Sen. Dick Durbin, Assistant Majority Leader of the Senate, met with a group of LA bloggers today, including myself, in a wide-ranging hourlong discussion.  If you’re curious about the full details, you can go here or here or here.  What I want to bring to everyone’s attention is Sen. Durbin’s proposed bill to publicly finance Congressional elections, and what we in California can do to help.

Obviously, money is probably the most impossible thing to get out of politics, especially if you buy the legal argument that money equals speech.  But if you can level the playing field and make it so that the impact of money is not as great, at least you give everyone a fighting chance.  The way to do this, in Durbin’s view, is to offer an opt-out, so that critics cannot claim that this violates the First Amendment; however, that opt-out would immediately impact the amount of money any Clean Money opponent would receive.  In other words, if you’re a publicly-financed candidate and your opponent opts out of the system, you immediately receive DOUBLE the money you would normally be entitled to.

There would be language regulating 527s and IEs in there as well, but again, no details yet.  Sen. Durbin said his bill would be closely modeled on the Clean Money laws that govern elections in Arizona and Maine.  Under those systems, a candidate who shows viability by collecting a certain number of $5 contributions then qualifies for public financing.  This allows for a more diverse set of candidates and not simply ones who can self-fund; frees up those candidates to spend time with constituents instead of constantly being on the phone asking for money (which the Senator described as “all-consuming”); and gets us closer to a system where lobbying money doesn’t drive the agenda in Congress.

Sen. Durbin is fairly new to this issue.  His pat line before, he said, was that “I don’t want to give one cent of my tax money to fund David Duke’s campaign.”  But he has come to understand the corrosive power of money in politics, and how the current system is irreparably broken.  Campaign ads are “the biggest cash cow the TV networks have ever seen,” so expect them to be the chief detractors of this bill.  One positive sign is that the Senator is close to lining up union support for the measure.  This is enormous.  The unions actively opposed the Clean Money initiative in California, sending it cascading to defeat.  Durbin was right when he noted that unions simply cannot keep up with Big Business over the long haul in terms of the money race.  Indeed, it’s not what they’re designed to do.  In 2005 unions led the fight against Gov. Schwarzenegger’s Special Election in California, and emerged victorious.  But it took tens of millions of dollars, forced many unions to ask for extra dues from their members, and took such an effort that there was no way they could repeat the trick for the 2006 gubernatorial election.  And they didn’t.  And we still have a Governor Schwarzenegger.  It’s unsustainable to expect unions to fight our battles monetarily.  We need to pull in the reins and give candidates the option of public financing.

This will not be an easy fight, but the key will come in laying the groundwork with the public.  People intuitively understand the influence of money in politics.  If they would just be given the facts, that we lose more in tax dollars on quid pro quo corporate welfare than we would ever need to publicly finance elections, I think common sense would dictate that this way is preferable.  But right now, the education on the subject is not there.  I consider myself fairly well-informed, and didn’t know about Sen. Durbin’s proposal until today, despite the fact that he mentioned it on the Senate floor a month ago.  We need to apply pressure on this.  The relevant Senate Committee is the Rules Committee, chaired by our very own Dianne Feinstein.  She has agreed to give the bill a hearing, but she is not exactly a champion of this measure.  She needs to hear from her constituents on this one, and to understand why this is so very important.

After you call State Sen. Correa, drop Sen. Feinstein a line and tell her to give public financing a full hearing, and that we need to remove the corrosive power of money from politics.

Let me first say that I am generally a supporter of relaxing restrictive term limits, in the larger context of reforming elections generally so that the people get to decide when their legislator’s time is up.  But take a look at the condescension dripping from this statement from the Assembly Speaker:

Riding high from a session last year that many praised as the Legislature’s most productive in years, and without an obvious landing pad when he is termed out next year, Nuñez has increasingly said in recent months that he thinks that voters will be open to adjusting term limits.

“You can’t do the job effectively if you can’t be there for a reasonable amount of time, to have a real grasp on the issues,” he told a group of newspaper publishers last month. ” … It takes a couple of years to develop the level of expertise and know-how to negotiate a balanced budget.”

To me, that reads as “I own this seat, and I deserve to be here as long as I possibly can.”

Edit by Brian to move some stuff over the flip…so flip it!

There are these things called primary elections, and the people (in a perfect world, anyway) are supposed to judge the qualifications of each candidate and make their own choice.  You can run on experience, but you’re not entitled to your position because of it.  And you certainly should not be able to change the rules mid-stream and subvert the prior will of the voters in a power grab to keep the Speaker’s gavel:

The proposed initiative would extend the terms of sitting lawmakers by allowing them to remain in place until they have served 12 years in their current house. Some could end up serving as many as 20 years in the Legislature before having to leave.

People already termed out of the Assembly or Senate could not run for those houses again. Former lawmakers’ years of service would count toward the 12-year cap if they returned to the Capitol.

How clever.  So those who used to be in government and see this as an opportunity to return get the door slammed in their face, but Nuñez gets to extend himself for six more years.  It’s like a sentencing law that only applies to people who have already committed the crime instead of those who are in the process of committing it.

We all know that this was the real reason for the move of the Presidential primary to February.  Nuñez wants to run again in 2008, so he crafted a law that will enable him to do so.  He also has over $7 million in the bank for any possible campaigns, $4 million of it from AT&T laundered through the California Democratic Party for services rendered.

At least Don Perata, who also stands to gain from the change in the law (although according to Frank Russo he may have to get the law rewritten to benefit), is a little more discreet about it, and he says the right things:

After he learned of the proposed initiative Thursday from Nuñez, Perata issued a statement that any modification should be tied to a discussion of how to make government more open and accountable.

“It’s not just about how long we serve,” Perata said, “but how well we serve.”

But Nuñez is so lustful of power that he doesn’t mind the appearance of impropriety.  If he is serious about relaxing term limits in the pursuit of more enlightened public officials, he would sign a pledge vowing not to run again and benefit from the law he is shepherding.  Nunez could run for state Senate and serve 8 years if he wanted to stay in public office.  He could bring his experience in Sacramento to bear in the other chamber.  But he’s just got to have that gavel in his hand.  It’s the only way to enrich his campaign coffers, I guess.

If he refuses to sign such a pledge, and insists on using the state initiative process as a personal power grab, then someone in the 46th Assembly District ought to challenge him for that seat.  And there would be exactly two issues in that campaign: this initiative, and the $4 million handoff from AT&T.  And while Nuñez has a nice record in other areas and a great deal of powerful friends and influence in his district, I suspect those two issues would be very persuasive.

On a party-line vote of 22-14, the California State Senate passed a resolution authored by Carole Migden opposing the escalation of troops into Iraq.  A lot of progressives pushed for this resolution to go forward, and the Democrats held firm, ensuring that it will move to the State Assembly (it needed 21 votes for passage).

Along the way, we made a bold statement to the nation.  Not just that the Democrats are on the side of the American people on Iraq, but that California’s wingnuts are just as wingnutty as anyone else’s:

Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth, R-Temecula, who said his district includes many stationed at Camp Pendleton, argued that California would be doing a disservice to the families of soldiers and Marines coming home in flag-draped coffins while emboldening Al Qaeda and other terrorists organizations to attack on American soil.

Sen. Kuehl parried that twisted logic.

Sen. Sheila Kuehl responded by saying: “Balderdash. If anything is supporting and emboldening our enemies, it is this war. … It’s been outstanding the work we have done to embolden al-Qaeda.” She said “this war was a mistake, and the rest of the world knows it.”

The text of the resolution is available here.

This is video from yesterday, the first of a three-day “occupation” project at Rep. Adam Schiff’s Pasadena office.  Rep. Schiff’s office greeted the protesters with cookies and a signed letter:

“I will work with Representative Murtha, the Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi to ensure that our troops have everything they need, to hasten their redeployment from Iraq, and to begin bringing our combat forces home …  Our work (against Bush’s escalation) will not stop here.  The next step will be to use the power of the purse to change direction.”

As diaried here today, Congresswomen Woolsey and Waters and Lee have H.R. 508, a comprehensive plan to bring the troops home and support efforts in the region to reach a reconciliation.  She is working on her colleagues from inside the tent; we must do the same from outside.  Call your Representatives.  Participate in local action.  Do what needs to be done to get us out of this war.  The video is below.

Someone stole the Maltese Falcon!

It’s been nearly 80 years since Sam Spade wandered the streets of San Francisco in search of the Maltese Falcon. Now, the statue is missing again.

John Konstin, the owner of San Francisco’s John’s Grill on Ellis Street, said someone broke into a locked cabinet on the second floor of his establishment and took a signed reproduction of the Maltese Falcon — one used for publicity stills for the movie — along with several vintage and signed books by and about Maltese Falcon author Dashiell Hammett […]

The black statue was signed by actor Elisha Cook Jr., a San Franciscan who played the role of Wilmer the Gunsel in the movie. He presented it to the restaurant after Konstin and San Francisco private investigator Jack Immendorf failed in their attempt to buy the original bird that was used in the movie.

Damn.  I’ve eaten at John’s Grill.  SF-area Calitickers need to get on this.  I’m guessing it was Sydney Greenstreet.

I don’t think we talk enough at Calitics about Iraq.  It’s true that there is not a lot that can be done at the state level to effect the debate, although Carole Migden is offering legislation opposing the war.  But the California Congressional delegation will have a lot to say about the future of Iraq and America’s involvement in it.  I’ve already expressed my disappointment with Henry Waxman’s reticence to challenge the Administration on funding and bringing the troops home.  He is but one of several Southern California Democrats who have consistently voted to continue our involvement and enable this Administration’s crucially poor judgment in perpetuating this foreign policy disaster.  Now the activist community is striking back and putting more pressure on local legislators to act.

Marcy Winograd and some other activist groups are going to occupy Rep. Adam Schiff’s (CA-29, Pasadena) office starting tomorrow.

Next Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, from 11 AM – 6 PM, I will join other anti-war activists, some of them leaders of local LA Democratic Clubs, to conduct non-violent  civil disobedience.  As part of a  nationwide Occupation Project, we will occupy Congressman Adam Schiff’s office at 87 North Raymond in Old Town, Pasadena (Los Angeles area). 

The demand?  Schiff, who voted for the war again and again, must stop funding the US occupation of Iraq.

Risking arrest, we will  sit-in, block the entrance, leaflet cars, and demonstrate outside  Schiff’s office, just as Voices for Creative  Non-Violence and Code Pink occupied the  offices of Senators McCain and Clinton recently.

Schiff is a member of the Appropriations Committee, which will get first crack at the President’s $145 billion-dollar supplemental funding request.  They can set the terms of the debate by adding any riders or limits, on end-dates or troop levels, into the bill.  This is a key point.  If the President vetoes an appropriation, then HE is cutting off funding for the troops.  The goal ought to be to pass a small appropriation with time-based limits that he won’t like, daring both GOP Republicans and the President to block it and risk getting no money at all.  Then of course you have to be ever vigilant that he doesn’t start illegally funding the war, which I’ve no doubt he’d attempt.

The Democrats are in the majority and will control how this matter will go forward.  Reps. like Schiff, Waxman and Howard Berman need to hear from their constituents and take a stand against this insane policy.  I think street actions are a component on an overarching strategy to force Congress to act.  Many bloggers are somewhat wary of civil disobedience and I’m not sure why.  This escalation is a band-aid and not a new strategy, which will only create more targets.  It is embarrassingly clear that all of the myths used to sell this escalation policy are absurd and wrong and insulting.  The American people are well ahead of Congress on this.  We’re staring deep into a failure and we cannot continue to sink lives and treasure into this pit.

Perhaps this is not surprising. Americans do not warm to defeat or failure, and our politicians are famously reluctant to admit their own responsibility for anything resembling those un-American outcomes. So they beat around the bush, wringing hands and debating “nonbinding resolutions” that oppose the president’s plan to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq.

For the moment, the collision of the public’s clarity of mind, the president’s relentless pursuit of defeat and Congress’s anxiety has paralyzed us. We may be doomed to two more years of chasing the mirage of democracy in Iraq and possibly widening the war to Iran. But this is not inevitable. A Congress, or a president, prepared to quit the game of “who gets the blame” could begin to alter American strategy in ways that will vastly improve the prospects of a more stable Middle East.

That’s William Odom, a retired Lt. General of the Army.  He understands that Congress must act to remove us from this nightmare and refocus our energies on a tough but smart foreign policy.  If Representatives like Schiff refuse to take a stand then pressure must be applied.  This is no longer a game where strongly worded letters or nonbinding expressions of disapproval can be sufficient.  Many lives and this nation’s global credibility are at stake.  Congress must impose its legislative power to extricate the US from Iraq.

We will be getting liveblogging reports of the protest here at Calitics in the next couple days.  You can RSVP for the event at pdlavote-at-aol-dot-com.