Tag Archives: Proposition 89

Uncategorized

Prop 89: Special Interests’ “No” on 89 Ad – Thick With Irony

( – 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.

California

Robin Swanson Derides Netroots

6 Comments

(She’s the Mike McCurry of California. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

From the San Jose Mercury News:

Swanson derided supporters’ glee over the Internet wave washing over the ad.

“Sixteen thousand hits? That’s a drop in the bucket compared to the 4 to 5 million people they’ll need to convince,” Swanson said. “Everyone heralded the netroots as the next great thing, and you saw it propel Howard Dean initially. But when it came to translating it to votes, it didn’t happen.”

The irony is that this story is about an ad from Bill Hillsman and talks about the Lamont campaign, which translated enough votes to win, beating a sitting US Senator.

It really isn’t surprising that Swanson, who is the shill for big insurance and big oil, would bash the netroots.

However, the idea of integrating youtube into campaigns to get exposure is something that is going far beyond politics.

For example, tonight on PBS, Bill Moyers is devoting Now to the topic of public financing of elections. So PBS put a preview on youtube.

The TV insider publication Broadcasting and Cable took notice:

PBS is getting serious about getting more bang for it promotional buck–or make that no buck–via the Internet.

It has set up a “directors account” on YouTube–allowing for longer clips and some other perks–and begun showcasing promos, with a link to the PBS homepage and the show’s site.

PBS President Paula Kerger has said from the get-go that the noncom service needed to be on the cutting edge of getting its programming to where the eyeballs are, and CPB President Patricia Harrison said just this week that programmers “can no longer broadcast to an audience where you last saw them.”

The PBS clips–14 of them so far–include tune-in information, like “check your local listings.”  Kevin Dando, director of education and online communication, for PBS, says it is helping to promote the shows to a huge audience–100 million views a day to all of YouTube. And you can’t beat the price of the screen time: free.

“It’s a great way to get in front of a broad variety of audiences,” Dando says. He points out that the clip promoting a NOW program on “clean elections” is now among the top-50 most viewed recent video posts to the site with 13,600 views to date.

“It’s where the market is headed,” he says.

To increase the chances of getting noticed, PBS loads the clip with tags so that it will come up on a variety of searches–for the NOW show, the tags were “NOW,” “PBS,” “votes,””sale campaigns,” “democracy,” “clean elections,” “election,” “proposition 89,” “vote voting.”

Indeed, it is where the market is headed. Which makes Robin Swanson look extremely out of touch when she bashes us.

The Merc News story quoting Swanson also had some other quotes, from people who actually understand politics:

“I don’t know if we’ll pull this off,” said Bill Hillsman, who created the ad and is the media consultant for Connecticut senatorial candidate Ned Lamont’s insurgent campaign against Sen. Joe Lieberman, “but if the spot goes out enough, people will say this is how I feel, and if for no other reason but this, I’ll go out and vote.”

Joe Trippi, the San Jose State University graduate who helped revolutionize the convergence of politics and the Internet as former presidential candidate Howard Dean’s campaign manager in 2004, said the ad “really captures” the mood of the voter.

“It’s the perfect spot,” said Trippi, a consultant to the Proposition 89 campaign. “It helps create the echo chamber between the Internet and TV that it will need to make that big move. This is getting moved around pretty virally right now.” […]

“We’ve learned from working with underdog and insurgency campaigns that if you do an ad that people are watching (on the Internet),” Hillsman said, “you get a multiplier effect that makes it three to five times worth the amount you paid for it.”

Hillsman’s ad campaign for Lamont was the first political effort to tap into the YouTube phenomenon. YouTube, which was recently acquired by Google, is one of the largest and fastest-growing free video sharing Web sites.

If you haven’t yet, check out the ad and use our tools to email it to your friends.

And check out the youtube promo for tonight’s PBS special on public financing (which I recommend watching).

Blog Roundup

Reviews of new Prop 89 Ad

Bill Hillsman’s new Stop the Pounding ad is getting play all across the internets, including a post on Crooks and Liars (the most popular political video blog in America). Here is what some people are saying:

“one of the slickest and most engaging political ads in California right now….In this ad, the medium is the message. Rather than targeting corporate donations and their influence on politicians, it attacks television advertising funded by those donations.” –Robert Salladay, LA Times Political Muscle Blog

“It is a terrific ad – and an incredibly important campaign.” –David Sirota, SirotaBlog

“Watch Hillsman’s ad, which is a remarkable piece of political jujitsu on the practices of political advertising, and has the possiblity to remake them.” –Jamie Court, Huffington Post

“hilarious YouTube Video, courtesy of 89now.org and/or Clean Money Elections which just about sums up this year’s election.  I love it how they’ve managed to tie in our fatigue with the campaigning….” –Dan Wood, A Progressive Alamedan

“to me there is no single race as crucial as the battle to pass Proposition 89, a huge first step towards cleaning up politics in this state and taking it out of the hands of wealthy special interests. Joe Trippi sent me an ad today that was done by the brilliant filmmaker Bill Hillsman.” –Howie Klein, Down WithTyranny

“His new ad for the issue doesn’t even look like a political ad — its production values are too high-end. Polling shows Proposition 89 is in a fierce battle, but as Hillsman’s ad makes clear, the big money interests are actually shooting themselves in the foot. Spending tens of millions of dollars on nasty ad campaigns to try to destroy popular initiatives, these corporate interests are angering voters. Hillsman goes ninja style and turns these frustrations into a powerful argument for campaign finance reform.” –Left in the West, AOL News Elections Blog

Uncategorized

Proposition 89: Clean Money, Corporations and Boiling Frogs

5 Comments

(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.  

Uncategorized

First ever rap and music video about a proposition

The California Nurses Association webmaster, Colette Washington, has released a new rap song and music video. This is the first ever rap and music video about a proposition. Reed Saxon of the Associated Press has a great photo from the filming of the video in Sacramento.

Download, listen, and share.

Here is the link to download and share “About Time for 89” (MP3) and download the lyrics and artist information (PDF).

Arnold Schwarzenegger

Chevron Fights Clean Elections and Clean Energy

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Cross-posted at Daily Kos

California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg isn’t the only Sacramento powerhouse seeking to protect power by opposing reform.

The Chevron Corporation — formerly known as Standard Oil of California — wrote a $250,000 check to a special interest group opposing Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act.

Chevron Proposition 87 Chevron has extensively funded the negative attack ads against Proposition 87, the Clean Energy initiative also on the November ballot.

A chronological view of Chevron’s $19 million in contributions contains seven checks written over a nine month period.

The company has a storied history of buying results. In 1984, Chevron’s merger with Gulf Oil was the largest merger that had ever occured. Chevron also gobbled up Texaco, Unocal, and Sacramento politics.

On September 2, 2004, Tom Chorneau reported for the AP:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s ambitious plan to reorganize almost every aspect of state government was influenced significantly by oil and gas giant ChevronTexaco Corp., which managed to shape such key recommendations as the removal of restrictions on oil refineries.

Many corporations and interest groups participated in the governor’s reform plan — known as the California Performance Review — but state records and interviews with the participants show Chevron enjoyed immense success in influencing the report through its array of lobbyists, attorneys and trade organizations.

And few corporations have spent so much political cash on the governor, either. Since Schwarzenegger’s election last October, the San Ramon company has contributed more than $200,000 to his committees and $500,000 to the California Republican Party.

Chevron, whose officials acknowledge they lobbied hard to get their ideas in the report, is one of about 20 companies that paid to send the governor and his staff to this week’s Republican National Convention in New York. On Wednesday, Schwarzenegger attended a closed-door meeting in New York with representatives of those companies, including Chevron. And just three weeks after the Governor’s Office released the 2,700-page reorganization report, the company gave $100,000 to a Schwarzenegger-controlled political fund.

At the time that was a lot of money. Richard Holober, Executive Director Consumer Federation of California, explained what has happened since then:

Since 2004, Chevron gave $3 million in political contributions in California. For a company that made a record $14 billion in profits last year, it was money well spent. Despite public indignation, big oil crushed a proposed state tax on windfall oil profits.

ChevronChevron has proven successful in the current system. The company has spend millions and ensured they make record billions.

Under Proposition 89, Chevron would be able to contribute $10,000 against each initiative, removing almost twenty-million dollars in negative ads. Chevron employees would be able to contribute, but Proposition 89 would create a system where political issues aren’t decided like an auction.

Clean Money — public financing of campaigns — has proven successful in Maine and Arizona. Included in Proposition 89 are the best practices from those systems, adapted for California. The initiative also includes are review process that will allow regular refinement.

Uncategorized

$3,144,950 Manic Monday – We need public financing

(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 |

California

National Latino Congreso in Los Angeles

1 Comment

The National Latino Congreso is meeting in Los Angeles for the first comprehensive gathering of Latino leaders, organizations and elected officials since 1977:

We therefore believe it is time to initiate a thoroughgoing debate on tactics and strategies for more effectively using Latino electoral influence and governance/policy assets to better achieve greater change and justice for our communities, nation, hemisphere and world.

At the Latino Congreso information will be delivered, issues will be discussed, strategies will be proposed, and decisions will be made by delegates and observers representing the breadth of the community. Our hope is that a new agenda for today and the next generation will be born.

Today, that new agenda was reflected in a unanimous vote calling for public financing of elections in California.

“The Clean Elections program in Arizona has greatly strengthened the Latino voice in the political process. It has opened the doors of democracy to allow more Latinos to run for office and has increased Latino voter turnout,” said Rep. Steven Gallardo (D-Phoenix), an Arizona state legislator who has been elected to office with traditional private campaign financing and under the Arizona clean public money system.

“With a Clean Money system, each community plays a dominant role in choosing who will represent them in Sacramento. Prop. 89 will allow Latino communities to choose their leaders without a veto from wealthier communities who dole out campaign contributions,” said Felipe Agredano, outreach coordinator for the California Clean Money Campaign, an organization which promotes a system of public financing of elections in California.

“Prop. 89 will allow Latino districts to more directly focus on the needs of Latinos because the people dictate the decisions, not corporate or special interests,” continued Agredano.

Proposition 89 has been endorsed by trusted organizations, including: League of Women Voters of California; California Clean Money Campaign; California Church IMPACT; California Common Cause; California Nurses Association; Consumer Federation of California; Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights; and gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. You can read more about the growing support for Prop 89 here or visit the Proposition 89 blog for news.