In a report recently released, the Center for Governmental Studies calls for a modified version of clean money to control the excessive spending and allow for additional competition. In fact, they've gone ahead and produced a full model bill, complete with language that has some rather grand goals.
It establishes a hybrid system of full and partial public financing systems for statewide and legislative candidates. It provides candidates with an initial lump sum of funds and then allows them to continue raising matching funds.
The Act first requires candidates to qualify for public financing by raising a specified amount of small campaign contributions, ranging from 750 contributions of $5 or more for Assembly candidates, to 25,000 contributions of $5 or more for gubernatorial candidates. Qualifying funds can only come from individual residents of the state. Once candidates qualify, the state provides them with a lump sum of funding to run their campaigns, depending on the office and the size of the jurisdiction.
The Act also places contribution limits on all state and local candidates running in California. Specifically, it lowers California's contribution limits and brings them into line with federal limits-establishing contribution limits of $2,500 per candidate per election. In addition, the Act closes a number of loopholes in existing laws, bringing under the same contribution limit money raised by candidates and officeholders for ballot measure committees, legal defense committees, inauguration committees and officeholder accounts. The Act also prohibits off-year fundraising.
Of course, the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona's clean money system makes all of this susceptible to a court challenge. And it is really hard to say which way the Court would go, as their regulation on campaign finance has really gone off the rails. Ultimately to get the campaign finance system we really need for a robust democracy, we'll need to repeal Buckley v Valeo and reject the notion that money equals speech. Otherwise the richest among us get to speak far louder than those that can't afford to put a million bucks worth of TV commercials on the air.
This Act would be a good start, but don't expect it to come through the Legislature. Republicans would fight it tooth and nail, and, of course, they have their own ideas about how to "fix" campaign finance. Rob Stutzman, a former Schwarzenegger aide, has some suggestions:
Stutzman, however, said lowering contribution limits will put even more pressure on candidates to start raising money early. He said legislators facing term limits should be allowed to plan for future statewide campaigns. Stutzman, instead, would propose raising contribution limits to $100,000 per election and require immediate public disclosure of the donations. (California Watch)
Yes, really $100,000. That is the Republican plan to "reform" system. Allowing people to contribute $100,000 to a candidate. I know that the IEs are kind of outrageous these days, but do we really think that allowing people to give $100K is really the way to solve that? Seems like a long way down the slippery slope that just leads to unlimited contributions. Are we eventually just going to give in and let Larry Ellison, Reed Hastings, Stewart Resnick, the gambling tribes, and Chevron sit around a table and decide who will be our next set of leaders?
I know a lot of people complain about "we can't afford" to spend money on political campaigns, but the truth is that we can't afford not to. As it stands, we throw billions of dollars, from all levels of government, at stupid projects pushed by the wealthy. Yet we can't afford publicly financed campaigns. Funny how that is.
Now that the Supreme Court has apparently decided that the Calitics Editorial Board's amicus brief wasn't all that persuasive in Citizens United, corporate money is now more powerful than ever. Congress has been nibbling around the edges, suggesting some (possibly Constitutional) reforms that would change the way corporations can approve political spending. However, they have, as of yet, really considered the one, and really only, way to combat the Citizens United decision: a publicly financed campaign system. Some big donors are asking Speaker Pelosi to reconsider that:
A coalition of the country's wealthiest and most politically active campaign donors wrote a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday, urging her to support campaign reform efforts in the wake of last month's Supreme Court decision allowing unrestricted corporate spending on elections.
The 57 donors who wrote the letter include members of the influential Democracy Alliance group, which includes a number of prominent Californians. (CA Watch)
Of course, Congress doesn't really like big changes like this. While they might not like the status quo, it keeps them in power. And while I'm not trying to be cynical, I kind of am. Pliticians don't like change that could up-end their strangle hold on power. And frankly, there's nothing that would increase the options voters get to choose from more than clean money.
Frankly, with Buckley and Citizens United, clean money is the last best hope to regain control of our government from the corporate interests. It is the people's force for change, more than any one politician, or party. Don't expect it to come easy, corporate interests are strong in DC. But we here in California can make a statement for clean money by approving Prop 15, the pilot program for a clean money election system for Secretary of State.
We don't have clean money quite yet, but we could get a lot closer with the passage of an initiative next year to put the 2014 SoS race on a kind of clean money system. However, in the here and now of CFR, there's still plenty o' people breaking the law.
Steve Westly, who lost a Democratic primary for governor in 2006, admitted to 32 counts of campaign finance law violations and agreed to pay $104,500 in a settlement with the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Westly failed to report expenses and information on contractors who were paid for millions of dollars in television ads, according to settlement documents. The fine, like all those announced Monday, still must be approved by the ethics agency, which meets Dec. 10.
State Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R-San Diego) has agreed to pay $20,000 in fines for accepting campaign contributions that exceeded the $3,900 limit for individuals.
Anderson and his representatives solicited more than $45,000 in contributions from five people, in amounts of up to $10,000 each. The money was given to the Fresno County Republican Central Committee, which is not subject to any limits on how much it can accept or donate to candidates. The Fresno committee then gave the same amount to Anderson's election committee, the settlement said. (LA Times 12/1/09)
Of course, this isn't the only allegation regarding Asm. Anderson. The FPPC is also looking into how he funneled money from his assembly accounts to his senate accounts via a whole long list of Republican County Central Committees. Apparently Anderson and his crew thought that the central committees were some sort of free pass. Which, it turns out, is only partially true.
As for Westly, you have to wonder where he's heading with his career. I'm not sure this makes for any long lasting blow, but it certainly doesn't help. There are a litany of down ballot races coming up in 2014, and a possible Senate race in 2012. Perhaps he's looking at those?
In June, the California Fair Elections Act will be on the ballot. Basically, the initiative will create a pilot clean money program for Sec of State candidates who agree to be limited by spending caps.
And the response is wildly positive. Around 63% of Californians in this poll said they would support the measure. This is a great place to start off, especially considering there isn't any organized opposition at this point. That being said, there is a lot at stake here, so don't expect that to be the case forever.
The Clean Money Campaign folks have some great information on how it would work:
How Fair Elections Funding Would Work
To Qualify: Candidates have to receive 7,500 $5 qualifying contributions and signatures from registered California voters to show that they have a broad base of support.
Fair Elections Candidates Receive: Enough baseline public funds to run competitive primary campaigns ($1,000,000). If they win their primary they receive enough baseline public funds to run competitive general election campaigns ($1,300,000).
"Fair Fight" Funds If Outspent: If Fair Elections Candidates are outspent by an opponent who does not participate or if independent groups attack them or support their opponent, they receive matching funds on a dollar for dollar basis within 24 hours to respond, up to total funding of 4 times the base amount, i.e. $4,000,000 in a primary and $5,200,000 in the general election.
Prohibitions for Participating Candidates: Candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending additional money beyond what they receive from the fund. Once qualified, they must agree to spending limits and taking no private contributions.
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission was initially a narrow challenge to the McCain-Feingold legislation, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BRCA). However, the Supreme Court having heard the case in the last session on the narrow issues of the Video-on-Demand anti-Hillary movie, decided to rehear the case on a facial challenge, that is to test the constitutionality of the entire piece of legislation.
Together with former Kerry-Edwards internet guru Zack Exley and the Brennan Center at the NYU law school (among others), Calitics and the editorial board decided to join an amicus brief in favor of the constitutionality of the BCRA.
While this was by no means an easy decision, as there are some progressive groups on the other side in this case. In the end, we felt that the law not only adequately protected new media organizations, but also did a reasonable job of narrowly tailoring the regulations to regulate corporate campaign funds. The BCRA is far from perfect, very far in fact. However, given the sweeping first amendment protections offered by Buckley v Valeo, the BCRA is a decent attempt at getting some sort of campaign finance system in place. Further, striking down BCRA would make any future reform almost weaker by definition as Congress would have to avoid even more constitutional pitfalls.
The brief is fairly short for one of these things, so you can find it over the flip.
First, let me preface this discussion with a statement in support of clean money. I wholeheartedly support it, and think it is one of the key reforms that brings the state towards a functioning government. Despite the first amendment restrictions placed upon campaign finance regulations, clean money has been fairly successful where implemented. It is a worthy reform that would improve our political system, tone, and tenor.
That being said, clean money alone is clearly not enough to fix California's broken campaign finance system. While I have argued from the day I read the decision in law school through fairly recently that Buckley v. Valeo was decided incorrectly, until it is overturned it is the law of the land. Clean money really isn't all that clean when there are loopholes for "issue ads" and other independent expenditures. We can't even enforce the relatively lenient laws on the books now, are we sure the FPPC or any other government body could enforce the clean money laws.
The current plan to give $700 billion away to Wall Street - the same ones who got us into this mess - is a sign we need Clean Money public financing of campaigns more than ever. Finance, insurance, and real estate firms have poured over $5 billion in contributions into politicians' hands since 1990. They've already been paid back by special interest giveaways many times over, and now they're asking for over $2,000 from every man, woman, and child in the country.
Clean Money is the Only Way to Stop this Madness From Happening Again and Again!
Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to sign AB 583, the California Fair Elections Act, to start ending special interest dominance of politics by sending him a fax right now:
Technically, the session is over in Sacramento, but of course, with no budget, the work will go on. More on that in a moment, but let's take a look at the bills that have passed thus far.
Hundreds of bills passed through their respective houses and made their way to the Governor's desk. Among those passing:
• AB 1945, which cracks down on insurance company rescission policies
• SB 1301, the California DREAM Act, allowing children of illegal immigrants to access financial aid for college
• SB 375, a major land use bill that would improve transportation planning and reduce urban sprawl (this is a real coup)
• AB 583, the Clean Money pilot project bill that would make the 2014 Secretary of State election a Clean Money race.
UPDATE: More bill passage from the indispensable Frank Russo:
• AB 1830 (Lieu): This is the good version of the subprime mortgage bill that passed in a weaker state earlier this year.
• AB 180 (Bass): Another mortgage bill that seeks to go after predatory lenders and "foreclosure consultants."
• SB 1440 (Kuehl): This is a big one. It sets a minimum requirement that insurers spend at least 85% of their premiums on health care.
• SB 840 (Kuehl): The single-payer bill, which will be promptly vetoed by the Governor, sadly.
• A couple toxic chemicals bills: AB 1879 and SB 509.
• AB 2939 (Hancock): Allowing cities and counties to implement stricter green building guidelines than state law, which are already tightening through SB 375.
Among the bills that failed:
• SB 1522, a health care reform bill which would have standardized the individual health care market and made it easier to comparison shop, as well as set a floor for basic minimum care. That those who most strongly pushed for comprehensive health reform would fail to pass this common-sense fix makes no sense to me.
• SB 110, which would have created an independent sentencing commission to review and revised sentencing guidelines and parole standards. Another failure of leadership in our prison crisis, as lawmakers refuse to loosen their grip on the rules which they've abused and led to this disaster.
As for the budget, now the legislature, out of session by constitutional mandate, must work on nothing else. Sen. Perata has called the bluff on the Republicans, asking them to formally submit their unspeakably cruel budget plan so that the whole state can see their priorities for what they are.
There was a strange colloquy near the end of yesterday's Senate session (Republican Senator Jim Battin is pictured at right), where the Republicans were clearly caught flatfooted, flustered in their responses like school kids admonished for not doing their homework, and having a hard time coming to grips with what Perata told them. This is a reprise of what Perata did last year when Senate Republicans held the budget up and when he asked them to come up with their own proposal.
Perata: Right now, the bill that I brought up yesterday is kind of an orphan. You have your opportunity to present a bill that you outlined today in your press conference. I appreciate the fact that there is a substantial amount of work to be done on that bill. We know, because we started ours 8 months ago. So you've got a lot of work to do. But we're very confident you can do it. Every day we will be here to see how we're doing [...]
Republican Senator Jim Battin: I just want to make sure I understand what your expectations are. So what you want from our caucus is a full budget document, is that correct?
Perata: Yeah. A budget.
Battin: And every day we are preparing that, you want to meet.
Perata: Yeah. You know what I don't' want to do is to be caught in that position where people are getting confused whey we don't have a budget. Now every day we meet, we can say, "you're working on it."
Battin: And you also want to have the trailer bills as well?
Perata: Yeah. A budget.
Battin: You would actually allow us to bring it up for a vote on the floor?
Perata: You betcha.
Battin: So my expectation is that it will fail...And then what?
Perata: Let's not prejudge. You may come up with a piece of work that will knock our socks off. So let's see what you will do.
It's a neat trick, and good for political purposes. I don't know how it gets us closer to a budget. Schwarzenegger still wants the sales tax hike, Yacht Party Republicans are still dead-set against it, and Democrats are trying to compromise and on the edge of cracking. But they seem to believe, this time around, that the budget can be blamed on Republicans in November and there's a benefit in campaigning on the issue (I think that's why Perata wants a real plan).
So nobody knows how this ends. And the victims are the public employees, the long-term care workers, the schools, the health clinics, the everyday Californians that did nothing wrong and don't deserve this anxiety.
AB 583, the California Fair Elections Act, is likely to have its floor vote in the State Senate today and definitely by Sunday - two steps from the Governor's desk! But the vote is going to be a nail-biter.
Lobbyists and the California Chamber of Commerce are trying to kill the bill because it partially pays for the system by raising registration fees on lobbyists to the same level as they are in Illinois ($350 a year), though they're really worried about not having as much access to elected officials because the $143 million they spend every six months lobbying won't mean as much if candidates can get elected with public funds.
Let's not let them stop Fair Elections! Please send a free fax to your State Senator and to Senate leaders asking them to vote yes on the bill. Over a thousand people have faxed already, but the more faxes they get today, the better:
Then call up your Senator and ask them to vote Yes! The fax tool will show you're their number.
This is the closest a Clean Money bill has ever made it to getting through both houses of the legislature in California, and AB 583 makes the perfect pilot project by funding Secretary of State races to make sure they never have to take money from the likes of Diebold or other private contributors. So let's make it happen!
(A first step. Should be interesting. - promoted by David Dayen)
AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, has a new funding source to pay for full public financing for Secretary of State campaigns - a $350 annual registration fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers. As you might suppose, the lobbyists are up in arms at the idea of having to pay the same fee they pay in Illinois - not to mention losing access to elected officials they can't donate to because they're using Clean Money instead of private money - and are coming out to fight it.
Let's not let them stop Clean Money! The Senate Appropriations Committee hearing is in room 4203 in the state capitol building on Monday morning at 10:00am, and it's huge. We've got to pack the hearing room with people power to stop the lobbyists from killing it. Carpools of Clean Money supporters from all parts of the Bay Area all the way down to Orange County are driving up, but we need even more.
If there's any chance you can come, please join us! Send an email to info@caclean.org to tell us you're coming or to be hooked up with a carpool.
Can't make it? Send a fax!
If you can't make it, use the California Clean Money Campaign's online letter-writing tool to send a free fax to Appropriations Chair Tom Torlakson, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, and other targets. The more faxes they get this week, the better!
This is the closest a Clean Money bill has ever made it to getting through both houses of the legislature in California, and AB 583 makes the perfect pilot project by funding Secretary of State races to make sure they never have to take money from the likes of Diebold or other private contributors. So let's make it happen!
(Less than 24 hours, you know what to do. - promoted by Bob Brigham)
AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, has a critical hearing in the Senate Elections committee tomorrow (Wed, 6/18). After passing the full Assembly last year as a pilot project providing Clean Money public financing for the offices of Governor and one state senate and assembly seat, it has now been amended to provide funding Secretary of State candidates in 2014. It would go on the ballot in 2010 if it passes (unless enough Republicans join in to make it an urgency measure for this year).
The Secretary of State race makes an ideal test for public financing because it will have a very low cost and would show voters and elected officials that Clean Money will work for statewide elections in California. Most importantly, voters should instantly understand why the elected official who oversees the integrity of elections needs to be completely free from any possible pressures due to private campaign contributions and partisan meddling, as the fiascos in Florida and Ohio attest. Secretary of State Debra Bowen, a strong supporter of Clean Elections, supports AB 583. AB 583 details are here.
Please sign the California Clean Money Campaign's petition for AB 583, which will automatically email your petition and comments to your Senator and to Senate President pro tem Don Perata.
If you can attend the hearing in Sacramento, Clean Money supporters are meeting in front of hearing room 3191 in the Capitol building at 9:15am to pack the hearing room and then lobby Senators afterwards.
Trent Lange
President of Board of Directors
California Clean Money Campaign
www.CAclean.org
As we head into e-board (and await Brian's updates), here's a few things I've noticed around the Web-o-sphere:
• It's a few days old, but I should mention that AB583, Loni Hancock's Clean Money bill for California elections, was amended. The latest is that it will be placed on the June 2010 ballot to enact a pilot program that would provide voluntary public financing in the 2014 Secretary of State's race. The original plan was to make the 2010 Governor's race clean money, along with a selected Assembly and Senate race. While shifting this to the lower-cost Secretary of State's race increases chances of passage, it basically puts off any chance at clean money for another four years. So it's bittersweet, to me.
• This Alex Kozinski situation has gotten a lot of noise on political blogs - I even linked it up in quick hits. Kozinski, the chief judge on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, was presumably caught with pornographic materials he stored on a public website, and now he's offering himself up for investigation. But the truth might be more sinister. As Lawrence Lessig explains, Kozinski may have been the victim of a smear campaign by a lone nut who accessed material that was private but unsecure. Worth a read.
• At the moment there are ten initiatives which have qualified for the November ballot; the latest would float $5 billion in bonds to subsidize purchases of clean-energy vehicles and research into renewables. I'm a bit worried that such a long ballot with an what will probably be record turnout is going to bring lots and lots of low-information voters to the polls making decisions on the state's future armed with little in the way of facts. In other words, just another California election.
• On Tuesday, all couples in the state will be permitted to marry regardless of gender. In anticipation, the New York Times ran an interesting article about marriage and gender relationships. Very interesting stuff.
• Fabian Nuñez endorsed Kevin Johnson in his runoff race for Sacramento Mayor. That race will happen in November. No word on Johnson's position on the allegations that refs gave the 2002 Western Conference Finals to the Lakers over the Kings, which may be a salient issue in Sac-town.
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.
(Some interesting ideas - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
I am convinced that we will never fix the problems of our non-responsive California government though piecemeal changes. Term limits, which I voted for, have failed to produce the changes we wanted and have made it easier for money to dictate policy. All the measures we've passed to demand that money collected from certain taxes go only to certain projects have failed as well (and we face yet anther one of those in February.) Prop 13 has starved our treasury, but I can't afford to see it repealed. And all of these efforts have been an expression of our distrust in our government and were sold as the way to check their power. For instance, no State run health care plan can ever pass public muster until we trust the politicians not to treat us badly as the insurance companies do.
Well, the solution is pretty obvious, but nearly impossible to achieve. We must be able to trust our government (and the public must perceive them as trustworthy.) If we trusted them, we wouldn't need a super majority to increase taxes because we would be assured they would be spending it on something we needed. We could let our representatives have a career in their positions if the voters returned them to office and then benefit from their years of experience. And I am convinced that the only way to achieved that is to make a lot of changes all at once and have it sold by the people we trust most - ourselves!
Meanwhile, Fabian Núñez is "so confident that we will be successful in reaching agreement that I have called for the Assembly to meet on Monday, December 17 in order to take up and pass AB 1X." So where are we actually heading on this?
Governor Schwarzenegger is calling for 10% spending cuts across the board in response to the budget shortfall that everyone knew was coming. And as Dave points out, this means everyone who can't afford to live without government gets screwed while the rich continue on their merry way. It also means that next year's budget fight will likely turn this year into the good ole days of budget wrangling. And if Perata is serious about not passing anything as long as there's a shortfall, then we ain't passing anything for a while cause the shortfall isn't going anywhere.
But before we even get to that, we find out whether all the extended sessions, coalition-shredding wars over an acceptable level of health-care (I'm looking at you Shum/Maviglio), time, money and both literal and cyber ink may end up coming to nothing because Don Perata can't see spending on an important mandate when the political leadership in Sacramento can't figure out how to balance a budget.
This is ultimately going to encapsulate most of the Calitics greatest hits from the past year; starting with health care, this runs through privatization, water usage, high speed rail and transportation, prison reform, Núñez pecadillos, labor relations, term limits, clean money, taxes, and the 2/3 rule. Because it all runs back to the ability of people to get elected and pass a budget.
Most of all, it's likely to reinforce the absurd lack of strong, public political leadership in this state. There are no advocates. Nobody has tried to convince me to sacrifice. Nobody has tried to convince me of the inherent wisdom in a program that I might not otherwise think was a good idea. The art of the possible is starting to discover that, as it turns out, not very much is possible with a $14 billion shortfall and no bold attempts at change.
Perata's statement closed by saying "The real issue now is the deficit and how this squares with everything else that we are going to do." Everything is back up for debate. Now that we're staring at the very real possibility of getting less than we started with, it might not be such a bad time for a return to the fundamental principles of budgeting and state spending. I'm not sure it could end up much worse.
They are having something of a launch party(More info.), too! (Which, of course, has a Calitics event listing) So, on Sunday from 1-3 PM, you can go haul yourself out to the Presidio (probably in a car, b/c public transport to the Presidio ain't the greatest), and see some of the following electeds: Representative Barbara Lee, State Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco), Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D - Berkeley), Assemblymember Mark Leno (D - San Francisco), Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Now, I would point out that all of these officials knows how to raise money the old-school way. Some are really, really adept at raising money, and some have less need for the skill. But, we should be congratulating all of these officials, no matter their backgrounds, for supporting Clean Money. After all, we work in the here and now, and work to make the future better. Clean Money is key to ensuring a more truly representative democracy.
The Clean Money Campaign has a great fax-your-legislator tool. Right now, the good folks over there are trying to stop AB 1430, a bill that would end local campaign finance restrictions at the municipal and county level in favor of the state restrictions. This would eliminate several publicly financed campaign laws, including ones in both SF and LA. This is a really bad idea.
Unfortunately, AB 1430 (Garrick, R-Carlsbad), passed the Assembly last month. It will soon be taken up by the Senate, so the Senators need to hear how much we oppose this measure. Sorry to nag twice in one day...but hey, that's kinda the point of blogs, right? To tell the quiet story, and all that? Well, this bill needs to be stopped before it gets to Arnold's desk. So, here I am nagging you to write the letter. Please?
Even though Loni Hancock's Clean Money bill, allowing for a pilot program to attempt public financing for state elections, was turned into a two-year bill, meaning it won't be eligible for passage until 2008, I was under the impression that campaign finance reform was making some progress in the state legislature. And while this shocker legislation is more about the state exerting control on local municipalities more than anything else, it certainly puts a damper on public financing efforts, as it would virtually eliminate any local limits on contributions.
This is deadline week in the California State Assembly. Hundreds of bills will be voted upon so that they can be moved on to the Senate. Obviously, major special interests want to have something to say about which bills pass and which leave. The best way for them to impact that is through campaign contributions. And this year, they've got a new campaign to which to contribute.
The law bars them from donating more than $7,200 directly to Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez (D-Los Angeles). But nothing has prevented teachers, doctors, gambling enterprises, insurers and others from giving much, much more to a cause close to Nuñez's heart.
Those interest groups wrote checks for as much as $250,000 to help bankroll a ballot measure that would tweak California's term limits to give Nuñez another six years in the Legislature. Seventeen unions, corporations, utilities and professional associations have donated a combined $1.68 million for a signature-gathering effort to put the measure before voters next February.
The contributions, all made within the last two months, come as lawmakers led by Nuñez are deciding on hundreds of bills of concern to the donors. The groups had already spent a combined $3.5 million in the first three months of this year trying to influence the Legislature, governor's office and state agencies, state records show.
This is not a problem in and of itself, unless the bills that come out of the Assembly match up favorably with the campaign contributors. We'll be watching. But the appearance is certainly not pristine.
A few points of good news from the Legislature. First, the homeless dumping bill, SB 275 passed out of the full Senate. Press release over the flip.
Also, Loni Hancock's clean money bill, AB 583 was passed out of the Appropriations Committee. AB 583 is currently a focus of clean money that will use one open Assembly seat and one open Senate seat along with the 2010 Gov's race to test the system. It could be a really good way to test the system. You can write your Legislator via the CA Campaign for Clean Money's letter program. They'll actually fax the letter for you.
