All politics is money?

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?

When money is bidding it is an auction

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.

Election Victory in 2006

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.

Us and Them

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

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.

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

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.

Money in Politics

Money Dominates California Politics

More Big Money Opponents

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.

Who listens to Frank Schubert?

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?

Give regular voters a stronger voice

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.

What Big Money Buys In Sacramento

From Channel 89:

$9,862,001

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.

Reason We Need Prop 89 #29845

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.

Quote of the Day

"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

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

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

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?

LA Times Political Blog

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

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

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.