We've all been hearing the "Town Hall Meeting" stories the past few days, and the images presented have been of gatherings where you might see some current or former official "death panel" for the benefit of the crowd, where the few people who shout the loudest bully the rest into silence, and where threats of physical intimidation are part of the debate.
I attended one of these meetings, and based on what I saw I'm here to tell you that it is possible to hold an event that features none of the images previously described.
Instead, what I say was an event where people asked their questions, the Congressman answered-and from time to time the angry members of the audience got their shout on, too...but not in a way that was able to ever take control of the venue.
There were helpful lessons that can be applied by others who want to have these meetings, and today's conversation examines what can be done to make them work for you, too.
Last week, Robert Cruickshank offered the special election advocates some pretty good advice - focus on Prop. 1C, which covers 83% of the short-term budget hole that can be gained from the passage of the ballot measures, because the state party approved it, because it's the only measure that matters in the near term, and because they need to focus their energies, since very little good is likely to come of the election at this point. Of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger controls the Budget Reform Now Campaign. And he has shown himself to be completely indifferent to the short-term needs of the state in favor of writing a long-term, right-wing spending cap into the state Constitution. Because instead of abandoning all the other measures in favor of 1C, Budget Reform Now has jettisoned everything in favor of 1A & 1B. I saw this ad a couple days ago, out of nowhere, and Budget Reform Now dropped it without a press release. The ad tries to use the 2005 special election imagery which killed Arnold's Prop. 76 (substantially the same proposal) in favor of this spending cap, with the firefighter warning of "$16 billion in cuts" without bothering to mention that those "cuts," really lost revenues, would be two years off. And the new "Yes on 1A and 1B" logo makes an appearance.
I think we can finally figure out what Arnold Schwarzenegger wants from this election. He could care less about the $6 billion in short-term budget solutions - but his corporate partners want that spending cap, and his new pals in the CTA want their out-of-court settlement locked in (it would've cost them less just to take the Governor to court for falsely calculating Prop. 98 revenues, with more of a chance of winning). So all this talk about how we have to vote Yes or the budget hole will grow deeper was a ruse. The Governor clearly supports the deeper budget deficit, or at least he could give a crap with coming up with a solution. He and his Chamber of Commerce puppet masters want that cap. They have wanted it for four years. Anyone lining up with these interests should understand what they really support. Good job, Democratic leadership.
I spoke at yet another Democratic Club meeting on the May 19 propositions yesterday, against yet another member of the California Legislature, Julia Brownley (who I really like and respect). One thing I sought to make clear to everyone is that we are going back to the drawing board on May 20 no matter what happens on May 19. The Legislative Analyst already finds the February budget deal to be $8 billion dollars out of balance, and April tx receipts came up $1.8 billion dollars short of the budget projection. Some of us recognize that this means alternative solutions must be gathered right now, because Democratic legislators will be stuck in the chamber with the Yacht Party on May 20 regardless.
I was heartened to hear Assmeblywoman Brownley note that a majority vote fee increase will probably be part of the solution. When the Legislature passed this in December, they raised more money than would be sacrificed if Props. 1C, 1D and 1E failed. An argument could be made that the majority vote fee increase combined with the passage of those props would obviate the need for almost any cuts. I think that's faulty reasoning, since 1D and 1E ARE cuts, to vital services that will cost the state more money in the long run. As for 1C I find it completely unworkable and just a borrowing gimmick.
I do have to say that it would be much easier to swallow this posturing from the ballot measure supporters that they would have no choice but massive cuts on May 20 if everything failed, if they didn't enable massive permanent corporate tax cuts in the last budget deal...
Corporate tax attorneys are chuckling over the absurd deal in the last agreement that lets multistate and multinational taxpayers decide, each year, how much income they want to report to California. Because this was negotiated in private, with no hearings and no independent expertise brought to bear, the result is a giveaway and a national embarrassment, in a state that had prided itself on a fair, successful corporation tax.
Here's how it works. Each state typically figures out what percentage of a large company's business is done in the state, and then taxes that percentage of income. Historically, if 10% of a multistate company's payroll, property and sales are located in the state, then 10% of its nationwide or worldwide income is subject to tax. In the budget deal, California changed the formula to allow companies to choose to make that percentage based only on sales in California.
The entire architecture of the ballot pact that emerged was heavily shaped by leaders' desire to please - or at least neutralize - the state's most powerful political players.
Now, some of those very interest groups protected in the budget deal are bankrolling the campaign to ratify it.
For the oil industry, the package omits a once-proposed 9.9 percent oil severance tax. Energy companies have given more than a million dollars to pass the plan, led by a $500,000 donation from Chevron.
For the liquor, beer and wine industry, increased alcohol taxes were shelved. Alcohol industry heavyweights, such as E. & J. Gallo Winery ($100,000) and California's Beer and Beverage Distributors ($50,000), have all opened their checkbooks.
For the teachers union, the list of ballot measures includes a separate measure to ensure repayment of deep cuts to schools and protections for top-priority programs. The California Teachers Association has contributed $7 million to the passage of Propositions 1A and 1B.
For casino-operating Indian tribes, the state lottery measure avoids any new games that could threaten their gambling operations. Tribes, who could have been major contributors against the lottery proposition, have kept their checkbooks closed.
In the last budget deal, all the industry-specific taxes, all the service-based taxes that wouldn't be so regressive, faded away, and the same groups protected by that fade (including practically every sports team, as sporting event-industry taxes were once on the table) ponied up for the special election. So pardon me if I don't believe your lament that you'll just be forced to cut state services, when you found room for billions in tax cuts to the largest corporations in America and protected every single industry that could donate money for ads and mailers. Let's just say I don't buy the image of a legislature with their hands tied.
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.
Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez used a small charity as a conduit to funnel almost $300,000 from companies and organizations with business in the Capitol to events that helped him politically.
By giving to the charity, the donors whom Nuñez solicited earned tax deductions for which they would not have qualified had they given directly to Nuñez's campaign accounts. They were also able to donate more than the $7,200 maximum allowed under California's campaign fundraising rules.
Those donors include Zenith Insurance Co., AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc., the California Hospital Assn., the state prison guards union, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Blue Cross of California -- all groups with high stakes in legislation.
The money was used for events including "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Toy Drive," "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Soccerfest 2006," "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Inaugural Legislative Youth Conference" and airplane flights for 50 children from Nuñez's district for "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez's Sacramento Student Summit," according to state documents.
It's murky whether or not this constitutes a violation of federal tax laws or state ethics laws. If he's soliciting the donation and then directing how it's used, maybe. And apparently the charity itself was shut down for failing to file tax returns a couple years ago.
I would submit that the legality question is completely irrelevant.
Here's the problem. Power is almost entirely centralized in the leadership in the California Legislature. If you are a business in the health care industry, and you want to impact policy, there's only one member of the legislature that means anything to you - Fabian Nuñez. And so you will use a variety of techniques to try to gain access and influence over the process. If they can be so specifically directed, it's inevitable that stories like this will permeate. The problem is what's LEGAL. It's a structural problem that invites corruption or the appearance of corruption.
The Founders decentralized power so there would be competition between the various branches. Spreading out the number of powerful actors lessens the chance of access-buying. The Founders foresaw political parties and factions and were violently opposed to them, and I would guess that this kind of artificial centralization was precisely the reason. This has been a longtime problem in both national and California politics, made worse here by all the bottlenecks created in the legislature, which make certain parts of the calendar completely confusing and ripe for control by individual actors.
I'm not sure what the answer is to dilute the power of the legislative leadership, but unless you do, you're going to keep seeing stories like this. The target for special interests is so inviting and so focused.
See Also:
Following up on my post from last night... What a shocker. They passed out tickets to the special interest dinner based on the donation amount. Those companies who donated the most, get to bring more lobbyists to have some private time with Arnold's staff.
The governor's accident may disappoint donors who hoped to see him today at an exclusive "sponsor's reception." Political aides had sent out invitations offering potential donors a certain number of tickets to the closed-door reception based on the amount they contributed to defray the cost of the inaugural festivities.
"Gold" sponsors, who kicked in at least $50,000 each, were offered 10 tickets. "Silver" sponsors who gave at least $15,000 were offered two tickets to the reception. Those who gave $50,000 include Chevron, the California Chamber of Commerce, and the California Real Estate Political Action Committee.
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.
(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:
It looks we have more confirmation of what we already knew: You have to pay to play with Arnold Schwarzenegger. This from today’s SacBee:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called off a fundraiser scheduled for Monday after his campaign found out about an e-mail in which a participant told potential contributors they would have a chance to talk to the governor about a bill that may come across his desk.
***
Allison Neves, executive director of the California Society of Facial Plastic Surgery, sent an e-mail to the society's members inviting them to attend the event, saying it would give them a chance to talk to Schwarzenegger about a bill they oppose.
"This event will provide us with a very important opportunity to discuss our opinions about Senate Bill 438 with the governor," Neves wrote in the e-mail obtained by The Bee. (SacBee 8/12/06)
Poor Arnold had to cancel the event, costing him $500K from this particular special interest. It’s getting harder and harder to find special interests in Sacramento now that Arnold has renamed the ones that he likes as “hard-working Californians”, but I guess you get put on the back of the bus if you get busted trying to buy influence. But don’t worry, Arnold will still take your money…he’ll always take your money. You plastic surgeons are still ahead of the teachers and nurses, those are the special interests who Arnold really had in mind when he said he would go to Sacramento and “terminate the special interests.”
Yup, to Arnold, teachers and nurses are the special interests, multi-millionare plastic surgeons…they are hard working Californians. For more information on a better alternative, see GovernorPhil.
