Insurer trying to pass measure previously defeated last June
by Brian Leubitz
I'm not sure what Mercury Insurance Chairman George Joseph thinks will be more in his favor come next November, but he's looking to qualify a measure stunningly similar to last year's loser, Prop 17. Today Joseph was revealed as having donated over $8mil towards qualifying Prop 17's virtual clone.
The current proposal, like Proposition 17, would repeal Proposition 103's ban on considering a driver's insurance coverage history when setting rates and premiums. It would allow insurers to surcharge customers who had not purchased auto insurance at some point during the past five years, whether or not they had been driving. Consumer Watchdog estimates that those surcharges would increase premiums by as much as 40% or more for millions of Californians including students who went away for college, Californians who previously used mass-transit, and the long-term unemployed.
It was a bad idea in 2010, and it is a bad idea in 2012. While June 2012 might seem an inviting target for ambitious corporatisits, that is a risky gambit considering the legislation on the Governor's desk that would restore all future signature driven measures to the general election ballot. November 2012 will not really be the opportunity to pass already-rejected crap, but it looks like Mercury Insurance will take that bet.
Because, they want to save you money, don't you know?!?
The San Francisco Chronicle reported this morning on the front page about the landmark insurance reform we expect to be spending the next fifteen months working for. Insurance companies, the legislature and recent court rulings have all turned against consumers, much like they had in 1988, when California voters struck back with the toughest insurance reform in America: Proposition 103.
Tennis fans were riled by our drive-by and fly-by mobile advertisements at the finals of Mercury Insurance Open in Carlsbad yesterday. Our message: "Don't Trust Mercury Insurance." You can watch a short video here, which explains why students are getting involved against Mercury.
Early voting is already underway (I just got mine in the mail yesterday) so I thought I'd toss this out there in case anyone's interested. Every election we have to sort through a ton of these initiatives. I encourage everyone to read through the fine print yourself, and to turn off the teevee entirely, given the utter dreck that passes for ads and debate out there. For what it's worth, this is how I see 'em.
Every ballot has a collection of themes, this ballot comes down to four: Pot Legalization, Redistricting, Taxes and Budget, and Global Warming:
[crossposted from dailykos] They said it couldn't be done. They said we were nuts. They said the time wasn't right. But it can be done - we're doing it; we're not nuts; and the time is now. The perfect storm, the trifecta of technology, politics, and demographics is upon us here in California, and we're seizing the day.
In this diary I'll explain this magic moment and how the Restore Equality 2010 campaign is taking advantage of it - and how you can help. It starts with cannabis (no, not the way you're thinking!), beneath the fold.
About 220 years ago, America's "Founding Fathers" got together and wrote an interesting little document dubbed the "Constitution." It is a flexible document that has allowed us to move from an agrarian economy with heavy usage of slave labor to the modern bustling nation that we see today. In case you failed to notice, the signs of democracy are all around these days. This great document, which despite the Bush Administration's best efforts, has stood the test of time. But notice what's missing from the Constitution: Direct Democracy.
Heck, the Founders didn't even want Senators to be directly elected, that didn't come until the early 20th Century. But here in California we can thank the railroads and Hiram Johnson for installing Direct Democracy in some pseudo-Athenian experiment. Johnson intended the ballot initiative to be a way the "little guy" to trump the moneyed interest (at the time, the railroads). The trouble is, it hasn't worked. Ever. It has never been a very good means of the grassroots triumphing over anybody really. It has now become a full-employment mechanism for political types (um, thanks Hiram) and a means of bypassing the traditional means of getting a law passed: the legislature.
In case you doubt the role of money in initiative politics, there's this story in the Bee:
Despite a 2000 law meant to curb the size of checks California politicians could collect from deep-pocketed interest groups, many lawmakers are skirting those limits by soliciting funds for ballot accounts. In many cases, the money is arriving in increments of tens, and even hundreds, of thousands of dollars.
The ballot accounts are legal and can be created without a specific ballot measure in mind. Donations to them can be limitless. The only difference is that elected officials can't spend the money directly on their own re-election campaigns. (SacBee 5/5/08)
Last week, the Center for Governmental Studies (CGS) released a report on the initiative process that recommended some pretty substantial changes, but the question is out there, is the initiative system worth saving?
Disclaimer: I am paid by exactly no-one to advocate for any political position. I've heard rumors that certain people would actually pay me to stop.
There's been a lot of heat, and not as much light as would be ideal, generated around Proposition 93, the ballot initiative to extend (a bit) the current legislative term limits. I have already turned in my absentee ballot, and I voted for Proposition 93, despite its manifest flaws. If you're interested in why (and my take on those flaws), it's below the fold.
Yesterday, I posted a diary about possible ballot petition fraud going on in Santa Barbara, California related to the Electoral College Initiative that seeks to split California's electoral votes by congressional district.
There have been some developments, so I've decided to post an update.
This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah Beth Jackson of Speak Out California
A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento
For the week ending November 3, 2007
Key bills and issues we've been following during the
Past week and beyond
This is usually a pretty quiet time in Sacramento. While this situation remains pretty much the case, the slowly dying Special Session still remains. With the big battle over water ending in a stalemate, the debate over health care reform showed a glimmer of activity this week as the Assembly Health Committee held a full-blown hearing on the Governor's health care proposal. There wasn't any progress to speak of, although the Speaker, Fabian Nunez pledged to keep working to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, few in Sacramento believe either side will make necessary concessions to make that happen.
When times are slow, polls become more interesting-at least to those political wonks who are otherwise suffering withdrawal from relative inactivity. This week was no different as the well-respected Public Policy Institute of California came out this week with the latest on several fronts. Among these are whether the people feel California is moving in the right direction or not (which is just another way of asking whether people are optimistic and hopeful about their future) and how the Governor would fare should he decide to take on Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010 for the U.S. Senate. As you can see, a lot of inside baseball here, especially since even the baseball season is finally over.
The ballot measures for 2008 are again coming to life, especially since right-wing Congressman Darrell Issa, who brought us the Davis Recall in 2003, has announced he will bankroll the return of the Electoral College measure. For those who thought this blatant right-wing power grab was dead, this measure will split California's electoral votes from a winner-takes-all to a split of electoral votes by Congressional District. Translated, this would likely give the Republican candidate 20 electoral votes---or the size of Ohio or Florida. Since the Republicans haven't won California in years, this is as good as giving them a 40 vote turnaround in the Electoral College, enough so the conventional wisdom holds, to steal the election for the Republicans. And since it is felt that Rudy Guliani is the one most likely to benefit from this ploy, and there are many dirty footprints leading to his door on this measure, the Dems are howling. All this makes for good copy, of course, and keeps the political junkies busy during an otherwise slow period before the election cycle kicks in. Of course, this year, the election cycle seems to have started months ago and seems to be in overdrive already.
With so much bad press recently for Speaker Fabian Nunez's spending habits, the Term-Limits/Extension measure Prop. 93 appears to be sliding out of favor dramatically with California's likely voters. Added to the woes of current members hoping to extend their terms in office is the announcement by billionaire State Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, that he will help bankroll the opposition to the measure. Even though the supporters of the measure have a substantial war chest, this measure looks like it may go down with a big thud.
(How does "direct democracy" work when we can't even figure out what the heck we're voting on? - promoted by atdleft)
NOTE: Originally posted at Daily Kos - and posted here in response to request from dday.
The May 2007 Public Policy Institute of California survey titled "Californians and Their Government" contains depressing data about the average voter's civic knowledge.
California voters admit to knowing little or nothing about some of the most critical policy issues they may be facing in next year's elections... This lack of knowledge concerning pivotal proposals, such as billions of dollars for new infrastructure bonds and changing term limits, could provide the margin of success for these proposals. Moreover, what voters don't know may be lulling them into a false sense of fiscal security at a time when the state's finances are still on shaky ground.
According to the survey, Californians have a limited understanding of how the state raises revenue and disperses funds. And, a large segment of the population view bonds as "free money" unaware of the costs being passed on to future generations.
I see those numbers and wonder, "Is this good government?"
