"Follow the money."
That sounds like good advice when you want to know who's behind a campaign or initiative doesn't it? That's part of the reason behind some of our campaign finance laws. Knowing who's funding a campaign is important… if you assume that all money is corrupt… and if the campaign is for a person rather than an idea.
I'm not so sure that the same applies to initiatives. After all, most initiatives are about ideas, not people. Take for example, Washington's initiative 1000, the so-called "right to die" initiative. The initiative's supporters call it the "Washington State Death with Dignity Initiative". The initiative's opponents refer to it as "the assisted suicide initiative".
It would seem to me that this particular initiative is very solidly about an idea and its opposite. There's no candidate running for office based on this initiative. It's all about an idea. Myself, I'm against this one. I don't think that suicide is a good idea, and I'm not all that thrilled about the concept of euthanasia either. Still, I've watched close friends die in pain and misery, and I can understand the motivation for both. I can honestly believe that the people who might propose an assisted suicide initiative could truly believe that it's a good thing to help people who are suffering achieve "death with dignity" and an end to their misery. I can also understand (quite easily since it's my own view) that some people might think that suicide isn't the way to depart from this life, and that euthanasia — at least where people are the ones being euthanized comes very close to murder.
You would think then, that the debate about this particular initiative should center around the ideas. The debate should discuss why it is believed that suicide is "death with dignity" or why it isn't. Does it really matter who is saying one thing or the other about it? Should we oppose the idea just because someone notorious might support it? How does the person supporting an idea change the validity of the idea? Should we support the idea simply because a religious organization might oppose it? Since when does the identity of the proponent or opponent of an idea have anything at all to do with the idea itself?
This is what I find so mystifying about some of the news coverage about this initiative and other campaigns. In the Seattle Times, we find this article, which begins as follows…
Both sides of a voter initiative to legalize physician assistance in dying, likely on track for the fall ballot, have accused the other of attempting to hide the identity of donors and opening the door to out-of-state interests.
Initiative supporters claim that right-to-life group Human Life of Washington wants to influence the election while keeping voters in the dark about the true source of opposition funds, which historically have come from Catholic churches and related organizations.
On the other side, Initiative 1000's official opposition claims that supporters' "sleight of hand" has so obscured the identity of donors that voters wouldn't know if convicted euthanizer Jack Kevorkian had written a check to the campaign.
Would it help to know that the people opposing initiative 1000 are supported by the Catholic church and related organizations? Shouldn't it be obvious that religious organizations would oppose suicide, assisted or not? Aren't those organizations entitled to fund an initiative that is in line with their own ideology? For that matter, what does it matter if Jack Kevorkian has written a check to the campaign. We all know that he supports the concept of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Each side says arguments made by the other don't meet "the smell test." At stake, they argue, is nothing less than democracy, the people's right to know and freedom of speech.
As far as I'm concerned, that's a load of that specific sort of excrement that is produced by unneutered male cattle. Yes, the people have a right to know. Supporters and opponents alike, no matter who they are have a right to speak freely. NOTHING about the right to the freedom of speech requires the identity of the speaker to be known though. People cherish their anonymity on the Internet for example, even if the concept is really an illusion. As for democracy, the initiative process allows it to go forward. Most likely initiative 1000 will be on the ballot this fall. Democracy isn't being harmed simply because we may or may not know who supports the idea behind the initiative or who opposes the idea.
In this particular instance, the notion that the money trail has anything whatsoever to do with the issue at hand — whether assisted suicide is of benefit or harm to society — is a Red Herring. It's nothing more than a distraction and has nothing whatsoever to do with the merits or failings of the initiative.
Oppose the initiative or support it. But if you're going to do so, do so on the merit or weakness of the ideas behind it. Who cares where the money comes from.
Originally posted at Perri Nelson's Website. Cross posted at NW Bloggers.
