I just don’t want my tax money going towards church schools. Don’t even use the COL Takashi example of “Pell Grants for attending BYU and Notre Dame”…those are not madrassas. The fact is, this bill would enable the funding for FLDS whacko-type schools.

Come on guys! I’ve tried to keep my arguments substantive. I just mentioned this stuff because it is important to know how we got stuck into this situation. Most Utahns don’t want subsidies for private school attendees. We’re only stuck with this debate now because of the out of state anti-public school voucher crusaders and the politicians they purchased.

It’s a good thing for you to bring this up. I don’t want money from outsiders influencing my state. We should put limits on these kind of external influences as regards any political issue. But I agree with Jesse that the NEA is an outsider as well.

I think it’s important at this point, especially because it is now a referendum, that we not use the fact that some out-of-state outfit supported or opposed it as a basis for arguing that it must be bad or good.

We should substantially argue the voucher issue on its merits. I happen to think it’s a good thing (although ironically my wife and I don’t plan to use it, as our kids are in an excellent public charter school).

I think that if EVERY Republican were bought, there would have been no way to get enough signatures to get the petition passed. The Utah GOP, however, took hundreds of thousands of PCE money and spent it on dishonest (sometimes outright lying) attack ads during the 2006 season.

That, IMHO, is being bought and staying bought.

As you noted, we’ve almost lost sight of the real content of the voucher referendum. I admit that I began looking at this issue specifically to understand the proposal, which led to wanting to understand the bigger issue, which then led to who was funding this issue before we ever got to this spring’s referendum petition. And like I wrote the other day, at that point it was like pulling a loose thread on a sweater. I’m still picking through articles from all over the country about who’s paying for the voucher proposal.

I want to mention one other thing too. I read about the rumor that NEA is sending money into Utah, and I brought it up last Sunday with one of my neighbors who is a teacher. She made a good point, and I accept it. She said UEA is made up of thousands of Utah teachers, and its Utah members pay association dues to UEA and NEA. So when NEA sends any money into NEA, she said it’s just sending Utah teachers’ money back to them. That’s different from a pro-voucher group in Michigan or Virginia, that isn’t made up of any “members,” sending big checks to get certain candidates elected based on a nationwide agenda, or to get a referendum passed that supports their agenda. To be honest, I see the difference too.

And Davis is exactly right. When (or if) that money appears, then there’ll be a record of it and we can talk about that then. At the moment, we have plenty of records of ACM money pouring into Utah. I worry that the “rumor” of NEA money will become a tool that our PCE friends will use like a ghost to haunt our debate about the proposal, without it ever being here, and keep everyone distracted from what the proposal really does and doesn’t say.

Again, thanks.

DD: The WSJ seems to think it’s verifiable enough to print. That just about makes it fact.

Bell: That’s good rhetoric but it doesn’t reflect the reality that about a third of GOP members in the House voted against vouchers.

The PCE ALREADY owns the Utah GOP.
The NEA is just window shopping marketing firms.

Huge difference.

Fair enough. You should note that I’m griping about an out of state group that bought legislators and you guys are complaining about a group directly lobbying the voters of the state of Utah. A bit of a difference.

You’re right though…out of state interests are funding both sides of the debate right now.