<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Saturday&#8230;coping with changing needs of elderly parents, more on campaign issues, Seattle Weekly on David Black, etc.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ilind.net/2008/07/19/saturdaycoping-with-changing-needs-of-elderly-parents-more-on-campaign-issues-seattle-weekly-on-david-black-etc/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ilind.net/2008/07/19/saturdaycoping-with-changing-needs-of-elderly-parents-more-on-campaign-issues-seattle-weekly-on-david-black-etc/</link>
	<description>Ian Lind • Online daily from Kaaawa, Hawaii</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 05:21:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy Parx</title>
		<link>http://ilind.net/2008/07/19/saturdaycoping-with-changing-needs-of-elderly-parents-more-on-campaign-issues-seattle-weekly-on-david-black-etc/comment-page-1/#comment-847</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy Parx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:04:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ilind.net/?p=554#comment-847</guid>
		<description>I think I see better what you’re saying now. I’m not an attorney either but I think the difference may be in “public funding” vs. “FULL public funding”. The former, which is what we currently have in Hawai`i, has contributions AND public funds available so has contribution and expenditure limits. By changing those for the public funds candidate that is very much an advantage not available to all candidates, which is what I think is prohibited in the ruling.

But in the BI legislation the candidate who opts for public funding takes no contributions therefore has no donor or expenditure limits. It may be a matter of how “indirect” the remedy is will determine the legality. But I’m pretty sure someone will challenge it so we’ll find out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think I see better what you’re saying now. I’m not an attorney either but I think the difference may be in “public funding” vs. “FULL public funding”. The former, which is what we currently have in Hawai`i, has contributions AND public funds available so has contribution and expenditure limits. By changing those for the public funds candidate that is very much an advantage not available to all candidates, which is what I think is prohibited in the ruling.</p>
<p>But in the BI legislation the candidate who opts for public funding takes no contributions therefore has no donor or expenditure limits. It may be a matter of how “indirect” the remedy is will determine the legality. But I’m pretty sure someone will challenge it so we’ll find out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

