Constitutional revision in Clay County

[Tom Platt]

Last night in Clay County, one industry lost while another industry won in the battle to carve out protection for their industry in the county charter. The rogue Charter Review
Commission voted 8 – 6 to reject a charter amendment to increase the hours for
sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday, then turned around and voted 8 – 6 to
approve a petition to be on the November ballot to increase gambling in Clay
County.

This is pure interest groups politics at the local level. By seeking special protection for their industries profits through a charter amendment, gambling and liquor
lobbyists are clearly seeking a classic form of corporate welfare.

The liquor industry and the gambling industry fought a hard fight to get extra protection for their interests by carving out places in the county constitution similar to past amendments to the state constitution
(bullet train, classroom size, etc).
This effort to obtain special benefits for their industries would allow
them to bypass the legislative process because of fear that their interests
would lose out in the normal process of making laws at the county level.

The net result is that it appears that the liquor industry has less power to influence laws than does the gambling industry. This may or may not be a reflection of their relative financial strength or it could reflect the greater strength of the
gambling industry's lobbyists in Clay County. Or maybe it’s a combination of
both.

Maybe the political lesson to the liquor industry is that it needs a local home-grown lobbyist in Clay County just like the gambling industry.

People who don't see this as a struggle by well-financed industries for the power to influence laws are ignoring the realities of politics: it’s always about money, and money usually – but not always –
determines the winner of a political effort to get protective legislation
passed to benefit an industry.

The Charter Review Commission also voted to put a petition on the November ballot to prevent the legislative branch of county government from exercising legislative powers given to them by the state legislature.

Because of their unconstitutional activities and because they could not find any section of the existing charter which needed changing, the Commission should have their frequency of meeting s changed from the
current requirement of meeting every four years. Instead, it should meet with the same
frequency of the state Constitutional Review Commission: every 20 years!