A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 1

o give the public and our fellow education reformers a better understanding of what we’re up against in

our fi ght against the NEA, I went to the recent National Education Association convention in Orlando. It was an informative and exciting week for me personally. It highlighted both the arrogance of the NEA leadership and their single-minded focus on defeating legitimate education reform.

One of the fi rst things I realized upon arriving was how much courage it takes for delegates to stand up to their own leadership. It’s tough enough to be a princi-pled conservative at the classroom level, but to actually run as a delegate to the National Education Association annual conference takes guts! Conservative delegates are regularly ridiculed, harassed, and targeted for intim-idation at these conventions, and Orlando was no excep-tion. I personally saw several ugly exchanges and over-heard many more from liberals terrifi ed of losing their education monopoly.

Members of the NEA’s Conservative Educators Caucus who fought the NEA’s new same-sex marriage amend-ment were repeatedly followed, spied on, and verbally harassed throughout the convention. Most of the typical rank-and-fi le delegates are staunchly liberal and serve as a “third arm” of the national Democratic Party. Their visceral reaction to anything conser-vative showed their true colors. Despite harass-ment from extremely liberal delegates, none of the CEC members ever lost their cool. They were solid folks: well spoken, passionate and princi-pled. “These women are lions,” I thought as they wrote and prepared their fl oor speeches.

As we met with delegates inside the convention center, our advertising blitz outside the conven-tion center was beginning to take off. EFF hired a billboard truck to greet arriving delegates with

CONGRESSIONAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 5 PROSECUTION OF ELECTION CRIMES 12

LIVING LIBERTYAUGUST 2006 A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION

NON-PROFIT ORG.U.S. POSTAGE

PAIDOLYMPIA, WAPERMIT #462

Evergreen Freedom FoundationPO Box 552Olympia, WA 98507

Address service requested

NEA: ANYTHING BUT EDUCATION 7

Continued on page 3

T

Monitoring the NEA

by S. Alex Bohler, J.D.

targeted messaging, and I personally distributed fl iers revealing the truth about the NEA’s oppo-sition to real education reform and their reliance on forced dues employment contracts to fund their political warchest.

Our informational activites even prompted NEA president Reg Weaver to pre-empt his key-note address to the convention to make a thinly veiled reference to the 300 fl iers we passed out, saying that information from unapproved per-sons should not be distributed within the con-vention center. We were the only conservative group passing out fl iers, so I smiled at the warn-ing he gave the audience six or seven times. We clearly got under their skin.

The “mobile billboard” was a big hit and got a lot of attention from delegates and NEA union bosses. They were forced to see it every time they left the convention center (especially those delegates staying across the street at the Pea-body Hotel).

UP CLOSE from a conservative’s point of view

Three sides of the truck, as well as an accompa-nying fl ier, conveyed the following messages:

• “It pays to be a union boss.” When it comes to salaries, benefi ts and perks, union offi cials are better off than teachers. The average NEA employee’s salary is nearly twice as much as the average teacher’s. Further, the union spends more than $68 million on payroll, benefi ts and expense accounts.

• “Fair Representation?” Teachers are a politically diverse group, but the union’s political spending typically benefi ts only one political party.

• “No means No!” A stern-faced teacher reminded union bosses that “No means No” when it comes to keeping their hands off her paycheck.

2 LIVING LIBERTY

EFF Welcomes the 2006 Young Leaders Interns

34

5

6789101112

“Quote”

Evergreen Freedom Foundation PO Box 552

Olympia, WA 98507(360) 956-3482

Fax (360) 352-1874 info@effwa.org • www.effwa.org

VOLUME 16, Issue 8

EFF’s mission is to advance

individual liberty, free enterprise and

limited, accountable government.

This Issue

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 LETTER FROM LYNN TO WHOM MUCH HAS BEEN TAKEN, MUCH IS REQUIRED?

4 TAXPAYERS SHOULDN’T PAY UNION NEGOTIATORS STATE AGREED TO PAY UNION NEGOTIATORS 828 DAYS DURING ‘04 NEGOTIATIONS

FOLLOW BASEBALL, NOT CONGRESS, ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES 5 CONGRESS’ ROLE IN FEDERAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT IS IT EFFICIENT, ACCOUNTABLE, AND TRANSPARENT IN APPROPRIATING FUNDS? NATIONAL REPORT CITES EFF’S PERFORMANCE AUDIT EFFORTS 6 EFF WELCOMES YOUNG LEADERS INTERNS 7 ANYTHING BUT EDUCATION

8 ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKES WEA TO SUPREME COURT A VOTE FOR TRANSPARENCY 9 FOR THE CHILDREN? CALLS FOR EDUCATION REFORM GETTING LOUDER

10 MEXICO’S ELECTION SYSTEM EARNS A HIGH SAFETY RATING

11 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM PROSECUTION OF ELECTION CRIMES

12 AN AMERICAN HERO

Pg. 6

“We have launched freedom revolutions before in our history.... I believe

we can do so again.”

– Steve Forbes

Publisher:Booker StallworthEditors:Lynn HarshMarsha MichaelisLayout:Joel Sorrell

s we prepare to take the Washington Education Association (WEA) to the U.S. Supreme Court

(discussed on page 8), we recently won a strategically critical victory in our case against the National Educa-tion Association (NEA). On July 21, Thurston County Superior Court Judge Paula Casey denied the NEA’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against it by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation.

The case against the NEA involves the identical issues as the case against the WEA: the union’s illegal use of nonmember dues for political purposes.

After Attorney General Christine Gregoire success-fully prosecuted the WEA in 2001, EFF fi led a “citizen’s action” lawsuit against the NEA in April 2002. We knew that the union’s practice of co-mingling nonmember dues with its general fund resulted in teachers fi nancing political activity against their will. The citizen’s action

lawsuit allows us to prosecute the NEA in the name of the state. The Attorney General, however, later fi led an identical suit against the NEA. The cases will be con-solidated into one suit sometime in the future.

A Public Disclosure Commission investigation found the NEA contributed $30,000 in fi scal year 1998-99 to two political action committees, and $500,000 in 2000 for Initiatives 728 and 732, in violation of the law.

The NEA cases were placed on hold pending resolu-tion of the WEA case, which was then on appeal. After the Washington Supreme Court ruled last March that the law was unconstitutional, the NEA moved to dis-miss both lawsuits pending against it.

The Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s attorney, Ste-ven T. O’Ban, argued that until the constitutionality of the law is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, the case against the NEA should not be dismissed. Dismissal

would have allowed the statute of limitations to lapse, and would have severely harmed the public’s interest in free and fair elections.

On June 30, 2006, Judge Thomas McPhee denied the NEA’s motion to dismiss the state’s case. Three weeks later, Judge Paula Casey ruled simi-larly in EFF v. NEA.

These rulings preserve the actions against the National Education Association, and help ensure that teachers who demand accountability will have their day in court. Once the constitutionality of the law is resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, we may fi nally be able to litigate a historic lawsuit against the NEA.

by Michael Reitz, J.D.

A

Court refuses to dismiss NEA case

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 3

Letter from LynnLETTER FROM LYNNby Lynn Harsh

To whom much has been taken,

I

Our advertising campaign received extensive cover-age from several conservative media outlets, as well as local and national internet blogs who posted our activi-ties and updates. One of these included a gracious write-up from the prestigious Cato Institute.

We learned some valuable lessons in Orlando. The NEA leadership appears to be paranoid about being infi ltrated by conservatives and overreacts when chal-lenged from within by their own delegates. They rarely answer legitimate parliamentary concerns and seek to muzzle nearly all dissent. This makes them look like “control freaks,” not secure enough to allow legitimate dissent.

Second, the vast majority of the NEA delegates are almost cartoon caricatures of liberal activists, replete with far-left buttons and t-shirts. Many of the delegates I saw didn’t seem to care about the substance of the con-vention and were more interested in the social and tour-ist activities surrounding the convention’s prime loca-tion in central Florida.

Third, there are substantial opportunities to organize conservative and libertarian teachers to challenge the NEA’s “top-down” leadership model. With one-third of the nation’s teachers labeling themselves as conser-vatives and/or Republicans, the national NEA conven-tion is fertile ground to object to radical NEA policies, forced unionism and the obstruction of authentic educa-tion reform.

In short: I can’t wait for the 2007 Philadelphia con-vention!

Note: I strongly encourage conservative and libertar-ian public school teachers who read this publication to run as delegates to the 2007 NEA convention in Phila-delphia. Those interested in fi nding out if they can run for NEA delegate positions should contact me directly at abohler@effwa.org.

“The NEA leadership appears to be paranoid about being infi ltrated by conservatives

and overreacts when challenged from within by

their own delegates.”

made a terrible mistake this morning. I watched our president speak to the NAACP. Normally, I would

have been at work already instead of sitting on the edge of my bed with a ready missile in hand.

It was the line, “To whom much has been given, much is required” that almost launched the shoe from my hand toward the talking box. The president used that Bibli-cal admonition to explain why Congress must appropri-ate more money toward AIDS testing kits, Gulf Coast relief, the No Child Left Behind Act, and drug benefi ts for seniors.

Excuse me, but was the tax code changed while I wasn’t looking? Did the federal government suddenly come into its own inheritance? Are taxes now our way of giving government what we think it deserves instead of it taking what lawmakers determine they want?

It’s Luke 12:48 the president quoted. I decided to look it up, since it gets used frequently by politicians and the people who want money from them. It crossed my mind that I might not know who that scripture was written for, but I was pretty sure it wasn’t God’s instruction to politi-cians on how they should spend other people’s assets.

As it turns out, that passage is written specifi cally to Christian people. It challenges them to be good stew-ards of all resources, most specifi cally knowledge, not money. Jesus is speaking, and He tells Christians to be watchful for his return and, while waiting, to apply that which they know to be right and true…or else! The “or else” has nothing to do with politicians being penny-pinchers, suffering the wrath of constituents and losing the next election. Not in this world, anyway.

Sure, the president said some good things. He reiter-ated his no-toleration policy for racist voting practices. He discussed the need for African-Americans to have access to private retirement plans. But the majority of his speech was designed to tell his audience what gov-ernment is doing for them now, and what he believes government owes them in the future.

What government owes the audience at the NAACP Convention is the same thing it owes every American: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; an equal opportunity for success and equal protection under the law. This is government’s role, and it should be vig-orous about ensuring it delivers these protections.

much more is required?Government does not owe any American equal results

related to how we use our opportunities. It does not owe us access to other people’s wallets to “level the playing fi eld” when our results aren’t equal. It does not owe us protection from our own mistakes and misfortunes.

Which brings me to Lebanon. That’s the subject that elevated my blood pressure to begin with this fi ne morning—before the president even began speaking. A reporter interviewing evacuees recorded one woman (a vacationer) who was complaining loudly about “the government” not giving people “free” trips home.

Free trips! The government!

“Lady,” I said, “government doesn’t have any of its own money. It only has what it takes from us, the tax-payers. And they didn’t ask me if it was O.K. to use my tax dollars to put you on a plane back to America. You decided of your own free will to travel to a dangerous part of the world, even when ‘the government’ told you months ago it was a bad idea. Pay for it yourself. Noth-ing’s free.”

(Does anyone else out there talk to the television, or are my children right about me?)

Now, if someone I knew asked me personally for money to help bring a family member or friend back home from Lebanon, I’d probably want to help. Person to person. I certainly would not want someone I care about to be in harm’s way.

It comes right back to some basic principles, one of which is the role of government. Certainly government should try to protect and rescue American citizens in a war-torn country. But if an American is there on busi-ness, the company should pay for the fl ight back home, just as it paid for the fl ight away from home. If it’s per-sonal business, the same rule applies.

Otherwise, if it is government’s role to pay for every American’s safe return home from any country where his or her life might be in danger, we are going to have to start debating Vacation Policy… right along with Immigration Policy.

Another basic principle is economic cost and benefi t. The taxpayer money we spend bringing thousands of Americans back home cannot be spent on other impor-tant considerations. It’s the “next best thing” decision. If we spend money on this, we are saying we can’t spend money on that. (Or, in the case of Congress, they’ll spend it without considering the trade-offs and fi gure out how they’ll pay for it after the election.)

When elected offi cials take money from us in the form of taxes, they have made that same decision on our behalf. They are saying that their use of our money is more important than our use of our money. Some-times they are right. But it’s a very important decision, because that means we do not have those funds to spend on what we think is the best thing. We cannot spend our money on this because lawmakers have spent it on that.

I guess the president knows that it’s a lot easier for most politicians to trim the taxpayer than to trim their political promises.

Note the number of Americans complaining about government largesse while standing in line to demand their share. Note the number of Americans who don’t understand government’s role and the high cost of let-ting it operate where it doesn’t belong. An American president of either party could not get by with giving that same speech even 50 years ago.

This problem gives us our job description. I hope all of you will join us in deliberate education efforts to engage citizens in understanding and debating the important but limited role of government.

In the meantime, no news for me for a few days. At least not with a shoe in my hand.

“I guess the president knows that it’s a lot easier for

most politicians to trim the taxpayer than to trim their

political promises.”

NEA up close continued from page 1 . . .

4 LIVING LIBERTY

n late April, the Labor Relations Offi ce (LRO) con-fi rmed the state agreed to continue paying the sala-

ries of employees who leave their jobs to represent their union during negotiations, a practice known as release time.

The state offered generous amounts of release time—828 days worth—to union negotiators during the 2004 round of negotiations. This included eight to fourteen days of paid leave to more than sixty union negotiators. While any state subsidy of private organizations is an egregious misuse of state resources, paying release time is particularly unnecessary as unions already force state workers to fully fund its negotiation service.

Release time is paid or unpaid leave given to union represen-tatives to conduct union busi-ness. Union business permitted during release time can include day-to-day union administra-tion, employer/employee rela-tions—such as resolving work-place grievances to negotiating contracts—and many other activ-ities.

Some public employers grant fully paid leave, some grant no paid leave, but most fall somewhere in between. For example, the Vancouver School District agreed to pay half of the salary and all the benefi ts of a union offi -cial designated by the union to perform its activities. Another common arrangement requires the public employer to continue paying full salaries and benefi ts to union offi cials while the union covers the cost of substi-tute and temporary employees.

Is release time legally justifi ed?Unions clearly benefi t from release time arrange-

ments, because the agreements relieve them of having to pay their negotiators. However, the benefi t to taxpay-ers is not so obvious.

Various offi cial statements have rationalized release time as a good use of state resources. When considering a case involving the state’s collective bargaining laws, the state Ethics Board wrote that the legislature passed the laws to improve the relationship between public employers and employees. The Board said the legislature believed collective bargaining was in the public interest, allowing the state to use paid time and resources to sup-port the process (Advisory Opinion 02-01).

Attorney General Opinions have also affi rmed that release time can be a legal use of state resources. The state can pay released employees who are “providing a service of value to their employer at the same time as they [are] serving the other employees whom they [are] representing in the bargaining process,” (AGLO 1977 No 027).

As noted above, however, release time is permitted only when the state is benefi ted by the activity. The AGO noted, “…any such compensated ‘released time’ for union activities [is] …legally permissible only to the extent that the activities involved are of some demon-strable benefi t to the… employer.” Therefore, if the

by Ryan Bedford

I

Taxpayers shouldn’t pay union negotiatorsState agreed to pay union negotiators 828 days during ‘04 negotiations

employer does not benefi t, release time is an unconstitutional gift of pub-lic funds and property.

Under this standard, state negotia-tors have great leeway in granting release time. They may grant release time to earn the good will and cooper-ation of union negotiators, or to avoid hard line negotiations or strikes. State negotiators who favor unions may manipulate the sys-tem to collaborate with union offi cials to the union’s benefi t.

Release time is a misuse of state resources

Notwithstanding the legal justifi cations laid out above, release time is an unaccount-able gift of taxpayer dollars to unions. When asked, the Labor Relations Offi ce said it has no way to determine how much release time cost taxpayers dur-ing the 2004 round of negotia-tions. Using the average union worker salary for the 2005 fi s-cal year, the state paid approxi-mately $126,684. If, however,

released workers earned more than the average salary the state could have paid much more.

Unions are already compensated for representation activities by their membership. Most public employees are forced to pay for their union’s representation ser-vices in order to keep their jobs. Courts have ruled col-lective bargaining is one of just a few activities unions can force workers to subsidize. (Unions cannot force workers to pay for political activism, lobbying or other non-bargaining activities.) Because unions are already compensated for the representation services provided, taxpayers should not underwrite the same activities.

A union’s primary purpose is to promote its own interests even at the expense of the employer’s interests. It would seem, then, an inappropriate confl ict of interest and breach of fi duciary duty for the state to pay the salaries of union negotiators who often work against the state’s interests.

Ultimately, when state negotiators grant release time and allow unions to shift the fi nancial burden of its con-tract negotiations to the state, taxpayers get the short end of the stick.

The Labor Relations Offi ce (LRO) has taken steps this year to reduce the amount of release time granted to state employees to negotiate the 2007-09 contract. While this is commendable, the LRO has declined to disclose how many days of release time it will grant or how much it will cost the state. As a result, taxpayers are funding secret negotiations with the union without being able to evaluate the benefi t of this expense.

The state should not fi nance the union’s negotiators, particularly when the union is already charging its mem-bers for representation activities. The legislature can end union double-dipping and state offi cials can refuse demands for release time. In the meantime, the taxpayer-subsidized union books should be open to the public.

by Victor JoecksFrustrated with the aimless spending of Con-gressional Republicans, Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) recently held a hearing at which he ques-tioned why Congress continues to fund agencies rated by the Offi ce of Management and Budget as “ineffective” or “results not demonstrated.” Wanting to avoid that question entirely, on June 13, the Republican-controlled House Appropri-ations Subcommittee voted to prohibit perfor-mance measures for the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services.

Unfortunately, this rejection of accountabil-ity crosses state and party lines. In Washington state, the Democrat-controlled legislature has

RELEASE TIME“Imagine the outrage if the Mariners announced they were not going to use performance measures, like batting averages or RBIs, in selecting free agents.”

yet to pass a budget with performance expecta-tions, and Republican lawmakers did not do any better when they had majorities.

Successful businesses and individuals use per-formance measures to gauge success. Consider baseball. You know that Mariner’s right-fi elder Ichiro is one of the best hitters in the world. But how do you know? Because you can compare his batting average, a baseball specifi c performance measure, to other Major League players and see that it is one of the highest.

So how do we know that Washington’s Medicaid pro-gram is doing a good job providing healthcare to the poor? Without performance measures, we don’t.

Imagine the outrage if the Mariners announced they were not going to use performance measures, like bat-ting averages or RBIs, in selecting free agents. Without objective criteria, the M’s could just as readily sign a minor leaguer as an all-star.

Unfortunately this is exactly what is happening in Olympia. Although education, roads, health care for the poor, and emergency preparedness are more important than baseball, lawmakers are not budgeting in a way that allows us to measure and ensure the best results in these areas.

Though agencies provide state budget writers with their mission statements, goals, and performance indica-tors, when legislators pass the state budget, they do not attach any performance measures to appropriations.

Performance measures allow citizens and legislators to objectively evaluate an agency’s performance and adjust funding accordingly. The alternative is to con-tinue funding agencies that fail to provide what they promise.

Baseball fans may disagree about the most important measure of a hitter (homeruns or batting averages), but all fans would tell you that performance measures are essential in making the determination.

Similarly, Democrats and Republicans may disagree about what measurement is most important, but they should be united in determining and implementing per-formance measures.

If our current crop of politicians doesn’t understand that, voters should elect people who do. It’s our money they’re spending and we should know what we are get-ting for it.

FOLL

OW

BAS

EBA

LL, N

OT

CO

NG

RESS

, ON

PER

FORM

AN

CE

MEA

SURE

S“Ultimately, when state negotiators

grant release time and allow unions to shift

the fi nancial burden of its contract negotia-

tions to the state, tax-payers get the short

end of the stick.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 5

or the 15 years our Foundation has been in existence, we have advocated for performance

audits for government. We have talked with hun-dreds of lawmakers and have written several pieces of model legislation in an effort to educate and inspire lawmakers to adopt this excellent tool.

Our longtime efforts in support of performance audits and our work to restore the state auditor’s performance audit authority received attention in a recent national report. The Association of Govern-ment Accountants’ June report titled Challenges in Performance Auditing repeatedly quoted EFF on the importance of performance audits. The report was a case study in the performance audit powers autho-rized by I-900.

Quoting I-900 sponsor Tim Eyman, the report noted, “All the intellectual groundwork for perfor-

National report cites EFF’s performance audit efforts

mance audits had been laid out for years by the Evergreen Freedom Foundation (a proponent of performance auditing) and talk radio, making Initiative 900 a real cakewalk.” I-900 was approved last November by 56% of the voters.

We are deeply appreciative that the public saw fi t to adopt performance audits after leaders in the majority party declined to do so in 2005. Performance audits kick into gear this January. Some public offi cials are trying to pull the rug out from under them in advance. Rest assured we are working behind the scenes to make sure this doesn’t happen. We’ll keep you posted.

ast year, the federal government spent $2.5 tril-lion (OMB). We’re on track to spend at least $2.7

trillion this fi scal year. Last year our national debt increased a whopping $554 billion and it has already increased another $400 billion so far this year. This extra $1 trillion dollars that the federal government now owes, on top of the more than $7 trillion already owed, occurred because Uncle Sam continues to spend beyond his means year after year after year.

Right now, the Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO)—Congress’ watchdog agency—estimates that our total debt is nearly 70 percent of the size of our

entire economy. By the time our grandkids face the unenviable task of paying off this mountain of debt, GAO estimates that the debt will be almost four times larger than our entire economy. That means that if our grandchildren took every dollar of value created by the economy in one year to pay off the debt, they would still be left with debt three times larger than the economy.

Clearly, we are on an unsustainable course. Now the question is what to do about it, and that means identify-ing the source of our fi scal mess. There’s been a lot of fi nger-pointing. Some claim the economy isn’t boom-ing enough to bring in suffi cient tax revenues. But our unemployment rate of 4.7 percent is lower than the average rates from each of the past four decades. Over the past 32 months of consecutive job creation instead of loss, nearly 5.3 million new jobs have been created. Infl ation remains low. Some blame big corporations for jacking up prices and making it harder to get as much out of the dollar. But the only thing keeping the qual-

ity higher and price of goods and services lower in America is less government med-dling in private markets, not more like we see in Europe.

Some blame the tax cuts, but most Amer-icans think that their government ought to be able to chug along just fi ne after confi s-cating 25-40 percent of their hard-earned income. Some blame the President for not vetoing enough spending bills. That’s like driving drunk, and then blaming the bartender when you wreck your car. The Executive Branch is supposed to carry out the spending directions from Congress.

The problem is us. Congress holds the power of the purse. The American people

expect elected offi cials to run the government the same way you run a household or business—exercising the discipline to live within your means, saving some extra for emergencies and for long-term needs like retirement income and healthcare. If you fail to do that, and you spend beyond your means, the private market will step in and limit the amount you can go into debt by lower-ing your credit score and raising your rates.

Congress operates under no such limits. It’s not because limits have never been set. Various budget reforms have passed for decades. But Congress has found ways around each and every one. And when the Senate’s budget rules get in the way, the Senate just “waives” them by a vote of 60 Senators.

That’s 60 of us saying “we don’t have to live by the rules that American families and businesses live by.” Nobody can take away our credit, because we set our own limit. And when we reach that limit, we just vote to raise it. The latest episode a few weeks ago raised the debt limit to $9 trillion.

It’s clear that the answer is not tweaking the rules at the margins. We need radical budget process reforms. But more than that, we need to create an environment—a set of conditions—that helps us live with our rules. It’s easy to break rules when there’s no accountability. One of the key conditions to creating accountability is trans-parency. Most people—even politicians—aren’t crooks by nature. But it never hurts to have transparency.

Transparency helps our better natures play by the rules and reduces temptation for our lesser natures to cheat. Americans know that if they don’t pay their taxes, they might get audited and get caught. With the Enron and other corporate scandals, we saw that a lack of transparency to shareholders can result in bank-ruptcy and legal action. Our witnesses today will be talking about ways to bring transparency, effi ciency and accountability to the budget process. I am pleased that our panel has several key players in the federal budget process—both current and past—to help us discover weaknesses in the current system, and ways we can improve upon it.

Most Members are still not ready to swallow the idea of having to make politically diffi cult budget deci-sions on the fl oor of the U.S. Senate. The purpose of this hearing is to get experts past and present who know the process well enough to be able to identify what is a true budget reform versus a sham sound bite intended only to make the 109th Congress look like budget hawks. This can begin an ongoing dialogue about what changes are really needed to restrain Con-gressional spending. The most effective way to discuss possible reforms to the current Congressional budget process is to ask the question: “Is the process effi cient, accountable and transparent in the way it appropriates funds?”

Because we’d better fi gure this out. There’s a rumble growing outside the Beltway.

People are fed up with a Congress acting like teen-agers who fritter away their allowance and then whine about how there isn’t enough money to buy the impor-tant stuff. The American people want us to start play-ing by the rules they have to play by, especially when it’s their money we’re “playing” with. If we don’t take our responsibility seriously, the rumble may just greet us at the ballot box.

The following was deliv-ered on May 25, 2006, by Sen. Tom Coburn, Chair-man of the Subcommit-tee on Federal Financial Management, Govern-ment Information, and International Security. The event was a hearing on Congress’ violation of its own budget rules.

in Federal Financial Management:

“Congress’ Role

Is it effi cient, accountable, and transparent in the way it appropriates funds?”

L

F

“By the time our grandkids face the unenviable task of paying off this mountain of debt, GAO estimates that the debt will be almost four times larger than our entire economy.”

U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R), Oklahoma

by Jason Mercier

6 LIVING LIBERTY

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 7

welcome only when they create more union jobs and cost more money. Delegates prohibited the NEA from even considering green programs that would reduce education employee job positions.

• Delegates also directed union negotiators, in NBI 42, to negotiate terms with school districts guaran-teeing teachers full pay and benefi ts, even if schools close due to a pandemic or natural disaster. The move was in response to Hurricane Katrina, which displaced the majority of the New Orleans School District’s students and left most teachers unem-ployed.

The resolution reveals the NEA’s arrogant belief that taxpayers owe teachers guaranteed salaries and benefi ts, even in the face of unexpected disaster which empties schools and devastates communities. Had a similar clause been in effect in New Orleans

at the time Katrina hit land, the district would have been driven into bankruptcy, as teachers continued to receive full salaries and benefi ts standing in front of empty classrooms.

• In a show of support for universal health care, dele-gates adopted NBI 61, requiring the NEA to “develop referendum/ballot initiative language that calls for guaranteed quality health care for all Americans.” The NEA will also provide assistance to state affi li-ates in their campaigns to implement the agenda.

• The NEA offi cially opposed “the utilization of voter ID cards for the privilege of voting in local, state, and national elections.” In a twist of irony, however, delegates say that NEA members cannot vote in NEA elections without showing a valid picture ID.

The highest profi le issue of the

convention was a loosely-worded

resolution endorsing homosexual

marriage. Delegates were scheduled to vote on the resolution, but

a grassroots campaign forced the NEA to pull the item before the convention

even started.The unexpected derailment of the resolution outraged

NEA offi cials. At a pre-convention gathering,

NEA President Reg Weaver waved a copy of a pro-family newsletter

describing the resolution and, in a rage, called it “a

crock of s---.”

• It is well known that the NEA opposes the privati-zation of Social Security and defi ned contribution plans. So, with the passage of NBI 11, businesses the NEA contracts with, who support free market pen-sion reforms, will begin to feel pressure to reverse their support.

When the NEA got around to addressing educa-tional issues, they continued to avoid uncomfortable realities.

• To the NEA, academic freedom includes the abil-ity to work with countries that are enemies of the United States. Legislative Amendment 15 and NBI 18 authorize the NEA to “alert its members… about threats to academic freedom [that prevent] educators in the United States from teaching and conducting research in so-called ‘terrorist states.’”

• Delegates approved Legislative Amendment 17 offi -cially registering the NEA as opposing “federal leg-islation giving fi nancial incentives or pay to teachers based solely on the subjects or fi elds in which they teach.”

• Finally, as its new message indicates (“Great public schools are a basic right for every child”), the NEA believes everyone residing in the U.S. has a right to a free education, regardless of immigration status.

These are just a few of the issues NEA offi cials believed were more important than addressing the pressing needs of students and teachers, many of whom are trapped in chronically failing schools. Again and again, the decisions of NEA offi cials reveal their pri-orities: their own job security and their own pet poli-tics. For this reason, the NEA cannot claim the moral high ground of having the best interests of students and teachers at the center of its existence.

IMAG

E SO

URCE

/NEA

NEA PRESIDENT REG WEAVER AND AFL-CIO PRESIDENT JOHN SWEENEY SHAKE HANDS AT THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THEIR NEW NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP

Anything but Education

“The resolution reveals the NEA’s arrogant belief that taxpayers owe teachers guaranteed

salaries and benefi ts, even in the face of unexpected disaster which empties schools and

devastates communities.”

by Ryan Bedford

he National Education Association makes itself out to be the nation’s foremost champion of students

and teachers. Yet a close look at the issues addressed at the NEA’s annual convention in Orlando, Florida, last month reveals the true nature of the union.

The NEA does not truly represent rank-and-fi le teachers or even students. Policies that are in the best interests of students are often sidelined to make room for the agendas of union offi cials. Any benefi t to teachers or students is merely incidental to this primary function.

The highest profi le issue of the convention was a loosely-worded resolution endorsing homosexual mar-riage. Delegates were scheduled to vote on the resolu-tion, but a grassroots campaign forced the NEA to pull the item before the convention even started.

The unexpected derailment of the resolution outraged NEA offi cials. At a pre-convention gathering, NEA President Reg Weaver waved a copy of a pro-fam-ily newsletter describing the resolution and, in a rage, called it “a crock of s---.” He exclaimed that NEA pol-icy will not be dictated by “outside groups.”

Despite the setback, NEA activists were able to push through a related issue in New Business Item (NBI) 52. The business item asserted that mere “tolerance” of the homosexual lifestyle is no longer acceptable. Rather, “acceptance” and/or “respect” are to be the new stan-dard.

A close look at other business items confi rms the NEA’s agenda was focused more on its political and social causes than ensuring an excellent education for students.

• Delegates adopted NBI 13 requiring the NEA to “research the available Green Cleaning programs recommended by the EPA and other health and gov-ernment agencies.” In doing so, the union showed its true colors: environmentally sound practices are

T

8 LIVING LIBERTY

by Michael Reitz, J.D.

F

Attorney General takes WEA to Supreme Court

welve years ago Missouri voters approved con-tribution limits for state and local campaigns for

public offi ce. Now the Missouri legislature has passed a political reform bill (House bill 1900) that includes a repeal of those contribution limits. Gov. Matt Blunt must decide whether to sign the bill into law. Attorney General Jay Nixon, himself a candidate for governor, is urging Blunt to veto the bill.

Arguments for and against the legislation have focused on issues like transparency and the potential for corruption. It is surprising then that neither side has thought to take a look at the rich body of exist-ing evidence from the scholarly research on American politics. In fact, there is no evidence to support the claim that campaign fi nance rules have any impact on political corruption. The most recent research shows that restrictions on campaign fi nancing have either no effect or a perverse impact on the public’s faith in state government.

or the sake of our new Living Liberty readers, here is an update on EFF’s case against the Washing-

ton Education Association (WEA). As you may remem-ber, the issue is whether union offi cials can raid the pay-checks of teachers, without their permission, to collect money for political spending. Unfortunately, the Wash-ington Supreme Court’s answer was “yes.”

Attorney General McKenna has appealed the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, along with a related lawsuit by a group of teachers who object to the use of their union dues for political purposes. “Friend of the court” briefs (including EFF’s) will be fi led in mid-August. Now we sit back and wait until October, when the Supreme Court is expected to announce whether it will hear the case.

Only we cannot simply sit back and wait. Between now and then we must raise the profi le of the

case so the public (and the Court!) understands what’s at stake. The Supreme Court receives over 7,000 peti-tions a year, and reviews less than 100 cases. We need to make sure Washington v. Washington Education Asso-ciation is one of them.

You may wonder: How does the union get access to a nonmember’s paycheck? Teachers in Washington state are required to pay for the union’s services, regardless of whether they join the union. Initiative 134, adopted by Washington voters 1992, required unions to get per-mission before spending nonmember dues on political activity.

After hearing from many concerned teachers, the Evergreen Freedom Foundation discovered the WEA was fl agrantly violating the law, and we fi led a com-plaint against the union in 2000.

After an investigation by the Public Disclosure Com-mission, the WEA admitted to “multiple violations,” and Attorney General Christine Gregoire fi led a law-suit against the union. Ruling that the WEA “intention-ally” ignored the law, Thurston County Superior Court imposed a $590,375 penalty on the union on July 31, 2001.

On appeal, the WEA argued the law was unconsti-tutional. Amazingly, the Washington Supreme Court agreed. Former Justice Faith Ireland wrote for the majority that requiring unions to ask permission before spending nonmember dues on political activity was “too heavy an administrative burden.”

Justice Richard Sanders responded in his dissenting opinion that the decision “turns the First Amendment on its head” by allowing the union’s statutory rights to trump the Constitutional rights of teachers. The law does not silence the union’s voice, but simply gives teachers the right to decline support if they so choose.

So now we’re waging a full-scale public awareness campaign to ensure this case is taken up by the high-est court of the land. The fi rst effort was our surprise appearance at the National Education Association’s annual conference (read about it on page 1).

We’re also illustrating “The Greatest Scam on Earth,” as pictured on this page. While the union must allow teachers to reclaim the portion of their dues spent on political activity, the process is prohibitively diffi cult, confusing, and often expensive.

In the coming weeks we’ll release other features designed to publicize the plight of teachers in Wash-ington and around the country.

As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.” Thank you for joining the battle to ensure the Washington Education Association is held accountable to the teachers it represents.

Often lost in the debate over campaign fi nance pro-posals is the simple fact that giving money to support candidates and causes is a fundamental way for people to participate in politics. That’s a good thing in a democ-racy. It is a liberty that is good in itself and an effective way to make the government more accountable. Ordi-nary citizens ought to be wary when politicians propose limiting their freedom to engage in politics.

The typical retort to this is that ordinary citizens are shut out of the political process when moneyed special interests dominate. Once again, this ignores recent social scientifi c research that demonstrates that more money in politics is associated with more campaigning and adver-tising, which in turn leads to a better informed and more interested electorate, and increased voter turnout.

Also, there is no evidence to suggest that public policy is skewed toward the wealthy or to big business when unlimited contributions are allowed. This may seem counterintuitive at fi rst, but for every interest on one

side of an issue, there’s always an interest on the oppo-site side. And what are interest groups but the vehicles by which ordinary citizens band together to petition government and make their voices heard?

Contribution limits also make it harder for poten-tial candidates to raise the money necessary to run for offi ce. Several recent studies suggest that the ease of raising campaign funds is an important determinant of the number of contested elections in a state. Contribu-tion limits are one way that the people already in offi ce try to reduce the competition for their jobs. And the less competition there is for political offi ces, the less elected representatives have to be concerned about representing their constituents.

In Missouri, contribution limits also had unintended and unfortunate results. Restricting donations to can-didates does not restrict the desire for people to engage

Tby Jeffrey Milyo and John SamplesA vote for transparency

For updates on the case please visit www.Teachers-v-Union.org.

RIGHT:

LEFT:“NEA: The Greatest Scam on Earth” is an online parody pro-duced to highlight the diffi cul-ties teachers face when try-ing to opt out of paying for the union’s political expenditures.

Continued on page 12

“we’re waging a full-scale

public awareness campaign to ensure this case is taken up by the highest court

of the land.”

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 9

ost people agree that public education today isn’t what it should be.

A recent poll commissioned by TIME magazine found that 55% of Americans are dissatisfi ed with their public schools; 61% say schools are in crisis; and 52% believe public schools have gotten worse in the last 20 years.

In an interview on the Oprah Winfrey Show last month, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and his wife Melinda pulled no punches describing the current state of schools:

Oprah: “If the educational system were a business, how would you rate it?”

Bill Gates: “It’d be bankrupt.”

Melinda Gates: “It’s failing. It’s absolutely failing. You go to schools … you ask the kids ‘What are you learn-ing?’ They literally are learning nothing.”

Earlier this year, John Stossel of ABC News anchored a 20/20 special called “Stupid in America.” In it, he point-ed out that “the longer kids stay in American schools, the worse they do in international competition.”

At the heart of the recent spate of sensational media coverage is the simple fact that all over our state and nation students are dropping out of school, failing ba-sic academic subjects, and graduating with diplomas only to discover they are ill-prepared for college or the workforce. Many businesses are unable to fi nd qualifi ed workers to fi ll available jobs.

In a nutshell: Americans are rapidly losing person-al and economic opportunities we have long taken for granted. Millions of young people are entering adult-hood without the tools necessary to pursue and achieve their dreams.

The crisis in public education has been decades in the making. It was back in 1983 that a Blue Ribbon Commis-sion formed under President Reagan issued a well-known report titled “A Nation At Risk.” Its famous conclusion: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war.”

Of course, “A Nation At Risk” wasn’t commissioned out of thin air. Many were already concerned about the state of education leading up to its release.

The result of these decades of concern is that the pub-lic school system has been in a constant state of “re-form”. We spend more money than ever before; we’ve

designed targeted programs for special student popu-lations; we have state-of-the-art facilities with more technology and smaller classes; and we’ve adopted new teaching methods and curriculum. We’ve done it all … again and again.

It seems the only thing we haven’t done is solve the problem. And the only thing we aren’t doing is success-fully educating most kids.

Unfortunately, most people don’t seem to know what “public education” means anymore. As economics pro-fessor John Merrifi eld points out in his book “School Choice Wars,” too many Americans think “public edu-cation” means “public schools,” not “an educated pub-lic.” They equate public education with the current de-livery model instead of the results delivered.

This mindset limits public education reform to small changes that can be made within a system of universally owned and operated government schools. Fortunately, a growing number of edu-cation analysts and reformers now see that the system itself is the problem, and that reforms aimed at preserving it are tantamount to put-ting a new coat of paint on a broken-down car, or buying jumper cables as a long-term solution for a dead battery.

Experts on both sides of the political and ideo-logical spectrum are calling for an end to the public school monopoly and a return to mar-ket-based education. While the debate contin-ues over whether government should be the pur-chaser or provider of public education, or both or neither, many now agree that quality educa-tion will not be achieved on a wide scale until parents are empowered to choose the education-al venues that best meet the needs of their chil-dren, and until schools are forced to compete for their business with increasing effi ciency and effectiveness.

The Education Sector, a national think tank whose founders are more closely aligned with politics on the left, believes that: “Students’ diverse needs are best served by a range of educational options. Consumer choice in education and competition among schools for students can help make such options available to more students.”

Paul T. Hill of the University of Washington’s Center on Reinventing Public Education recently wrote: “[To-day’s] realities demand new educational approaches that allow for various types of schools that have the freedom

Mby Marsha MichaelisCalls for education choices getting louder

to innovate to meet students’ unique needs. However, our public educa-tion system is incapable of such prob-lem solving because it is oriented in precisely the wrong direction. Today, public education policies and admin-istrations are organized to serve the needs of the institutions and the adults that work in them.”

Similarly, other non-partisan but philosophically left-of-center groups such as the Progressive Policy Institute (a project of the Democrat Leadership Council) and the Brookings Institution publish solid research in support of more choice and competition among schools.

Despite the growing awareness that choice and compe-tition are necessary elements in a successful education

system, fi erce opposition still exists. After all, many in-dividuals rely on the system in its current form for jobs, salaries, reputations, social connections, and daily rou-tines. Allowing parents to choose among education ven-ues means some schools will lose customers, and thus revenue. These will not be easily surrendered.

While we likely differ in our opinions of particulars, I appreciate Oprah Winfrey’s recent words about the need for education reform: “I’m blown away that this isn’t what is on every parent’s mind when it comes to elections – that people aren’t in the street fi ghting for their kids.”

I’m blown away too. Change will not come easily, but it must come. And it’s up to all of us to bring it.

ho would obstruct the fi ght against sex traffi ck-ing of children? The Vancouver Education As-

sociation (VEA) comes to mind. The teachers union, a local chapter of the Washington Education Association, has refused to allow a teacher to send her union dues to Shared Hope International, a charity working to prevent traffi cking and sexual slavery.

Washington state teachers are required to pay union dues as a condition of employment. Federal law, how-ever, says that employees who have religious objections to union membership can divert their dues to a “mutu-ally agreed upon” charity in order to accommodate their religious beliefs.

A teacher in the Vancouver School District has been attempting to do just that. She found the union’s stance on various social policies to be in confl ict with her per-sonal beliefs. In August 2005, she requested permission to send her dues to Shared Hope.

The charity, founded by former Congresswoman Lin-da Smith, is a leader in the “worldwide effort to prevent and eradicate sex traffi cking and slavery through educa-tion and public awareness.”

“‘Amazingly, VEA executive director Roy Maier refused

the teacher’s request, claiming the charity was

‘not acceptable.”’Amazingly, VEA executive director Roy Maier re-

fused the teacher’s request, claiming the charity was “not acceptable.” Puzzled, the teacher provided a letter from Shared Hope documenting the organization’s non-profi t status. The union still refused.

by Michael Reitz, J.D.For the children?

This isn’t the fi rst time the VEA has violated a teach-er’s civil rights. Several years ago another teacher seek-ing religious accommodation brought a case against the union in federal court. The VEA settled the case and adopted a policy for dealing with religious objectors. The policy goes beyond the typical legal requirements by stating: “the goal is to respect the objector’s choice of charities, so long as the designated recipient is lawful and charitable.”

The union recently offered to send the Vancouver teacher’s dues to a local crisis pregnancy center ... but still refuses to accommodate her choice.

The mission of the Vancouver Education Association is “the attainment of a quality education of the children they serve.” Regardless of one’s political views, we can all agree that the effort to rescue vulnerable children from predators is a worthy cause.

Despite federal law, a clearly stated union policy, and a mission to help children, the VEA continues to block the teacher’s attempt to rescue kids from sexual slavery. We believe, in the words of the VEA executive director, that’s “not acceptable.”

W

“Despite the growing awareness that choice and competition are necessary elements in a successful education system, fi erce opposition still exists.”

10 LIVING LIBERTY

Yes, I WANT TO INVEST IN THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION.

Dear Friend of EFF,

While we welcome every gift, our greatest need is reliable monthly support. It is imperative for reaching our goals. Please consider monthly giving as a way to invest in the cause of freedom. Our secure e-Giving System ensures that more of your contribution goes directly to our work.

Cordially,

Please mail or fax in this form (fax 360-352-1874) or call 360-956-3482. We will send you a confi rmation letter for your records.

Your Donations to EFF are Tax Deductible!

Bank Debit/Credit Card Donation Authorization I request my bank or credit card company to transfer funds in the amount of $ each monthuntil further notice. I understand that I am in full control of my donation, and that I can decide to make any changes or discontinue the service at any time by calling 360-956-3482 or writing to EFF.

Signature Date(required for bank and credit card donations)

Checking Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided check)

Savings Account–e-Giving Systems (Attach a voided deposit slip)

Please indicate your preferred withdrawal date: 1st 10th 20th

VISA MASTERCARD DISCOVER AMERICAN EXPRESS

Credit card # Expiration date:

Personal Information

Name Company

Address City, State, Zip

Phone E-mail

...BECAUSE FREEDOM MATTERS!

I would like to give a one time gift of $

ll new car types sold in the U.S. undergo a gov-ernment crash test, but the results of these tests

are rarely what convince consumers to buy a particular vehicle. A car’s safety rating just isn’t a “cool” factor. Until we crash, of course.

Mexico has experienced the elections equivalent of a crash, with the July 2 presidential election resulting in a margin of victory that conjures up images of Ohio in 2004. After a cliffhanger recount in which the lead switched several times, conservative candidate Felipe Calderòn was declared the victor by 230,000 votes over the liberal Lòpez Obrador.

As happened in Washington state after the 2004 guber-natorial election, cries of election fraud have been made by the losing party. Unlike Washington, however, the close scrutiny that has followed these claims in Mexico has not revealed rampant mismanagement, lost ballots, and unexplainable vote totals. It has revealed an election system that may be eligible for a fi ve-star safety rating.

When Mexican voters enter their polls (mail ballots are only available to those out of the country), they must

show a voter ID card, which includes their picture, signature, and a security hologram. The poll worker compares this with a replica of the voter’s card in the poll book before giving the voter a ballot. After voting, the voter’s thumb is marked with indelible ink to prevent double-voting.

Such procedures would be anathema to some in the U.S. who would have you believe that any security re-duces voter turnout. Yet, the turnout in Mexico was near-ly 60 percent, higher than the U.S. has experienced in any presidential election since 1968.

Security continues beyond the polling place in Mexico, to the forefront of the counting process. The votes are tal-lied and sent in sealed ballot boxes to one of 300 district offi ces. There, each box is opened and the tally sheet read aloud to representatives from each party and any interest-ed citizens. If a party contests the tally sheet, the ballots in the box are recounted. Any remaining complaints can be fi led immediately with an election tribunal.

In contrast, several Washington counties had fi nal tal-lies in the 2004 election that were off by hundreds or even thousands of votes. Observers had a diffi cult time observing the election process, and canvassing boards across the state struggled to interpret voter intent. Most alarmingly, the standards kept changing in the middle of the process, complicating the outcome. To cap it all, Secretary of State Sam Reed declined to consider large numbers of reported errors. He just rubber-stamped what turned out to be a fl awed result.

Obrador, the losing Mexican candidate, has made claims of lost votes and ballot stuffi ng, which a Mexi-can court will consider before the election is certifi ed. To this point, however, the process has stood up remark-ably well under close scrutiny. European Union repre-sentatives asked to review the election have signed off on it as fair and accurate.

High election standards in Mexico were introduced a decade ago, after the people got fed up with decades of rigged elections. Let’s hope it takes less to convince Washington state election offi cials to work for their own fi ve-star safety rating.

Aby Jonathan BechtleMexico’s election system earns a high safety rating

A PUBLICATION OF THE EVERGREEN FREEDOM FOUNDATION 11

Prosecution of Election CrimesRECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM5

A

The Voter Integrity Project has recently re-leased “A Façade of Enforcement: a review of prosecutions of election crimes in 2004.” Separated by county, it is a database of all alleged election crimes in 2004 and how many, if any, the county prosecutor prose-cuted. It includes the prosecuting attorney’s contact information, in case you would like to let him or her know your opinion on his or her response to election crimes. It is available at www.effwa.org/enforcement/

model election system securely and accurately distributes, collects and counts ballots, while also

ensuring that all eligible voters are given an opportunity to cast a ballot. In the past four issues of Living Liberty, we have included questions and answers explaining four of our top recommendations for producing this kind of model system: a voter registration update, a photo ID requirement, improved security for mail ballots and lim-iting ballot duplication. We are concluding the fi ve-part series by focusing on our recommendations for prose-cuting election crimes.

Recommendation #5: EFF recommends that county and federal prosecutors aggressively pursue election crimes, and that the legislature lower the standard of proof necessary to punish those who commit election crimes.

Question: Were any election crimes committed in the 2004 and 2005 state elections?

Answer: Evidence shows that many crimes were likely committed. Some of the most obvious were the illegal ballots cast by felons who did not have voting rights, ballots cast in the names of dead people, or dupli-cate ballots cast in one voter’s name. Ballots were sup-posedly cast by voters with Alzheimer’s disease and patients at state mental hospitals.

Voters aren’t the only parties suspected of election crimes; election offi cials also broke the laws in the course of recent elections. For example, there is sub-stantial evidence proving that King County election offi cials counted provisional ballots with full awareness that the voters were not registered, their registrations were incomplete, or they had already cast absentee bal-lots that had been counted.

Question: Was anyone prosecuted for these election crimes?

Answer: Only a handful of people were prosecuted in one county, none in the other 38 counties. King County’s prosecutor investigated and charged eight peo-ple with double voting, a seemingly large number, until one compares it with the nearly 1,500 allegations Ever-green Freedom Foundation has compiled a list of elec-tion crimes in the county.

Question: Why were there so few prosecutions?

Answer: Lack of interest by prosecutors and elec-tion offi cials, and a diffi cult standard of proof. Based on newspaper interviews and anecdotal evidence, it appears that prosecutions are lacking because election crimes simply are not high on the priority list. Prosecu-tors claim they have their hands full with meth labs and car thefts. Election crimes may not appear to present as much danger to the public.

Also, many prosecutors have pointed to the diffi culty in proving vote fraud. An essential element is intent, that is, knowing what one is doing is wrong, and doing it anyway. This is the primary reason none of the felon voters from 2004 were prosecuted, despite direct identi-fi cation of at least 1,301 of them in superior court. Many felons claimed that a reliable source told them they could vote; therefore, they didn’t know it was wrong.

The fact that a crime is diffi cult to prosecute, how-ever, is not a good reason to simply ignore it. Prosecu-tors are hardly ever handed cases on a silver platter. It’s a matter of deciding where to invest resources. For example, many of the same types of election crimes were committed in Milwaukee during the 2004 elec-tion, albeit on a smaller scale, and prosecutors there complained of the same diffi culty in proving fraud. Yet they charged 18 people with election crimes, and

let a jury decide whether intent was present. As of early 2006, four have been convicted, one acquitted, and the rest are pending.

Question: Were any federal laws broken? If so, did the feds investigate?

Answer: Federal laws were broken, but the U.S. Attorney for western Washington chose to ignore the evidence. Before the 2004 election, John McKay, U.S. Attorney for western Washington, put out a press release saying, “Election fraud and voting rights abuses…will be dealt with promptly and aggressively.” Many of the actions which broke state law, like double voting and felons voting, also violate federal laws. EFF researchers gave evidence of this to Mr. McKay, with the hope he would follow through on his promises. The FBI was given the same information.

Neither Mr. McKay nor the FBI even opened an investigation, much less pursued prosecutions. Mil-waukee once again serves as a good comparison. The U.S. Attorney there actively prosecuted multiple voters for election crimes, despite having much less evidence than was present in Washington.

Question: Has the legislature or secretary of state addressed this issue?

Answer: During 2005, the legislature enacted a new rule requiring felons to be notifi ed at the time of sen-tencing that they had lost their right to vote. This rule prevents felons from being able to use the “no one told me it was wrong” excuse, reducing the diffi culty in proving intent.

Secretary of State Sam Reed has done very little to encourage prosecutions, however, and often repeatedly downplayed the existence of any vote fraud. A good example of this was his announcement in the fi rst days of January 2006 that no double voters had been found in the statewide database, despite the fact that his staff had only just begun the process of checking for such discrepancies. Months later he was forced to admit that double voters had been found, but he made no effort to publicly call for thorough investigations and prosecu-tions. He even refused to check for double votes in the 2004 elections, as evidenced by an email answer from Assistant Secretary of State Steve Excell to the ques-tion, “Why are only potential double voters from 2005 being investigated?” Excell said, “We do not have the complete voting history at the state level to research any further back that [sic] 2005. Also, 2004 was the most heavily researched/investigated election in state history with the political parties challenging registra-tions, signatures, looking for felons, etc. and with the Counties doing substantial list maintenance after the Election Contest was over.”

Curiously, despite Excell’s excuse that complete vot-ing history is not available, to date EFF has been able to identify 70 potential double voters from 2004 using the state database.

Question: How could the legislature further reduce the diffi culty of proving election crimes?

Answer: By making it a misdemeanor, as well as a felony, to break election laws. Most of the common election crimes are felonies, meaning they have pen-alties of more than $1,000 and/or more than a year in jail. While these stiff sentences are good, felonies are harder to prove. Adding a lesser misdemeanor element to each crime would remove the need to prove intent. Law enforcement could basically write tickets for those who commit voter fraud. The penalties would be neces-sarily smaller, but the greater likelihood of prosecution would aid deterrence.

Even this solution only works when prosecutors make election crimes a higher priority.

Question: Why is swift enforcement of election crimes necessary?

Answer: Without it, election security is a farce. Washington state has a myriad of election laws on the books. Just like any other issue, if these laws are not enforced, little incentive is available for people to follow the laws. In 2004 and 2005, good legislation was passed to improve our election system. Hopefully, more is com-ing. These efforts will be in vain, however, if the laws are never enforced.

In April 2005, citizen activists turned up evidence of a double vote in 2004, and passed the information on to the Jefferson County Auditor. The auditor properly passed it to the county prosecutor. Instead of initiating an investigation, however, the prosecutor sent a letter to the alleged double voter, chastening him for breaking the law, but promising not to prosecute. “It was likely an honest mistake,” the prosecutor presumed. What kind of deterrent effect comes from prosecutors who allow people to commit “one free crime”? Since double-vot-ing is a misdemeanor, it would have taken less effort for the county prosecutor to send a notice of civil infraction then it did to write the “free pass” letter. Question: Is there anything citizens can do to encour-age law enforcement to take election crimes seri-ously?

Answer: Yes. They can let their county prosecutor know how important the issue is to them. The Ever-green Freedom Foundation has put together a table list-ing all the allegations of election crimes since the 2004 election, organized by county, and all of the prosecu-tions of those crimes. Citizens can examine the list to see how their prosecutor is handling election crimes. Prosecutor contact information is also included, and cit-izens are encouraged to let their prosecutor know how they feel about the importance of swift enforcement of election crimes. See below for more information.

12 LIVING LIBERTY

MATT COLE WITH WIFE SHAWNDRA

A EAA EFF’s Deputy Communicat ions Director since January, Mat thew Cole, wi l l be serving our country in Afghanistan for the next year.

IN THE SERVICE OF LIBERTY

“The call to duty is

bittersweet,” Matt said.

He has been trained as an intelligence specialist

and is looking

forward to using the skills he

has gained to serve his

country.

by Kristen Mercier

FF’s Deputy Communications Director since January, Matthew Cole, will be serving our country in Afghani-

stan for the next year. Matt joined the Navy Reserve shortly after September 11, and this will be his fi rst tour of duty. He departed from Olympia on July 21 to spend two months in combat training at Camp Shelby in Mississippi before fl ying to Afghanistan in October.

“The call to duty is bittersweet,” Matt said. He has been trained as an intelligence specialist and is look-ing forward to using the skills he has gained to serve his country. Matt is philosophical about this change and sees it as part of a bigger picture. “It’s exciting to know that Shawndra and I are in God’s plan. This is obviously where he is leading us right now,” he said.

Matt’s family is especially proud and supportive of him. They will be Shawndra’s “home away from Matt” while he is gone. The risks involved are on his family’s mind. Matt recently lost a good friend in Afghanistan, so they feel the danger of the situation even more acutely. “Prayers for safety and for my wife are appreciated.”

“When I think of Matt, I think of his cheerful, posi-tive attitude about our country, his colleagues, and the work we do here at EFF,” said Lynn Harsh. “Of course, I’ll always think of him when I see a picture of George

Washington,” she said, referring to a recent EFF press confer-ence at the Capitol. Matt wore a Founding Fathers costume at the event, much to the delight of visiting schoolchildren.

We are proud of Matt. He will be in our thoughts and prayers.

AM

ERIC

AN

HER

OA

N

in electoral politics. After all, we live at a time when government is involved in almost everything. What elected offi cials do about taxes or regulations matters a lot. Limited in their donations to candidates, political donors turned to giving to local political party commit-tees or other groups which then supported candidates or ran their own advertisements.

That’s hardly a terrible outcome. Parties play an important role in our elections. But by forcing donors to give in a roundabout way, the law prevents citizens from directly supporting their preferred candidates. It also makes it more diffi cult to say where money came from and where it went in Missouri elections.

The new legislation separates the work of candidates and parties. Candidates raise money to run for offi ce

while the parties provide in-kind help (polling, phone banks, consulting and so on) for their candidates. This division makes candidates accountable for their fund-raising, so voters will know if a candidate has received large donations from a source with a particular interest. And candidates can make an issue out of troubling con-tributions to their opponents. Voters can then decide to cast their ballot for or against the candidate who received the donation in question. Such open debate is a corner-stone of democracy, and a hallmark of liberty.

Some opponents say enacting House bill 1900 will turn Missouri into another Illinois. Missouri’s neigh-boring state does not have limits on contributions and has suffered several corruption scandals involving vote fraud, bribery, and obstruction of justice. But campaign

contributions are not bribes, not least because they will be public knowledge in Missouri; no elected offi cial wants to be seen as a sellout, lest he be voted out. And decades of study confi rm this: political contributions simply do not sway politicians’ opinions. Instead con-tributions are the means by which donors support like-minded persons, and there’s nothing illegal or immoral about that.

Jeffrey Milyo is an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri-Columbia. John Samples is director of the Center for Representa-tive Government at the Cato Institute (www.cato.org).

Transparancy, continued from page 8 . . .

E