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.
So I thought I was going to have another Jay Inslee story for y'all today, but it turns out that I'm going to have to do more research before we can "come to press" with that one.
But that's OK, because the world's been busy doing a lot of other things - and while many of them get media coverage, some don't get a lot of notice at all.
And of course, there are also those stories that look one way at first glance...but look a lot different when you dig a bit deeper.
We'll hit a few of those today, have a bit of fun doing it, and get ready for what promises to be another busy week of strategically not doing things in Washington.
To make things even better, some of the stories will be real, and some won't.
On a larger scale, what is the role of gifts given to legislators, nd how concerned should jbe about this practice. If you check out the list, it isn't like these are mostly just gifts from friends. They are mostly from big lobbying organizations. I'm not saying that the American Council of Life Insurers doesn't really, really enjoy hanging out with Sen. Vargas, but that isn't what this is about. These are gifts given to sway votes, and it is access that most constituents just don't get.
So, what is the role of a gift, and how concerned should we be about this list? What are your thoughts?
Today the Sacramento Bee reported on Dan Lungren's latest conflict of interest. While Karl Rove's shadowy front group tries to bail out Lungren in a tough election, the Congressman advocates for unlimited corporate campaign spending. Even worse, if Lungren does win reelection and becomes Chairman of the House Administration Committee, he would have jurisdiction over campaign finance regulation -- Lungren would be responsible for regulating the same shadowy corporations that are funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to save him.
This news comes just one week after Karl Rove and Big Oil billionaires invaded our living rooms, laundering over $690,000 through Rove's shadowy slush fund, American Crossroads, hoping to hijack our election through false and misleading advertisements.
It's not surprising that Big Oil is protecting Lungren - he's taken $84,950 from oil and gas companies, then does their bidding in Congress - voting to give Big Oil $2.6 billion in tax breaks.
It's also not surprising that Karl Rove is working for Dan Lungren, since Lungren's opposition to transparency paved the way for American Crossroads. Lungren voted against the DISCLOSE Act to require transparency in corporate campaign spending, and applauded the Citizens United Supreme Court decision on the floor of the House. These actions set the stage for American Crossroads to launder billions from the mega corporations who are corrupting our government. Even more egregious, Lungren accepted $15,000 from Citizens United, and is even starring in an incendiary Citizens United film alongside Ann Coulter.
It's not surprising that Karl Rove and Big Oil want to keep Dan Lungren in Congress. But we have a surprise for them, because Rove and Lungren have forgotten the most important part of our democracy: you - and thousands of voters just like you. We don't support shadowy corporations polluting our democracy, and we won't stand by while Karl Rove tries to hijack our election.
You are the strongest weapon we have against American Crossroads, and we need you now. Please, support us in any way you can, and together, we will fight back against Karl Rove and his corporate billionaires, and we will bring the kind of change our country needs.
What am I talking about? Well, let's start from the fact that John Myers is all over this California politics stuff. He went through the most recent finance filings and found that the CDP had received $10,000 from Anthem Blue Cross?
Really? John Burton, as chair of the CDP, thought it was cool to solicit and take money from Anthem Blue Cross? One of the groups he was railing against during the waning days of the health care fight?
I was sort of amazed by that and needed to get to the bottom of this. So, I called up the CDP and said "What you talking about CDP?"
Turns out, the check arrived, unsolicited, from Anthem Blue Cross late in the work day. The staff, being a bit hesitant about a $10K check from a big health insurer, set the check aside for Chairman Burton's approval. However, this being 24-hour reporting days, the staff, in constant reporting mode, wrote it up right away and filed it.
I've been told, and have no reason to doubt it, that the check was never cashed, and will not be cashed. It will be returned promptly.
But, this brings up a good question. Should the party return such unsolicited funds? Certainly, we should not be courting these companies, that much should be in no question at all. But, if they are dropping off checks, couldn't the party use that money against the insurer? Spend it sending mail into swing districts to support representatives that will support single payer health care?
Yeah, they wouldn't send any more checks, but so what? Anthem knew who they were sending the check to, John Burton, who wrote and got passed SB 2, one of the most progressive health care reform packages ever passed in America. Of course, ABC didn't like that, and spent heavily to repeal the measure. (Correction: Anthem Blue Cross didn't actually get involved in SB 2, but have been involved on the wrong side in pretty much every other health care fight in California)
What say you, Calitics folks? Would you have cashed that check?
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?
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.
A few days ago, we mentioned Arnold's TV ad. It was rather sketchy, considering it drew a bizarre line in the sand. However, it turns out there is something else sketchy about the ad. Namely, that it violates regulations laid down by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Specifically, the money for the ad came from Arnold's ballot measure account "Governor Schwarzenegger's Dream Team California" Under FPPC regulations (Title 2 of the California Code of Regs, Sec. 18521.5), such ballot measure committees must only spend money on ACTUAL ballot measures, whether to gather signatures or what not. But while that is a bit murky, the one thing that is clear is that spending has to be in the furtherance of a ballot measure.
If you recall, the ad said nothing whatsoever about any ballot measure. In fact, the only thing it does mention is the budget negotiation process. Thus, Arnold will have to find some other slush fund to run this ad. The CDP is asking for the FPPC to seek an injunction to block the airing of the ad or of its continued existence on a website paid for by the "Dream Team" Committee.
Governor Schwarzenegger has talked about the need to act responsibly and pass a budget.
So the legislature is trying to do just that. According to the Sacramento Bee,
"... the Legislature's joint budget conference committee, on a party-line vote, adopted a plan that included about $2 billion in new oil production and cigarette taxes to help bridge a $24 billion budget gap."
So what is the Governor's response to a balanced approach to fixing the budget?
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he wouldn't sign a plan that was balanced with tax increases."
He will shut down the state, close the schools, lay off thousands of workers, because the legislature balances the cuts with small tax increases on tobacco and oil companies.
Back in 2003, Arnold kept telling us how rich he was. So, of course, that should make us trust him. Because nobody who is rich has ever been corrupt, don't you know? While the implications back then were obvious, it seems special elections really bring his hypocrisy into the full light of day. This is from George Skelton in 2005:
He pledged not to raise political money from special interests, insisting he didn't need their dollars because he's rich. But he has been raising funds from special interests at a record clip, far out-groveling Davis.
Schwarzenegger actually told the Sacramento Bee editorial board Tuesday, in effect, that he needs to raise money from his special interests in order to beat his opponents' interests. Referring to the ballot measures he is advocating, the governor said: "What's important is that I can reform California. And the way we can reform California is if I have the money [to] confront the special interests."
And get the money he does. This week he'll be hosting a fundraiser at his house. The price for a couple of nights of quality time at the Governor's Brentwood digs with him and the First Lady? $100,000.
Last week, we saw reports on the massive political economy in California, with over $1 Billion in political money raised since the passage of Prop 34 in 2000. And Arnold has been a key driver in this, raising hundreds of millions of dollars himself, and using his star power to help other candidates and campaigns.
There is an undeniable stench in all of this access for the super-rich. He wants everybody to think he is some sort of Mr. Clean, yet bathes in the mud. Yes, he's not some average politician gobbling up cash, he's better at it.
While it would be nice to imagine that these events consist of discussion of "True Lies" and "Kindergarten Cop", that's not actually likelty to be the case. All of this money simply means that those who have the wherewithal to write $100K checks get their issues heard directly by the governor. That is the definition of special interest influence, and what Arnold pledged to fight.
As our budget has gone from a little screwy to total disaster under his leadership, there is little to find for any legacy of this actor-governor. It has just been one massive fail.
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.
Grace Napolitano is a fairly unassuming back-bencher Congresswoman from the Los Angeles area, who generally votes well on most issues. Being in a heavily Democratic district, she hasn't faced much competition from Republicans in election cycles during her decade in Congress, so she's had to find somewhere for campaign contributions to go. Like her pocket:
During a decade in Congress, California Representative Grace Napolitano has pocketed more than $200,000 of political contributions by charging as much as 18 percent interest on money she loaned to her own campaign.
The suburban Los Angeles Democrat made the $150,000 loan in 1998, when she was first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives. Through Dec. 31, her campaign committee has used donations to pay Napolitano $221,780 of interest while reducing the principal by just $64,727, a review of her Federal Election Commission filings shows.
As recently as June 2008, Napolitano held a fundraiser asking supporters and political action committees for money to pay down the 1998 debt. Napolitano, her spokesman and her campaign's lawyers didn't respond to requests for comment [...]
For Napolitano, a 72-year-old grandmother of 14, the campaign IOU has been a profitable asset, far outperforming stocks since the loan started accruing interest in May 1998. Over the same period, an investment in the Standard & Poor's 500 stocks, with reinvested dividends, would have lost more than 7 percent, according to Bloomberg data.
A case could be made that if you're silly enough to contribute to Grace Napolitano in a D+20 district, you deserve to be fleeced. But of course, the great majority of her contributors are corporate clients that are funneling personal contributions to her through interest payments on her initial loan. It's really shocking, particularly considering that she represents a district with a 16% poverty rate.
Napolitano is a solid vote but we can expect much better than this from our public officials. Politics should never be an avenue for self-aggrandizement.
U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. has ruled against the Prop 8 campaign in their attempt to hide their donors from public disclosure. I don't yet have a copy of the decision, but I'll hunt it down and get a more detailed analysis.
You can find a great rundown of the case at Melissa's place. She went to the hearing today, so I expect she'll be providing more information on the hearing soon. Basically, the campaign alleged that their donors' first amendment rights were being violated by the disclosure requirement. Their argument was that the potential harassment and boycotts chilled the donors expression via money to the campaign.
The court finds that the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure.
Of course, all of this was quite funny, and massively hypocritical, given the context of the Prop 8 campaign's attempted blackmail of equality minded donors. Well, what's good for the goose must surely be good for the gander. We should be getting that full list of campaign donors any day now. I sort of doubt that we'll see anything too major on there.
One more note on Prop 8 disclosure. A Late Contribution document has already been filed, and the Mormon Church itself (not Mormon people, but the actual Church) gave over $30,000 ($30,354.85 to be exact) in the last few days of the campaign. (Downloadable PDF here) Not the huge mega-donation they have used in some other states, but people should know just how instrumental one religious movement was to the passage of this discriminatory measure.
In a remarkable column in yesterday's Wall Street Journal right-wingers John Lott and Bradley Smith use the backlash against Prop 8 donors to suggest an end to campaign finance disclosure laws. They cite some of the more well-known examples of voter accountability for Prop 8 backers - Marjorie Christofferson, the Cinemark movie theater chain - to argue that campaign donations should be treated like a secret ballot:
How would you like elections without secret ballots? To most people, this would be absurd.
We have secret balloting for obvious reasons. Politics frequently generates hot tempers. People can put up yard signs or wear political buttons if they want. But not everyone feels comfortable making his or her positions public -- many worry that their choice might offend or anger someone else. They fear losing their jobs or facing boycotts of their businesses.
And yet the mandatory public disclosure of financial donations to political campaigns in almost every state and at the federal level renders people's fears and vulnerability all too real. Proposition 8 -- California's recently passed constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage by ensuring that marriage in that state remains between a man and a woman -- is a dramatic case in point. Its passage has generated retaliation against those who supported it, once their financial support was made public and put online.
This column could only be written in light of persistent media efforts to paint Yes on 8 donors as victims. By erasing the true victims - 18,000 same sex couples and the innumerable other couples who wished to follow them to full equality - folks like Steve Lopez have constructed a situation where the far right can use those supposed victims as a battering ram against campaign finance disclosure rules they've long opposed.
Lott's and Smith's argument is pernicious. They argue that mandatory disclosure limits freedom of speech and of political action, that anonymous donations have protected groups like the NAACP (from government harassment, not public accountability, as the columnists neatly ignore), and that public pressure to disclose donors will accomplish what regulations currently provide (yeah right).
This is not just a wingnut attempt to protect their wealthy allies. It's an effort to lay the groundwork to undermine California's disclosure laws in the event we return to the ballot to repeal Prop 8 in the near future. Without disclosure rules, it is highly likely that we will see much larger sums of money donated to the anti-gay cause.
Even before the post-election backlash unfolded, many wealthy donors and companies refrained from donating to the Yes on 8 campaign for fear of alienating customers and Californians. If these rules are relaxed then companies that rely on same sex marriage supporters for their profits could take that money, give it to the haters, without the public knowing or being able to take their business elsewhere. It could provide their side with a significant financial advantage over ours in a future ballot campaign.
That is likely the reason behind this op-ed. Sure, they buried it on the day after Christmas, but you can be assured it's not the last we'll hear of this argument. We would do well to prep our own response - that the public's right to know is sacrosanct, that if the right wants money to be equated with speech that implies disclosure, and that this is nothing but an end run around our laws to allow corporations to dominate our elections.
For a variety of reasons, this is a depressing day. In California terms, it's because, for all the progress we think has been made over the last few cycles, the situation is very familiar - the big money special interests rule Sacramento, and the "lawmakers" do nothing but chase money.
Yesterday, the bill which would phase out plastic bags in California by placing a $0.25 fee for their use in shops which failed to recycle them stalled in the State Senate (must have been that Bag Tax blogad). Cost was raised as a concern - it would have cost a whopping $1.5 million dollars (on a $100 billion dollar budget) to implement!
Also yesterday, the proposal to make California the very first state in the nation with guaranteed paid sick days for every worker, a right held in most industrialized nations, failed in the Senate, also due to cost (this would have been a robust $900,000 a year to implement!). The bill was at the top of CalChamber's annual "job killer" list. (I should also mention that a recent Field Poll showed it having 75% support among Californians, which of course doesn't matter).
So bills that would have a major impact on health, the environment and quality of life are quietly yet consistently killed. Meanwhile, the "lawmakers" shuttle from one fundraiser to the next, sucking up to the people who really control the Capitol.
In just four days next week, at least 40 politicians and candidates are scheduled to hold fundraisers, soliciting donations over cappuccino, carnitas and cocktails, at cafes, art galleries and restaurants. Most events are within a few blocks of the Capitol and require a minimum donation of $1,000 to attend.
Lobbyists -- whose clients' interests are on the line in the Legislature -- face so many opportunities to give to legislators' campaigns that some are plotting a schedule and mapping a route.
"You run from one to the other," said Craig Brown, a lobbyist who represents several law enforcement unions.
The result of all these payments is a lobbyist class which is free to designate what bills would or would not be too "costly" to implement. They'll pay top dollar to the lawmakers to make sure they don't spend a lot of money. There's quite a disconnect there.
It's no wonder that "lawmakers" don't care about Arnold Schwarzenegger's vow to veto every bill until the budget is resolved. The more bills have the potential of returning, the more money flows into candidate coffers from the lobbyists who want to stop the bills. It's a vicious, disgusting cycle which restricts progressive change at virtually every level. Sure, they'll let something like SB 840 slide through because they know Governor Backstop will veto it. But anything that might actually become a law - forget it. Not unless the Big Money Boys wrinkle their noses in assent.
The big challenge for progressives and activists is to show a model that would break the cycle of lobbyist cash for access in Sacramento. The low-dollar revolution has been nonexistent here, and without it you cannot credibly campaign in the state without help from special interests. Until that time, we'll continue to see consumer-friendly bills die in committee, lobbyists writing the laws, and the rest of us scratching our heads why we can't make progress.
UPDATE: I should note that AB583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections bill which would establish a public financing system for the Secretary of State race as a pilot program, passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a party-line 9-6 vote and will now hit the full Senate floor. Truly public financing is one of the only ways to break the vice grip that special interests in Sacramento hold on the government.
This Laura Richardson (CA-37) loan default story is growing. The Hill is reporting that she's had three homes in default and is currently renegotiating with her lender to save one of them. It seems like she's engaging in what amounts to a pyramid scheme - buying new homes with little money down, and at the same time loaning her campaigns for state Assembly and Congress tens of thousands of dollars. So the money that would be used to pay off the loan is paying for her political upward mobility.
A third home that Richardson borrowed heavily to move into in Sacramento was sold at auction earlier this month -- at a $150,000 loss to the bank that issued her the $535,000 loan. ...
Even as that was happening, ethics watchdogs were crying foul over Richardson's personal finances and questioning how she was able to lend her campaign to Congress $77,500 in the midst of multiple home loan defaults. ...
Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show that Richardson loaned her campaign a total of $77,500 -- in three installments -- between June and July of 2007.
Richardson's year-end FEC filing showed that her campaign still had $331,000 worth of debt but $116,000 cash-on-hand. ...
Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, said it would be reasonable for the FEC to look into the timing of the loan against the timeline of Richardson's home loan defaults.
"In situations like this it's very important for whoever loaned her the money to demonstrate that they treated her equitably, not favorably," McGehee said. "Otherwise, you're getting into a situation of a corporate underwriting of a campaign."
It was pretty clear last year, when Richardson ran a divisive, racially-toned campaign to win the Congressional seat against State Senator Jenny Oropeza, based in part on saying how this was "our" seat (referring to African-Americans), that she was potentially bad news. This confirms it. I won't defend her because these types of financial improprieties are unaceeptable. Getting behind on one loan because it's a fact of life that you need to practically go broke to win a political campaign is one thing. But this to me looks like a series of efforts to possibly use borrowed money and plow it into political activities. And that's wrong. I don't think she's in danger of losing her primary next week, but she should be.
Now Doug Ose is alleging illegal coordination between Tom McClintock and a 501(c)(4) group headed by poster boy for Republican losers in the state:
A California-based group and other local officials filed a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint Monday regarding the alleged ties between an ex-aide to Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) and state Sen. Tom McClintock (R).
McClintock and former Rep. Doug Ose (R-Calif.) are in a bitter primary battle to face off against Democrat Charlie Brown this fall for retiring Rep. John Doolittle's (R-Calif.) seat.
At issue is the role of Steve Ding - an ex-McClintock consultant and former chief of staff for Pombo - and The Partnership for America, a 501(c)4 advocacy group headed by Pombo.
McClatchy recently reported that Pombo's group is organizing a $660,000 independent campaign in the 4th congressional district.
Whoever comes out of the primary is going to be tainted by multiple smears, and flat broke. McClintock and Ose are both willing to risk that because they think the 4th District is automatically Republican, and they're underestimating the strength of Charlie Brown.
At their peril.
You can read on for McClintock's ties to Pombo and various Indian gaming groups.
Facing the end of both his term in the state assembly and as its Speaker, Fabian Núñez is pushing a series of "legislative reforms," as reported in today's LA Times. The problem is that these "reforms" will do little to produce actual improvements in governance - and if Núñez is interested in securing his "legacy" as the article suggests, he's taking the wrong approach.
Núñez is trying to put three initiatives on the November ballot - a term limits extension that would only apply to legislators who are not in their final terms (so that Núñez himself won't benefit); a ban on fundraising during budget negotiations - and a redistricting measure.
Núñez is teaming up with Yacht Party leader Mike Villines on all of these reform initiatives, including redistricting. The article does not detail the Núñez redistricting measure, but noted that he (rightly) objected to the Schwarzenegger plan's possibility of weakening majority-minority districts - and that Núñez believes the best way to defeat Arnold's redistricting plan is to provide his own alternative. The article also notes that Núñez has $5.1 million to spend on these accounts (assuming he doesn't give in to the pressure to return that to the CDP).
But nowhere in Núñez' legacy plan is there anything regarding the 2/3 rule for budget and tax votes in the Legislature, by far the most important reform that the Legislature needs. $5.1 million would provide a major boost to an effort to eliminate the 2/3 rule and restore sanity to the state budget process. Given the likelihood of a Yacht Party holdout on the budget this summer public support for a 2/3 elimination would be high this November.
Instead Núñez is wasting his time on less relevant issues. Term limits reform would be nice, but it's not the state's highest priority at the moment. Same with fundraising during budget talks.
Most importantly, the entire redistricting reform movement is a sham, built upon completely unproven assumptions and on the unstated but key desire to reduce the number of Democrats in Sacramento. More on that below.
Hot on the heels of the record $350,000 fine levied against Sen. Migden, the Fair Political Practices Commission is now suing her for $9 million "for her consistent and deliberate failure to follow California's campaign laws."
The commission's filings indicated that Migden's actions hid the true nature of her campaign accounts from state regulators, potential opponents, the media and the public generally. She failed to report a number of large transactions entirely, while reporting other large transactions which simply never occurred.
"For years, Senator Migden has been deceiving the voters of California by filing inaccurate campaign statements, fabricating the elimination of committees and concealing campaign funds," said FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson. "The sophisticated and pervasive pattern of deception by her various controlled committees has been ongoing for more than five years."
Earlier this month, Migden was fined $350,000 by the commission and admitted to 89 violations of the Political Reform Act. During the months-long investigation that resulted in that record fine, the enforcement division also uncovered multiple illegal transfers of approximately $1 million of surplus campaign funds that occurred over several years and were funneled through multiple committee accounts controlled by the senator. Additionally, the investigation found the filing of untrue campaign statements and a pattern of concealment through consistent misreporting of campaign information.
The commission maintains that nearly $1 million in Migden's 2000 Assembly re-election committee became surplus by operation of law when she left the lower house in December of 2002 and are not legally available for her to use in her current Senate re-election campaign. The surplus funds law has been on the books for nearly 30 years; however, Migden sued the FPPC arguing she should be allowed to use $647,000 of those funds that remain.
This is a countersuit to the Migden lawsuit noted in the last paragraph. Obviously this isn't good news for her, coming on the heels of that already-substantial fine. And this is going to make what was an uphill campaign that much more difficult for her to win.
