Hat tip to Bill Bradley and Julia Rosen.

The Wall Street Journal has a poll on battleground races that has both Angelides and Westly leading:

Angelides v. Schwarzenegger:
Angelides:  45.5%
Schwarzenegger:  40.7%

Westly v. Schwazenegger:
Westly:  47.1%
Schwazenegger:  37.8%

Also see the Rasmussen poll, which has the race has a toss-up.

I know Angelides has gotten a lot of momentum recently from endorsements and such, but Westly’s poll numbers are generally better against Ahnold.  I’m a bit shy about using that as a voting rationale in the primary after the Kerry ’04 debacle, but it’s there and may affect the results of the primary.

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!

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

At least in politics, especially California politics with our large media markets.  Schwarzenegger is likely going to have an advantage over whomever we select in our primary.  So, one of the things that we need to consider is who can raise a ton of money to win the Governor’s race.  So far, Westly has the advantage:

The campaign financial reports released Wednesday were grim reading for state Treasurer Phil Angelides, the leader in the polls. Although he has a substantial $14.5 million in the bank, that’s still $8.5 million less than the $23 million state Controller Steve Westly had on tap as of March 17, the closing day for the reports.  The actual gap is somewhat less because Westly’s report showed $1.6 million in unpaid bills.(SF Chron 3/23/06)

Of course, you have to consider that Westly has a big bank of his own.  He put $2.5 million in recently, a sum larger than Angelides has raised all year.  That Chronicle article also has a lot of information about the financial situations of the down ballot races as well