This is an absolutely enormous development. Clean Money got kind of lost in the shuffle at last weekend's CDP Convention, but Loni Hancock's AB 583 has been quietly making its way through the Assembly. It cleared the Assembly Elections Committee, and yesterday there was a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which was favorable. And now, the Senate President pro Tem has signed on to be a co-author. Considering that the CDP wouldn't take a position on Clean Money just a year ago, this is historic news. Susan Lerner writes in an email to supporters:
I want you to be among the first to hear the exciting news: California Senate President pro Tem Don Perata just became a co-author of AB 583, the Clean Money bill!
The President pro Tem joins an ever-growing list of Legislators who are co-authors of AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. Clean Money supporters in Senator Perata's Oakland district and throughout California should be proud because it was your calls, letters, and petitions that convinced him to sign on as a active Clean Money supporter.
I know there was a lot of bad blood coming out of how the CDP Convention wrapped up, but consider this: that controversy was over how we passed one resolution on Iraq and not another. It's not like it was about something like this:
Don Larsen, chairman of legislative District 65 for the Utah County Republican Party, had submitted a resolution warning that Satan's minions want to eliminate national borders and do away with sovereignty.
In a speech at the convention, Larsen told those gathered that illegal immigrants "hate American people" and "are determined to destroy this country, and there is nothing they won't do."
Illegal aliens are in control of the media, and working in tandem with Democrats, are trying to "destroy Christian America" and replace it with "a godless new world order - and that is not extremism, that is fact," Larsen said. […]
Republican officials then allowed speakers to defend and refute the resolution. One speaker, who was identified as "Joe," said illegal immigrants were Marxist and under the influence of the devil. Another, who declined to give her name to the Daily Herald, said illegal immigrants should not be allowed because "they are not going to become Republicans…."
No matter what the intra-party squabbles are, let's understand that the real whackadoos are in that other party. We can resolve differences between ourselves as reasonable people. We don't think Satan is an undocumented immigrant.
Another thing to consider: one of the resolutions that the CDP passed yesterday was in support of high-speed rail, which we learned yesterday that the governor may be trying to defund and effectively stop. One of the resolutions we DIDN'T pass was in support of Clean Money, which actually is moving through the legislative process, with a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. So resolutions pale in comparison to what's really happening in Sacramento. Just a little perspective.
Last Tuesday, California Assemblywoman Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) revitalized the push for clean money in California state elections. According to an Associated Press story that appeared in the Orange County Register, Hancock's bill is modeled after the systems of voluntary public financing already in place in Arizona and Maine.
Basically, candidates who choose to use public funds for their campaigns must first collect a specified number of "qualifying contributions," or $5 donations, in order to show substantial public support. This addresses one potential fear of publicly funded elections--that "fringe" candidates will receive tax payers' dollars to run a campaign. Hancock's bill didn't get a vote on Tuesday from the Elections, Redistricting and Constitutional Amendments Committee, but if approved by lawmakers and Governor Schwarzenegger, the bill would be up to the voters in June 2008.
After the failure of Proposition 89, California needs a good public financing initiative that follows the example of the law in two states where clean elections have been successful for the last three election cycles. Public financing is the only way to ensure that our representatives are elected on the merits of their ideas rather than their fundraising prowess and are beholden only to their constituents.
(Really? Ya mean Californians care about a better and more effective democracy as well? ; ) - promoted by atdleft)
Clean money, or public financing of campaigns, is back on the agenda, this time on the federal level. On March 20, U.S. Senators Dick Durbin, the second-ranking Democrat in the Senate, and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced bipartisan legislation that would create a voluntary system of full public financing for congressional elections. The bill, called the Fair Elections Now Act (FENA), is designed to curb the "pay-to-play" nature of politics in D.C. in which special interests have a disproportionate impact on the political process via their large campaign contributions. The logic of this ethical reform is identical to that of Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, but FENA is without many of the problems that led to the demise of Prop. 89.
In the interest of regional balance, here are a few things in the part of the state that gets sun (jus' kiddin', guys) which caught my eye:
• Full public financing of municipal elections will be on the agenda at tonight's Santa Monica City Council Meeting. Solidly progressive City Councilman Kevin McKeown raised this issue earlier in the year and couldn't get a second, but they ran a staff report, and both Common Cause and the League of Women Voters are pushing this hard. Just like everything else, we'll need to win the Clean Money battle from the bottom up.
(Add another one! Update to my list coming soon. - promoted by juls)
I'm running as a full-time volunteer grassroots political activist since Bush went to war in March 03... logged 1000's hours trying to Defeat Bush '04, Stop Arnold's propositions '05, Win Back Congress '06. Helped Jerry, Charlie, Bill, Jill, Francine for Congress, and Debra for SOS. Registered tons of voters, precinct captain organizer, election reform, you name it... Prez of DemocracyAction (PDA Chapter in SF) www.democracyaction.org and with MoveOn, LitPAC, Party Progressive, SF4Democracy...recommend and comment on diaries and sign a million petitions online supporting the cause.
Our team has other good people, give me a shout if you'd like more info about...London Breed, Jennifer Longley, Jeff Anderson, DA Kamala Harris, Pelosi District Director Dan Bernal, Board of Ed Hydra Mendoza, David Chiu, Eva Royale, Toye Moses, Leah Shahum, Michael Sweet.
We've worked enough with Mark Leno to have earned his support - he's endorsed this team. Mark supports Clean Money and other progressive causes and we know we can count on him.
Anyone in Leno's eastern SF District, I hope you'll come out this Sunday, 1/14 to the State Building basement at 455 Golden Gate Avenue at 2pm and vote for me and the rest of our team. I would greatly appreciate it...hope we can count on your support!
Arnie, the man who said he didn't need any money from special interests because he already has as much money as he could ever want, is still raising money from special interests, to fund his travel, a ridiculously lavish inaugural ball, etc. Campaign's over, he's going to be termed out, but the fundraising machine has a life of its own.
Yet another reason we need clean money. When is the general public going to notice that its right to self-government has been subjected to competitive bidding?
I'm a proponent of California's Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. I like to keep tabs on what the other side is doing. It helps me understand what they're telling people, so I can counter it. So, I've been waiting for the Stop 89 people to come out with their TV ads. Well it appears they have. You can see one for yourself.
As I read the LA Times today, I was disappointed to see their endorsement of "No" on California's Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. What bothered me further is that the majority of their argument is supportive of the initiative. They acknowledge that such reform allows candidates to spend more time with voters discussing issues. They note that legislators become free to say "no" to any interests who use campaign funding as leverage for special treatment. And they realize that special interests are now also turning to ballot measures to get their way with Sacramento.
Indeed, the main thrust of their argument seems to be one of fairness to corporations. And it struck me that this is another example of the boiling frog parable. In their view, corporations are akin to citizens. Prop 89 is "insulting" to corporations. We have to be just as "fair" to them as to people.
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.
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.
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.
The Orange County Register is hardly known for its liberal bias. And true to form, its editorial page came out yesterday against Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. It's hardly a surprise, but what's noteworthy is that they really can't name much that's wrong with it. The editorial even admits, in a snide way,
The idea is to level the playing field, allowing candidates without access to big money to compete, and centering campaigns on ideas rather than money. Nice thoughts.
(The Money Comes in, The Favors Go Out. It's time to stop this cycle. So many issues would get a better crack at the apple if we didn't have all this money flowing into Sacramento. Think about recommending this on Daily Kos. - promoted by SFBrianCL)
With the Katrina anniversary, there has been lots of talk about what government needs to do to protect citizens from another disaster. The other day, California Assemblymember John Laird told the Capitol Weekly, "We have less flood protection than they had in New Orleans. Sacramento is really not protected and the thousands of people who live here are at risk." But this wasn't a story about the anniversary, this was a report on how flood protection in California died a suspicious death in the legislature:
This week, just as Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata put on hold an eight-bill package of flood-protection legislation, one of his political committees received a $500,000 donation from the California Building Industry Association (CBIA), one of the package's biggest opponents.
The donation is the single largest that a Perata committee has received since he became Senate leader in 2004.
For the past three Saturdays, I've been in front of the Huntington Beach Central Library sharing information on California's Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act. There are many things I'd like to relate regarding that experience, but today I'll focus on one thing that really struck me.
Most people who talk to us at the table approach us with questions. Whether they are initially for or against the initiative -- or whether they know nothing about it -- we engage in a non-partisan dialogue on good government and fair elections. One thing I really like about this initiative is that there's virtually nothing a naysayer can ask me or challenge me on that doesn't have a good answer in Prop 89. To one person I finally had to say, "Look - if you believe that our politicians should pay the most attention to the organizations that give them the most money, then this proposition probably isn't for you." That's enough to get people thinking.
Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, is gaining key support. Recently, California's four leading senior organizations endorsed the clean money initiative on the November ballot.
California's two major good government organizations, the League of Women Voters of California and California Common Cause, joined a growing coalition of community-based organizations by endorsing Proposition 89
(Some info from the Good People over at Yes on 89. - promoted by SFBrianCL)
Dan Walters has been covering Sacramento politics for decades. In California, state senate seats larger than congressional seats create a reality where the most populous state is the most expensive state when it comes to campaigning.
Last week, a solid measure for re-districting died in the legislature. The big money, special interests have a strangle-hold on Sacramento and won. Dan Walters wrote:
(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.
(Hey people, this is a big deal! I've cross-posted to MyDD and dKos, please recommend. I want to get the word out about this. Good job, Phil! - promoted by SFBrianCL)
Phil Angelides is apparently taking some new, bold moves. He has announced his support for Prop 89, the California Nurses' Association's Clean Money Initiative:
California State Treasurer and Democratic nominee for Governor Phil Angelides today endorsed the Clean Money Initiative, Proposition 89 on the November ballot.
"I am proud to join the ranks of California Nurses Association, The League of Women Voters, California Common Cause and so many others in supporting Proposition 89 - the Clean Money Initiative," said Angelides who was joined by California Nurses Association President Deborah Burger and Assemblywoman Loni Hancock. "It is time for the people of California to clean up the influence of money in our government. Our government should answer to the voices of Californians, not corporate special interests." (Angelides.com 8/3/06)
To say that I am excited by this move is more than a bit of an understatement. Admittedly, Phil is taking a significant risk by endorsing Prop 89, as the CTA and other unions that support him have rejected it. But, for me, I think it's a great move. Prop 89 gives the people of California a chance to take back their government. It gives the grassroots something to get excited about.
But I'm not saying all of this for my own health, we need to make sure that Phil understands that this was the right decision. So, if you can give him some money, please contribute. If you can give some time and some cell minutes, make some calls. And finally, Phil will be having a town hall tomorrow in Sacramento. I don't have all the details yet, but I'll update when I do.
I've posted the entire press release in the extended.
Arnold Schwarzenegger spoke at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco. I had the honor to view the Governor’s splendid presentation. Ok, that’s all I could do of that. After making the crowd wait in the very hot, very stuffy Herbst Theater on what could be one of the hottest days in SF of the year, he strolls in 45 minutes late. I can deal with that, but then he strolls on stage to pronounce how he has “sold California.” Yeah, more like “sold California out,” but I held my tongue. No point getting thrown out of there. I sat through his whole “selling California” lecture and waited for the Q&A portion.
One of the first questions was something to the tune of “Why do we go over there and support the Chinese regime that has been brutal to its citizens, especially the Falun Gong.” Well, I’m pretty sure Arnold didn’t know what or who the Falung Gong was and preceded to say how business is business and how they don’t muddle in the affairs of our government and we shouldn’t mess with theirs. Well, that’s all well and good, but we don’t systematically suppress any religious organizations as the Chinese government does. But, Arnold is no Chinese scholar, so I could understand his confusion.
However, Arnold is supposed to be an expert on California politics. You know, maybe he would know what all of the propositions were on the upcoming ballot. Like say, Proposition 89, the CAN’s clean money initiative. When asked about Prop 89, he hemmed and hawed about how he would have to read the proposition but he supports clean money. Well, ok he supports clean money, but well not so much the clean part. When the moderator asked him whether he actually supported public financing, Arnold immediately said no. Perhaps he should take a look into at least a two sentence summary of all of the propositions. It would be nice to have an informed governor. Frank at CPR has a good post on this.
But what really set me off was Arnold’s absolute denunciation of “universal health care.” In one sentence he said it was unacceptable to have 6.7 million Californians without health care, and then he states his hatred of “universal health care.” He goes on to say how he is against government interference. What is Arnold afraid of about “universal health care.” Is it that universal health care would yield the worst results in terms of cost effectiveness in all Western industrialized nations? Nope, can’t be that, because the U.S. (and our wonderful private insurance system) already hold’s the title for that. Is there any moral argument that you can present to me that those with the least are less worthy of medical than those with the most. I challenge anybody to present me with such an argument. What is more basic of a right than the right to live a healthy life? We owe every one of our citizens, from rich to poor, the same level of care. There should be no distinction, but Arnold is A-OK with such class distinction.
No, what Arnold really fears about the evil “universal health care” is the well of GOP dollars that might dry up. And that is putting money over lives, a morally inexcusable position.
