Question 1 asks voters to approve a measure that would triple the amount of tax dollars that could be given to candidates who file as a “clean candidate.” That is not a good choice when medical services for truly needy people were denied this past year because of lack of funds. The possible cost of implementing the measure could reach more than $8 million.
I have to wonder, why are groups from away that thrive on big money in politics promoting Question 1 as a way to take big money out of politics? And why should public tax dollars be used to help elect people individuals might not agree with?
The transparency that proponents are promising the public is a myth.
A candidate of character pays his way and reveals the sources of his donations.
Question 1 is simply welfare for politicians and many elected officials do not agree with the proposed increase.
I am voting “no” on Question 1.
Marge Ripley, Paris
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.