Over the last few days, we've spend a lot of time talking about the great bills that were signed, and those that were vetoed. But because of the Dem-tilt to the Legislature we rarely get real stinkers passing and heading to the Governor's desk.  Well, congratulations Legislators, you let a real stinker move.  So, without further ado, I give you the freshly minted California law formerly known as AB 1430 (Leg. Analysts's Summary): (Bill info here)

Existing law provides that, for the purposes of contribution limits imposed by the Political Reform Act of 1974, payments for communications to an organization's members, employees, shareholders, or their family members, to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure are not contributions or expenditures if not made for general public advertisements, such as broadcasting, billboards, or newspaper ads. However, existing law requires that payments by a political party for communications to registered party members that would otherwise qualify as contributions or expenditures be reported in accordance with provisions governing the filing of periodic campaign reports, and governing the filing of reports online or electronically with the Secretary of State. 

Existing law provides that the Political Reform Act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except the limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with these provisions regulating payments for communications. 

This bill would provide that certain restrictions and limitations by a local jurisdiction on payments for a member communication, as defined, would conflict with these provisions and would be prohibited..

So, basically, this would effectively neuter local campaign finance law.  It's a little blurry about that, but once you think about it for a while, you realize that's what it does. It allows you to fundraise for some organization and then funnel money around in such a way as to create a loophole on local legislation that would blow away any rules.

I would like to be able to say that at least some Dems put up a fight on this, but ultimately, few did.  It passed the Assembly unanimously, and only 9 senators (Alquist, Florez, Kuehl, Lowenthal, Migden, Scott, Simitian, Steinberg, and Yee) voted against it. In defense of the Assembly folks, this bill was passed under the nose of the Common Cause, etc type of groups with no objection raised.  As for the Senators? No such excuse can be made, Clean Money Campaign blasted the bill before the Senate vote, yet 16 Dem Senators voted for it.  And then, of course, Arnold signed it. Hooray for democracy!

The Camelot Theatre in Palm Springs bills itself as the desert’s “premiere art theatre.”  Catering to the areas’ large gay population, the Camelot can always be counted on to show the best of current gay film.  It may therefore surprise some patrons to learn that their theatre dollars routinely go to support some of the most anti-gay causes and candidates around the nation. 

According to the Federal Election Commission, Ms. Rozene Supple, the owner of the Camelot, has given almost $27,000 to the Republican Party and to conservative, right-wing homophobes over the years.  A small sampling:

Last year, Ms. Supple gave $1,000 to the Citizens United Political Victory Fund.  Its mission?  To support conservative candidates running for federal office who share its vision, in part, of “promoting traditional family values.”

In 2005 and 2006, Ms. Supple donated $1,350.00 to Van Hilleary, a candidate for the Senate from Tennessee.  Mr. Hilleary opposes a woman’s right to choose; opposes same-sex marriage (believing that “traditional marriage must be preserved”) and, in 1999 when he served in the House, voted to ban adoptions by gay couples in Washington, DC.

Also in 2005 and 2006, Ms. Supple gave $6,800.00 to John D. Spencer who ran for the Senate in New York in 2006.  Mr. Spencer believes that Roe v. Wade should be overturned and supports the Marriage Protection Amendment which states that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

In 2005 and 2006, Ms. Supple gave George “Ma-ca-ca” Allen contributions totalling $500 in his race for the Senate.  According to the AP (10/26/2006), this was the race in which Mr. Allen played the “anti-gay marriage” card, attacking gay people in hopes of attracting the right-wing base.

The Camelot is currently showing the film, “For the Bible Tells Me So,” a documentary that “brilliantly reconciles homosexuality and Biblical scripture,” revealing that “Church-sanctioned anti-gay bias is based almost solely on a significant (and often malicious) misinterpretation of the Bible.”

One might hope that Ms. Supple sees her own film.  If she did, she might regret her 2002 donation of $250 to the Christian Voter Project of the Traditional Values Coalition, a group whose website is so virulently and weirdly anti-gay that it’ll give you the creeps just to read it.

Ms. Supple’s most recent contribution?  Three hundred dollars in June to Mitt Romney, the formerly pro-gay Governor of Massachusetts who’s currently flip-flopping to the bottom in a race to be more anti-gay than the next Republican candidate. . . .

The list of Ms. Supple’s donations to right-wing, homophobic candidates and causes goes on and on but I think you get the picture:  The proceeds of a pretty gay theatre supporting pretty anti-gay candidates. . . 

Hmmmh.  I’ll just wait for the DVD.

There’s obviously been a lot of discussion about this, but I thought the Senator that wrote the bill would be someone to listen to about this.  From an emailed press release:

Despite stringent cost containment amendments and support from all three segments of California public higher education, Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed Sen. Gilbert Cedillo’s California Dream Act (SB 1) Saturday. The proposal would have enabled qualifying undocumented students to apply for two types of non- competitive state financial aid, the Cal Grant High School Entitlement Grant and community college fee waivers. In his veto message Schwarzenegger indicated extending aid to the students was an imprudent strain on the General Fund although estimates pegged new budget allocations under SB 1 at $1.9 million or .018% of General Fund monies.

“He’s a tough guy to pin down, we addressed every fiscal concern the administration had, but maybe it’s more of a political calculation for him. The need for this bill extends beyond the walls of my office and although the Governor and I may disagree, this is one area where I think business sense should prevail.” […]

“Despite support from the entire public higher education system, some of his own appointees to the Regents, the Governor has vetoed a landmark education bill. In the face of non-partisan research and business community support to secure the workforce of tomorrow, the Governor deems a one hundredth of one percent cost increase more dire than facing a shortage of skilled labor in our state,” said Cedillo.  “While these students work hard to obtain the American dream, to contribute to our state, the Governor seems to look the other way.”

The bill was the result of some serious compromise with the Governor’s office, and he vetoed it anyway.

Leadership.