Elvis Costello and local politics

My column over at the KCFreePress this week discusses dirty tricks and local politics, and it works in two of my Elvis Costello quotations - "There's no such thing as an original sin" and "I used to be disgusted and now I try to be amused."

Meeting Candidates - Why Does it Matter?

Political season is upon us, with sequential waves of candidates descending upon us seeking votes for school board elections, followed by County primaries, followed by County generals and Congressional elections, followed by City elections. And, if you take the slightest interest in voting, you will be bombarded with opportunities to "meet and greet" candidates.

It's a strange phenomenon, really.

From a politician's perspective, shaking a voter's hand is THE most effective way of securing a vote. No mailer, no phone call, no 20 page position paper will be as effective for that voter as a firm handshake, a look in the eye, and a couple meaningless words. "I'm Joe Blow, I'm running for ________, and I'd appreciate your vote on August 3," is all it takes.

We voters are star-struck with shocking ease. That's the only explanation that accounts for the incredible success that hand-to-hand political conquest offers.

We voters are fools. We believe, like the Worst President Ever, that we can look into someone's eyes and get a sense of their souls. Spending 30 seconds with a candidate makes most voters think that they've taken the measure of the candidate, and gives them confidence that the candidate is worthy of their trust.

It's not even limited to the charismatic candidates. I'm not immune, and I've seen the phenomenon happen with some of the least charismatic candidates imaginable. Somewhere I have a picture of my son and me beaming with Governor Bob Holden - Holden may or may not have been a good Governor, but he certainly was not a splash of transformative inspiration.

It's the celebrity, I suppose. Meeting someone whose name is in the news gives us a touch of importance otherwise lacking in our daily world. The fact that someone you've heard of is sticking his or her hand out meet you is flattering, and, as much as we want to believe otherwise, most of us vote with our emotions more than our brains. Researching policy positions and comparing them to our own half-formed beliefs is nothing compared to having a politician look us straight in the eye and treat us, for a few seconds, as if we matter, as if we are worthy of respect and attention from someone "more important" than ourselves.

It's not entirely a bad thing. The importance of meeting candidates does force politicians to expose themselves to malcontents and germs, which at least assures us of politicians with a good immune system and some awareness of mental health issues. And, as voters, we are offered the opportunity to weed out a few whose arrogance, general creepiness, or other personality flaws outshine their star power. We may not be able to get a sense of someone's soul, but we can occasionally recognize a total loser.

So, it's meet and greet season, and I'll be out there meeting and greeting. I'll even host a few candidates I feel strongly about, through deeper conversations and more thorough vetting. That's how the political process works, particularly at the local level. It's the best we have, particularly in the absence of an impartial local press that can adequately cover local issues and candidates.

Seek out the candidates. Ask a few questions. See how quickly and intelligently they respond to difficult questons. Shake their hands. But remember to pay more attention to positions and interests than a good grip.

Let's Talk Politics This Time

Last year about this time, we discussed whether the City Council should make a $2,000,000 donation to the County, in the form of stadium subsidies. I opposed the decision, the Mayor opposed the decision, but the City Council voted 12-1 to give money away.

Since then, the Chiefs and Royals have had horrific seasons with terrible attendance, the City has not had sufficient money to clear streets, our murder rate remains high, a rapist roams Waldo, city employees have been laid off, remaining city workers have had their wages frozen, and we've installed Cathy Jolly's odious red light cameras to generate revenues. All this, and nobody has had the cleverness to point out that the City Councilmembers who voted for the donation should be held accountable for their shocking priorities.

And now the issue is back again.

(As an aside, why don't some of the crack reporters for the Star do an article about the FREE Royals and Chiefs tickets handed out to County and City politicians? Who's sitting in those seats? Are they even being used? I'd be willing to bet there's a story there - either the politicians are handing them out to donors, or they're wasting the tickets. And, as another aside, why doesn't the Star do a story on why, exactly, we even have a Jackson County Sports Authority? How much bureaucracy do we need to pay for simply to keep track of two tenants??)

This year, I'm not even going to bother arguing about the wisdom of stealing $2,000,000 from the city's coffers. My opinion remains clear, but let's look at a much smaller issue.

How do the politics of this debate work this year? Will Funkhouser's suggestion that we end the exemption do him political harm or political good? Will it harm him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and willing to risk our sports franchises? Or will it help him by showing him (again) as out of step with the Council and being the only one who prefers to spend $2,000,000 on things like police protection, snow removal, and city workers rather than weak athletes?

I'm curious about what people think. A good friend emailed me when the news came out and said that this closes off Funkhouser's path to reelection - "Voters won’t tolerate our Mayor screwing Chiefs and Royals, regardless of the budget shortfalls." He may be right, or he may be wrong, and the decision could be a step on the path toward reelection. (I know a lot of you disagree with a lot of Funkhouser's decisions, and believe that reelection is utterly impossible. That's fine - but, if you can, try to analyze the politics of this one decision. I'd love to know what you think.)

(Update: A commenter claimed that city officials get tickets, but county officials don't. The commenter is mistaken. Under the lease agreements, County officials get a suite and prime parking. See page 16, section 7.4. It's offensive to think that the City Council would steal money from city priorities so that county officials can watch games from a suite.)

Thoughts from Last Night's Ethics Forum

The Committee for County Progress hosted an Ethics Forum last night. Micheal Mahoney served as moderator, with panelists Rep. Paul Levota, Rep. Jason Kander, and David Levinthal, the Communications Director for the Center for Responsive Politics in DC. The panel was great, the discussion was informative, and the crowd was a who's who of up-and-coming politicos. I don't have time to do one of my typically verbose descriptions of the event, but here are a few observations:

Paul Levota is funny. At one point, Mahoney was pressing Levota on the unlikelihood that the Missouri Senate will accept contribution limits. Mahoney pointed out that little will be accomplished by sticking to the issue accept to use it as a campaign weapon. "That's the plan," Levota deadpanned.

Transparency is crucial. One of the big problems in Missouri is that donors hide behind committees. When checks get funneled from "Missourians for Good Things" to "Missourians for Awesome Things" and then to "Missourians for Nice Things" and then finally to the candidate, it's awfully hard to track the dollars back to the special interest pulling the strings.

Jason Kander is funny, too. Commenting on a fellow representative's $100,000 donor, Kander pointed out that the donor probably gets his calls returned faster than the representative's children. (Maybe that isn't funny.)

The Center for Responsive Politics is a tremendous resource. Levinthal was well-informed, completely balanced and thoughtful. The Center is non-partisan, and his straight-arrow style made clear that he is interested in good government, period.

The candidates are out to see and be seen. The crowd was peppered with candidates in up-coming races. I hate to mention names, because I don't want to neglect anyone, but Crispin Rea was a welcome presence, along with his campaign treasurer Theresa Garza Ruiz. I finally met Jeremy Ploeger for the 51st district, and Geoff Gerling, candidate for the 46th District.

Where were the County Legislators? The only County Legislator in attendance was the always-wonderful Theresa Garza Ruiz. This came as a bit of a shock, given that it was a forum on Ethics sponsored by the Committee for COUNTY Progress. After the legislature's embarrassing and anti-ethical attempt to avoid ethical home rule, it seems that more of them would have an interest in the topic. Fortunately, Henry Rizzo's opposing candidate and likely replacement, Crystal Williams, was present.

Speaking of Theresa Garza Ruiz . . . I had a brief opportunity to speak with her about her sudden removal as Chair of the Justice & Law Enforcement committee. Despite her degree and experience in law enforcement, she was unceremoniously dumped from the committee, and the "dumper", Henry Rizzo, didn't even talk with her about it first, before awarding the committee Chair to a convicted felon. Theresa didn't have much to offer by way of explanation of this baffling move, other than to point out that the claim that it's part of a normal rotation of chairs is demonstrably false.

Micheal Mahoney knows his stuff. Mahoney did a great job of moderating the event, and the high point came when he ran factual rings around a loud audience member who was claiming that money is the be-all and end-all of politics. Mahoney pointed to the Carnahan/Talent race, and when the blustery but ill-informed talker pushed on, he pointed out that the Mayor was also not the leading fundraiser in his election. It was an amusing and deft evisceration of an anti-Funkhouser activist who seemed to be substituting volume for accuracy.

It's wonderful that so many people care about ethics in Missouri. On a Thursday evening, a healthy crowd of people came out to a mid-town law office to participate in a high-level forum on the topic of dollars and politics. That's a pretty impressive level of interest, and the CCP deserves credit for putting on the forum.

Strangers on the Internet - Let's Be Careful Out There

I talked with a few people involved in politics recently, and confirmed what I had personally noticed. There seems to be an uptick in the number of new "acquaintances" on the internet eager to share dirt and rumors, or to seek information or opinions about local figures. I had one stranger recently share some outlandish lies about a few women involved in state and local politics.

We're a year away from elections, and the lying and elaborate deceptions are already starting up.

Personally, I'm glad to be on the sidelines these days. If you're in the thick of it, though, please be aware and don't take candy from strangers. Or give it, either.

Out of the Kitchen

It's been a month now since I've done a political post. Friends have wondered what the heck is going on. In a nutshell, the kitchen got hot enough that I couldn't stand the heat. More importantly, I don't want to keep adding to the heat.

I'm focusing on things less hateful.

Wrestling with Pigs - Advice for Local Politicians

The political season is warming up again, and new candidates are jumping into the pool. And, happily, there are some great ones - Jay Swearingen in the 31st District and Kevin McManus in the 46th District stand out as fresh faces ready to run great campaigns. Both have kicked off their efforts with successful fundraising and meeting lots of people.

As a blogger, I have a few words of advice for Jay, Kevin, and any other first-time candidates. Ignore us.

Here's a true story of why. A couple election cycles ago, I had chosen to support a primary candidate in a hard-fought state rep race. As is often the case, the partisans on both sides were getting kind of nasty in blog comments, while the candidates themselves were staying above it all.

One fine Saturday morning, when the weather was picture-perfect for door-to-door campaigning, the candidate I was supporting was out meeting people and asking for their votes. Around noon, though, the other candidate posted a long, passionate comment on my blog, way at the bottom of 80 or so comments. The candidate had obviously spent the morning on a computer instead of a sidewalk.

I knew the race was over right then. Shaking hands, asking for donations, putting yard-signs up - that's the way for a candidate to spend a sunny Saturday morning during campaign season. Worrying about what a few, mostly anonymous, commenters are saying is not. A few of that candidate's supporters told me after the election that they lost their optimism when they saw the comment, because they knew the candidate was not disciplined enough to stick to priorities. When the votes were counted, the candidate who spent Saturday morning going door-to-door clobbered the one who spent Saturday morning writing a comment on Gone Mild.

You will not win or lost your campaign by what is written on blogs. Another anecdote - back in 2006, another local candidate ran the most effective blog-based campaign I had ever imagined. He ran a first-class blog, participated in conversations in other blogs, and basically won the hearts and minds of everyone in the blogosphere. I sincerely thought he was going to win. He got crushed.

My point is that the blogosphere in local politics is a raucous scene populated by anonymous agitators who will say just about anything under their cloak of anonymity. Don't confuse them with the people you need to persuade.

If a blogger posts something factually inaccurate about you, go ahead and email the person and politely explain where he or she is mistaken. Most bloggers I know do try to stick to the truth, and the majority of us will print a correction. But ignore the comments, and don't try to win a battle in the comment section of a blog.

George Bernard Shaw wrote, "I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it." While there are some tremendously thoughtful and fair blog commenters out there, the analogy fits.

Who Cares About All This - The Big Easy, Funkhouser and Getting Away From it All

Sorry for the outburst of silence on this blog. First it was illness, then it was a trip to New Orleans for my daughter's graduation from Tulane. A massive interruption in my ordinary life, with relatively little internet time, cursory attention to national news, and no awareness of local politics whatsoever.

In short, I was kind of like a typical voter for a week and a half.

Except for my botched attempt at factual reporting, I've pretty much ignored the Funkhouser Recall attempt, but it seems that the activists there are experiencing a bit of the disconnect I have felt. When wrapped up in local politics, and communicating with a circle of others that care about the same things, it's easy to think what's on our own minds is on everyone's mind. It's easy to convince yourself that the city wants a recall, but the reality is that the average voter does not care ten percent as much as activists do, one way or the other.

Spend a few hours with a group of political insiders, and you'll quickly find out what "everyone's talking about". The political gossip is intriguing and enveloping. But, when push comes to shove, it's only a few people talking amongst themselves. "Everyone" is not talking about politics - local, state or national. Instead, they are talking about dinner, sports, family, neighbors, and work.

I received a couple text messages on my phone about political developments last week. I appreciated the kindness of those keeping me informed, but receiving them while disengaged was kind of like receiving cricket scores from Pakistan - it was separate from the world I was inhabiting.

New Orleans feels like a different country, so the disconnect may have been stronger than it would have been otherwise. Also, it was the first time my family had been together since Christmas, so the presence of loved ones may have heightened the distraction. When you can look ahead to fried oyster po' boys with four people you love, it's hard to devote mental energy to city council matters, or even the Jackson County Ethics Blackout.

90+ percent of people spend most of their lives in the politics-free world I visited last week. The Recall people have seen that the near-unanimous outrage they expected to tap into was not nearly as deep or as widespread as they anticipated. I won't argue that the Recall is headed toward failure because of a deep and widespread love of Funkhouser - the only thing truly deep and widespread is apathy.

I'm back in the real world now, and ready to jump back into the world of state, local and national politics. I do care about this stuff, and it really does matter who is our Mayor, whether our County Legislature accepts ethical Home Rule, and who will replace Souter. It just surprised me how easily I shed all those concerns for a week and a half, and how "normal" it felt to be apolitical.

How to Influence a Legislator (Free Version)

It's action time in Jefferson City, and the updates are flying, insisting that we exercise whatever influence we may have on behalf of worthy bills or to fend off wrong-headed ones. 90% of the "action alerts" I receive are a complete waste of time, so I thought I would share a few tips for exercising influence with legislators.

1. Make Sure You Stand a Chance: If you want to accomplish anything with a legislator (as opposed to simply voicing your opinion), make sure you're not far afield from the core constituencies and principles of the legislator you are hoping to influence. In other words, you don't stand a chance of convincing Jason Kander to abandon the Missouri Plan, and you're not going to get Jolie Justus to eliminate support for childcare. Go ahead and vent if you disagree, but don't think you're influencing change.

2. Visit Your Legislator: If there's an important issue pending, get in your car and visit Jefferson City, or find out where you can meet with the legislator during a break, and do it. Nothing is as influential as a face-to-face meeting. If you have written materials, bring a couple copies so the legislator can review them and give a copy to a staff person. Legislators listen to visitors, so, if you can find the time and the gas money, go visit our Capitol City, and treat yourself to some ice cream at Central Dairy on your way home.

3. Write a Real, Personalized Letter: If you can't visit Jefferson City, let the postal service do the work for you. Send a real, personalized letter expressing your thoughts and enclosing any supporting information. I'm not talking about signing your name to a pre-printed post card or a cut-and-paste from an action alert. Those are a waste of time, trees and postage. But a persuasive letter on real stationery signed by a constituent will make a legislator take notice.

4. Pick up the Phone and Call: At this point in the session, where action on bills is happening at a fast and furious pace, calling is probably more effective than writing. Even if you only get to talk to a legislative aide, your voice will be heard. A lot of legislators are pretty generous about sharing their cell phone numbers, and don't hesitate to use them. If you wind up in voice mail, be prepared to leave a clear and short message, including the fact (if true) that you reside in his/her district. Leave your number, and you may get a call back.

5. Send an Email: Email's easy, and that is the problem with it. With a few clicks of the mouse, you can contact every legislator in Jefferson City, and hundreds of others can do the same thing. The result is a deluge that simply drowns out even your well-crafted, reasonable missive. If you care enough to write, care enough to put it on real paper with a stamp, pick up the phone, or drive to Jefferson City. Email is a decent way to communicate with a legislator once a dialog is started through one of those means, but, especially at this time of the session, don't expect to accomplish anything by writing an email.

Those are the basics for free influence with a legislator. If you have money to spend, other rules apply that are way too complicated and controversial to get into here.

Starting Your Political Biography - Day 73 of the Jackson County Ethics Blackout

Has the thought of running for office ever run through your mind? Have you ever looked at the politicians on TV or at neighborhood meetings and thought, "I could do that as well or better than him (or her?), and I would do a better job of looking out for the people of this area"? Have you been thinking someday, when the time is right, you will seriously look at launching a political career?

The time is right in Jackson County. You can start your political career with a victory in 2010.

How does this sound for the start of your political biography?

_______________ started his/her political career in Jackson County, Missouri. In 2010, inspired by the election of Barack Obama, ______________ decided to take on an entrenched incumbent who had grown arrogant in office. His/her first opponent was a member of a cozy cabal of old-school politicians who existed in a dim world of prearranged, unanimous votes and a lax attitude toward ethics. In 2008, the Jackson County legislature went so far as to exempt itself from local ethical oversight, and _______________ realized that if real change was going to happen in Jackson County, it was not going to happen with the entrenched incumbents controlling the Courthouse.

______________ was swept into office as part of a group of reformers whose first priority on the campaign trail was to "Bring Ethical Home Rule to Jackson County". The Ethical Home Rule Slate of candidates turned the tide when they began winning the endorsements of reform-minded political groups, and campaign donors followed suit.

The Ethical Home Rule Campaign of 2010 succeeded in defeating a majority of the anti-ethics legislators who had controlled the Jackson County legislature. After serving two terms on the Jackson County Legislature, ______________ successfully ran for an open seat in the Missouri General Assembly . . .

If you've been thinking about jumping into politics, you will never face a better opportunity than running for Jackson County Legislature in 2010. The fundraising demands for a county office are manageable, and the incumbents have all come out against Ethical Home Rule for Jackson County. Many of the candidates have documented problems with ethics and the law, so their attempts to avoid ethical scrutiny will be impossible for them to explain on the campaign trail.

If you don't take this opportunity, who will? If you are waiting for the right time, when will the time be better?

Time for YOU to Start Thinking About Running for Jackson County Legislature?

Do you have a hankering to run for political office, but don't want to give up your career? Do you see the local politicians on TV and think "Somebody better ought to get involved"? Do you want to break up the cozy circle of local politicos who elevate self-interest over ethics?

Maybe you should run for the Jackson County legislature. And maybe you should start putting your campaign together now.

The Jackson County legislature is vulnerable. Every single one of them, with the exception of Fred Arbanas (who was absent), is ON THE RECORD exempting themselves from oversight by the Jackson County Ethics Commission, in violation of the Jackson County Charter.

If they don't reverse themselves on that point immediately, it should be a relatively easy matter to run against a Jackson County politician who has gone on the record supporting less ethical oversight for him or herself. Better yet, you will have your choice of two candidates to take on, since you can run either "in district" or "at large". To figure out which candidates you could run against, just find yourself on the district maps appearing under each legislator's name. You will be in two legislators' districts - one of the "at large" legislators and one of district legislators. Check out both, because they are not the same.

The only qualifications you'll need to run, as defined by the County Charter, are: "Each member of the Legislature shall be a qualified voter in Jackson County for at least three years preceding his/her election and a resident in his/her district for at least one year preceding his/her nomination." The filing deadline is not until later in the year, but now is the time to start talking to people who know the county and the districts. The elections will be in 2010, so you have more than a year to get your name out there if you get started soon.

If you've been wanting to get into politics, how often are you going to face your choice of two candidates who have publicly come out against ethics? This is a golden opportunity.

Writing in Candidates - Not as Easy as You Might Think

The Write-In Ballot is the fantastical "out" for independent voters everywhere. Don't like the candidates listed for a given position? Go ahead and write in your own name or your best friend's or Kanye West. You might not win, but at least you will have lodged a vote for the best candidate for the office, while striking a blow for independence. In the back of your mind, you may even indulge the fantasy of puzzled pundits reacting to a tide of votes for an unknown name. Can't you picture Wolf Blitzer on election night announcing, "In an unexpected development, it appears that Tony Botello has emerged as the leading vote-getter for Missouri Governor. Stand by for Jay Nixon's stunned concession speech . . ."?

Unfortunately, it's not quite that easy.

Write-in ballots only count in Missouri if the named person has filed with the Secretary of State's office prior to 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday immediately preceding the election day. Votes for write-in candidates who haven't jumped through the hoops don't even get counted.

So, sadly, writing "Martin Sheen" in for president won't get us President Bartlett.

The Real World Between Cynicism and Optimism

A couple weeks ago, I posted a piece suggesting that readers contact their congressional delegations to voice their opinions on the bail-out bill. First up in the comment section was Kansas City's Best Blogger and nonvoter Meesha, advising me with all his world-weary wisdom that "it will happen anyway".

Sure enough, it happened anyway.

So, was my call to action an exercise in futility? I don't think so, and neither do the millions of people who now will gain access to mental health coverage with their insurance. 24 million taxpayers will get relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax. A lot of changes were made to the bill, some of which were good, some of which were transparent gifts to special interests. The fact remains, though, that our calls got their attention, slowed down the train, and got us at least a more palatable bill.

Total victory? No. Total defeat? No, but dangerously close. Worth a few phone calls? Absolutely.

John McCain is Not Too Rich to be President

It's fun to make fun of John McCain right now.

He doesn't know how many houses he owns.

He spends more than a quarter million a year on servants.

He thinks you have to earn $5 million to be rich.

He wears $500 loafers.

Etc.

But, I ask my fellow Democrats - are those reasons to vote against him? Do those facts make Obama the superior candidate?

John F. Kennedy had some serious coin. John Kerry and John Edwards don't worry about the price of milk.

When we indulge in our childish mocking, we buy into the same silly non-issues that typify our discourse. We take our eyes off the reasons that John McCain is the wrong choice (Iraq, Iran, Supreme Court, Tax Breaks for the Wealthy, Environmental Degradation, Spying on Americans, Pro-Torture, etc.). At the same time, we legitimize the attention which will come to whatever non-issue the Right Wing Noise Machine generates about Obama. I don't want this election to turn on what brand of sunglasses Obama prefers, or the fabric of his socks.

On the other hand, this sort of nonsense sways votes. As has been demonstrated in past elections (in a spirit of bipartisanship, I won't name which), a significant portion of voters cast their ballots on "feelings" or factors other than a rigorous analysis of which candidate holds positions they share. If the Democrats limit their debate to the high ground of policy discussion, the Republicans will run the table with all their friends in low places.

It's a sad fact of democracy that elections don't always get decided on the issues I would choose. So, I regretfully acknowledge the importance of non-issues, and hope that those who focus on them for the Democrats sway at least as many foolish people as those who focus on them for the Republicans.

There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys; There's only you and me and we just disagree . . .

Let me start with an anecdote.

In litigation, many decisions are left to the discretion of the trial judge. While there are rules guiding who should be allowed to serve on a jury, or what evidence should be allowed to be presented, or dozens of other decisions that get made in the course of bringing a case to trial, many of them are left to the discretion of the trial judge.

When I was a young lawyer, I was helping one of my heroes try a case. After a long day of trial work, I was complaining that the judge had totally blown a decision to our detriment. "Dan, it was a decision within his discretion," he said, taking a drag on his pipe (yes, it was that long ago that he was smoking a pipe in the office). "He has the discretion to be wrong, too."

In other words, the judge's job is to make the decision and my job was to persuade. Complaining after the fact was pointless.

A friend who knows me pretty well emailed me this week asking whether I still support certain city councilmembers after they signed on to the misguided volunteer ordinance. Like me, this person views the attack on volunteers for the city as a premature over-reaction to an undecided lawsuit and a harmful restriction on the role of volunteers in our city. I've written to them all, in a very polite and professional manner, and only one (Jan Marcason) has even bothered to reply. (Yes, I'm disappointed with the other 8, some of whom are quite efficient in writing me when they're seeking support.)

I disagree with people all the time. I strongly disagree with people on occasion. I strongly disagree with nine members of the City Council on this. I've looked at the issue from the idealist perspective, I've looked at it from the practical perspective, I've looked at it from the perspective of a Funkhouser supporter, and I've looked at it from the perspective of how I would feel if someone else were in the Mayor's office, making decisions I would oppose.

It remains my opinion that this is a very bad ordinance, chock-full of unintended consequences and bad results.

But nine city councilmembers disagree with me. And they, in Ted Mullen's description, have the discretion to be wrong.

Does this mean the rest need to be voted out? Does this mean that I can assume that the others are either so stupid they can't see things as clearly as I do, or so fearful of Tony's criticism that they panicked, or that they've joined with the entrenched development crowd to undermine Funkhouser's attempts to stop the give-aways? Are all 9 stupid, panicked and/or corrupt?

Of course not. (Not all 9, anyhow.)

Perhaps, unlikely as it seems, I'm somehow missing out on understanding how throwing up huge, expensive hurdles on volunteerism is actually a good thing.

Perhaps, as happens in real life, inexplicable and apparently wrong steps are taken in a journey toward a greater result.

Perhaps they're just wrong.

For now, I'm going to go with the final explanation. They have the discretion to be wrong, and they blew it.

That doesn't mean that they're bad people, or even bad councilmembers. I disagree with them on this. I disagreed with them on their irrational decision to shower Wayne Cauthen with money and job-security after he had been caught lying on his resume, and several of them now privately admit that they were wrong.

None of us is perfect, city councilmembers and bloggers most definitely included.

If a judge consistently makes bad calls with his or her discretion, smart lawyers start taking a "change of judge" (an automatic right to get the judge changed at the beginning of a case) when that judge gets assigned to their cases. But not after a couple of bad decisions. That's just disagreement - but you learn to be alert for a pattern.

The Non-Scary Guide to Getting Involved in Politics

A reader wrote me an email recently in response to a post I had done about working for Jason Kander's campaign. "How did you get involved? What is it like to get involved? What if you don't know the right people?" Those are great questions that probably linger in the minds of a lot of potential volunteers who, in the absence of answers, wind up staying home.

How to Get Involved: The easiest way to get involved in a campaign is to call the candidate, or someone with his or her campaign. If you're interested in getting involved more generally, or if you're focused more on a cause than a campaign, then contact an organization with a good reputation for doing good work. Either way, use phone or email to contact the people involved, and they will be eager to get you involved.

(UPDATE: This coming weekend in Kansas City offers a rare opportunity to jumpstart your involvement. On Saturday, from 9-4 at the Uptown, the 21st Century Democrats are offering a FREE training as part of a program to develop "500 urban activists in field skills such as targeting, door-to-door communications, canvassing, data collection and analysis, message development and other important elements for winning elections". If you want to get involved, I cannnot imagine a better way to do so . . . Go here and follow the links to learn more and sign up.)

What to Expect: Working for a campaign is not like The West Wing, or even Primary Colors. There's a whole lot more phone-banking and envelope stuffing involved than there is policy discussion. You might as well leave your ego at the door, because a campaign runs on workers' hands, not their brains.

That said, remember that you are a volunteer, and can fairly and justifiably decline the opportunity to take on a task you don't like. If calling people and asking them if they would like to attend a forum with your candidate is outside your comfort zone, then say that to the person who is asking you to do it. Trust me, they'll find something more to your liking.

What If You Don't Know the Right People: Volunteering for a campaign is a great way to meet energetic, involved, interesting people, but it can be terribly intimidating. Often, the people you will be working with already know each other, and it can feel a bit like being the new kid in school. It can bring out the agoraphobic in even the most gregarious person.

Most of the time, that phase lasts for about 5 minutes. Volunteers are friendly people. They want to know you as much as you want to know them. They already like you because they appreciate the help and they agree with you about the person or cause you are mutually supporting. Small talk is really easy with this crowd. "When did you first get involved with (candidate or cause)? Are you originally from Kansas City? Have you worked on any other campaigns?" Trust me, by the end of your shift, you will not feel like the new kid in school.

It's not too late to get involved for the November elections. If the presidential race has your attention, the Obama HQ is at Gillham and Linwood - just walk in and tell them you want to volunteer. If you want a more grassroots, local campaign, I think that Joe Volpe's race is going to be a lot of fun, and he even has an "I Want to Volunteer" button on his homepage. Whatever race has your attention, it should be easy to find a campaign that wants your time and effort.

I know it's a little intimidating to get involved in a campaign, but I can assure you that it's easy to do, the work is unexciting but important, and the people are great. Believe me, election night feels entirely different when you've worked on a campaign, and, win or lose, you will feel like you've played a kind of significant role in helping Democracy work. You will have.

Candidates and "Spam"

I get a lot of political email. I've been invited to fundraisers for candidates from the far right to the far left, in spaces from lavish ballrooms to modest living rooms. I get invited by close friends and people I've never met. Most email asks for money, but some simply updates me on a candidate's news and views.

I don't think any of it is "spam".

But some people need something to complain about, and, this political season, it's been "spam". A commenter here responded to my endorsements by asking one of the candidate's "policy on sending unsolicited bulk e-mail to promote a campaign". In a nutshell, I don't know and I don't care.

Political speech needs to be free speech. Indeed, our federal laws regulating email recognize that political email is different from commercial "spam", and is entirely legal. Any alternative would be equivalent to our founding fathers passing a law banning pamphleteers.

Campaigns are fairly short-term enterprises. They rely on quickly and efficiently creating networks of like-minded individuals. In prior generations, this process was slow and expensive, relying on snail mail and traditional political clubs. Today, candidates can build email lists from prior campaigns and membership organizations, and create a viable campaign without selling their souls to major donors or third party committees.

The way I see it, each email I receive from a candidate, solicited or not, is evidence of democracy struggling to free itself from the corrupting influence of big money.

Now, I realize that some people need something to whine about, and I'd even agree with those people that candidates ought to be judicious in their use of email to avoid becoming email nuisances. The delete key, however, ought to be a sufficient tool for those who value the purity of their inbox more than freedom of political speech.

The Newest Political Lie

A commenter on my post about Art Benson winning a seat on the school board reminded me of what is rapidly becoming a standard lie by politicians. "I don't read local blogs" is up there with "No new taxes" and "I'll look out for the common man".

It's funny how often I will meet local politicians who, upon learning that I produce this blog, assure me that they don't read blogs. Uh-huh, sure. Despite that assurance, they are quick to let me know if an obscure comment from 3 months ago was inaccurate, or to compliment me on something they thought was funny.

Does anyone on earth really believe that politicians - a group that craves attention - don't read what is being written about them? They like to claim they're somehow above it all, but it's a farce.

A Primer on Election Watch Parties

Free food. Sometimes free drinks. Drama. Opinionated people with something in common. Strange people. Celebrities. TV cameras and print reporters.

Election Watch Parties are a fascinating niche in the party-going world. They represent the best that the political world has to offer - launch parties are universally earnest and strident. Fundraisers are either brazen or coy, but always measured by the bottom line. But Election Watch Parties are something special.

Who can resist a party with the inherent drama and tension of election results? Even in "sure-thing" elections, there's always that edgy worry that the sneaky opposition pulled off a miracle. Until the votes are counted, anything can happen. Remember Florida?

If you're not an experienced election watch party attendee, the risk hovering over the party probably sounds like a damper. The thought of being present when the star of the party gets demolished by public opinion probably sounds awkward and awful. Kind of like waiting in the church with a bride for a groom that never shows.

Oddly enough, losing parties aren't all that painful. The losing candidate usually (but not always!) tries to keep a shred of dignity, and the true believers struggle to put on a brave front. Alright, I'll admit that you have to be a bit of a hard-hearted ass to enjoy a losing watch party, but I'm blessed with the ability to appreciate a fine train wreck.

Winning parties are almost always a lot more fun, and, if you happen to be a true believer (as I often am), they can seem like Cinderella's ball without a curfew. There is a many-faceted joy in the room - the affirmation of the voters, the "told-you-so" glee of the activists, and the barely-suppressible "You like me, you really like me" exhilaration of the candidate and close insiders. I've never been to a watch party as a single person, but I imagine they are full of opportunity, if you like the political types.

Which brings me to the cast of characters at an election watch party. First off, the candidate (or, in non-local races, his or her proxy) may be the center of attention, but it's not the time to schmooze him or her. S/he will shake hundreds of hands that night, and you will only be part of the crowd. If, for whatever fine or nefarious reason, you want a politician to be your friend, establish that relationship during the campaign by hosting a couple fundraisers or doing a lit drop. The election watch party is too late.

Spend your time watching the other characters. There will be at least a couple, and probably a team, of Very Serious People furiously seeking the latest shred of data. They wear concerned looks the entire night, and their biggest thrill is handing folded pieces of paper to the candidate or other VIPs. They will not be drinking, for fear of transposition errors.

The political insiders are fun to watch, too. They are there to see and be seen. They will probably be wearing navy and red, and have a firm handshake. If you are a kind soul, get a quizzical look on your face when they introduce themselves, and say, "Haven't I heard that name before?". They will explode with false modesty and rattle through a list of committees and boards, glowing with excitement that you've heard of them. "Haven't I heard that name before?" at a political event is the equivalent of "Have you been working out lately?" at a singles bar. Use it often and spread shallow self-esteem.

By far the most fun people are the volunteers. Look for the poorly dressed (they were working the polls), the bad hair (ballcaps), the ones with their emotions on their sleeves. They aren't part of the crowd of sophisticated "insiders" - they are the people who really got out and worked. There are always a lot of first-timers in this group, and they got there because they knew the candidate in high school, or they're related, or they met him or her at a coffee shop and were impressed. Just walk up to them and ask how they know the candidate, and they will blossom with enthusiasm. These are the people you want to have a beer with.

Finally, there are the celebrities who show up late. But usually only to successful parties. They are the least exciting and the least welcome. If you happen to have one brush by you, use their first name when you shake their hand, and say "Hi, _________, good to see you again, it's been a little while." That phrase will trigger their mental rolodex, and they will try to figure out who you are. It's a minor form of psychological terrorism.

One last word of advice. I used to be shy about attending them. "Sure, I spent hours stuffing envelopes and phone banking and waxing the candidate's car to a sparkly shine, but am I really welcome at the Election Watch Party?" These parties are wide open for crashing. If you hear where one is, don't hesitate to eat the food and see if the drinks are free. Nobody is going to risk offending a donor or a volunteer, so walk in like you own the place. See you in August. I'll be the one in navy and red.

Big Tobacco Got Burned, or How I Would Have Won on the Bad Side of Question 3

Question 3 on Kansas City's ballots a week from today is a proposal to prevent inconsiderate people from imposing health risks and cleaning bills on their intellectual and moral superiors. Or, at least, that is the conventional wisdom that will prevail at the polls next Tuesday, despite the $225,000 spent by tobacco companies to shift that attitude.

The tobacco companies got cheated.

They're not losing because they're evil. They're losing because they ran an utterly ineffective campaign. With the money they've tossed into the cause, I could have delivered a victory for them.

Mind you, I'm not going to go crying any tears for big tobacco. Their business model has been to spread death and to lie about it, so I hold no sympathy for them. I just didn't know they were so foolish.

First off, whoever designed those yard signs should be ashamed. The key to yard signs is to deliver a message at a glance. The "No on 3" signs, though, deliver an undecipherable black bar. Not only is it ugly, but, more importantly, the black bar swallows the dark red 3. The message delivered is "NO on Question". The "NO" stands out fine, but the sign fails in its main purpose.

Next, the whole thrust of the campaign was poorly chosen. Rather than running against casinos, big tobacco has been running to protect small business owners. Sorry, friends, but nobody really cares about bar owners. "Business rights" might sound good when you're sitting around having a pity party with your fellow bar owners, but the rest of us aren't crying into your river. We're also not falling for the made-up statistics claiming that all our local bars are going to close and the taps will grow cobwebs. It's a lie, and nobody's falling for it, so if they had spent half an hour listening to a focus group, they would have adopted an entirely different theme.

Now that it's too late for them to change their theme and yank up those worthless yard signs, I'll go ahead and give them the advice they needed before they blew almost a quarter million dollars.

"Don't Stack the Deck. No on 3. No More Breaks for Gaming."

There it is. A sense of unfairness. A focus on the casino exemption - the one aspect of the Smoking Ban that makes absolutely no sense to people of good will. And a big ugly target to run against.

Kansas Citians don't like big businesses getting an advantage over the rest of us. That's one of the main reasons that Funkhouser's Mayoral campaign focused on the TIF pigs. While not a single person in Kansas City could point to a single dollar that a TIF project had taken out of his or her pocket, the resentment against cozy insiders making big money over breakfast with the former Mayor ran deep.

The casinos should have been the TIF pigs of this race. Especially since they wouldn't even fight back - there's no way they would actually promote anti-smoking legislation.

Of course, I would have also ran a better street campaign, even beyond the yard signs. Every beer in Kansas City would have been served on a coaster that looked like a big ace of spades, with "Don't stack the deck - No on 3" written on it. Letters to the editor would focus on "why are we giving more breaks to the casinos?". Press releases would point out that this proposal favors not only the KC casino, but also the ones in other municipalities. I'd have those little oval car stickers with "NO3" available at every bar, and plastered on every bar employee's car.

Question 3 will pass by a healthy margin next Tuesday, and I'm glad of it. I'll be happy to see people voting in favor of clean air and pleasant bars.

But if the bar owners and tobacco companies were smart, we'd all be going out on Tuesday to vote against another break for "the house". I could have won this race for them. I'm glad they hired the incompetents.