By Phil Power - April 17, 2008
Think Michigan legislative politics are all sweetness and light these days, following last year’s partisan bruising budget wars?
If so, you might want to take a look at what’s going on in the 17th State Representative District. It consists of a corridor of land that is mostly shaped like the northern part of Idaho, and includes Redford Township, part of southeastern Livonia and northern Dearborn Heights. That’s the turf that the current Speaker of the House, Andy Dillon, calls home. But it also the site of an increasingly ugly campaign to recall the 46-year-old Democrat from his seat.
Words like “thug,” “liar,” and “criminal” are flying around freely, and wads of money are being spent. The recall, one of several mounted by the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, is supposedly in response to Dillon’s vote last fall to increase the state income tax to overcome a billion-dollar-plus deficit in the state’s budget.
Initially, six representatives and four senators, including both Republicans and Democrats, were targeted for removal.
But it now looks as though Dillon is the main focus of the recall movement. That, in turn, raises the prospect that the right of recall is being manipulated for purely partisan purposes. The Michigan Constitution says that valid signatures of 25 percent of registered voters who voted in the last election for governor are enough to force recall of a sitting lawmaker.
In the case of the 17th district, that comes to around 8,720 signatures, due by May 1. Recall advocates are led by former State Rep. Leon Drolet, now a Macomb County commissioner, and Rose Bogaert, of Dearborn Heights. She is chairwoman of the Wayne County Taxpayers Association and Taxpayers to Recall Andy Dillon
Bogaert says her group wants to collect at least 10,000 signatures, to make sure they have a cushion; some names are always certain to be invalid or duplicates. According to three sources (who asked for anonymity for fear of harassment), the pro-recall people started out paying $2 for every signature. That went to $4 each, then $6. Now the going rate appears to be $10 per name.
That’s a lot of dough! If they’re aiming for 10,000 signatures, that’s going to cost a cool $100,000, not counting other expenses like postage (fliers have been mailed to all houses in the district) newspaper ads, office and legal expenses. That’s big money.
All things considered, I wouldn’t be surprised if total campaign costs come to more than $250,000.
So where’s all this money coming from? Democrats and Dillon supporters talk darkly about far right-wing, out-of-state moneybags. Lending credence to this suspicion is the fact that the national anti-tax guru, Washington-based Grover Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, is a member of Drolet’s board.
Two long-term Lansing lobbyists, who wouldn’t go on the record, told me big GOP money is behind the effort, “because it will be a big feather in their hat if they knock off the Democratic Speaker of the House.” They also mention House Minority Leader, Republican Rep. Craig DeRoche (R-Novi), although he denies being involved.
When I asked Bogaert directly about the money, she wouldn’t tell me. “Companies, individuals,” she said, “you can’t increase business taxes by 22 percent and expect them to be happy about it.”
But why won’t she tell me who’s paying? “It would give our opponents a leg up on us.”
Drolet says his campaign has more than 300 donors, almost all of them from Michigan.
With the fog machines turned on full blast, I expect we’ll never know for sure where the real money is coming from.
I’m also told that petition circulators are being devious, asking voters if they “want to reduce their taxes” by signing, or even “cut gas prices.” One source claimed circulators said the petitions supported stem cell research and universal health care. For the record, Michigan election law (168.957) requires signatures not be obtained “through fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.”
One man named Hugh H. Jordan III wrote a letter to the editor of the local paper, The Redford Observer, that said “One of the petition signature collectors came to my door a few days ago and said to me, ‘Sign this petition to lower your taxes.’ Thankfully, I knew that the petition was actually intended to recall Speaker of the House Andy Dillon, and I declined to sign.”
But even though there may be a bull’s eye pinned to his behind, Dillon is fighting back. He’s dispatched people to shadow petition circulators and to urge people not to sign. “I feel bad for the folks in my district,” Dillon told me. “If petitions were being gathered based on what I truly did, that would be fine. But they’re not.
“And there’s an election this November; if people don’t like what I’ve done in office, they can chuck me out then and there.” Without spending a pile on special elections, either.
(What he didn’t add is that even if he wins, he’ll be gone forever two years after that, thanks to the curse of term limits.)
Term limits are bad enough, but I’ve always thought that threatening to recall elected lawmakers because they cast a certain vote is awfully close to blackmail. Recalls, if they succeed, solve nothing; special elections cost thousands of dollars and newly elected legislators who come in as part of a recall have no idea what they’re up to before they face a regular election in November.
And it seems perverse that local voters, who made their preferences known last November, could be stampeded by a bunch of noisy activists into reversing course just 17 months later.
Recalls – perhaps especially the one now underway against Dillon – only fuel the kind of hyper-partisan warfare we all have come to hate . Elections fueled by shadowy, dogmatic interest groups with fat pocketbooks are hardly what Michigan needs.
Whether you agree with the way he votes or not, Speaker Dillon has been an able legislator. He fully deserves to remain in office at least until his term expires in January. And neither he, nor we, should have to put up with any of these silly and obvious recall games.
***
Editor’s Note: Former newspaper publisher and University of Michigan Regent Phil Power is a longtime observer of Michigan politics and economics, and a former president of the Michigan chapter of the Nature Conservancy. He is also the founder and president of The Center for Michigan, a centrist think-and-do tank which publishes the Michigan Scorecard. The opinions expressed here are Power’s own and do not represent the official views of The Center. Power welcomes your comments at ppower@thecenterformichigan.net.
10 Comments
Phil:
As you know from my frequent responses in the past, I greatly enjoyed your columns back in your newspaper days. I am sure they are just as good or even better today (maybe even better becasue I think you have an ideal forum).
BUT I find the columns terribly hard to read off the computer screen in their present format -- and that is the quickest way to get them.
These comments may also be riddled with typos; I can hardly tell what I am writing.
Your stuff is too good to lose -- plesse make it more legible!
Warm regards, Ted
Phil, if these are all the facts then it does seem lamentable that negative energy is being spent on a power struggle rather than spending creative energy on finding common ground--however small and incremental the way forward may be. The Speaker of the House is a large target and I suppose the GOP's "permanent interest" extends beyond the term of any single representative.
As Michigan tries to re-join the globally reconfigured jet stream of capital by developing its information technology businesses, we can see how all these cool new tools (blogs like this one, for example) can be deployed to divide us--as well as unite us. There are some very internet saavy political staffers who can skillfully hurt as well as help a political career with the way they manipulate information. Just turn on cable news any night and look at all the people who can have a career in political bloviating!
This leads me to a larger, but loosely related idea that Michigan's competitive advantage used to lie in the "barrier to entry" that large capital investment in manufacturing capability presented to competitors. I worry at bit about going too far into transforming the Michigan economy into an information age economy. (Frankly, I’ve been hearing that since 1980) While we may only be able to earn half of what we used to earn while doing it, let's try to retain some "barrier to entry" to competitors by staying in the business of making big, heavy complicated stuff you can't transform into a digital bit and run through a cable.
As the situation with Representative Dillon demonstrates, the information age enables any competitor to eviscerate your political career in a keystroke.
We don't see much of Karl Rove anymore, but his goons live on!
Good Article Mr. Power.
I watched intently the Rick Albin specials with interviews of the various players all last fall and i have to say, Deroche and Bishop were pathetic. I have never seen two people toss more insults at their opposing party members in my life.
Everytime Mr. Dillon and Gov. Granholms spoke in response, it was measured, hopeful and with full attempts to be cooperative. (althought toward the end, the frustration was evident)
Bishop on the other hand purposely adjourned the Senate numerous times when a vote was to come, and stated both that he would not support and that he would support the same topics numerous times. Deroche just kept lobbing baseless antagonistic insults at anyone he could, sounding as childish and immature as any employee of the state could sound.
Neither Deroche or Bishop ever came up with any plans to balance the budget, never voted on Granholm's proposals and fought tooth and nail against any idea the House came up with.
On top of that, They controlled both houses of state congress for years and failed to fix this oncoming budgetary disaster for years of watching it come while granholm's budget cutting continued each year.
You wanna talk about obstructionists to progress and refusal to do the job they were elected to do? thats classic.
You too can watch the interviews if you go to Woodtv8's website and check their archive of political videos.
The Campaign to remove Mr. Dillon is just another terrible example of a political party that cannot win by telling the truth. Another reason i am ashamed that i used to be a member of that party.
The fact that the term limits also make these recalls particularly moot, is another testament to the audaciously obvious political attacks that this group and its members are perpetrating. The Estimated $250k they may spend to start this, then the "TAXPAYER dollars" it will take to follow it through, And the Fact that some of this funding and initiative is from out of state political hacks, is an insult to all Michigan residents. ... Can Anyone tell why it is, that of the two major political parties, the GOP provides ream after ream of recent evidence, at the national and State level, showing clearly that they cannot win elections by telling the truth and will literally stop at no tactic to cause harm to their opponents? - yet this is the "conservative, christian" party? ....hipocrisy knows no bounds.
To begin with, I do not like Dillon. I didn't like him when he was a Redford Township Trustee, as he ignored the questions of his constituents. I tried to contact him on a couple occasions, and was ignored. When he came around asking for my vote for the Michigan legislature, I told him he wasn't getting my vote because he didn't respond to my questions while a Trustee. He claimed the secretaries were not giving him his messages. Assume that's true (which I doubt) it's his job to make sure his staff does their job communicating.
However, I also will not participate in his recall. I believe it's the voters job to vote for his opponent. Recalls are a waste of time and money, and very rarely work. Phil says the petitioners are buying votes. I've been visited by petitioners at my home at least six times. I now have a sign on my door that states this, hopefully the petitioners get the idea. However, no one tried to buy my vote, nor would I have accepted it anyway.
rcarter42
- i may be incorrect, but i beleive Phil was referring to the cost of each vote by dividing the total number of expected names added to the list, by the total amount of funding its costing to purchase the supplies, the marketing, the etc etc to accomplish this recall effort.
Thats why it has been bankrolled.
So i dont think he meant they are literally offering people like you, money to add your name to the list, to define it as "buying" your vote.
As for your experience with Mr. Dillon, i'd say from my experience many people have many different personal experiences with local and state officials and some are always bad and some good. If thats just the nature of people who go after those jobs or not, i cant say, however, I always consider the person's performance overall vs the competitor to judge their worthyness to be in office.
From my perspective, his two congressional counterparts appear to be large blocks of concrete on the road to recovery, and Dillon has appeared to put in a decent effort to solve the problems in alliance with the governor.
Lest we forget, In Parallel to the Federal Government, Michigan has had a Long term of Republican Controlled State congress, just as the Fed with the National Congress.
When things were good for the nation, we didnt have tax cuts and our economy nationally and statewide made plenty of revenue.
Since then, The nation is now in its second recession in the same presidency, and only starting its 2nd year of democratic control in congress with a president stuffing them at every attempt to change course.
In our state, the GOP cut the income tax for us with Engler's initiative back when things were good... and no one complained about that. thats fine.
But when things went bad, our GOP congress didnt see the writing on the wall that auto sales were dipping significantly and shedding jobs in the industry left and right. Nohing was done. Tax cuts did ZERO for our state economy as it continued to slide because of different reasons than people that were working needed a few extra bucks a month in "Tax releif". Coincidentally major economic research organizations determined quite specifically that Mr. Bush's tax cuts cost our government more in revenue and cuts to services and lossed jobs than it spurred in economic growth. Which stands to reason because they gave most of it to people who didnt need any of it to invest or buy things.
So in conclusion, GOP policies of economics, business acumen, community development and social service needs, dont seem to be inline with patterns of success and prosperity for those that need it the most. However, they do seem to benefit their supporters and themselves greatly.
Phil Power,
I was very disappointed by your column this week regarding the recall group's efforts. I agree that a lot of time money and effort is being expended for nothing. I also agree that, of course, the recall is politically motivated. The article, however, was based entirely on anonymous sources, complete conjecture in regards to money spent, and hearsay from Dillon supporters. You also didn't mention any of the tactics Dillon's people have been accused of, such as using on-duty police to harass those collecting signatures. You also never mention where Dillon is getting the money to fight back.
While I don't always agree with your views, I always enjoy your clear reasoning and positive thoughts. This article fell far short of what I expect from you, appearing to be simply a name calling, politically motivated platform. Please revert to your usual well thought out, well researched columns.
Thanks for hearing me out.
Dave Auwers
Rebuttal and explanation for Wei:
Rebuttal: Phil explicitly stated: According to three sources (who asked for anonymity for fear of harassment), the pro-recall people started out paying $2 for every signature. That went to $4 each, then $6. Now the going rate appears to be $10 per name.
Therefore, your thought that Phil was referring to the cost of each vote by dividing the total number of expected names added to the list, by the total amount of funding its costing to purchase the supplies, the marketing is not correct.
Explanation: I mentioned my past unhappiness with Dillon so that my opposition to the recall petition is taken in perspective: As in, I don't like Dillon, but I will not participate in the recall. I think recalls are a pointless exercise.
Now to steal line from Dave Auwers "Thanks for hearing me out."
rcarter42
- i understand the text of what Phil wrote, and im not arguing that point. I was stating that I believe he Meant- based on the Context of the article that the numbers he wrote were based on the total COST of getting those votes, not that Literally people were paying cash for votes.
A) I think that is illegal.
B) Why dont you just ask Phil what he meant. I cant prove my interpretation is right nor can you prove your own. I just gave you a more common sense interpretation than the one you are upset about.
C) if they did pay for votes, it certainly would take away any credibility of the list of signatures that were on it.
D) you're own example of those that knocked on your door bolsters my interpretation and Not yours.
As for Dillon himself, its ok, you can dislike him all you want. I dont know the man personally and im indifferent to wanting to.
I stated point my argument that its more important to me to see an elected official trying very hard to move legislation to solve problems or at least do their job per our state constituion that is law. Than if i have met the man or woman and find them distasteful or that they have wronged me personally somehow and tainted my opinion of their personality or job habits.
If we based all our elected officials on how congenial they are to every single person that contacts them or that they give quick personal service at every level, then i dare say they would not be accomplishing major tasks because of concentrating solely on minor ones. I'm not saying its not important at all to focus on individuals but there should be a compromise and some people will lose out.
The good of many outweighs the good of one in my book.
Hopefully, Steve, you are reading my comments with the same good nature as I'm reading yours. It's sometime difficult to know the emotions of someone from the words they write.
So, answering B, I think it's a great idea to have Phil explain which meaning is correct - Phil go ahead and jump in.
As for D, when Phil said the petitioners were buying votes, I wrote that they didn't try to buy MY vote. That certainly bolsters your intrepretation. I still believe Phil meant exactly what he said. I wrote they didn't try to by my vote to make the point that if some petitioners are trying to buy the vote, that doesn't mean they ALL are trying to buy the vote.
Elected official responsibility: Politicians are elected to be the representative voice of the people. I don't expect to agree with them all the time. What I DO expect is the elected official get back to me with a response acknowledging my issue or question. Any elected official that simply ignores their constituents does not belong in office. This is especially true on a local level. I'm not expecting quick personal service; a letter showing up in my mailbox two months later would have been acceptable.
Whether he made the correct legislative choices in Lansing also seems to be a difference in our opinion, based on the rebuttals you have written.
Post a Comment