(Yes, we wouldn’t want to reform government until we’ve thoroughly broken its back, now would we? – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross-posted at dKos)

The Orange County Register is hardly known for its liberal bias. And true to form, its editorial page came out yesterday against Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. It’s hardly a surprise, but what’s noteworthy is that they really can’t name much that’s wrong with it. The editorial even admits, in a snide way,

The idea is to level the playing field, allowing candidates without access to big money to compete, and centering campaigns on ideas rather than money. Nice thoughts.

So then, what’s their problem with it?

A more fundamental objection is that limits on contributions and spending by political campaigns are limitations on freedom of political speech – the kind of speech the First Amendment was most specifically designed to protect. Elections should be about the people telling the government what to do, but if government regulates elections tightly the people’s options become limited.

Ah, the Freedom of Speech concern. The Register is clearly worried that you and I, the average voters, are being denied our right to free speech. I’m sure the limits on corporate contributions have nothing to do with their concerns.

And the kicker:

Campaign spending limits put the cart before the horse. Big money is interested in politics (aside from the ego factor) because government decisions can make or break businesses and entire industries. This can’t be fixed until government power is limited. If it isn’t, interests affected by government decisions will find ways, including money, to be persuasive to those making the decisions.

So, get rid of those pollution controls, forget about federal deposit insurance, stop regulating the stock market. When left alone, businesses do the right thing. And then we won’t need any campaign reform, because business won’t need to influence the government anymore.

It’s most interesting that the Register seems worried about the doom this “well-intentioned” reform will bring to California – yet doesn’t see fit to mention the turmoil in Maine and Arizona, who have had similar reforms in place since 2000. That’s because it’s not there. Clean money reforms are working well in those states. Voters there now have more choice in candidates and consequently are increasing their turnout at the polls. Maine was even able to pass a form of universal health care.

We are more than two months away from the election, and the Register feels the need to start attacking now. That tells me they and their corporate backers are scared. Scared that the electorate just might want to get back some say in the political process. And even more worried that if the proposition passes in California, there will be momentum spreading nationwide.

But when cornered, the special interests are already bringing out the big guns. The California Chamber of Commerce, representing big oil, insurance firms, HMOs, developers, and other businesses, has formed a committee to oppose the initiative. We have to be ready to fight back. Please help make clean money campaigns in California a reality, and in doing so, help bring us another step closer to clean money all across America. You can give money; you can give time. And if you’re in Southern California, you can give the Register a piece of your mind. Prop 89 makes politicians accountable to voters, not big donors.

(Change is good. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(cross posted to dKos)

For the past three Saturdays, I’ve been in front of the Huntington Beach Central Library sharing information on California’s Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. There are many things I’d like to relate regarding that experience, but today I’ll focus on one thing that really struck me.

Most people who talk to us at the table approach us with questions. Whether they are initially for or against the initiative — or whether they know nothing about it — we engage in a non-partisan dialogue on good government and fair elections. One thing I really like about this initiative is that there’s virtually nothing a naysayer can ask me or challenge me on that doesn’t have a good answer in Prop 89. To one person I finally had to say, “Look – if you believe that our politicians should pay the most attention to the organizations that give them the most money, then this proposition probably isn’t for you.” That’s enough to get people thinking.

But the comment that bothered me was uttered by a woman who didn’t even stop to talk with us. She saw that we were talking about public funding of election campaigns and said “You can’t change how the campaigns and politicians work. That’s the way it’s always been.” And she walked on.

Well, ma’am, that’s NOT the ways it’s always been.

We have never lived in a time when not only are the three branches of federal government practically all under the control of one political party, but when the media is largely owned by corporations loyal to that party.

We have never lived in a time when the machinery and computer programs that count our votes are owned by corporations who pledge their loyalty to one political party.

In California, the negative effects of money in our political system are reaching heights of influence and corruption we’ve never seen before. Special interests are taking root in our prison system, our educational system, and especially our health care system.  No wonder, then, that major insurance companies oppose this initiative. But diverse groups like the League of Women Voters of California, the Congress of California Seniors, California Church IMPACT and the California Nurses Association all support it.  They recognize that this ballot proposition is important if we are to enact legislation that benefits the majority of Californians, and not a small group of campaign contributors.

Sure, money talks. In that sense that woman I saw in front of the library is right. But big money doesn’t have a place in our political system, especially when it takes influence away from the voters our politicians are meant to represent.

Wherever you live, you can learn more about public campaign funding in your area at Public Campaign. And if you are in California, please learn more about Proposition 89 and educate your friends and neighbors now on why it’s so critical. If you are in Orange County, help us in spreading the word – join us in Irvine this Sunday at our clean money working group.

We have a great opportunity this November. That woman would have us believe we shouldn’t bother because things don’t change. Let’s show her that this isn’t the way it’s going to be.

(I posted much of this on DailyKos yesterday, but what with Lieberman, 100K users and terror, it’s probably better to share with more of a California-oriented audience!)

Riding on the wave of energy stemming from YearlyKos, I’ve been enjoying my involvement in the California Clean Money Campaign.  The more I learn about this effort, the more I believe in it and its promise. Is it perfect? No. But Californians have a historic opportunity to enact real reform, one we might not get again soon. And clean money proponents are aware of some shortcomings and already looking to the review process to remedy them should it pass.

I was therefore disappointed to read this press release from the California Teachers Association stating their opposition to Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. I’m apparently not alone. In fact, in volunteering I’ve met several CTA members who have expressed concern about the union’s stance. 

So here’s a question for California teachers — what are you hearing?  And do you agree with the CTA? If you listen to the CTA, you are certainly not hearing the whole story. In the release, we hear several one-sided arguments:

It does nothing to enforce current campaign contribution limits or to limit how much the wealthiest citizens can spend on their own campaigns, while limiting the participation of small businesses, labor unions and non-profit organizations in the political process,” said Barbara E. Kerr, President of the California Teachers Association.

It may not limit what wealthy citizens can spend, but she neglects to note that it does have a provision so that their opponents receive matching funds to level the playing field.  And it’s interesting that she leaves large corporations of her list of organiziations that would be regulated.  As it is, the individual voter is the one whose participation is most limited without Proposition 89. 

“California faces many public finance challenges,” said Larry McCarthy of Cal Tax. “Our roads need fixing, our schools need help, and our health care system is in trouble. What we don’t need is to spend precious tax dollars on political campaigns by candidates and elected officials.”

What we DO need is to see our precious tax dollars spent efficiently and on projects that benefit Californians. When money controls the process, this can’t happen – we are instead faced with a litany of abuses. The amount set aside for Prop 89 amounts to about 0.1% of the California budget. Doesn’t it seem like a worthwhile investment to help make sure the other 99.9% is wisely spent?

Significant portions of similar measures in other states have been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ah, and so that means that the crafters of this initiative haven’t learned from those measures?  Give them some credit. Adam B did a great job of explaining some of the differences when the Vermont campaign finance laws were invalidated.

It’s ironic that the CTA calls the initiative “deceptive” when their press release seems to deceive the membership through selective withholding of key facts. And what a sad shame that an organization that rallied along with the nurses against Arnold for denouncing them as “special interests” are now living up to that designation.  Teachers, I hope you’ll learn more on your own about the initiative and then join the nurses and individually  support Prop 89 for real election campaign reform. Just remember the words of our own Governator:

“Special interests have a stranglehold on Sacramento. Here’s how it works: Money goes in. Favors go out. The people lose. We need to send a message: Game over.”