Both are seeking districts with no incumbents, but may face a moving incumbent

by Brian Leubitz

With seemingly final lines set for next year’s elections, expect a lot of moving trucks around Los Angeles.  But the upheaval also means that some new folks are trying to muscle their way into the term limits free halls of Congress. You can view the proposed districts here.

Two such names that announced today are Sen. Ron Calderon and Asm. Tony Cardenas.  Calderon will be seeking the proposed 38th district, which includes Cerritos, Artesia, Norwalk, and Whittier.  Cardenas is looking at San Fernando Valley’s 29th district.

But don’t expect either of these two to face a cakewalk.  The Calderon district has about 51% of voters from Rep. Linda Sanchez, and she’s drawn into a district with Grace Napolitano.  And frankly, between Ron Calderon and Sanchez, there really isn’t much of a debate as to who the better member of Congress would be.

Model bill accounts for Supreme Court ruling

By Brian Leubitz

In a report recently released, the Center for Governmental Studies calls for a modified version of clean money to control the excessive spending and allow for additional competition.  In fact, they’ve gone ahead and produced a full model bill, complete with language that has some rather grand goals.

It establishes a hybrid system of full and partial public financing systems for statewide and legislative candidates. It provides candidates with an initial lump sum of funds  and then allows them to continue raising matching funds.  

The Act first requires candidates to qualify for public financing by raising a specified amount  of small campaign contributions, ranging from 750 contributions of $5 or more for Assembly  candidates, to 25,000 contributions of $5 or more for gubernatorial candidates. Qualifying  funds can only come from individual residents of the state. Once candidates qualify, the state  provides them with a lump sum of funding to run their campaigns, depending on the office  and the size of the jurisdiction.

The Act also places contribution limits on all state and local candidates running in California.  Specifically, it lowers California’s contribution limits and brings them into line with federal  limits-establishing contribution limits of $2,500 per candidate per election. In addition, the  Act closes a number of loopholes in existing laws, bringing under the same contribution limit  money raised by candidates and officeholders for ballot measure committees, legal defense  committees, inauguration committees and officeholder accounts. The Act also prohibits  off-year fundraising.

Of course, the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona’s clean money system makes all of this susceptible to a court challenge.  And it is really hard to say which way the Court would go, as their regulation on campaign finance has really gone off the rails.  Ultimately to get the campaign finance system we really need for a robust democracy, we’ll need to repeal Buckley v Valeo and reject the notion that money equals speech.  Otherwise the richest among us get to speak far louder than those that can’t afford to put a million bucks worth of TV commercials on the air.

This Act would be a good start, but don’t expect it to come through the Legislature.  Republicans would fight it tooth and nail, and, of course, they have their own ideas about how to “fix” campaign finance.  Rob Stutzman, a former Schwarzenegger aide, has some suggestions:

Stutzman, however, said lowering contribution limits will put even more pressure on candidates to start raising money early. He said legislators facing term limits should be allowed to plan for future statewide campaigns. Stutzman, instead, would propose raising contribution limits to $100,000 per election and require immediate public disclosure of the donations. (California Watch)

Yes, really $100,000.  That is the Republican plan to “reform” system.  Allowing people to contribute $100,000 to a candidate.  I know that the IEs are kind of outrageous these days, but do we really think that allowing people to give $100K is really the way to solve that?  Seems like a long way down the slippery slope that just leads to unlimited contributions.  Are we eventually just going to give in and let Larry Ellison, Reed Hastings, Stewart Resnick, the gambling tribes, and Chevron sit around a table and decide who will be our next set of leaders?

I know a lot of people complain about “we can’t afford” to spend money on political campaigns, but the truth is that we can’t afford not to.  As it stands, we throw billions of dollars, from all levels of government, at stupid projects pushed by the wealthy.  Yet we can’t afford publicly financed campaigns. Funny how that is.

By Brian Leubitz

Gov. Brown just signed AB 459, Jerry Hill’s bill to join the national popular vote compact:

Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation this morning committing California to an interstate compact to award electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide.

*** **** ***

For too long, presidential candidates have ignored California and our issues while pandering exclusively to the battleground states,” the bill’s author, Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, said in a written statement. “A national popular vote will force candidates to actually campaign in California and talk about our issues.” (SacBee)

Basically, the Compact would become effective when enough votes in the electoral college are bound by the compact.  Before today’s signature, 8 states and DC signed up for 74 votes committed, California’s 55 gives a total of 129.  If the remaining 142 votes commit, we could be looking a vastly different political landscape.

Increased age limit to 21 improves odds for at-risk children

By Brian Leubitz

During her tenure in the Assembly, Karen Bass made improving foster care a focus.  The biggest piece of this effort is likely AB 12:

Beginning January 1, 2012, the California Fostering Connections to Success Act (AB 12) takes effects, raising the age limit for foster care over three years from 18 to 21. During that time, kids in foster care will get financial assistance with housing – including college dorms, group homes, foster homes, shared housing and transitional housing – and have access to job skills and life skills classes, mental health counseling, advice on college or vocational education, and a host of other programs designed to help them become self-sufficient. (Silicon Valley Education Foundations)

Click through to read the compelling story of one young adult in foster care, but from a general perspective, this makes a lot of sense.  I couldn’t imagine being completely on my own when I was 18, and to expect anything but disastrous results from just releasing at-risk 18 year olds to the rather cruel world seems naive at best.

Of course, the big concern is that we don’t continue the support for these young adults.  With the recent wave of budget cuts and the likely additional cuts when that $4b doesn’t show up, a defunding could recreate the risk all over again.

New funding hopes to support moderate candidates

by Brian Leubitz

In June, I mentioned that SEIU was looking at getting some moderates into office, but now it seems they aren’t the only ones.  A new coalition has formed to put $600K towards electing some moderates into the legislature:

The group, Californians for Fiscal Accountability and Responsibility, received six contributions of $100,000 each from major Sacramento interest groups in June. Those include the California Dental Association, California Medical Association, California Association of Realtors, California School Employees Association, SEIU-UHW and State Building and Construction Trades Council.

California Medical Association CEO Dustin Corcoran said the coalition is interested in helping Republicans and Democrats who are willing to work on compromise deals in the Legislature. He said contributors have grown frustrated by gridlock in the Capitol, most recently during the budget process. (CapAlert)

I was more into this idea when we were talking about electing moderate Republicans over extreme tea party types.  Seeing as how they are now looking at playing in races where there are likely to be two Democrats in the general election, well, that isn’t nearly as exciting.  Then again, $600,000 isn’t really all that much in the grand scheme of things. They’ll need to come up with a lot more if they really want to have a statewide impact.

Proposed legislation would stymie important upgrades to our transportation network.

by Brian Leubitz

In a letter delivered to the Chair of the House Transportation Committee, California Democrats strongly objected to proposed cuts in transportation funding:

We are writing today to express our concerns about the recently released Republican proposal for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act that cuts almost 1/3 of current level funding for highways and mass transit.  Specifically, we urge you to reconsider the overall proposed funding level, which would further adversely affect the fragile economy in California and the nation.

In order to compete in the global market, we must invest in our infrastructure as our biggest competitor already does.  China spends 9 percent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually on infrastructure, while the U.S. spends less than 2 percent.  More startling is the fact that the U.S. spends 40 percent less than it needs every year to improve the outdated backbone of our country.

Equally concerning is the recently released study by the American Society of Civil Engineers.  The report shows that if we do not properly invest in our nation’s infrastructure, we could lose more than 870,000 jobs, and suppress the growth of the country’s GDP by $3.1 trillion by 2020. The report also showed that in 2010, deficiencies in America’s roads, bridges, and transit systems cost American households and businesses more than $129 billion, including $32 billion in delays in travel time and $590 million in environmental costs.

In a time when the nation is clearly desperate for jobs, why are we embarking on a prolonged period of austerity? These transportation cuts would put people out of work right away, adding to our unemployment roles, and putting us on the wrong direction for the economy.

There are a great many ways that we should be spending money.  While we seem to have limitless funds for three wars, and the rich can party like it is 2006, how is it that we can’t manage to ensure that our bridges don’t collapse and that we have safe highways?

Find the full letter over the flip.

The Honorable John L. Mica

Chairman

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

2165 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC

Dear Chairman Mica,

We are writing today to express our concerns about the recently released Republican proposal for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act that cuts almost 1/3 of current level funding for highways and mass transit.  Specifically, we urge you to reconsider the overall proposed funding level, which would further adversely affect the fragile economy in California and the nation.

In order to compete in the global market, we must invest in our infrastructure as our biggest competitor already does.  China spends 9 percent of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) annually on infrastructure, while the U.S. spends less than 2 percent.  More startling is the fact that the U.S. spends 40 percent less than it needs every year to improve the outdated backbone of our country.

Equally concerning is the recently released study by the American Society of Civil Engineers.  The report shows that if we do not properly invest in our nation’s infrastructure, we could lose more than 870,000 jobs, and suppress the growth of the country’s GDP by $3.1 trillion by 2020. The report also showed that in 2010, deficiencies in America’s roads, bridges, and transit systems cost American households and businesses more than $129 billion, including $32 billion in delays in travel time and $590 million in environmental costs.

The proposal to reduce funding in the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act will have lasting and negative effects on the California economy.  In fact, the state would lose $468 million in public transportation funds and more than $1.25 billion in highway infrastructure investments.  This means a loss of 61,054 jobs in California.

We do commend you for including an expansion of the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA Program).  This federal loan program provides direct loans, loan guarantees and lines of credit to finance transportation projects of national and regional significance. In California, this would up project delivery by allowing projects to receive low-cost federal loans or bonds up front that would be paid back with dedicated tax revenue.

We urge you to reconsider the overall funding level for the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act.  Our national infrastructure is failing and we cannot afford to cut funding if the cost is the success of our commerce and economic growth.  We look forward to working with you to address our country’s infrastructure needs.

Sincerely,

Joe Baca

Karen Bass

Xavier Becerra

Howard Berman

Lois Capps

Dennis Cardoza

Jim Costa

Judy Chu

Susan Davis

Anna Eshoo

Sam Farr

Bob Filner

John Garamendi

Janice Hahn

Mike Honda

Barbara Lee

Zoe Lofgren

Doris Matsui

Jerry McNerney

George Miller

Grace Napolitano

Laura Richardson

Lucille Roybal-Allard

Linda Sanchez

Adam Schiff

Brad Sherman

Jackie Speier

Pete Stark

Mike Thompson

Maxine Waters

Henry Waxman

Lynn Woolsey

Measure being distributed is worse than previous versions

by Brian Leubitz

Think back to the exciting days of the 2005 special election.  Calitics was just taking shape, and the Governor was pushing a series of right-wing reforms. One of these reforms, Prop 75, intended to block unions from using a members dues for political reasons without express permission every year. That one even got a critical editorial from the website of Reason Magazin. And back in 1998, voters rejected Prop 226 which did largely the same thing.

But it’s back again.  Unlike Democrats, Republicans have the resources and the wherewithal to fight these battles over and over again. After all, it only takes one victory, even if it is after 4 losses to come out the winner.  And the measure that is now circulating is a nasty bit of work:

A proposed initiative now in circulation called the Stop Special Interest Money Now Act by its supporters, would prohibit the use of payroll-deducted funds for political projects. It would still allow union members to voluntarily contribute money to political campaigns, if they authorized it in a written form to be submitted yearly.

Some four million unionized workers could be affected by this initiative. Corporations and contractors would also be affected by the new regulations, a key difference from earlier versions. However, the proposed initiative does go further, additionally preventing the unions and corporations themselves from contributing directly or indirectly to candidates and candidate- controlled committees.  (Capitol Weekly)

As noted, this one goes further than Prop 75 in two ways. It totally bans union (and corporate) contributions, but it also bans the use of any dues money at all for political contributions. Sure, you can give money to a PAC, but the soliciation of those funds would be difficult, if not impossible.  And the solicitation, even from willing members, would pretty much mean that the spending would be pretty small.

The ideal world of campaign finance would be a pure publicly funded campaign system.  But since we aren’t anywhere near there, this measure would just bring a sledgehammer to one part of the system and devastate Democratic funding for a generation.  When somebody asks you about signing a “workers protection act” be wary and step far away from that clipboard.