Politician All For Transparency Until It Might Make Him Look Bad In A Campaign Commercial
from the hello-streisand dept
Apparently, California broadcasts many key state legislature hearings, just like many legislative bodies these days. However, right before a hearing on some key ballot initiatives, apparently California Senate President pro tem Darrell Steinberg ordered that the feed be turned off for the meeting. Critics noted that Steinberg was vigorously supporting one of the ballot measures, which involves sales and income tax issues. After complaining about cutting off the feed, Steinberg and his staff basically admitted that they did it because they don’t want footage to be used against them in campaign commercials by opponents:
Steinberg spokesman, Rhys Williams justified the disruption of CalChannel service this way: ‘It was inappropriate to provide legislative resources to promote the ballot measure campaigns of either side, and in particular to make those public-funded resources easily available for exploitation in political TV commercials.'”
In other words, because the public debate on these issues might lead others to make campaign commercials, it should not be transparent or shared at all.
The committee’s own chairperson, Lois Wolk, was apparently horrified that the video was cut off, noting that “she had begun the hearing with a statement expressing hope that it would help voters reach a reasoned decision on the four measures.” Oops.
Steinberg, to his credit has now apologized and admitted that: “It wasn’t a good reason… When you mess up, you mess up. I’m sorry and it won’t happen again.” At least he recognizes that, but the initial move was still pretty blatant and raises significant questions about his motivations in cutting off this most basic form of governmental transparency.
Filed Under: california, darrell steinberg, live feed, politics, taxes, transparency
Comments on “Politician All For Transparency Until It Might Make Him Look Bad In A Campaign Commercial”
Feed
Did they still tape it? If so they should release it… unless it makes him look bad. /s
I can see the political comercials now:
“Steinberg doesn’t want you to know what he’s doing on the issues that affect you.”
Politicians v. The Truth
When the truth makes you look bad…
and does the apology include the transmission now? didn’t see where there has been a change of mind on that part
Stainberg's Campaign Motto
Do as I say, not as I do
Stainberg's Campaign Motto
Well he’s making it pretty difficult to know what he does.
Stainberg's Campaign Motto
Well, that might be good policy what with the corrpt behavier.
You wouldn’t wabt your neigbours to act like a bunch of politicians would you?
Be fair...
“Politician All For Transparency Until It Might Make Him Look Bad In A Campaign Commercial”
In all fairness to Mr. Steinberg, he and his people WERE incredibly transparent about why they don’t want to be transparent. So….that’s something….
Re: Be fair...
Don’t forget they apologized. I’m sure that everything will be alright when the Govt apologize for having violated the Constitution countless times since 9/11. /s
You’re damned right you made a mistake.
The bigger problem is that he even considered such a thing, much less acted upon it, to begin with.
This points to a serious character flaw and character flaws are not cured with the utterance of an apology. He needs to go, ASAP.
Back in the day
When CSPAN first started, they were restricted to very tight shots, because Congress didn’t want people to know how often they didn’t show up. Newt Gingrich and co. siezed on that and started making speeches during Special Orders and acting like that they were directly addressing congressmen who weren’t even there. Tip O’Niel flipped out and made CSPAN pull back and show how empty it was.
TL;DR Be careful about putting Pols in charge of broadcasting Pols.
This is the kind of thing that happens when you have one party rule, as they do in California.
>In other words, because the public debate on these issues >might lead others to make campaign commercials, it should >not be transparent or shared at all.
No the Other Words that apply here are ACTUALLY
Because his support of these issues, if VOTERS KNEW ABOUT IT may well change their decision to vote for him, he would rather keep it as quiet as possible.
So..
So..
you dont want someone video taping your DOINGS.?.?
Are you?
Ashamed? smoking habit, you said you quit?
Embarrassed? First time on a nude beach?
Doing something Against the rules? You are supposed to represent a GROUP, and now you ARENT??
Doing something against the LAW?? Striping in public? speeding?
I thought we were supposed to place ideological persons that LIVED by what they said..
I thought we were supposed to elect SMART people that Looked ahead and made decisions they could live with..
THIS is a public OFFICE. This is a public JOB.. this is SUPPOSED to be where we can EXPECT those that we elected to “DO THE RIGHT THING””protect the public”