(I posted much of this on DailyKos yesterday, but what with Lieberman, 100K users and terror, it’s probably better to share with more of a California-oriented audience!)

Riding on the wave of energy stemming from YearlyKos, I’ve been enjoying my involvement in the California Clean Money Campaign.  The more I learn about this effort, the more I believe in it and its promise. Is it perfect? No. But Californians have a historic opportunity to enact real reform, one we might not get again soon. And clean money proponents are aware of some shortcomings and already looking to the review process to remedy them should it pass.

I was therefore disappointed to read this press release from the California Teachers Association stating their opposition to Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. I’m apparently not alone. In fact, in volunteering I’ve met several CTA members who have expressed concern about the union’s stance. 

So here’s a question for California teachers — what are you hearing?  And do you agree with the CTA? If you listen to the CTA, you are certainly not hearing the whole story. In the release, we hear several one-sided arguments:

It does nothing to enforce current campaign contribution limits or to limit how much the wealthiest citizens can spend on their own campaigns, while limiting the participation of small businesses, labor unions and non-profit organizations in the political process,” said Barbara E. Kerr, President of the California Teachers Association.

It may not limit what wealthy citizens can spend, but she neglects to note that it does have a provision so that their opponents receive matching funds to level the playing field.  And it’s interesting that she leaves large corporations of her list of organiziations that would be regulated.  As it is, the individual voter is the one whose participation is most limited without Proposition 89. 

“California faces many public finance challenges,” said Larry McCarthy of Cal Tax. “Our roads need fixing, our schools need help, and our health care system is in trouble. What we don’t need is to spend precious tax dollars on political campaigns by candidates and elected officials.”

What we DO need is to see our precious tax dollars spent efficiently and on projects that benefit Californians. When money controls the process, this can’t happen – we are instead faced with a litany of abuses. The amount set aside for Prop 89 amounts to about 0.1% of the California budget. Doesn’t it seem like a worthwhile investment to help make sure the other 99.9% is wisely spent?

Significant portions of similar measures in other states have been declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ah, and so that means that the crafters of this initiative haven’t learned from those measures?  Give them some credit. Adam B did a great job of explaining some of the differences when the Vermont campaign finance laws were invalidated.

It’s ironic that the CTA calls the initiative “deceptive” when their press release seems to deceive the membership through selective withholding of key facts. And what a sad shame that an organization that rallied along with the nurses against Arnold for denouncing them as “special interests” are now living up to that designation.  Teachers, I hope you’ll learn more on your own about the initiative and then join the nurses and individually  support Prop 89 for real election campaign reform. Just remember the words of our own Governator:

“Special interests have a stranglehold on Sacramento. Here’s how it works: Money goes in. Favors go out. The people lose. We need to send a message: Game over.”