This is an absolutely enormous development.  Clean Money got kind of lost in the shuffle at last weekend’s CDP Convention, but Loni Hancock’s AB 583 has been quietly making its way through the Assembly.  It cleared the Assembly Elections Committee, and yesterday there was a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which was favorable.  And now, the Senate President pro Tem has signed on to be a co-author.  Considering that the CDP wouldn’t take a position on Clean Money just a year ago, this is historic news.  Susan Lerner writes in an email to supporters:

I want you to be among the first to hear the exciting news:  California Senate President pro Tem Don Perata just became a co-author of AB 583, the Clean Money bill!

The President pro Tem joins an ever-growing list of Legislators who are co-authors of AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act.  Clean Money supporters in Senator Perata’s Oakland district and throughout California should be proud because it was your calls, letters, and petitions that convinced him to sign on as a active Clean Money supporter.

over…

As Mark Leno said in yesterday’s Appropriation Committee hearing, “AB 583 is more than just a bill, it’s a movement.”  Two years ago it was stopped in committee.  Last year it cleared the Assembly.  And this year, Perata’s support will go a long way to helping it pass both houses and go on to the governor.  This movement understands that the ability to wage fair and clean elections is vital to sustaining our democracy.  You can join the movement working to clean up our political process here.

I know there was a lot of bad blood coming out of how the CDP Convention wrapped up, but consider this: that controversy was over how we passed one resolution on Iraq and not another.  It’s not like it was about something like this:

Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan’s minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.

In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants “hate American people” and “are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won’t do.”

Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to “destroy Christian America” and replace it with “a godless new world order – and that is not extremism, that is fact,” Larsen said. […]

Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as “Joe,” said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because “they are not going to become Republicans….”

No matter what the intra-party squabbles are, let’s understand that the real whackadoos are in that other party.  We can resolve differences between ourselves as reasonable people.  We don’t think Satan is an undocumented immigrant.

Another thing to consider: one of the resolutions that the CDP passed yesterday was in support of high-speed rail, which we learned yesterday that the governor may be trying to defund and effectively stop.  One of the resolutions we DIDN’T pass was in support of Clean Money, which actually is moving through the legislative process, with a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday.  So resolutions pale in comparison to what’s really happening in Sacramento.  Just a little perspective.

Last Tuesday, California Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) revitalized the push for clean money in California state elections.  According to an Associated Press story that appeared in the Orange County Register, Hancock’s bill is modeled after the systems of voluntary public financing already in place in Arizona and Maine.

Basically, candidates who choose to use public funds for their campaigns must first collect a specified number of “qualifying contributions,” or $5 donations, in order to show substantial public support.  This addresses one potential fear of publicly funded elections–that “fringe” candidates will receive tax payers’ dollars to run a campaign.  Hancock’s bill didn’t get a vote on Tuesday from the Elections, Redistricting and Constitutional Amendments Committee, but if approved by lawmakers and Governor Schwarzenegger, the bill would be up to the voters in June 2008.

After the failure of Proposition 89, California needs a good public financing initiative that follows the example of the law in two states where clean elections have been successful for the last three election cycles.  Public financing is the only way to ensure that our representatives are elected on the merits of their ideas rather than their fundraising prowess and are beholden only to their constituents. 

Supporters of public financing see it as the only way to break the link between special interest money and elected officials.  According to the story in the Orange County Register:

If we expect legislation that is written and enacted in the public’s interest than we must eliminate the influence of special interest money on the political process.  The same rationale for demanding a system of public financing for state elections in California applies to federal elections.  That is why it is important to support the Fair Elections Now Act, a bill recently introduced in the Senate by Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA).  The California delegation, which holds important positions in both houses of Congress, will be absolutely vital to getting this legislation passed in the Senate and eventually in the House.

Back at home though, Californians who believe in a fair electoral process free from the corrupting influence of special interest money should contact their state legislators to demand a clean elections system in California.  Public financing is a reform that 75 percent of Americans want, and if you are one of them, demand it for your state.

(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.

Arnie, the man who said he didn’t need any money from special interests because he already has as much money as he could ever want, is still raising money from special interests, to fund his travel, a ridiculously lavish inaugural ball, etc.  Campaign’s over, he’s going to be termed out, but the fundraising machine has a life of its own.

Yet another reason we need clean money.  When is the general public going to notice that its right to self-government has been subjected to competitive bidding?

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(cross posted to dKos)

I’m a proponent of California’s Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. I like to keep tabs on what the other side is doing. It helps me understand what they’re telling people, so I can counter it. So, I’ve been waiting for the Stop 89 people to come out with their TV ads. Well it appears they have. You can see one for yourself.

It has all the requisite feel-good items: Dad is sitting on the front step, while the kids are out playing with the dog. We’ve got happy soothing music in the background, and Dad explains to us that he really, really wants to reign in the special interests, but just can’t:

I’d love to reign in the special interests that control our state politics. That’s what I thought Prop 89 did. Than I read up on it. It turns out that Prop 89 was written by the special interests. It would stick us with $200 million dollars in new taxes, creating a campaign slush fund for politicians to use as they see fit. Can you believe it? It is like welfare for politicians.

Where to begin? First, it’s telling that he doesn’t name the special interests who wrote Prop 89. I guess if you consider average people to be special interests, then maybe he’s right. Sure, the California Nurses Association is a big proponent of the initiative, but that hardly means they wrote it. It leverages a lot of AB583, which was good legislation held up by special interests. And it’s supported by good government groups like California Common Cause, Public Campaign and the League of Women Voters. The ideas written into Prop 89 have been working well in other states for years.

Sticking US with $200 million dollars in new taxes? Well, if “us” is corporations, then technically “yes”. Prop 89 won’t raise taxes on individuals. And lest you worry about the corporations, the modest increase in their tax rate still keeps it under the rate in place from 1980 to 1996. Funny how when you cut taxes, any restoration becomes a “new” tax. And it won’t be a “slush fund for politicians”. There are practical qualification requirements. Candidates need popular support in the form of many $5 contributions to run under this system. Isn’t it better for the public to fund them than special interests? Who do we want them to remember once they are in office?

Which brings me to the final irony – this ad tells you how bad the special interests are, and ends with the required “Paid for by Californians to Stop 89, a coalition of business and taxpayer organizations and California Business Political Action Committee, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce and ChevronTexaco”. Oh, now I feel better. ChevronTexaco is a name I trust when I’m trying to understand who the special interests are. And there are many more ganging up to fight this initiative.

Let’s make sure that Californians aren’t fooled by this ad – lend your support to 89now.org and stop the real special interests.

(Don’t tell the frogs… – promoted by SFBrianCL)

(Cross posted to dKos)

As I read the LA Times today, I was disappointed to see their endorsement of “No” on California’s Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. What bothered me further is that the majority of their argument is supportive of the initiative. They acknowledge that such reform allows candidates to spend more time with voters discussing issues. They note that legislators become free to say “no” to any interests who use campaign funding as leverage for special treatment. And they realize that special interests are now also turning to ballot measures to get their way with Sacramento.

Indeed, the main thrust of their argument seems to be one of fairness to corporations. And it struck me that this is another example of the boiling frog parable. In their view, corporations are akin to citizens. Prop 89 is “insulting” to corporations. We have to be just as “fair” to them as to people.

Since when has it become acceptable for corporations to be on equal footing with human beings? Corporations serve a useful purpose in the business world, but it’s always dicey when their interests intersect with those of people. In fact, with awareness of American fascism increasing, we should be more concerned than ever about their close ties with government. True, corporations shouldn’t be treated as all-evil and taxed to the hilt for everything. But Prop 89 doesn’t do that. Its modest increase of 0.2% still keeps the tax lower than it was from 1980 to 1996. And most small businesses won’t pay any increase at all.

The Times’ premise seems to be if you don’t like something in a proposition, you should vote “No”. But voting “No” is not sticking with the status quo. To do that, just don’t vote on it.  When you vote “No”, you are explicitly choosing a system that gives big business a louder voice than individual citizens. One in which corporate interests are favored over the public good. And one in which our elected officials are obligated to spend time raising money instead of serving the public.

I’ve now heard the argument so many times that I’m tired of it: “Proposition 89 is great, but it’s flawed”. This is a cop-out. Reforming our electoral process doesn’t occur all at once by flipping a switch. It happens in steps. But it can’t even begin if we miss the big picture, the promise of real election reform, by focusing on nits that people will never agree on. That’s just a distraction.

We’ve become like those boiling frogs that don’t know what’s going on around us because the influence of corporations in government has increased so gradually it’s become accepted. Fortunately, the November ballot forces our awareness. We can choose to stay in that pot by voting “no”, or choose to change our situation with a “Yes” on 89.  

(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 |