Following up on a post I did a couple of weeks ago about Arnold supporting Bush, I’d like to post two things. One is a new CDP ad with footage from Arnold’s GOP Convention speech, the other is the FilmLoop I ran last time. Enjoy!
Daily Archives: August 25, 2006
Rothenberg: Dem. House Takeover Likely
From Stu Rothenberg’s lips to God’s ears. It looks like official Washington is accepting the frame of a likely Democratic takeover of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Our latest race-by-race review of Congressional districts around the country convinces us that a Democratic wave is building and that the party is poised to take control of the House of Representatives in the fall. The only question now is the size of the November wave….
That’s a recipe for a GOP disaster, and there is no reason to believe that things will change dramatically between now and Election Day to improve Republican prospects.
At the district level, voters are more critical of Republican incumbents – and supportive of even unknown Democratic candidates – than they usually are at this point in the election cycle. GOP candidates are running behind where they would be in anything approaching a “neutral” year. While some firming of the Republican base is likely over the next ten weeks, that alone may not be enough for the party to retain the House.
Strong fund raising by the DCCC should mean that some Democratic candidates won’t face the huge financial discrepancy that they have in the past, though RNC money should boost the Republican ground game nationally….
Therefore, we are raising our estimate of likely Democratic gains from 8-12 seats to 15-20 seats, which would translate to between 218 and 223 seats – and a majority – in the next House.
I never like to count chickens before they hatch and there is a lot of work to be done between now and November, but when an established figure like Stuart Rothenberg publishes a report like this, you have to know he reflects a consensus of the current political scene. Stay tuned!
CA – Bowen introduces Proposition Reform bill.
(X-posted from GovernorPhil.Com)
Frank has a real winner of a post in his CA Progress Report today. Specifically progressive darling, verified voting activist and all around awesome lady State Sen. Debra Bowen, (our next Secretary of State) has proposed a bill that would bring some much needed reform to the proposition process. It would require disclosure whether signature collectors are volunteers or being paid and most importantly show who is paying for it.
Considering how Republicans, who can’t get legislators elected in California based on their ideas, have utterly hijacked the proposition process. This is huge. Recently CA Republicans main strategy seems to be throw as much money as possible into paid signature collection for bogus bills designed to castrate Democratic support, and bring out touchy feely issues that will turn out the Conservative base…
SB 1598 passed the California Assembly this week on a strict party line vote of 43 to 28 with all Democrats in favor and all Republicans opposed. It has previously passed the Senate on a similar partisan vote and that body will vote on concurring in minor amendments made in the Assembly before it goes to the Governor.
This could be seriously bad news for Phil’s opponent the recall Governor as well…
Frank:
This will set up a very interesting test of the Governor. He vetoed a similar bill last year. But that was before the “Special Election” last year where measures placed on the ballot by paid signature gatherers, were all defeated by the people after $300 million dollars (a national record amount) was spent on ads and $60 million of public money was wasted on the election. Arnold says he learned his lesson from his defeats last year. This is an election year–we will see if he signs the Bowen bill or sides with money and against disclosure for voters to make an intelligent decision on what gets on the ballot.
The SF Chronicle, which is not bastian of liberalism, despite what the right wing says… recently had a fantastic editorial about this
from that editorial:
With this bill, California voters lose none of their historic power to put initiatives on the ballot. What they gain is a clearer look at the political forces at work.
Absolutely, although considering that Arnold and his coharts have used the proposition process over and over again to get through their extreme agenda. I wouldn’t hold my breath on the current governor signing that, his base simply won’t allow it.
But how about a little history, back to Frank:
The initiative–the right of the people to vote directly on ballot propositions–was a great progressive reform brought to us by Hiram Johnson almost a century ago. It required a certain amount of signatures to be gathered on petitions so that it would be reserved to situations where there was a popular uprising for a measure to be on the ballot.
This is not the process we have now. Instead of average citizens bringing their ironing boards out to public places because they want to see a measure on the ballot, voters who are going about their daily business are confronted by paid bounty hunters soliciting their signatures. In almost all cases they have no idea of what they are signing–and no information of who is behind the proposal, who is financing it, and whether the person asking them to sign is a volunteer or paid.
All that exists now is a statement in relatively small 12 point type that the petition may be circulated by a paid signature gatherer and that you have a right to know. How you get to find that out is another question as those being paid per signature gathered may say something orally, and if you ask them who is behind the measure, they may not even know. All they often know is who is paying them their bounty.
What Bowen’s bill requires is that at the top of the petition it be stated in 24 point type is the petition is being circulated by a volunteer or by a paid signature gatherer. Also, the names of the five largest contributors (and if they share a common employer) need to be disclosed. Wouldn’t you want to know that information? Why have Republicans in the legislature opposed our right to know this?
Preach it!
This is something that everybody can agree with, whenever i’m approached by a signature gatherer, I always try to get as much information as possible since paid signature gatherers will pretty much tell you anything you want to hear to get
Whether it’s a “petition for ballot access” (“oh yeah? for who…” “an independent candidate.” “which one?” “…um… er… Ralph Nader.” “Forget it!), or some other misleading sort of line, the fact of the matter is that the propositions on the ballot aren’t always the will of the people.
Sorry to break that to you.
And also, i’d just like to point out that there is a reason we elect legislators, it’s to CREATE LEGISLATION, I know that I can speak for many Californians when I can say that enough is enough with all of the propositions. What the hell are we paying these people for if every 6 months or so I have to sit down with a dusty tome of voter information and try to parse the legalese of a half dozen bond measures?
With the exception of some important ones that are not politically expediant (such as Clean Money), and are based on actual grassroots activism, of course.
This is what Arnold said when he vetoed it last time:
This bill attacks the initiative process and makes it more difficult for the people of California to gather signatures and qualify measures for the ballot. While difficulty of the process may be a good thing for big-money special interests and for political consultants who stand to gain financially, it is not for everyday Californians with an idea for reform.
Right! except for that is completely and utterly wrong.
You would be able to tell the difference between real grassroots efforts and so-called “astroturf” very easilly.
This is a great bill, and it puts the recall governor who is trying to play the part of the reformer in a really tough position. I truly hope, and actually expect, to see Phil “the real reformer” Angelides come out in favor of this very soon.
-C.
Why Good Government Groups Support Proposition 89
Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, is gaining key support. Recently, California’s four leading senior organizations endorsed the clean money initiative on the November ballot.
California’s two major good government organizations, the League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause, joined a growing coalition of community-based organizations by endorsing Proposition 89
“The League and Common Cause have actively worked to support reasonable measures including contribution limits, limits on campaign spending, partial public financing of campaigns, and better disclosure of the financing of campaigns,” said Jackie Jacobberger, President of the League of Women Voters of California. “But the real solution to the runaway spending that has made California’s elections a competition of money, not ideas, is public funding — the Clean Money approach.”
Proposition 89 mandates strict contribution limits, creates public financing of political campaigns and forces tough disclosure and enforcement for politicians.
“We face a serious problem with voter apathy and disgust over elections where there are no new ideas or faces,” noted Kathay Feng, Executive Director of California Common Cause. “A Clean Money system levels the playing field for more qualified candidates with diverse points of view and backgrounds to run.”
The “Clean Money” system of public financing of elections is similar to those already adopted in Maine and Arizona, where the system has lowered overall campaign spending, freed candidates from fundraising, increased turnout, and encouraged more qualified people to run including women and minorities.
“These states have proven that Clean Money elections are constitutional and they work,” said Common Cause President Chellie Pingree. “Californians are tired of pay-to-play politics and negative ad wars. Proposition 89 would go a long way toward giving citizens a louder voice and a more responsive government.”
In addition, Proposition 89 has gained the support of the Consumer Federation of California.
“All too often, consumer protection legislation is defeated in Sacramento by politicians who are beholden to the big business interests that bankroll their electoral campaigns,” CFC’s Executive Director Richard Holober stated. “Proposition 89 would help reduce the influence of corporate campaign contributions on elected officials. It will help to decrease the use of the ballot initiative as a vehicle for big business to enact legislation, and help restore the initiative to its original purpose as an expression of the people’s will.”
Daily updates on the initiative campaign’s progress can be found at the Proposition 89 Blog.