Measure to require donor disclosure for nonprofit political dies in Senate

by Brian Leubitz

Take a step into my TARDIS, way back to 2012, when a group of conservative nonprofit groups with connections to the Koch Brothers poured around $15 million into the efforts to defeat Prop 30 and pass Prop 32. Eventually, they settled for a record fine of over a million dollars, but hey, if you can get away with it, #AmIRight? What’s a million dollars between friends trying to monkey with democracy?

Well, a bill to fight just these sort of money laundering operations was working its way through the state Legislature. SB 27, introduced by Senator Correa would have required every ballot committee receiving more than $1 to disclose its top ten contributors.

I say was, because with the loss of the votes of Sens. Wright and Calderon and the current lack of Democratic supermajority, that measure seems to be on ice for a while. No Republicans would cross party lines and vote for public disclosure, so despite the passage in the Assembly, the measure goes nowhere. CORRECTION: A previous version of this post said a supermajority was required due to a requirement of constitutional amendments. However, SB 27 is not a constitutional amendment. Rather, the Political Reform Act of 1974 requires a 2/3 supermajority to make changes.

“Senate Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for voting to keep Californian’s in the dark about who is funding political campaigns,” said SoS candidate Derek Cressman.  “How anyone favoring fair and transparent elections could have no preference between the party of dark money and the party that voted unanimously for sunshine today is a mystery to me.”

UPDATE: Not so fast, Vidak has fallen below 50%. More info here.

Sacramento Bee Columnist Thinks Vidak Win is a blow to “Democratic Left”

by Brian Leubitz

I have a lot of respect for Dan Walters. We don’t agree on a wide range of issues (including his climate skepticism), you have to admire his persistence. He’s been doing this for a long, long time. And anybody who can stick around a depressing and crazy place like California’s capitol is worthy of respect.

However, he has a way of misreading political events, or forcing them into his own vision of what California politics should be.  But, I must say I was rather puzzled by his “Dan Walters Daily” video this morning, embedded to the right.

Basically, his point is that the Vidak win is a huge loss for the “Democratic left” who want to reform government and increase revenue. However, to be quite frank, his point holds no water whatsoever.

First, on the supermajority: Democrats now hold 28 seats. A supermajority is 27 seats, so they can still afford to lose one vote on 2/3 votes. And if Democrats had won 28 votes on election day, with no vacancies to worry about, would there really be all the handwringing? This is a solid 2/3 majority after all, only one vote short of the 29 we came into the session with.

Next, who are we replacing? Michael Rubio was never going to vote for sweeping revenue increases. Rubio was never going to touch Prop 13, even if Sen. Steinberg was thinking about it. Rubio clearly was an easier vote to grab than Vidak will be, but this is hardly the loss of a “Democratic left” champion.

Rubio was the most moderate Democratic senator. He was pushing CEQA reform that would have really left the purpose of the environmental protection scheme in question. The environment of our state is really far better off with Sen. Steinberg carrying the load on that legislation than the state senator from Chevron. Rubio was going to be one of the lost votes from the start on any major 2/3 vote that progressives wanted anyway.

As for Leticia Perez, she likely would have been a bit better than Michael Rubio. But let’s take a look at her campaign website, where she lists her platform:

“My campaign platform is simple: “1) I won’t raise your taxes. 2) I will raise the minimum wage to $9.25 an hour. 3) I guarantee that every child is taught to read and write English.

This is the devestating loss to the Democratic left? She announced that she would never vote for tax increases, and somehow that is a blow to the Democratic left? She was going to be lost vote #1, no matter how you slice it. Now, as you can see from points 2 and 3, she would certainly be better for the working poor and minimum wage issue than Vidak will be. But that is a majority vote issue anyway, and the decision on minimum wage is essentially left to the governor now. If Gov. Brown wants a minimum wage increase, he can pass it through the legislature, with Vidak or Perez in that seat.

Finally, you could argue that this breathes life into the California GOP. That might be true, but the math in this race is crazy. In 2010, when Rubio was elected, he defeated Tim Thiessen with a final tally of 71,334-46,717. In this week’s special election, Vidak won by a count of 29,837-24,584. This was a very low turnout election in a district with big distances for voters and many working poor that just couldn’t take the time off to vote in a single race special election. Furthermore, the district will change next year when Vidak has to run for re-election due to redistricting, and will continue to be a heavily Democratic district. There is a very strong chance for Democrats to take back this seat within 18 months.

Sorry, Mr. Walters. I just can’t see this as the big blow to the progressive wing of the Democratic party that you apparently think that it is.

Progressives push legislature to use supermajority for big change

by Brian Leubitz

When the Legislature hit the magical 2/3 mark after the November 2012 election, a lot of progressives started dreaming big. Prop 30 just passed, and a statement had been made for a progressive vision of California. A majority of Californians had just voted to raise their taxes. Whether thanks to the strong field campaign around Prop 32 or through changing demographics of a presidential election, the Democrats gained big on the Legislative front.

But muddying these waters was a lot of mixed messaging. Gov. Brown had at least signaled that he thought Prop 30 was the only tax revenue measure that we should pass for a while, and some of the Democratic legislators had more or less said the same thing.

On the other side, the dreams were building for those who focused less on the immediate political future and more on the long term progressive vision. Progressive leaders were looking at Prop 13 reform, oil severance taxes, minimum wage increases and more. A lot of powder has been kept dry over the past few years with the constant budget fight, and with that superminority concern out of the way, some looked to really mount the pressure. And to be clear, they have mounted a lot of pressure. I’ve seen enough of these discussions between progressive leaders and legislators to know that the pressure on them is real.

“The supermajority is something that you have to use it or lose it,” said Rick Jacobs, head of the 750,000-member Courage Campaign, which has been at the liberal vanguard of several grassroots and online campaigns. “It is time to be bold. What is anybody afraid of?” (SF Chronicle)

To some extent, this is about two competing theories of politics. One says that you have a limited supply of “capital.” Under this model, you can only expect to do so much progress on the legislative front. Gov. Brown is pushing for a gradual and slow movement that prioritizes consensus and getting buy in from as many as possible. On the other hand, progressives tend to favor an idea of politics that promotes efficiency. You get into it what you put in kind of thing. Voters will respect action, even if they don’t get every component right away.

But for now, Speaker Perez and Sen. Steinberg seem to be of the same mind as the Governor. They’re taking it slow for the time being. Steinberg has said that he doesn’t plan on [touching Prop 13 this year, and Speaker Perez thinks this is just the beginning of a larger fight.

Even though Democrats could override Brown’s veto with their two-thirds majority, “a lot of Democrats from more conservative areas don’t want to vote to raise taxes because they know it would kill them in their districts,” said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Pérez.

Plus, say Democratic leaders, it is still relatively early in the legislative calendar. Budget negotiations are just beginning.

“C’mon, it’s only the second inning. There’s a lot of time left in the session,” said Maviglio. “We’re moving forward on a lot of bills that are friendly to labor and progressives.

“I would tell some of the people who are saying these things to just relax,” Maviglio said.(SF Chronicle)

Now, perhaps that last sentence could be more eloquently phrased, but Mr. Maviglio speaks of building a long term progressive supermajority in the Legislature. It’s a laudable goal by any Democratic perspective, but getting everybody on the same page isn’t necessarily the easiest task, even within the same party.

Special elections mean supermajority will come and go

by Brian Leubitz

You would need a supercomputer to keep up with the supermajority these days. But perhaps the better question is what that means for the state.

With the recent Los Angeles elections, the Assembly will certainly lose Bob Blumenfield, and the May run-offs could mean that Curren Price will need a replacement for his Senate seat. The LA Times attempts to break it down:

Blumenfield, chairman of the Assembly Budget Committee, won’t leave state office until July 1. But his planned departure is among a handful of resignations in both houses that have set off a round of musical chairs for the Democrats who dominate the Legislature.

Their numbers in the Assembly will dip below the supermajority threshold they achieved in November if two members move to the Senate in special elections that start Tuesday. The numbers will fall again when Blumenfield leaves. (LAT)

Got that? Well, that’s not really all of it. Two Senate seats are scheduled to be filled in heavily Democratic districts for now Congress members Gloria Negrete McCloud and Juan Vargas. Then Michael Rubio of Chevron will be replaced by a special election in May. And then Price and Blumenfield…

You get the picture. Whatever the reason, what it does mean is that votes on serious reform measures will wait until a sure supermajority is in place. That means that the few modest reforms that Leadership is looking at right now, while not really stuck per se, they are in a state of limbo.  That being said, there aren’t any 2/3 votes that are strictly time-sensitive coming up anytime soon. Revenue isn’t really on the table, except in the long-term 2/3 reform sense.  If that waits another few months, well, it waits a few months.

The other question is whether this will continue to be normal. State legislators will always jump at non-term-limited Congressional seats. That much will never change. However, with the new term limits laws, we are likely looking at the last generation of Assembly members that will be looking to hop to the Senate. Sure, it’s a bit smaller, but why bother when you can just ride incumbency. And reducing some of that turnover is a very, very good thing, beyond the question of the supermajority.

By George Lakoff, UC Berkeley

With the California Financial Crisis at stake, the impartiality of the California Attorney General has come under scrutiny.

Proponents of the California Democracy Act, a ballot initiative that would restore a majority vote for revenue and budget in the legislature, are asking Jerry Brown, the Attorney General, for a new title and summary. An exhaustive poll has shown that Brown’s title and summary changed the meaning and intent of the proposed initiative by one of the largest margins ever seen in a poll.

The poll was conducted by David Binder Research, one of California’s most respected polling firms. The poll showed that the actual initiative for majority on revenue and budget is supported by likely California voters by a 73-to-22 percent margin – a 51 percent lead. But Attorney General Jerry Brown personally wrote the title and summary with wording that shifts that favorable margin to a 38-to-56 percent unfavorable margin – a 69 percent shift!

The poll was conducted March 6-11, with a random sample of 800 likely voters with a margin of error of ±3.5 percent. The summary appears on www.CaliforniansforDemocracy.com.

If unchanged, Brown’s wording, not the actual initiative, would appear on the ballot, leading voters to misinterpret it and vote against it. Brown’s wording, if not changed, could kill the initiative, despite overwhelming voter support.

The effect is crucial, since the lack of majority rule in the legislature has made it impossible for the legislature to raise the revenue the state needs to prevent financial meltdown. It is the single biggest factor in the state’s budget crisis.

The California Democracy Act is one sentence long.

More in the extended

All legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote.

Its intent is “to bring democracy to the California legislature by ensuring that all legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote. The current 2/3 vote requirement for revenue and budget allows 33.4% of either the Assembly or Senate to block the will of the majority, which violates an essential tenet of democracy.” The issue is democracy. And on an initiative, a simple majority can end the 2/3 vote rules.

Attorney General Brown’s rewording states:

Changes Legislative Vote Requirement to Pass a Budget or Raise Taxes from Two-Thirds to a Simple Majority. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.

It changes the legislative vote requirement necessary to pass the budget, and to raise taxes from two-thirds to a simple majority. Unknown fiscal impact from lowering the legislative vote requirement for spending and tax increases. In some cases, the content of the annual state budget could change and / or state tax revenues could increase. Fiscal impact would depend on the composition and actions of future legislatures.

The Attorney General’s wording uses the word “taxes” four times, associated with the words “raise” and “increase”. It includes the conservative language “spending and tax increases,” usually used to vilify liberals. His title and summary raises voters’ fears that their taxes could be raised. It replaces the intent of the initiative to promote democracy via majority vote by a purported but untrue intent to raise taxes on individual voters.

The Binder report notes that taxes in general, as opposed to their taxes, are not a real concern of most voters. Democrats are overwhelmingly opposed to raising taxes on lower and middle income Californians, as are Republicans. No one in the legislature wants to raise taxes on most voters.

When taxes on the lower and middle income brackets are not at issue, 64 percent of voters support “solving the budget crisis by closing tax loopholes on corporations and charging oil companies an extraction fee without raising taxes on lower and middle income Californians.” 55% agree with the statement that “we could raise revenue and balance the budget without raising taxes on lower and middle income Californians.” Tax experts, such as Jean Ross of the Californian Budget project and Lenny Goldberg of the California Tax Reform Association agree.

Some moderate and liberal opponents of the Democracy Act believe that the right will attack it as raising taxes nonetheless, and that is no doubt true. Usually such attacks would lower support for an initiative by about 10 percent. The Binder poll took this into account by providing a battery of such attacks and then testing support again. The predicated effect occurred. Support for the original wording dropped from 73-to-22 percent down to 62-to-34 percent, still a 28 percent margin.

In short, the Attorney General’s wording raises unrealistic fears in a majority of voters that their taxes might be raised and hides the true democratic intent of the original initiative. That is why proponents of the California Democracy Act are asking for an accurate title and summary from the Attorney General that reflects the democratic intent of the initiative and does not raise unrealistic fears of most voters that their taxes might be raised via the initiative.

Indeed, voters show overwhelming support for such basic democracy. As Binder observes, 71% of voters agree with the statement that “in a democracy, a majority of legislators should be able to pass everyday legislation.” And 68% of voters disagree with the statement that “in a democracy, a minority of legislators should be able to block everyday legislation.” Percentages this high reflect support from across the political spectrum.

Since everyday legislation requires revenue, a majority vote requirement for both revenue and budget would realize the aspirations of an overwhelming percentage of voters for democracy in their legislature. And it would allow the legislature to pass legislation that would end the budget crisis.

I ask you to write to Attorney General Brown [email protected] asking him to provide a title and summary of the resubmitted California Democracy Act according to its actual intent as follows: Ensures that all legislative actions on revenue and budget must be determined by a majority vote, and ends the ability of a minority of legislators to block the will of the majority on such legislation.

The Attorney General ought not to be acting against the overwhelming yearning for democracy on the part of voters across the political spectrum, as well as their deep desire to end the state’s budget crisis.

The author is Professor of Linguistics at UC Berkeley, one of the world’s most renowned linguists and one of the country’s leading experts on the use of language in politics. He is the author of the California Democracy Act.

George Skelton, the consummate insider, takes some time out from guarding the palace gates, to take a whack at the extortion coming from the Republicans (and Intuit):

Whatever the beef, there could be wide, unintended damage to noncombatants. The Republican weapon was blatant abuse of the two-thirds majority vote requirement for passage of many bills.

The two-thirds rule is not used merely to protect taxpayers from politicians trying to reach deeper into their pockets. It’s used by special interests — mainly big business — to game the system; a tool handy for legislative leverage, or extortion. If you don’t give us what we want, we’ll withhold the votes needed for the two-thirds. (LA Times 9/17/09)

See, that’s the problem when you give a wide, expansive veto power to a minority.  It’s fundamentally unworkable.  I’ll make an analogy to my patent law days here.  Sometimes a patent holder owns a patent on part of a device or process.  They frequently try to expand the scope and power of that patent by contract and license to block other firms from using or selling something that isn’t covered by the patent.

See the thing is with patents, when you do that, it’s called an anti-trust violation. It’s against the law.  But with the supermajority in the Legislature, it’s just par for the course.

Sen. Maldonado, quite possibly the loneliest Legislator, shunned by his own party and the Democrats, makes the theoretical argument.

“I was embarrassed,” says Sen. Abel Maldonado of Santa Maria, the only Republican to cross party lines and vote for the bills. “I said, ‘I’m here to govern.’ They wanted all three things or nothing.

“The two-thirds vote is a good tool when put in the hands of people who are reasonable, pragmatic and open-minded. But partisans use the two-thirds as a tool to hold up the Legislature.

And if wishes were unicorns, then we’d all live in Arnold’s Fantasyland. But back here in the real world, this is how this is going to play out every time.  A minority will wield its minority veto like a club and bash everybody over the head with it until they get their way.  That’s just the way it is.