Proposition 89

Details on Proposition 89

2006-11-07T06:05:00.000-08:00

We Have a Crisis of Corruption in Our Government

Lobbyists and special interests contribute millions to politicians who pass their pork barrel projects and tax loopholes – costing taxpayers like you billions.

Prop 89: Politicians Accountable to Voters Instead. Its Three Powerful Components Are:

1) Strict contribution limits

Prop 89 ends the fundraising madness with constitutional limits so regular voters aren’t drowned out by big money.

Bans contributions from lobbyists and state contractors
Limits contributions from corporations, unions, and individuals to state candidates
Limits corporation donations to initiatives to $10,000

2) Clean Money public financing of political campaigns

Prop 89 levels the playing field so new candidates can win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise.

Candidates who agree to spending limits and to take no private contributions qualify for public funding
$5 contributions from voters required to prove viability
Clean candidates receive enough to run competitive campaigns. They can't raise money beyond public funds

3) Tough disclosure and enforcement for politicians

Prop 89 stops candidates from hiding behind negative ads and punishes politicians who violate the law.

Makes wealthy self-funded candidates disclose the amount of personal funds they will spend
Publicly financed candidates must engage in debates
Imposes mandatory jail time and provides for removal from office of candidates who break the law.

Full details about Prop 89

Bottom line:

Prop 89 Makes Elections About Ideas Not Money

That’s why trusted groups representing your interests like AARP California, League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause, Consumer Federation of California, Sierra Club California, the California Clean Money Campaign, and nearly 300 other organizations support Prop 89.

And why lobbyists and special interests — like big oil, drug companies, insurance firms, HMOs and some unions — don’t.

Get Out the Vote

2006-11-06T11:11:00.000-08:00

At this point, one of the most powerful things you can do to help pass Proposition 89 is to use our online tool to email your friends.

Get Out the Vote

2006-11-04T08:37:00.000-08:00

Mobilize for Prop 89 This Weekend!
Find a meeting or rally to join this Saturday or Sunday.

Join Your Local Phone Bank!
Join volunteers calling voters and asking them to vote Yes on Prop 89. Free food and likely voters are waiting for you!

Down to the Wire: Help Get Out the Vote!

2006-11-03T09:10:00.000-08:00

Clean money activists are joining students, nurses and other community activists to clean up California this weekend!. So whether your bag is walking, talking, singing, standing, eating or sweeping, we have an action for you.

Mobilize for Prop 89 This Weekend!
Find a meeting or rally to join this Saturday or Sunday.

Join Your Local Phone Bank!
Join volunteers calling voters and asking them to vote Yes on Prop 89. Free food and likely voters are waiting for you!

New Batman Video

2006-11-02T09:26:00.000-08:00

All politics is money?

2006-11-01T13:54:00.000-08:00

Maplight:

Today MAPLight.org, dedicated to illuminating money and politics, announced the results of its new study "Local Politics, Remote Money." According to the study, 78 percent of the money for California legislative races is provided by funders outside legislators' districts.

"It's election season, and California Assemblymembers and Senators are crisscrossing their districts, as they should be, looking for votes. It's just astonishing, then, that a whopping three out of every four dollars in funding comes from out-of- district," said Dan Newman, executive director of MAPLight.org.

The legislator with the highest out-of-district amount was Assemblymember Cindy Montanez from California's 39th District with 99 percent of campaign dollars coming from outside her district.

"Legislators depend on campaign contributions," said Newman. "They seek these funds anywhere they can. When the vast majority is generated from outside the district they represent, the voters -- their constituents -- must wonder if local interests are being trumped by outside interests."

When 99% of the money is coming from out of district, you really have to wonder if the voters are being heard. In California, the difference between being heard or not is how much big money is spent, not whether it is spent. If you aren't contributing piles of money, are you being heard?

Carl Pope on Proposition 89

2006-11-01T10:26:00.000-08:00

Check out this new video with Carl Pope:

You can browse all videos at Proposition 89 on YouTube

When money is bidding it is an auction

2006-11-01T10:19:00.000-08:00

Malinda Markowitz op-ed in the San Jose Mercury News:

It's time we took California off the auction block and put the voters back in charge.

Wealthy interests write big checks to politicians and get favors in return in the form of corporate tax breaks, pork barrel projects, legislation or regulation and vetoes. Everywhere you look, regular Californians lose. Higher charges at the pump, inflated HMO premiums, contaminated food, rising chronic asthma rates from polluted air, shoddy products, inadequately funded schools because of corporate tax loopholes that divert money that could be used for education.

With Proposition 89, voters can restore balance to our political system. Even critics, such as the Mercury News editorial board, acknowledged that ``the pay-to-play money machine in Sacramento is warping politics, values and public policy.''

Proposition 89 would make politicians work for the voters, not campaign donors. It would reduce how much corporations, unions and individuals could give to candidates, ban contributions from lobbyists, and provide limited public funds to qualified candidates who rejected private contributions. Lawbreakers could be removed from office or jailed.

Proposition 89 also would limit corporations from spending more than $10,000 on initiatives, a provision some, like the Mercury News, dislike. But this election -- already the most expensive in state history -- illustrates why Proposition 89 is needed. Oil and tobacco companies have alone spent about $144 million on just two ballot measures. Last fall, it was drug companies spending $83 million on two initiatives.

The meta-story of California's 2006 election is the record spending, which owns the dynamics of almost every political decision.

Assemblymember Mark Leno on Proposition 89

2006-10-31T11:26:00.001-08:00

Ventura County Star

2006-10-31T09:09:00.000-08:00

The Ventura County Star supports Proposition 89

The Star supports Proposition 89 because we believe it will help control out-of-control campaign fundraising, which taints the Legislature. It also allows more people to run for public office, as has been demonstrated in states such as Maine and Arizona, where similar measures were approved. Among its supporters is the League of Women Voters of California.

Star state bureau chief Timm Herdt captured the scene perfectly in an August article, "Lawmakers rake in end-of-session cash," which described state legislators working overtime raising campaign money just before the legislative season ended, at the time they were voting on hundreds of bills. Most fundraising events were breakfasts, lunches and dinners, attended by contributors with checks for $500, $1,000 or $3,000.

Raising money this way is a fact of life for politicians of all stripes, but it takes away valuable time from legislating and certainly creates the perception that lawmakers are beholden to big donors.

It is a perception, if not a fact, that Proposition 89 would address by changing the way political campaigns for state candidates and state ballots only are funded. [...]

Proposition 89 is needed to end what amounts to legalized bribery in Sacramento. The Star encourages a yes vote.

Last week, Timm Herdt has a great article:

Imagine a world in which politicians didn't have to sweet talk special-interest groups in order to raise money to get elected, in which the support of a waitress would be just as valuable as the support of a CEO or a union president, in which a truck driver would have as good an opportunity to run for political office as a lawyer.

Imagine also a world in which the arrival of campaign season didn't mean that it was time for wave after wave of incessant, insulting and cynical television commercials about ballot propositions, paid for with tens of millions of dollars in big-business contributions.

This is the world envisioned by supporters of Proposition 89, the initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot designed to fundamentally change the way political campaigns are conducted in California.

It proposes to change races for public office by creating a pot of tax money that candidates for state office could tap into if they agreed to reject private campaign contributions, and it proposes to end the ballot proposition wars as we know them by limiting to $10,000 the amount that any corporation could give to an initiative campaign.

Supporters call their plan a cure for corruption.

Indeed.

Election Victory in 2006

2006-10-30T07:28:00.000-08:00

Matier and Ross of the San Francisco Chronicle:

Forget ratings -- TV gets huge payoff from elections

When all is said and done, the biggest winner in California's election won't be the Democrats or the Republicans, but TV -- which is expected to rake in an estimated $300 million in political ad sales. [...]

With an estimated $210 million going into the initiative fights -- and deep-pocket clients such as big oil and tobacco ready to shell out whatever it takes -- the sky is the limit.

For example, [Sheri] Sadler recently paid $2,200 for a 30-second Brown ad on the 5 p.m. local newscast in Los Angeles. Had she been buying the same spot for an initiative, the cost would have been $22,000.

"They are just loving it,'' [Paul] Kinney said of the TV stations.

No on Proposition 89 Ad

2006-10-29T13:36:00.000-08:00

FTCR:

"If you are pregnant or nursing, or could become pregnant, are taking any other medications, are ill or could become ill at any point in your life, are in school or could attend school in the future, have a job, pay taxes, live in a home, drive a car, or have friends or family you care about, you should know that voting No on 89 isn't for you. Talk with your family nurse for more information on how Yes on 89 can heal California."

Us and Them

2006-10-29T13:33:00.000-08:00

Supporting Prop. 89	Funding opposition to Prop. 89
California Nurses Association	Chevron Corporation
League of Women Voters of California	Occidental Oil & Gas
AARP California	State Farm Insurance Automobile Insurance
Sierra Club California	Southern California Edison
United Teachers Los Angeles	Mercury General Insurance
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights	Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (drug companies lobbying arm)
California Common Cause	Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E)
California Clean Money Campaign	Exxon Mobil Corporation
California Church IMPACT	Blue Cross of California
California National Organization for Women	GlaxoSmithKline (pharmaceutical)
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa	California Bankers Association PAC
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer	California Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom	BP Corporation North America Inc.
Congress of California Seniors	California Hospitals Committee on Issues
Lutheran Office of Public Policy	Safeco Insurance Company
Consumer Federation of California	United Healthcare Services, Inc. (HMO)
Public Citizen	Great American Life Insurance Company
California Teamsters	Sempra Energy (oil and gas)
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry	Farmers Insurance Group
Gray Panthers of California	Zenith Insurance Company
Service Employees International Union	AT&T
California Retired Teachers Association	The Hartford (Hartford Life)
U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi	Travelers Indemnity Company
California Faculty Association	Waste Management & Affiliates
Latino National Congreso	California Teachers Association
United Food & Commercial Workers	Aetna, Inc.
California Black Chamber of Commerce	21st Century Insurance
Senior Action Network	Fireman’s Fund Insurance
Consumers for Auto Reliability & Safety	California Motor Car Dealers Association
CalPIRG	California Business Properties Association
San Francisco Board of Supervisors	Shell Oil Company
Rainforest Action Network	Sprint Nextel
South Bay Labor Council	Mass Mutual Life Insurance Company
Southern California Federation of Scientists	ConocoPhillips (oil)
Korean Resource Center	California Building Industries Assn. PAC
Marin County Board of Supervisors	Anheiser-Busch Companies Inc.
UNITE HERE Local 2	California Restaurant Association PAC
Filipino Am. Community Empowerment	California Independent Petroleum Assn.
Public Campaign	Marriott International Inc.
La Opinion	Prudential Financial
Oakland Mayor-elect Ron Dellums	San Diego Lodging Industry Assn. PAC
William C. Velasquez Institute	AFLAC Inc.
Democracy Matters	Sheraton Hotels & Resorts
Greenlining Institute	Watson Land Company
Dolores Huerta, United Farm Workers Co-founder	National Association of Industrial and Office Properties PAC
Californians for Quality Education	Blue Shield of California
United Farm Workers	Republic Indemnity Company of America
Endangered Habitats League	Macy’s West
Greenpeace USA	California Farm Bureau Federation
Berkeley Board of Education	Northwest Mutual Life Insurance Co.
United Auto Workers Local 2865	Smurfit-Stone Packaging Containers
Oakland City Council	California Forestry Association
National Association of Women Business Owners, Los Angeles chapter	Association of California Insurance Companies Issues Committee
San Fernando Valley Interfaith	California Retail Assn. Issues Committee
Planning and Conservation League	California Grocers Association PAC
Alameda County Labor Council	Federal Insurance Committee
Palo Alto City Council	Pardee Homes
Progressive Christians Uniting	Pacific Life (insurance)
United Steel Workers Local 675	Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Inc.
Coastal San Pedro Neighborhood Council	Wine Institute California PAC
Environment California	The Doctor’s Company PAC (insurance)
Mexican American Political Association	Johnson Machinery
Women For: Orange County	George Joseph, CEO, Mercury Insurance
National Association of Social Workers	Ace American Insurance Company
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Locals 332 and 569	Insurance Brokers & Agents West Inc. California Advocacy Fund
TheRestofUs.org	Cypress Land Company
California Democratic Council	Western Growers PAC
Albany City Council	Conexant Systems Inc. (telecommunications)
Berkeley Federation of Teachers	Employers Insurance Group
Koreatown Immigrant Workers Alliance	Progressive Casualty Insurance Co.
Courage Campaign	Farmers Employees & Agents PAC
Environmental Health Coalition	Kramer-Wilson Co. Insurance Services
University Council of the American Federation of Teachers	Consulting Engineers & Land Surveyors Issues Fund
Social Justice Center of Marin	Granite Construction Inc.
Fresno Co. Democratic Central Committee	Calif. Beer & Beverages Distributors PAC
Progressive Jewish Alliance	Baron Real Estate
Woodland Democratic Club	Distilled Spirits Council
Green Party of Orange County	Atlas Hotels
Santa Clarita Unitarian-Universalist Church	Qualcomm Incorporated
Berkeley City Council	Disney Worldwide Services Inc.
Simi Valley-Moorpark Democratic Club	Miller Brewing Company

Chevron

2006-10-27T15:43:00.000-07:00

From FTCR:

Chevron's record- breaking third-quarter profit puts the lie to its threats that California oil production would decline if Proposition 87, the Clean Energy Initiative, were passed in the Nov. 7 election, said the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights.

San Ramon-based Chevron crowed today over its surprising quarterly 40% profit jump to $5 billion. Then, when talking to analysts about its record-breaking wealth, a Chevron executive complained that a proposed clean-energy initiative in California could, at current profit levels, cost Chevron "on the order of $200 million." In a similar vein, the Chevron-funded ads against Proposition 87, the clean energy measure on the Nov. 7 ballot, threaten that this cost will make oil companies cut back on pumping oil in California and import "foreign oil" instead. Given Chevron's high profits from its California operations, that argument is false, said FTCR. [...]

FTCR noted that Chevron has thought nothing of pouring at least $46 million in political contributions into California's current election cycle alone. That includes $44 million on ballot initiatives, the bulk of it against Proposition 87. Chevron is also the largest funder of the campaign against Proposition 89, the Clean Elections Initiative, which would diminish the political power of Big Oil and other immensely wealthy lobbies in Sacramento.

Chevron's third-quarter profit percentage increase beat all the other major oil companies in part because of its major presence in California. During much of the summer gasoline price spike, which topped out at over $3.38 in the state, Californians were paying up to 50 cents more per gallon than the national average. Chevron pumps an average of 212,000 barrels of crude per day in California, according to federal data, much of it to supply its two California refineries, which process an average of 503,000 barrels of oil a day, nearly 25% of the state total, according to the California Energy Commission. If even half of that crude oil were made into gasoline, the resulting 50-cent a gallon "Chevron tax" on California motorists this summer would have been up to $5 million a day, about $150 million a month, said FTCR ( 21 gallons of gasoline refined per barrel of crude, 10 million gallons total, times 50 cents).

Time for 89.

Get on the Bus

2006-10-27T13:59:00.000-07:00

CNA is (literally) rolling out six mobile phone bank buses, with 24 lines a piece and wrapped in signage. This will allow the ability to drive to hospitals for shift changes and let nurses easily phone bank before or after shifts.

The San Francisco Chronicle's John Wildermuth wrote:

Hit the road with the nurses for Prop. 89
With modern politics now tied to focus groups, tracking polls, TV attack ads and the other oh-so-serious -- and often oh-so-boring -- accouterments of California elections, there's almost no time for good, old-fashioned political stunts that at least added a little life and personality to the voting business in years past.
The exception: The California Nurses Association, which is out on the hustings backing Proposition 89, the campaign finance initiative. CNA members on Wednesday afternoon opened the union's "Get On the Bus," campaign, which will put nurses on six colorfully decorated buses driving across the state promoting Prop. 89. [...]
Earlier this month, it was street theater in Sacramento, as Prop. 89 backers joined a Jack Abramoff impersonator to string a million dollars in phony money from a lobbyist's office to the headquarters of the California Chamber of Commerce, which is opposed to the measure.
They've also brought a guy dressed as Batman to a number of their events and even projected a 40-foot "Bat-signal" on a building where Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger was having a fundraiser.
They're also probably the only campaign to have its own rap song the three-and-a-half minute "About Time for 89," written and performed by Colette Washington: "It's about time for Prop. 89, what's going on in Sac Town is blowin' my mind..."

Check out a new video where Colette performs at the launch of Get on the Bus. Big Pharma and Big Oil and Big Money may be able to spend whatever it takes to preserve the perverse status quo, but creativity and hard work are our slingshot in this David vs. Goliath battle. Get on Board!

Clean Money Beats Dirty Dough

2006-10-25T07:34:00.001-07:00

$2,888,110,163,000 fighting grassroots in CA

2006-10-25T07:32:00.000-07:00

Those of us fighting for Proposition 89 (corporate limits and public financing) in California are up against...$2.8 trillion in special interests.

The 36 major companies financing our opponents big consultants have $2.8 trillion in total assets, reported $73 billion in profits last year, and their top 155 executives received $959 million in total compensation, an average of $6.1 million per executive.

Is there any doubt why they like the system where big money can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to own California politics? This cycle has already crossed the half a billion dollar mark and you don't reach a record like that with $20 donations on actblue.

If you didn't make the above list, Buck the System Now and join up to help pass Prop 89.

Proposition 89 reduces how much corporations, unions or individuals can give to candidates, bars contributions to candidates by lobbyists and government contractors, and limits corporations to spending no more than $10,000 on ballot initiatives. It supports candidates who reject private fundraising with a set limit of public funds. If politicians or lobbyists break the law, they can be fined, removed from office, or jailed.

Must see video

2006-10-24T11:10:00.000-07:00

Email our Ad

2006-10-23T09:47:00.000-07:00

We have a great tool that allows you to email our new ad to your friends and family, please give it a try.

It doesn't have to be as it has been

2006-10-23T09:42:00.000-07:00

Timm Herdt has a great article in today's Ventura County Star:

Imagine a world in which politicians didn't have to sweet talk special-interest groups in order to raise money to get elected, in which the support of a waitress would be just as valuable as the support of a CEO or a union president, in which a truck driver would have as good an opportunity to run for political office as a lawyer.

Imagine also a world in which the arrival of campaign season didn't mean that it was time for wave after wave of incessant, insulting and cynical television commercials about ballot propositions, paid for with tens of millions of dollars in big-business contributions.

This is the world envisioned by supporters of Proposition 89, the initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot designed to fundamentally change the way political campaigns are conducted in California.

It proposes to change races for public office by creating a pot of tax money that candidates for state office could tap into if they agreed to reject private campaign contributions, and it proposes to end the ballot proposition wars as we know them by limiting to $10,000 the amount that any corporation could give to an initiative campaign.

Supporters call their plan a cure for corruption.

Everyone realizes the current system is broken, but it doesn't have to stay that way. Proposition 89 levels the playing field and allows campaigns that are judged by ideas, not decided like an auction.

Latinos Rally for Proposition 89

2006-10-21T14:24:00.000-07:00

La Opinion, the state's leading Spanish language newspaper, and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, one of the most influential elected Latino leaders in the country, have recently endorsed Proposition 89 - an initiative to stem political corruption and create a level playing field for California elections.

"At a time when far too many Californians are disenchanted with our political system, passage of Prop. 89 will be a big step forward in getting more people involved in our political system and restoring public faith in our democracy," said Villaraigosa. "Prop 89. will broaden the playing field and allow Californians from all walks of life to run for office and help solve problems affecting all Californians – from improving our schools to protecting our environment to assuring access to quality healthcare for all."

Wednesday's edition of La Opinion urged voters to support the measure. "Proposition 89 is indispensable to put some trust in an electoral system in which money seems more important than votes. Vote Yes on Proposition 89!"

"In Sacramento, the priorities of our working class and middle class communities are too often shut out by the demands of big money campaign contributors," said Unai Montes-Irueste, statewide field director for the Clean Money Now, Yes on 89 campaign. "The Yes on 89 campaign is serious about opening the doors of democracy to all Californians, and we have sought to be unique and creative in our outreach to the Latino community."

The Clean Money Now, Yes on 89 campaign maintains a bilingual website dedicated to Latinos (www.LatinosPor89.org) and this week "Bat Hombre-89" appeared on Telemundo to help clean up California by arresting corrupt "politicians." The campaign is also releasing a Spanish language version of the "Stop the Pounding" ad produced by cult media icon Bill Hillsman--the ad is the #1 most viewed political ad on YouTube this week with 50,000 total online views.

The endorsements of Villaraigosa and La Opinion come amidst growing support for Prop. 89 among Latino political organizations and leaders, including the Mexican American Political Association, the National Latino Congreso, United Farm Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta, State Sen. Richard Alarcón, and Assembly members Ed Chavez, Cindy Montanez, Lori Saldaña and Pedro Nava.

Proposition 89 reduces how much corporations, unions or individuals can give to candidates, bars contributions to candidates by lobbyists and government contractors, and limits corporations to spending no more than $10,000 on ballot initiatives. It supports candidates who reject private fundraising with a set limit of public funds, paid for not by individuals but by a small 0.2% increase in the corporate tax rate. If politicians or lobbyists break the law, they can be fined, removed from office, or jailed.

In Arizona, where a Clean Elections system similar to that contained in Proposition 89 has been in places for several election cycles, the number of minority elected officials has tripled and voter turnout has increased over twenty percent.

Other major endorsers of Prop. 89 include the League of Women Voters of California, American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) California, Sierra Club California, Common Cause, Foundation for T axpayer and Consumer Rights, United Teachers Los Angeles, Service Employees Intl. Union California Sate Council, and the California Clean Money Campaign.

Quote of the Day

2006-10-21T08:44:00.000-07:00

"This current system of financing elections is corrupt to its core, with the voice of the average voter being drowned out by the roar of Big Money. As a result, voters turn away from politics and become even more cynical about the possibility of changing the system."
-Ariana Huffington, who is speaking on Prop 89 and other issues at 7PM tonight, Cal Poly's Spanos Theatre

PBS Now Tonight

2006-10-20T15:52:00.000-07:00

PBS Now:

The run-up to this year's midterm election smells of scandal and corruption, which raises the question: Can anyone stop the influence of big money and big influence on political campaigns?

Before, you say "of course not," check out our special hour-long investigation into the fight to keep American elections free and fair across the country. Airing less than three weeks before Americans go to the polls, "Votes for Sale?" will spotlight the so-called clean elections movement, a radical public-funding experiment adopted in Maine and Arizona to revolutionize how campaigns are conducted. It works like this: candidates for public office receive a flat sum of money from the government to finance their campaign. In return, the candidates agree to use almost no private funds to run their elections.

Pushing special interest money out of the election process may do more than clean things up. It could also open the door for a variety of people who care about democracy to run for office with realistic hopes of winning. Case in point: Arizona State Representative Doug Quelland, a conservative Republican who supports clean elections by his own example. With a background in public school teaching and running a handful of neighborhood businesses, including a lawnmower repair shop, Quelland captured voter interest door-to-door armed only with his passion and point of view. He's now running for his third term in the state legislature and still sports his trademark handlebar moustache. "I don't want to owe anybody anything. I don't want to have to have the special interests. I just want to do it and not beholden to anybody," Rep. Quelland told NOW.

Quelland's state of Arizona is one of the biggest clean election battlegrounds, where the nation's only "clean-elected" governor, Janet Napolitano, sits in the statehouse. Governor Napolitano talks to NOW's David Brancaccio about her strong convictions regarding clean elections. "I think what Clean Elections allows you to do is be a better candidate and a better office holder, because you're not all the time having to raise money," Napolitano said.

In California, a very contentious debate is underway over Proposition 89, a clean election initiative about which voters will have the final say on November 7.

The trailer is one Youtube.

The show airs tonight.

Joker of the Day

2006-10-20T15:51:00.000-07:00

Robin Swanson.

LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa Endorses Proposition 89

2006-10-19T15:09:00.000-07:00

One of the most influential elected leaders in California, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, has endorsed Proposition 89, the initiative to stem political corruption and create a level playing field for California elections, Prop. 89 proponents announced today.

"At a time when far too many Californians are disenchanted with our political system, passage of Prop. 89 will be a big step forward in getting more people involved in our political system and restoring public faith in our democracy," said Villaraigosa.

"Prop. 89 will broaden the playing field and allow Californians from all walks of life to run for office and help solve problems affecting all Californians -- from improving our schools to protecting our environment to assuring access to quality healthcare for all," said Villaraigosa.

"We are especially proud to add the support of Mayor Villaraogisa to the more than 300 good government and community organizations and forward thinking political leaders who are committed to transforming politics in California," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association, the sponsor of the initiative.

Villaraigosa's endorsement also comes amidst growing support for Prop.
89 among Latino political organizations and leaders, including the Mexican
American Political Association, Latino National Congreso, United Farm
Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta, State Sen. Richard Alarcon, and Assembly
members Ed Chavez, Cindy Montanez, and Pedro Nava.

Press Notices Our Ad's Youtube Penetration

2006-10-19T10:11:00.000-07:00

Steven Harmon in the San Jose Mercury News:

A 30-second spot for the ``Clean Money'' Proposition 89 campaign is apparently catching fire in the so-called political echo chamber: the network of alternative, underground, and electronic messaging that drives younger voters to the polls.

The ad, which hit TV markets around the state this week, is the No. 1 political ad on YouTube, where it's been viewed 16,000 times in less than 48 hours, supporters said. That's 10 times more than the Proposition 87 ad featuring former President Clinton.

And it's gone even more viral since its debut. It's being featured on one of the most popular political Web sites in the country: Crooks & Liars.

The clever imagery of the ad -- a giant piston, representing corporate-financed ads squashing people -- tries to drive home the message that political ads are pounding people into submission. Proposition 89, the ad says, will put a stop to them by limiting contributions and publicly financed campaigns. Supporters hope it will awaken the apathetic voter; polls show the proposition trailing significantly.

The ad is so perfect that it doesn't need the saturation our big-money opponent's boring ads need.

``I don't know if we'll pull this off,'' said Bill Hillsman, who created the ad and is the media consultant for Connecticut senatorial candidate Ned Lamont's insurgent campaign against Sen. Joe Lieberman, ``but if the spot goes out enough, people will say this is how I feel, and if for no other reason but this, I'll go out and vote.''

Joe Trippi, the San Jose State University graduate who helped revolutionize the convergence of politics and the Internet as former presidential candidate Howard Dean's campaign manager in 2004, said the ad ``really captures'' the mood of the voter.

``It's the perfect spot,'' said Trippi, a consultant to the Proposition 89 campaign. ``It helps create the echo chamber between the Internet and TV that it will need to make that big move. This is getting moved around pretty virally right now.''

Go see the ad, then make a donation to keep it on the air, and use our online tools to email your friends and family.

La Opinión Endorses Proposition 89

2006-10-18T16:16:00.000-07:00

The most important spanish language newspaper in America:

Sí a la 89

California tuvo, en las primarias de junio, una cifra récord de abstencionismo electoral. Una de las razones es el desencanto de los votantes con el sistema político y el dominio del dinero en las campañas políticas.

La Proposición 89 contiene una serie de reformas a las leyes de financiación de campañas y, en general, reduciría la cantidad de fondos de intereses especiales que fluye en cada elección estatal.

La medida establecería un sistema de financiación público de campañas, pagado por un impuesto a las corporaciones, que aseguraría fondos a candidatos legítimos que cumplan con ciertos requisitos. Aceptarlo es opcional, pero los candidatos que no lo hagan tendrán límites estrictos de recolección de fondos.

La proposición también limita el dinero que una corporación puede desembolsar para financiar u oponerse a una iniciativa electoral. Podrían continuar donando a través de comités que reciban contribuciones individuales, pero se eliminarían los donativos millonarios que salen de los tesoros de compañías.

Medidas similiares han comenzado a tranformar el sistema en siete estados. La 89 es una reforma indispensable si se quiere dar algo de confianza a un sistema electoral en el que el dinero parece más importante que el voto.

Vote sí en la Proposición 89!

Last month, the National Latino Congreso unanimously voted for a resolution calling for public financing of election campaigns in California.

Stop the Pounding Reviews

2006-10-17T18:29:00.000-07:00

Bill Hillsman's new Stop the Pounding ad is getting play all across the internets, including a post on Crooks and Liars (the most popular political video blog in America). Here is what some people are saying:

"one of the slickest and most engaging political ads in California right now....In this ad, the medium is the message. Rather than targeting corporate donations and their influence on politicians, it attacks television advertising funded by those donations." -Robert Salladay, LA Times Political Muscle Blog

"It is a terrific ad - and an incredibly important campaign." -David Sirota, SirotaBlog

"Watch Hillsman's ad, which is a remarkable piece of political jujitsu on the practices of political advertising, and has the possiblity to remake them." -Jamie Court, Huffington Post

"hilarious YouTube Video, courtesy of 89now.org and/or Clean Money Elections which just about sums up this year's election. I love it how they've managed to tie in our fatigue with the campaigning...." -Dan Wood, A Progressive Alamedan

"to me there is no single race as crucial as the battle to pass Proposition 89, a huge first step towards cleaning up politics in this state and taking it out of the hands of wealthy special interests. Joe Trippi sent me an ad today that was done by the brilliant filmmaker Bill Hillsman." -Howie Klein, Down WithTyranny

"A great ad." -SFBrianCL, Calitics

"His new ad for the issue doesn't even look like a political ad -- its production values are too high-end. Polling shows Proposition 89 is in a fierce battle, but as Hillsman's ad makes clear, the big money interests are actually shooting themselves in the foot. Spending tens of millions of dollars on nasty ad campaigns to try to destroy popular initiatives, these corporate interests are angering voters. Hillsman goes ninja style and turns these frustrations into a powerful argument for campaign finance reform." -Left in the West, AOL News Elections Blog

Yes On 89 TV Ad: "Stop The Pounding"

2006-10-16T12:59:00.000-07:00

Bill Hillsman's new ad for Proposition 89.

Conflict of Interest

2006-10-13T09:53:00.000-07:00

On the Huffington Post:

Is the Times looking out for voters or its own bottom line? That's the question readers should ask if they tear out their newspapers' recommendations to bring to the polls.

The Tribune also owns television stations like KTLA. Prop 89's limit on ballot measure spending would cut significantly into the gravy train of political advertising KTLA is receiving from oil companies that have spent $52 million opposing Prop 87, a tax on oil producers to pay for alternate fuel development (also opposed by the LA Times), and from tobacco companies that have spent $55 million opposing Prop 86, a tobacco tax to fund health care. The main opposition weapon against Prop 87, in fact, is a television commercial airing editorials from newspapers like the Times weighing in against it The public is sick of this avalanche of political advertising and turning away from the polls because of it. Prop 89 may solve that problem, but the interests of Tribune company dictates editorials now, not journalists' less biased decision making. Control over the editorials at the LA Time rests with the publisher, not the news editors, after a recent restructuring.

I'm guessing the Tribune is wishing it could lay-off Huffington Post writers.

Huge Momentum

2006-10-12T20:05:00.000-07:00

When I opened the mail today, I had an absentee ballot looking back at me. I wasn't the only one.

On Monday, I received a great piece of mail from Proposition 89 supporters. I'm hoping that most absentee voters felt the way I did when I looked at the piece.

But the best way to influence absentee voters is for them to hear from other voters. The Phone Banks are hopping. Join in: San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sacramento. tcahill@calnurses.org, 510-273-2248

Money in Politics

2006-10-12T13:28:00.000-07:00

Money Dominates California Politics

Another 8 Figure Day of Money

2006-10-12T09:55:00.000-07:00

I think the LA Times deserves a great deal of credit for creating their Mother's Milk feature that allows citizens to easily track the flow of money during the most expensive election ever. Yesterday was another huge day with $10,913,935 moving hands. The year-to-date total is now $435,579,979.

Two Great Op-Eds Today

2006-10-11T13:38:00.000-07:00

One of the goals of Proposition 89 is to reform our political system so that policy is decided based on the quality of the arguments, not by the quantity of cash raised to sell an idea. Along those lines, there has been a lively debate on the editorial pages of California's newspapers where the pros and cons of Proposition 89 are being debated daily. Today there are columns on Prop 89 in the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Modesto Bee.

The Proposition 89 column at Sign on San Diego is written by Ned Wigglesworth of Common Cause California:

The result of the measure would be incredibly positive for all but a handful of the biggest political spenders in California. Regular people would have a bigger voice in the decisions and priorities of state government. Candidates would be judged on the strength of their ideas, not the size of their campaign accounts. Elected officials could be held accountable for placing the demands of their wealthy donors over the needs of their constituents. The Legislature, whose normal dysfunctional gridlock is caused in no small part by the conflicting demands of well-financed competing special interests, could legislate.

In short, government in California could actually work again.

The list of Proposition 89 opponents reads like a who's who of special interests in California. Insurance companies, developers, lobbyists and the biggest labor union in the state have ganged up to defeat the measure. They will likely spend millions in their effort to derail reform.

Already, they are ramping up their self-serving propaganda machine, focusing on the financing mechanism for the clean money portion of the initiative (a 0.2 percent tax increase on banks and corporations) or its constitutionality (the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recommended clean money as a constitutional campaign reform). Unsurprisingly, the alternative they offer to Proposition 89 sounds suspiciously like the status quo. They trumpet disclosure, even though California's current disclosure laws – some of the very best in the country – have done nothing to check the dominance of special interest money in Sacramento.

The price tag on Proposition 89 – $200 million overall, predominantly from the wealthiest corporations in the state – is a drop in the bucket compared to what special interests make in tax loopholes, sweetheart contracts and favorable legislation. This is why they are willing to spend hundreds of millions of dollars each year in lobbying and other political spending. From the cost-benefit perspective of the average voter, this one's a no-brainer: Bringing an end to the corrupt status quo will save taxpayers money.

And Deborah Burger in at ModBee:

Political corruption is everywhere in California. Special interests have too much power in Sacramento and the rest of us pay the price.

Proposition 89 is the antidote, the means for California voters to take back our government. [...]

As you can guess, those who enjoy their present stranglehold in Sacramento will say anything and spend whatever they think it takes to protect their privileged status. That's why the opposition to Proposition 89 is being bankrolled by big insurance firms, oil companies, utility and drug giants, and other big corporations.

What they most fear is a new system that Proposition 89 would create -- a level playing field in our elections in which a broader array of candidates could run for office and win, even if they are not wealthy and in the pocket of the big donors; and legislators who no longer have to spend most of their time dialing for dollars and will now be accountable to the people, not the big special interests.

If you're fed up with the present system and you'd like to see it change, here's your chance. Join the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and AARP and vote "yes" on Proposition 89.

You can join the discussion taking place on the opinion page of your paper by writing a letter to the editor.

"About Time on 89" Ring Tones

2006-10-11T08:26:00.000-07:00

You've seen the video now get the ring tones!

More Big Money Opponents

2006-10-10T21:51:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, Kailin Clarke wrote a column for the Brown (University) Daily Herald noting, "The strength of a reform can usually be assessed by the status quo's resistance to it. California Proposition 89, which would create full public financing of state elections in a state that comprises that world's fifth largest economy, has an unprecedented alliance of corporations and unions in an uproar."

The further you get from the Speaker's Gavel, the more likely you are to support reform. The latest breakdown of ~~Friends of Fabian Nunez~~ our opponent's funders has 35% coming form Big Insurance and HMOs, 15% Big Oil. 11% developers and real estate, 9% Chamber of Commerce, 7% Big Utilities, 7% Big Pharma, 4% banks and 3% agribusiness.

MoveOn Endorses Prop 89

2006-10-10T15:56:00.000-07:00

According to an email from Wes Boyd, 93.8% of California MoveOn members support Proposition 89.

Who listens to Frank Schubert?

2006-10-10T15:46:00.000-07:00

What he says he says:

One of Mr. Schubert’s strengths is the ability to synthesize complicated public policy issues into understandable messages, helping his clients define the debate on their terms.

What he actually says:

We don't need two ballot initiatives to accomplish change, uh, and in terms of the notion of, you know, the notion of profits being driven by, uh, uh, greedy HMO's and so forth, you know, these initiatives aren't going to change whatever motivations that people have. And increasingly, the marketplace is changing to respond to consumer needs.

That was the synthesized message from Frank Schubert a decade ago. People who listened to him then have been played as suckers by the HMO's for 10 years. People who listen to him now will be played as suckers by Big Money until California passes clean elections.

Are you a sucker?

Please Volunteer to Phone Bank

2006-10-10T10:49:00.000-07:00

With voters already casting votes, the phone bank operation needs your help for person to person communication with voters. Please volunteer today:

Every Sunday through Thursday in San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sacramento, we’re contacting voters and winning converts to Prop 89.

Do you have a couple of hours to help clean up the corruption? If so, sign up with:
Ted Cahill
Prop 89 Field Director
Email: tcahill@calnurses.org
Phone: 510 273 2248

You will know us by our enemies

2006-10-09T10:51:00.000-07:00

Steven Harmon in the Contra Costa Times:

Foes unite to fight 89
Opposition to the 'clean money' campaign initiative, with strict contribution limits, has created odd bedfellows

SACRAMENTO - The odd alliance opposing Proposition 89, the "clean money" initiative, illustrates what proponents say is the problem in state politics: Big-money interests are so vested in the system that even the most extreme opposites -- like the state teacher's union and the state's biggest business advocate -- will join forces to keep the status quo.

Prop. 89 would place limits on contributions to state legislative candidates, independent expenditure committees and political parties. It would also restrict donations to ballot initiatives, though political action committees could still give unlimited amounts. [...]

But while corporations have provided the bulk of financial backing to the opposition, the merging of forces between left and right -- unions and businesses, Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- has exposed how the measure has threatened entrenched interests, said Ned Wigglesworth, policy advocate for California Common Cause.

"Democrats and Republicans alike are hooked on campaign cash, making it possible for a handful of interests to keep both parties on a fairly short leash," Wigglesworth said. "This means the public interest often takes a back seat to the wish list of big donors, whether it's a bloated contract for the prison guards union, an expansion of Indian gaming compacts or the passage of a bill like the cable bill, done to benefit one particular company."

Look our opponents, the only thing they have in common is that they have enough money to buy what they want in Sacramento.

This is already the most expensive election ever. Just like the last one was the most expensive election ever. Unless Proposition 89 passes, the next election will again be the most expensive ever.

$36 Million Week

2006-10-09T10:45:00.000-07:00

Can you say most expensive election ever? From Mother's Milk: $36,599,254 moved last week, bringing the year-to-date total to $389,969,822.

Give regular voters a stronger voice

2006-10-07T09:12:00.000-07:00

Ned Wigglesworth has a must-read op-ed on Proposition 89 in the Sacramento Bee:

Crafted carefully by some of the foremost constitution and election-law experts in California, Proposition 89 would attack the problem head-on with strict new limits on political contributions to candidates, parties and so-called independent committees operated by corporations, unions, gaming tribes and trial lawyers alike. Lobbyists and state contractors would be barred from making contributions. The measure also would offer limited public funds to qualifying candidates who want to serve their constituents free from obligation to private donors. And there is tough disclosure and enforcement language to make sure participants play by the rules.

The result of the measure would be incredibly positive for all but a handful of the biggest political spenders in California. Regular people would have a bigger voice in the decisions and priorities of state government. Candidates would be judged on the strength of their ideas, not the size of their campaign accounts. Elected officials could be held accountable when placing the demands of their wealthy donors over the needs of their constituents.

In short, government in California could actually work again, which is why the League of Women Voters of California, California Common Cause and the California Clean Money Campaign all have endorsed the measure.

The list of Proposition 89 opponents reads like a Who's Who of special interests in California. Insurance companies, developers, lobbyists and the biggest labor union in the state have ganged up to defeat the measure. They likely will spend millions in their effort to derail reform.

Speaking of the opposition, 32% of the opposition cash is from big insurers/HMOs, 18% from big oil and gas companies, 11% from big developers/real estate interests, 9% from the Chamber of Commerce PACs, and 7% each from big utilities and big pharma. There is a reason these big money, special interests don't want a level playing field.

However, those percentages were calculated yesterday, who knows what they will be on Monday. Mother's Milk says $12,172,264 changed hands yesterday, bringing the year-to-date total to $388,470,111.

We have them on the run

2006-10-06T10:05:00.000-07:00

Robert Salladay of the LA Times political blog has a new post on the most expensive election ever:

And for the irony of the day, Morain snagged an insider email (see photo) from the campaign to defeat Proposition 89, which would put strict contribution limits on candidates and install public financing. Turns out, the opposition (which includes nearly the entire political establishment) hasn't raised enough money.

In this instance, "enough" money refers to the amount necessary to drown out the voices of reform and buy the election. But they are raising plenty of money, including six figure contributions from Chevron, PG&E, Mercury General, Southern California Edison, Occidental Oil and Gas, State Farm, Zenith Insurance, CA business PAC, CA Bankers PAC, and Baron Real Estate.

The letter is signed by Frank Schumbert, whose website boasts, "One of Mr. Schubert’s strengths is the ability to synthesize complicated public policy issues into understandable messages..." Schumbert's view on Proposition 89?

While the Yes side is actively moving forward and will be on the air soon, the No campaign continues to deal with difficult cash flow issues. [...]

To say that this situation is a major concern is an understatement.

Our side will be widely outspent by special interests, which is one of the reasons why we need Proposition 89. They may have big bucks, but the people they have are mercenaries while we have committed volunteers. Join our grassroots campaign, contribute $5 and help Buck the System now.

"ABOUT TIME FOR 89"

2006-10-05T15:50:00.000-07:00

Most Expensive Election Ever

2006-10-05T11:43:00.000-07:00

This get's crazier every week. Mother's Milk says that yesterday $17,275,310 was contributed, bringing the year to date total to $371,897,778.

San Francisco Bay Guardian Endorses Prop 89

2006-10-04T08:08:00.000-07:00

SFBG:

Proposition 89

PUBLIC FINANCING OF CAMPAIGNS

YES, YES, YES

Our dysfunctional political system and the shortsighted policies it creates won’t change until we have serious campaign finance reform. This measure would create the best of all possible campaign systems, similar to the ones now working well in Arizona and Maine. It creates a public finance system for those running for state legislature and constitutional offices, paid for by a 0.2 percent increase in the corporate tax rate, and lowers contribution limits to candidates who opt out of public financing. It also limits the political expenditures of lobbyists, unions, political action committees, and corporations while taking into account court rulings on political speech. Vote yes.

I appreciate how the Guardian states that Prop 89 would create the "best of all possible campaign systems, similar..." to Arizona and Maine. I think it is important to understand that Proposition 89 isn't just a cut-n-paste job of the other systems, but takes what has worked successfully in other states and adapts it to California with processes for scheduled adjustment as we move forward.

Embracing best practices is a way to learn from experience and to turn lessons into solutions.

AARP California Endorses Proposition 89

2006-10-03T20:40:00.000-07:00

The AARP of California has endorsed Proposition 89.

This meaningfully addresses the current campaign finance rules that skew the political agenda away from ordinary citizens and toward major campaign contributors, severely limit the pool of candidates for office, and leave the electorate feeling disengaged, powerless, and cynical.

Previous endorsers have included the California Alliance for Retired Americans, the Congress of California Seniors, the Gray Panthers of California, and the Senior Action Network.

Great Op-Ed

2006-10-03T13:31:00.000-07:00

Yuba Net:

With the cost of advertising and voter disaffection at an all time high, many important measures on the California ballot—from more funds for disaster preparedness and education to cleaner air--may languish because the voters either stay home or are misinformed. Proponents of Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, assert that Proposition 89 is the only measure on the California ballot that would change the current election environment, curbing corporate expenditures on initiatives while leveling the playing field for politicians to have a clear shot at getting their own message out.

"If it hasn't already, this election will soon pass up last year's special election as ‘the costliest election in history.' Voters are sickened and confused by the deluge of advertising, particularly by the big oil companies against Proposition 87," said Susan Lerner, Executive Director of the California Clean Money Action Fund, one of the co- drafters of Proposition 89.

"There's no question that if Proposition 89 were in place now, you wouldn't be seeing such an advertising spending war on a handful of initiatives," continued Lerner. "The corporations would have a $10,000 limit on spending and multimillionaires would have no incentive to escalate their own personal contributions."

Last year's special election passed the $300,000,000 mark in overall spending. All accounts show this election will surpass even that historic high by next week. Multimillion dollar spending by a handful of corporations, such as Chevron, has driven the cost of television advertising up to a point where most campaigns for down ballot statewide candidates and less well-known initiatives can't afford to put their message before the voters.

Most. Expensive. Election. Ever.

Quote of the Day

2006-10-02T17:48:00.000-07:00

According to Northeast Action, a New England-based organization that has been at the forefront of efforts to achieve Clean Elections in the U.S. since the early 1990s, women are underrepresented in American government due to many factors, including a history of discrimination and disenfranchisement as well as a relative lack of access to money to run political campaigns.

CNA released a study in September showing that big-money donors have spent $1.7 billion in the past five years to influence state elections. After analyzing 2.4 million records on file with the secretary of state, CNA found 52,000 contributions of $5,000 or more had been made to candidates for statewide offices and the Legislature and to ballot-initiative campaigns. The average amount of those large contributions was $33,000.

Clean Elections specifically reduces the influence of big money on elections and enables people of modest means to run for office. In California, Prop 89 supports candidates who reject private fundraising by providing them with a set amount of public funding. The cost is paid by a two-tenths of one percent increase in the state corporate tax rate.

Proposition 89 is patterned on Clean Money initiatives that are now law in Arizona and Maine. In Arizona, voters approved a Clean Money initiative in 1998. In every year since the adoption of Clean Elections, more women have run for the Arizona State Legislature and won. In 2004, women accounted for 40 percent of publicly financed candidates. Arizona’s current governor, elected as a Clean Money candidate, is only the state’s third female governor.

-Sarah E. Clark

Most Expensive Election Ever

2006-10-01T09:19:00.000-07:00

California's 2006 election will be the most expensive in the history of our state. The ship-load of special interest money dominating the debate have already pushed TV ad rates up 50% and may double rates during the final two weeks of the election.

Every time you see a negative political ad, remember why we need to enact Proposition 89. There is only one item on the ballot that will reform the way the rest of the election is being bought.

The LA Times' Mother's Milk online feature reveals that Friday was another huge day, with $6.4 million in pocket-stuffing bringing the year-to-date total to $362, 224,913.

There are two ways for voters to deal with this year's record-setting negative ads wars. Option one is to buy a Tivo and I wouldn't be surprised if this cycle is a boom for DVR sales in California. The other option is to vote Yes on Proposition 89.

LA Teachers Endorse Proposition 89

2006-09-29T08:37:00.000-07:00

In sharp contrast to the CTA message, UTLA has come out strong for Proposition 89:

United Teachers Los Angeles Endorses Prop. 89
Nation's Second Largest Teachers Union Local Says Prop. 89 Will Benefit Democracy and Working People

The United Teachers Los Angeles, the second-largest local teachers union in the country, Wednesday night endorsed Proposition 89, a November initiative that would reduce political corruption and establish a more level playing field in California elections.

UTLA, with 44,000 members, is largest National Education Association local in the country and the largest union in Los Angeles County.

"We hope that UTLA's endorsement of Prop. 89 will send a strong message that teachers are fed up with a system of political corruption that has put big donor demands ahead of fulfilling our state's commitment to excellent schools and a top quality education for our children. Prop. 89 will end big money control and allow us to take back our government so that its accountable to the needs and concerns of California teachers and families," said Leonard Segal, member of the UTLA Board of Directors and a substitute teacher, after the vote.

"We need to make it possible for candidates who don't have massive corporate backing to participate in the political process. That's really what Prop. 89 is about," said Paul Huebner, vice chair of the 44,000-member UTLA's Political Action Council of Educators, and a second grade teacher.

"We can never outspend the big corporate donors and millionaires and political action committees. But we can get our members more involved in politics for the benefit of our democracy. That includes enabling more teachers and more working people to be able to run for office and win," Huebner said.

Notice how UTLA focuses on increasing their members' participation in democracy, not preserving power.

Quote of the Day

2006-09-29T05:43:00.000-07:00

In a moment of high political comedy, the No on 89 campaign has argued that Prop 89’s $10,000 limit on corporate contributions to ballot measures is unfair to corporations because it doesn’t apply to labor unions. At the same time, the No on 89 campaign has argued that Prop 89 is unfair because the $10,000 limit on corporate contributions to ballot measures will apply to labor unions.

Somewhere, Erwin Schrodinger and his cat are enjoying a laugh.

The absurdity of this position makes sense when you look at the opposition, which includes two of the 800 lb. gorillas in the zoo of California politics, the Chamber of Commerce and the California Teachers Association. When the No on 89 campaign speaks to Chamber-friendly audiences, Prop 89 is unfair to corporations. When the No on 89 campaign speaks to labor-friendly audiences, as spokesperson Robin Swanson recently did on KPFA radio, Prop 89 is unfair to labor unions.

So which is it?

The answer, which has been drowned out by a torrent of misinformation, is that Prop 89 is fair to both labor unions and corporations. Just like federal law requirements for contributions to candidates and PACs, Prop 89 allows labor unions and corporations alike to contribute unlimited amounts to ballot measures through PACs.

But more importantly, Prop 89 is fair to the voters of California, who have been so marginalized by big spenders on both sides of the political spectrum that they no longer bother to show up at the polls. If Prop 89 passes, the people of California would have the opportunity to take back control of their government from the special interests and fulfill the promise of representative democracy in this state.

And it is that fact which has Prop 89’s opposition tying themselves in knots.

-Ned Wigglesworth

Are you a Sucker?

2006-09-28T12:01:00.000-07:00

This may sound like a silly question, but let's face it: there are lots of stupid people in the world. So I've created a simple test, which if you fail, confirms that you are a sucker.

TEST: Should paid shills' rationalizations of the conclusion they were tasked with supporting be given equal consideration when opposed by multiple, nonpartial scientific studies?

If you answered yes, then you are a sucker.

UPDATE: Ladies and Gentleman, we have our first contestant. His name is Chris Reed and he is a sucker. But Reed goes beyond being a sucker and actually says that he believes the shills more than nonpartial, scientific studies.

If anyone wants to have some fun with Mr. Reed, I recommend telling him the election is just around the corning and counting how many times he circles the block.

Bonus Quote of the Day

2006-09-27T15:56:00.000-07:00

If you've ever thought, "there must be a better way;," or wondered why corporations with billions in profits legally pay less in taxes than you, or swore you would "never vote for those crooks ever again," rejoice!

Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, is coming soon to a ballot near you. If we all work hard and get this passed in November, Proposition 89 will allow candidates to remain "clean" with public financing for their campaigns. Our representatives would actually represent us, not the special interest lobbyists. Imagine, taxation with representation. What a revolutionary concept!

-Mike Kirchubel of Fairfield in the Vallejo Times Herald

Clean Windows for Clean Elections

2006-09-27T15:09:00.000-07:00

Tomorrow morning, Nick Nyhart, Executive Director, Public Campaign Action Fund and Chellie Pingree, President and CEO, Common Cause will be in San Francisco for an exciting event to highlight Proposition 89.

Along with local politicians, they will be offering to clean your car windows for free in order to produce a clear vision for clean government in California.

The event will begin at 8:30 AM at Olympia Gas Station on the Northwest Corner of South Van Ness and Chesar Chavez.

Join us!

Proposition 89 Momentum

2006-09-27T13:25:00.000-07:00

Ruth Rosen, a history teacher at the University of California, Berkeley and a senior fellow of the Longview Institute, has an article in the current issue of the American Prospect:

Now the battle in California begins. On one side the measure is supported by the Democratic gubernatorial candidate, State Treasurer Phil Angelides, the League of Women Voters of California, Common Cause, and other nonprofit and community organizations.

On the other side is Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who as a candidate in 2003 promised to end "pay-to-play" politics, but whose tireless fund raising has made his predecessors look like amateurs at a bodybuilding contest. He is joined by the California Chamber of Commerce, the California Taxpayers' Association, insurance companies, oil companies, HMOs, three powerful unions, members of the entrenched political establishment, and consultants and lobbyists. They argue that clean-money campaigns limit free speech, by which they mean the freedom to give a candidate as much money as they please. They also claim it's a wasteful public subsidy for politicians. (Some of their objections will almost certainly end up in the courts. Fortunately, the California initiative was written so that each part can be implemented separately, if any section is litigated.)

Right now, there seems to be considerable popular momentum for Proposition 89. In 2005, a survey by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 92 percent of California adult residents believe that special interests control the electoral process.

Special interests aren't going to give up their power without a fight, so help Proposition 89, go Buck the System Now.

Quote of the Day

2006-09-27T10:49:00.000-07:00

Here in San Diego, I feel like I am at an epicenter of the money and politics plague that has sickened the democratic process all over the country. A local Congressman, Duke Cunningham, has gone to jail as part of an ongoing national scandal. The cost of political campaigns is going up, up, up at every level and that is certainly more true in California than anywhere else in the country, and voters badly want change in our political system.

But, thankfully, here in California, Proposition 89 is on the ballot

Proposition 89 offers Californians a chance to take back control of the political system from the lobbyists and deep pocket campaign donors and join with voters in seven other states and two cities that have adopted Clean Elections. By passing Proposition 89, voters in California would send a clear signal to politicians across the country that they demand meaningful campaign reform.

-Nick Nyhart, Executive Director of Public Campaign

2006 California State Treasurer Race

2006-09-27T07:57:00.000-07:00

One of my new favorite "first read" internet sites is the LA Times' Mother's Milk, which has this graphic posted today.

Bill Lockyer has 35 times as much money as Claude Parrish.

Who do you think will win?

This isn't even a real race. There is no real debate about the role of the office. There probably won't even be a single public debate. Claude Parrish has already lost, he can't afford the ante necessary to introduce himself to voters. Right now, the Parrish campaign is so broke that they can't even seem to afford a website and you can put up a website for free. I don't know if the Parrish campaign even has enough cash on hand to pay attention.

Under Proposition 89, this would be a far different campaign. There would be a level playing field when it comes to financing, allowing the Parrish campaign the resources necessary to talk to voters. Also, one requirement of public financing is for candidates to agree to publically debate. Under Prop 89, this would be a campaign instead of a blowout.

New Site of the Day

2006-09-26T20:48:00.000-07:00

Check out Latinos for 89.

Quote of the Day

2006-09-26T15:58:00.000-07:00

A dream team of campaign consultants has been assembled to fight Prop. 89, the public financing initiative on the November ballot. Among them: Gale Kaufman, the Democratic consultant who led the campaign to defeat Schwarzenegger's special election initiatives; Goddard Clausen, which helped kill off the universal preschool initiative in June; and the firm of veteran initiative man Frank Schubert. Among the interest groups lining up against the measure are the California Teachers Assn., the California State Council of Laborers and the California Chamber of Commerce. Almost makes you want to support it. Last week, the League of Women Voters and California Common Cause did just that.

-Dan Weintraub

LA Tomorrow

2006-09-26T10:14:00.000-07:00

WHAT: Legislative hearing on Proposition 89, The Clean Money and Fair Elections initiative, to explain how publicly financed elections work from both the national and state perspective. The hearing is being held by the Revenue & Taxation Committees of the California Assembly and Senate.

WHY: This is a great opportunity for reporters to learn from various proponents of Proposition 89, how the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act will help end politics as usual in Sacramento. Proposition 89 will make politicians accountable to voters instead of big money campaign contributors. Proposition 89 will be voted on by Californians during this November’s elections.

WHEN: Wednesday, September 27 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m.

WHERE: Junipero Serra State Building, Carmel Room – 320 W. Fourth St. Los Angeles

WHO:

• Representative David Lujan (D-AZ), Publicly Financed Elected Official
• Assembly Member Loni Hancock, author of Assembly Bill 583, California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act of 2006
• Nick Nyhart, Executive Director, Public Campaign, Washington, DC
• Rick Hasen, Constitutional and Election law professor
• DeAnn McEwan, RN, California Nurses Associations
• Susan Lerner, Executive Director, California Clean Money Campaign
• Xandra Kayden, National Board Member of the League of Women Voters
• Also invited to testify are: members of the National Association of Women Business Owners.

A broad coalition of groups, community leaders, and elected officials have already endorsed Proposition 89, including: the League of Women Voters of California, the California Nurses Association, the California Clean Money Campaign, Public Campaign, Common Cause of California, and the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights Fore more info, go to www.89Now.org

Busy Week

2006-09-25T15:14:00.000-07:00

There is a lot going on this week so please stop by daily for updates. There are three things we hope you can do with us this week:

1. Email Campaign - One quick request for everyone is to join our email campaign. First, make sure you sign up for email alerts. Second, use our tool to email friends and family so they can join you in supporting Proposition 89.

2. Buck the System Now - Under Prop 89, candidates who build a coalition of $5 donors and refuse special interest money get Clean Money public financing, leveling the playing field so elections are about ideas not money. Give $5 now and Buck the System.

3. Phone Banks - Help communicate with voters. Every Sunday through Thursday in San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sacramento. Contact Ted Cahill, Prop 89 Field Director. Email: tcahill@calnurses.org Phone: 510 273 2248

Are you ashamed?

2006-09-25T07:55:00.000-07:00

The blog A Blaskovich Opinion writes:

“The best democracy money can buy!” That’s the way our government has been described by some. Should we be proud of that statement? If we’re ashamed, then Proposition 89 is a good first step in tearing the price tag off our state.
Prop. 89 is about public funding of political campaigns in California. It’ll give candidates who don’t want to owe their office to big donors a chance to run. And if they’re not beholden to big donors, they can devote their energies to the voters - their base. This has been successfully adopted in other states (Maine and Arizona) and many early opponents have been won over.
It’s time we began taking back our government from those who think it’s for sale. It’s time to elect people who’d rather spend their time talking to voters than at fundraisers. It’s time to have legislation to benefit the citizens who make up this state instead of corporate donors and lobbyists who think democracy is an auction block.
Passing Prop. 89 will not create an idyllic democratic society, but it is an important paving stone on the road in the right direction.

If you write an endorsement of Proposition 89 on your blog, please an email to prop89 [ at ] gmail.com

Big Oil Throws Down Against Proposition 89

2006-09-22T13:00:00.000-07:00

The Chevron Corporation -- formerly known as Standard Oil of California -- wrote a $250,000 check to a special interest group opposing Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act.

Chevron has extensively funded the negative attack ads against Proposition 87, the Clean Energy initiative also on the November ballot.

A chronological view of Chevron's $19 million in contributions contains seven checks written over a nine month period.

The company has a storied history of buying results. In 1984, Chevron's merger with Gulf Oil was the largest merger that had ever occured. Chevron also gobbled up Texaco, Unocal, and Sacramento politics.

On September 2, 2004, Tom Chorneau reported for the AP:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious plan to reorganize almost every aspect of state government was influenced significantly by oil and gas giant ChevronTexaco Corp., which managed to shape such key recommendations as the removal of restrictions on oil refineries.

Many corporations and interest groups participated in the governor's reform plan -- known as the California Performance Review -- but state records and interviews with the participants show Chevron enjoyed immense success in influencing the report through its array of lobbyists, attorneys and trade organizations.

And few corporations have spent so much political cash on the governor, either. Since Schwarzenegger's election last October, the San Ramon company has contributed more than $200,000 to his committees and $500,000 to the California Republican Party.

Chevron, whose officials acknowledge they lobbied hard to get their ideas in the report, is one of about 20 companies that paid to send the governor and his staff to this week's Republican National Convention in New York. On Wednesday, Schwarzenegger attended a closed-door meeting in New York with representatives of those companies, including Chevron. And just three weeks after the Governor's Office released the 2,700-page reorganization report, the company gave $100,000 to a Schwarzenegger-controlled political fund.

At the time that was a lot of money. Richard Holober, Executive Director Consumer Federation of California, explained what has happened since then:

Since 2004, Chevron gave $3 million in political contributions in California. For a company that made a record $14 billion in profits last year, it was money well spent. Despite public indignation, big oil crushed a proposed state tax on windfall oil profits.

Chevron has proven successful in the current system. The company has spend millions and ensured they make record billions.

Under Proposition 89, Chevron would be able to contribute $10,000 against each initiative, removing almost twenty-million dollars in negative ads. Chevron employees would be able to contribute, but Proposition 89 would create a system where political issues aren't decided like an auction.

Clean Money -- public financing of campaigns -- has proven successful in Maine and Arizona. Included in Proposition 89 are the best practices from those systems, adapted for California. The initiative also includes are review process that will allow regular refinement.

Another Week of Phone Banking

2006-09-22T07:44:00.000-07:00

This election really is just around the corner. Last night, another week of phonebanking ended (there phone banks don't run on Friday and Saturday night). Which means we are another week closer to the election.

Next week's phone banks begin Sunday night. Please volunteer.

Every Sunday through Thursday in San Diego, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sacramento, we’re contacting voters and winning converts to Prop 89.

Do you have a couple of hours to help clean up the corruption? If so, sign up with:
Ted Cahill
Prop 89 Field Director
Email: tcahill@calnurses.org
Phone: 510 273 2248

These personal contacts are a great way to counter the big money our opponents are spending to preserve their dominance.

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board

2006-09-21T15:50:00.000-07:00

One of the benefits of Proposition 89 is that it cuts out unnecessary middle men. With clean money and a level playing field, ideas can be judged by the content, not by how much money was spent paying to distribute the message. Under such circumstances, the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board would be at a great disadvantage.

You see, the Union-Tribune has a legacy voice. The editorial board is read because the paper has been around for a hundred years, not because the quality of the editorial board's content is anything special. In the open market-place of ideas, where the amount of ink one possess doesn't determine audience size, Chris Reed's blog is read less often than hundreds if not thousands of other California bloggers who succeed even though they don't have a 100 year old paper proping them up.

I think this helps explain why the Union-Tribune is so defensive about Proposition 89 -- like the special interests and big money they are middlemen between voters and policy. The fact the ed board dropped their second attack on clean money belies their fear that they are only relevant in terms of barrels of ink, not in terms of ideas.

In fact, the editorial reads like a transcription of Allan Zaremberg's whines to reporters. These are just a few of the reasons why the Editorial Board of the San Diego Union-Tribune have been awarded the Joker of the Day Award.

What Big Money Buys In Sacramento

2006-09-21T11:06:00.000-07:00

From Channel 89:

$9,862,001

2006-09-21T09:08:00.000-07:00

That is how much the LA Times' Mother's Milk feature says was raised on Tuesday. This brings the year-to-date total to an astonishing $330,231,293.

Email Organize to Buck the System

2006-09-20T15:49:00.000-07:00

In addition to our Action Center and our online and offline materials, we are also providing easy tools for people to use email to organize their friends to help pass Proposition 89.

In just a few minutes, you can help mobilize grassroots support by sending an email to your friends asking them to join you in supporting Proposition 89.

With your help, we can use email to efficiently organize enough people to take on the Sacramento special interests that are spending big money to stop reform.

So take five minutes and use our email tool to tell your friends about Proposition 89.

Chamber of Commerce Prez Allan Zaremberg

2006-09-20T15:24:00.000-07:00

Allan "secret plan" Zaremberg decided to give even more for people to snicker about out loud. He also decided to whine:

Let's look for a second at Zaremberg's claim about big business not being able to speak politically under Prop 89. Under Prop 89, big corporations could not do two things 1. Purchase politicians 2. Write blank checks from corporate treasuries for ballot initiatives.

#1 True, if a politician accepts public financing from taxpayers, the Chamber could not give that politician a bribe to vote as it wants. And if a company chooses to threaten a publicly funded politician with a big independent expenditure (the silent threat that prevents public officials from voting their hearts) the publicly funded candidate gets more money. But corporations and the chamber can spend unlimited amounts on issue ads. They can fight over the issues on the air, just not threaten candidates directly. Hardly, a termination of the corporation's right to speak to voters.

#2 In the initiative process, under Prop 89, a few big pharmaceutical companies could no longer write unlimited checks totaling $70 million to kill prescription drug reform, as they did with Prop 79 and 80 last year. But, under Prop 89, the CEOs of those companies, investors, and managers can spend as much as they want to advocate for or against ballot measures through political action committees set up by the companies.

Why is Allan Zaremberg whining so loudly?

The hyperbolic fear you hear in Zaremberg's voice comes from the threat of a shakeup to the special interest establishment. Sacramento needs it, and the public wants it.

We all know why special interests fear Proposition 89. We also know that their whines belie their fear of a level playing field.

Clean Money Elections' Blog

2006-09-20T15:21:00.000-07:00

Check it out.

What Will We Tell the Children?

2006-09-20T11:03:00.000-07:00

Steve Lawrence of the AP has a story on Proposition 89. Unless you are a big money special interest, it is clear that the current system is broken. Which gives California two options.

Option 1: We throw our hands up in the air, whine that it is "too complicated" and give up

Option 2: We can research the problem, identify the best solutions found by others facing similiar situations, learn from past experience, and put together sound policy.

To hightlight these two options, compare the message of CTA President Barbara Kerr to others quoted in this story:

Teachers (?)	Everyone Else
Barbara Kerr, "It’s too complicated."	Chuck Idelson, "This is not some newfangled proposal. It’s based on systems in place and working extremely well in a number of other states and municipalities."
Barbara Kerr, "It’s a flawed proposal."	Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based political think tank, "It will allow more people to run who aren’t wealthy and aren’t connected to wealthy special interests. I think it will reduce the impact of special interest money but not eliminate it. ... It would be a major improvement but not the Holy Grail."
Barbara Kerr, "If I had a good idea of what would be the best system, I assure you we would have talked about it and proposed it."	A 2005 study by three University of Wisconsin political scientists concluded that public financing can significantly increase the number of candidates running for office and therefore the choices available to voters. [...] A study released this year by the nonpartisan Institute on Money in State Politics found that Arizona’s public financing system, adopted by voters in 1998, had narrowed the funding gap between challengers and incumbents and drawn an increasing number of participants.

I know special interests will fight to preserve their vested interest, but does any else find it odd that this message is coming from the teachers? "It is too complicated"??? "If I had a good idea..."?????

Like most things, there is a large knowledge-base when it comes to campaign finance reform and clean money. There is information to learn. All it takes is a little research.

Reason We Need Prop 89 #29845

2006-09-20T10:34:00.000-07:00

Peter Schrag writes in the Sacramento Bee on big money special interests dominating the initiative process:

Yet with each election, it also becomes clearer that what was supposed to be the people's weapon against the "interests" is now the plaything of those interests -- Indian gambling casinos, railroads, tobacco companies, public employee unions -- and of rich individuals pursuing their own causes. [...]

But what does it say about a democracy where only the wealthy can get an initiative on the ballot at all and dominate campaign funding; where the system itself is so convoluted (often by prior initiatives) that most people can't understand it all, much less know who is accountable; and where the voters who decide elections are themselves just a majority of a minority?

What does it say? It says we need Proposition 89. We know the problem, we know the solution. But with the way the initiative system currently works, good policy isn't enough.

There is a reason the special interests who move big money don't like Prop 89.

UPDATE: The Sacramento Bee allows readers to comment on articles. Commenter nancyneff says:

There is a grassroots effort underway supporting Prop 89, the first truly comprehensive campaign finance reform. This measure includes a $10,000 limit on ballot initiative spending from a corporate treasury. Spending from corporate and union PACs remains unlimited, but at least it provides for some leveling of the playing field. You can't limit individual rich people from spending their own money, but voters have not reacted posiviely to that. In Arizona, Clean Money Elections have increased voter turnout and increased the number of women and minorities in elected office. It's the first thing in 20 years that's broken through my protective shell of cynicism with regard to politics.

Clean money renews people's faith and brings more people into the political discussion.

Allan Zaremberg Googles Secret Plan

2006-09-19T07:10:00.000-07:00

California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg and the crack investigative team at CoC's K Street headquarters have uncovered a bombshell.

Sacramento Bee reporter Jim Sanders writes of the epiphany under the headline, Secret plan alleged on campaign financing:

A California Nurses Association publication indicates the group is pushing the Proposition 89 campaign-finance measure as a Trojan horse to get what it covets most: universal health care, opponents said Monday.

Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, said the strategy basically was spelled out in a document that appeared on the nurses association Web site.

Whowouldthunk? Nurses support health care for everyone?

But then I started thinking, could I too scour the internet and find secret election plans? Here are some more secret plans I found on the internets.

Sierra Club Plots to Protect Environment

Those nurses with their designs for health care aren't the only ones using Proposition 89 as a trojan horse. It seems the Sierra Club also has a secret agenda, which I found on some website included in a press release announcing the Sierra Club's endorsement of Prop 89. Let the record show that Bill Magavern, senior advocate for Sierra Club California, said:

"If you want clean air and clean water, you need clean elections. Proposition 89 will eliminate the corrupting influence of donors who want to weaken environmental laws by shifting power back to the voters who overwhelmingly support measures to ensure a healthy, safe, and clean environment."

Busted. The Chamber of Commerce can feel free and use my sleuthing and set up another whiney conference call with reporters. I hope the Sacramento Bee runs a page A4 headline, "Sierra Club Plots for Environment".

Consumer Federation Scheme for Consumer Protection

This website statement conspiracy runs deeper, the Consumer Federation of California seems to have a secret plan to pass consumer protection legislation. Uncovered in a press release endorsing Proposition 89 is the following quote from CFC's Executive Director Richard Holober:

"All too often, consumer protection legislation is defeated in Sacramento by politicians who are beholden to the big business interests that bankroll their electoral campaigns. Proposition 89 would help reduce the influence of corporate campaign contributions on elected officials. It will help to decrease the use of the ballot initiative as a vehicle for big business to enact legislation, and help restore the initiative to its original purpose as an expression of the people's will."

Congress of California Seniors Maneuver for Those on Fixed Incomes

Further investigation revealed that some support for Proposition 89 is coming from seniors who are prepared for daily machination. Again in a press release supporting Proposition 89, I discovered a damning quote from Hank Lacayo, president of the Congress of California Seniors:

"As consumers who often live on fixed incomes, seniors battle special interests and big corporations every day to get fair laws to protect consumers. We support Proposition 89 because it will eliminate the corrosive affect of big special interest donations and help level the legislative playing field."

Did you notice the emphasis on a level playing field? Keep an eye on these seniors, they might have an entire agenda.

Allan Zaremberg's Secret Racket to Buy Elections

It seems even Mr. Zaremberg is fighting about Proposition 89 with ulterior motives. From the San Francisco Chronicle Politics Blog:

Anyone looking for a hint at the hot buttons that the campaign against Prop. 89, the public financing "clean money" campaign initiative, is planning to push this fall only had to listen to California Chamber of Commerce Prexy Allan Zaremberg make a pitch to reporters this morning.

Not one, but three of the state's best-known political consulting companies have been hired to run the effort against Prop. 89, an initiative which Zaremberg said was "patently unfair, one-sided and a waste of precious taxpayer resources."

Zaremberg, an Arnold Schwarzenegger ally who was one of the key backers of last year's controversial special election agenda, is concerned that the initiative will make it much more difficult for businesses to spend the millions of dollars they've needed in the past to back or oppose initiatives that affect the business community.

Zaremberg's plot appears to be for the Chamber of Commerce to spend whatever it takes to preserve the racket where money buys elections and special interests dominate Sacramento.

Nurses supporting health care? Duh. The part of the story that deserves more ink is the fact that the Chamber of Commerce honcho is whining to reporters about big business not being able to buy government.

Buck the System Now

2006-09-18T15:25:00.000-07:00

Are you fed up with the crisis of corruption in our government?

Big oil, drug companies, insurers, developers, HMOs, and big unions are corrupting our political system by working with inscruplous lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and using their millions of dollars in campaign cash to buy influence with our legislators.

Enough is enough!

This November 7th, California has the best chance in years to stop political corruption in Sacramento and send shockwaves of reform across the country — all the way to Washington DC.

A contribution of as little as $5 today "Bucks the System" by helping pass Proposition 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act.

Our Big Money opponents are working overtime to stop Prop 89 because they know that it will create a system where elections are about ideas, not their money.

By giving $5 to pass Prop 89, you are standing with everybody who is sick and tired of corrupt politics. By standing together, we can defeat the lobbyists and special interests spending millions to defeat Prop 89.

Proposition 89 will stop corruption by enacting:

• Strict Contribution Limits that will end the fundraising madness with constitutional limits so regular voters aren't drowned out by big money.

• Clean Money Full Public Financing of Political Campaigns that will level the playing field so new candidates can win on their ideas, not because of the money they raise.

• A Ban on Contributions From Lobbyists and groups seeking business with the state.

• Tough Disclosure and Enforcement that will stop candidates from hiding behind negative ads and punish politicians who violate the law.

By Bucking the System today, you are joining a powerful coalition of organizations and citizens working to create a government that is accountable to us, not to big special interest campaign donors.

Buck the System Now!

Prop 89 is supported by trusted groups including the League of Women Voters of California, the California Nurses Association, the California Clean Money Campaign, California Common Cause, California Church IMPACT, the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Sierra Club California, and many other groups and individuals fighting for reform.

Please check out www.BucktheSystemNow.com and give $5 today. Or Buck the System even more by giving more if you can.

Then tell all your friends to "Buck the System", too. Even email your friends outside California, because if Prop 89 passes in California, it will sweep the country and help buck the corrupt money system everywhere!

Everybody can afford to give $5 — and with the price political corruption costs everyone, how can anybody afford not to?

Buck the System Now!

Sincerely,

Clean Money Now -- Yes on 89

P.S. We can put an end to special interest control of government. Please forward this to as many people as possible. Everybody who Bucks the System makes a difference!

Quote of the Day

2006-09-18T08:34:00.000-07:00

"The strength of a reform can usually be assessed by the status quo's resistance to it. California Proposition 89, which would create full public financing of state elections in a state that comprises that world's fifth largest economy, has an unprecedented alliance of corporations and unions in an uproar."

-Kailin Clarke

George Skelton and Proposition 89

2006-09-17T18:34:00.000-07:00

Longtime LA Times columnist, George Skelton realizes Sacramento is broken, but for some reason doesn't think reform is in order. Kevin Drum says his reasons are "hard to fathom" and David Sirota thinks it is a clear case of "media bias" at work. We need Proposition 89!

Update on the New Prop 89 Blog

2006-09-15T18:57:00.000-07:00

In addition to a site redesign, the new Proposition 89 Blog offers a number of new tools.

For those who subscribe to the blog, we have added tools to the feed to allow you to email posts or add to del.icio.us and Digg.

These tools are also available for those who have subscribed for a daily email of blog posts:

Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

Quote of the Day

2006-09-15T13:58:00.000-07:00

"Events in Sacramento are strictly for the third house. They aren't civilian events. They are events for people who understand why they have to give."

-Willie Brown on current Sacramento fundraising

Grassroots Democrats Supporting Proposition 89

2006-09-15T08:59:00.000-07:00

It seems the further people are from the Speaker's Gavel, the more likely they are to support Proposition 89. Last night, Humbolt Democrats endorsed Prop 89. On Tuesday, Contra Costa, Sacramento and Sonoma Democrats endorsed. On Monday it was San Diego.

It is not surprising to see Sacramento's vested interests oppose Prop. 89, but what is surprising is the level of grassroots support that is coming together pass Clean Money, including:

The Beach Cities Democratic Club, Democratic Alliance for Action, Democratic Club of Claremont, Democratic Club of Tracy, Democratic Club of West Orange County, Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, Democracy for America - Temecula Valley, Democracy for America - Orange County (DFA-OC), El Cerrito Democratic Club, Fresno County Democratic Central Committee, Golden Gate Democratic League, Kennedy Club of San Joaquin Valley, JFK Democratic Good Works Club, Marin Chapter - Democracy for America, Marin Democratic Central Committee, Metropolitan Los Angeles Democratic Club, Noe Valley Democratic Club, Novato Democratic Club, Oakmont Democratic Club, Pacific Palisades Democratic Club, Peoples Democratic Club of Santa Cruz County, Progressive Democrats of the Santa Monica Mountains, ReclaimDemocracy.org - Orange County, San Francisco Democratic Central Committee, San Francisco Democratic Women's Forum, San Gabriel Valley Women's Democratic Club, Santa Clara County Democratic Club, Santa Clara Democratic Central Committee, SoCal Grassroots, 38th AD Committee of the Democratic Party and the 72nd AD Committee of the Democratic Party.

Here are some tools for you to take grassroots action to pass Proposition 89.

Yes on Proposition 89

2006-09-15T07:49:00.000-07:00

Last night, the Proposition 89 Blog began rolling out version 2.0 -- this will allow you more tools to stay informed about the campaign.

Speaking of websites, some Attorney/Business in Irvine named Mark Patlan is a real hack. He has an Op-Ed in today's OC Register that talks about websites and Proposition 89, but it is clear by the writing that the author hasn't visited this website. Mark Patlan is a hack. It might be that he is a hack writer, it might be that he is a hack lawyer, or maybe it is because he isn't much of a political hack when it comes to the internet, but Mark Patlan is clearly a hack.

Here's what really got me about his column, the way he transitions directly from, "Further restrictions are included in Proposition 89 on the November ballot" straight into setting up a pathetic straw man against the current system:

In order to understand how these regulations chill political speech, imagine that there is a cause that you wish to support or oppose – building a toll road, universal health care, universal preschool or saving the endangered brown gnatcatcher. Now you wish to do something about it.

You learn that there is a political committee supporting your position. So, you contact the committee and offer your ideas on how you could create some grass-roots support for the effort. Perhaps, you could set up your own Web site and launch an e-mail campaign. Then you could take donations to support your efforts, or channel donations to the political committee.

After consulting an attorney, the political committee politely declines your help, instead asking only for your money.

This example illustrates how campaign finance regulation reduces political speech to financial contribution, the very evil that it purports to address. Under the California Fair Political Practices Act, the minute that you spent any money on your cause or raised any money for the cause, you became a political committee subject to the Act. Once you raise or spend $1,000, you become subject to the Act's strict reporting and disclosure requirements. And you don't dare "coordinate" your campaign with another "committee."

Patlan's goal is a website and an email campaign. His straw man is that he thinks the cost of a website will force people to hire lawyers. Well, let's look at this website.

www.Proposition89.blogspot.com

Notice the Proposition 89 Blog URL, this is a free blogspot site, you can start your own for free in a handful of clicks. In fact, today's upgrade is to take advantage of the free new tools by using Blog Beta. Patlan could start a free blog to post his column and support the issues he cares about in under 10 minutes -- all for free.

EMAIL

The other half of Patlan's goal is an email campaign. Thanks to feedburner, this site has has a feature where you can sign up and receive a daily email of all posts from this blog, any day that there is a post.

Enter your email address:
Delivered by FeedBurner

SYNDICATION

But that's not all, you can also syndicate this site. If you use a newsreader, you can add our feed and see new posts in real-time.

XML

BOOKMARK

We also have free tools to bookmark this site:

Bookmark This Site
+Del.icio.us
+Furl It
+Spurl
+Tag!RawSugar
+Simpy This!
+Shadows Tag!
+Blink It
+My Web

WE NEED PROPOSITION 89

Right now, it is big money special interests who dominate elections. Too many Californians have been turned off by the current system. In other states that have clean elections, participation has increased. We want more people caring about politics. There are easy tools like those listed above for people to make their voice heard. Proposition 89 will level the playing field, giving more people an incentive to start a website and contribute ideas.

Fabian Nunez

2006-09-14T20:02:00.000-07:00

Consultant Wagging the Politician

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez just announced his opposition to Prop 89, the Clean Elections Initiative. Not coincidentally, the campaign against the measure is being led by his chief political consultant, Gale Kaufman. It was Kaufman who notified the press of Nunez's decision. Under Prop 89, Nunez would no longer be able to raise campaign cash to parcel out to other Democrats and consolidate his power in the Assembly. He could no longer shake down big donors, like insurer Blue Cross, for 25 grand to sit beside him at the World Cup. Nor could he tap special interests for his all purpose ballot measure committees. Kaufman would see an even bigger blow to her business, which currently includes helping the California Teachers Association buy all the influence it can. Prop 89 is for those who believe in the power of big ideas, not big money. This years Speaker Nunez's legislative agenda has spoken for the likes of AT&T, TimeWarner and Blue Cross. Voters deserve better.

Indeed. The problem with Sacramento is that the legislative incentive system is all built about money. Just like voters deserve campaigns of ideas instead of fundraising, so too do invidual legislators deserve leadership that values good policy as much as fundraising. It seems that the further one is from the gavel the more likely they are to support real reform.

One final thought for the night: Is it any surprise that everyone is talking about nonvoters?

David Paul Brown for Prop 89

2006-09-14T12:05:00.000-07:00

David Paul Brown, writing in the Paradise Post, gives a shout out to Proposition 89:

Three groups (among many) that I mostly agree with are supporting 89.
They're Common Cause, Public Campaign and The League of Women Voters.
Let's allow a candidate's ideas to garner our votes, immaterial of their wallet's largess.
They've done it in Maine and Arizona with good results and satisfied voters. The "fat cats" may not like it but isn't that the point? Yes on 89.

Of course the "fat cats" don't like Proposition 89, they are doing quite well in the current system (cough, Fabian Nunez, cough). It is precisely because clean elections return power to the people that special interests are opposed.

Quote of the Day

2006-09-14T07:46:00.000-07:00

"I've always believed that big special interest money in politics creates a system in which people lose faith in their government. Proposition 89 addresses this problem head-on. I urge a yes vote on Proposition 89."

-Senator Barbara Boxer

Can you say $10,000 limits?

2006-09-13T08:53:00.000-07:00

Under Proposition 89, each corporation will only be able to spend $10,000 for or against any state ballot measure. Today's San Francisco Chronicle has a must read article on the one hundred million dollars big oil and big tobacco are spending in California.

The article lists how R.J. Reynolds has already contributed $9 million and Philip Morris has contributed $26 million against Proposition 86. With Prop 89, that combined $35 million would shrink to a more reasonable $20,000.

The current system is so broken, that the spending by big tobacco and big oil is actually going to make it harder for voters to find out about Proposition 89:

"When you have so much spending occurring on a couple of initiatives, you have to wonder how the voters will get information on other measures on the ballot," said Mark Baldassare, executive director of the Public Policy Institute of California in San Francisco. [...]

That aggressive advertising is making it harder for other ballot measures to find a place in the market. Unlike candidates, propositions are not guaranteed a low rate for television commercials.

"It's driving the rates up fairly significantly," said Paul Hefner, a spokesman for the Rebuild California Plan, which is promoting the bond package, which includes measures to improve flood protection and build new schools and highways.

Despite the $100 million being spent by big oil and big tobacco, we need to pass Prop 89. Please go to the action center and get involved.

Quote of the Day

2006-09-12T11:55:00.000-07:00

"There is a very radical measure which would, I believe, work a substantial improvement in our system of conducting a campaign, although I am well aware that it will take some time for people so to familiarize themselves with such a proposal as to be willing to consider its adoption. The need for collecting large campaign funds would vanish if Congress provided an appropriation for the proper and legitimate expenses of each of the great national parties, an appropriation ample enough to meet the necessity for thorough organization and machinery, which requires a large expenditure of money. Then the stipulation should be made that no party receiving campaign funds from the Treasury should accept more than a fixed amount from any individual subscriber or donor; and the necessary publicity for receipts and expenditures could without difficulty be provided."

-Theodore Roosevelt, 1907 State of the Union Address

$3,144,950

2006-09-12T07:49:00.000-07:00

The Mother's Milk feature the LA TIMES started has a scoreboard feature -- which has already been updated today. It shows that $3,144,950 was raised yesterday, bringing the year to date today to $303,771,114. To put in perspective, the money that moved yesterday, if converted to $100 bills would stand over twelve feet high and weigh over sixty pounds. And that was just yesterday.

Phone Bank for Proposition 89

2006-09-11T17:37:00.000-07:00

We need your help phone banking for Proposition 89. These personal contacts with voters are very important to our statewide field plan. Starting this Wednesday (9/13), the Nurses are coordinating phone banks at the following locations:

Sacramento
San Diego
San Francisco
Glendale
Oakland

The program begins this Wed, Sep 13th and then will run every Sun, Mon, Tue, Wed, Thursday from 5-9pm. They are flexible about the length of slots. Food and refreshments will be served each night.

If you can volunteer, please contact:

Ted Cahill
Prop 89 Field Director
Email: tcahill@calnurses.org
Phone: 510 273 2248

Please help spread the word.

Sierra Club Endorses Proposition 89

2006-09-11T15:22:00.000-07:00

From a press release:

At a semi-annual weekend conference, Sierra Club California endorsed Proposition 89, an initiative on the November ballot that will enact a broad system of public financing of political campaigns for all statewide offices. The endorsement gives a vital boost to the initiative supported by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause and California Clean Money Campaign, and sponsored by the California Nurses Association.

“If you want clean air and clean water, you need clean elections,” said Bill Magavern, senior advocate for Sierra Club California. “Proposition 89 will eliminate the corrupting influence of donors who want to weaken environmental laws by shifting power back to the voters who overwhelmingly support measures to ensure a healthy, safe, and clean environment,” continued Magavern.

“We are thrilled to have the Sierra Club’s endorsement,” said Susan Lerner, executive director of California Clean Money Action Fund, one of the organizations pushing Proposition 89. “The people of California know that the Sierra Club is looking out for their right to a clean and healthy environment.”

Welcome on board. Check out the full list of Proposition 89 supporters.

Quote of the Day

2006-09-11T11:59:00.000-07:00

"It should be evident to any even halfway objective observer that the Legislature is an abjectly dysfunctional body, chronically incapable of responding effectively to the issues that arise from a fast-growing, fast-changing state. That malaise has many roots, but one of them is the essentially closed nature of legislative politics, which are disconnected from the socioeconomic reality of the state and driven by the wishes of a relative handful of powerful interest groups."

-Dan Walters

LA Times Political Blog

2006-09-11T11:08:00.000-07:00

The LA Times has rolled out a political blog and a new feature called Mother's Milk which covers the money flow in California politics. Today they track:

THE DAY IN NUMBERS
Total political contributions for all state races:
Last week: $19,465,032

Year to date: $300,626,164
Source: Calif. Secretary of State

Wow.

UPDATE: Bob Salladay has a "why money is important" about page to explain why the Times has created Mothers Milk, a mission statement if you will:

Seventy years ago, another Austrian ruled California. His name was Arthur Samish, the son of an immigrant who became the most powerful lobbyist in state history. At 300 pounds, the outsized man was master of leveraging campaign contributions and personal favors for the oil, movie studio, insurance and tobacco industries.

This year will prove that little has changed — California politics remains dominated by money.

The 2006 election is destined to set another record in political spending — cash will pour in from oil and tobacco companies, powerful unions, millionaires and corporate donors. They will unload more than $200 million to finance the governor's race, a host of initiatives, the Democratic and Republican parties, and various front groups. [...]

It's difficult to find a campaign donor without a tie to some powerful interest in Sacramento. Elected officials say donations don't influence their votes. They frequently quote Jesse M. Unruh, the legendary former Assembly Speaker, who said: "If you can't take their money, drink their booze, eat their food, screw their women and vote against them, you don't belong here."

But another quote from Unruh may be more operative this year: "Money is the mother's milk of politics."

If you are going to talk about money in California politics, I would suggest another quote the most constructive this year: "Vote Yes on Proposition 89"

$26,400,000

2006-09-11T08:32:00.000-07:00

From the LA Times:

As legislators were approving more than 1,000 bills in August, Schwarzenegger was crossing the state, and the country, soliciting campaign cash. Now, as he decides whether to sign those bills into law or nix them with a veto, he will be cashing checks from scores of contributors whose interests intersect with legislation.

Schwarzenegger is vastly out-raising his Democratic challenger, state Treasurer Phil Angelides. He has taken $26.4 million into his reelection account so far this year, compared with Angelides' $13.4 million, according to records filed with the Secretary of State's office.

Last week alone, the Republican governor held five fundraisers, including two on Friday in the Central Valley, two in Los Angeles and one in suburban Sacramento. He has scheduled at least 22 such events this month.

"This is exactly the kind of practice he said he was going to Sacramento to end," said Angelides consultant Bill Carrick.

No wonder Schwarzenegger doesn't support Prop 89, he is doing just fine with the current system. So are the lobbyists.

Fight Corruption

2006-09-09T10:14:00.000-07:00

Mike Kirchubel says:

Almost all voters, regardless of party affiliation, agree that there is entirely too much greed and corruption in Sacramento and Washington these days. Most of us are just plain disgusted. Granted, politicians need money for their signs, ads, and commercials in order to be elected or re-elected; unfortunately, today’s high-stakes Pay-to-Play is completely dominated by corporate lobbyists. We ordinary folks have been priced out of the access game. Furthermore, these lobbyists have vastly different agendas than you or I. While we spend our days working for our dollars, they spend theirs dreaming up novel ways to snatch those dollars from us. To them, politicians are simply highly paid employees facilitating the exchange. We should make politicians cover their expensive suits with sponsor patches, like NASCAR drivers, so we can all tell where their loyalties truly lie.

If you’ve ever thought, “There must be a better way;” wondered why corporations with billions in profits legally pay less in taxes than you; or swore you would “never vote for those crooks ever again;” rejoice! Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, is coming soon to a ballot near you. If we all work hard and get this passed in November, Prop 89 will allow candidates to remain “Clean” with public financing for their campaigns. Our representatives would actually represent us, not the special interest lobbyists. Imagine, taxation WITH representation. What a revolutionary concept! Yes on 89.

There is a better way. Clean money elections are working in Maine, they are working in Arizona, and with your support this November we can have fair elections in California.

Consumer Federation of California and Proposition 89

2006-09-08T11:57:00.000-07:00

Richard Holober, Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of California, has a great column in the California Progress Report:

Proposition 89: Take the "For Sale" sign off the State Capitol

Since 2004, Chevron gave $3 million in political contributions in California. For a company that made a record $14 billion in profits last year, it was money well spent. Despite public indignation, big oil crushed a proposed state tax on windfall oil profits.

During one 18-month period, banks, insurance companies and other financial interests contributed $8.8 million to state politicians. They defeated financial privacy legislation that enjoyed the support of 90% of California voters.

Phone companies gave $20 million to the governor and Sacramento candidates since 2000. Their generosity bought them new Public Utilities Commissioners, which promptly buried telephone consumer protection regulations just after being adopted by their predecessors.

Our campaign finance system has produced the best government that money can buy. [...]

This November, we can take the “For Sale” sign off the state Capitol. The Consumer Federation of California supports Proposition 89, the Clean Money Initiative, because we must change the rules of politics before ordinary Californians will have a chance to put our interests on an even footing with big corporate donors.

Prop 89 would create a Clean Money Election system similar to the ones that now exist in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine.

Please, go read the whole story.

Question of the Day

2006-09-07T21:40:00.000-07:00

Mark Matthews of ABC 7 points out:

After we did a piece on Proposition 89, Bob in Guerneville e-mailed to tell me about something he saw on the No on 89 Web site.

Now this is the proposition that wants to take the money out of politics by publicly funding elections. And the Chamber of Commerce, business groups and the Teachers Union are fighting it. Obviously they are also big donors to political candidates.

So Bob is reading the No on 89 arguments on their Web site and he comes across this: "The measure also prohibits state contractors or anyone seeking state contracts from contributing to any candidate for or holder of an office with which the contractor has or seeks a contract."

And he wonders why the No on 89 folks would put this forward as an argument. I mean, if you have a contract or if you are seeking a contract isn't it a little unethical to be offering money to the candidate or office holder who has control of that contract?

Good question Bob.

Indeed.

Proposition 89

Featured Letter to the Editor

2006-09-07T08:19:00.000-07:00

San Rafael's Dan Farthing in the Marin Independent Journal:

Prop. 89 will clean up politics

The IJ's "Fill-up of the future" article (Aug. 25) was encouraging indeed; imagine what biodiesel could do if it were available cheaply and used throughout Marin and elsewhere. Less foreign oil, clean air, invigorated regional agriculture.

But with special interest groups and their lobbyists controlling Sacramento, biodiesel and similar issues aren't likely to get much support without the passage of Proposition 89 on Nov. 7.

Proposition 89 would provide optional public financing of campaigns for any legislative candidate, who then, if elected, would not be under the influence of campaign contributors. Legislators could then vote according to their own consciences for such worthwhile projects as biodiesel, other alternative fuels, and universal health care.

This "clean money" system works in Arizona, where the governor and most other statewide elected officials were elected with clean money under a similar law.

Let's vote "yes" on Proposition 89 for good government, with legislators accountable only to the voters.

On issue after issue, it is the big money special interests blocking reform. Ending the auction in Sacramento is the first step towards sound policy for California.

Quote of the Day

2006-09-07T07:25:00.000-07:00

"One of the reasons that people don't vote is they think the big-moneyed interests run everything anyway, so what's the point?"

- Debra Bowen, State Senator and candidate for Secretary of State
on one reason why she supports Proposition 89

Make Elections About Voters

2006-09-06T12:25:00.000-07:00

While not specific to California's Proposition 89, Patrick Bosold lays out a solid case for clean money campaigns in the Des Moines Register:

Clean elections make elections about voters, not campaign donors. Candidates can spend their time talking to constituents instead of spending countless hours wooing major donors. Once in office, clean-elections officials are no longer beholden to special interests and lobbyists.

Candidates who participate in clean elections are supported by voters. In Maine, 83 percent of the state Senate and 77 percent of the state House is made up of legislators who ran as clean-elections candidates. In Arizona, 10 out of 11 statewide offices are held by clean-elections candidates.

I'm very concerned about the role of money in politics and the scandals in Washington. The best way to make elections fair and to restore accountability to people is to implement public financing of elections.

Mr. Bosold isn't the only voter who is concerned about the role of big money in politics. We need reform.

Universal Health Care - By the Numbers

2006-09-06T09:07:00.000-07:00

With the news that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will veto universal health care, let's take a look at the numbers:

6,000,000	-	Uninsured Californians the bill would have covered
8,000,000	-	Dollars the bill would have saved annually
4,000,000	-	Dollars opponents contributed to Schwarzenegger

"Schwarzenegger's announcement shows he has listened to the big donors who have put millions into his campaign coffers, not to the people worried about health care costs and the rising number of uninsured workers."

- Jerry Flanagan, health policy director of the FTCR

People Write Letters

2006-09-05T07:53:00.000-07:00

The LA Times letters to the editor:

Regarding the Aug. 31 article "Checks Roll In as Laws Flow Out" and the inflow of money into the political system, Assemblyman Joe Nation (D-San Rafael) stated, "It creates a perception of impropriety." Wrong. It sustains a reality of corruption.

GERALD A. REDONDO
Canoga Park

We have again reached our annual frenzy of the Legislature passing questionable laws while collecting large contributions from those who benefit.

This is the same body of lawmakers who did not have the will to pass the Clean Money Act.

These people are the best reason to pass Proposition 89 (to create a system for public financing of political campaigns) in November.

California must remove the corrupting influence of big-money donors.

SHELDON KADISH
Sherman Oaks

As you can see by these two letters today, the public is disgusted by the way Sacramento operates. In May, the Public Policy Institute of California polled on the issue (May 14-21, 2000 adult residents, +/- 2% MOE):

Do you think that campaign contributions are currently having a good effect or a bad effect on the public policy decisions made by state elected officials in Sacramento, or are campaign contributions making no difference?"

Good Effect 12%
Bad Effect 56%