Monthly Archives: May 2010

An Overview of State Campaigns, 2007-2008

Posted on May 30, 2010 by | Leave a comment


 
 

An Overview of State Campaigns, 2007-2008

By Denise Roth Barber

NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MONEY IN STATE POLITICS

April 06, 2010


This publication was made possible by grants from:

Ford Foundation
Foundation to Promote Open Society
The Pew Charitable Trusts
Rockefeller Brothers Fund
Sunlight Foundation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A Birds-Eye View of State Campaigns in 2007 and 2008

More than 15,000 candidates who sought offices ranging from the state legislature to the governor’s seat raised nearly $1.5 billion during state elections held in 2007 and 2008. State office-holders who were not up for election raised an additional $172 million.

The $1.6 billion raised by candidates and office-holders during the 2007–2008 election cycle was slightly more than the $1.4 billion raised during the comparable 2003–2004 elections.

In addition to the above $1.6 billion, committees organized around ballot measures raised $869 million, state political parties raised nearly $370 million, and state legislative caucuses raised $178 million.

A review of the $3 billion raised in state campaigns during the 2007–2008 elections shows that: 

For the first time ever, legislative candidates raised more than $1 billion in the 2008 election cycle

  • Legislative campaigns were the most expensive ever. For the first time, state legislative candidates broke the $1 billion mark. The $1 billion they raised was 9 percent more than the $962 million raised in 2005–2006 elections, and 26 percent more than the $828.6 million raised in 2003–2004 elections.
  • State races were often not truly competitive. Nationwide, nearly two-thirds of the state legislative races were contested during the general elections. However, just one-third of those races were monetarily competitive.1 The same was observed in the gubernatorial races: although all 14 races were contested, just four were monetarily competitive.
  • Office-holders attracted most of the cash. Winners attracted two-thirds of the money raised by those running for election. Incumbents seeking re-election collected about half of the money.
  • Incumbents sought—and won—re-election in most races. Incumbents sought re-election in 84 percent of the seats up for election—with good reason: the power of incumbency led to a 93 percent success rate. 
  • Money and incumbency remained nearly unbeatable. Incumbent legislators who had larger war chests than their challengers were nearly unbeatable—94 percent won their re-election campaigns.
  • Supreme Court campaigns stayed the course. Candidates running for a seat on their states’ highest court raised $43.5 million, comparable to what they raised in 2000 and 2004 (each about $46 million). Partisan races, in which candidates identify with a political party during the election, attracted 71 percent of the money raised in high court races.
  • Democrats and Republicans were evenly-matched. Although Democrats fielded more candidates—7,226 compared to Republicans’ 6,301; they raised comparable amounts on average: $103,439 by Democrats and $106,083 by Republicans.
  • Ballot measures continued to amass millions. 210 measures were on the ballots in 2007 and 2008. Together, these measures attracted $869 million, up dramatically from $648 million raised in 2005–2006, when voters in 40 states faced 244 measures on the ballots. Measures related to gambling drew the most attention in 2008, with high-rolling donors pouring $273 million into 12 measures in nine states. Same-sex marriage measures came in a distant second, generating $120 million in three states.
  • Ballot measures were not grassroots campaigns. While ballot measures are widely regarded as a means for direct citizen participation in lawmaking, individuals provided just 18 percent of the money raised around measures. Instead, businesses and special interests were the primary financiers, contributing more than two-thirds of the money.
  • Those not up for election still raised millions. Incumbent legislators and office-holders raised $172 million, most for future campaigns. Incumbents in California, Illinois and Texas received nearly half of the money raised by these incumbents not up for election.
  • State political parties were a huge vehicle for campaign cash. The 100 Democratic and Republican state political parties increased their campaign coffers by 25 percent from their 2003–2004 levels, raising nearly $370 million compared to $297 million they raised in 2003–2004. Funds from political parties are especially important funding mechanisms in the states that limit how much candidates can raise—but do not limit money flowing to and from the parties.
  • 1. Defined as when the top-funded candidate raised at least twice what the other candidates(s) raised.

Legislative Campaigns

Since most states do not hold gubernatorial races during presidential election years, campaigns for legislative office dominated the fundraising—attracting two-thirds of the money raised by candidates running for state office in 2007–2008.

TABLE 1: Money Raised in State Campaigns, 2007–2008 Elections

Office

Candidates

Office-Holders Not Up for Election

Total

Legislature

$1,049,757,145

$52,841,541

$1,102,598,686

Governor/Lt. Governor

$241,346,816

$69,787,509

$311,134,325

Other Statewide

$109,455,538

$47,038,181

$156,493,719

Judicial

$63,420,051

$2,592,271

$66,012,322

TOTAL

$1,463,979,550

$172,259,502

$1,636,239,052

During the 2007–2008 elections, more than 6,400 state legislative seats were up for election across the country. Nearly 14,000 candidates raised more than $1 billion while vying for those seats.

The 2,846 candidates who ran for 1,292 state senate seats raised $390 million, an average of $137,015 per candidate. The 11,081 candidates who ran for 5,114 house/assembly seats raised $660 million, an average of $59,545.

The median raised by general-election senate candidates was $55,501, more than double the $20,540 median raised by those running for the state House/Assembly.

TABLE 2: Average and Median Raised by Legislative Candidates in the General Election, 2007–2008 

Legislative Chamber

Number of Candidates in the General Election

Average Raised

Median Raised

Senate

2,266

$157,699

$55,501

House/Assembly

8,883

$68,490

$20,540

TOTAL

11,149

$86,622

$25,165

Democratic and Republican candidates raised comparable amounts on average: 5,421 Democrats raised $506.8 million; 4,812 Republicans raised $451.5 million. 

Nationwide, 67 percent of the general-election senate races and 64 percent of house races were contested.  However, of those contested races, 68 percent of the senate seats and 66 percent of the house seats were not monetarily competitive; in other words, the top-funded candidate raised more than twice what the other candidate(s) raised (For more information on how the Institute determines monetary competitiveness, click here).

Eighty percent of the candidates who were uncontested in the general election were uncontested during the primary elections as well.

Overall, just one-fourth (1,571) of all legislative races had contested primary elections. Most of those contests (1,212) were house primaries. Michigan and Mississippi had the most contested primaries—each with 71—and South Carolina was not too far behind with 67 contested primaries. The 2,568 candidates who were eliminated in these primaries raised an average of $30,308, a median of $5,776.

The average cost of legislative races varied greatly among the states. California’s general-election assembly races averaged $888,491, while New Hampshire’s house races averaged $4,472. A comparable disparity between the two states was seen in 2003–2004 elections, as well.

Senate races are typically more expensive than house races. However, three states bucked that rule in 2007–2008. In Oregon, the average senate race cost $171,996, while the average house race was $265,460. And in Indiana, the average race for the Senate cost $139,215, while the average house race cost $166,549. In Arizona, where legislative candidates receive public funding, the average general-election senate race was $84,994, while the average house race was almost double at $156,905. That disparity can be explained in part by the public funds received: house candidates received, on average, $115,147 of public funds, which is 73 percent of the cost of the average house race. Senate candidates garnered 55 percent of their funds from public funding.

Winners raked in $743 million, 71 percent of all the money raised by legislative candidates. Those who lost in the general election raised just $222 million, while those who lost in the primary raised $78 million.

Incumbents who sought re-election raised 77 percent of the money raised in their races. On average, incumbents raised $109,818, while their challengers averaged just $32,155.

Given the power of incumbency and their significantly heftier campaign coffers, legislative incumbents were nearly unbeatable—95 percent won their re-election campaigns.

Legislative incumbents were nearly unbeatable—95 percent were re-elected

Just one-fifth of the legislative races were open, where the incumbent did not seek re-election. In these races, those who raised the most money enjoyed a 76 percent success rate.

TABLE 3: Cost of General-Election Legislative Races, 2007–2008*  

State

Senate Total

Senate Average

 

House Total

House Average

Alaska

$862,007

$86,201

 

$2,728,693

$68,217

Arizona

$2,549,830

$84,994

 

$4,677,152

$155,905

Arkansas

$2,017,603

$112,089

 

$4,236,952

$42,370

California

$28,245,063

$1,412,253

 

$71,079,242

$888,491

Colorado

$2,401,834

$126,412

 

$5,341,734

$82,181

Connecticut

$5,207,196

$144,644

 

$5,262,324

$34,850

Delaware

$1,000,905

$100,090

 

$2,286,889

$55,778

Florida

$11,259,735

$536,178

 

$25,876,533

$215,638

Georgia

$6,258,805

$111,764

 

$11,538,108

$64,101

Hawaii

$1,930,180

$160,848

 

$2,791,154

$54,729

Idaho

$1,535,698

$43,877

 

$2,376,609

$33,952

Illinois

$22,733,532

$568,338

 

$39,569,825

$335,338

Indiana

$3,480,374

$139,215

 

$16,654,890

$166,549

Iowa

$5,042,923

$201,717

 

$15,269,249

$152,692

Kansas

$5,204,004

$130,100

 

$5,015,513

$40,124

Kentucky

$4,840,809

$254,779

 

$4,726,520

$47,265

Louisiana

$16,687,268

$427,879

 

$19,770,577

$190,102

Maine

$1,775,707

$50,734

 

$1,632,899

$10,814

Massachusetts

$7,361,231

$184,031

 

$12,484,305

$78,027

Michigan

N/A

N/A

 

$13,062,027

$118,746

Minnesota

N/A

N/A

 

$8,191,541

$61,131

Mississippi

$4,544,606

$87,396

 

$5,529,492

$45,324

Missouri

$7,480,507

$440,030

 

$13,127,303

$80,536

Montana

$668,772

$26,751

 

$1,609,957

$16,100

Nebraska

$2,874,728

$110,566

 

N/A

N/A

Nevada

$4,429,850

$442,985

 

$7,843,936

$186,760

New Hampshire

$2,524,485

$105,187

 

$460,594

$4,472

New Jersey

$22,013,042

$550,326

 

$19,183,526

$479,588

New Mexico

$3,519,670

$83,802

 

$3,621,026

$51,729

New York

$43,866,132

$707,518

 

$21,566,093

$143,774

North Carolina

$14,530,667

$290,613

 

$13,215,479

$110,129

North Dakota

$437,998

$19,043

 

$395,533

$17,197

Ohio

$10,519,593

$657,475

 

$33,231,610

$335,673

Oklahoma

$6,607,587

$275,316

 

$9,554,982

$94,604

Oregon

$2,735,938

$170,996

 

$15,927,576

$265,460

Pennsylvania

$19,325,222

$773,009

 

$43,286,041

$213,232

Rhode Island

$1,540,254

$40,533

 

$2,357,104

$31,428

South Carolina

$8,936,420

$194,270

 

$6,682,497

$53,891

South Dakota

$1,956,772

$55,908

 

$1,380,636

$37,314

Tennessee

$6,525,315

$407,832

 

$7,931,285

$80,114

Texas

$17,582,391

$1,172,159

 

$64,472,778

$429,819

Utah

$2,039,254

$135,950

 

$3,439,687

$45,862

Vermont

$403,797

$31,061

 

$778,987

$7,213

Virginia

$29,672,959

$741,824

 

$31,530,213

$315,302

Washington

$6,030,548

$231,944

 

$14,774,173

$150,757

West Virginia

$1,887,409

$111,024

 

$3,551,687

$61,236

Wisconsin

$4,072,434

$254,527

 

$7,655,752

$77,331

Wyoming

$224,039

$14,002

 

$719,877

$11,998

TOTAL

$357,345,096

   

$608,400,563

 

* Alabama and Maryland did not have legislative races in the 2007–2008 election period. Michigan and Minnesota had no senate seats up for election, while Nebraska has a unicameral (one-body) legislature.

Money Raised by Legislators Not Up for Election 

The 759 lawmakers who were not up for election in 2007–2008 nonetheless raised nearly $53 million. Sitting senators in 28 states, who typically have a four-year term, raised $47 million. The state representatives in three states—Alabama, Maryland and North Dakota—that also have four-year terms, raised nearly $5.5 million.

Twenty California state senators together amassed $9.9 million during their off-election year, followed closely by 16 Texas senators who raised $8 million. 184 legislators in Maryland raised $9.4 million.

Races for the Governor’s Mansion

Just 14 states held gubernatorial races in 2007 and 2008, typical of a presidential election year. The candidates raised $241 million, which is 12 percent more than the $215 million raised in the comparable 2003–2004 elections.2 Incumbent governors and lieutenant governors not up for election raised an additional $69.8 million.

North Carolina and Louisiana held the two most expensive races. The open race in North Carolina, which garnered $41 million, cost more than twice the $18.7 million in 2004. However, it was $9 million less than the cost of the open race in 2000, which garnered $32 million.

TABLE 4: Total Raised in Governor’s Races, 2007–2008 

State

Governor Race

Lt. Governor Race

Total

Percent Change from 2004

North Carolina*

$31,909,644

$9,139,752

$41,049,396

119%

Louisiana*

$35,117,604

$5,333,745

$40,451,350

16%

Kentucky

$36,926,540

$0

$36,926,540

48%

Missouri*

$25,804,426

$6,346,436

$32,150,862

10%

Indiana

$26,741,520 

$0

$26,741,520

-21%

Washington

$23,395,431

$227,268

$23,622,699

69%

Mississippi†

$17,883,586

$5,624,993

$23,508,579

-5%

Delaware*

$4,816,242

$1,043,522

$5,859,764

74%

Montana

$2,511,503

$0

$2,511,503

-26%

North Dakota

$2,354,586

$0

$2,354,586

13%

Vermont

$1,970,638

$271,504

$2,242,143

31%

West Virginia

$1,657,701

$0

$1,657,701

-85%

New Hampshire

$1,284,484

$0

$1,284,484

-80%

Utah

$981,672

$4,018

$985,691

-85%

TOTAL

$212,693,269

$28,653,548

$241,346,816

12%

*The governor’s race was open, but the lieutenant governor ran for re-election.

† The governor sought re-election, but the lieutenant governor’s race was open.

Gubernatorial races were monetarily competitiveduring the general election in just four of the 14 states:

  • Kentucky’s then-incumbent Gov. Ernie Fletcher was defeated by Democratic challenger Steven Beshear. Fletcher raised $7.6 million, 31 percent less than the $11 million raised by Beshear.
  • The 2007 open Louisiana race saw three candidates raising large sums. Republican Gov. Jindal, who won handily, raised $13.7 million, followed closely by $12.6 million raised by John Georges, who came in a distant third, and Walter Boasso, who raised $7 million.
  • Missouri’s open race was the least monetarily competitive. Jay Nixon, who won with 58 percent of the vote, raised $15 million. By comparison, his Republican opponent, Kenny Hulshof, raised $8.5 million and received just 39 percent of the vote.
  • The 2008 re-match between Gregoire and Rossi in Washington was once again highly competitive. Rossi, who very narrowly lost to Christine Gregoire in 2004, raised $11.5 million, while Gregoire raised $11.8 million. Gov. Gregoire fended off Rossi’s challenge, garnering 53 percent of the vote.

Incumbent governors sought re-election in eight of the 10 races that were not monetarily competitive. In the other races, incumbents from a different office were running to fill the open seats.

All but one of the 10 incumbent governors up for re-election won

Incumbency was a key component to victory. All but one of the 10 incumbent governors up for re-election won. The exception to the rule was then-Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher, who was soundly defeated in 2007 by Democratic challenger, Steven Beshear. Fletcher was also the only incumbent who raised less than the challenger. Fletcher raised $7.6 million, about two-thirds of the $11 million raised by Beshear.

The size of a candidate’s war chest also played a key role in determining who went on to become governor. The winners of all 14 contests had one thing in common: more money than any of their opponents.

In the four states with open races (where the incumbent governor did not seek re-election)—Delaware, Louisiana, Missouri and North Carolina—all four winners raised more money than their competitors.

Lieutenant Governor Races

Eight states held separate general elections for lieutenant governor. These races attracted nearly $28 million. In the five races where an incumbent sought re-election, the races garnered $12.2 million, while the races for three open seats raised $15.8 million.

As with the governor’s race, North Carolina’s lieutenant governor’s race was the most expensive, attracting just over $9 million. However, the winner of that race, Democrat Walter Dalton, who was riding on the coattails of his running mate, Bev Perdue, raised just $2.5 million, less than half the $5.5 million raised by his Republican opponent, Robert Pittenger.

Candidates’ Own Money

Money from the candidates’ own pockets accounted for nearly one of every five dollars raised in the gubernatorial elections. Of the 146 candidates who ran for governor or lieutenant governor, 60 gave $47 million of their own money to their own campaign. That turned out to be a poor investment, however, because none of the 23 candidates who self-financed a majority of their campaign won. In fact, 15 were eliminated during the primary election.

Incumbents Not Up for Election

34 sitting governors collected $53 million in contributions during the 2007–2008 election cycle, when they were not up for election. Leading the pack was California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who raised $14.4 million. While incumbents often raise money during their off-election years for future races, this was not the case with Schwarzenegger, who is prevented from seeking re-election in 2010 due to the state’s term limits.

In distant second was Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who raised $10 million. That money can go toward his 2010 re-election campaign.

Twenty sitting lieutenant governors raised $14.5 million. Texas Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst topped the list with $4.6 million, followed closely by Massachusetts Lt. Gov. Tim Murray.

  • 2. The 2004 total used here excludes the $31 million raised during the special California gubernatorial recall election held in 2004.

Judicial Races

In 2007 and 2008, 69 high court seats were up for election in 33 states, and 191 appellate seats were up for election in 30 states.

Nearly $62 million was raised by judicial candidates: $43.5 million in high court races and $18 million raised in appellate races.

Partisan races, in which candidates identify with a political party during the election, attracted most of the money—71 percent of all the money raised by high court candidates and 82 percent of the money raised in appellate races. Nonpartisan races, in which candidates are not listed on the ballot with a party affiliation, accounted for 28 percent of the money raised in high court races and 17 percent of the money raised in all appellate races. Retention elections—in which the current judge is placed on the ballot and voters choose whether the judge remains in office—attracted very little money.

Nearly one-half (48 percent) of the money raised by judicial candidates came from two sources: lawyers and lobbyists, and the candidates themselves. Lawyers, lobbyists and their firms gave more than $18 million, which was 29 percent of the money raised by all judicial candidates. Candidates gave $11.6 million of their own money, or 19 percent of the money raised.

Lawyers, lobbyists, and their firms gave more than $18 million to judicial candidates

The Institute also examined the money raised by high-court and appellate candidates in 2007–2008 to determine if a correlation existed between state-level judicial candidates’ electoral success, their ability to raise money, and their ethnicity, race or gender. The report, Diversity in State Judicial Campaigns, 2007–2008, found that women and members of ethnic or racial minorities were underrepresented on the ballot. But once on the ballot, the advantage of incumbency and the ability to raise money played key roles in the success of a campaign, regardless of a candidate’s gender or ethnicity.

TABLE 5: Total Raised by High Court and Appellate Court Candidates, 2007–2008

State

High Courts

Appellate Courts

Total to Court Candidates

Pennsylvania

$9,464,975

$3,985,214

$13,450,189

Texas

$4,406,234

$4,114,643

$8,520,877

Alabama

$4,472,621

$1,481,925

$5,954,546

Louisiana

$3,686,879

$1,155,709

$4,842,588

Ohio

$2,448,388

$1,757,237

$4,205,625

Wisconsin

$3,522,803

$641,460

$4,164,262

West Virgina

$3,303,480

$0

$3,303,480

Illinois

$1,091,092

$2,174,231

$3,265,323

Nevada

$3,135,214

$0

$3,135,214

Michigan

$2,614,260

$443,169

$3,057,429

Mississippi

$2,976,446

$0

$2,976,446

Georgia

$389,102

$779,783

$1,168,884

North Carolina

$178,273

$804,864

$983,137

Washington

$417,034

$218,128

$635,161

Arkansas

$86,635

$521,438

$608,073

Kentucky

$515,711

$0

$515,711

Montana

$334,446

$0

$334,446

Idaho

$243,190

$0

$243,190

Minnesota

$196,402

$34,050

$230,452

New Mexico

$51,656

$0

$51,656

Oregon

$7,525

$2,172

$9,697

TOTAL

$43,542,365

$18,114,023

$61,695,388

Who Gives to State Candidates?

The Institute classifies contributors according to their economic interests, relying on the occupation and/or employer information of the donors as provided by the reports, and performing additional research as needed.

Using this information, the Institute is able to analyze giving by economic sectors across state lines to discover patterns of giving. The following table shows contributions by economic sector to all candidates running for state-level offices in 2007–2008 elections.


Financing State Political Parties

Political parties provide another important vehicle for raising money for state candidates. This is especially true in those states that limit how much donors can give to candidates, but do not limit state political parties.

During the 2007–2008 elections, 100 Democratic and Republican state party committees raised nearly $370 million. An additional $178 million was raised by 141 legislative caucuses.3

Nationally, the 100 state political parties raised $73 million more in 2007–2008 than they raised in 2003–2004, a 25 percent increase. The increase was due in large part to the money raised in three states: the state parties in California and Florida raised $16 million more in 2008 than they raised in 2004, while in Ohio, an additional $14.5 million more than had been raised in 2004.  Together, the party committees in these three states accounted for nearly two-thirds of the $72 million increase from 2004 to 2008.

Democratic state party committees raised nearly $200 million, which is 16 percent more than the $170 million raised by the 50 Republican state committees. The state party committees in California and Florida once again were the top two money-raisers, as they have been since 2000.4

State political parties in half the states raised less than they did in 2004. Parties in the other 25 states raised more than in 2004. Party committees in South Carolina, Montana, Virginia and Mississippi experienced the greatest increase over their 2004 levels.

TABLE 6: Contributions to the 100 State Party Committees, 2007–2008

State

Rank

To Democratic Party

To Republican Party

Contributions Total

Percent Change

Alabama

22

$2,960,592

$1,344,874

$4,305,466

99.9%

Alaska

48

$60,789

$203,583

$264,373

-45.6%

Arizona

21

$4,053,106

$672,919

$4,726,025

-7.5%

Arkansas

25

$2,071,024

$1,255,367

$3,326,391

23.0%

California

1

$28,220,511

$31,231,424

$59,451,935

38.8%

Colorado

42

$176,378

$389,416

$565,794

-32.2%

Connecticut

45

$167,814

$234,428

$402,241

-50.9%

Delaware

30

$2,056,805

$660,190

$2,716,995

21.1%

Florida

2

$15,597,356

$37,246,976

$52,844,332

44.3%

Georgia

14

$2,236,189

$6,046,085

$8,282,274

-36.8%

Hawaii

43

$199,560

$345,280

$544,840

-72.2%

Idaho

40

$226,745

$444,871

$671,616

50.4%

Illinois

15

$4,699,896

$3,448,626

$8,148,522

-23.7%

Indiana

5

$10,619,223

$5,881,393

$16,500,616

33.7%

Iowa

7

$9,031,941

$4,334,366

$13,366,307

54.7%

Kansas

37

$1,310,615

$309,790

$1,620,405

31.6%

Kentucky

34

$1,044,011

$964,478

$2,008,489

-19.1%

Louisiana*

23

$1,842,903

$2,306,092

$4,148,996

-32.3%

Maine

32

$1,571,822

$948,773

$2,520,595

82.8%

Maryland

31

$1,901,285

$674,156

$2,575,441

1.8%

Massachusetts

28

$2,286,243

$596,960

$2,883,203

-18.5%

Michigan

17

$4,120,834

$2,628,190

$6,749,024

-14.5%

Minnesota

19

$4,712,731

$1,533,365

$6,246,096

-16.4%

Mississippi*

16

$371,870

$6,841,259

$7,213,129

254.2%

Missouri

6

$7,559,293

$5,858,603

$13,417,896

-39.5%

Montana

20

$3,555,356

$2,591,728

$6,147,084

319.6%

Nebraska

38

$597,400

$483,904

$1,081,304

58.6%

Nevada

18

$5,024,761

$1,284,881

$6,309,642

155.3%

New Hampshire

36

$1,507,150

$300,254

$1,807,403

29.0%

New Jersey*

12

$6,101,228

$3,979,309

$10,080,538

-32.6%

New Mexico

33

$644,581

$1,491,602

$2,136,184

55.3%

New York

13

$6,157,030

$2,247,660

$8,404,691

-25.4%

North Carolina

9

$10,596,016

$2,286,993

$12,883,009

41.6%

North Dakota

29

$1,580,671

$1,299,731

$2,880,402

38.3%

Ohio

3

$15,621,231

$8,493,568

$24,114,799

149.9%

Oklahoma

41

$97,381

$468,955

$566,335

-26.2%

Oregon

39

$391,329

$345,774

$737,103

-52.3%

Pennsylvania

4

$8,514,836

$9,631,010

$18,145,846

62.1%

Rhode Island

46

$178,501

$209,151

$387,652

-37.2%

South Carolina

27

$1,350,673

$1,671,368

$3,022,041

433.1%

South Dakota

44

$208,061

$252,838

$460,899

-50.1%

Tennessee

24

$2,012,169

$2,071,715

$4,083,884

-5.2%

Texas

11

$5,641,698

$4,590,761

$10,232,458

151.7%

Utah

26

$1,558,878

$1,664,006

$3,222,883

112.7%

Vermont

49

$59,937

$77,382

$137,319

-51.3%

Virginia*

8

$9,323,755

$3,701,795

$13,025,550

260.9%

Washington

10

$8,472,631

$3,580,426

$12,053,057

-5.5%

West Virginia

50

$101,054

$1,242

$102,296

-19.2%

Wisconsin

35

$681,807

$1,126,998

$1,808,805

-0.5%

Wyoming

47

$221,498

$88,091

$309,590

-69.3%

TOTAL

 

$199,299,169

$170,342,606

$369,641,776

25.00%

* Election was held in 2007

Who Gives to the Political Parties?

State political parties relied heavily on other party committees and candidate committees, which provided $128.5 million—one-third of the money raised by the 100 state parties. This was similar to 2003–2004, when they provided 30 percent of the money raised. 

Businesses and special interests, which gave a collective total of $127 million, were the next-largest source of funds, providing 34 percent of the money raised by state political parties. Individual donors, on the other hand, provided just 19 percent of the money raised. 

TABLE 7: Contributions to State Political Parties, by Type of Contributor, 2007–2008

Type of Contributor

Democratic State Parties

Republican State Parties

Total

Political Parties And Candidates

 $75,418,291

$53,037,748

$128,456,039

Businesses & Special Interests

 $55,817,928

$71,452,341

$127,270,269

Individuals

$32,677,865

$37,559,167

$70,237,032

Labor Organizations

 $31,048,849

$1,924,232

$32,973,081

Unitemized Donations

 $1,899,906

$3,285,326

$5,185,232

Leadership Committees

 $1,807,492

$2,677,833

$4,485,325

Public Funds

 $628,838

$405,959

$1,034,797

TOTAL

$199,299,169

$170,342,606

$369,641,776

Donors from three of the six top industries showed a significant preference for Democratic parties. The public sector and general trade unions together gave $26.5 million more to Democratic state parties, and lawyers and lobbyists gave $8 million more.

TABLE 8: Top-Contributing Industries To State Party Committees, 2007–2008

Top Industry

To Democratic State Parties

To Republican State Parties

Total

Public Sector Unions

$17,841,563

$1,686,902

$19,528,465

Lawyers & Lobbyists

$13,016,507

$4,453,976

$17,470,483

Real Estate

$5,199,980

$9,381,195

$14,581,174

Gambling & Casinos

$2,036,756

$8,826,530

$10,863,286

General Trade Unions

$10,544,304

$174,040

$10,718,344

Securities & Investment

$5,475,985

$4,798,568

$10,274,553

TOTAL

$54,115,094

$29,321,211

$83,436,305

Favoring Republican party committees were donors from real estate, gambling and casinos interests —together, they gave nearly $11 million more to Republican state parties.

  • 3. Given the changing nature of legislative caucuses over time, it is not feasible to make a cycle-to-cycle comparison of the money these legislative caucuses raised.  Therefore the analysis in this report focuses on the money raised by the 100 Democratic and Republican state political parties in the 50 states.
  • 4. The Institute began collecting party committee reports in all 50 states beginning in 2000.

Ballot Measures Attract Record Millions

In 2008, voters in 36 states faced 172 ballot measures that covered a broad spectrum of issues, from property taxes and school funding to hot-button issues around same-sex marriage and abortion.

Committees that organized around ballot measures brought in nearly $814 million, significantly higher than in previous years

Committees that organized around ballot measures brought in nearly $814 million, significantly higher than seen in previous years: $55.4 million in 2007, $684.4 million in 2006, $466.1 million in 2005, and $505.1 million in 2004.

Gambling drew the most attention and money in 2008, as high-rolling donors poured $273.2 million into 12 measures in nine states. Same-sex marriage measures generated $120.4 million in three states.

While ballot measures are widely regarded as a means for direct citizen participation in lawmaking, a close look at who funds the campaigns around the measures shows a different story. Individuals provided just 18 percent of the money raised around measures. Instead, businesses and special interests were the primary financiers, contributing more than two-thirds of the money. Labor organizations provided 11 percent of the money.

California measures attracted far and away the most money, at $471.6 million. Second-ranked Ohio trailed with $86.5 million. Colorado measures brought in $73 million. A dozen states saw no money raised around their ballot measures at all.

Seventy-two percent of ballot measure contributions came from donors within the state deciding the question.

For a detailed look at the money raised around 2008 ballot measures, see the Institute’s report, 2008 Ballot Measure Overview.

2007 Ballot Measures

Voters in nine states considered 38 very diverse ballot measures in 2007. The Institute focused on 12 major ballot measures in six states—Alaska, Maine, Oregon, Texas, Utah and Washington—and analyzed the money raised by the committees that raised money to support or oppose those measures.

For a detailed look at the money raised around the 12 high-profile measures in 2007, see the Institute’s report, 2007 Ballot Measures: Overview of 12 High-Profile Measures.

—END—

http://www.followthemoney.org/press/PrintReportView.phtml?r=420

→ Leave a comment

Posted in General Information

Parents serve jail time with children for truancy

Posted on May 30, 2010 by | 2 Comments

TEMPLE – A mother and daughter were booked into Bell County Jail on Tuesday, one of many cases of parents serving time with their children for contempt of court after truancy.

Melissa Diane Mayo and Ashley Mayo are just the latest in a series of people behind bars for missing class.

The Temple Independent School District attendance policy is similar to that of all other districts across the state.

It reads that if a child under 18 is “absent from school on 10 or more days or partial days within a six-month period in the same school year, or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period,” the parent will be prosecuted for contributing to truancy and the child for failure to attend school.

While Judge David Barfield is not at liberty to discuss the particular case of the Mayos, he and the constable told News Channel 25 that being held “in contempt of court” is often for not complying with previous court orders having to do with truancy.

Read More;

http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=12549621

→ 2 Comments

Posted in Jails/Prison

Tagged , , , , , ,

Real Ammunition to Take Out the Revenue Enhancement Cameras!

Posted on May 29, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Meet-

Chad Dornsife, Executive Director

Best Highway Safety Practices Institute

cdornsife@bhspi.org

The Best Highway Safety Practices Institute

See Chad Dornsife’s excellent Power point presentation from 2002 that explains step by step how our transportation safety practices have been transformed to accommodate new, profit driven methods of enforcement.

Red Light Camera history, law cites, best practices, before and after charts.

 

This presentation includes charts that illustrate the facts-Automated enforcement devices like Red Light Cameras are NOT for the purpose of improving safety. Even worse, often they put us at a greater risk of harm.

Mr. Dornsife has laid out here, in 2002, what people are beginning to figure out from years of experience with these “safety devices” in their communities.

Another eye opener.

Chad Dornsife’s rebuttal to SB 61, a 2007 Nevada State bill.

SUMMARY—Provides for a pilot program for local governments

to use certain automated systems for the enforcement of traffic laws.

“We the People” didn’t have a chance when it came to automated enforcement. While many are getting in line to milk this cash cow, those at the top that legalized this public theft at the expense of safety and due process have already cashed out – BIG!

says Chad Dornsife

What is interesting about this paper is the points he raises about NHTSA’s role and the examples of the corrupt behaviors and motivations behind such legislation. The information in this brief is ammunition for every opponent of the Sham Scameras and other bogus so-called safety devices that are being implemented as a means to drain driver’s and fatten the wallets of some.

Without exception, in every city we have examined with cameras, the signal timing is inadequate and it must remain that way for the cameras to be financially viable. If the cameras could reduce red light running, their business model fails.

Simply stated, without high sustainable violation rates nobody makes money and the cameras are removed.

Want proof ? Click on the links for the two documents above and check it out!

Another thing, there seems to be a real issue with government officials making these police state, privacy busting laws for us and weaving in loopholes or making exceptions for themselves and their buddies.

“They’ve exempted themselves from the rules they’re enforcing,” said Chad Dornsife, director of the Best Highway Safety Practices Institute.

“They know it, is what’s really sick about this. This isn’t some surprise that when the camera comes out they don’t have to worry about it.”

https://www.privacyforcops.org/news.php?id=4

Steal this list!!

I don’t think Mr. Kokesh will mind at all. The principles he espouses would make a good checklist to use when evaluating our representatives and ourselves.

See Adam Kokesh’s 10 principles of good government.

Number 10 speaks to this exact issue

Mr. Dornsife’s website;

The Best Highway Safety Practices Institute

The Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that provides professionals, policy makers, the press and the public with empirical data, findings, guidance, recommended practices and resources to advance best practices and fair laws. The Institute was founded in 2004, in Portland, Oregon by professionals who specialize in highway safety issues.

The Institute focuses on a holistic approach to education, research, best practices and their application, and assuring public policy is founded in best practices to achieve roadway safety and that the exercise of police powers thereof is Constitutional. We can make our roads safer, return to fair laws and reduce our carbon footprint, too.

Best Practice is defined by those practices that have been verified by field research and are peer reviewed before adoption.

In 1966, Congress passed The Highway Safety Act of 1966 which began a process to require that all traffic control devices on public roadways in the nation be based on sound engineering principles, practices and have a uniform basis in–fact determination, appearance, expectation and application on all roads open to public travel regardless of state lines, jurisdiction type or classification.

Also;

Motorists’ Rights

Motorists’ Rights… Matter, because they represent the Rule of Law, the core values of fairness that our Country was founded on.

Today, more than 90 percent of traffic citations issued, and the majority of traffic stops, have no factual foundation from a safety perspective.

Worse is the entitlement attitude of public officials who sustain and expand these revenue streams and power for themselves and their interest-aligned constituents, not “We the People.”

This problem is compounded by a faux court system whose very existence is dependent on these illicit enterprises where the Rule of Law need not apply- but they do have payment plans.

————————

Richard Colter , President of Motorists Union

www.motoristunion.org

Mission of the Motorist Union

Become a member of Motorists Union and see Colter’s Guide to The Police States of America.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in AxXiom for Liberty Radio, federal government, Federalism, Photo Enforcement

Tagged , , , , ,

And we thought the Scameras were bad! IBM Patent to Stop Car Engines Remotely

Posted on May 29, 2010 by | 1 Comment

Once they have their foot in the door, tagging, tracking and monitoring us, why not?

Ax

IBM patent goes Big Brother

Running red lights and failure to stop leads to untold numbers of traffic accidents around the world. Sitting at a red light with cars idling also burns fuel that really isn’t needed.

IBM has filed a patent application that outlines a system that would turn the motors of a car off at a traffic light to conserve fuel. Few will take issue with green technology that conserves fuel, saves them money, and reduces pollution. However, there is a dark side to the patent application that privacy advocates will not like.

The system IBM is proposing has to have access to the engine of the vehicles at the light to stop the engine. With access to the engine, the traffic lights can not only stop the engine of a driver’s car, but it can also determine the duration that the engine is stopped and then when the light is over it can start the motors of the cars up in sequential order so the first cars at the light get to go first. The system would use GPS data to know where vehicles were located at the light.

Read more;

http://www.dailytech.com/IBM%20Patent%20Application%20Describes%20Intelligent%20Stop%20Lights%20That%20Turn%20Off%20Cars/article18514.htm

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Intelligent Transportation Sysytems

Tagged , , , , ,

Adam Kokesh for US Congress

Posted on May 29, 2010 by | 1 Comment

District 3 New Mexico

http://www.kokeshforcongress.com

Want to Help Adam Kokesh win?

Phone Banking:

http://www.CallforKokesh.com

Up for a Road Trip to NM?

From now until June 1 (NM Primary Day) The Kokesh for Congress Campaign would appreciate some extra friendly faces to help them with the final push.

For more info call 505-470-1917

Adam Kokesh’s Principles of Good Government

By Adam Kokesh, on May 26, 2010


1. Government must act only within its Constitutional legal authority.

2. We should evaluate government programs based on specific objectives and alter or abolish programs that do not meet their goals.

3. To shrink government responsibly, we should prioritize cutting programs based on which are the most harmful or wasteful.

4. Except for cutting harmful or wasteful programs, change should be made incrementally, with continuous assessment, and followed by precise adjustments.

5. All votes should be about one issue at a time.

6. Every function of government should be conducted at the most local level practical.

7. The federal government should never threaten to withhold funds in order to manipulate States or local governments.

8. All government budgets, agency rules, and proposed policy should be posted online in a way that is easily accessible in plain language.

9. Laws and agency policy should protect whistleblowers who speak out from within our government.

10. Elected leaders should live by the same set of laws and under the same programs as everyone affected by their policies

Connect

TWITTER


Facebook


→ 1 Comment

Posted in Activism, Constitutional Conservatives

Tagged , , , ,

About those Oklahoma Spy Cams..There is more to this than meets the eye.

Posted on May 28, 2010 by | Leave a comment 
The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, Automatic License Plate Recognition and the Alliance for Toll Interoperability

READ THIS!

About those Oklahoma Spy Cams..

There is more to this than meets the eye.



We will be exposing much more about this story tonight

AxXiom & Maxim for Liberty!

6-8 cst on http://www.ruleoflawradio.com

Oklahoma Turnpike Orders New Sticker Tags-Revenue Enhancement, Surveillance Tool for the state

By early August Oklahoma’s turnpikes should all be fully equipped with TransCore’s dual mode E6 readers (Encompass 6) to allow a start on a two to three year transition away from the existing hardcase/battery-equipped Allegro transponders to eGo Plus sticker tags. The reader infrastructure will consist of E6 readers installed in 377 toll lanes (plus 23 spares purchased) on ten turnpikes – 400 readers for $6m, they tell us.

Yesterday the Authority placed their first order for new eGo Plus (ISO 18000 6B) tags – 278k sticker tags @$9.40 apiece and 11k exterior mount tags @ $26ea (mainly for motorbikes). They expect the first deliveries within weeks.

Total cost of the 289k eGo+ tags: $2.92m.

85% done with reader switchover

David Machamer director of toll operations at the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) says that as of this week they’ve switched out about 325 lanes from the old Allegro/ATA dual mode protocol readers to the new E6s which read Allegro and Super eGo protocols (or any two of several other protocols if needed).

Read more

http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/4760


The McCarville Report;


No attention was drawn to the $50 million-in-new-revenue plan until The McCarville Report Online began a series of articles about it last Friday.


No attention in a major way, that is. But months ago, Norman blogger Kaye Beach was asking pointed questions about the plan. She, along with fellow blogger Andrew Griffin, delivered a letter to Governor Henry’s office asking that “sunlight” be allowed to shine on the plan. She never got a response.

McCarville writes;

In retrospect, Henry might today wish he had addressed the subject then because today, the lack of public discussion about the plan figures in the theory by some that Henry and others wanted the plan to “fly under the radar” and they hoped few outside state government would notice it.

Even some in state government didn’t have a clue about the program until TMRO reported on it. Said one House member: “I had never heard of this until I saw your first story.”

Beach’s December 19th letter to Henry, which got no response:

Governor Henry,

I am writing you to express my concern about the proposed automobile license plate scanning cameras to be placed in fixed locations around Oklahoma. This is allegedly a way for the state to automatically verify the insurance status of our vehicles as they pass.

We all agree that the damage caused by uninsured motorists is a big problem, but now, on top of the risk of uncompensated personal loss or damaged property caused by an irresponsible driver we learn that we will also be subjected to unwarranted monitoring by the state of Oklahoma.

My question to you, Gov. Henry, is will you refrain from using the executive powers of the state to decide the matter and allow the people and their representatives an open examination of this issue so that they can properly weigh its merits and cast their votes accordingly?

This is a decision that should not be made without ample sunlight.

I appreciate your consideration.

Sincerely,
Kaye Beach
Norman, Oklahoma

Read More
http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/

Chad will tell us about a new project with Richard Colter, Pres of Motorists Union and narrator of;

“Colter’s Guide to the Police States of America”

Traffic tickets are a taboo subject matter in America, because of the widespread perception that the system is based on fraud and corruption. This is especially true of speeding tickets, which explains why there has never been a documentary film on the subject. Documentary film maker Richard Colter tackles the complex subject of speed limit enforcement in his film trilogy “COLTER’S GUIDE TO THE POLICE STATES OF AMERICA”.

For the first time, Richard takes you step by step through the process of setting and posting a proper speed limit. After you understand how speed limits are properly determined, Richard takes you on a journey to find a properly set speed limit. Along the way, you’ll hear from Government Officials, Traffic Engineers, and Safety Experts, with in-depth legal analysis of the Constitutional issues surrounding speed limit enforcement.

The first film covers the engineering aspects of speed limits, while the second film will cover the judicial/legal aspects, followed by a film covering quantitative issues. With all of the economic, political, and Constitutional issues facing America today, there has never been a better time to bring the truth to American’s, especially on a subject which affects the safety, dignity, and constitutional rights of every American!!

http://www.motoristunion.org/SignIn.aspx

Become a member and download the movie!

Also on MotoristsUnion.org

Federal Petition – Class Action Law Suit

When you become a Motorist Union Member, you are automatically enrolled in the Petition which seeks damages against your Government, and all other involved parties such as insurance companies.

The petition filed in each state will request injunctive relief, to stop the issuing of speeding tickets until your government can show compliance with all Constitutional requirements.

http://www.motoristunion.org/Default.aspx


→ Leave a comment

Posted in Activism, Armed Lobby, AxXiom for Liberty Radio, Corporate Lobby, Data Minining, domestic surveillance, Intelligent Transportation Sysytems, Legislation, Oklahoma Politics, People Tracking, Photo Enforcement, Police State, Privacy, Surveillance Technology, Traffic Safety

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Project CrisCros – Cameras from Chicago to the Mexican Border

Posted on May 28, 2010 by | Leave a comment

Project CrisCros – Cameras from Chicago to the Mexican Border

April 30th, 2010

[From Security Info Watch via Crain's Chicago Business]

The Chicago Police Department is pushing for the use of 200 cameras along interstate highways between Chicago and Mexico. The cameras would be fitted with ALPR technology, allowing them to identify suspicious cars. This would become the nation’s largest interstate police camera surveillance system. Specifically, the project would include “192 stationary cameras covering roughly 1,200 miles of highway across 13 states and connected to 50 mobile license plate recognition systems in vehicles.” The data that comes out of this will be immense:

Pictures of license plates and the rear end of vehicles would be time-stamped with GPS coordinates and fed into a computer that would compare them against local or national hot lists of suspect vehicles, with the information shared by participating agencies. In addition, the data would be used to analyze trends and develop patterns of travel by vehicles suspected of trafficking contraband between Chicago and the border of Mexico, according to the proposal.

Read more;

http://www.smartcamerasblog.com/2010/04/project-criscros-cameras-from-chicago-to-the-mexican-border/

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Automatic License Plate Recognition, domestic surveillance, Photo Enforcement, Surveillance Technology

Tagged , , , , , ,

If you want to know what your government to going to do to you next, then keep your eye on the IACP

Posted on May 28, 2010 by | 4 Comments

May 28, 2010

First, a Resolution by the International association of Chiefs of Police;

 

Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) systems consist of high-speed cameras combined with sophisticated computer algorithms capable of converting the images of license plates into computer-readable data, automatically comparing the plates against key databases (e.g., stolen and wanted vehicles), and stamping the date, time, and location at which the image was captured. The technology has proven particularly effective for law enforcement in a variety of operational settings.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police passed a resolution about Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) technology during the 2007 IACP Annual Conference in New Orleans, Louisiana:

“This resolution strongly encourages the U.S. Congress to fully fund license plate reader and related digital photographing systems, including interrelated information sharing networks, for the northern and southern borders of the United States and encourages all countries to use like technology, to the extent possible, to share appropriate law enforcement information.”

 

Technology Solutions from IACP

2007

Written by Thomas M. Manson

The 114th Annual International Association of Chiefs of Police conference held this year in year New Orleans drew 13,000 chiefs of police and other agency decision makers. The 500,000 square feet within the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center was dedicated to the Law Enforcement Education and Technology Exposition providing display space for more than 750 product manufacturers and companies.

Many companies wait to release new products at the major conferences like IACP, but this year’s conference was filled with products in which computers and technology played an especially large role. This was evidence by the overflow of companies from the Computer Pavilion, the space usually dedicated to technical-related products. After quickly filling up the space in this pavilion, computer-related products and companies were placed into other areas throughout the exhibit hall where space was available. The following is a partial list of some of the emerging technologies and products found at this year’s 2007 IACP conference.



Hilights:

Now this is exciting!

Imageware Systems Inc. Law Enforcement Facial Recognition

Why it’s a big deal: Biometric tool used to identify people from their picture.

Application: Detention, population control, identifying wanted persons in a crowd. IWS™ Law Enforcement Facial Recognition allows personnel to conduct searches using photographs against existing database like they would currently do with fingerprints. Photos can be scanned or imported into the system.

Detention? Population control? Nice.

Which database would have the required digital photos to enable this sort of mass surveillance?

Hint-the DMV database is loaded with ready to go biometric photos’s. Why wait for a special occasion to pull a dragnet when you can run them every day?

Biometrically enabled DMV photographs and your cctv/alpr cams can make mass surveillance tech really pay! Go ahead-tap into billions of dollars by fleecing the sheeple for all they are worth! Back taxes, parking tickets, roadway usage taxes, open road tolling-the options are endless.

Oh yes! They share!


The system works with several distinct facial characteristics as search variables such as distance between the eyes. A person might be able to change his appearance, but he is unlikely to change the distance between his eyeballs. The system can be a standalone program or integrated with other IWS solutions.

Knowledge Computing Corp. COPLINK

Why it’s a big deal: Analytic software that reveals leads and patterns from multiple databases. Application: Personnel can access unrelated databases to immediately develop cases leads. Law enforcement personnel rarely get excited about analytic software. The mere mention of the words “analytic software” usually get most officers running for cover. But COPLINK® is different. It is allows agencies to view pertinent data and leads from potentially thousands of databases—graphically.

Every day police reports and other databases grow with data. Multiple witnesses to crimes leave their traces in reports and interview statements. Thousands of calls for service are made, stored and recorded. But accessing this data in a logical method is next to impossible. COPLINK by Knowledge Computing allows complicated searches of seemingly unrelated database to be completed in seconds, often returning surprisingly accurate investigation leads and previously unknown connections.
http://www.hendonpub.com/resources/articlearchive/details.aspx?ID=204869

ASMAG reports;

Keeping Plates in Check

Automatic license/number plate recognition (ALPR/ANPR) is a fast developing technology that has been proven very effective in many applications such as vehicular access control and speed regulation. Combining ALPR/ANPR with video surveillance is even more useful as it provides context information as evidence.

Major applications, said McManus, include security and law enforcement, tolling and congestion charging, access control and parking management, and journey time information. “Security and law enforcement plus tolling accounted for more than 60 percent of the revenues generated in 2008. In terms of units, more access control and parking systems were sold, accounting for more than half of the market.”

http://www.asmag.com/print_article.aspx?id=7797

 

Automatic License Plate Reader is used for a varied number of security purposes:

1. A London municipality uses it as part of their area wide security system.
2. Automatic License Plate Reader is used in border controls to let citizens of some countries to pass through without any checks.
3. It has been used in events to identify potential troublemakers and limit their attendance and foe Intrusion Detection.
4. Some of the uses of Automatic License Plate Reader are not being publicized due to the sensitive nature of the information.


LineUp uses artificial intelligence


to identify and document human faces through video streaming. It sends out instant alerts when a security violation happens pr a parameter is breached. The instant alerts give the security personnel and police officers an advantage over the violators.

http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200905/1241157999.html

 

Burka anyone?

We have so much to look forward to gang! Oops. That is a figure of speech-ok?

www.axxiomforliberty.com

→ 4 Comments

Posted in General Information

If you aren’t outraged about the new revenue enhancement system that our Governor decided to “gift” us with on his way out the door-then you aren’t paying attention.

Posted on May 26, 2010 by | 4 Comments

. . .And you haven’t heard about the “New Paradigm”

Kaye Beach

May 26, 2010

I heard a fellow on the radio yesterday saying he wasn’t worried about the government sharing his information for no reason.  He was not concerned about the possibility of information collected by ALPR (Automatic License Plate Recognition) cameras with private companies.  I don’t think he even considered the possibility of how this information could be combined with other data to give even more intimate detail to the digital factoids collected, collated analyzed and shared about each of us.

This gentleman is under the widely shared impression that it is not legal to share such information without just cause.  This mis-perception combined with fact that he considers himself to be a law abiding person made him unconcerned about possible abuses of this system.

I think this man like many of us remember the adage repeated often by those in law enforcement that information is shared ”on a need to know basis”


Unless you are paying close attention, the changes taking place in technology, policy and law are still largely imperceptible though you might have a sneaking suspicion that things just ain’t what they used to be.

Our government is fully on board with a new method of policing called “Intelligence Led Policing”.  The International Chiefs of Police like to call it ”The New Paradigm” of policing. An import from the UK and based upon utilitarian thought, Intelligence Led Policing is focused on preventing or predicting who among us might be predisposed to committing a crime, an act of terrorism or in some manner be a “threat to public safety” well before the actual threat manifests.

Traditionally, police officers wait for intelligence. To be preventative, however, authorities must actively seek information and intelligence, and actively search for persons who may be suspicious—not simply respond to calls of suspicious persons or circumstances.

Police officers should seek to assess threats that may not rise to a level of suspicion that police would traditionally use to justify arrest or detention. link

Russell Porter who, in 1997 was the Special Agent in Charge of the Intelligence Bureau, Iowa Department of public Safety pitched ILP like this;

Why Do We Need Intelligence-Led Policing

Physicians are trained to diagnose a patient — before initiating a medical intervention. Good mechanics figure out what’s really wrong with a car’s motor –before they start replacing engine parts.Professional football teams utilize scouts — before the players take the field — to gather information that will improve the team’s chances of winning.

So with ILP, according to Russell Porter, widespread surveillance is a necessary part of the diagnostic process.

Where is Mr. Porter now?

  • Russell Porter, Director, Intelligence Fusion Center, Iowa Department of Public Safety
    Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit (LEIU)

  • Chairman of the Criminal Intelligence Coordinating Council

He also serves as Chairman of the Global Intelligence Working Group (part of the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, affiliated with the U.S. Department of Justice). The GIWG supported the development of the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) as a blueprint to assist law enforcement personnel in their crime-fighting, public safety, and anti-terrorism efforts.

http://www.iir.com/global/council.htm

Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder

October 07, 2004

As part of its continuing effort to enhance the safety and security of communities throughout the United States and the world, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), in partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and a broad-based group of private sector/law enforcement professionals, released a comprehensive report entitled: Building Private Security/Public Policing Partnerships to Prevent and Respond to Terrorism and Public Disorder. The 38-page report outlines a national strategy to strengthen existing partnerships between private security and public law enforcement agencies and to assist in the creation of new ones.

The report is the outgrowth of a national policy summit on this issue that was held earlier this year by IACP, supported by its Private Sector Liaison Committee, and co-sponsored by the American Society of Industrial Security International (ASIS), the International Security Management Association (ISMA), the National Association of Security Companies (NASCO), and the
Security Industry Association (SIA). (remember these guys? They are the ones who went over our heads by writing a letter to Gov Henry asking him  to veto the anti -RFID bill which would have given us a measure of protection from being tracked through our ID cards and driver’s licenses.  What is our privacy compared to profit?  Say Mooooo….)

I understand why the notion of stopping a violent act before it happens is such an attractive idea but besides the fact that there is no evidence that we can discern intent through various means of surveillance, such a policy clashes mightily with the fundamentals of our form of government and philosophy of law.

As far as sharing personal information with private industry-Yes. They do and they will. I get my information from reading source documents-thousands of them. Partnering with private business for the purpose of two way sharing is a core tenant for every domestic security policy I know of since 9 11.

Commercial databases. A majority of state and local intelligence fusion centers subscribe to services from consumer database vendors such as LexisNexis, Lexis’s Accurint, and ChoicePoint, which house public-record data as well as personal data like credit applications or unlisted mobile telephone numbers. Read More Fusion Centers Forge Ahead



The Information Flow Model of ChoicePoint’s Operations. The rounded boxes below

the center ChoicePoint rectangle represent data leaving ChoicePoint, while the rectangles above ChoicePoint’s name reflect sources of data entering the company

What are Fusion Centers.


http://it.ojp.gov/documents/fusion_center_guidelines.pdf

Information collected and shared about us has real consequences.

People in this country have been denied jobs, hauled into the police station, denied or overcharged on insurance, turned down for credit, been put onto a watch list or entered into a database or maybe even treated to the third degree at the airport, without ever knowing why or connecting these events to the new policies of broad information sharing that have been adopted since 9 11. Mistakes happen, right?

It is important when evaluating the merit of any of these new “security” features being heaped upon us to understand that things have changed quite drastically in the last decade and our assumptions need to be checked against new realities.

The development of Public Private Partnerships and seamless sharing of information that is cross jurisdictional and international is deemed essential to the “New Paradigm”.

We are under surveillance and it is profitable. This spells big trouble for freedom.


→ 4 Comments

Posted in Automatic License Plate Recognition, Data Minining, domestic surveillance, federal government, Fusion Centers, Government Surveillance, International Association of Chiefs of Police, Oklahoma Fusion Center, Oklahoma State Government, People Tracking, Photo Enforcement, Privacy, Surveillance Technology, Traffic Safety

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Oklahoma ALPR Tag Scanning Cameras Transportation Tyranny

Posted on May 24, 2010 by | 1 Comment

According to “The McCarville Report”

New License Plate Part Of ‘Spy Cam’ Plan

May 23, 2010

Governor Henry’s plan to install more than 200 highway “spy” cameras to record vehicle license plates has been flying below the radar in state government for more than a year and despite a few news stories about it, the full extent of the system, and those involved in implementing it, has not been revealed until now.

[. . .]The new plate and barcode inclusion movement began more than a year ago when Republican Rep. Ken Miller discussed his House Bill 2013, and what he said was the need for a new plate design, on the House floor.

*See “Woolly Boogers Loose in the Oklahoma State House? Online insurance verification bill”

[. . .] The barcode is necessary in the system because the InsureNet technology assigns a “UC”, (Unique Code), to each combination of policy and VIN, (Vehicle Identification Number), which becomes the ‘bridge’ between insurers and government entities and records. In other words, the barcode allows instant access to information about the vehicle and its owner.

Read more;

http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/

*See

Oklahoma DPS’s ” Request for Information” Dated Oct 15, 2009 lays out what they are looking for in a system

pertinent  source documents

Gov. Henry and InsureNet, Spying and Denying Heads Up Gun Owners! 2/22/10

Insurenet get sole source contract;


Insurnet No Competition-Bill Would Hand DMV Contract to One

Do we like lobbyists writing the bills?

*See
INSURENET They Always “Fit The Bill” ;)

Automatic License Plate Recognition In Oklahoma

January 4, 2010 at 7:05 pm

Soon after queries were made to Governor Henry regarding license plate scanning devices some very interesting information came to light that seems to give more of the “big picture” on why these devices are so important to the state.

The Alliance for Toll Interoperability is a fairly new organization comprised of representatives of the transportation industry from several states. David Machamer, the Director of Toll Operations for the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority is on the board of trustees of ATI. This organization has come up with an interoperable toll charging plan that requires the use of ALPR (Automatic License Plate Readers) in order to be workable.

The plan also includes other schemes for tracking motorists and charging for various roadway usage fees through electronic registration tags (RFID) as well as cellular and satellite technology which begs the question;Does the push to make texting illegal while driving and law enforcement’s apparent desire to access to our cell phones at will and without having to get a warrant in order to access them as part of the texting ban have anything to do with ATI’s charging/tracking scheme?

Read More;

http://www.scribd.com/doc/26145643/Automatic-License-Plate-Recognition-In-Oklahoma

___________________________________________

ALPR-what is the data collected used for?

Read WAR ROOMS

“This is the new intelligent policing. It is one more incremental step in creating this vast matrix of surveillance.” –Micheal Vonn

Glendale CA. 2010

VIDEO ENFORCEMENT & SECURITY PROJECT
Amount Requested: $500,000
Project Summary: Continue present UASI funded Rail and Transportation video project into retail and commercial areas where audio/video surveillance will prove a valuable crime fighting
tool. Install audio and video capable technologies in high crime and predicted crime sites.
Continue Homeland Security funded teclnologies, such as Automated License Plate Readers, into crime fighting applications by installing ALPR’s at fixed sites accessed by suspected criminals.
REAL TIME CRIME ANALYSIS AND INFORMATION FLOW
Amount Requested: $300,000
Project Summary: Establish crime information “War Room” with state of the art real-time inlonnation gathering, analysis, and dissemination that links with regional applications and programs, such as the JRlC fusion Center and LAPD’s RACR and Compstat information systems on all intelligence concerning crime, regional threats, and terrorist activity. The goal is to identity where a crime will be committed before it happens, enabling police resources to be directed to specific high risk locations with the intent of interrupting and preventing crimes before they even occur.
LAW ENFORC[MENT BROADBAND COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK
Amount Request: $500,000
Project Summary: Establish a regional wireless broadband communications network employing the city's optical fiber backbone and core network to establish and enhance emergency communications and intelligence sharing between field resources, to include support of vehicle based audio/video, dispatch support, intelligence gathering, data communications,
ALPR, visual wanted persons verifications, remote fingerprint identification, community policing enhancement, and real-time crime scene audio/video. This system will interoperate with
other regional data sharing and criminal intelligence networks.

____________________________________

"InsureNet" would protect drivers, generate revenue

1/25/10

Kansas Legislator, Cindy Neighbor writes;

On Wednesday, the House Transportation Committee heard testimony in support of a new, statewide system for tracking uninsured vehicles.  The system, InsureNet, has already been installed in a variety of states, including Nebraska and Pennsylvania.

The intelligent tracking systems (Intellisections) would take pictures of the rear of vehicles and process the license information through a national intranet system within one minute. If the identified vehicle is uninsured, the owner will receive a citation in the mail.

There is no cost for implementation.  The service, maintenance, and equipment are paid for by a portion of the new revenue InsureNet generates.  It is estimated that $150 million in uninsured motorist fees will be generated for the state of Kansas in the first year.

In a year of unprecedented economic crisis, we absolutely must put all revenue-enhancing ideas on the table.  InsureNet appears to be a creative way to both generate revenue and protect Kansas citizens on the road.

Read More;

http://www.cindyneighbor.org/Neighbor-News-Updates/legislative-news-update-2010-01-25.html

From The McCarville Report;

Former Oklahoma Legislator,Sports Heroes Hawk InsureNet in Kansas 2010

http://www.scribd.com/doc/31799906/Oklahoma-Sports-Heros-Hawk-InsureNet-in-Kansas-2010

Henry Outlined 'Spy Cam' Plan In Executive Budget

From "The McCarville Report"

May 21, 10

Governor Brad Henry proposed the use of highway cameras ("spy cameras" to many) in his budget earlier this year. Note that the word "camera" is not mentioned.

Read more;

http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2010/05/henry-outlined-spy-camera-plan-in.html

 

National Leader In Use Of Highway Camera Data Employs Former Rep. Wayne Pettigrew

The McCarville Report;

From a business website reporting on the firm's efforts in Arkansas: Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry is interested in InsureNet technology, too.

The company wants to put up 220 cameras at sites picked by the Oklahoma Department of Transportation and Oklahoma Turnpike Authority. The company would keep 30 percent of each $250 fine.

"After getting about your second ticket, you'd keep your insurance current,"

said InsureNet spokesman Wayne Pettigrew, a former Oklahoma legislator.

Wayne Pettigrew, former Oklahoma House member, is the National Marketing & Government Relations director for the nation's leading firm in administering data on vehicle insurance data gathered using controversial highway cameras, the firm's website discloses.

Read More;

http://wwwtmrcom.blogspot.com/2010/05/national-leader-in-use-of-highway.html

 

A Surveillance State Is Not A Budget Solution

Gov. Jim Gibbons recently announced that he is reconsidering a plan -- already rejected by the 2009 Legislature -- to install a surveillance net of cameras throughout Nevada's roadways to catch "insurance scofflaws." The plan's efficacy is questionable at best. All we know for sure is that it would be a big step forward to making Nevada a surveillance state.
Nevada Views:

By Maggie McLetchie
Under this particular surveillance network, every license plate would be scanned, captured and analyzed by a private company. There is an astonishing lack of control over how private businesses use or disseminate all the data they collect about us. But what we do know is that in every case where massive amounts of data are stored by private companies -- Internet providers, Web site operators, phone companies, cell phone GPS systems, for example -- the government has later attempted to obtain that information without oversight, accountability or, most importantly, a warrant.
The government could, for example, seek the camera records of every car attending a particular political rally; could track the daily traffic patterns of individuals; could even request that InsureNet provide them with real-time location of a particular car -- without any court oversight or warrant.

And no one should understand the privacy risks like residents of Las Vegas. In 2004, the FBI requested and received hundreds of thousands of customer records from private car rental, air and hotel companies -- and all of this data, which many tourists probably hoped would stay in Vegas, remains somewhere in an FBI centralized data bank to be mined, compared and analyzed by the government. Las Vegas is already a surveillance city; why turn Nevada into a surveillance state?

The continuingly increasing presence of cameras in Nevada symbolizes the potential for a dark future, where our every move, our every location and our every communication, is recorded, compiled and stored away, ready to be examined and used against us by the authorities whenever they want.

Read More; http://www.scribd.com/doc/16349861/ALPRautomatic-license-Plate-Recognition-InsureNet

 

Photo Enforcement Uninsured Motorists is a Red Herring

The Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, David Machamer and the Alliance for Toll Interoperability plays a role in the push for tag scanning "scameras"

ATI Documents

My Notes; Oklahoma ALPR Alliance for Toll Interoperability Ongoing 5 23 10

→ 1 Comment

Posted in Automatic License Plate Recognition, Domestic Policing, domestic surveillance, Intelligent Transportation Sysytems, Legislation, Oklahoma Politics, Oklahoma State Government, People Tracking, Privacy, Surveillance Technology, Traffic Safety

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,