It’s Up to Us Now: Thank You Chris and Sharon for Standing Up

We have two great candidates running who will be more than able HumCo Supervisors and help to move our county back to the direction it needs to go.   A direction that believes in private enterprise AND a belief in an effective public sector.  People that believe we have to have both to reach the complex and attainable goals of our community going forward.

Sharon!
Sharon!

Chris Kerrigan will be running against incumbent Virginia Bass in Humboldt’s 4th District.  Chris’ campaign kick off is today at 12:15 at 720 Wood Street in Eureka (H or I and Harris). Come out and show your support as Chris “tell’s it like it is”.

Sharon Latour is the “someone else” (Eric?!) who will be running in the 5th District and represents a great opportunity to help Supervisor Sundberg spend more time on much needed R&R after 3 and a half years behind the dais.

Take a look at Supervisor Bass’ and Supervisor Sundberg’s initial 2014 list of donors so far,if you haven’t already, to understand the popularity they both have with the development crowd in Humboldt County.  A very narrow group of business interests are very interested in helping to complete the conversion of the Planning (and Building? does the County Build?) Department to a Service Department.

Chris!
Chris!

Supervisors Bass and Sudberg are both of course good people and charismatic and effective candidates, so the next couple of months will not be easy as the June 3rd primary approaches.  It’s up to us to tell two people who will tell two people and so on about Faberge Chris K. and Sharon L. and the change they can make on our BOS as soon as 2015.

No question about it, this is an uphill “battle” but it’s doable with people power.  Come out today to hear what Chris has to say, and commit to making calls and/or doing a little canvassing.  You can’t outspend people power.  That is our open secret.  That’s why everyone is clamoring to become part of the left-of-center movement (sometimes in name only) toward a balance of enterprise in the private sector AND smart government (ie NOT BIG) to move our communities forward.

Related:  

Chris Kerrigan’s Campaign Website – “Moving Humboldt Forward!”

Advertisements

15 thoughts on “It’s Up to Us Now: Thank You Chris and Sharon for Standing Up

  1. Oh My says:

    Sharon Who? I find it incredible that someone who moved to the Fifth District after the last election who is completely unknown decides to challenge a very well liked incumbent. Will be interesting to see what her message is.

  2. MOLA:42 says:

    I am in hopes we can see what the real “Left of Center” is about (as opposed to the fake self proclaimed Democratic left of centers’ we have sitting on the BOS and C of E council). People may actually see we are not a bunch of commies out to destroy America but concerned citizens like everyone else.

    When people speak we have consensus: When money speaks we have power. Which will we choose this election cycle?

    Hope springs eternal…

  3. Oh My says:

    The two lowest spenders in t he election four years ago were Bass and Sundberg. Neely and Cleary raised more and spent more, so money did not speak in that election.

  4. MOLA:42 says:

    Oh My:

    Had to give some thought as to what you said about the losers spending more than the winners in those races. And in a certain way of looking at it (the direct non-complicated way) you are right. But shucks, I’m an indirect complicated kind of guy.

    How much money raised and spent is a good barometer… but what also counts is HOW the money is raised. For instance: Candidate A has 100 contributors who toss in a thousand dollars each into the campaign. Candidate B has a thousand and two contributors forking over an average of 75 bucks each except for the two who contribute $20+ thousand each. In the end, Candidate B outspends Candidate A (money figures used are for example purposes only; not intended to imply that was the real amounts raised in the last election).

    Now, add to the mix Candidate A now wants a “Campaign Contributions Limit”; folks can’t spend more than $1500 per person. Sounds reasonable, right? But… It’s merely a confirmation of what Candidate A expects to get for contributions in the next election and what the new candidate B will not. So it’s not like Candidate A hasn’t noticed from where the winds blow (contribution and support wise anyway).

    So yes, you are correct. And then again, you’re not.

    As to the big players with their large last minute contributions; yes that disturbs me greatly. So greatly I think the campaign contributions limit should be fifty or a hundred dollars at most. That way candidates with wide but not so well off constituencies can compete without needing dirty money to stay competitive with the moneyed interests in this county.

    Like I said, I love my observations complicated and indirect.

    1. Oh My says:

      I must agree with you, for Cleary received huge donations from Bill Pieson and the Blue Lake Casino, even a large donation after he lost the election, so he would have no campaign debt! Bonnie Neely had large donations from Pierson and Blue Lake plus some large donations from and Southern California developer. So if you are attempting to argue that the victorious candidates had some shady funding, please do not let the facts get in the way of your opinion. But I will be pleased to continue the discussion on this topic, but please look at the funding for that campaign.

  5. MOLA:42 says:

    Oh MY:

    I attempt no arguments of the kind. To my knowledge, not one shady cent was given to any campaign. But we do both agree that the mega-contributions the losers received have no place in that or any local election.

    My point (argument if you prefer) is that funding bases have as much to do with how campaign’s are run as the money itself. If you are beholden to $1000 contributions to get by then that determines who you will keep your eye on when serving in office. If you get by on $50 contributions then that has an influence on who you will lean toward keeping happy.

    I also said that I support a REAL effort at leveling the playing field by realistically limiting campaign contributions; not playing games to benefit one type of campaign at the expense of the other.

    You might want to read through what I wrote earlier since you appear to have lost the gist of what I actually said.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Completely unknown candidate Arkley spent $50,000 to beat Cumming’s $10,000 in the 1994 Eureka city council race. Cummings raised his family here, was a labor attorney for employees, a leader in his community, his church, and chair of the HCDCC for years.

    No one can name more than six council candidates in Eureka over the last generation that won without the same tired list of donors from the development community.

    The same is mostly true for the county.

    Those that oppose the development community are always outspent with few exceptions.

    Neely and Cleary are 2.

    The biggest spenders always win, that’s the rule, and its the reason Meg Whitman spent $141 million to be governor, she’s no fool, she knows the rule and lost in a rare exception to it.

  7. Oh My says:

    Likely winners attract money. Sundberg and Bass will attract healthy donations because they are clearly frontrunners and are well liked.Chris and Sharon need to convince a majority of the voters that they Offer something that the incumbents Can not,

  8. MOLA:42 says:

    Oh My:

    “Chris and Sharon need to convince a majority of the voters that they Offer something that the incumbents Can not,”

    Which is the real point of an election. It should not be a contest centered around who’s raising the most money from whom. Call me an Idealist (or worse) but I kind of wish we would elect the better candidate and not the candidate’s ability to raise cash and sell themselves to the public like soap is sold.

    Which is why I said earlier in the post, “When people speak we have consensus: When money speaks we have power. Which will we choose this election cycle?”

  9. Oh My says:

    There In lies the problem for all candidates -to get your message out it takes $ and you cannot get $ from people who do not agree with Your message. Name recognition is expensive for those who do not have it. The first perception of a candidate by the public is the hardest to change.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Here, Oh My is correct.

    The system is corrupt to the core and this is why the vast majority always abstains.

    However, the stubborn minority that always votes already have their minds made up and “First perceptions” are not an issue…just look at the scalawags in office today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s