Turning campaign laws into a political weapon

Have our municipal elections in Longmont suddenly become so corrupt and rotten that we need a draconian version of the already confusing state and federal fair campaign laws to bludgeon our neighbors over the head with, in case they step out of line? I don’t think so. But that’s what the Longmont Fair Campaign Practices Act seems to be turning into – just another political weapon.

Forming the city election committee may have been a good idea; but it quickly became immersed in the same old political infighting. The best remedy is to put this subject of political wrangling back into the judicial system, where it belongs.

When an attempt is made to criminalize every little detail of campaign contributions, the matter of fairness arises -- the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. And that’s where the government authorities are expected to be involved. It’s their job, not a committee’s, to examine, investigate, and prosecute any alleged electoral wrongdoing.

The LFCPA eats up a remarkable amount of time in city council business.

Councilwoman Sarah Levison, in an opinion piece in the 5/26/10 Times-Call, took conservative blogger Chris Rodriguez to task over his LFCPA criticisms, likely bringing thousands of new hits to his website Longmont Advocate. Rodriguez, as his writings show, is perfectly capable of taking care of himself—mentally, physically and ideologically. Most of the big boomer letter-writers around town have attacked him and failed.

But Councilwoman Levison didn’t stop there. Rather than debating the issues of fairness that Rodriguez raises over certain parts of the LFCPA, she uncharacteristically questioned the personal integrity and honesty of her four fellow council members, by accusing them of “disassembling the LFCPA,” causing the city “to go back to a closed door review” where “the council now can effectively shield campaign finances from public scrutiny.”

I say uncharacteristically, because I didn’t think she could be that extreme. Yet those are her words. Although she apologized, I do not know why the four targeted could not be expected to react.

But that’s what we’re into, with this contentious campaign law stuff – in Longmont.

Communique to Longmont City Council

To me (and I’m writing this in first person to emphasize that these remarks are mine) the dust-up over the appointment of a council member to the board of the Colorado Municipal League is not worth the flared tempers it ignites when the real issue of contention—especially during a stubborn recession like the one we’re in that requires serious cuts in city services--is whether the taxpayers of Longmont should continue throwing their money (upwards of $45,000 a year) at this primarily social organization that also performs lobbying. CML depends solely on dues it collects from nearly every city and town in Colorado. Last year the take totaled around $1.765 million, yet CML pays no property taxes on the $1.594 million headquarters property it owns at 1144 Sherman Street in downtown Denver to help support city services and the schools. I say cut the umbilical cord and use the CML dues locally—where the need is greater.

Depersonalizing law enforcement

MESSAGE TO CITY COUNCIL regarding: the proposed use of cameras in Longmont to nail traffic violators, “Local police field camera concerns,” Times-Call 5-27-10.

I think that, at some point in a supposedly civilized culture, we’ve got to ask ourselves just how far we should go in removing the human element from our law enforcement activities as we go about policing one another in the public domain and instead rely more and more on robots and machines to carry out those duties and serve that purpose. The deterrence factor of using hardware is obvious but what kind of a community is it that finds it necessary to line its streets—as eventually will happen--with cameras to try to catch traffic violators? Is the situation here in Longmont all that bad, and is our police force really that understaffed?

Some who promote this camera idea say, “oh no, revenue is not the reason.” Well, it is for somebody in the food chain. That another city or 10,000 other cities use this stealth methodology should make no difference; this is our community and perhaps we don’t want to see our police activities become depersonalized.

No one has explained why, when the camera arrests you, you are automatically guilty but no points are added to your driving record. That’s odd. Indirectly, however, there’s a numbers angle. People’s names scarcely mean a thing nowadays – everywhere we go anymore we’re just a cold, calculated number. In this remote traffic-photo game, you won’t get to talk to the arresting officer or a judge; you’re just another number to be processed through the system. No plea-bargains here; pay up and shut up.

Lest anyone believe from my remarks that I’m in favor of lawbreakers, forget it. One cop on the street in my estimation is worth dozens of undercover cameras. When drivers see a police cruiser their driving habits usually improve, often dramatically. In a small, friendly city like Longmont, I believe it’s still good policy for the police, who we should regard as our friends, to be visible.

Drop the gadgetry and patrol the streets.