Can someone direct me to the list of the organizations or corporations that have endorsed the initiative? I would be interested to see it.

Thank you.

-- Alan Ronkin (asrcrc@aol.com), September 30, 1999

Answers

Alan--unfortunately there aren't that many organizations that have done so (as I write this I wonder if you know this already and this is your point).

Out of curiousity, does the

The list of organizations opposing the initiative is quite large. That being said, it is not a lie to say most of them are primarily concerned about keeping government funding the same or higher.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 30, 1999.

Ack, I accidentally hit the submit button.

I do have a fairly current list of large donors to the no-695 campaign. The list can be found here.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), September 30, 1999.

Isn't it interesting that the majority of contributors are BUSINESSES!!!

They contribute (bribe) to politicians to get there way, LOWER BUSINESS TAXES!!!

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), September 30, 1999.

I noted before that all the heavy hitters are opposed to 695. Rather than conclude something sinister is afoot, I would just point out that they are concerned about what 695 will do to the state and local governments; and what that will do to the economic climate here. If they are concerned, so should we all be.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.

dbvz-Rather than conclude something sinister is afoot, I would just point out that they are concerned about what 695 will do to the state and local governments; and what that will do to the economic climate here. If they are concerned, so should we all be.

A lawyer I used to know would've been proud to call these "weasel words." I agree whole-heartedly that most organizations funding no 695 campaign are "concerned about what 695 will do to the state and local governments." In case you're wondering, here's where the weasel part comes in, I don't believe for one minute that the Washington State Federation of State Employees gave $45000 to the no695 campaign because there concerned about "the economic climate here." It's pure and simple "enlightened" self-interest. Similarly, I find it hard to believe that Peter Kiewit and Sons (a large Omaha construction company) care much about the Washington state economy either.

FWIW, I don't think anything "sinister is afoot." On the other hand, I do think one would be incredibly naive to think the majority of donors have the "state's welfare" as their primary concern.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 02, 1999.

You want a list of endorsements for I-695.

Try looking in the yellow pages. Most of the I-695 signatures came from "small business". They used their employees to gather signatures at the point of sale.

Our workers were their "service men/women". We delivered initiatives to them, picked them up when they were full, counted them and turned them in. (I might add the service men/women were a little late in turning them in. They has us wondering if we would make the ballot. But 511,414 signatures was a very nice surprise.)

If the I-697 campaign would have cooperated with I-695, the state record for the highest number of signatures would have been set. The I-697 people are now with the I-695 campaign and are making a significant contribution.

Please be advised that the legislature knew in February that I-695 had over 70% approval. I know this because my legislator told me. I was delighted and wondered if it could really be true.

The high approval rating for I-695 has remained constant even with the "War of FEAR and TERROR that is being conducted by the opposition."

I'm going to use this opportunity to thank those who have contributed to the opposition. They have (or will) pump $2 million to $4 millon dollars into the Washington Economy. Washington get's 8% of that in Sales tax.

I-695 is going to allow it's people to pump $500+ million back into the economy each year. This will create jobs, generate more tax revenue, help cut the welfare costs and much more!

-- RD (MONTE) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), October 02, 1999.

Brad wrote, "On the other hand, I do think one would be incredibly naive to think the majority of donors have the "state's welfare" as their primary concern."

What I said was, if they are concerned, so should we be. Look at the donor list again. They are not all out-of-state contractors. The major employers of the state believe this is a bad idea. It may be self interest, but their investors and their employees should give the business concerns some consideration. It is easier to be concerned about taxes, when the local economy is good and you have an income.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.