What is good for the goose...

Here we have a typical Republican move from the East Valley tribune. All of the sudden, Linda Gray, one of our resident conservative wack-jobs from the State leg wants to ban out of state contributions for ballot initiatives. There are so many things wrong with this:

1. How does one define out of state? Most orgs are a mix of money from the state and other sources (see the Chamber of Commerce, Labor Unions, the DNC/RNC).
2. Duh, the First Amendment
3. What makes her think this would change any outcome?
4. Why not make all contributions come from in-state sources, including US House, Senate and all state/local offices? What makes ballot intiatives so special?

Plenty of out of state money was spent on ballot initiatives on both sides. It cuts both ways... Why is the first reaction to losing to change the rules? Here is something to think about... How about you beat the ballot initiative fair and square by raising tons of money and running a better campaign. I cannot say for sure, but I would guess that the other side of the animal cruelty initiative probably had more money.

A good example is TABOR (Tax Payer Bill of Rights). It was passed in Colorado several years ago by out of state sources. They caught the liberal side flat-footed and beat them. The policy was a disaster for the state. The liberals in Colorado have fought long and hard and have made in-roads at dismantling the intuitive. It is called Democracy (yes, I know we live in a Republic). This is how it should work...

I have had this same discussion with friends around the smoking ban. All they can say is that they have a right to smoke and that it is a violation of their rights. There is not right to smoke people! YOU HAVE TO WIN AT THE BALLOT BOX! If you can't do that, sit down and shut up.