Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Tuesday, November 3, 2009, 1:38 PM                                             

Letter of the Week:
And the hits just keep on comin'

by Margy Eller, President, League of Women Voters

Posted by Linda, a resident of the Belvedere neighborhood, on Nov 3, 2009 at 5:22 pm

It is not unethical to say true things about candidates for public office. The standards that the League of Women Voters would impose would rob people of their first amendment right of free speech.

Posted by Stan, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 1:46 pm

I agree with you Linda. Limiting speech is a dangerous path. I would like to see the name of the person or persons who pay for the piece disclosed. But as long as the contents are accurate, that's what our constitution is supposed to protect.

Posted by Margy Eller, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm

There may be is a misunderstanding of what the League of Women Voters is promoting. We want independent expenditure committees to identify themselves so that voters know who is spending money on mailers in support of or opposed to candidates. Several other negative mailers came out this fall opposing certain candidates but the sponsors were clearly identified so it became important for voters to research a variety of credible sources of information and make their own determination of what they believe is accurate and what might be distorting the facts. Negative campaign pieces tend to discourage those thinking about running for office and our democracy depends on people wanting to get involved in local government.

Posted by Jonathan Frieman, a resident of the San Rafael neighborhood, on Nov 4, 2009 at 11:26 pm

There is no misunderstanding of what the local LWV is "promoting." None at all.

First, the local LWV thinks people will be discouraged from spending their money on IE's if their name appears on the media used to spread documented and relevant fact. As Linda of Belvedere says, the intent of the LWV's effort versus IE's (and me, for that matter) is to discourage free speech.

Second, Eller's third sentence is, well...I don't know what the heck it says.

Thirdly, Eller's last sentence is, of course, distinctly wrong. She has no evidence to back up her claim that IE's discourages people from running, and, in fact, the evidence from this election period alone strongly counters her "opinion"--just look at the high numbers of people running this fall in a quite election. That shows you the lack of intelligence of the local LWV.

Rather, the high cost of campaigns is what discourage people from running. Publicly funded campaigns (PFC's) would get lots more people running for office. But while the state and national LWFV are in support of PFC's, the local group, in their feckless zeal, is not.

Fourth, Eller does not define the word "negative." Since she and the LWFV use it so often in reference to IE's she must believe that ALL IE's are negative.

But within the last 4 years the Garbarinos spent $100,000 on a mailer to support the disgraced candidates in the Ross Valley Sanitary District. And I do believe it's well-known that Elissa Giambastiani herself, the LWV member who is spearheading the anti-IE effort of the LWV, ran an IE for Joe Nation in 2000. How disingenuous.

Fifth, with no definition of the word "negative," we can only rely on Eller's letter to the PacSun last week wherein she claimed that voters want to rely on candidate platforms to make their decisions on whom to vote. In effect, Eller wishes that fact-finding efforts like Consumer Reports did not exist.

Lastly, the state election code encourages any candidate to fairly criticize the record of their opponent.

Exactly why is the LWV against documented fact which allows voters to make a well-informed decision?

Eller, of course, has no answer.

Posted by Not A League Fan, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 8:16 am

I joined the league a few years ago but got very turned off. They're stuck in the past. They are not welcoming, but a bunch of ladies who want to keep their little club exclusive.

Is it really believable that all they want is for voters to be able to see who is funding these hit pieces? NO...their real intent is to diminish anything Frieman has to say which is most often criticism of their "special friends." The Marin league operates like a PAC rather than an independent nonpartisan group.

Behind all of this is some ridiculous idea that politics and campaigns should be "nicey nice"--as long as their friends keep getting elected that is. Again, this 1950's Betty Crocker mentality. Don't they know how corrupt things have become. We need MORE hit pieces, not less!

They would prefer to stick their heads in the sand rather than criticize one of their own or face the fact that bad things are going on out there and someone needs to let us know. I'm grateful for Frieman. I think I and most of Marin are smart enough to know how to read between the lines and seek info. on our own which is what the hit pieces often lead to...they lead to more scrutiny, more debate...

Posted by Michael Hartnett, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 8:58 am

I still want to know why the LWV of Marin publicy came out in support of desalination. Why did it feel compelled to take a stand on THIS issue. It never said whether there should be a public vote on the issue.

Where does the LWV stand on the coroner? Marin Clean Energy.

The answer is, we don't know, becaue the LWV hasn't taken sides. Why did it take sides on desalination

Margy - I expect an answer

Posted by anon, a resident of the Corte Madera neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 9:03 am

Hey Jonathon,

In the future why not just tell the truth?

When you send out your hate mail just print your name on the document.

The simple words, "Printed by Jonathan Frieman" are not hard, printers know how to do that, and it's the truth.

And as for why more good people don't run for office you know damn well it's because of people like you. Certainly cash is also an issue but what private citizen wants some trust-baby non-voter to spend the money that their daddy and mommie earned to attack them?

get a job.

Posted by anon, a resident of the Mill Valley neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 1:59 pm

Anon of Corte Madera,

How do you know that Frieman is not telling the truth?

I would like to know if Mr. Frieman is a conservative or a liberal. I'm just curious. By the sound of it, he's not a liberal. I might be wrong.

Either way, people do have the right to express their opinions. All you folks have to do is throw out his flyers if you don't like them.

I don't see what the big deal is!

Posted by Linda Remy, a resident of the Belvedere neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 5:54 pm

I have contributed to IEs in the past and have had no problem whatsoever identifying myself. In fact, I have been proud to have done so. As Mill Valley anonymous said above, the LWV is the problem for elections locally, not the solution. Ditto the newspapers. And anon, Corte Madera, whether someone is liberal or conservative is irrelevant. If people don't run because of IEs, I infer they have something in their background that they do not want to submit to the smell test, not that it is because of IE campaigns.

Posted by valeri, a resident of the Fairfax neighborhood, on Nov 5, 2009 at 8:51 pm

Where were the league of women voters during the 'oust egger' campaign, led by residents john and millie barret, along with the hit piece from Michael Macintosh of the Marin Town and Country club, who doesn't even live in Fairfax? Where was their 'outrage', then?

I agree with the comment by Linda, that the local League of Women Voters is trying to stifle public comment. I also agree with Margie, that the League is stuck in the past. The candidate debates in Fairfax are such a great example. Many of us tried to ask pertinent questions of the incumbents in the recent Fairfax election. Questions that would have shed light on actual voting patterns, and educated the public about the choices they were about to make. For example, I would love to have heard the answer to my question about why a certain candidate has repeatedly abstained from voting, and how the other candidates planned to comport themselves in the future. Because of the milktoast questions the league chose out of those submitted, it became mostly a personality contest. People who are trying to rebrand themselves, don't like to have their historical votes brought up. Shame on the league for covering for them-

I think it is time that we had a truly open debate, not a managed debate, and perhaps more debates, so that the public could actually get to know the candidates, with actual fact checking by the organization that sponsors it. I would love to know how people from other towns feel about the debates in their towns.

valeri