campaigns.

Candidates would have to agree to a clean campaign code to get the money, though. That would include a prohibition on "disparaging or disrespectful communications." Candidates could respond to attacks from opponents.

The program would provide a minimum amount of public financing and then additional matching funds if an opponent who is not participating raises more than the minimum. The matching funds could also increase for a candidate if independent expenditures are used to favor another candidate.

The proposal is based on public financing programs similar to what is in place in Arizona, Maine and North Carolina, which has a specific public financing plan for judicial candidates.

Here's the explanation from the Arizona commissions FAQ page:

Question: How exactly does the Clean Elections Act work?

Answer: Candidates who choose to participate in Clean Elections (commonly called, participating candidates) collect a set number of $5 qualifying contributions (donations) that can qualify them for Clean Elections funding: Two-thirds of Clean Elections funding comes from surcharges on civil and criminal fees; the remainder comes from a voluntary $5 state income tax check-off, a dollar-for-dollar income tax credit for up to $500, civil penalties imposed on candidates for violation of the Commission rules & policies and the $5 qualifying contributions. To qualify for funding, participating candidates must adhere to strict spending and contribution limits and gather $5 qualifying contributions from registered voters in their districts.

During this year's campaign, Gregoire complained about what she said was special interest money pouring into campaigns for Supreme Court challengers. To counter that, she decided to raise money for incumbent justices. She solicited donations from political heavyweights and gave at least $25,000 from a PAC she controls.

In Arizona, there is a separate citizens group that monitors the Clean Election program. The group tracks which candidates participate in public financing and says that nine of 11 statewide offices, including governor, are held by Clean Election participants. There are also citizen groups in Maine and North Carolina.

In November, California voters defeated a ballot measure that would have created a similar system. In a story before the election, the San Francisco Chronicle looked at Arizona's experience and reported:

Six years into its brave new world of publicly financed campaigns, Arizona's "clean money" elections system already is creaking with signs of age.

UPDATE: For a story for tomorrow's paper I've gotten some reaction to Gregoire's plan.

Tom McCabe, executive vice president of the Building Industry Association of Washington, said BIAW will oppose it.

"Her plan is an incumbent protection plan. That's what irritates the BIAW about it and certainly should irritate the voters about it. If you can't tell the voters why you should replace somebody, then they'll never be replaced."

Alex Hays, who ran the Constitutional Law PAC, said he generally supports campaign finance reform, but he bristled at the idea that candidates would have to agree to a code of behavior in order to receive public funds.

"It is the intent of the Constitution to protect political speech. Unfortunately the governor's proposal has at the heart of it a hostility to free speech."

Charlie Wiggins, who heads the state chapter of the American Judicature Society and worried publicly about the influx of conservative money in the court races, said he thinks public financing is a great idea that needs to happen.

But he said more thinking has to be done on the details. He has studied North Carolina's program and says that state requires a higher threshold of fundraising to qualify for public funds, and then gives more money to run a campaign.

Under Gregoire's plan a Supreme Court candidate could qualify for public funds by raising only $10,000. In North Carolina it is $35,000, which serves to filter out candidates without popular support. Wiggins said:

"I think everybody has to think very carefully where the qualifying limits are set. If you set them too low, it seems to me, it's too easy for people to qualify and then you're giving away a lot of money to people who may not have very deep support."

Wiggins is also unsure if the public funds would be enough to run a competitive campaign, particularly for a Court of Appeals race which is capped at about $64,000.

"Frankly, you do need some money for these campaigns. I just worry that this is too low."

The court elections have already prompted the Public Disclosure Commission to propose limits on independent expenditures.

I asked McCabe if there was any restrictions on the BIAW's political activity that he would support.

"I think the only method that would be acceptable is if groups were unable to do independent expenditures then newspapers should be unable to endorse candidates. It's the same thing. Freedom of speech means more than just newspapers. It applies to trade groups, it applies to labor unions, it applies to individuals."

Also, let's not forget that Danny Westneat called for public financing back in September.

This year it's the builders trying to buy a seat. Next time it'll be the unions. Or the pro-lifers, or the gays, or the asphalt lobby.

Isn't it time we just bought the court ourselves?

And he wrote about a citizen effort to get public financing in Washington.

I haven't had a chance to study the budget Gregoire just unveiled, but if you want to take a look, here's the spin and the backup documents.

UPDATE: Rossi's new website is on-line.

Dino Rossi looks to be about ready to step up his public profile. And just like two years ago when he ran against Christine Gregoire for governor, Rossi is talking about the state budget.

Rossi told me that by the end of the day he hopes to have something up on the Web site of his non-profit group, Forward Washington, critiquing the state budget. Gregoire is releasing her budget proposal right now at a press conference in Olympia.

Rich Roesler at The Spokesman-Review got a sneak preview when he found this PowerPoint presentation and more details on Rossi's budget proposal.

Rossi said that Roesler saw a mix of a PowerPoint that he has been using in speeches for months and new material that he was not ready to unveil. Much of that has now been put behind password-protected firewalls, he said. He didn't know that as of this morning the PowerPoint was still accessible. His friends at Sound Politics have also linked to it.

Rossi seemed a little ticked that he got scooped by Roesler. He thinks accessing under-construction sites is "not kosher in the Web world, but apparently in the reporting world it is just fine."

Roesler cites a list of Rossi proposals — including reassessing collective bargaining agreements, reducing what health insurers have to cover and cutting taxes — that are no longer available on the Web site.

Rossi made his name in Olympia as chairman of the Senate Ways and Means Committee and he successfully negotiated a tough budget with former Gov. Gary Locke. So I understand why he focuses on the budget. But the budget situation lacks drama this year. As Rossi's slide show says:

National boom has bailed out Olympia for now...

Rossi realizes that with projections of surplus revenue it will be hard to get people to focus on state spending. His argument will be that substantive changes have to be made in the good times, to avoid problems in the future.

Since Rossi is retooling his PowerPoint, I have one suggestion. I'm not sure that playing off the titles of old Tom Cruise movies — "If Hollywood wrote about Olympia's legislative sessions" — is a real grabber with the youth of today. To suggest that if lawmakers improve the business climate and budgeting process, "Hollywood's next movie about Olympia might be 'Top Gun'" is just a little too 1986. As Goose famously said, "Is this your idea of fun, Mav?"

A state appeals court today upheld the state law prohibiting public employees from using public resources for political activity.

The case involves two Ballard High School teachers fined by the Public Disclosure Commission for using school e-mail to tell teachers to put completed petitions for two 2004 education ballot measures in a teacher's school mailbox.

The PDC said that violated RCW 42.17.130.

The three judge panel of the Division 1 Court of Appeals said the law was "reasonable and viewpoint-neutral." They upheld a decision by a King County Superior Court judge, writing:

The internal mail and computer systems exist to facilitate communication between teachers to ensure efficient sharing of information, and the restrictions on their use do not eliminate or obstruct that purpose — except to prohibit any use that would constitute political advocacy. The statute was enacted to ensure that public resources are not used to provide advantages to a particular candidate or ballot measure, and the restriction on the use of school systems furthers that purpose.

Teachers Ed Herbert and Dennis Nusbaum argued that any use of public facilities was incidental and part of "normal and regular" school business and not a violation of the law. Herbert's and Nusbaum's appeals were consolidated and they filed joint briefing. The court's opinion only refers to Herbert "for ease of reference."

The court wrote:

Herbert points to the fact that teachers could discuss a political campaign in the teacher lunchroom — which uses electricity and heating and building maintenance — but could not e-mail their colleagues about the issue to demonstrate that there is no rational distinction between what is permitted and what is prohibited by the PDC's interpretation of RCW 42.17.130. But the distinction is this: pure political speech is permitted, but using the facilities to deliver speech is prohibited. The use element provides the distinction between talking in the lunchroom and using school computers to e-mail staff members.

The teachers and the Seattle Education Association were trying to garner support for Referendum 55, which overturned charter schools, and unsuccessful Initiative 884, which would have raised taxes to help fund schools.

The PDC fined Herbert $500 and suspended $450 of it if he did not violate the statute for two years.

My house has been without power since Thursday night. I've been doing what I usually do to cope with adversity: Eating as much as possible. And I've compiled this short list to help me remember not to complain.

1. There are losses that cut much deeper than losing electricity.

2. There's nothing wrong with the house that a few days of heat won't fix.

3. What would these people think if they heard me complaining about four days without power?

I hate when I'm behind the curve. I just found out about a Web site that allows you to find the salaries of Congressional aides. But it only came to my attention with the news that members of Congress want to shut it down.

On LegisStorm.com you can search by name, member, committee, state, leadership office or administrative office. And it's free. LegisStorm has taken salary information that has always been public, but difficult to find, and made it accessible to taxpayers.

It's too accessible for some members of Congress. As Roll Call reported (subscription required) last week:

Which staffer makes how much on Capitol Hill has long been a matter of public record, but if Rep. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) has his way, that data will become much more difficult to track down.

Wicker wants to prohibit release of individual salaries. Instead, he says it's enough to show the total salaries paid to employees of each member.

Joshua Levy wrote at the Personal Democracy Forum last week that would make it "impossible to view what individuals (including Members themselves) are making."

Imagine if the Yankees didn't disclose their players' individual salaries and only gave a grand total... and imagine if the taxpayers were the ones paying the salaries! Wicker's bill makes it clear that he'd prefer these public records back in the basement, hidden from public view and definitely not online.

Wicker, who has bipartisan support for his bill, told the AP:

"Having your salary bandied about the world is an intrusion that doesn't serve a public purpose."

I'm not sure about bandying, but I don't think the law has a category for information that is public, but only if it's difficult to get and not widely used.

I was tipped to Wicker's bill by Randy Stapilus at Ridenbaugh Press who says LegisStorm should be left alone.

We periodically see people who work for government who take more abuse than they should, but if public servants (and let's never forget that that's what they are) want trust from the people who pay your salaries, then they have to stay transparent. If not, the rest of us inevitably will be wondering why.

I'm sure some are worried about that abuse. There was a taste of that when the Wall Street Journal first wrote about LegisStorm on its Washington Wire blog and said,

This morning, it became easier than ever to see how much congressional aides are being (over?) paid.

But it's not just reporters who want to know who makes what on the Hill. That first day of operation in September ended with the LegisStorm servers crashing. The Journal quoted LegisStorm founder Jock Friedly, who said:

"Presumably the entire Hill tried to come to our site all at once. ... We got absolutely crushed."

Clark County decided this week against hiring state Sen. Don Benton as its lobbyist in Olympia. Hiring him would have come with some surprise because Benton wouldn't say whether he'd resign from the Senate if he got the job.

Benton told Columbian reporter Jeffery Mize, "m not prepared to make a decision about that until I know what the county commissioners are going to do."

The county commissioners hired Mike Burgess of Bellingham for the job. In an editorial today, The Columbian knocked Benton around for not saying he would leave the Senate if he got the county job. They called that "astounding."

And finally, Benton says he doesn't allow "taxpayer-paid lobbyists" to make appointments to see him, but they meet with him on an impromptu basis. "Taxpayer-paid lobbyists cannot take time on my calendar when I barely have enough time on my calendar for constituents," he said.

We disagree. Taxpayer-paid lobbyists represent the public, and they should be given as much attention as corporate-paid lobbyists. Benton knows this about taxpayer-paid lobbyists. After all, he tried to become one.

Gov. Christine Gregoire says Seattle voters should choose whether the Alaskan Way Viaduct should be replaced by a tunnel or a new elevated roadway.

She wants that vote to happen before the 2007 Legislature adjourns.

Gregoire made the announcement at a press conference this morning. She said in a prepared statement:

"We are at a political stalemate and must find a path forward to replace the viaduct. I don't believe that, without a vote, either option will move forward. We need to hear directly from the people for whom this decision has the most impact."

Gregoire said that her review of the viaduct showed that the proposed financing for a new elevated roadway as laid out in a draft EIS is "feasible and sufficient." But that financing plan for the tunnel option is not.

On the 520 bridge, Gregoire said that the proposed financing plan is not feasible or sufficient to complete the project. Her statement said the four-lane option does not allow for HOV or transit lanes and that the eight-lane version "creates significant operational problems and is not consistent with the environmental priorities and would require additional land and property acquisition."

She wants a six-lane version, with two of them HOV lanes. But she said more work has to be done "on funding, design, mitigation and the environmental impact statement."

TVW will show the press conference at 12:35 p.m.

Jimmy Carter scholars are unlikely to be surprised by the argument in his new book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

After all, when Yasser Arafat was still alive, Carter carried on a friendship with the Palestine Liberation Organization leader that bordered at times on a "love fest," according to historian Douglas Brinkley's 1998 book, "The Unfinished Presidency -- Jimmy Carter's Journey Beyond The White House." There were clandestine meetings in Paris and Yemen, and a speech Carter secretly wrote for Arafat.

That's what my column is about today. I interviewed Brinkley yesterday. He knows as much about Carter's post-presidency years as anyone. He says Carter sees himself in international terms and doesn't worry about the domestic reaction to his book.

There are a few things I didn't have room for in the column. Brinkley said Carter's new book will boost the former president's image in the Arab world, where many already see him as a hero. "You can imagine they are going to start naming streets" after Carter, he said.

"This does not hurt Jimmy Carter internationally as a mediator or diplomat. It hurts him in the United States and Israel."

When I interviewed Carter the other day he told me he wasn't surprised by all the negative reaction to his book. Brinkley wonders, though, if Carter really could have been prepared for the blowback. A former Middle East diplomat accused Carter of improperly including maps in the book that he didn't have permission to use, and a former Carter aide resigned from the Carter Center and said the book was biased and full of errors.

He must be stinging somewhat from it. He's getting beat up pretty badly. .. It has put him on a defensive crouch. He's not playing offfense on this book.

UPDATE: People seem to think I'm biased about Carter and the Israeli/Palestinian situation. They just can't agree on which way I'm biased.

This came today:

I'm glad to see that you covered President Carter's book controversy in your op-ed, however your bias was woefully apparent. Despite the fact that you and the rest of the mainstream media are trying to convince the public that Carter's views on Palestine are extremist left wing nonsense, there are thousands if not tens of thousands of people lining up to get his signature.

And this came yesterday:

I read your interview with Jimmy Carter and found it to be unbelievably one-sided. In fact, I thought it was garbage. You threw nothing but softball questions at him so he could promote his book and his complete rewrite of history. I'm usually the last person to ever complain about biased journalism because I think in most cases people are just looking for something wrong in a story, but this was journalism at its absolute worst — almost bordering on anti-semitism. Will you promote David Duke's book next so we can have an open dialogue about race in this country?

Forget calls for Seattle School Board members to resign. Seattlest wants them to repeat 9th grade English.

They just released their evaluation of Superintendent Raj Manhas, and it's polluted with flaccid language, poorly-defined words, and nonsensical cliches. Any writing teacher would exhaust her red pen with frowny faces trying to edit it.

Former President Jimmy Carter said today that support for Israel from conservative Christians in America is one of two main reasons why he says there can't be open debate here about Israel and the occupied territories. He says Christian support comes, in part, from what he said was an extreme and ridiculous reading of Scripture that says the Holy Land must be prepared for the Second Coming — when all non-believers, including certainly the Jews in Israel, would convert or perish.

In an interview this morning, Carter also told me it would be "political suicide" for any member of Congress to endorse the views in his new book, "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." He said that's because of the power of the American Israel Political Action Committee. (CLARIFICATION: That's what he called AIPAC, which is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I should have used the correct name here.)

"I'm not criticizing any member of Congress because I see the pressures on them. But if anyone wants to be elected or re-elected to Congress it would be inconceivable that they would say, 'If I'm elected I'm going to take a balanced position between Israel and the Palestinians,' or that they would say 'I'm going to hope that Israel would withdraw from occupied territories and comply with international law,' or to say 'I'm going to make sure that the Palestinian human rights are protected.' "

You can read the full interview here.

I had just shy of 20 minutes to talk to Carter on the phone about the book and the reaction it has stirred. Just yesterday Alan Dershowitz called the book a screed and an "unrelenting attack against Israel" and the Anti-Defamation League launched a counter-PR campaign against it, including advertisements in major U.S. newspapers today that say:

MR. CARTER DOESN'T ADVANCE PUBLIC DEBATE, HE DIMINISHES IT.

Last night Carter met and prayed with rabbis in Phoenix who were, and apparently remain, unhappy with him and the book.

Carter said that none of the reaction has surprised him. He said he wrote the book believing that it is nearly impossible to have free discussion here about the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

"When I go to Jerusalem or to Tel Aviv or Nazareth or anywhere in Israel, the discussions and debates are intense and constant about Israeli policies in the West Bank and whether they are advisable or not. The same thing exists obviously in the Arab world and in Europe. But in this country, zero.

"Rarely is any sort of comment made in the public news media that can be interpreted as critical of Israel, and so I deliberately wanted to stimulate a discussion."

Of course, he's done that.

In a book review in the Washington Post Tuesday, Jeffrey Goldberg said Carter is trying to weaken support for Israel among evangelical Christians. He points to this passage in the book about Carter's discussions with Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first visit to Israel:

With some hesitation, I said that I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures and that a common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of her Labor government. She seemed surprised at my temerity and dismissed my comments with a shrug and a laugh.

Wrote Goldberg:

Carter seems to mean for this book to convince American evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel. Evangelical Christians have become bedrock supporters of Israel lately, and Carter marshals many arguments, most of them specious, to scare them out of their position. Hence the Golda Meir story, seemingly meant to show that Israel is not the God-fearing nation that religious Christians believe it to be. And then there are the accusations, unsupported by actual evidence, that Israel persecutes its Christian citizens.

Carter clearly believes support among American Christians helps stifle debate about Israel. In talking about AIPAC, he was quick to say that he did not want discussion about the oft-criticized lobbying group to diminish concerns he has about the role fundamentalist Christians play.

"I happen to be a Christian. Since I was three years old I've learned about the Hebrews, I've learned about the Israelites, I've learned about God's chosen people, from whom Jesus Christ came, whom I worship. I teach about this every Sunday in my local church and I've been doing it since I was 18 years old, as a mater of fact.

"So we naturally are trying to want Israel to be secure and to survive — commitment I maintain. But that is a permeating concept in this nation.

...

"I noticed that when Ariel Sharon was stricken — he's still unconscious — Pat Robertson announced that this is a punishment of God because Sharon had advocated withdrawing from Gaza, which only comprises 1 percent of the Holy Land. But that at least demonstrates their attitude toward the Israeli situation.

"Q: But a lot of their position is premised on 'we want to save Israel,' but not necessarily save the Jews in the Second Coming. Isn't that right?

"Carter: That's right. Their purpose is to wipe out all non-Jews out of the Holy Land so Christ can return and then in the ultimate commitment, is that all Jews would either be burned in fire or converted to Christianity. That's the ultimate. It's an extreme, and I think, ridiculous interpretation of the scriptures."

Carter was in the Los Angeles area Monday where he was met with protesters and supporters. The L.A. Times reports that Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, objected to Carter's claim that the media here does not engage in an open debate about Israel.

"This is an anti-Semitic canard, that Jews control media, that they control universities, Congress, etc. For a former president to engage in such a canard is shameful, shameless and irresponsible," said Foxman, who also accused Carter of making "outrageous misrepresentations of Israel."

If you're one of the people who look Wednesday to see what Supreme Court opinions will be issued the next morning, read them on line Thursdays, or are an attorney who has filed briefs electronically, take a moment to thank