Posted on 07/13/2006 4:20:55 PM PDT by calcowgirl
Howard Rich may live in New York, but he has waded deep into California politics. The multimillionaire developer, and president of U.S. Term Limits, has bankrolled California's eminent-domain measure to the tune of $1.5 million. But the money is only one front in Rich's national crusade against eminent domain, an effort that spans more than a half-dozen states and millions of dollars.
"We have the ability to, in effect, bypass legislatures by going directly to the people through the initiative process," says Rich from his New York office.
Through a web of organizations, Rich is backing eminent-domain initiatives in Arizona, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma and Washington with $4 million--though no state has received as much financial support as California. In each of these efforts, Rich himself is never disclosed as a major donor. Instead, he steers his contributions through nonprofit intermediaries, such as the Fund for Democracy, which he is using to finance California's Proposition 90 campaign.
"I think California often leads the nation," says Rich. "It is the largest, most populous state and it is very important to us that property rights be restored there."
But the influx of out-of-state money pushing measures to amend state constitutions across the country has angered many local activists.
"They are backed by an organization that is chaired by a New York real estate developer and that makes you wonder who is going to benefit," says Aaron Toso, spokesman for the campaign against Washington's eminent-domain measure. "Obviously if people don't live here they wont have to pay the extra taxes and sit in the extra traffic."
Here in California, opponents of the eminent-domain initiative are also accusing Rich of pushing his unwanted, out-of-state agenda on the state's voters.
"The fact that this one guy from New York, an out-of-state multimillionaire, has decided, 'I know what's best for the nation and I am going to tell all the state's how to do things right' … that's offensive," says No on 90 spokeswoman Kathy Fairbanks.
But Kevin Spillane, spokesman for Yes on 90, defended Rich's contributions.
"This is really a grassroots, populist issue. It is one of the government, the political establishment taking advantage of power against the little guy," says Spillane, who adds that the campaign has raised money from more than 5,000 individual donors in California since Rich's contribution. "It is very much a California-driven issue and we are busy raising money from Californians to fund it."
But ultimately it was Rich's money that pushed the issue onto the November ballot.
Earlier this year, Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand Oaks, the GOP nominee for lieutenant governor, tried to gather signatures to qualify his own eminent-domain measure--one that was far less sweeping than what is now Proposition 90. But McClintock's efforts failed due to a lack of funding.
McClintock could only secure pledges totaling $1 million. He credits Rich with providing the money needed to bring the issue before the voters. "They were able to raise the money to qualify their initiative. I was not," says McClintock, who has endorsed Proposition 90. "I learned during the car-tax initiative that if you don't have the money lined up before the signature gathering, you shouldn't start."
So who is the man behind Proposition 90?
He's certainly no stranger to California politics.
As far back as 1990, Rich recalls making a small contribution to California's original term-limits measure, Proposition 140. In 2002, when then-Senate leader John Burton, D-San Francisco, placed a term-limits extension on the ballot, Rich responded by corralling a $1 million donation for the campaign against the measure, through an affiliate organization, Americans for Limited Terms, less than three weeks before Election Day.
"The bad guys were very surprised by that funding at the end," remembers Rich.
For Rich, the "bad guys" have always been incumbent politicians and those seeking to expand the reach of government.
A former libertarian party activist (he officially left the party in 1983), Rich has deep roots in limited-government politics. He sits of the board of directors of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C., and he is the chairman of Americans for Limited Government, a national coalition dedicated to smaller government.
His wife, Andrea, until recently owned the libertarian Laissez Faire bookstore in New York, and in 1990 he and his wife acquired the Libertarian Review Foundation and renamed it the Center for Independent Thought. He and his wife also have been financial backers of Reason, a leading libertarian monthly magazine.
In 1992, Rich bought the Citizens for Congressional Reform, then a leading term-limits advocacy group. He quickly reorganized the group as U.S. Term Limits, with himself as president, and heaped $1.8 million on various state term-limit campaigns by the end of the year, according to Common Cause.
"My interest is in restoring property rights, in term limits, and in capping state government spending at some reasonable limit," says Rich, whose Americans for Limited Government is also sponsoring spending measures in eight states this year.
Rich calls term limits his "first love." But since the Supreme Court's decision last year that expanded the right of government to seize private property for public use, his focus has been on reducing government's ability to use eminent domain.
Here's what his network of political committees and nonprofits have done:
In Missouri, Rich donated more than $1.3 million to gather signatures for two measures, one of which would limit government spending, the other to limit eminent domain, through Americans for Limited Government. But both measures were tossed from the ballot by the secretary of state, though a pending lawsuit is challenging that decision.
• In Arizona, the Rich-run Americans for Limited Government has contributed $650,000 to qualify an eminent-domain measure.
• In Idaho, Rich's Fund for Democracy, the same nonprofit that donated in California, contributed $237,000 to help qualify an eminent-domain initiative.
• In Nevada, the eminent-domain effort, titled PISTOL, or the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land, lists only a single endorsement on its Web site: Americans for Limited Government. The campaign's most recent filings do not list a Rich-backed organization as a donor.
• In Washington, an eminent-domain measure that qualified for the fall ballot this week has received $200,00 from Americans for Limited Government.
• In Oklahoma, Americans for Limited Government contributed $55,000 to a group called Oklahomans in Action that pushed for an eminent-domain initiative, though the state's supreme court struck down the measure last month because it dealt with multiple subjects, a violation of the state constitution.
• In Montana, a group with a near-identical name, Montanans in Action, has qualified a trio of measures for the fall ballot, including one limiting eminent domain. Americans for Limited Government gave the group a $25,000 loan, according to newspaper reports, though the organization has refused to disclose its donors.
• In May, Montanans in Action--formed in the least populated state in the union--donated $600,000 to the eminent-domain campaign in California, the nation's most populous state.
Rich denies that he is the man behind for Montanans in Action. "That is a completely separate group," he says, though the Montana organization's spokesman, Trevis Butcher, has close ties to Rich's Americans for Limited Government as the past chairman of the campaign to keep Montana's 8-year term limits.
There are also records of recent e-mails between Butcher and John Tillman, president of Americans for Limited Government, and Paul Jacobs, the only staffer listed at U.S. Term Limits other than Howard Rich.
Those records were obtained by Helena attorney Jonathan Motl, who is considering filing a complaint with the state's campaign finance commission to force the group to reveal its donors.
"I am working on that right now," says Motl.
Rich has ruffled some feathers in South Carolina politics as well, skirting the state's contribution limits with multiple donations to Gov. Mark Sanford. Since December, nine separate maximum donations of $3,500 have been made to the governor by individuals and businesses with ties to 73 Spring Street, New York, N.Y., where Rich's Fund for Democracy is headquartered. Rich is not among the declared donors.
Supporters of the eminent-domain movement acknowledge that Rich's money has played a role in the nationwide debate over property rights. But they say the issue is so important--and so popular--that the push to strengthen property owners' hand against the use of eminent domain would still be occurring without Rich's financial backing.
"Certainly he has provided the seed money to qualify these initiatives, but it would be a mistake not to recognize the tremendous grassroots appeal," says McClintock.
Bills to limit the scope of eminent domain have sailed through 27 state legislatures since the Supreme Court decision. And 43 of the 44 state legislatures that have convened since the ruling have at least considered legislation to limit the taking of private property, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
But opponents of the ballot-box eminent-domain measures, both in California and elsewhere, see Rich as a major--and negative--driving force.
"The ironic thing about what he is doing is he is as guilty of the same overzealous abuses that he accuses government of," says Fairbanks. "If this should pass, one of the consequences is that we are going to see lawsuit after lawsuit filed--and guess who is the loser in that? The California taxpayers, not Howard Rich."
Who in their right mind would be against ensuring protections from eminent domain abuses? Man liberals are REALLY STUPID!!!
The same people who talk about the "costs" of tax cuts. It's all about the revenue.
Aren't we going to have a much smaller deficit becuase the tax cuts have spurred the economy and increased revenue? Are liberals so shielded from reality that they have no concept of it whatsoever?
Missouri governor signs eminent domain bill
KELLY WIESE
Associated Press
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. - Gov. Matt Blunt signed legislation restricting use of eminent domain Thursday, saying it bolsters the rights of private property owners.
The measure comes in response to a Supreme Court ruling last summer that allowed the taking of private property through eminent domain for economic redevelopment.
"That's not a sufficient standard," Blunt said while surrounded by farm and business interests and lawmakers at a Capitol bill signing ceremony.
Blunt called the bill "a tremendous step forward for homeowners and family farm owners and property rights in our state."
The Missouri law bars the taking of private property "solely" to increase taxes or create jobs. In addition, property owners whose land, homes or small businesses are condemned under the new standards would get a boost in their compensation. An earlier version of the bill would have set a tougher standard of barring property taking for "predominantly" economic development reasons.
"Owning private property is as sacred an issue as anything we have in this country," said Charlie Kruse, Missouri Farm Bureau president, adding that with the new law, "it's going to be a higher hurdle, which it should be, to climb in order to take people's property from them."
The Farm Bureau had raised concerns during the legislative process that the bill wasn't doing enough to protect private property owners but was satisfied with the end result.
Sen. Chris Koster, R-Harrisonville, said the law recognizes that fair market value is not a sufficient standard when taking property by eminent domain because the property owner is unwilling to leave. So the law includes a 25 percent bonus, and if a home or small business has been owned by the same family for at least 50 years, a 50 percent bonus.
The measure also bars blighting of farmland, a trigger for taking property through eminent domain. But lawmakers did not change the definition of blight, even though some say its original intent has been stretched to the point of abuse.
Critics have said the reforms focus on helping farmers and those in rural areas while doing little to help city dwellers.
The Arlington, Va.-based Institute of Justice praised the changes in law, including the limits on which entities can use eminent domain power and the ban on blighting of farmland. But the organization, which pushes to protect personal property rights, said Missouri's blight definition still needs to be narrowed.
"Even with this bill, the state's blight laws still contain such broad, sweeping language that leave perfectly fine homes and businesses at risk of being condemned," said lawyer Steven Anderson, coordinator of the institute's Castle Coalition. "Citizens will only have meaningful protection against eminent domain abuse when blight can only be used to describe property that is an actual danger to public health or safety."
Missouri is the 27th state to enact eminent domain restrictions following the 2005 Supreme Court ruling, according to the institute.
Under the new Missouri law, property owners also would get more information about the proceedings. The bill includes a "Property Owner's Bill of Rights," which those subject to eminent domain takings must receive, explaining what property a condemner seeks, why it's wanted and the landowner's legal rights, such as getting an appraisal at the condemner's cost.
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/state/15030695.htm
This is the reason why you find so few Southern states which permit popular ballot referendums.
150 years ago, people like this were saying, "If we free the slaves, you are going to see uncontrolled Negroes running loose all through your cities and neighborhoods -- and guess who is the loser in that?"
Stupid like a fox! Popular ballot referendums, unlike referendums that originate in the legislation, are originated by people that have a specific agenda. These referendums are usually drafted by only one side. There is no debate and the minority has no say so in the process, thus the referendum can contain many points or clauses that the minority may disagree with even though they generally agree with the main (or popular) idea.
The libs have been doing this for years. Hiding things in the popular referendums that further their agenda and are not specific to the main idea or broadening the powers beyond what conservatives would deem adequate for the purpose.
Now that popular referendums of a conservative nature are becoming more common the libs are starting to cry "No Fair".
Here is an interesting article on the subject from a liberal point of view: Conservative Ballot Issues: They’re Lying to You
The liberals aren't stupid, they know their own tactics when they see them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.