The February ballot has the presidential primary (for better or worse) and it also has a few ballot initiatives. But, it looks like few have really noticed that. (My Prop 93 disclosure)
With less than six weeks to go before California's Feb. 5 presidential primary, voters still are largely unaware of five key ballot initiatives that could have broad impact on the state's political and economic future, according to a new Field Poll.
Proposition 93 would reduce the time a state legislator can serve from 14 to 12 years, although its passage would give some current lawmakers as many as three extra terms. But the new Field Poll found that just 1 in 4 voters - 25 percent - have seen or heard anything abut the measure. (SF Chron 12.27.07)
Furthermore, we have the Native American Gaming Compacts, Props 94-97. There is a lot of money behind both sides of this fight, and with UNITE-HERE recently adding $2mil, it will not go quietly in the next 6 weeks.
And, for some reason, people just aren't polling on Prop 92, the community college initiative. Prop 92 would affect the Prop 98 formulas to increase funding to community college. Prop 92 has split the traditional Democratic constituency, with the CTA going no, and the California Labor Federation going yes. It's still possible that something will come out tomorrow or next week from Field, though.
But, for those of you who are interested, here are the high-level numbers on Prop 93 and Props 94-97. You can also find cross-tabs at Capitol Alert.
Steve Westly and Steve Poizner have a remarkably similar background. Both made their fortunes during the DotCom heyday and then used those fortunes to get into politics. Both have tended towards moderate for their respective parties. Well, the two are now squaring off over Prop 93. It's actually quite entertaining, even if I weren't working for Yes on 93 (Disclosure).
In the Merc today, the stage was set for what could reasonably be a potential matchup for the governorship:
The battle over Proposition 93, the proposal to loosen term limits, has suddenly become a potential preview of a matchup of two Silicon Valley multimillionaire entrepreneurs with gubernatorial aspirations. Steve Westly, the former state controller who lost in last year's Democratic primary for governor, said Monday that he will throw his name and money behind Prop. 93, six weeks after Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner took over the No on 93 campaign and contributed $1.5 million of his own money to defeat the proposition.
Westly played down any further political ambitions -- or a potential clash of Silicon Valley titans. "I'll make a decision next year about whether 2010 is the right time for me, and my family, to run again," said Westly, responding to an interview request by e-mail. "This initiative isn't about Steve Poizner or myself, it's about how we best prepare California to be successful in the future."(CoCo Times 12.18.07)
Now, it's reasonably clear to anybody who's ever observed Poizner that he's not a bottom of the ticket kind of guy. He's looking to be governor, and I think it's reasonable to say the same for Westly. What isn't so clear is whether Westly would be interested in running again. Either way, this little back and forth in LATimes.com's Dustup feature is quite entertaining. Yesterday the two Steves discussed whether Prop 93 would make a "good law" better. Poizner says that 93 would not be in the spirit of Prop 140 from way back when, while Westly disagrees. They also seem to be arguing about the meaning of some nonpartisan report. (By the by, this site is officially nonpartisan. So, I expect random politicians to quote Robert or Dave and argue over what they are saying. Oh, and Dan Walters. But I suppose we are generally pretty clear, huh? Maybe we should focus on ambiguity, and we'll appear in lots more newspapers and TV reports.)
They just posted today's "dustup" between the two, with the question being "Have they broken career politicians' power monopoly in Sacramento or just sped up the game of political musical chairs?" My comment, which I posted quite a while ago, but is still apparently waiting in the moderation queue, discusses the parable of Richard Alarcon. He went from Senator to Assemblyman to City Councilman in about 4 months. Oh, and I suppose I should also mention that he also ran for Mayor against Villaraigosa and Hahn in 2005. If the legislators constantly have their eyes on the next job, how are they learning and growing in the one they've got?
There a bunch of polling firms in the state, but two are most recognizable, Field and PPIC . Both release their data to the public. Well, most of it anyway. You can actually get Field's cross-tabulations on SacBee Capitol Alert site.Pretty cool if you're as big of a dork as me. But the two groups have very different takes on how best to time the release of their data. Field slowly trickles out each question of a poll. So you get these "Field Seasons" that last for two weeks every few months. First you get Bush's job approval, then you get some environmental question, then you get some initiave. So, they get a fair bit of press coverage from that. Not a bad route, PR speaking.
On the other hand, PPIC allows you to just gorge yourself on data. And this PPIC statewide survey is no different, we've received a tidal wave of data. I'll just take these in the order that they chose. They headline with economic data. It's not pretty:
Most Californians have a negative outlook on the direction of the state (52%) and the economy (65%) for the next year, and on the impact of the current housing situation on their own finances (52%).
Call it a Big Shitpile, call it whatever you want, but people are scared where the state, and the nation, are headed. They are worried about their jobs, their children's future, oh and yeah keeping their houses. But, of course, they have something else to be worried about: health care. And yup we Californians are worried about that, for ourselves and for our fellow Californians too:
Most California residents continue to believe that the number of people without health insurance is a big problem (76%).
(Sorry to interrupt the anti-Blackwater high. This article was written by Frank Russo, and originally appeared at California Progress Report. Disclosure: I do some work for Prop 93. Frank does not. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
I was taught in law school to treat with suspicion and closely examine any sentence that starts off with the phrase, "It is clear that..." and assertions made without evidence. We know from history that big lies are repeated often enough that they are accepted for the truth.
Every time this year that it appears that the legislature has gotten close to a deal on health care or water or actually made progress on some pressing issue Californians care about, there is an eruption of bald faced statements that "They're just doing that because of term limits" from the nattering nabobs of negativism.
As we are getting close to the end of this year, I've asked a dozen or more observers of the Sacramento scene, what would have been different this year had a proposition to change term limits not been placed on the ballot. The folks I've talked to include many who are cynical about the political process--yet none of them have been able to come up with a good answer.
Last week, I sat down with Assemblymember John Laird of Santa Cruz/Monterey, to talk about Prop 93, the environment, and civil rights. I'll be editing up more of the video where we talk about these issues in more detail. However, I wanted to share this video first.
John Laird has a long history of fighting as both a progressive activist and now in the Assembly. He's worked extensively on promoting a sustainable economy, and has spent much of his time in the Assembly by going through each of California's non-discrimination laws to ensure that the rights of all Californians are honored. And given his experience as Assembly budget chair, few have the breadth or depth of knowledge about the priorities of the California government. After all, as he told me, the budget is the one document that represents all of our priorities, our hopes, and our dreams for the state. Flip it for more.
In today's Fresno Bee, the editorial board takes a whack at Prop 93. Fair enough, I can handle a little criticism. But I'd like to go through this a little bit.
Term limits should be changed. They haven't worked as well as voters once hoped. The net effect of term limits has been to reduce the experience level of those who serve in Sacramento, elevate the role of special interests and their lobbyists, and turn electoral cycles into an unending marathon on fundraising and focusing on the next job, rather than on California's increasingly serious problems.(Fresno Bee 12.3.07)
Now that's something I can agree with, and something that I'm guessing most progressives would agree with. So, a reasonable start there. But then they get into their hang up: redistricting. Why are term limits and redistricting related? Why because the governor said so of course! Silly Californians. And boy are these guys angry about the lack of movement on redistricting!
If it is passed, Núñez, Perata and many other incumbents could run for re-election in the June primary. Many of them would still be around when the time comes, after the 2010 census, to draw the legislative boundaries again. That's a recipe for preserving the gerrymandering that currently makes a mockery of state elections.
But this message is a bizarre one. Basically they want to keep the merry go round spinning until they find a group of legislators that wants to, I don't know, bend to their superior logic or something. What evidence do they have that any new set of legislators would get with the Fresno Bee program? Well, none, and furthermore Speaker Nunez wasn't even in the legislature when the current lines were drawn. They present no evidence that anything would change if we have new leadership, and it's doubtful that it would. But, they don't like Núñez and Perata, so boo to them, and boo to Prop 93.
But ultimately Prop 93 isn't about Núñez, Perata, or any other current legislator. It's about trying to get a system that will work better for the state of California. The Bee decries the current system, but when somebody tries to change it, they get blasted for not towing to some other random issue.
So, the question for the Bee is this: Would you really have supported Prop 93 if there was a redistricting proposal? Would that have made everything all hunky dory, or would there have been some other issue? I guess we'll never know, but I have my ideas on the subject.
In the LA Times today, George Skelton took on a basic assumption of the CGS study (PDF) on Proposition 93. Specifically:
There's a new theory being raised about legislative term limits and it may be the nuttiest notion yet. It is this: The longer someone serves in the Legislature, the more likely that person is to become corrupt. (LATimes 11.29.07)
Much of the CGS study is, in fact, focused upon this. That somehow term limits are a good thing because they prevent corruption by long-serving legislators. But that's far from a verifiable fact:
That's like saying the more years someone puts in as a pharmacist, the more likely he is to start peddling illegal drugs. Or, that a commuter's repeated trips to a parking garage could turn him into an auto thief. My theory always has been that you're either a car snatcher or you're not. It doesn't matter how much time you hang around cars. Likewise, filling blood pressure prescriptions doesn't make you a crack dealer.
Look, it doesn't take much experience to sell your vote. The lobbyists are there from day one, I assure you that they know how to buy votes if they so desire. The dirty lobbyists are really the ones who need to be skilled, they just bring the legislator along for the ride. And where are the term limits for them? That would be a clever idea I suppose, but I don't see that on Poizner's wishlist, or well, being legal. But, in the end, this is the basic truth:
But trying to cast term limits as a cleansing agent for corruption is a comical reach.
By the way, speaking of Poizner, he says (I really hate linking to Chris Reed, but oh well)
"I would rather all 501(c)4s disclose" the source of their money, he said. Poizner said he has "no idea" who gave the $1.5 million to U.S. Term Limits. America's Finest Blog
Our Dear Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is bothered by corruption, but only the kind that doesn't help him, or so it seems. On the $1.5mil that was donated by U.S. Term Limits, he says (unfortunately, I'm going to link to America's "Finest" Blog, which by the way, doesn't let you deep link with any ease. Very annoying.)
"I would rather all 501(c)4s disclose" the source of their money, he said. Poizner said he has "no idea" who gave the $1.5 million to U.S. Term Limits.
But no need to actually make sure that U.S. Term Limits actually does disclose, b/c you know, that's "good money" and corruption doesn't come from good money. Speaking of corruption, in the LA Times today, George Skelton took on a basic assumption of the CGS study (PDF) on Proposition 93. Specifically:
There's a new theory being raised about legislative term limits and it may be the nuttiest notion yet. It is this: The longer someone serves in the Legislature, the more likely that person is to become corrupt. (LATimes 11.29.07)
Much of the CGS study is, in fact, focused upon this. That somehow term limits are a good thing because they prevent corruption by long-serving legislators. But that's far from a verifiable fact:
That's like saying the more years someone puts in as a pharmacist, the more likely he is to start peddling illegal drugs. Or, that a commuter's repeated trips to a parking garage could turn him into an auto thief.
My theory always has been that you're either a car snatcher or you're not. It doesn't matter how much time you hang around cars. Likewise, filling blood pressure prescriptions doesn't make you a crack dealer.
Look, it doesn't take much experience to sell your vote. The lobbyists are there from day one, I assure you that they know how to buy votes if they so desire. The dirty lobbyists are really the ones who need to be skilled, they just bring the legislator along for the ride. And where are the term limits for them? That would be a clever idea I suppose, but I don't see that on Poizner's wishlist, or well, being legal. But, in the end, this is the basic truth:
But trying to cast term limits as a cleansing agent for corruption is a comical reach.
(I've now included some stuff on Dan Walters. Enjoy. Disclosure: I do work for Yes on 93. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
UPDATE: I saw Dan Walters' editorial when I wrote this post this morning, but if you've read Calitics very long you'll see that I'm not really feeling his analysis. But Bill Cavala says it far better than I. Over at CA Progress Report, Bill lays into Dan Walters:
Dan Walters should have been a writer for PRAVDA. He knows all the tricks of making propaganda look like journalistic analysis. Today he twists the report of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies.
Well, Dr. Cavala should know that few are as adept as Dan Walters at spinning what might look like up to you and me into down for his Bee column. Just like Kevin Spillane of the official No on 93 campaign, Walters does a fine job of turning what is essentially an endorsement of Prop 93 into something else. It's a gift I suppose. But, more to the heart of the specific issue here is that Walters is still miffed that there is no redistricting reform on the ballot. He apparently thought that the two had to be linked. However, the only person who linked the two reforms was the Governator. More from Cavala:
But Walters goes further, attempting to bolster the argument of the paid "No" on 93 campaign, which argues that we should condition our term limit vote on an evaluation of the Speaker and of the Pro Tem. Specifically, Walter's writes, "once the term limit ballot measure was launched, they reneged on redistricting reform, without so much as an explanation". To whom did they "renege" on such a promise? To Walters?
The dubious connection between redistricting and term limit reform was made by the Governor. He announced last winter he'd support the latter in return for the former. Both Democratic leaders tried to accommodate him - difficult, because he hasn't a clue as to what "redistricting reform" means". They failed in that effort, but not "without an explanation".
The Pro Tem's efforts stalled because Speaker Pelosi was unwilling to chance her Speakership and Democratic control of the US House of Representatives to the roll of the dice. Her opinion not only carries moral suasion within Democratic circles, it carries the certainty of a highly funded "No" campaign that would have split the party in a Presidential year. Perata ultimately offered to sacrifice the Senate's redistricting authority over Senate districts and was turned down by the Republicans.
But, including the backstory or a real explanation would take up more than his allotted word limit, and really throw off his rhythm. And you know Dan is always a-rockin' to the beat. However, instead of picking the facts that work with his opinion, perhaps we'd be better off with "Just the Facts, Dan."
Expanding out from the "Triangle of Corruption" Congressmen, we now hear that San Bernadino County Assesor Bill Postmus is under investigation. From the SB Sun:
San Bernardino County's grand jury has opened an inquiry into the Assessor's Office, sources close to the investigation say. The grand jury only recently began the investigation, said the sources, who asked not to be identified. It was not immediately clear what the particulars were behind the investigation.
***
Questions have arisen about how the recent departure of one of Postmus' top officials was handled.
Jim Erwin told the county he was resigning from his post on Oct. 30, severing ties with the office that employed him at a salary of $63.61 an hour, or $132,308 per year. He declined to say why he left, but said the county offered him a six-month severance package after he announced he was severing ties with the governmental body. That would mean Erwin is receiving more than $60,000 for not working in a job he held for 11 months. The county Board of Supervisors approved the deal in a closed session the morning of Nov. 6. (SB Sun)
I suppose I should point out that Mr. Postmus has a whole mess of fans on the Flashreport, including his former CoS Brad Mitzelfelt, who used to post at FR. For some reason, I don't see any information about the investigation on the FlashReport, an oversight, I'm sure. Kind of like the accidental dearth of coverage for the indictment of Fleischman's old boss, OC sheriff Mike Carona.
Mr. Postmus also is the Inland Empire Chair of the No on Prop 93 Campaign. So, add that to the chairman of U.S Term Limits, Paul Jacob, who is under indictment in Oklahahoma, and you have a real winning team, don't ya!
Disclosure: I work with the Yes on Prop 93 Campaign. This is also available in orange.
There's already a Howie Rich exposed website, so the Contra Costa Times will have to just stick with the site they have now. In today's paper (reg req'd), Steven Harmon goes into a little bit more about the mysterious initiative funder:
Just a few days after Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner's widely heralded takeover of the No on Proposition 93 campaign, a Virginia-based nonprofit organization quietly chipped in $1.5 million to the cause.
The group, U.S. Term Limits, spends considerable effort and money across the country trying to fend off attempts to weaken term limits laws, such as Prop. 93 -- which will appear on the February ballot -- in California. And the group tries to do so while steering clear of the limelight, which is precisely how Howard "Howie" Rich prefers it. (CCTimes 11/19/07))
I do some work for the Yes on Prop. 93, Committee for Term Limits and Legislative Reform
Term limit reform is crucial to finding progressive solutions to the key problems of our state, ranging from education to universal health care to the environment and infrastructure. The Term Limits and Legislative Reform Act will give our legislators the time and experience they need to govern this state for all Californians, thereby reducing the influence of lobbyists and special interests.
That quote is from not from an incumbent legislator, or from some lobbyist trying to get close to said legislator, but from none other than Rick Jacobs, of the Courage Campaign. Prop 93 has built up an incredible array of support, from Mr. Jacobs to Malcolm Burnstein, Co-Chair of the CDP's Progressive Caucus to all sorts of left and right leaning interest groups. Why? Because our current term limit system contributes to a dysfunctional state government.
If you've read this site long enough, you'll know that I have a bunch of hangups on the structure of our state government. The 2/3 rule for the budget and taxes, the out of control initiative process, and term limits. Well, guess what, let's use one to fix the other, I suppose. In the end the decision on Prop 93 for me came down to one question: Would our government be more effective after this proposition passes? And to me, this is a no-brainer. The endless parade of leadership, the constant campaigning for the next job, and the outsized importance of staff and lobbyists all suggest more experienced legislators could be more effective.
Like everything in politics, there's sure to be some warts. But for a variety of reasons the concept of changing to a 12 year limit in one house seems to be the most effective, and likely to pass, reform. I understand that not everybody agrees with me, but I'm happy to be working to get this measure passed. I welcome your comments, in either direction, and I'll try to address them as quickly as possible. I'm headed down to E-board today, but I'll make every effort to respond ASAP.
UPDATE: by Brian, I changed the title of this thread based on Christine's comment.
This email, originally from Christine Pelosi, was forwarded to me yesterday.
From: Christine Pelosi
Dear Everyone,
It's Veterans Day and here we are with the freedom to debate the future of our democracy thanks to the sacrifice of our service members. Thanks to all of them past and present.
On the issue of Prop 93, I have been reading the posts with great interest (and respect). FWIW, here are my thoughts:
We CA Democrats rightly opposed the term limits initiative - it was anti-progressive, pro-privatization - and in part it worked. It entrenched top-level insiders and lobbyists, and made incumbents more reliant on these entrenched interests to learn their way around the Capitol and get things done. We can't change this "imbalance of power" in our state government unless we remove artificial term limits and promote competitive election and ethics reform.
ARTIFICIAL TERM LIMITS break the pipeline of new people coming forth to serve and remove the people from the decision - if I want my legislator to serve 2 or 20 years that should be my choice as a voter.
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.
No, I'm not worried that he's going to come to my house and beat me up, I'm more worried that he's going to take some of his big pile of GOP dotcom loot to some crazy propositions and campaigns. Now, if it came to fisticuffs between me and the Insurance commissioner, I'm sure the early money would be on Mr. Poizner. But as I've said in the past, I'm scrappy. But in the end, I'm sure he could just hire somebody to do any dirty work.
Anyway, the reason I bring this up is a report from yesterday's Capitol Weekly. You see, there's some wild speculation that Poizner will bring a bit of his fortune to the No on 93 Campaign, otherwise known as the refuge of scoundrels like Kevin Spillane. While Capitol Weekly says that Poizner is a billionaire, he didn't make the cut for the Forbes 400, so he's likely sitting at less than 1.3Bn. Pauper!
They say you can tell a lot about a person from the company they keep. Well, then, his signature on the No on 93 ballot argument says that Poizner is a real nutjob masquerading as a "moderate." Who else signed the argument? Well, TABOR champion and Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association President Jon Coupal and Martha Montelongo of the California Term Limits Defense Fund. Woot...All Aboard for CrazyTown!
The signature on the ballot argument might not be it either. Apparently Sacramento is abuzz with what could end up as a battle between the bank account of Poizner and the campaign account of Speaker Nunez:
The Committee for Term Limits and Legislative Reform, a creature of Speaker Fabian Nunez, has raised more than $2.6 million so far this year, according to records from the Secretary of State's office. More than $2 million of that money has already been spent. Nunez has another $5.2 million in his personal account that could also potentially be used to fund the Yes campaign.
Meanwhile, opponents of the measure have raised just over $200,000 so far this year. ... Privately, a number of Capitol insiders said Poizner was actively considering financing the campaign against Proposition 93. (Capitol Weekly 11.1.07)
Of course, it doesn't hurt that he could use the anti-93 ads to promote himself, like he did with Prop 77. Poizner has gubenatorial ambitions, and this would help him with his GOP base as well. It's like he's an evil genius or something. He masquerades as a moderate for the general electorate and then does favors for the far-right. No, he's no moderate, he's just an evil genius. And that's one dangerous man.
