Yup. It's time for all the folks who were against 46/47 to be in favor of something now.

Many of us argued that we need campaign finance reform generally, but that 46/47 were a bad idea. We have a responsibility to come up with something better.

Some will argue for a statewide clean money system like Portland's and Arizona's.

I'm not sure that's it, though.

Would Mr. DiLorenzo's potential challenge to features of Measure 47 be made either more sound or less sound were he to disclaim a claim to a statutory right to attorneys fees for vindicating a public interest by successfully overturning a law (a law that by the way others hold equally to be in the public interest)? This would highlight the notion that public funding of matters of public interest (related to initiatives) takes many forms. (Let him use clean money, whatever that means; but government inherently is not entitled to demand a free speech right for itself, as it is illogical to the notion of freedom to speak against government. "Hal, help me out here.")

Kari,

See http://voterspeech.us/

Would Mr. DiLorenzo be voter owned . . . if he gets attorney fees for winning? I would have to say yes.

Some will argue for a statewide clean money system like Portland's and Arizona's.

That's two hysterically funny comments in one week, Kari.

Kari Chisholm
Some will argue for a statewide clean money system like Portland's and Arizona's.

I'm not sure that's it, though.
JK: How can you call yourself progressive and have any doubt about a measure that almost guarantees that an incumbent cannot be defeated at the ballot box?

You do realize that a challenger usually must outspend an incumbent in order to win, don’t you?

And that Portland’s system guarantees that an incumbent cannot be outspent?

Thanks
JK