 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
News from 2006
News ArchivesMessage from Rep. Toby Nixon to his friends and supportersKirkland (November 17, 2006) -- Rep. Toby Nixon sent the following message to his friends and supports this morning.Dear Friends, I received in the mail a couple of days ago the November edition of The Washington Newspaper, the monthly newsletter of the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association and Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington. It contains the following column, written by Rowland Thompson, who is executive director of Allied Daily Newspapers and the primary representative of the newspaper industry in Olympia. Rowland and I have gotten to know each other pretty well over the past five years as we worked together to strengthen Washington’s laws requiring government meetings and records to be open to the people. Toby Nixon: A public servant for all seasonsI have indeed sat on the floor of the House many times late into the evening, just as Rowland describes. When I’d finish my work, I’d always take a few minutes to just look around the room, to study the beautiful ceiling and the exquisite trim work and the furnishings and even the light fixtures, taking in every detail. I’d think about the supreme honor and privilege it was for me –- me, from a poor family, a welfare kid, son of a disabled father, who nobody would have anticipated ever would be even allowed to enter into such a place –- to serve as a member of the legislature. Each time, I would contemplate the sacrifices that had been made by the Founders and our veterans and everyone else who had made it possible for that place to exist and for me to be there, and renew my commitment to do my best to uphold the principles on which our nation was founded and that made it great. As Rowland wrote, however, the possibility always existed that the voters would “return [me] to private life in the next election and put someone else’s legs under the desk”. Rowland’s prediction notwithstanding (his deadline was obviously prior to November 7), the voters appear to have made just that choice. The first count on election night was distressing, but we had much hope that the later absentee and provisional ballots would favor me. While the percentage did improve, and in at least one daily count I did get more votes than my opponent, I would now need to get nearly 80% of the vote on the remaining uncounted ballots in order to win –- and that’s very unlikely to happen. I have already met with my opponent, acknowledged the likelihood that he will be certified as our next senator on November 28, and offered my assistance and advice to him as he undertakes this most important responsibility. I only hope he values it as much as I have. I want to take this opportunity to publicly thank all those who devoted so much of their money, time, talents, energy, and hard work to this year’s campaign as well as previous campaigns. I always hesitate to try to name everyone, but I must thank Eric Rohrbach, my campaign manager and most trusted advisor; Gerri Kirchner, my campaign treasurer for the past seven years, close personal friend and neighbor; Terri Ryan, who for several years has contributed her graphic design skills in putting together many of our campaign mailings; Debbie Tainter, who labored many hours on mailings and other tasks; Jack and Maureen Richardson, for running the best darn sign shop in the world and for so much else; Dale Edmonds for handling all the requests from voters for signs; and to all those who delivered those signs and posted others including Mike Wert, Arthur Best, Ted Tax, Mark Isaacs, Lowell Bergseid, Brent Harlin, Dan Farrer, Rick Miller, Bill Dorsey, Ron Braun, Phil Murray, Mark Higginbotham, John Vasko, Pat Young, Dan Griner, Keith Breinholt, Erik Moseid, K-Y Su, and Dave Griffin. I appreciate the hard work by all the PCOs who knocked on doors and delivered literature. I appreciate the dozens of Inglemoor High School students who came out and waved signs with us in the closing days of the campaign. I appreciate the advice and counsel and friendship of our district chair Dollie Kosters, Senator Bill Finkbeiner, Councilmember Kathy Lambert, Scott Jewett, Brett Bader, Jeffrey Possinger, Tim Lee, and so many others. Thanks to the nearly 500 individuals, families, and organizations who donated nearly $200,000 to the campaign to help us get our message out. And of course I could not have done anything without the love and support of my wife Irene, who is so tolerant of the thousands of hours I spend away from home serving and campaigning, and who feels as strongly as I do about the need for principled leadership in government. Many people have inquired about my future plans. First, let me dispel the rumor going around, that has made its way to me through several routes, that some are talking about me serving as state party chair –- that is not on the list for consideration. I’m looking forward to being able to spend more time at home with my wife and children during the coming Christmas season than I have for the past five. I have a lot of urgent work to do at Microsoft that will get more of my attention. I have many responsibilities at church, including directing one choir and singing in two others right now. I serve on the boards of three different non-profits, four if you count my homeowner association; I particularly plan to increase the work I do in the Washington Coalition for Open Government, and have volunteered to chair their Government committee, encouraging legislators and other government officials to strengthen and comply with our open government laws. I will continue to make my opinions known through blogs and newspaper columns whenever possible. I plan to continue working on the issue of annexation into Kirkland of Kingsgate, North Juanita, and Finn Hill. And I will be monitoring what goes on in Olympia, consulting with friends and advisors, and assessing future opportunities for service in elected office. I don’t know what the future holds, but I do know that I’m not done yet. I look forward to sitting on the floor of the House at least one more time before my term ends on January 8. Best regards, -- Toby (return to top) Nixon Responds to Further False Statements by DemocratsKirkland (November 5, 2006) -- Rep. Toby Nixon, candidate for State Senator in the 45th legislative district, on Sunday responded to false statements regarding his positions on water pollution, stem cell research, vehicle emission standards, and other topics. His open letter, emailed to Senator Karen Keiser, chair of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee and controller of The Roosevelt Fund (the Senate Democrats' Political Action Committee), and to Eric Oemig, Nixon's opponent in the race for 45th District Senate, was copied to political reporters throughout the state. The text is as follows.Dear Senator Keiser and Mr. Oemig: I cannot believe the lies you are telling to the voters of the 45th District. It is appalling that you are so desperate to win that you find it necessary to distort my record and positions on the issues, and twist the plain meanings of bills, to the extent you have. Here are the lies in your latest hit piece and the truth about those issues. CLAIM: “Toby Nixon voted against having clean drinking water for Washington” This is a LIE. The bill you reference, HB 1458, has NOTHING to do with “drinking water”. It has to do with failing septic systems that might be potentially leaking into PUGET SOUND. Puget Sound is SALT WATER. We DO NOT DRINK FROM PUGET SOUND. This is intentional inflammatory misrepresentation of the subject of the bill. In addition, this statement is also a LIE because I voted for HB 1458, a plain fact that is right there in the bill history. You make reference to an early vote on the bill in March 2005, and, yes, I voted No on the bill at that time – because the bill as presented to us was FLAWED. It was flawed in that it would have turned over the job of inspecting all the septic systems in the 12 counties surrounding Puget Sound to the STATE Department of Health; I did NOT want to grow the state bureaucracy to that extent. The bill failed in the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE because of its flaws (it got to 2nd Reading, but couldn’t get the votes so it was never brought to the floor). We went back and fixed the bill so that the inspections are done by county health departments with reporting to the state. Once that was changed, I voted FOR the bill, on February 11, 2006, and the bill passed the Senate as amended. It’s right there in the bill history; I voted FOR the bill that you claim I opposed. You LIED about what the bill does, and you LIED in saying that I voted against it when I actually voted FOR the bill that passed. CLAIM: “Toby Nixon believes that big businesses that operate these plants shouldn’t be subject to government testing” This is a LIE. This makes it sound like HB 1458 was about large privately-owned sewage treatment plants, and that I caved in to “big business” so those plants wouldn’t be regulated. That is NONSENSE. HB 1458 is about inspections of individual residential septic tank systems. Large wastewater treatment plants, whether public or private, have MUCH stricter standards than septic systems, and there has not been any finding that large public or private wastewater treatment systems are the cause of pollution in Puget Sound -- the water that comes out of them is nearly drinking-water quality. The issue is and always has been failing SEPTIC TANKS and SEPTIC FIELDS. These have nothing to do with big business. My vote on HB 1458 had NOTHING TO DO with who owns or operates the septic systems to be inspected. I SUPPORT THE INSPECTIONS, but I opposed hiring hundreds of new employees at the STATE Department of Health in order perform a task that has always been done by COUNTY health departments. CLAIM: “Nixon voted against stem cell research, even though this could help fight diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.” This is a LIE. Although Democrats like to characterize HB 1268 as a vote for or against stem cell research, IT WAS NOT. The bill did not authorize stem cell research. It did not ban stem cell research. It did not fund stem cell research. A vote against the bill was not a vote “against stem cell research” in any way. The bill would have created an advisory committee on stem cell research practices, and required owners of leftover embryos from in-vitro fertilization to be given information about their rights to those embryos. But the bill was FLAWED because while it bans human cloning for reproductive purposes, it would have allowed human cloning for organ harvesting. I think most people would be rightly appalled if they knew about that provision of the bill – and that Democrats support a bill that would allow fetuses to be killed so that their organs can be harvested. I voted against allowing human cloning for the purpose of organ harvesting. I would have voted FOR the bill if the provision related to human cloning had been fixed (because I supported everything else in the bill), but the bill sponsor refused even a minor amendment that would have corrected this flaw. HB 1268 FAILED in the DEMOCRAT-CONTROLLED SENATE because of its flaws. And even though the bill FAILED, stem cell research continues in Washington to this day. CLAIM: “Nixon voted against a bill to crack down on methamphetamine producers.” This is a LIE. This language implies that I voted against increasing penalties on meth producers or something like that, which is false; whenever I’ve been presented with a bill that really cracks down on meth producers (such as increasing penalties for producing meth with children in the home), I have voted for it. But the referenced bill (HB 2266) had nothing whatsoever to do with any “crack down” on meth producers. What the bill does do is to limit the amount of COLD MEDICINE that you can buy, and it requires you to produce identification and a log be kept of who makes purchases of cold medicine – a log that itself is an easy source of information for identity theft. I oppose criminalizing the purchase of legal, beneficial substances, or treating customers like they are potential criminals, just because the substances MIGHT be used to produce drugs. There must be a stop to this hysteria of banning the possession of anything that just might be used in the production of illegal drugs. Most people I talk to think the restrictions on buying Sudafed are ridiculous, and they’re right. CLAIM: “Nixon opposes safer, tougher vehicle emission standards” This is a LIE. I SUPPORT tougher vehicle emission standards, but I believe that those standards should be imposed at the FEDERAL LEVEL so that there is a level playing field between states – we should not impose higher costs on just our in-state businesses and cause them to be less competitive with rivals in other states (and vehicles meeting these standards are predicted to cost as much as $1,500 more than vehicles meeting current standards). Also, this bill does not actually SET any standards – what it does do is turn over the power to set Washington’s vehicle emission standards to an UNELECTED BUREAUCRACY IN CALIFORNIA (the California Air Resources Board) over which Washington citizens have ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL – an unconstitutional abdication of the responsibility of the Washington State Legislature to control the laws of this state. The Washington State Administrative Procedures Act lays out very specific requirements for the rulemaking procedures that must be followed for rulemaking that is delegated by the legislature, and it is impossible for the California Air Resources Board to meet the requirements of the Washington state administrative procedures act. Any rules adopted by CARB would thus be illegal under Washington State Law because they were not adopted using our processes. Finally, the California emission standards are the subject of a federal lawsuit because the Congress has pre-empted all state regulation in this area (the area of fuel economy standards, and the fact is that a carbon dioxide emission standard IS a fuel economy standard); we should not reference a California rule that is at risk of being overturned until the legality of the rule is established. I support the PRINCIPLES behind HB 1397 (higher fuel economy), but not the way they are implemented in this bill. CLAIM: “…as well as plans to encourage alternative energy research.” This is a LIE. First of all, you reference HB 1397 as the evidence for this statement, but HB 1397 has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with “alternative energy research”. The fact is, I cosponsored HB 1645, requiring school buses to use biodiesel. I voted for HB 1646 in committee, creating tax incentives for alternative fuels. I voted for HB 2393, creating a grant and loan program for establishment of alternative fuel research and development projects. I voted for HB 2775 in committee, creating the Washington bioenergy loan program. I co-sponsored HB 2847, extending the expiration date of existing clean fuel sales and use tax exemptions. I voted for HB 2437, collecting information needed to determine if state alternative fuel stations can be opened to the general public. I voted for or co-sponsored every alternative-fuel bill and program in the 2005-2006 legislature, with a single exception: the biofuel mandate bill, ESSB 6508 (which the piece does not reference). But even if you had referenced ESSB 6508, that would have also been a LIE, because 6508 had nothing to do with “alternative energy research”. SB 6508 mandates that once the in-state capacity exists to produce biodiesel equivalent to 2% of diesel used in the state, then it becomes mandatory that distributors in the state sell biodiesel equal to 2% of diesel sales, and once in-state capacity exists to produce biodiesel equivalent to 3% of diesel used in the state, then it becomes mandatory that distributors in the state sell biodiesel equal to 5% of diesel sales. I voted against 6508 because there is no price protection whatsoever – even if the spot market price of those last few gallons of biodiesel needed to meet the mandate were $100 per gallon, the mandate would still apply (there’s no price cap or off-ramp as there is in I-937 for renewable energy, which I endorsed). I voted against 6508 because, while it was touted as helping Washington farmers, there is no requirement that any biodiesel produced in Washington be used to meet the sales mandate (and there can’t be such a requirement under federal law). Because of quality and production consistency challenges inherent in any startup business, diesel distributors who are required to meet a hard mandate or face penalties are likely to enter into long-term supply contracts with huge Midwestern biodiesel producers such as ADM and Cargill, and our in-state producers could easily be LOCKED OUT of our own in-state market. This is especially true when the 3% in-state production threshold is met and the 5% sales mandate kicks in – it would be IMPOSSIBLE for in-state producers to fill the mandate at that point, and so supply contracts with out-of-state producers would be required. This has the potential to be terribly damaging to fledgling in-state producers, and we should not adopt feel good bills that have such potential to damage Washington businesses. It is absolutely clear from my voting record that I strongly support alternative fuel research, development, deployment, and encouragement of use by the consumer. I opposed this flawed mandate bill, but that just proves that I actually read the bills and understand what impact they would have rather than voting just on the basis of an attractive bill title. I do not know how you sleep at night knowing the extent to which you have lied. EVERY DECLARATIVE STATEMENT IN THIS PIECE IS A LIE, in one way or another. I am very disappointed, Senator Keiser, that as your colleague in the Senate I will never be able to trust a word you say to me, considering the extent to which you have repeatedly lied about what bills do and the way you have distorted my record. I expected more from a fellow board member of the Washington Coalition for Open Government, an organization which is dedicated to the TRUTH. It’s too bad the voters of the 33rd district don’t know the extent to which you have LIED to the voters of other legislative districts, so that they can consider the possibility that you have similarly lied to THEM. -- Toby (return to top) Nixon Demands Retraction of False Statements by OemigKirkland (October 24, 2006) -- Rep. Toby Nixon, candidate for State Senator in the 45th legislative district, on Tuesday called upon his opponent Eric Oemig to retract false and misleading campaign advertisements.The first false advertisement, which has been circulating in the education community in the 45th district for about two weeks, claims to compare Oemig’s positions on education to Nixon’s voting record and positions on education, but the document is filled with misleading and outright false statements. The second advertisement, recently mailed to voters in the district, contains false and misleading statements about Nixon’s voting record and positions on education and other issues. Among the many faults in the documents are the following:
Nixon published today an open letter to the voters of the 45th district explaining Oemig’s false statements and his true positions and voting record, and will be making the information available to voters in the 45th district by direct mail and other means. The letter is available at http://www.tobynixon.com/TobyNixonLetterOnOemigLies.pdf. Attachments to the letter include copies of Oemig’s two advertisements, a point-by-point rebuttal of Oemig’s education advertisement, a public statement from Project Vote Smart condemning Oemig for his use of NPAT data in negative political advertising and for his misrepresentations of that NPAT data, and a copy of Nixon’s web site statement on abortion and reproductive rights. (return to top) Heart of America Northwest Names Rep. Nixon “Hanford Clean-Up Hero of the Year”from Heart of America Northwest “Citizen’s Guide”, October 2006Seattle (October 11, 2006) -- State Representative Toby Nixon (R-45, Woodinville) is our 2006 Hanford Clean-Up Hero. “Before everyone knew how popular Initiative 297 would be with Washington’s voters, Toby Nixon was working as a Sponsor and lining up other supporters,” said Gerry Pollet, Heart of America Northwest executive director. “That is just one small example of his willingness to stand up for what he believes in.” Nixon is actively engaged in defending Initiative 297, agreeing to be a named Defendant Sponsor in the suit to overturn the initiative, filed by the federal Energy Department and Hanford Contractors. With the federal Energy Department delaying the emptying of High-Level Nuclear Waste Tanks and building a vitrification plant, Toby’s work to implement the policies of I-297 by having state law require emptying of tanks make him a true “Hanford Clean-Up Hero.” (return to top) Nixon remarks on receiving Freedom’s Light Award from the Washington Newspaper Publishers AssociationKennewick (October 6, 2006) -- At the 119th annual convention of the Washington Newspaper Publishers Association today in Kennewick, State Rep. Toby Nixon (R-45th District) was presented the Freedom’s Light Award, the highest honor for non-journalists given by WNPA. The award honors a Washington resident who has protected or advanced First Amendment interests in the state, a critical aspect of which is access to public information. He joins previous honorees including former Washington Chief Justice James Anderson; Washington Court of Appeal Judge C. Kenneth Grosse; Clyde Ballard, former Speaker of the House; Brian Sonntag, Washington State Auditor; state senators Cal Anderson and Adam Kline; former U.S. House Speaker Thomas Foley; Ronal Serpas, former chief of the Washington State Patrol; Michael Killeen, attorney for Davis Wright Tremaine; and Walt Woodward, former editor and publisher of the Bainbridge Island Review. Here is the text of the remarks made by Rep. Nixon upon receipt of the award:Thank you so much for this great honor. When I speak about my work in the legislature, especially with groups of schoolchildren, I’m often asked, “What got you interested in politics?” My answer is very simple: Mrs. Edelman and Judge Eaton. Mrs. Edelman was my 7th grade social studies and civics teacher at Sequoia Junior High School in Redding, California. She was not easy on us. To pass her class, you had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution, the first couple of paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, and all four verses of the National Anthem. Most of the kids thought it was torture, but not me; I fell in love with it –- and I have either run for office myself or helped with some other campaign every year since. Judge Richard B. Eaton was a superior court judge in Shasta County, California, also while I was in 7th grade. He was my Boy Scout merit badge counselor for the “Citizenship in the Nation” merit badge. Judge Eaton wasn’t satisfied with just memorization -– he wanted his scouts to know what the words actually meant. I learned from him that we have natural rights that belong to us by virtue of being human –- rights that aren’t given to us by the government or by the Constitution, but that predate the existence of government: the right to not be killed, the right to do what we wish with our lives so long as we respect the rights of others, the right to enjoy the fruits of our labor and to be secure in our property. I learned that we, the people, created the government to help us defend our rights; that is the purpose of government. I learned that we are all equal as far as the government is concerned: none of us has God-given authority to rule over the rest, and none of us has any special dispensation of wisdom that entitles us to decide for other people how they should live their lives. I learned that we need to be ever vigilant, because if the government were to ever become destructive of our rights, it was not only our right but our duty to change the government and put it back in its place. Wouldn’t it be great if all of our young men and young women came out of seventh grade with such an education? These two great people instilled in me a passion that burns in me to this day to preserve what our founders created. Jefferson wrote, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”, and I feel that as a personal responsibility. Our founders’ creation was unique in the world at the time, and it is still special, even fragile, today. It wasn’t until later in my life that I thought long and hard about what it actually takes for us to be able to implement our duty to change the government if it goes down the wrong path. Now, here, I could give a discourse on the importance of the Second Amendment, but this is the NPA and not the NRA, and I think we’d all prefer to depend on the First Amendment rather than the Second. I think James Madison had the right answer when he wrote, “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” Having the trust of the people is essential to government being able to accomplish the very important purposes for which we created it. Such trust is not easily earned or retained, and is based on the ability of the people to verify that they, and not unseen forces, are in control of the government, and that public officials are acting in the interest of the people and not for personal gain. We have constructed a framework of laws that enable that verification, including strong ethics laws, campaign finance disclosure, transparent and verifiable elections, comprehensive independent financial and performance audits, open lawmaking and rulemaking processes, open courts, and, of course, open public meetings and records. Loss or erosion of any of these sets us on a course of losing the public trust. When that trust is lost, the people begin the process of changing the government. I am convinced that the success of initiative measures that have deprived the government of financial resources can be largely attributed to such a loss of trust, because it is by withdrawing financial support that the people can most immediately effect a change in the government. Unfortunately, legislative nibbling, court decisions and lax enforcement have, in fact, combined to erode the public’s ability to keep an eye on the government. We have had far too many cases of government waste and corruption covered up by officials concealing records, sometimes on a pretence that the matter was subject to attorney-client privilege. Technology allows records to come into existence and then disappear again in the blink of an eye with little left in the way of evidence, and technology also allows public officials to debate issues and make decisions without any public involvement or observation whatsoever. The penalties assessed for violations of our open government laws are so low that agencies just pay them as a cost of doing business. Personal accountability for those who break the rules, even knowingly and willfully, is unheard of. And who among the citizenry actually has time to pay attention to everything necessary to verify the integrity of those in government? To pore over PDC reports? To watch as ballot envelopes are opened and signatures verified, and examine voting machine audit reports? To make records requests and hold elected officials accountable? To sit through interminably boring city council or school board meetings and question the purpose of every executive session? The sheer volume of information and number of agencies to monitor makes it impossible for any of us to do it alone. That is why the news media are so important. That is why the freedom of the press is essential to the preservation of liberty -– and to fulfillment of the duty we each have as citizens to hold the government accountable and to keep it in check. And so, in addition to thanking you for this award today, I also thank you for your diligence, your persistence, and your hard work on behalf of the people of the state of Washington. Thank you for the investments you make in staff and technology and ink and all the other resources required to get the information citizens need and make it available to us. Thank you for your courage in the face of powerful forces that would conceal essential information from you and from all of us. When Benjamin Franklin emerged from the constitutional convention and was asked what form of government had been created, he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” I am committed to not only stopping the erosion of our open government laws and the freedom of the press, but to expanding and strengthening them. If we work together, we will keep our republic. Thank you very much! (return to top) Democrat complaint ruled “nonsensical” by Legislative Ethics BoardKirkland (September 29, 2006) -- The Washington State Legislative Ethics Board has dismissed a complaint filed on August 31 by the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee against Rep. Toby Nixon and a senate staff member regarding a campaign press release that had been published in the Woodinville Chamber of Commerce newsletter. In the order of dismissal, the board said that the SDCC complaint was not only unfounded but “nonsensical as well as unsupported by any facts”, and that “there are no facts or reasonable inferences there from which [to] support the allegations that Rep. Nixon or Rebecca Japhet utilized public resources with respect to the Nixon campaign release”.“I appreciate the Board’s quick action to dismiss this completely false and trumped-up complaint,” Nixon said in response to the dismissal. “Anyone with the slightest bit of sense would have assumed in a single glance that the text fragment in the Woodinville Chamber newsletter was a formatting error, and a simple phone call to the Chamber would have confirmed that. Either the SDCC does not have even that slight bit of sense, or they are so desperate to find something to attack me and support their candidate that they’re willing to ignore plain facts and waste scarce state resources on baseless charges for purely political purposes.” In an email to the SDCC on September 15, John Erdman, executive director of the Woodinville Chamber of Commerce, said that the news of the complaint “saddened me greatly. This is and was an obvious formatting error that slipped by both my printer and my staff. A simple call to my office would have gotten you the correct explanation and saved everyone the time and money spent to pursue this matter.” He went on to write, “I am disappointed in the fact that you didn’t even attempt to contact us about the situation and instead chose the low road to travel.” In an SDCC press release that had been briefly posted on the SDCC web site on September 14 but has since been removed, Senator Karen Keiser, chair of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, was quoted as saying “It’s a shame that Representative Nixon is using Karl Rove’s worn-out tactic of blaming Democrats for his own ethical problems instead of taking responsibility for his actions.” In response to Keiser’s remark, Nixon said, “Since the Legislative Ethics Board has found that there never was an ‘ethical problem’ and that the Senate Democrats’ allegation was ‘nonsensical’ and ‘unsupported by any facts’, the only ‘worn-out tactics’ being employed here are the Senate Democrats’ filing of false ethical charges for political gain. I would hope that Sen. Keiser would take responsibility for her actions and issue a prompt apology to me and especially to the innocent and completely uninvolved Senate staff member, Rebecca Japhet -- but I’m not going to hold my breath. The people of the 45th district are already tired of all the negative campaigning that has occurred this year, and if these tactics by the Senate Democrats are any indication, the voters are in store for much more.” (return to top) Seattle Times Blog: Ethics complaint against Nixon dismissed as “non-sensical”By DAVID POSTMANTIMES CHIEF POLITICAL REPORTER (Click here for the original article) Seattle (September 27, 2006) -- The Legislative Ethics Board has dismissed a complaint against Rep. Toby Nixon, R-Kirkland, that had been filed by the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. Nixon is running for the Senate in the 45th District.
UPDATE: Here’s the board’s order. David Postman is The Seattle Times’ chief political reporter. Reach him at 360-236-8267 or at dpostman@seattletimes.com. (return to top) Nixon to receive Freedom’s Light Award from Washington Newspaper Publishers AssociationPRESS RELEASEWashington Newspaper Publishers Association 12354 30th Ave. NE Seattle, WA 98125 Contact: Bill Will, General Manager, (206) 634-3838; bwill@wnpa.com Sept. 22, 2006 State Rep. Toby Nixon will receive the Freedom’s Light Award, the highest honor for non-journalists given by Washington Newspaper Publisher Association, early next month at the association’s 119th annual convention. The award will be presented Friday, Oct. 6 in Kennewick. Nearly every year since the award was created in 1995, WNPA has honored a Washington resident who has protected or advanced First Amendment interests in the state, a critical aspect of which is access to public information. In announcing Rep. Nixon’s selection as the 2006 honoree, WNPA General Manager Bill Will said, “Rep. Nixon is that all too rare public official who backs up campaign rhetoric about open and accountable government with action in Olympia. Toby has grabbed the banner of open government, and his commitment to transparency and accountability has distinguished his legislative career.” The Kirkland Republican has represented the 45th legislative district in the Washington State House of Representatives since January 2002. Among his other responsibilities, he is ranking Republican member of the State Government Operations and Accountability Committee, which oversees the state’s open public records and open public meetings laws. He is the Republican nominee for a vacant state senate seat in the 45th District. “Having the trust of the people is essential to government being able to accomplish its purposes,” said Nixon. “Transparency and openness in government — open public records, meetings, courts, and rulemaking and legislative processes — are critical elements of earning and retaining that trust. We must stop the erosion of our open government laws.” Attorney General Rob McKenna, who has also championed public access, praised Rep. Nixon, “Representative Nixon is a champion of open government and accountable public process. Whenever my office and I have proposed strengthening our state’s sunshine laws, we have found in him an effective, passionate legislative voice for those proposals.” Another key player in government access issues, Allied Daily Newspapers of Washington executive director Rowland Thompson, said, “Toby Nixon has a better understanding of the Open Public Records Act and The Open Public Meetings Act than any other legislator in Olympia. He comes by that understanding both from the words written in the law books and the court cases, but also from the state and federal constitutional requirements that put those words on the page. Beyond his intellectual command of the principles is his deep philosophical commitment to rights of the people to hold their government accountable. He is deeply deserving of the Freedom’s Light Award,” Thompson added. In addition to his legislative responsibilities, Nixon works as a program manager in the Windows Networking and Device Technologies group at Microsoft in Redmond. He has held various positions with Microsoft since January 1993. His expertise is in communicating over the Internet, and he takes a special interest in communication for the disabled; his current assignment involves designing technology for the smart homes of the future. Nixon, his wife Irene, and their five children make their home in Kirkland. Previous winners of the Freedom’s Light Award are Washington Court of Appeal Judge C. Kenneth Grosse in 2004; Ronal Serpas, Chief of the Washington State Patrol, 2003, Sen. Adam Kline, 2002; Clyde Ballard, former House Co-Speaker, 2001; Brian Sonntag, Washington State Auditor, 2000; Michael Killeen, attorney, Davis Wright Tremaine, 1999; Walt C. Woodward, former editor and publisher, Bainbridge Island Review, 1998; former U.S. House Speaker Thomas Foley, 1997; former Washington Chief Justice James Anderson, 1996; and state Sen. Cal Anderson, 1995. WNPA represents 114 community newspapers across Washington state. WNPA promotes open government, defends the First Amendment, sponsors the state’s annual Better Newspaper Contest and offers continuing education for publishers and staff members. The organization was founded in 1887, two years before Washington was admitted to the United States. (return to top) Nixon responds to continuing false and reprehensible attacks by Senate DemocratsKirkland (September 9, 2006)Dear Friends, This past week, I received notification from the state Legislative Ethics Board that a second complaint has been submitted against me by the Operations Director of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee. In this new complaint, the Democrats alleged that a member of the Senate Republican communications staff wrote my press release on April 27 announcing my candidacy for state senator for the 45th district. These charges are entirely false. The false accusation is based on a document, the source of which the Democrats have not disclosed, which was crudely altered to make it appear as though it was prepared by the senate staff member. This is now the fourth instance of gutter politics being used by the Democrats to attack me, and is just the latest example of their desperation to come up with something, anything, to use to attack my record, even if they must manufacture false evidence to do it. The simple fact is that if any abuse of state resources has taken place during this campaign, it is this abuse by the Democrats of the Legislative Ethics Board staff and process for campaign purposes. The voters of the 45th District are intelligent and recognize reprehensible, even illegal, campaign tactics when they see them, and I trust they will hold the Democrats accountable. You may click here to see a scanned copy of the complaint as I received it, and judge its veracity for yourself. I have also attached below the text of my response to the counsel of the Legislative Ethics Board denying the charges and requesting quick and open action on them. As always, I appreciate your prayers and support, even more so as my family and I endure these continuing false attacks on my character. Best regards, -- Toby Text of my email to the Legislative Ethics Board: Date: September 9, 2006 To: Mike O’Connell, Board Counsel, Legislative Ethics Board CC: Tim Sekerak, House Counsel Re: Response to Ethics Complaint C2006 – No. 9 Dear Mr. O’Connell: I have received your letter dated September 5 regarding the second ethics complaint filed against me by the Operations Director of the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee, Kenneth Camp. I completely and unequivocally deny that any ethics violation took place, by me or Rebecca Japhet, in this case or at any other time. The allegations made by Mr. Camp and the SDCC are false. The press release issued on April 27, 2006, announcing my intention to seek the 45th District senate seat, was originally drafted by Stan Shore, a political consultant who works with me on my campaign who is also under contract with the Senate Republican’s Leadership Council. I still have in my possession the original draft of the press release in electronic form. The Microsoft Word File Properties of that document clearly indicate that the file was created using a copy of Word registered to Mr. Shore, at 6:07AM on April 27. It was emailed to me at 6:56AM that same day. The release was subsequently edited by myself and by my campaign manager, Eric Rohrbach, and returned to Mr. Shore by email. The release was then, at approximately 2:00PM, emailed by Mr. Shore from his private, non-governmental office to a variety of news media outlets, and I emailed additional copies of the release to my campaign email list and other contacts from my campaign email account. At no time were any state resources used in the creation or distribution of this release. At no time did Rebecca Japhet or any other state employee have any involvement in the creation or distribution of this or any other campaign-related press release that I have issued -– ever. No version of this press release ever included Ms. Japhet’s contact information as alleged by the SDCC, even in draft form. It is astounding, even stupefying, that Mr. Camp and his supervisor, SDCC chair Sen. Karen Keiser, would imagine for a moment that the ranking member of the House committee with responsibility for state ethics laws would be so stupid as to not only use state resources for preparation of a campaign press release, but to actually send out a campaign press release with the name, legislative phone number, and legislative email address of a state employee attached! There appear to be two possible explanations for the document that the SDCC discovered: it was a simple cut-and-paste of my release into the document sent out by Sen. Finkbeiner the same day announcing he was not running again, or this is a deliberate fabrication for campaign purposes by Sen. Keiser and her staff. First, it is possible that the unidentified “community publication”, as the SDCC calls it, in its haste to publish the release “in its entirety”, made a simple cut-and-paste error in preparing their publication. Senator Finkbeiner had sent out a press release a short time prior to my release, announcing that he was not seeking re-election. Senator Finkbeiner’s release was written by Rebecca Japhet, legitimately so, and her contact information did appear at the bottom of Sen. Finkbeiner’s release. It is possible that the editor of the “community publication”, processing my release after Senator Finkbeiner’s release, inadvertently left behind a fragment of Senator Finkbeiner’s release when incorporating my release into their publication. This would explain why the document submitted by the SDCC contains only partial, fragmentary contact information for Ms. Japhet. A second possible explanation is that the document presented by the SDCC was intentionally altered, or even created, for the purpose of establishing a basis for this ethics complaint. There are several characteristics of the document that could lead one to such a conclusion. First, the heading of the document is “Toby Nixon for State Senate”, while every copy of the release actually sent out by my campaign was entitled “Toby Nixon Announces for State Senate” (emphasis added). If this “community publication” truly has a practice of publishing press releases in their entirety, then why would the word “Announces” have been removed from the title? Second, the text of the document presented by the SDCC begins with “Kirkland (April 27, 2006) –” in boldface type. This text was not in any of the copies of the press release faxed or emailed by Mr. Shore or myself. However, this text does appear in boldface in the version of the release that was later posted by me on my campaign web site at http://www.tobynixon.com/news.htm#a169. That is the only place that boldfaced text has appeared. This leads to the conclusion that the document presented by the SDCC was not derived from an authentic copy of the original press release received by the “community publication” through normal means, but that the text they published was cut and pasted from my campaign web site after the fact. But Ms. Japhet’s contact information has never appeared as part of this or any other release on my campaign web site, and could not have been cut and pasted from that source; however, Ms. Japhet’s contact information could have been added to the version presented to you by the SDCC with the intent of establishing a basis for the present complaint. Finally, the fact that the document presented by the SDCC apparently was faxed from “HDCC” (presumably the House Democratic Campaign Committee) calls into question its origin, as does the fact that the SDCC refused to identify the “community publication” where the document was allegedly published. I cannot imagine any legitimate reason for not disclosing the identity and date of the alleged publication as part of the initial complaint so that the content of the document can be independently verified and the staff of the publication questioned regarding its authenticity. Unfortunately, this latter explanation fits into the disturbing pattern established by Sen. Keiser recently. First, Senate Democrats or others acting on behalf of my opponent, Eric Oemig, placed phone calls to voters in the 45th district asserting that I had not paid my property taxes, when in fact the payment had been made but was not properly handled and recorded by King County. Senator Keiser later personally defamed me in writing to a group of lobbyists, alleging that there had been “erosion of [my] personal and professional standing.” She apologized for that action, but shortly thereafter her employees filed two legislative ethics complaints against me. It’s very disturbing to see campaigning conducted in the gutter. Mr. O’Connell, I sincerely hope that the first explanation –- an innocent error by an inexperienced and careless editor –- is the correct explanation. I shudder to consider the ramifications of the second explanation, but would not be at all surprised if it is correct. The fact that the SDCC’s complaint omits essential information and is based on supposition and innuendo leads to the inescapable conclusion that the SDCC and HDCC are engaging in an orchestrated smear campaign against me, using the Legislative Ethics Board during a political campaign for political purposes. In your letter, you indicated that you would like to meet with me for an interview. I would be happy to do so, at a time and place of your convenience, and look forward eagerly to the opportunity. I would like to undertake this as speedily as possible; the submitters of false accusations should not be rewarded for their nefarious actions by allowing them to use those false accusations for political purposes, claiming that the falsely accused is “under investigation for ethics violations”. Resolving this matter expeditiously, with full public disclosure of all materials and testimony, is in the interest of truth and justice. Committed as I am to openness and transparency in government, I will be distributing copies of this letter forthwith to the news media and on my web site, including a scanned copy of your letter and its attachments. I also will want our interview to be on the record and open to the public for their perusal. The inevitable interview with Sen. Keiser about her foreknowledge of these events will also be on the record, I should hope. As Justice Louis Brandeis said, “Sunshine is the best disinfectant”, and open government is always the best solution to lies and false charges. Best regards, Toby Nixon State Representative, 45th District (return to top) Republicans for Environmental Protection: REP Endorses Washington Legislative Candidates Seattle (September 5, 2006) --
The Washington chapter of Republicans for Environmental Protection, a national grassroots organization, is pleased to endorse the following Republican candidates for the state House and Senate.
REP was founded in 1995 to restore the Republican Party’s great conservation tradition. REP, whose membership includes ordinary citizens and elected officials, has chapters in nine other states in addition to Washington. Visit REP on line at www.rep.org. (return to top) Seattle Times: Free the press releasesBy DAVID POSTMANTIMES CHIEF POLITICAL REPORTER (Click here for the original article) Seattle (September 1, 2006) --
Partisan, taxpayer- funded public- relations workers produce hundreds of press releases each year touting the accomplishments of state legislators.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Deciphering ethics in the digital ageBy KENNETH F. BUNTINGP-I ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER (Click here for the original article) Seattle (September 1, 2006) --
Most lawmakers or legislative candidates facing an election-year ethics complaint would be doing everything possible to keep it quiet, not publicize it.
Text of historical press releases redacted due to legislative rulesKirkland (August 27, 2006)Dear Friends, This past week, I received notification from the state Legislative Ethics Board that a complaint had been submitted saying that my practice of posting historical legislative press releases on this web site is a violation of legislative rules. While this matter is pending, I have decided to redact the text of the press releases in question from this site. That’s why you’ll see a lot of empty spots in these pages. For your information, I have posted below an email I sent moments ago to the counsel of the Board explaining my position on the issue and asking the Board to reconsider the policy. As you know, I am a strong advocate of open government. I believe every legislator has a responsibility to inform their constituents of their actions as a legislator. Making available to constituents the official statements a legislator makes in the form of press releases is a part of that. That is why I have always sent copies of my press releases to individuals who request to be on the distribution list, and archived copies of my press releases on this web site. Completely unknown to me, the Board in 2004 issued an “advisory opinion” that such postings are an inappropriate use of state resources. This new policy was not included in the Legislative Ethics Manual update issued prior to the 2005 legislative session. I disagree with the policy, and you can read why in the email below. I am firm and unwavering in my commitment to the public’s right to know, and you can count on me to work to change this rule so that legislators cannot hide behind it to prevent the press releases they issue during the legislative session from being easily available to their constituents and their political opponents. In the meantime, if you want copies of these press releases, they will need to be requested from the Office of the Chief Clerk, P.O. Box 40600, Olympia WA 98504-0600, 360-786-7750. I have left the titles and dates on this site to make it easy for you to identify the release to request. If you believe as I do that press releases issued by legislators should be available for viewing by voters during the campaign season, either through the legislature’s web site or through the legislator’s own sites, then I would encourage you to share your opinion with the Legislative Ethics Board. They can be contacted by email through their staff counsel, Mike O’Connell, at oconnell.mike@leg.wa.gov. Best regards, -- Toby Text of my email to the Legislative Ethics Board: Date: August 27, 2006 To: Mike O’Connell, Board Counsel, Legislative Ethics Board CC: Tim Sekerak, House Counsel Re: Complaint regarding posting of press releases on my campaign web site Dear Mr. O’Connell: I have received your letter dated August 17 regarding the complaint filed on August 16 by Mr. Kenneth Camp. In his complaint, Mr. Camp says that I have posted press releases on my campaign web site that were initially distributed through House Media at public expense, and indicates that he believes this is contrary to Legislative Ethics Board Advisory Opinion 2004-01. When my very first legislative press release was prepared (“Nixon sworn in as 45th district representative”, 14 January 2002), I asked two questions of House media and House counsel: (1) am I allowed to send the text of the release on my personal email list, and (2) am I allowed to post the text of the release on my personal or campaign web site? At that time, I was told that once the release was sent out, it was public information that could be used by anyone, and that there was no clear prohibition in the law or in ethics rules to the uses I proposed. Since then, I have forwarded every press release that mentions me issued through House Media to my personal email list and posted them on my web site, at no cost to the state. By my estimation, just over 100 such releases have been so distributed during my tenure in the House. I do not recall ever having received a copy of Advisory Opinion 2004-01, or being informed of its existence, prior to receiving your letter. To this day, the Legislative Ethics Manual (http://www1.leg.wa.gov/documents/leb/2005EthicsManual.pdf) says nothing about this prohibition on posting of historical press releases, and the current version of the manual was prepared after this advisory opinion was issued. There is in fact a section of this Manual entitled “Use of resources – Press releases”, and even that section, which is directly on topic, says nothing about any prohibition or limitation on historical press releases being posted to campaign or personal web sites. Press releases issued during previous legislative sessions are historical information. They are a matter of public record. They are not campaign-related; because of limitations on the content of press releases (which the Manual does address), such releases are by their very nature not campaign materials; legislators are prohibited from using press releases, even before the June 30 election-year cutoff, to promote themselves, attack others, or in any way advocate for or against any campaign, and House staff, as directed by the majority caucus, has recently been quite strict in enforcing these rules. What such releases actually do is to help document what a legislator said and did during the performance of their official duties. They are therefore valuable information for constituents in evaluating the performance of legislators in office. They are likewise valuable information to election opponents. It could be argued that depriving voters and opponents of this valuable resource for evaluating the positions and actions of legislators is an inappropriate concealment of public records. While RCW 42.52 clearly prohibits use of state resources to prepare a campaign press release (such as announcing candidacy for re-election or otherwise directly related to a campaign), it is silent on whether information created during the course of normal legislative duties and made available to the general public can be subsequently made available, at no cost to the state, during a campaign. The key question is whether the posting of historical press releases that, at the time of their creation, met strict content guidelines and were not considered campaigning, can become a use of public resources to support a political campaign because of how they are subsequently used. While the Board has, in Advisory Opinion 2004-01, taken the position that this is the case, I respectfully request that the Board reconsider this decision. A number of additional questions need to be addressed which apparently were not considered by the Board in formulating Advisory Opinion 2004-01, and I would like to share these questions and my views on them with the Board at the appropriate time. Suffice it to say now that as a strong advocate of open government, I firmly believe that legislators have no fewer rights than other citizens to access and use of public documents; the question should be the appropriateness under state law of the original content and purpose of a press release, not its subsequent use as a historical document. Nevertheless, in the interest of compliance with the policy as it currently exists, I have removed the text of press releases on my web site that were originally issued through House Media, pending such reconsideration. As both government and elections move from being primarily paper-based to being primarily electronic, and as the public becomes increasingly accustomed to and rightfully expects unfettered and immediate access to all government information, we will undoubtedly go through periods of transition where our understanding of what is appropriate and inappropriate evolves over time. I look forward to having an opportunity to discuss this matter further with you and the members of the Legislative Ethics Board. Best regards, Toby Nixon State Representative, 45th District (return to top) Representative Toby Nixon Files for State SenateKirkland (July 25, 2006) -- State Representative Toby Nixon (R-45th District) officially filed today as a candidate for State Senator representing the 45th Legislative district. Nixon filed using the Secretary of State’s online filing option that was newly expanded to all legislative candidates as a result of legislation Nixon sponsored in the 2005 legislative session.Focusing on building a stronger state economy, safer communities and restoring trust, Nixon declared, “It’s been an honor representing my constituents as State Representative for the past five years. My experience and leadership in the House will enable me to be highly effective representing them as their new State Senator.” Nixon has worked to strengthen our state economy by reducing government red tape, promoting congestion relief, improving educational opportunities for our children and promoting private sector economic development and job creation. Nixon said, “We can have a job-friendly economy and still protect the natural treasures of our state. As senator, I will continue to be a leader in finding that balance.” Nixon has worked to make our communities safer, supporting better protection for children from sexual predators, tougher standards for homeless encampments, protection for social security numbers and increased penalties for identity theft, and cracking down on computer phishing and spyware. Nixon declared, “My 31 years of technical experience in the computer and communications industry enable me to effectively advance innovative solutions to many of the challenges coming from the growing impact of new technology on our every-day lives.” Nixon has also been recognized for his bi-partisan work to ensure accurate and fair elections, open public records and meetings, and implementation of comprehensive performance audits of government programs. Nixon pledged, “I worked hard to advance comprehensive performance audits and I’ll continue in the Senate to make sure these new audits are implemented to ensure taxpayers are getting effective use of their tax dollars.” “Voters have asked me to keep taxes low, spend tax dollars wisely and minimize government intrusion in our individual lives, “ Nixon declared. “I will continue to champion solutions that empower individuals, families and private enterprise to solve problems directly. I would like to keep my leadership skills working for my constituents as their new State Senator.” The 45th Legislative District includes Carnation, Duvall and Woodinville, and parts of Kirkland, Redmond and Sammamish. Visit www.tobynixon.com for more information. (return to top) Rep. Nixon responds to negative personal attacksKirkland (July 13, 2006) -- State Rep. Toby Nixon issued the following statement in response to negative personal attacks leveled by his opponent in the race for State Senator in the 45th District:“It was recently brought to my attention that the campaign of my opponent, directly or indirectly, has been making telephone calls to voters in the 45th District, claiming to be taking a poll, and then using leading questions as a way to make accusations and influence the voters –- a practice known as “push polling”. While this practice is widespread and is hardly surprising in this age of negative campaigning, I was very surprised indeed to learn that my opponent was telling voters that I was past due on the property taxes on my home, since to the best of my knowledge the taxes had been paid in full and on time. I checked the King County web site, and, sure enough, the county treasury is claiming that the first half 2006 taxes on my home have not been paid. This was a complete surprise to me! “What happened, as far as we’ve been able to determine so far, is this. In mid-April, my wife and I refinanced the first mortgage on our home to take advantage of low fixed interest rates, as have tens of thousands of other families in the area. As part of that process, the bank said that their policy was to require the title company handling the closing to make the tax payment to the county, instead of us making the payment ourselves as we have for many years. This didn’t seem negotiable with them, so we consented. The title company has the records to prove that they printed the tax payment check and mailed it to King County before the due date. However, King County claims to have not received the check. The check has not been cashed, and has also not been returned to the title company in the mail. Nobody knows where it is. The title company has committed to stopping payment on the previous check and issuing a new check to King County. Even though the past due payment is not directly the fault of Irene and me, it appears that we will be the ones paying the interest and penalties. It’s not fair, but it’s the most expedient way to resolve the situation. “Unfortunately, King County does not send out notices to property taxpayers when their tax payment checks are not received -- all the county does is post a notice on their web site that the payment is past due. The title company doesn’t double-check to make sure their check has been processed until six months later when it is flagged as “stale”. Perhaps I should have remembered to check the county web site to make sure the payment was credited to our account, but have never had to do that before with my tax payments and have never had a problem until now. So this is an interesting lesson learned –- just as many of us now check the county elections web site to confirm that our absentee ballots have been received, perhaps now I and many others will be checking to make sure our property tax checks are received and properly posted. I’m sure we’re not the first family this has ever happened to, and as a result I will be drafting legislation requiring counties to send out reminder notices for past due property taxes. “I have provided this explanation to my opponent. Now that he is aware of what has actually happened in this situation, I’m sure he’ll stop his scurrilous, personal, mudslinging attack on my character, and instruct his campaign and supporters to either provide a complete description of what actually happened or refrain from mentioning it at all. If he continues to try to profit politically from an unfortunate accident, I’m sure the educated and understanding voters of the 45th district will treat his activities as the petty, spiteful, and desperate moves that they are.” (return to top) Thoughts on Independence DayKirkland (July 1, 2006) -- Rep. Toby Nixon emailed the following remarks to his friends and supporters in recognition of the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence:I find too often that when you ask people to enumerate the “self-evident truths” mentioned in our Declaration of Independence that, if they even have a clue what you’re asking, they too often stop at “pursuit of Happiness”. That’s a shame, because it is in the remainder of that paragraph that we find the most important principles -- principles which we must be reminded of, since, in the words of Article 1 Section 32 of our Washington State Constitution, “a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of individual right and the perpetuity of free government.” Here’s a slightly edited statement of those self-evident truths, with punctuation and the numbers before each truth inserted to highlight them (the words are all the original): We hold these truths to be self-evident:These self-evident truths were revolutionary in 1776, and are just as important today. Our founding fathers asserted that we are all equal –- that there is no “elite ruling class” with a divine right to govern that knows better than we do how we should live our lives. Our rights come from God, and existed before the establishment of government rather than being granted to us by the government in the Constitution or otherwise. We created the government for the purpose of helping us to defend our rights, and if the government infringes our rights rather than protecting them, it is not only our right, but our duty, to change or replace the government. Today, our government too often assumes for itself the power to take from us our lives, our liberty, and our property. It may be in the form of a “critical areas ordinance” that takes from each rural landowner the use of 65% of their land, or a U.S. Supreme Court decision that says any local government can take our home from us if they think some other private landowner would pay them more in taxes for it, or a state legislature that says the government should take ownership of a significant part of our assets when we die instead of them being inherited by our children or that uses spurious declarations of “emergency” to eviscerate the people’s right of referendum, or any of a number of other incremental and insidious infringements. Whatever form it takes, we should each be continuously asking ourselves whether government has become destructive of the ends for which we created it. The Declaration goes on to say “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” In other words, we are a patient people and will put up with a lot of abuse, but eventually enough is enough. Thomas Jefferson also wrote “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”. Are we willing to pay that price? Are we willing to step up on this Independence Day and commit, as did our founding fathers, “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” to the task of protecting our rights? Will we contribute our time, talents, and money to restoring government to its proper role and place, as a protector rather than a destroyer of our fundamental rights? If we’re not willing, then who will? Many of us have family traditions of reading from the second chapter of the Gospel of Luke on Christmas Eve. Would it not be a great tradition to read the Declaration of Independence on July 4th each year? It only takes about 10 minutes to read aloud the entire document. If you can make time on Tuesday to do it, I think you would be blessed for it; here’s a link. Take a few minutes to think about the marvelous creation our Founding Fathers blessed us with 230 years ago, and how our lives would be different if those principles were to be cast on “the ash heap of history” through our own neglect. May we each have a safe and happy Independence Day with our families! (return to top) Nixon remarks on environmental protection at 2006 Campaign KickoffBellevue (June 14, 2006) -- At the campaign kickoff breakfast for his 2006 campaign for State Senate in the 45th District, before an audience of nearly 300 people, Rep. Toby Nixon made the following remarks:When I first came before you six years ago and asked for your support to represent you in the legislature, I told you that I was committed to the fundamental principles that made this country great: individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and the free market. Some other legislators seem to just drift with the current of public opinion, but I still hold fast to these principles today, and I always will. My legislative priorities have been and will remain the same: to keep our communities safe for our families, and help people protect their lives, liberty, and property; to enable private-sector economic development and job creation; and to restore trust in government. Some people have made note of the fact that I’ve been an active participant in the ongoing debates on protecting our Northwest environment. I’m a member of the state executive committee of Republicans for Environmental Protection –- which is not an oxymoron, by the way. I helped found a new group called the “Washington Environmental Roundtable” to try to reach bipartisan consensus on environmental issues. But as you know, the environmental community doesn’t always see eye to eye with Republicans and they certainly doesn’t base their positions on the same principles we do, some people might wonder why I’ve focused on the environment as an issue. Ever since my younger slimmer days when I hiked 100 miles through the Trinity Alps in California and spent a lot of other time in the outdoors as a Boy Scout, I’ve had a great love for our natural environment and a desire to protect it. The fact is, people shouldn’t be surprised that Republicans care about the environment. Just look at history; Republicans have a proud legacy of conservation and environmental leadership. The national park system was created by a Republican president -– Teddy Roosevelt. Another Republican president, Richard Nixon (no relation), signed into law the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act, among others. The root word of “conservative” and “conservation” is the same. True conservatives take to heart the scriptural admonition to be wise stewards, to take care of the earth so that we can pass it down to our posterity. Clearly, we and our liberal friends share an interest in protecting the environment. Where we disagree is on how best to accomplish it. If nobody speaks up and offers solutions that are consistent with our principles, then their way of doing it gets implemented, almost by default. But their way carries a great risk of destroying our way of life. Let me tell you why. It is only by respecting property rights and the free market that we can protect the environment in a sustainable way, for the long term. Why is that? Caring about the environment is a luxury that only a prosperous society can afford. If you doubt me, think on the images you’ve seen of poor countries around the world. Do they look like places where protection of the environment is a high priority? Every waterway is an open sewer –- but people get their drinking water there anyway. The land is stripped bare as people collect wood to burn or to make room to grow crops. The air is polluted with the burning of that wood and animal dung. People who are living on a subsistence level, who spend every waking hour just trying to find their next meal, don’t have time to care about the environment! If you look at the United States and other wealthy countries, you can see the benefit to the environment of having a robust economy. As a society, we have so much excess wealth that we pay for swarms of government agents to look after the environment for us. Millions of people use their free time to enjoy the natural environment and to voluntarily work on projects to improve and preserve it. Can you imagine the extreme irony if, in the name of protecting the environment, we were to destroy our economy, and with it the very engine that enables us to care about protecting the environment? So what does it take to have a robust economy that generates enough wealth so that both we as individuals and as a society can afford to care about the environment? In a recent article in Imprimis, published by Hillsdale College, Steve Forbes outlined five basic principles of economic growth. The first is the rule of law. Due Process. Equality before the law. Without it, you have a dictatorship in which those in power help their friends, and barriers are placed in the way of starting new businesses that compete. The second is property rights. People simply will not invest in a business, or a home, or anything else, unless they believe their investment is secure and won’t be taken from them by whoever has a bigger gun. The third principle is low taxes. Taxes that are too high are a disincentive to work, to success, and to risk-taking. We’ve seen again and again that when taxes are too high, the economy stagnates, and when taxes are lowered, the economy takes off again. Our problem is not that our taxes are too low, but that government spends too much! The fourth essential principle is limited regulation. Economic growth depends on it being simple to start and operate businesses; we don’t need bureaucrats meddling in every detail. And the fifth principle is free trade. Expanding markets and creating greater opportunity for trade benefits everyone. Too often, liberals in Olympia and Washington DC ignore the rule of law, ignore our property rights, tax everything in sight at exorbitant rates, and impose burdensome regulations and trade restrictions that make it almost impossible to operate a business at a profit and to create jobs. They say they care about the environment, but they don’t seem to understand the essential link between a robust economy and environmental protection. It is our responsibility to teach them. We can’t “Just Vote No” on their proposals. We must be creative, step up and propose solutions that protect the environment and protect our property rights, that protect the environment and enable job creation, that protect the environment and keep the government in check and hold it accountable. So why am I involved in environmental issues? I refuse to just stand back and throw stones. What I will do is step into the middle of the debate, bring people together, and find common-sense solutions that accomplish everyone’s goals in a way that is consistent with our fundamental principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, limited government, and the free market. That is called leadership. We need more of it today. Send me back to Olympia, and that is what you will get. My friends, the thing to remember is this: freedom works. The free market works. Whatever problems face us –- transportation, education, health care, creating jobs, economic development, housing, the environment, I could go on and on –- the answer in every case is to turn away from the path toward bigger government that we’ve been on, and return to the divinely-inspired principles that guided our founding fathers. With your help, I will return to Olympia and continue that fight on your behalf. Thank you very much! (return to top) Nixon applauds AG’s opinion on initiative declarationOlympia (May 31, 2006) -- Rep. Toby Nixon today called on the secretary of state to immediately rescind the requirement that the declaration printed on the reverse side of initiative, referendum, and recall petitions be signed by the petition circulator. He also asked the secretary of state’s office to inform all initiative and referendum petition sponsors that petition forms will be accepted even if no name or signature is provided on the declaration.Nixon’s request was in response to the publication today of Attorney General Rob McKenna’s opinion (Attorney General Opinion No. 13) that House Bill 1222, passed in 2005, does not require the declaration to be signed. The opinion also said that the secretary of state’s office does not have authority to reject petition forms that are not signed. The AG’s opinion cited substantial research into the legislative history of HB 1222 and a previous version of the bill, HB 1660 from the 2003 and 2004 Legislative sessions. “I greatly appreciate the fine work done by the attorney general’s staff in researching the legislative history of HB 1222 and the requirements associated with the statement that is printed on the back of initiative, referendum, and recall petition forms,” said Nixon, R-Kirkland. “I’m pleased that the attorney general shares my opinion that the Legislature did not intend to require petition circulators to sign the statement on the back of each form.” Nixon, who was a co-sponsor of HB 1222, is the ranking Republican member of the House State Government Operations and Accountability Committee. That committee has responsibility for consideration of bills related to Washington election laws, including initiative, referendum, and recall petitions. “The original legislation, HB 1660 introduced in 2003, would have made it much more difficult to get an initiative or referendum qualified for the ballot, because it would have required every petition form to be signed by the petition circulator in front of a notary public,” Nixon said. “I worked hard to amend that bill and its successor, HB 1222, to keep the citizen’s right of initiative and referendum as unencumbered as possible, while fully informing petition circulators of the penalties for falsifying signatures or paying people to sign petitions. HB 1222 would not have passed the Legislature with stronger requirements, and I’m glad the attorney general agrees that the secretary of state’s office cannot create additional or stronger requirements on its own.” The 45th Legislative District, which Nixon has represented since 2002, includes Woodinville, Duvall, Carnation, and portions of Kirkland, Bothell, Redmond, and Sammamish. (return to top) King County Journal: Running for hot state legislative seats takes more than the job paysby NOEL BRADYJournal Reporter (Click here for the original article) Note: The article below says that I am "One of Microsoft’s original 300 employees". This is incorrect; I am actually Microsoft employee number 31,522. Noel Brady misread an earlier article that said Ross Hunter is one of Microsoft's original 300 employees, and thought it referred to me. The King County Journal subsequently printed a correction. -- Toby Bellevue (May 29, 2006) --
When Kirkland lawyer Roger Goodman got the tap on the shoulder earlier this month, he didn’t have much time to ponder how he was going to afford a six-figure campaign for one of the priciest seats in the state House or Representatives.
Woodinville Weekly: Brightwater stinks – and it’s not the sewage you’re smellingby TOBY NIXON(Click | |||||||