SB 52 would require clear disclosure of political funding

by Brian Leubitz

In a state like California, big political campaigns tend to come down to the ads. Yes, field and grassroots outreach makes a huge difference, but a huge onslaught of money can kill a good ballot measure or campaign before you can really do the grassroots part of the campaign.

And yet, money can fly in from parts unknown and make a huge difference in the course of a campaign. See, for example, the huge sums of money dropped in from Maine, Arizona or some other place that we have yet to determine on Prop 32.

Unfortunately, we can’t stop the cash avalanche, but the Clean Money campaign and their allies are working to pass the California DISCLOSE Act, SB 52. As you can see from the image to the right, the law would require clear disclosure of the true source of funds for any advertisements.  It will tell voters who is really funding propositions and Super PAC attack ads.

Here’s a brief explanation from the Clean Money Campaign (CMC):

SB 52 will stop special interests from hiding behind fake names like “Stop Hidden Taxes” or “Stop Special Interest Money Now”.  Political ads will be required to clearly show their three largest funders.  Committee websites will have to show their top ten major funders.

SB 52 will require these disclosures be displayed on the bottom one-third of the TV screen for a full six seconds at the start of ads, so people know who the funders from the beginning.  In fact, the funders must be displayed in a big white font on a solid black background.  No more fine print.

Authored by Senators Mark Leno and Jerry Hill and sponsored by the California Money Campaign, SB 52 will apply to ads for and against ballot measures, and to outside ads for and against candidates – including sham issue ads.  It will tell voters who is really funding propositions and Super PAC attack ads.

Now, SB 52 already has some pretty strong support in both chambers of the legislature, but because this would amend the Political Reform Act of 1974, a voter passed measure, a 2/3 vote of both chambers is necessary. So, the CMC is looking for a little bit of help.  If you’d like to see what you can do, they have a lot of information available at their website or if you’d like to go to the committee hearing tomorrow, you can RSVP on their website.

Measure would increase minimum wage and then tie it to inflation

by Brian Leubitz

Asm. Luis Alejo (D-Watsonville) has been focusing on living wage issues for a while now, and has pursued an increase in the minimum wage in bills that have been previously defeated twice.  

This year’s attempt, AB 10, would make some big changes to how our lowest paid employees live.

Alejo is the author of AB 10, which would give the Golden State its first minimum wage increase since 2008. The bill would raise it 25 cents an hour next year, 50 cents in 2015 and an additional 50 cents to $9.25 an hour in 2016. In 2017 and annually thereafter, hourly pay would be adjusted upward automatically, based on the state’s inflation rate.(LA Times)

Now, as you would expect, the Chamber of Commerce is revving up big time on this issue. Our $8 minimum wage is 7th in the nation, but then again, cost of living is generally higher here than most other states. And with President Obama calling for a national increase the issue got a boost here as well. But, if Asm. Alejo can’t get it through the Legislature, this is one of the most solid issues to have appear on the ballot. It polls well, brings out the progressive base, and can make a real difference for many Californians.

Senate Leader looks to head off 2014 proposition

by Brian Leubitz

Sen. President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg released his CEQA legislation, the newly amended SB 731, yesterday. The changes fall into four general categories:

1. Statewide standardized environmental thresholds for the environmental impacts of traffic and noise for infill projects.  Projects meeting these thresholds would not be subject to lawsuits for those impacts under CEQA and would not be required to do more for those thresholds in environmental documents unless required by a local government.  Also excludes project aesthetics from CEQA consideration. These aspects of a project impacts are currently common elements for CEQA litigation and typically are most complicated for lead agencies and project proponents to analyze and mitigate.
2. Better state-level planning to reduce CEQA legal challenges and incentivize smart planning by amending the Government Code Specific Plan section to exclude unsubstantiated opinion for “new information” that would trigger additional revisions to the Environmental Impact Review. Also appropriates $30 million for SB 375 (of 2008) planning grants based on competitive process.This expands the current CEQA exemption for specific planning so that projects undertaken pursuant to that local plan and EIR are not subject to further review or CEQA lawsuits.  Further, local governments typically prioritize investment in smart growth plans.
3. CEQA streamlining for clean energy projects and formalizes a Renewable Energy Ombudsman position to expedite renewable siting.This would cut red tape on large renewable energy projects and establish a position in the Office of the Governor to champion renewable energy projects within the State Government.
4. CEQA lawsuit reforms to speed up disposition of legal challenges. Specifically:
   1. Allows the lead agency to comply with notices and findings on EIR’s through the Internet;
   2. Allows the 30-day statute of limitations to bring actions under CEQA to be tolled by mutual agreement of parties in order to facilitate settlements;
   3. Authorizes project proponents to request and pay for concurrent internet-based preparation of the administrative record for all projects to reduce litigation delays, saving months if not a year off project delays;
   4. Allows courts to issue partial remands of environmental documents to reduce re-notice/recirculation/litigation delays where lead agencies have been found to be in violation of the law;
   5. Directs the Attorney General to track lawsuits and report to the Legislature in order to provide lawmakers and the public with accurate information on whether or not CEQA is being abused by vexatious litigants.

Now, Steinberg is being very cautious in order to try to bring about a settlement that preserves most of the good parts of CEQA while still allowing for an expedited review process. He actually built something of a blue ribbon commission (the “CEQA Working Group”) to help create the plan, bringing together interest groups from across the stakeholder spectrum.

While Gov. Brown said that CEQA reform is probably dead for the year, Steinberg seems unwilling to let go quite yet. And for good reason, there have been some brewing rumors that if CEQA reform doesn’t happen soon, there may be a ballot measure to contend with next year. And somehow I’m guessing there won’t be the same kind of consensus building when that one rolls around.  

CDP Executive Director was critical to 2012 success

by Brian Leubitz

Positive posts about Democrats are relatively few and far between at CalWatchDog. However, this two-part series about “CDP mega weapon” Shawnda Westly is spot on:

But Burton, a media favorite due to his expletive-laden antics, couldn’t have done it without his right-hand woman, the party’s executive director, Shawnda Westly (pictured on the right of the above photo).

“She is the engine to the operation,” said Rep. Julia Brownley, D-Oak Park, one of six congressional freshmen honored at the convention’s Saturday “Red to Blue” luncheon. “The party this year played a much larger role in congressional races than they have ever played before.”

Read both parts of the story. In fact, read them twice. I’ve been fortunate enough to know Shawnda for a few years now, and, if anything, the article is a bit of an understatement. She has worked with Chairman Burton to execute a vision that has brought the party incredible success. And she’s dealt with the craziness that is inherent in a big political party with a smile. The kudos are very well deserved.

“Homeless Bill of Rights” would provide protections to homeless

by Brian Leubitz

Homelessness is always a tough issue. Not only in urban communities, but now in smaller towns where the foreclosure crisis has built squatter towns and unemployment has left many without permanent homes.

But in San Francisco, which recently passed a so-called “Sit/Lie” ban, the issue is particularly complicated. The measure bans sitting or lying on public sidewalks, with provisions to ticket and/or arrest violators. Asm. Tom Ammiano was very publicly against the measure when it passed, and has been working against it ever since.

And so, Ammiano’s AB 5 would provide a “Homeless Bill of Right” that would seek to “decriminalize homelessness.” Specifically, it would housing status as a protected class, and government entities could not discriminate based upon that status. The bill also contains some specifically enumerated rights:

Those include the right “to move freely, rest, solicit donations, pray, meditate, or practice religion, and to eat, share, accept, or give food and water in public spaces without being subject to criminal or civil sanctions, harassment or arrest.”

This would extend to parks for the entire 24-hour day, regardless of whether the park has hours that it is closed.(Wyatt Buchanan / SF Chronicle)

Now, in order to get this bill through the Judiciary Committee, which it did by a 7-3 vote, the bill was toned down a bit from its original form, and a bunch of exemptions were added. The bill faces substantial opposition from the League of Cities, which opposes the reporting requirements among other concerns, and the Chamber of Commerce. And an upcoming date with the appropriations committee could mean further alterations of the measure.

Gov. Brown looks to tie state university funding to metrics

by Brian Leubitz

Gov. Brown isn’t one to really sit around and rest on a balanced budget. Though the May revise is still a few weeks away, he’s looking for some big ideas. This is certainly a big idea:

Gov. Jerry Brown wants to tie some state funding for California’s public universities to a host of new requirements, including 10% increases in the number of transfer students from community colleges and the percentage of freshmen graduating within four years.

Brown, who has repeatedly said the universities should be leaner and serve more students, is asking for equivalent increases in several other areas as well, according to a copy of his plan obtained by The Times. Those include raising the overall number of graduates and a stipulation that more students coming from community colleges finish their studies within two years.(LA Times)

Some members of the higher education community are not so enthused by the plan. The most obvious concern is that most of these metrics are issues which are almost entirely under the control of administration, rather than faculty or students. Matt Haney, Executive Director of the UC Students Association and an elected member of the SF school board, had this to say on the plan:

Welcome to the “No Child Left Behind” era for the UC. State funding, which is still grossly inadequate, being tied to “performance measures,” may mean the end of the public university in California as we know it…Slash our funding, ask us to do a lot more as demonstrated by external “outcomes” developed by people who aren’t educators, and then punish the students for any failure by the administration to meet those outcomes. At this point, not a fan

Of course, this isn’t the only higher education funding proposal on the table. Brown previously called for a tuition freeze during the Prop 30 campaign, contingent on the passage of Prop 30. With the Prop 30 revenues now flowing in, Brown will be under pressure to keep that promise. But his full higher education funding plan will flesh out many of the details around the bones that have already leaked out.

Higher education has always been in something of a weird position in California. It is clearly an investment in future economic prosperity. Take a look at the innovation surrounding all of the major UC&CSU campus sites. However, it is something that legislators look at and see an alternative funding source (ie students). And thus the dramatic cuts over the last few years.

It could be that some metrics-based pressure lights some fires under the administration of the UC and CSU systems, but the question is where does the money that we are gambling with come from? If metrics aren’t met, and funding is cut, who suffers? Maybe an administrator here or there will be laid off, but ultimately, the cuts would trickle down to students, staff and faculty.

LG breaks ranks with Democratic Leaders

by Brian Leubitz

In a move that boosts the campaign of CA-17 Democratic challenger Ro Khanna and simultaneously promotes his Citizenville book, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom endorsed Ro Khanna.

I’m proud to support Ro. I know he will govern from a place of courage and authenticity. He has many innovative ideas to grow California’s economy and to apply technology to make government better for all his constituents. (h/t Josh Richman)

Most of the Democratic establishment, including Khanna’s former boss, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and many members of the state Congressional delegation, has already endorsed Rep. Mike Honda. But this endorsement gets some attention for the former SF Mayor and may be able to push the former Commerce dept. official’s fledgling campaign off the ground.  

Wind-down of redevelopment agencies not going smoothly

by Brian Leubitz

When Gov. Brown announced, and eventually passed into law, his plan to end the redevelopment agency program, he had big plans for that money. Some went to education, and then various pots among the local governments.  Everybody in Sacramento knew that when you were dealing with physical construction, there were going to be some transitional difficulties. But, perhaps this is more than was expected:

Among audit findings so far, the controller has found that Fresno inappropriately transferred $41.5 million to the city’s housing agency and San Jose improperly transferred $148 million.

The audits suggest that the cities should not have kept that money for their own use but rather should have surrendered it to be distributed among various local government entities, as the Legislature intended.

In response, state finance officials have sent more than 40 letters warning cities that the state will begin withholding sales tax revenue if they do not transfer the amounts the state says they owe. Department of Finance spokesman H.D. Palmer said withholding tax revenue was a last resort and that the state would rather negotiate with the local governments. (Judy Lin / AP)

Adding to this fight is the fact that latest estimates that the dissolution will only bring in around 2/3 of what was originally predicted. Eventually, after the lawsuits wrap up, this will all be something of a sour chapter in the continuing balance between state and local governments in California. In the meantime, there is plenty of money left on the table.