On October 7, former New York city Mayor Michael Bloomberg donated $1,250,000 to “Yes on 90”, the chief committee that is advertising in support of the top-two system that is on the November 4 ballot in Oregon.
As previously reported, another billionaire, John Arnold, donated $500,000 on September 17, and another $1,000,000 on October 1, to “Open Primaries”. That committee then gave those donations to the “Yes on 90” committee. Presumably this money will pay for radio, television, newspaper and direct mail advertising in favor of the measure.
Here is a link to the donations to Open Primaries, and here is a link to the donations for Yes on 90. Note also that Bank of America donated $10,000.
“Top Two,” the first major step to a “One Party Nation.”
1. NO primaries — which ONLY produce left/right extremists.
2. P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Richard, whats their possible motivation for this? thats a ton of money to throw around.
Is Bloomberg a fucking idiot?
Bloomberg gives money to independent candidates (Angus Hill in Maine, Greg Orman in Kansas) and then he gives money to top-two initiative which would have essentially eliminating these excellent candidate before the general election had they been in place in those states.
Brad M:
I agree, he doesn’t make any sense at all. He also gave the Independence Party of New York tons of money, and this party accounted for 15% of his vote in his last re-election bid as mayor. Without this 15%, he might not have been reelected.
So who knows what is going on inside his mind.
But Top Two will eventually kill any serious 3rd party or Independent candidate. It already has in California – with the exception of presidential nominees who can appear on the General Election Ballot under their respective 3rd party label. But by that time, people have been saturated with the two major party presidential nominees, the 3rd party nominees (or Independent) candidates are virtually “non-existent.”
I predict the day will come when both major parties will agree to abandon National Conventions and have a single national presidential primary, and the Top Two (whether 2 Democrats or 2 Republicans) will be the only ones allowed on the General Election Ballot.
With the number of Democratic voters growing faster than Republican voters, the day will come when it will always be 2 Democrats who make it to the Top Two and Republicans leaders will act “bewildered.”
Top-two schemes are bad ideas for they would shut out independent and/or alternative party candidates from general elections. The write-in option would likely be frozen out as well.
If I recall correctly, top two in California (population 37 million) cost its proponents about $3 million. Looks like they’re going to spend that much (or more) in Oregon (population 4 million). That’s more than nine times as much per voter.
Oregon voters rejected top two in 2008. Could it be that the proponents know they will do so again unless extreme measures are taken to force it down their throats? Could it be that the proponents know that the word is getting out about experience in Washington and California, making it even more necessary for them to literally drown out the voice of experience?
But these contributions are fitting. Top two is fundamentally about buying elections without having to endure the inconvenience of buying political party organizations in the process. How appropriate that they have to buy the adoption of top two itself.
Those who are determined to obtain or change something, and who have the money to do it with, will continue until they have accomplished their goal.
When Angus Hill was elected governor, he was running TV ads during the primary.