Two Great Op-Eds Today

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.

Great Op-Ed

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.

Proposition 89 Momentum

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

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

David Paul Brown for Prop 89

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.

California Teacher's Association and Proposition 89

Jean Rains, a teacher at Longwood Elementary School, has a great letter to the editor of the Oakland Tribune:

As a public school teacher and CTA member, I was deeply disappointed to read that a CTA spokesperson announced that CTA was opposing Prop. 89, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act.

I frankly do not believe that the CTA is failing to support the proposition because it is "poorly crafted." The CTA, like any other power player, doesn't want to take the chance that it would lose power if a fairer, more inclusive, less corrupting political system replaced our old pay-to-play system.

I'm a union member, and a union supporter. I'm on the phone with the rest of the teachers when we have to work against legislation that would be harmful to students and teachers. But by opposing Prop. 89, the CTA is jeopardizing an opportunity to bring some fairness into our political process.

The California League of Women Voters and the California Nurses Association support this proposition. Arizona and Maine have adopted Clean Money reforms, and since then Maine has been the first state to adopt a form of universal health care. Majorities of candidates in both states are now running as "clean" candidates, because the public does not want to vote for candidates who are obligated to big money donors. Clean Money reforms have already proven that they support a more equitable political process.

Today, in Arizona and Maine, more women, minorities, and working class people are running for office and winning.

We teachers cannot let the CTA make up our minds for us on this important issue. Go to http://www.CAclean.org to get informed and to see a 14-minute special report by Bill Moyers. And contact the CTA to ask them to rethink their decision. They could make or break it. Don't let them break it.

While some special interest bosses like the way Sacramento operates, the people (and our schools) keep losing. We need Proposition 89