Category Archives: Rethinking and Reframing

March 28th, 2011

Tim Eyman’s desperation is showing

Rethinking and ReframingStatements & Advisories

This afternoon, Tim Eyman sent out a fourth consecutive email begging for money and instructing his followers to send messages of condemnation to NPI’s founder, Andrew Villeneuve, and Olympia City Council candidate Brian Tomlinson. Andrew composed the following statement in response.

After all these years, it’s kinda funny that we have suddenly become the object of Tim’s attention. His desperation is showing. We simply pointed out that the gears of his initiative factory cannot turn without cash from a wealthy benefactor, something we’ve said previously on many occasions. If you read his emails – which he claims to have carbon copied to the press and to lawmakers – you’ll notice he does not even attempt to refute what we’re saying. That’s because he knows he can’t. If he tried, he’d be contradicting his own reporting to the PDC.

So instead, he’s playing the victim. Trying to make it look like we’re picking on him. According to Eyman, we are “arrogant” and “hate-filled” and our reports on his activities amount to “gloating”. (Other nouns and adjectives Eyman has used include: anger, spite, negativity, ugliness, vile, mocking).

And, of course, Eyman describes his own followers as “coming back with grace and good humor”. That’s an interesting choice of words, considering we have received several obscenity-laden emails from Eyman followers, some of whom can’t even spell their hero’s name correctly. Oddly enough, Tim hasn’t shared those.

Eyman has also described his supporters as passionate. That’s a characterization that my team and I can agree with, and respect. We’re passionate too: passionate about protecting Washington’s common wealth, our quality of life, and our tradition of majority rule, which has served us well since statehood.

We believe Tim knows full well that we try to practice what we preach at NPI. We do not publish people’s private contact information online for the world to see. We do not lace what we publish with profanity. We do not wish harm upon people we disagree with. Our Code of Ethics forbids it.

And yet, Tim has repeatedly suggested that we’re full of hate.

Why is he doing this? Because he needs money. He chose to put himself in debt to get I-1053 on the ballot. Now he’s trying to pay it off, and raise money for his next initiative campaign at the same time. It’s been slow going. And so he’s getting desperate. A few weeks ago, he told his followers that he was ‘hitting the big panic button’, trying to compel them to open their checkbooks.

Now he’s on to his next gimmick: Using us as a punching bag. He figures his followers are more likely to give him money if they’re riled up, versus being calm. Perhaps he’ll get a few checks out of this, but we seriously doubt these gimmicks will help him secure the money that he really needs.

He just doesn’t have the huge base of support he claims to have.

If history is any indication, Eyman will not be back on the statewide ballot until he has a sugar daddy again – old or new. We think it’s likely Eyman will ultimately find a new wealthy benefactor.

What else is he going to do? Go back to selling fraternity wristwatches? In the meantime, it looks like we the taxpayers may be able to save some money on elections costs, which is great. We need every penny we can get these days.

March 23rd, 2011

Eyman followers to Permanent Defense: A republic is not a democracy

Rethinking and Reframing

A week ago, we published a report (Voters Want More Choices begins 2011 with no wealthy benefactor in sight), which affirmed a point that we’ve been trying to make to the press and to the people of Washington for years – namely, that without big money, Tim Eyman’s initiative factory simply could not exist.

Naturally, Tim Eyman read this report, since he’s a regular Permanent Defense visitor. Not long after seeing it, he decided to make it the centerpiece of a fundraising email, which he sent out last Friday. His email included the entirety of our report, and was followed by (what else?) a shameless appeal for funds, along with instructions to his followers to send emails to Permanent Defense’s founder and Olympia city council candidate Brian Tomlinson, who recently expressed his frustration with Eyman’s mischief-making at a public forum.

A tiny fraction of Eyman’s followers subsequently wrote in. Many butchered his last name – among the spellings we saw were “Eyeman”, “Eiman”, and “Iman” . One supporter even butchered his hero’s first name, despite getting the last name correct (Time Eyman). But what was more interesting than the misspellings was the contention that several of these people made: that a republic is not a democracy.

Here’s an example:

Our form of government is a republic – not a democracy. The difference is that in a republic the individual retains personal rights and freedoms where in a democracy the rights and freedoms of the individual are controlled by the majority rule.

And here’s another:

By the way, last time I checked, we are a republic (a government in which supreme power is held by the citizens entitled to vote), not a democracy.

And still another:

Your contempt for the initiative process and lack of knowledge about what type of government the constitution directs us to abide by,
(Representative Republic) not democracy, has confirmed the need to continue to support Mr. Eiman in his future initiative drives.

These people sure do seem confused, don’t they? (Note, names are withheld because, unlike Tim Eyman, we believe in respecting people’s privacy as much as possible).

Let’s consult American Heritage’s Cultural Dictionary:

re·pub·lic – noun. A form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives. Today, the terms republic and democracy are virtually interchangeable, but historically the two differed. Democracy implied direct rule by the people, all of whom were equal, whereas republic implied a system of government in which the will of the people was mediated by representatives, who might be wiser and better educated than the average person. In the early American republic, for example, the requirement that voters own property and the establishment of institutions such as the Electoral College were intended to cushion the government from the direct expression of the popular will.

Our plan of government, as Permanent Defense’s supporters know, is a constitutional republic. Most state constitutions, particularly those that had no other roots (for instance, colonial charters), were modeled after the Constitution of the United States of America, which does not provide for an initiative or referendum process. Initially, Washington’s Constitution didn’t either, but it was amended in the 1900s by progressives to give citizens the power to make laws directly.

Washington still has a representative government elected by its people, but since it also has the initiative and referendum (as well as the recall), it is unquestionably a democracy in a broader sense as well.

The modern definition of democracy is any system of government in which rule is by the people. A republic is thus a democracy – although not every democracy is a republic (the United Kingdom, for example, is a constitutional monarchy).

This really isn’t that hard to understand. Anybody who paid attention in their high school civics class should know that a republic is a democracy. Unfortunately, it appears that many of Tim Eyman’s s followers either didn’t pay close attention in their high school civics course, or didn’t take one at all.

No wonder, then, that they don’t have a problem with getting rid of our cherished tradition of majority rule. They don’t understand what democracy is truly all about (individual liberty, majority rule with minority rights, free elections, competing political parties) because they don’t think Washington is a democracy.

Ironically, by displaying their ignorance, Tim Eyman’s followers are providing compelling evidence in favor of the argument that we need stronger, better-funded public schools with a more robust civics curriculum.

March 7th, 2011

The anger, spite, and negativity of Tim Eyman

Rethinking and Reframing

Well, that didn’t take long.

This morning, Tim Eyman sent out an email very similar to one he sent out a week ago, again making it look like an editorial board said something mean about him, when in fact it was simply the opinion of one person writing in:

RE: EVERETT HERALD: “Hopefully Eyman will lose his house. Maybe that will keep him quiet.”

Can’t you just feel the love:

RUN FOR OFFICE OR PIPE DOWN: I predict that in two years the Legislature will water down Initiative 1053 because there is simply no alternative. That is why I will vote against any Eyman initiative in the future no matter the merit. I-1053 is not about waste in government; it’s about greed. I’m sick and tired of Tim Eyman trying to be the dictator of Washington from his little watch shop in Mukilteo. If Eyman wants to run the state let him get some guts and run for office. But I don’t think he has any guts. The voters of this state should send Eyman a message by voting down every measure he proposes. Hopefully he will lose his house. Maybe that will keep him quiet.” Steven Bates, Everett

The subject line of Eyman’s email, which contains the last two sentences of Bates’ letter, do not identify Bates as the author. Instead, the comments are attributed to the Everett Herald. The Herald may have printed Bates’ comments, but no one working for The Herald wrote them. Eyman could have easily prefaced Bates’ comments with “LETTER TO THE EDITOR”, but he chose not to do so. He used “EVERETT HERALD” instead to convey the impression that he’s being picked on.

And he ended his email with this instruction (to his supporters):

Take his anger and spite and negativity and use it as fuel for something positive.

Negativity breeds negativity. Steven Bates is fed up with Tim Eyman’s constant attacks on our common wealth and on the very fabric of our representative democracy. That’s understandable. If love is what Eyman wants to feel, he should start treating the people he deals with more kindly.

What part of the idiom, Ye reap what ye sow, does Eyman not understand? His rudeness and hostility are legendary… so he shouldn’t be surprised that people have negative opinions of him. He can’t expect others to be polite and respectful towards him when he is unwilling to extend them the same courtesy.

The Golden Rule is pretty simple: Treat others the way you wish to be treated.

Eyman has repeatedly proved himself to be utterly incapable of adhering to the Golden Rule. In one breath, he plays the victim. In his next breath, he’s unapologetically trashing elected leaders and public workers.

Let’s take a look at the anger, spite, and negativity of Tim Eyman, shall we? The following are all snippets from some of the emails he has sent over the years.

From September 17th, 2009:

Congratulations to the Evergreen Freedom Foundation for making the crazies in Seattle even crazier by bringing FOX NEWS’ Glenn Beck to speak at Safeco Field on Saturday, September 26th. Bringing him into Jim McDermott’s district, the lion’s den of Seattle, to speak should make things especially interesting.

From January 14th, 2009:

Queen Christine, King Sims, and Knight Nickels are an embarrassment. None of them is showing any sympathy for the average taxpayer who is currently buried under our state’s enormous tax burden and tough economy. None of them has even an ounce of compassion for struggling working families and fixed-income senior citizens who simply can’t afford any more. Their reckless disregard for the additional tax burden this mega-uber-project will put on our state’s tapped-out citizenry is maddening.

From April 27th, 2010:

During this year’s legislative session, Democrat politicians in Olympia and the ‘Public Interest Groups’ (PIGS) that support them imposed $800 million in higher taxes — but that turned out to be just an ‘opening bid.’

From July 14th, 2007:

Justice occurred in King County today when Superior Court judge Catherine Shaffer, a Gary Locke appointee, rejected arguments by opponents of I-960 who sought to prohibit a vote of the people on the measure. Whacko lefty environmental group Futurewise (formerly 1000 Friends of Washington) and whacko lefty labor union SEIU argued that since they receive a lot of tax money from state government, they’d be harmed by I-960 because it may limit the flow of revenue to them.

We could go on.

Those four excerpts, by the way, don’t even come close to the meanest things Eyman has said. He questions motives and uses put-downs all the time. He regularly instructs his supporters to blast people who are in his way with harsh comments.

But occasionally, he goes even further. He’s accused opponents of criminal activity. He’s made private contact information public. We know because we’ve seen it happen. We’ve been monitoring Eyman for years.

Sometimes, we’ve been the target.

When NPI’s Steve Zemke interrupted one of Tim Eyman’s press conferences some years ago (because Eyman was blatantly lying about the state budget) Eyman’s response was to tell the Secretary of State’s staff to “get this guy out of here” even though he had chosen to hold his media event in a public building.

Through his conduct, Tim Eyman has pretty much turned his own name into a synonym for hypocrisy. And he has only himself to blame.

February 23rd, 2011

Willful deception: Eyman deliberately misattributes degroatory comment about himself to Seattle P-I

Rethinking and Reframing

As we have previously documented on numerous occasions – both here and at the NPI Advocate – Tim Eyman is no fan of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. The publication, formerly Seattle’s oldest newspaper and now its most-visited online-only news source, has consistently opposed Eyman’s ill-conceived initiatives over the years, and it also exposed his illicit money transfers from his campaign committee to his own personal bank account in a stupendous article written by Neil Modie nine years ago this month.

No surprise, then, that Eyman rarely misses a chance to demean the P-I in some way. Today, he did so by misattributing something a P-I commenter said to the P-I itself.

Here’s the subject line of his email:

Subject: SEATTLE PI: “Yes, I think Eyman should be retired or taken out and shot.”
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 14:21:25 -0500

If you were looking at this subject line, you might be led to believe that a P-I columnist, or someone working for the P-I, had written those words. But if you open the email, you’ll notice a longer version of the quote is attributed to “Donald”:

“You have an article in the paper about Tim Eyman … It ended with, has he done enough for the state.  I think he’s done it to the state.  Yes, I think Eyman should be retired or taken out and shot.” – Donald

No citation was provided for the quote, which initially made us wonder if it ever existed at all. However, our team was able to track it down after just a little bit of searching; it’s from a P-I “Soundoff” from July 11th, 2003.

Obviously, Donald’s rhetoric does not represent what the Seattle Post-Intelligencer believes as an institution. Nor would most progressives consider shooting someone to be a remotely acceptable means to an end. True progressives are against violence, and don’t condone the extreme, un-American idea that “second amendment remedies” should be used to intimidate or eliminate political opponents.

Eyman himself uses the same kind of derogatory hyperbole when talking about people who stand in his way, whether they be elected leaders, public servants, or activists. Permanent Defense has an archive of Eyman emails going back many years, and we can readily produce venom-laden messages authored by Tim and sent to his supporters, reporters, and state lawmakers.

Before Eyman condemns a commenter for wishing that he be “taken out and shot”, he should look at his own past invective and tone down his language.

Hate speech is a precursor to violence. And more violence is the last thing our republic needs.

November 2nd, 2010

Two out of three corporate initiatives passing easily, including Tim Eyman’s I-1053

Election PostmortemRethinking and Reframing

As expected, the two corporate initiatives that public interest advocates failed to effectively organize and mobilize against – Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053 and the American Beverage Association’s Initiative 1107 – are passing handily in the first returns to be reported.

The success of I-1053 and I-1107 deals Washington’s fragile common wealth a devastating blow at a time when many families are especially in need of vital public services, particularly the state’s safety net.

It’s clear from the big margins that both I-1053 and I-1107 are getting that voters didn’t comprehend the true consequences of either when filling out their ballots. They didn’t realize that I-1053 sabotages our cherished tradition of majority rule, and has caused legislative gridlock in states like California. They didn’t realize that I-1107 destroys revenue that has been helping to keep our safety net from being eviscerated. And no wonder: Few progressive organizations put any resources into telling the story of the harm 1053 and 1107 would — and now will — cause.

The word feeble doesn’t even begin to describe the efforts against 1053 and 1107, which were a failure in every respect. The consultants tasked with coming up with a plan for responding to the initiatives were resigned to what they felt was an inevitable defeat from the beginning. They created a self-fulfilling prophecy by opting against responding aggressively. The broad-based coalition against 1053 and 1107 thus existed in name only, and accomplished very little.

The lessons of the past were forgotten, opportunities to take action were squandered, and the decisions that did get made lacked input from the people actually in the trenches trying to defend our common wealth.

The result is a travesty. The Legislature’s efforts to responsibly close the most recent budget deficit have been undone, and worse, Article II, Section 22 of our Constitution has been sabotaged again, preventing the House and Senate from democratically acting to raise revenue to protect our common wealth in the future.

If we’ve learned one thing from this campaign, it’s that the state of paralysis and the mindset of resignation are our greatest enemies. Permanent Defense will work to overcome both in 2011 by attempting to build an unprecedented first line of defense against the next crop of right wing initiatives, including Tim Eyman’s next scheme to wreck government. We pledge to do our best to ensure that activists, citizens, and legislators who want to fight have the ability to do so, and are not marginalized by the indecision and defeatism of others.

September 9th, 2010

Retired Sacramento Bee reporter Stephen Green explains how California’s version of 1053 has hurt Golden State

Rethinking and ReframingStatements & AdvisoriesThreat Analysis

This morning, the Northwest Progressive Institute (NPI) Advocate published a special guest post by retired Sacramento Bee reporter Stephen Green, who covered California’s statehouse for many years. In the post, Green explains how California’s version of 1053 has hurt the Golden State, paralyzing its government and leaving California’s Legislature mired in gridlock.

Initiative 1053 does not require two-thirds votes to pass budgets like California, but requiring two-thirds for any legislation – particularly fiscal bills – is still a terrible idea, Green says. If legislators can’t democratically come to an agreement on how to fund our public services, then chaos ensues.

Even without the additional two-thirds requirement for passing budgets, the paralysis he describes will still happen to us if 1053 passes.

That’s because projected revenue continues to fall, leaving horrific cuts as the only option. Look at the most recent budget forecasts.

Furlough days are nothing compared to what’s coming if 1053 passes.

If our deficit grows and an extreme partisan minority prevents the state from raising revenue, public services will be eviscerated, because a few anti-government politicians will be in the driver’s seat, with unconstitutional, illegitimate veto power over the majority. The consequences would be dire.

Jobs would be lost. Hours would be reduced. Lines at state offices would get longer. Customer service would be degraded. Citizen complaints would fall by the wayside, and not be addressed.

1053 allows seventeen right wing senators, out of one hundred and forty seven lawmakers, to tyrannically block any revenue increase. I-1053 effectively puts the wrecking crew in charge of state government.

Is it any wonder that three incumbent Republican senators (Pam Roach, Janea Holmquist, Don Benton) are cosponsors of Tim Eyman and BP’s Initiative 1053?

Times are tough enough… I-1053 would make them worse. NPI and Permanent Defense join with the League of Women Voters, AARP Washington, the Washington Council of Fire Fighters, and hundreds of other organizations in urging voters to say NO to Initiative 1053 this autumn.

August 25th, 2010

Eyman asks followers to help him retire his debt; fails to acknowledge or thank his corporate backers

Eye on Money: DevelopmentsRethinking and Reframing

Admitting that “times are tough for everyone”, Mukilteo initiative profiteer Tim Eyman shook his electronic tin cup again today, asking his followers to help retire $250,000 in debt he incurred while trying to come up with funds for I-1053’s signature drive.

“After paying for mortgage/rent, vehicle costs, food, and other family expenses, it’s difficult to find ‘extra money’ to support political efforts, like our initiatives, that move our state in a more pro-freedom, pro-reform, pro-taxpayer direction,” Eyman wrote.  “We understand that. So as donations were coming in for I-1053’s signature drive, it became increasingly apparent that they weren’t coming in at a pace that would have allowed the signature drive to be successful.”

Translation: Eyman couldn’t get seed money from his sugar daddy Michael Dunmire for I-1053 early this year, which meant the measure’s signature drive was in jeopardy. Eyman was thus compelled to take matters into his own hands.

Eyman’s base of grassroots right-wing donors shriveled up long ago; Dunmire has been underwriting Eyman’s campaigns with six figure checks since his failed partnership with the gambling industry in 2004.

This year, however, Dunmire was apparently unwilling to refill Eyman’s coffers as he has for the past half-decade. Eyman started borrowing against his house – again – but this time, with the knowledge that it wouldn’t be enough. So while he looked for a new patron (or patrons), he went into debt.

As Eyman related in his email (referring to himself in the third person):

[F]rom May through June, Tim accessed his bank’s line of credit, secured by a 2nd mortgage on his home, and loaned the signature drive for I-1053 a total of $250,000 ($50,000 in April, $40,000 in May, $70,000 in early June and $90,000 in late June). This was, by no means, our first choice. But given the difficulty of our supporters to donate to our initiative during these tough economic times, it was the only way we could ensure the success of I-1053.

When Eyman says “our supporters”, he’s obviously referring to the dwindling number of loyal donors who have stuck with him year after year, contributing to each new initiative effort.

But what about his new patrons… the corporations and trade groups that put up most of the money for Initiative 1053? Don’t they get any acknowledgment or thanks?

The only reason I-1053 “made it” is because several dozen corporations collectively put up close to $600,000 to help Eyman. Not counting Eyman’s loan, their contributions constitute about 76% of the funding for I-1053. That’s more than three fourths!

The top corporate and trade group contributors to I-1053 are:

  • BP (yes, that BP) – $65,000
  • Tesoro – $65,000
  • ConocoPhillips – $50,000
  • Shell – $50,000
  • Washington Farm Bureau – $50,000
  • Washington Restaurant Association- $45,000
  • Washington Realtors – $25,000
  • Washington Beverage Association (Coke, Pepsi, Dr Pepper) – $20,000
  • Kemper Holdings – $20,000

Banks, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, USBank, and the Community Bankers of Washington, put up a combined $37,500. Timber companies, including Sierra Pacific Industries, Boise, Green Diamond Resource Company, Weyerhaeuser, and Port Blakely Tree Farms, likewise put up a combined $38,000.

What do these corporations stand to gain from Tim Eyman’s Initiative 1053?

The answer is simple. I-1053 helps them keep their special tax breaks and loopholes in place, because it destroys equal representation in our Legislature. It makes the votes of lawmakers who support the agenda of these corporations worth more than the votes of lawmakers who put the public’s interest first.

See, despite possessing overwhelming wealth and power, these corporations and their lobbyists simply don’t feel like they’re in control of our state.

They are not confident that they’ll be able to buy the votes they need in the future to block legislation they don’t like.

So they are trying to change the rules, as an insurance policy, out of greed, to undemocratically allow a submajority to block revenue increases.

If Initiative 1053 passes, the payoff for these corporations will be much bigger than the money they sunk into it. And that’s what this is all about: Greed.

A desire for bigger, fatter profits.

They don’t care if Washington State goes into the red and has to lay off thousands of public workers, thereby destroying any hope of an economic recovery. They don’t care about our quality of life. They don’t care about our Constitution, the thoughtfully-designed system of law established more than a century ago by our founders. What they want is to get ahead at the expense of everybody else… damn the consequences.

And that’s just wrong.

The team at NPI and Permanent Defense urge Washingtonians to join us this autumn in upholding our Constitution and voting NO on Initiative 1053.

May 27th, 2010

Citizens of Mukilteo have already rejected Eyman attempt to take away red-light camera money

Ballot WatchdoggingRethinking and Reframing

At the beginning of this week, Mukilteo’s most infamous right wing politician announced that he and two of his friends were launching a citywide initiative to ban red-light cameras. But Eyman – who has assailed red-light cameras as the “crack cocaine” of city leaders – failed to mention that the people of his hometown have already weighed in on the issue, less than two years ago, when Initiative 985 was on the ballot.

Initiative 985 contained a provision that would have redirected revenue from city red-light cameras to a statewide road-building fund. However, as Eyman himself made clear during the campaign, the real intent of the provision was to discourage cities from installing red-light cameras at all.

Data compiled by Permanent Defense from the Snohomish County general election canvass shows that the people of Mukilteo do not agree that red-light cameras are a civic menace. They overwhelmingly rejected I-985 in November 2008, 57% to 42%. Nineteen of the city’s twenty precincts (including the precinct Eyman lives in!) were firmly opposed to the measure, while only one was in favor. The total vote for I-985 was 4,417; the total vote against I-985 was 5,974.

To qualify his citywide initiative to the August 17th primary election ballot, Eyman needs to obtain valid signatures from at least 1,804 residents of Mukilteo.

Since all he needs to do is find about half of the people in Mukilteo who voted for I-985, we can expect that he’ll be able to qualify his measure for the ballot. But if history is any indication, Eyman may simply be setting himself up for another defeat at the hands of his neighbors.

April 23rd, 2010

Eyman clumsily attacks high-earners income tax initiative, doesn’t admit it would lower taxes for most

Rethinking and ReframingStatements & Advisories

Earlier today, everybody’s favorite former watch salesman sent out yet another hyperbolic fundraising appeal to his supporters.

But unusually, instead of singling out Governor Gregoire or Democratic leaders as a foil for his pitch for money like he often does, Eyman attacked the coalition behind Initiative 1077. The measure, officially unveiled at a press conference on Wednesday, would levy an income tax on Washington’s wealthiest couples and individuals to provide greater funding for education and healthcare.

Naturally, Tim Eyman hates the idea. It’s not his.

So it’s no surprise that he views Initiative 1077 (which may be refiled by its sponsors to address a couple of concerns with the language) as a threat. After dropping Bill Gates Sr.’s name at the beginning of his message, Eyman wrote, “His initiative illustrates the need for our initiative. Because no matter how much they take from the taxpayers, they always want more.” He adds, “(R)ather than saying ‘thanks, that’s enough’, they follow up with a $1 billion per year income tax initiative.”

Nowhere in his email does Eyman mention to his supporters that the initiative would reduce the state property tax levy by twenty percent, or eliminate the business and occupation tax for eighty percent of small businesses. That part of the equation was conveniently left out.

And who is “they”? Olympia? The Legislature? The House and Senate are not responsible for Initiative 1077. If lawmakers wanted to ask the people to approve a high-earners income tax, they could have placed a referendum on this November’s ballot. There wouldn’t have been a need for this measure.

Since the people and organizations who support an income tax on high-earners are not the people’s elected representatives, they’re making use of one of the instruments of direct democracy (the initiative) to give the people a chance to vote on their idea. That’s what Tim Eyman tries to do every year. What is prompting him to speak out against this initiative? Why does he care?

The answer is that he’s afraid of what will happen if the coalition behind this idea succeeds. Given a chance to enact real tax reform, voters could be less inclined to listen to him. He needs Washington’s tax structure to be unfair so there will be an appetite for his schemes in the future.

Eyman seems doubly upset that proponents of tax reform are turning to the initiative process to advance the cause, even though the initiative itself is a progressive invention, brought to Washington during the Progressive Era nearly a hundred years ago.

Is Tim’s reaction surprising? We don’t think so. Anyone who has paid close attention to Eyman’s rhetoric over the years can sense the contempt he has for democracy, and particularly representative democracy. He doesn’t believe in majority rule, except as the threshold for passage of his own initiatives. He revels in causing mayhem but not having to take responsibility for the consequences. The last two years when he hasn’t had an initiative on the ballot (2003 and 2006), he did not even bother to cast a vote in the general election. Check his voting record.

But then, Tim Eyman has never cared about being a good citizen.

It’s hard to measure the amount of time he has spent over the last decade demonizing the Legislature, berating lawmakers, calling them names, doing his utmost to convince the rest of us that they’re the villains, even though we the people elected them to govern and make decisions.

In 2002, Eyman told the Seattle Weekly, “We’ve always contended that any tax increase that any taxing district wants to support is fine, as long as it goes to the voters.”

The campaign announced by Bill Gates Sr. is an initiative to the people. Since it is going to the voters, Tim Eyman should be “fine” with it. But that’s clearly not the case because he’s trying to use it to rile up his supporters. He started campaigning against it as soon as it had been rolled out.

Eyman further argues in his email that people should not support Initiative 1077 because it is “fundamentally flawed”: It could be modified by the Legislature after two years by a simple majority. But that’s true of any initiative; our state Constitution provides for that “fundamental flaw” by specifying the length of time that must elapse before an initiative can be amended like any other statute.

It’s worth noting that since Eyman’s Initiative 1053 and this high-earners income tax initiative are both being proposed in the same year, they would both take effect at the same time if they passed, and would both be subject to modification by simple majority beginning in the 2013 legislative session.

In other words, Initiative 1053 could not stop a majority of lawmakers from doing what Eyman is predicting they’re going to do in 2013: lower the income tax’s threshold. So Eyman’s claim that the latter illustrates the need for the former doesn’t make sense.

February 8th, 2010

RE: What does the phrase ‘Will of the people’ mean to you?

Legislation & TestimonyRethinking and Reframing

Earlier this morning, Tim Eyman sent out an email which asked, in its subject line, “What does the phrase “will of the people” mean to you?” To us, those words mean that our cherished tradition of majority rule must never be compromised. Schemes that take away majority rule (such as Initiative 960 and Initiative 1053) ironically have the effect of infringing upon the will of the people.

Permit us to explain what we mean. In trying to garner publicity for Initiative 1053, Tim Eyman has deceptively tried to frame the effort to amend Initiative 960 as a “we the people versus the Legislature” conflict.

It’s a lie. There is no such conflict. We, the people, elected this Legislature, and we, the people, reelected Governor Chris Gregoire to a second four year term. What’s more, during the last two years we, the people, have rejected not one, but two Tim Eyman initiatives, at the ballot.

In moving to unlock Initiative 960’s shackles, the Legislature is doing precisely what Tim Eyman is attacking it for not doing… responding to the will of the people.

We don’t elect legislators to kowtow to the likes of Tim Eyman, who wants to rip our common wealth to shreds. We elect legislators to govern, wisely and justly. If we do not like the decisions we make, we can choose new leaders. That’s how representative democracy works. Tim Eyman has consistently sought to undermine representative democracy by making it harder for elected leaders to do their jobs and proposing schemes that add undemocratic, un-American hurdles into the legislative process.

Initiative 960, which was approved by a narrow majority in 2007, never should have taken effect, and not just because it is blatantly unconstitutional. It never should have taken effect because we the people have no authority to take away our own rights. Democracy cannot be used to abolish democracy.

A majority of Washingtonians, voting at an election, cannot decide to deprive a future majority of their rights. That this happened and could not be reversed until now is a travesty. The Supreme Court’s refusal to rule on Initiative 960’s constitutionality (the Court was asked to do so twice, in two separate lawsuits) does not make Initiative 960, or Initiative 1053, legitimate.

For additional analysis, check out this post from the NPI Advocate, the blog of our parent organization.

You are here:

Newsroom > Rethinking and Reframing

Mobilizing for 2024 to counter new threats

Stop Greed: Vote no in 2024
Visit StopGreed.org to learn about four harmful right wing initiatives we're opposing that are on their way to the November general election ballot

What we do

Permanent Defense works to protect Washington by building a first line of defense against threats to the common wealth and Constitution of the Evergreen State — like Tim Eyman's initiative factory. Learn more.

Protecting Washington Since 2002

Newsroom Archives