According to a new email from Wes Boyd, 93.8% of Moveon members in California voted to endorse Proposition 89.
Since that one line sums up everything, in the extended entry you can see the final cut of the California Nurses’ Colette Washington video on Prop 89.
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.
Here is the link to download and share “About Time for 89” (MP3) and download the lyrics and artist information (PDF).
The California Courage Campaign has launched our fall campaign to oppose the Bush agenda on the ballot in California this November in the form of several propositions.
Our Stop Bush in CA page is an excellent resource for information regarding the initiatives on which we’re taking stands:
No on 85
Yes on 86
Yes on 87
Yes on 89
No on 90.
We’ve also just launched a letter to the editor writing campaign to get the word out in the media that Proposition 90 is unacceptable and needs to be opposed. Please join the effort by going HERE and using our user-friendly webtools, complete with talking points, to send an LTE today.
I’m also going to be keeping tabs on all the proposition news in my weekly (or perhaps more frequent, as needed) “Prop Watch.”
Join me for all the latest proposition news over the flip.
Proposition 85
The OC Register has an article reminding us that this year’s Prop 85 is essentially a re-write of last year’s parental notification bill, Prop 73. The bills are nearly identical except for some strategic changes that have been made to the wording of this year’s model:
Proponents have adjusted the wording of the measure in an effort to weaken some arguments against it. One change is removing the definition of a fetus as "a child conceived but not yet born." Opponents last year pointed to that as an indication of the philosophy and ultimate intent of the backers…
Another change is stating explicitly that a parent can sign a standing waiver for their daughter, which would allow her to get an abortion any time without special notification. This is designed to defuse the argument of the parent who says, "I just want my daughter to be safe if she's going to have an abortion, I don't care if I know," said Albin Rhomberg of "Yes on 85."
Proponents are confident that even if the original wording remained intact, 85 would pass this year. They attribute the 53-47% defeat of 73 to the "vote No on everything" anti-Arnold wave of the 2005 special election.
While The L.A. Times acknowledges the changes to the newer bill, it says Prop 85 "still contains the same troubling provisions" and "remains part of a broader campaign to chisel away at a woman’s right to privacy."
More over the flip.
They lay out the case against Prop 85 in a recent OpEd:
By requiring doctors to notify a girl’s parents (or seek court permission) before she can end her pregnancy, Proposition 85 interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. The measure would almost invariably delay abortions, and because teens are more likely to find out later rather than sooner that they are pregnant, it could lead to more later-term procedures, which are riskier and more complicated.
For girls who are afraid to report molestation by a family member, the proposition would create an almost insurmountable obstacle. Similar laws in other states have not appreciably changed teen pregnancy or abortion rates.
Let’s make sure Prop 85 doesn’t pass. VOTE NO ON 85
Proposition 89
In their ongoing quest to make the case for clean money, The Yes on 89 folks have compiled a list of the special interest money that has flowed into California from out of state in the last 5 years. Remarkably, Middlesex County, New Jersey is responsible for more donations to California campaigns ($10.2 million) than Kern County, California is ($7.5 million.) Why?
Middlesex County is the home of Johnson & Johnson and other pharmaceutical companies involved in last fall's high-priced ballot battle over discounts for prescription drugs.
Big Pharma isn’t the only special interest investing in California campaigns. This year, add big tobacco to the list.
Since the June election, there have been at least nine new contributions of more than $5 million, led by a $13.8 million donation from Philip Morris and $10 million from R.J. Reynolds, of out-of-state tobacco companies that have each put up more than $20 million to fight Prop. 86, which would boost the state tax on cigarettes by $2.60 a pack.
That fact alone makes you want to support Prop 86, doesn’t it? We are. Learn more at Yes on 86.
Meanwhile, a new poll shows that while Californians are critical of the role of big money in our elections, Prop 89 has not yet made its case with voters.
A poll released today by the Public Policy Institute of California showed that 61 percent of likely voters are convinced the current system that allows politicians to collect millions of dollars in special interest campaign contributions is hurting the state, while only 6 percent think it's good for California.
But when asked whether they backed Prop. 89, which is designed to take almost all private money out of California campaigns, only 25 percent of those surveyed said yes, compared with 61 percent who said they would vote against the initiative.
Proposition 90
The City Council of Pasadena has joined the California League of Cities in formally opposing Proposition 90, the so-called “Protect Our Homes Act.” You almost have to admire how perfectly Rovian its title is considering what a far cry it is from describing what the measure would actually do.
While acknowledging some reform is necessary, opponents said a provision requiring the government to pay property owners for substantial economic loss resulting from regulations on use of private property would end up costing taxpayers billions in lawsuits. "This goes way, way too far," said Kathy Fairbanks, spokeswoman for the No on 90 campaign. "Now, when a developer wants to build 50 houses and the city tells him he can only build 25 – he can sue for compensation for the others."
While Prop 90 would
prohibit local governments from using eminent domain to acquire private property unless the government itself plans on using it.
The Pasadena City Council took issue with the fact that 90
would prevent cities from acquiring blighted areas, eliminating slum lords, building affordable housing and providing public facilities by private for-profit agencies.
In other words it would prevent the government from doing what’s best for its citizens.
Help us fight Prop 90 by writing a letter to the editor today.
( – 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 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.
Chevron 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.
The California Courage Campaign has launched a new campaign for the fall focusing on five initiatives that will be on the Nov 7 ballot here in California. Last year we had great success as part of the progressive coalition that defeated Arnold’s reform initiatives. This year, Arnold is, probably wisely, keeping his distance from them. Without a unifying force behind the initiatives, we knew we had to come up with a theme, a narrative, with which to frame the initiatives in a way that would educate and motivate the ballot measure-weary electorate. And this year, what better motivator for voters in our great blue state, and, truly, what better uniter of what ordinarily would be disparate progressive groups than the decider himself, George W. Bush.
Yes, this fall, George Bush’s agenda will be on the November ballot in California, and we’re calling on our supporters and all of you to join us in saying simply “George Bush, you’re not welcome here” by signing our open letter to President Bush. Go ahead, try it. The comments section is particularly therapeutic.
More over the flip.
Rick Jacobs, Chair of The California Courage Campaign, launched the campaign with an e-mail to supporters yesterday:
The issues vary, but the effects are the same. Conservatives plan to make California a national leader in regressive policies and unfair practices.
Courage Campaign, with your help, wants to stop Bush and Co. from:
- Invading our privacy
- Giving tax breaks to Big Tobacco and Big Oil
- Corrupting fair elections
- Handing over our state to rich real estate developers
We are mounting a concerted effort to keep Bush, Karl Rove and their conservative special interests out of California. We've stepped up to coordinate with dozens of other progressive organizations around the state, from the ACLU to the League of Conservation Voters to the California Nurses Association and together, we will send George Bush's dangerous policies packing.
We’ve launched a Bush in CA website where we describe the 5 initiatives we’re taking positions on including how the other side is framing the debate, who is funding the initiatives, an explanation of the positions we take and links to the actual “Yes On” or “No On” campaigns for those props.
A rundown:
No On 85: Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy.
Yes on 85 calls this the “Parents’ Right To Know” Act
No on 85 says that voting no means “Real Teen Safety”
We call it “Protect Teen Safety.”
If approved, Proposition 85 would require notification given to parents of a pregnant girl under the age of 18 when she seeks an abortion. Then, a 48-hour waiting period is mandated.
Yes on 86: Tax on Cigarettes. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes on 86 Campaign calls it “Stop Big Tobacco”
No on 86 Campaign calls it “Stop the $2.1 Billion Tax Hike”
We call it “Hold Big Tobacco Accountable”
Will raise state cigarette tax $2.60 a pack and is projected to raise about $2.1 billion in 2007 to fund health insurance for uninsured kids, improved emergency care, tobacco prevention programs, and chronic disease research.
Yes on 87: Alternative Energy. Research, Production, Incentives. Tax on California Oil Producers. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute.
Yes on 87 Campaign calls it “Make Big Oil Pay for Cleaner Energy”
No on 87 Campaign calls it “No on $4 Billion Oil Tax. It’s a Recipe For Waste, Not Progress”
We call it “Make Big Oil Pay Their Fair Share”
Right now, Big Oil pays California almost nothing to drill in our state, while they pay billions of dollars in drilling fees to every other oil producing state. Prop 87 will set California’s oil drilling fees to 1.5 to 6% (depending on the price of oil per barrel) which is at levels similar to those in Oklahoma, Alaska, and Texas. The revenue raised ($4 billion over 10 years) will go towards research and producing alternative fuels and energy.
Yes On 89: Political Campaigns. Public Financing. Corporate Tax Increase. Campaign Contribution and Expenditure Limits. Initiative Statute.
Yes on 89 calls this the “California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act”
Californians to Stop Prop 89, a coalition of taxpayer groups, insurance companies, and corporations, says that this is “Phony Reform.”
We call it the “Restore Democracy Act.”
If enacted, Proposition 89 would reduce the influence of lobbyists and special interests in California. This is why it’s often called the “clean money” act. Currently, lobbyists and corporations can donate “dirty” money to the campaign funds of their favorite candidates. Prop 89 would restrict the ability of special interests to donate to campaigns, and would provide public financing for qualified “clean money” candidates.
No on 90: Government Acquisition, Regulation of Private Property. Initiative Constitutional Amendment.
Yes on 90 campaign calls it “Protect Our Homes Act”
No on 90 campaign calls it “The Taxpayer Trap”
We call it “Leave No Real Estate Developer Behind”
This is fake “eminent domain” reform. Prop 90’s out of state backers are trying to capitalize on people’s fears about government confiscating private property (made infamous in the Supreme Court’s Kelo v. New London decision) to inject their own anti-government ideals into our constitution. Prop 90 will destroy future environmental protections, responsible land-use planning and basic laws intended to protect the welfare of California’s citizens.
Leading up to the elections, we’re going to be spreading the word throughout the state and throughout the blogosphere about these initiatives with e-mail alerts, petitions and an ad we have in the works, which we’ll be running some time next month. Any contributions to the cause are of course always welcome. We actually have a generous donor who has pledged to match up to $30,000.
So please, join us by signing the open letter to Bush and spreading the word to all your friends and family in California.
Thanks!
(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 |
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.
Cross-posted at Daily Kos
With the passing of Labor Day, we have entered the traditional campaign season: a time for politicians to go meet voters. Yet the reality is that — even as you are reading this — many candidates are locked in a small room as part of the daily ritual known as call time. Somewhere along the line, it became conventional wisdom that money equals ads which equals votes, with call-time seen as the most effective way to raise money and thus win elections.
An entire generation of politicians have been evaluated not by their leadership or ideas, but by their discipline when it comes to spending hours on end begging for big checks, one call after another after another after another. It is commitment to call-time that positions a politician as a contender during the primaries, it decides if a candidate is seen as viable in the general election, and it plays a major role in whether a legislator will rise through the ranks into “leadership”. In short, call-time is seen as one of the most critical attributes in every stage of politics.
Wouldn’t it be nice if politicians could spend the next two months listening to voters instead of talking at donors? The answer is public financing, it is working in other states, and this is the year when it can start working in California.
How it Works
Proposition 89 is the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act on this fall’s ballot in California. The initiative would relegate call-time to history and fundamentally reform the political economy in the most populous state by making public financing of campaigns a reality. Prop 89 levels the playing field so new candidates can win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise.
* Candidates who agree to spending limits and to take no private contributions qualify for public funding
* $5 contributions from voters required to prove viability
* Clean candidates receive enough to run competitive campaigns. They can’t raise money beyond public funds
Why Special Interests are Terrified
Prop 89 makes elections about ideas, not about money. Campaigns are measured by people, not dollars. That’s why trusted groups representing your interests — like the League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, the Consumer Federation of California, and the California Clean Money Campaign — support Prop 89. And why lobbyists and special interests — like big oil, drug companies, insurance firms, HMOs and some unions — don’t.
Just the other day, KQED Forum became a blogger bash (video here) because blogs threaten the ability of “very vested interests in Sacramento” to come together and oppose Proposition 89.
Bill Whalen, a Hoover Fellow and media consultant for the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Jones, Tom Campbell and Richard Riordan said (transcript via Kid Oakland):
I don’t worry so much as a Republican, but as a citizen, and there’s one word: “the blogosphere” That’s what scares me. There are angry people on the left and angry people on the right. And I’m not sure if I want to see that anger harnessed in reforming our government. I like the firewall, if you will. … Among the leaders opposing [Prop 89] are the California Teachers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. Why? They are very vested interests in Sacramento, they don’t want the rules changed. But Direct Democracy, to me we have it in effect in the initiative process and I’d kind of like to keep it harnessed.
What You Can Do
Until Proposition 89 passes, politicians will stay hidden away doing call-time and elections will be about money. The “very vested interests” in Sacramento will spend literally tens of million of dollars to preserve their stranglehold over California.
They may have more money, but reform can happen because we have more people. So take a quick minute and sign up for email updates.
—–
For daily updates, bookmark the Proposition 89 Blog.
Cross-posted from Calitics: the progressive community blog for California
Yesterday, KQED’s Forum, ordinarily a program that I enjoy, had a program about the close of the legislative session. After a discussion of possible reforms, talk moved to the blogs. I have uploaded the clip here.
Apparently, Bill Whalen, of the Hoover Institution, is scared by me. Well, bloggers in generally I suppose. (The transcript is courtesey of Kid Oakland).
I don’t worry so much as a Republican, but as a citizen, and there’s one word: “the blogosphere” That’s what scares me. There are angry people on the left and angry people on the right. And I’m not sure if I want to see that anger harnessed in reforming our government. I like the firewall, if you will. … Among the leaders opposing [Prop 89] are the California Teachers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. Why? They are very vested interests in Sacramento, they don’t want the rules changed. But Direct Democracy, to me we have it in effect in the initiative process and I’d kind of like to keep it harnessed. (KQED Forum 9/1/06)
Please see the flip:
Well, this is typical Republican, he’s interested in protecting the entrenched interests. He certainly wouldn’t want the people infecting his government with their petty ideas and nonsensical garbage. You see, the wise people at the Hoover Instituion know far more about governing the people than that actual people being governed. It’s blatantly elitist garbage. nbsp;Chris Lehane, a former White House staffer and one of the contributors to the California Majority Report, first agrees with him(!!) on the substantive blog issue, but eventually calls him out on Prop 89. :
Lehane: I think Bill makes a lot of good points, I would just sort or challenge the premise that if you’re concerned about Prop 89 and the opposition to it…as the blogosphere evolves and more and more everyday people have access to it it will allow people to transcend some of those historic power centers that have potentially blocked some real reforms that actually do mean something to everyday people. (KQED Forum 9/1/06)
Well, I give Lehane credit for calling Whalen out on Prop 89. What world does the Hoover Institution live in? Two entrenched interests fighting against election reform isn’t a sign that it must be bad. It’s a sign that the entrenched interests like the special access they have. Sorry, I know the labor people out there won’t agree with me, but I think Prop 89 will be a boon to our government. We win if the government speaks to the actual people. Like Bill Clinton said, “When people are talking and listening and thinking, we win.”
But what upset me more than Whalen’s comments, which come from a Republican, so you expect them, are the comments of Barbara O’Connor, a Professor of Communications at Cal State-Sacramento, who apparently agreed with Whalen completely. Yes, she doesn’t want any part of our direct democracy infiltrating her little club that she’s got in Sacramento:
Bill’s correct, I read the blogs all the time. They really do frighten you. And I don’t want to have that kind of Direct Democracy. Many of them, by the way, are by journalists. I don’t want that kind of Democracy either. But the blueprint thing that I was alluding to harnesses the Sim City game that all of our children use and allows real people to give their priorities to their elected officials. It’s not taking over government by revolution, it’s an informed citizenry that let’s their views be known. Clearly, that’s the kind of thing that Chris is talking about where you harness the technology through websites or…we can talk about MoveOn.org and Lieberman a little bit…but I think you have an opportunity as it becomes more mainstream……and I’m hopeful that that kind of thing, and even things like You Tube which frighten people will become more regularized and not so frightening from the far right or the far left…
See, this just doesn’t make sense. She goes from saying that blogs are “frightening” to saying that she would appreciate citizens being able to let their elected officials know how they feel. Apparently, that’s not what I’m doing at Calitics. I’m just angry and extreme. Huh? I guess Barbara hasn’t actually read Calitics. I’m neither angry nor extreme. I address issues of electoral politics and public policy issues. I seek consensus upon a liberal basis. I praise, and scold, politicians of both parties when it is warranted. Essentially I, the “frightening blogger” am one of these “informed citizens” that Barbara is talking about. By the way, Prof. O’Connor, I notice you didn’t mention anything about the Right-Wing blogosphere’s attempts on Lincoln Chafee’s career via the Steve Laffey campaign. I guess it’s only noteworthy when “left-wingers” try to get our views heard. Lamont is no more extreme than John Kerry, he’s just not part of the in-crowd like Joementum is. Will Ms. O’Connor be making snide remarks about Chafee?
In the end, I think this bashing is more about selfish self-protection than anything else. Many insiders, especially Republicans, would like the governing process to remain controlled by the entrenched interests for so long. They don’t like blogs because they interfere with their power base. That’s what they are truly scared of.
Cross-Posted at Daily Kos.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s California Highway Patrol — I am not making this up — has taken to warning public interest groups they could be considered a “Homeland Security Threat” for capturing video to put on YouTube.
Here is the background. This is the final week of California’s legislative session, so lawmakers and lobbyists get together for literally dozens of fundraisers each day as legislators decide the fate of bills. Today’s LA Times headlined an article, Checks Roll In as Laws Flow Out which noted $193,000 moved Monday alone. Even worse, the lobbyist have found a new way to dodge reporting until after the session ends, making accountability reports like this LA Times story more difficult. The tactic is called “pledging” where the lobbyists show up at the big money fundraiser to demonstrate support for a legislator and talk shop, but the money doesn’t actually change hands until after the session is over to dodge the disclosure requirements.
To cast some sunlight on this process and help support this fall’s Clean Money, Proposition 89 initiative, a government watchdog group started showing up at the fundraisers with a video camera and started a website — Channel 89 — with links to all the YouTube video of the events.
The response: intimidation:
Proponents of Proposition 89, which would reduce the role of big money in politics, were warned by a California Highway Patrol (CHP) officer yesterday that they could be considered a “homeland security threat” as they filmed lawmakers and lobbyists wrapping up end of the session deals.
“When did the CHP become a private security force for corporate lobbyists? Prop 89, the campaign finance overhaul, will make the Capitol a public space again,” said Jerry Flanagan of the nonpartisan Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).
FTCR’s public interest news crew, Channel 89, was in the Capitol yesterday filming lawmakers and lobbyists as they exchange favors and campaign contributions in the final days of the legislative session. A CHP officer warned the Channel 89 staff that they could be considered a “homeland security threat” for filming the democratic process in the Capitol. Shortly after, Channel 89 staff members were stopped as they tried to interview Assembly Speaker Nuñez outside his office. The CHP called FTCR staff to suggest they were breaking the law.
It is easy to understand why the powers that be fear Proposition 89. In addition to strict contribution limits and tough enforcement, Prop 89 also creates public financing of elections in California. Not only would this clean up the special interest strangehold on the state, but by fundamentally reforming the political economy of the largest state, Prop 89 would be a beacon for electoral reform nationwide. Apparently, clean elections and accountability are a threat to Homeland Security.
You can stay up to date on this historic campaign at the Proposition 89 Blog.