ENOUGH SIGNATURES FOR CLEAN MONEY? MAYBE

It's been a while since the Ralph Nader signature-verifying process, but the stench continues. I'll believe Clean Money makes the ballot after the signatures are "checked." Sometimes in this state, the citizens don't follow the rules just right. You know, a page number here, the wrong paper clip there, and, darn it, there aren't enough signatures after all. But here's my take on Clean Money if it does make it to the ballot:

CLEAN MONEY ACT
Last year 5 MPs from the Canadian government requested $200,000 to study brothels in Europe − they seemed especially interested in visiting Sweden. Of course the MPs provided noble-sounding reasons for the trip, but − call me cynical − I always get suspicious when politicians do things like this out of the goodness in their hearts.
That’s why I don’t like the Clean Money Act. Wait, I believe they’ve changed the name to the “Healthy Forests of Green Cash” initiative. With this plan, campaign costs for city council candidates are paid with taxpayer revenue, and the noble reasons cited for doing it are piling up like money on a dresser.
As I understand the scheme, an organization such as a nightclub could offer 5-dollar memberships in a political party by nominating the most popular D.J. in the place to run for city council. When they reached 1,000 signatures, the city would turn over $150,000 to the D.J. to spend on the campaign. How about 10 members-only campaign rallies that cost $15,000 dollars each? They are called political parties, aren’t they? Presumably, we’d catch on before the primary − otherwise we’d have to kick in another $200,000 for the general election.
Meanwhile, legitimate candidates would get a lot out of it, too − including incumbents. In addition to all the noble reasons given, this would vastly increase the quality of life for city council members seeking reelection. Why? They could skip the endless, demeaning process of fundraising.
No more campaign chicken dinners. No more meet-and-greets at somebody’s house. No more fundraising breakfasts at 7a.m. with scrambled eggs that are running harder than you are. Spend the easy money on TV and radio spots, and sleep in till the debates.
So what are the noble reasons? The best-sounding reason of all for the Clean Money act is to remove the corrupting influence of special interests from the political process. Wait, maybe we should rename it the “Who Are You Kidding – Don’t Be So Naïve” Act of 2005. The powerful will always find ways to exert themselves. That’s why they’re called powerful. The key is for local media to keep tabs on the situation so it doesn’t get out of hand, and not to wait 30 years after the fact to report it.
I believe you’d be better off arguing this Clean Money proposal from an economic standpoint. Inflation is a real problem these days. If we gave $350,000 to a candidate to run, that would greatly decrease the cost of buying the politician later. Don’t think of this as free money. Think of it as a price subsidy.
My favorite noble reason the city council cites is that this will make it easier for other people to take their jobs. I’m sure you spend a lot of your workday coming up with ways to be replaced so this must make total sense to you.
Apparently these people are so noble that they’d be willing to sacrifice their positions for us to have a better system. How did we get so fortunate to have such saintly types running our city? Of course, I can’t help wondering if they’re that noble already, why do we have to worry about dirty money corrupting them in the first place?