Staggering numbers, backers, in Modesto City Council race and Olsen tops the list. Why is that?

... and those that have raised so much, have done so by getting contributions by many whom have a vested interest on how the council votes. We are going to need a watch dog group to keep track of the way council votes if some of these candidates get re-elected or elected.   

Haven't you noticed the sudden street improvements? The parks opened the restrooms, all in time for elections.  Aren't the numbers amazing and who is contributing speaks volumes of where their interests will lay. Landowners and Measure E supporters isn't that a conflict?

Are you implying that the street improvements have been orchestrated by the city council or by the developers (or both)? 

That is County not City. You should see the county side of Wade Ave (at Paradise five points). It is awful. These areas are the areas that Dave Geer is supposed to have been helping on his streetlight committee.

However, the repair to McHenry and others started in 2009, right?

Timing is everything. These streets have been long neglected and if one was to use the conditions of our streets as a means to decide how to vote I would have to say until recently these streets were neglected.  I am not saying that it was orchestrated by anyone, this is just an observation.

As far as the park restrooms re-opening, you bet I think it was orchestrated. In July, Ms. Olsen's contributions were minimal at best.  There was outcry from the citizens of modesto, none to happy with the incubents descision to close them, and they found the money to keep them open until the end of November.  This happens to be after the elections.

When running for office it is a conflict of interest to take money from both sides. Although one could argue that would make them impartial.  I however would like to know which side of the bread they would butter.

The large amount raised by some, is outstanding. I have a huge problem that most of the money being contributed is from those that will appear before the council. Personally, I think that raises an ethical question.

The improvements to McHenry are controlled by Caltrans. 

Believe it or not, Caltrans owns the right of way on McHenry Avenue.  The City did install some water lines I believe as I remember a few months ago seeing piping at McHenry and Morris. 

However, based on that, I don't think the improvements we've seen to McHenry Avenue has anything to do with our local election.

As far as the money, I don't know.  How much needs to be raised to run a legitimate campaign? 

Thanks for the insight.  I guess that gives me another reason not to vote for incombents. Kudos to Caltrans.  However, I do I seem to remember a list of streets the city was going to repave. I can't remember exactly when that was, but I think it was a measure in the November 2008 elections. I can't remember if it passed or not. That would still be considered good timng in my book.

How much needs to be raised to run a legitimate campaign? 

Good question mtber. I would love for the Bee to do an article on that. I believe some are just overkill. Also, it woulld be interesting to see how many who got contributions voted a specific way.  To me it is a no brainer.  Developers want to line the pockets of those in office.  This is not limited to local races, it is universal.  Whether someone is taking money from special interest groups, lobbyist, developers or businesses that will rely on their vote to get a contract.  If an elected official takes money during a campaign from an person or business and they appear before said offical, the official be force to recuse themselves from the vote.

If this was a common practice, people running for office would then be put on a level playing field. Also, they would then be held accountable and there would not be  any implications of improperiety.

Conflicts of interest are required to be disclosed under current law.  What you are saying is that anyone that donates to a political campaign becomes a conflict.  Currently, the law is that the conflict exists if the council member (or senator, congressman, etc.) would personally benefit.  Current campaign finance law does not look at the campaign money as personal money since it is not supposed to be used for personal gain.

I have a problem with the reform only when some suggest it is business people that should be limited, but other special interests should be allowed.  If the playing field is to be leveled, it needs to apply to the unions as well- and they will never allow their candidates to support that.

How about any qualified candidate (maybe collect a certain number of signatures) gets a flat amount from a common pot of money.  The donors get recognition with special signage at public facilities or at public events.

As it stands, those that do not get backing are free to accuse those that do of doing something wrong.  I would never give a contribution to someone that I did not feel would share common views with me. 

any group donates more than $500 would be considered a conflict of interest?

what ever wording it would take to level the playing field for everyone while eliminating loop holes.

It's just my personal opinion.

airportprotector to use your words; As it stands, those that do not get backing are free to accuse those that do of doing something wrong.  I would never give a contribution to someone that I did not feel would share common views with me. 

Same could be said for a developer or any other entity would either. That is the point. Maybe limiting the amount allowed as truthseekers sugggested would help. The problem with the big pot theory is who would give money if they had no control where or to whom it went? Then again that would fix the problem too.

If one is paid to do an elected job then technically they do have a personal gain in the matter.

have to be accompanied by closing the many loopholes that currently exist (like someone else mentioned).  Right now, there are contribution limits for individuals, but by the time my spouse and my multiple children, my LLC's, my corp's, etc. stop writing checks, the amount can be very large.

I don't think I personally agree that getting paid to do an elected job automatically constitutes personal gain.  I see where some may feel that way and I understand the logic, but the reality is most of our elected officials (even at the city level) are somewhat independently financially secure and do not serve for financial gain.

I still believe it is unfair to blame the candidates that comply with current law based on the hope that someday campaign finance reform will occur (in some fashion).  Cataline hoped to spend around $10,000.  Is that ok?  Who decides?  If he is able to raise $15,000, is that wrong?  Should Obama be thrown out for setting fund raising records?

Everyone should be expected to comply with existing rules and nothing more. 

bought quite so easily.

Kristin Olsen has elevated donations and servicing her contributors to a new level.

We were having a decent discussion before the mudslinging.  Did Olsen break any law or rule?  Isn't it true that Cataline has been unable to garner support in Modesto because of his inexperience and lack of campaign platform?

Western Manufactured Housing supposedly contributed to Olsen two years after she was the lone opposition vote on an agenda item that actually did not benefit the donor.  Try mixing in some logic with all that mudslinging and we may be able to come up with a way to change the future of local politics.

many paybacks...

But lets go back to the original conversation...

How can we write  it so all of the loop holes are closed?

No high jacking here!!!!  Stick to the blog. Although technically I was pointing out the money Olsen was raisng as being the highest. 

What in the world does a candidate need over 45K for in a local race?

Does it create a conflict? How would you propose to change the money raised? I think limits are the way to go to create a level playing field and while we are at it we should put a cap on it as well.  Then we actually might see how they handle their money when there are limits.  That might be a good indication of how well they will do their job if elected. 

you know, Joe Cataline, who can't seem to raise anything but eyebrows.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt

Oh well. will wonders never cease. Talk to the HAND!

from contributing.  If the contribution limits were limited to personal, you could enforce limits by household or voter registration.

Because she services her donors well by voting for their business in front of the city council.

changing the campaign finance rules...didn't mean to throw you a curve ball I was trying to help wilderj get her thread back on track..

I think the bee should do an article on council members and their contributers, how the votes went over the years they were on the council. Limiting donations would make it about the people not the businesses.

They definately go hand in hand. Money talks.

Incumbent Olsen leads in fund raising, with $46,355 this year

Joe Muratore, a commercial real estate consultant. He's received $31,404 this year.

Perine has raised $15,041 in 2009.

These are the top money getters. They also have many ties to deveolpers and big business.  How could any honest, hard working indiviual compete with those numbers?  Olsen said she wanted the salary increase for council so people other than stay at home moms and the wealthy would be able to run.  Problem is with all the big money backers it makes the raise a moot point. No one other than those already on council, or those that have simular ties would ever get elected.  So here's a thought change the rules for contribution or give me back that raise. LOL.

You have to give her that.  She follows thru with her vote.