Quote of the Day

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

San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board

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.

Quote of the Day

I don't worry so much as a Republican, but as a citizen, and there's one word: "the blogosphere"...that's what scares me. There are angry people on the left and angry people on the right. And I'm not sure if I want to see that anger harnessed in reforming our government. I like the firewall, if you will. And that's one interesting thing about Prop 89, the campaign finance reform measure...notice how that has bridged together some rather disparate groups. Among the leaders opposing that are the California Teachers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce. Why? They are very vested interests in Sacramento, they don't want the rules changed.

-Bill Whalen, Hooever Fellow, on KQED