Kathy Taylor's Trail to revenge: Martinson defeat financed by Lobeck, associates

Michael:

While there is required campaign finance disclosure in Oklahoma, the system is intentionally rigged so that the promised big money arrives AFTER the Primary Election......

What a coincidence!

And, Oklahoma has campaign limits that are more than TWICE the limit for those of Federal offices: $5K.

And, look at those public-spirited executives at Vanguard Car Rental group! Imagine, contributing to a novice hot-dog vendor to run for city council in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Could this stink any more? Sometimes I think the rule of the land is not one man, one vote, but rather one dollar, one vote.

It turns up too true too often that whoever spends the most money wins. We need a new, populist balance of power in the city. That requires a new, coherent point of view with differentiating goals from the machine.

It's unfortunate nearly everyone has, as part of their own agenda, secrets, private agreements, and shadowy, personal aims. You, Medlock, Meeciteewurker, and some others shed light on that, but is it enough? How do we find capable leaders willing to endure the torment of campaigning?

Bob, the big money didn't arrive after the primary; it was reported after the primary. There's a two-week gap between the end of the pre-primary reporting period and the election itself, plenty of time for last-minute contributions that won't be scrutinized until it's too late.

Brooksider, the problem is that money buys image, and in this case you had three highly motivated (and somewhat related) groups eager to punish Bill Martinson for serving the public interest. (And Martinson was hardly a populist.)

Somehow, we have to cultivate a healthy skepticism about political ads. Voters need to be educated to assume the slicker the ad the more likely a hidden agenda is lurking behind it. Without being conspiratorial, we need to connect the dots between fraud, waste, and abuse in various city departments, the lack of council oversight, the PACs and donors that promote candidates to encourage the council to turn a blind eye to bad policy and practice at City Hall, and the social connections that informally link interests together against sound policy.

It's a war between the wheeler-dealers and the fair-dealers, but it's hidden from most Tulsans.

I hate to burst your money corrupts elections theory, but money spent was probably the least important factor in this particular election. Normally, I would agree that money spent closely relates to votes received, but not this time.

The majority of votes recorded in this race were not for Trail, but against Martinson. Chris Trail's campaign didn't overwhelmingly attack Martinson, the media did. His reputation as hard working but hard to work with was confirmed on almost every televised meeting he participated in.

I didn't get to vote for a democrat in this race so my option was to just watch. Chris Trail walked my neighborhood twice and had firefighters and other volunteers out every weekend last summer. I only saw one Martinson sign in my square mile and probably saw 30 of Trail's.

This election wasn't decided by money. Martinson lost his ability to discuss issues in a positive way and his opponent worked to meet his constituents. It was bound to end up in favor of Trail.

If anyone was going to defend the indefensible when it comes to Kathy Taylor, it would surely be you, Michael.

That $50,000, much of which went to buy ads attacking Martinson, was surely sufficient to budge 18 voters either to change from Martinson to Trail or to decide to stay home rather than vote for Martinson. If Martinson had had an equivalent amount of money to tout his accomplishments and remind voters of Trail's peculiarities, Martinson would have won handily.

Here's a common sense campaign finance reform suggestion: Allow contributions only from those who live within the district being represented. In other words, you raise money only from people who can vote for you. Apply this at the local, congressional, senate, and presidential levels. It scales appropriately.

Michael -

Thanks for shining a light on this sickening perversion of First Amendment "rights".

Unfortunately, you ain't seen nothing yet if your Republican buddies on the Supreme Court get their way in Citizens United v. FEC. The highly anticipated decision in that case will unleash corporations to make direct contributions.

The "marketplace of ideas" is about to become the corporate version of a mall food court.

Beyond this being a clear case of revenge politics it is also a clear case of a corporation buying an election. Any rich person that has a corporation (or control of one) can direct unlimited amounts of money to defeat a politician. And as in this case, the reason behind the corporations hidden support was not revealed. The voters had no idea who was behind Trail nor why. To voters it just seemed like Trail had a lot of support so he must be ok.

This is an illustration of why corporations should not be allowed to throw money at elections, should not be treated the same (or better than) individual citizens. Republicans should be backing efforts to reverse the Supreme Court decision to allow this sort of fraud. Ironically, in this case, the loopholes in our campaign contribution laws were used by Democrats to pull the wool over the publics eyes. Shame on Kathy Taylor.