[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
September 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network

The Money Goes In, The Favors Go Out

by: David Dayen

Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM PDT


This article by Frank Russo got me pretty depressed about the state of California politics.

There's something amiss in the state of Sacramento-and it has something to do with the state's banking and lending institutions and the stacking of committees that deal with them with legislators that are either weak kneed or just a bit overfriendly with the industry that they should be protecting us from.

What else is new?

Well, this afternoon, the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance, and Insurance, Chaired by Senator Michael Machado of Stockton, will be hearing two bills that have been gutted down behind a closed door process such that today's public proceedings on them may amount to little more than a sham [...]

It's difficult enough to get bills passed through the Assembly Banking Committee and the Assembly floor when going up against the behemoth banking industry which has a lot of spare change to throw around in legislative races and many high paid lobbyists scurrying about the Capitol.

It looks like AB 69 by Assemblymember Ted Lieu, originally a great bill, has been amended since it left the Assembly-and before today's hearing-such that the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices, initially listed in support, has withdrawn that position.

Read the whole thing.  The bottom line is that in this recent primary election special interest groups spent nearly $10 million, and a good bulk of them were business interests who are now playing inside Democratic primaries in traditionally liberal areas to sell low-information voters a bill of goods.  This doesn't always work, but it works just enough to frustrate progress in Sacramento.

Lesson 3: The business lobby can influence Democratic politics, even in a largely minority district.

Former Assemblyman Rod Wright, a moderate, defeated liberal Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally -- reversing the pattern of leftist victories -- in a South Los Angeles Senate district after business donors invested roughly $1 million in Wright's campaign.

"Business has tended to stay out of black politics," says Sragow, who advises the business lobby. "But some black politicians ask, 'Why? We're always out looking for economic development in our districts.'

"The business community has decided it can't get a Republican Legislature, so it will play in districts where there's a Democratic candidate it can work with."

A major Democratic strategist has all but said that Don Perata shepherded along the candidacy of Rod Wright, and actually put it in terms that come very close to illegal coordination (note "a flurry of record spending by closely-aligned IE groups focusing all of their attention and ammo in one, concerted direction.")

This is the game.  IE's are increasingly the only way to reach the electorate, as the low-dollar revolution has pretty much not reached the Golden State.  So the Chamber of Commerce and industry groups fill the pockets of the politicians who, once elected, feel obligated to repay them.  The US Constitution allows the right for anyone to petition their government for redress of grievances; outlawing lobbyists or the ability of merchants to consult their politicians is not tenable.  What is tenable is to either create a parallel public financing system by employing the residents of the state to pay attention to local politics enough to fund progressive-minded candidates, or to bring clean money to California, where it's arguably needed more than anywhere else, and end the pernicious influence of special interests in state elections.  Otherwise, you get a steady parade of mortgage relief bills that offer no relief.

David Dayen :: The Money Goes In, The Favors Go Out
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
And progressives don't have the ammunition (0.00 / 0)
There are only a few orgs that are willing to fight for the progressive nominees. The Nurses throw some money around and CTA typically picks a good candidate to get behind, but that is nothing compared to the money that groups like CJAC and EdVoice are willing to toss in to the pot.

I'm not sure what the solution is here, but progressive organizations need to make sure that they are working to educate voters year round.  CJAC and EdVoice can make a big splash when they want, but hopefully we can build an informed electorate to reject it.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.


this is why i was so stoked that yamada won (0.00 / 0)
it became clear that the corporate money was working in the primaries to try and blunt the effect of what will likely be a pretty significant dem majority come november.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

I'm a little slow. Can someone please help me? (0.00 / 0)
Let's put morality over to the side for a moment and talk about pure politics.  Why is it that special interests (particularly banking) have such weight right now?  There are only a handful of those pesky things called elections around. Anyone on this blog can accurately predict the outcome of all but one or two legislative elections this year.

Why do the special interests have such heft?  And don't talk to me about the Republicans because they are just barely relevent.

There were a handful of interesting primary contests, but in those cases, friendships with special interests can be a real liability.

So.  What gives. (As opposed to "Who gives")


in a word (0.00 / 0)
money. california's an expensive place to buy ad time & mailers, and the side in an election that's backed by the big money usually has a huge advantage.

surf putah, your friendly neighborhood central valley samizdat

[ Parent ]
Pay to Play on Video (0.00 / 0)
What I would like to see is a requirement that for anyone, or any representative or agent of anyone, who has contributed more than, say, $200 to a campaign for a public official, and who communicates in any way with that public official, the entire communication must be recorded or video-taped and posted on the internet, with draconian penalties for those who meet and don't post.

This would probably pass constitutional muster.  And it would probably have a substantial "chilling" effect.


Public Fubnding of Campaigns is the Way to Go (8.00 / 1)
Clearly.

Your taxes already pay for the salaries of office-holders, their aides, office space, and some travel. But the one thing most of us don't pay for--fewer than one-half of one percent of us have given more thatn $100 to a political campaign.

That means the rich determines who gets on the ballot, because thanks to campaign contributions from high donors, the fix is already in.

So why NOT have the public finance the candidates' campaigns, making them beholden to the voters rather than those who buy them?

Here's how public funding works:
You sign up to run "clean" and garner $5 donations from about 1% of the voters. Then, when you're qualified to be on the ballot, you agree to a cap on your spending and you can't take any private funds.

Here's how public funding of campaigns deters IE's:
There's money set aside for "Fair Fight" funds, which means if you get hit with an IE, the fair fight funds allow you to fight back with a response.

But here's the REALLY cool part: in Arizona, IE's fell by more than 60% since 2000. Here in California they've grown by more than 6,000%. Not only that, in Maine, more than 70% of the women said they ran because the elections were publicly funded. And in Arizona voter turnout has increased.

Nothing can eliminate IE's, and certainly nothing can eliminate negative campaign ads--heck, candidates run hit pieces on their opponents all the time. But the evidence clearly shows that you can deter IE's with PFC's.

More info? Go to our website at caclean.org, even though it looks awful.

Jonathan Frieman
Vice President,
California Clean Money
170 Oak Drive
San Rafael, CA 94901
415-721-7397


Agreed (0.00 / 0)
Clean Money is the way to go. I'm hoping Loni Hancock's pilot program gets passed so that we can see how effective this really will be.

I'm proud to work for Kamala Harris for AG, but my opinions are entirely my own.

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Shop on Amazon.com

Advertisers

California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Powered by: SoapBlox