Today’s California Blog Roundup is on the flip. Teasers: Old Clark, Immigration (but you have to say it with an Austrian accent), Policy Day, some Dems go without, Doolittle, a couple events, Issue 1 of The Daily Roach, money, and some nice photos.

• The Big Dog has a video of a Wes Clark speech from 2005 up at his shop. It’s not news at the moment, but Wes Clark is clearly a contender for 2008, so have a look.
• Frank Russo at California Progress Report explains why immigration is so very scary for our favorite Austrian immigrant. I haven’t done the research, but I wonder if Governor Schwarzenegger was ever out of status — that would have made him a felon under the House immigration bill (Some speculation here). Oh, and look! The President! With a Mexican Flag! It’s just a symbol, but if people want to blow it up into something more, let’s party.
• Alliance for a Better California notes that the two main Democratic candidates for Governor took a break from sniping at each other and introduced some policy proposals. Sweet!
• Ament Stone of California (Who I believe is our “Nathaniel, Burbank native”) posts a diary at MyDD which notes that a fair number of California House Democrats won’t have Republican challengers this year.
• Words Have Power notes that the company John Doolittle keeps seems to be moving prisonward, and leads us to a Houston Chronicle piece explaining how some of that came about.
• Dump Doolittle tells us that Julie Doolittle seems to have worked for a lot of companies attached to current and soon-to-be jailbirds. Nite Swimming continues to do a great job picking up letters to the editor from angry Doolittle constituents.
• Also from Dump Doolittle, there’s gonna be a get-together, with lots of NorCal Democratic candidates on April 10 in Sacramento.
• The Democratic Daily has the text of the letter from Senators Boxer and Feinstein to the Bush Administration, requesting that the Bush Administration stop stepping on the states’ efforts to reduce emissions. Equal billing this time.
• San Diego Politics reports on the reporting on Eric Roach’s “newspaper” mailer. The comments are a hoot.
• Bill Bradley’s doing the money and advertising horse race in the Democratic gubernatorial primary. On the subject of money and the horserace, the California Observer has a great find from the Stockton Record on the extent to which there really aren’t any small donors in California campaigns.
• Marc Cooper notes that the Minutemen seem to be losing steam by the, er, minute. Again, the comments are priceless.
• Left in SF tells us of a Barbara Lee fundraiser in the Transamerica Pyramid on April 10. Click through, then put the pun down, and back away slowly.
• Last, it looks like janinsanfran got out of the city last weekend and took some nice pictures between showers.

California News Roundup on the flip. Teasers: Peter Schrag on California, Pelosi profiled, Schwarzenegger profiled, voter registration, Dean, salmon, emissions regulation, insurance, and of course, lots of immigration.

Not Immigration

• Shorter Peter Schrag: California is just very confused. Discuss at the California Progress Report.
• The Chron has the first in a three-part profile of Nancy Pelosi. This installment, at least, is very pro-Pelosi, and pro-machine.
• The LA Times profiles Schwarzenegger. I don’t have any idea what to make of the profile, except that I’m sure I would never want to work for this guy.
• Voter registration is still hosed, requiring registrars to manually confirm hundreds and sometimes thousands of new registrations in time for the June primary (and in CA-50, by April 11).
• Ballot Watch Graphic from the SacBee on the race to replace Steve Westly as State Controller.
• Capitol Roundup from the Merc / CC Times, showing what they thought was important in state politics last week. Oddly, that doesn’t include the minimum wage bills under debate.
• Two different views on Howard Dean’s recent visit to the area: one from the AP, focusing on his statements on immigration, and one directly from the local reporter focusing on the Asian-American Democrats’ conference.
• California steps up with emissions regulations to try to slow global warming. Of course, business interests want it ignored handled at the federal level. The Bush Administration apparently agrees, and is attempting to override both the EPA and state regulations with adminstrative rulemaking by the Transportation Department. Federalism and deference to the legislative branch are core principles of the Republican Party. No, seriously. Stop laughing. Stop it.
• Great piece from the San Francisco Chronicle laying out the constituencies affected by Klamath River damming and water usage decisions, and why now is the time that perhaps past mistakes destroying the salmon fishery can be rectified.
• The Sacramento Bee reports on a privacy screwup by the California State Employment Development Department. Before all y’all anti-government types get twisted up, though, the EDD’s screwup pales beside corporate screwups.
• Last, one of my hobbyhorses: setting auto insurance rates based on driving record, not zip code.

Immigration

• Gregory Rodriguez’s LA Times Op-Ed provides some additional context on the issue of Mexican immigration. Seriously, this is a complicated question, and there’s going to be a lot of “more context” stuff.
• A SacBee piece “analyzing” the effect of the immigration discussion on the California gubernatorial race. And by “analyzing”, I mean turning mostly to political consultants for each major party to criticize the other side’s approach.
• A series of pieces from New America Media about the interaction between black Americans and immigrants. I might read them slightly out of chronological order: (1) Straight Reporting, (2) Earl Ofari Hutchison (3) The Black Commentator / Bruce Dixon, and (4) The Black Commentator / Bruce Dixon again.
• Everybody running for CA-11 against Richard Pombo is more sane on immigration than he is. One finds this article as well, profiling the more nativist of the Republicans in California’s U.S. Representatives. Frankly, my head just spins when I hear Republicans from the House talk about “rule of law”.
• New polling says that in California, immigration is a partisan issue. Nationwide, not so much.

I lived in Orange County for a very brief while, and then worked for a law firm that was based there.  So, I know the Irvine Company well.  My main frustration with them was that they had a monopoly on the apartments in the Irvine area and used that power as many monopolists do, to exploit their customers.  But the Irvine Co.’s tentacles extend to the politics of Southern California and the state.

Powerful and iconic, the Irvine Co. is one of the heaviest hitters in California politics. But in spending millions to champion a big business agenda, it is a behemoth that prefers to stay in the background.

Whether it’s registering an opinion in the Legislature, helping orchestrate a deal to get a tax measure off the ballot or combining its campaign contributions with other business groups around the state, the Irvine Co. is known for its political stealth and making an impact while leaving no fingerprints.

“Traditionally, they’ve been very involved in California politics, with lots of money, and not just in one year, but it seems like every year they’re involved,” said Bob Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies and author of California’s Political Reform Act of 1974. “They’ve just been around a long time and have exercised their influence.”(Sac Bee 4/1/06)

Check the flip…

They are one of Arnold’s biggest contributors; they gave his “Recovery Team”, Schwarzenegger’s special election fund, $150,000.  They have given the California GOP hundreds of thousands of dollars directly, in addition to the massive sums of money they have directed to interest groups and trade associations.  Interestingly, they have also given heavily to open space and consevation measures.

Since 1999, the Irvine Co. has spent more than $1.9 million on lobbying and another $3.6 million in assorted political campaigns, mostly toward ballot measures and to a much more limited extent, toward candidates, according to the secretary of state’s electronic records.
***
But Jamie Court of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights sees the company as being more than just another player when it comes to financing and articulating the interests of big business in the state.

“They’re very much a behind-the-scenes player,” Court said.(Sac Bee 4/1/06)

The SacBee article referenced in the blockquote has more information about the Irvine Co.’s contributions.  It’s a good idea to know who is on the other side.

I am obsessed with structure.  To me, governmental structure makes the difference between a successful state government and well…not.  California has a lot of issues of structure that bug me.  Supermajority, Prop 13, and term limits, just to name a few. 

Now, I understand the motivation behind term limits. We don’t want people (I guess in California’s case, we’re talking about Willie Brown) to be so entrenched in a position that they become bigger than the institution.  New people bring new ideas.  It allows more people to be involved in their government.  Citizen legislators are more healthy than a leadership clas…yada, yada, yada.  Yes, all these things make excellent sense in theory. 

In practicality, it doesn’t work so well.  You see, those long serving members of the legislature are good for more than just dominating party politics.  They know how the system works.  They enable legislation to happen.  They are the sources of institutional memory.  And it’s not just California.  Other states, are struggling.  Nebraska is set to lose half of its legislature, and it’s not the only state with troubles:

Critics cite the example of Colorado, which in 1990 became one of the first states to adopt term limits. Diane Rees, a lobbyist for the past 30 years in Denver, said term limits there have resulted in a near total loss of institutional memory and an increase in power of staff and bureaucrats.

“Term limits are disastrous and everyone who’s involved in the political process knows it,” she said.(SJ M-N 3/28/06)

See the extended –>

I tend to think that the loss of institutional memory actually causes the increase in power of the staff, but I suppose that’s debatable.  But, it can be clearly shown that the staff cycle through Sacramento.  They are unelected and become as powerful, if not more powerful, than their bosses.  The legislators come and go, but the staff stays.

And who else stays, and knows the system?  Lobbyists.  In fact many of the lobbyists are former legislators.  That comes as no surprise of course.  And so, the lobbyists gain power simply by knowing the system better than the lawmakers.

All of this brings me to the intra-party sniping that goes on due to limits in California.

Before a single vote is cast, four of every 10 California lawmakers are doomed to lose their jobs this year, sparking what are expected to be ferocious intraparty wars to replace them.
“You’ve just got battles all over the place,” said Allan Hoffenblum, publisher of the California Target Book, which handicaps political races.

The massive turnover, caused by term limits and by decisions to seek higher office, comes at a time of dismal legislative approval ratings.

“You’re going to have more hard-fought, competitive races than the state has ever seen,” Hoffenblum said of the June primary election.(Sac Bee 3/31/06)

Personally, I find this constant carousel of politicians a bit dizzying and disconcerting.  While I realize that term limits have their benefits, they are outweighed by the negatives.  I know that the repeal of term limits is not coming in the near future, but it sure would be nice!

I just wanted to point out that Survey USA had released their latest poll results. Check out Alliance for a BetterCA and S-USA’s site.

All voters (last month)
Approve 36% (32)
Disapprove 61% (65)
Not Sure 3% (3)

Arnold plans to raise anywhere between $75 and $120 million for his re-election:

A former top Schwarzenegger advisor has told business leaders that the governor is trying to raise $120 million for the November election, much of it for the state Republican Party. Schwarzenegger has refuted that figure, and aides now say his goal for the year is $75 million.

Whatever the target, his schedule in the weeks ahead includes a long roster of events to gather campaign money from donors, many of whom have a stake in decisions he makes as governor.(LA Times March 21, 2006)

The unions have already started their protests at the prospect of Ahnold spending all summer raising cash. Go Unions!

In Beverly Hills on Monday, unions held their first major protest of the year against the Republican governor’s collection of campaign money. About 200 nurses, bus drivers, school clerks and other union members marched outside a private Schwarzenegger reception and dinner for donors, who paid up to $100,000 for seats near the governor and his guest speaker, U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

As Schwarzenegger was ensconced with top supporters inside the Beverly Hilton, sign-waving protesters shouted from the sidewalks outside at rush-hour traffic on Wilshire and Santa Monica boulevards.

***

The scenes were similar to the dozens of protests that organized labor held last year during its successful battle to kill Schwarzenegger’s November ballot initiatives. This year, of course, the target is his reelection.

The unions’ core message on Monday — that Schwarzenegger broke his campaign pledge to shun special-interest money — is part of a broader effort by labor and its Democratic allies to cast the governor as a standard politician who fails to keep his word.

“He said he wasn’t going to take special-interest money, and then this fundraiser flies in the face of everything he said he would be,” said Robin Swanson, a spokeswoman for the Alliance for a Better California, the union coalition formed last year to fight Schwarzenegger’s ballot measures.

Good work Alliance for a Better CA!  I also just thought it would be nice to point out what the GOP donors are getting for that money (on the flip).  He spent over $140 million out of his campaign funds so far!

The fact remains that Arnold claimed he was going to be a governor who would reject special interest money, yet he revels in it and what it can buy him.  The fundraising binge that he is now pursuing is both disheartening for our state and an embarassment for our electoral system that we need $100million campaigns.

Big spender

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has spent more than $142.5 million in campaign donations since entering politics about four years ago.

A sampling:

—

Sources: California Secretary of State, Times research LA Times

Well, I find myself agreeing with Dan Walters (it happens occasionally):

If nothing else, the comic opera collapse of the two-month political quest for a plan to improve highways, levees and other strained and deteriorating public facilities should finally convince Californians that their Capitol is a broken institution, endemically incapable of dealing with major policy issues.
***
Simply put, California’s dizzyingly dense mélange of ideological, geographic, cultural and economic subgroups interacts with a political structure that, in effect, gives every “stakeholder” a virtual veto power over the product. Under those circumstances, there are only two possible outcomes, both of which are bad. Either the product is a monstrosity that accommodates all demands but collapses of its own weight, or there is stalemate and no product at all.(Sac Bee 3/17/06)

Agreed! The fact that every interest can hold up the governing in our state is ridiculous.  It has lead us to the terrible result that we govern by proposition.  It led Arnold Schwarzenegger to work for Prop 10 for after school programs, it led Rob Reiner to work for Prop 82 for universal preschool.  Where does my finger point? Squarely at Prop 13 and its ilk. 

Now, Dan has a different idea.  He’s not concerned with changing the system, he just thinks that everybody should be good and do what’s right.  Uh…yeah…that’s gonna happen:

If there’s any hope of reviving the Capitol’s relevance, its occupants must have enough guts to keep it simple and to heed Nancy Reagan’s advice on drugs to “just say no” to all ancillary demands, no matter what their source may be.

Well, Dan, I’m not sure if your tongue is planted firmly in cheek, but I think we both know that  legislators and interest groups are not going to stop being self-interested.  What we need is a return of the simple majority to budgetary politics.