(Really? Ya mean Californians care about a better and more effective democracy as well? ; ) – promoted by atdleft)

Clean money, or public financing of campaigns, is back on the agenda, this time on the federal level.  On March 20, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced bipartisan legislation that would create a voluntary system of full public financing for congressional elections.  The bill, called the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA), is designed to curb the “pay-to-play” nature of politics in D.C. in which special interests have a disproportionate impact on the political process via their large campaign contributions.  The logic of this ethical reform is identical to that of Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, but FENA is without many of the problems that led to the demise of Prop. 89. 

Here’s how the public financing system would work under FENA: In order to qualify for public funds, should a candidate choose to use them, he or she must first gather a specific amount of “qualifying contributions” of exactly $5 each to show substantial support from the community. If candidates collect enough contributions, they are then eligible for public funds, the amount of which are based on the size of the state. 

In addition, if a “clean money” candidate is running against an opponent who chooses to fund his or her campaign with private contributions, FENA provides “Fight-Fair Funds” for the participating candidate.  These funds would increase the amount of funds to the participating candidate by up to 200%. 

Essentially, FENA would create a win-win situation for everyone involved: candidates wouldn’t have to spend all of their time fundraising and could instead focus on the voters, and voters would gain more responsive representatives who make legislation in the interest of them, not big-time campaign donors.

California is absolutely critical to passing this much needed reform.  Eventually, the House leadership from California, particularly Reps. Pelosi and Waxman, will be important in this process, but at this point, it is vital that Senator Dianne Feinstein support FENA.  As the Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, the committee that has jurisdiction over FENA, she will be instrumental in getting this legislation passed.

A number of citizen groups, representing a variety of issues, have already showed their support for the Fair Elections Now Act.  Among them are the NAACP, AFL-CIO, League of Women Voters, and the National Council of Churches.  The San Francisco Chronicle published an editorial last December in which they encouraged the prospect of Durbin’s federal public financing bill.  The editors there believe that “clean money” legislation, like the FENA, is the only way to “drain the swamp” of political corruption in D.C. and Sacramento that is inherently related to special interest money.

Already Durbin’s staff has been speaking with Senator Feinstein about the merits of this legislation.  Common Cause and other good government groups have been working on this issue as well.  They think she’ll come around, but a little coaxing from her constituents couldn’t hurt.

We all know it’s going to be a long, hard slog to get a Clean Money Bill through the California Legislature along the lines of what’s been implemented in Arizona, Maine and Connecticut.  Heck, the CDP took a neutral position on the Clean Money initiative in 2006.  And it got obliterated at the polls.

But nevertheless, things are moving forward.  This week Assemblywoman Loni Hancock has re-introduced AB 583, essentially the same bill as the one which passed the Assembly last session.  So far there are 4 co-sponsors.  You can read all about the bill here.  It’s a public financing system for all statewide elections for candidates of all parties, provided they show a base of support with a set number of $5 contributions.

What I thought was interesting was this, from the CA Clean Money Campaign’s email:

Also exciting is the news that State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) will be introducing a pilot project bill to set up a Clean Money system for the Insurance Commissioner.

Interesting that they would pick the Insurance Commissioner race, no?  I mean, considering that the current officeholder contributed $13.5 million of his own money to win the job.  A pilot program may be the way to test the system that will be needed to prove its viability.

There has been much discussion recently about money power vs. people power and its effect on politics.  As an example:

Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA): Tauscher has been one of the most aggressive spokespeople for the Money Party, using her position to undercut major Democratic efforts to address core economic issues from a middle-class perspective. As an example, it was Tauscher who ran to newspapers desperately trying to let K Street know that she would be working to undermine Democrats’ efforts to reform our trade policy. More recently, she told the New York Times that Democrats would be engaging in a “kabuki dance” with their own base voters – implying that there would be moves for show, but that pay-to-play business as usual in Washington will continue in the new Congress.

There are plenty of other examples of what the Money Party‘s priorities mean for everyday people, but I wanted to share one that effects me on a much more personal and local level and use that to make a pitch for public financing of campains, at least at the local level.

How low am I going?

I am talking about going all the way down to my school school board.  I have one child in the local school system, and one that will be entering it in the coming years.

The district is the West Contra Costa Unified School District and you would think that when you go that low, you would be free from the corrupting influence of Money Party politics.  In this case, you would be wrong:

Unprecedented fundraising in the race for the West Contra Costa Unified School District board is raising some eyebrows.

Incumbent Charles Ramsey and district Bond Oversight Committee member Madeline Kronenberg — among eight candidates for three board seats in the Nov. 7 election — have received more than $200,000 in combined campaign contributions. That’s more than 10 times the combined amount the remaining six candidates received from Jan. 1 to Sept. 30, according to county campaign-disclosure statements…

But wait, it gets worse, yet:

Records show that much of the money Kronenberg has received is from contractors and subcontractors working with the district. It includes $20,000 in donations from the Seville Group, a construction management company that has a long-term contract with the district.

Kronenberg also accepted $5,000 from Interactive Resources, $3,000 from Arthur Tam and Associates and $10,000 from Wallace Boyd Gordon, an architect for Deems Lewis McKinley Architects.

All the firms have worked with or are actively working with the district on construction projects.

Yikes!  Her money is coming from the construction industry at a time when the district is spending a mountain of beans on reconstruction of 18 elementary, three middle and two high schools.  And… she was a member of the Bond Oversight Committee.  Conflict of Interests, anyone?  Her fig leaf:

“There isn’t any vendor choices made on the Oversight Committee. We don’t do that,” Kronenberg said. “I’m proud of the fundraising I’ve done and proud of what I’ve been able to raise. I think the reason I’ve been successful in raising the money is because I’ve established a presence in the community.”

The election is over, so why am I bringing this up?  Because I wanted to raise the flag that this is where it all starts.  This is where higher level candidates come from.  How can we expect to recruit good candidates for higher offices, if they can’t get a good start?

California’s Prop 89 failed in November, but I think that public financing of campaigns is an important part of the solution.  Maybe we have to start with these down ticket non-partisan races.  Public financing of campaigns is seen as a waste of taxpayer money, but I don’t think there are many more programs that the public could benefit more from:  allowing voters to choose based on the ideas of the candidates rather than having so much be influenced on how much a candidate can raise.

Plus, this race really isn’t quite over (top 3 are elected):

MADELINE KRONENBERG  20,632  18.91%
  AUDREY MILES  20,045   18.37%
  CHARLES RAMSEY  17,009  15.59%
  ANTONIO MEDRANO  16,943  15.53%
  …

Note that Kronenberg was the biggest vote winner.  Money wins.  Well, sort of.  Only 66 votes keep Antonio Medrano from knocking out Charles Ramsey.  Let’s take a closer look at that.

several people have questioned what Ramsey intends to do with $132,600 — the largest amount ever raised for a West Contra Costa district board race…

Ramsey said he likely will spend $80,000 to $90,000 on mailings and probably will give the rest to charity…

Ramsey said rumors that he will use leftover money to run for state Assembly are unfounded and legally impossible because there are campaign-contribution limits for statewide races and he cannot roll his money over.

He got most of that money from Unions across the state.  Raising so much money from outside the district has raised its own questions about how school board contributions should be regulated.

He did spend a lot of that money on flyers.  I can tell you we got some nice shiny glossy flyers day after day.  I assume that he is running for the 14th Assembly District seat, and he was using the flyers to raise his profile and name recognition.  The currest representative for AD-14, Loni Hancock, will be termed out in 2008.  He has run for that race before.  My favorite part:

“Seven years ago I made a mistake,” Ramsey said as he admitted to soliciting sex from an undercover female cop posing as a prostitute. “I hurt my wife and family. The perception I had of women was not a good one.”

Although Ramsey said he has since been working toward changing that perception and giving back to the community, the surprise admission did not sit well with sophomore Denise May.

“I respect him for admitting he made a mistake, but it’s going to be imprinted in my mind throughout the campaign,” May said.

May added that the incident has caused her to question Ramsey’s morals because “anyone who has respect for women would never do that,” she said.

OK, maybe bringing up that quote is a little low (even for this diary), but this in not the person I want to be part of taking responsibility for the education of my little girls.

Medrano, who was endorsed by the Richmond Teachers and two current Board Members has until Friday to decide if he wants to ask for a recount.  He has to weigh the benefits to the costs.  Since voters were selecting 3 candidates, 67 ballots will have to be found that voted for him and not Ramsey, out of a little over 100,000 cast.

We shall see…

(Only $1,178,779 Thursday! A down day for Big Money I suppose. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

Yesterday, the LA Times joined the San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee by launching a political blog: Political Muscle. The blog has a special feature — called Mother’s Milk — to track the “money flow” in California politics.

Today, the scoreboard reported that $3,144,950 was raised for California state races — just yesterday. This brings the year-to-date total to $303,771,114.

To explain why the Times started this project, reporter blogger Bob Saladay wrote a mission statement:

Seventy years ago, another Austrian ruled California. His name was Arthur Samish, the son of an immigrant who became the most powerful lobbyist in state history. At 300 pounds, the outsized man was master of leveraging campaign contributions and personal favors for the oil, movie studio, insurance and tobacco industries.

This year will prove that little has changed — California politics remains dominated by money.

The 2006 election is destined to set another record in political spending — cash will pour in from oil and tobacco companies, powerful unions, millionaires and corporate donors. They will unload more than $200 million to finance the governor’s race, a host of initiatives, the Democratic and Republican parties, and various front groups. […]

It’s difficult to find a campaign donor without a tie to some powerful interest in Sacramento. Elected officials say donations don’t influence their votes. They frequently quote Jesse M. Unruh, the legendary former Assembly Speaker, who said: “If you can’t take their money, drink their booze, eat their food, screw their women and vote against them, you don’t belong here.”

But another quote from Unruh may be more operative this year: “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”

If you are going to talk about money in California politics, I would suggest another quote the most constructive this year:  “Vote Yes on Proposition 89”.

Prop 89, The Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, puts us in charge of elections, not big money special interests. Candidates who build a coalition of $5 donors and refuse special interest money get Clean Money public financing, leveling the playing field so elections are about ideas not money.

Public financing is working in Maine and Arizona, getting more people involved in the system and dramatically altering how campaigns are conducted. Candidates are freed from the call room to go and talk with voters, and potential candidates who don’t have a golden rolodex can run on the strength of their ideas.

In Arizona, Governor Janet Napolitano ran as a clean money candidate and said (video), “I got to spend time with voters as opposed to dialing for dollars, or trying to sell tickets to $250-a-plate fundraisers. This was much better.” In the same video, Maine Representative Nancy Smith said, “Being a Clean Elections elected official now, there’s a lot of freedom that comes with that. I really can focus on what my constituents need and not worry about upsetting anybody and it’s going to cost me in the next election. I can really focus on what I think good policy is.”

Public Financing = Good Policy
As happened in other states, more and more organizations are realizing that big money special interests are preventing good policy. Yesterday, the Sierra Club endorsed Proposition 89. Bill Magavern, senior advocate for Sierra Club California, said, “If you want clean air and clean water, you need clean elections. Proposition 89 will eliminate the corrupting influence of donors who want to weaken environmental laws by shifting power back to the voters who overwhelmingly support measures to ensure a healthy, safe, and clean environment.”

Help Make it Happen
To counter the big money attacks on Proposition 89, the campaign is taking the case directly to the voters as outreach expands to phone banking. These personal contacts with voters are very important to our statewide field plan. Starting tomorrow, the Nurses are coordinating phone banks at the following locations:

  * Sacramento
  * San Diego
  * San Francisco
  * Glendale
  * Oakland

The program begins this Wed, Sep 13th and then will run every Sun, Mon, Tue, Wed, Thursday from 5-9pm. They are flexible about the length of slots. Food and refreshments will be served each night.

If you can volunteer, please contact:

Ted Cahill
Prop 89 Field Director
Email: tcahill [at] calnurses.org
Phone: 510-273-2248

Please help spread the word.

– – – – – – – – – –
Stay up-to-date on Proposition 89 at the Prop 89 Campaign Blog.

| Sign Up | Tell a Friend | Get Involved | Contribute |