What Big Money Buys In Sacramento

From Channel 89:

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

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?

$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.

Consumer Federation of California and Proposition 89

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.

ABC 7 on Proposition 89 and Channel 89

Mark Matthews of ABC 7 News has a story on Proposition 89.

Backers of campaign finance reform have come up with a way of promoting their cause that is both unique and oddly familiar. [...]

In 2004 we did a story investigating who would attend a $3,200 a plate breakfast with East Bay State Senator Don Perata. None of the lobbyists going to that breakfast wanted to tell me their names. Some even ran away when we tried to photograph them.

Well two years later, check out this Web video shot by the Yes on 89 campaign. It was shot last week outside a fundraiser for Assemblyman Rick Keene of Chico. He was charging $1,500 a head and serving donuts for breakfast. The woman from Proposition 89 is offering the lobbyists donuts for 89-cents.

In a similar stunt, the Yes on 89 campaigners also posed as reporters questioning the lobbyists as they ducked away.

Angela Mae, Ace Reporter!

Why we need Proposition 89

The biggest story about this year's Dash for Cash during the final days of the legislative session has been the new practice of "pledging" donations to dodge campaign finance disclosure. Proposition 89 would fix this loophole because politicians would be no longer beholden to big money special interests, so there would be no need to conceal donations until after the bills are voted on.

Despite the money hidden by pledging, the volume of contributions as lawmakers are voting on bills is staggering. The practice of "pledging" is to avoid stories like Dan Moran's must-read article in today's Los Angeles Times that examines situation in Sacramento:

Checks Roll In as Laws Flow Out
As legislators vote on hundreds of bills before their session ends, special interests affected by the measures donate thousands of dollars.

SACRAMENTO — Entertainment companies seeking a tax break, Staples Center owners hoping for a change in labor law, an ersatz Indian tribe angling for a casino: All are among the scores of donors writing checks to lawmakers in the final days of the legislative session.

As those lawmakers cast final votes on hundreds of bills, moneyed interests directly affected by them are contributing hundreds of thousands of dollars.

On Monday, the start of the final four days of the legislative session when 600 bills were awaiting action, interest groups donated at least $193,000, according to information filed with the secretary of state's office and posted on its website.

Insurance companies, rental car firms and major pharmaceutical makers were among the donors whose four-figure checks arrived Monday, as legislators were voting on bills that could mean millions in profits or losses in years to come.

"The whole thing has turned into an almost 24-7 crazy, obsessive system," said attorney Barry Broad, a longtime Capitol lobbyist for the Teamsters union. "All this money is corrosive. It is eating away at the credibility of democratic government."

It is unfortunate for our state that more and more people are reading these stories on the big money domination of our government and getting fed up to the point that they quit caring. That harms our democracy and only makes the special interests more powerful. One of the results in the states that have clean money is that it restores faith in democracy and increases citizen participation. If you look at the trend, you will see the critical need for passing Proposition 89, because things are getting worse every year:

On two days last week, legislative incumbents and candidates held a combined 33 fundraisers. On Aug. 16, legislators and candidates held no fewer than 25 fundraisers in the vicinity of the Capitol, according to invitations to the events compiled by the Capitol Morning Report newsletter.

Interest groups gave at least $3.5 million, in contributions of $1,000 or more, directly to candidates for Senate and Assembly seats in the first 29 days of August. State law generally caps individual donations to legislators at $3,300.

The last time lawmakers faced a general election as they wrapped up a session was August 2004, when they raised $3.2 million, according to the secretary of state's records. In August 2002, senators, assembly members and others running for legislative seats raised $2.1 million or more, according to the secretary of state's campaign finance records. [...]

Many veteran lobbyists and former legislators, speaking privately for fear of alienating sitting members, are convinced that legislators have become more brazen in their requests for money.

It is time to return government to the people, we need to pass Proposition 89!

Problems with Pledging

Brian Josepth in the Orange County Register brings up a good point:

Pledging muddles campaign finance picture
Legislators accept promises instead of cash, confounding watchdogs who want to know who is trying to influence bills as the session winds down.
SACRAMENTO - On paper, it looked like a total failure.

Orange County Assemblyman Chuck DeVore hosted a fundraiser Aug. 15 but the next day reported no new contributions to his campaign. That's not exactly raking in the cash.

But it actually wasn't a failure – the checks just hadn't arrived. DeVore, like many California lawmakers, is taking advantage of a new twist in the campaign finance world: accepting pledges from attendees. The money would come later.

Until then, it's impossible to know exactly who is financing DeVore. The state's campaign disclosure regulations only require candidates to report the day when a contribution is received, not the day when the promise is made.

The difference is important, campaign finance watchdogs say, because as the legislative session ends Thursday lawmakers are holding fundraisers to cash in on interest groups with bills to push.

This is another sickening example of why strict disclosure requirements simply are not enough. And this isn't an isolated incident:

It's unknown how widespread pledging is, but an Orange County Register review of campaign disclosure forms found 14 examples of sitting lawmakers who scheduled $1,000-a-ticket or more fundraisers this month but didn't report receiving any new contributions the next day. State law says that candidates this close to the Nov. 7 election have to report contributions of $1,000 or more to the secretary of state within 24 hours of receipt.

The Register found 35 cases where lawmakers reported at least one contribution on the day of a fundraiser or the day following, with the most being seven contributions the next day. Lawmakers who aren't running for election in November but hold fundraisers now aren't required to report contributions within 24 hours.

In all, sitting lawmakers scheduled more than 90 fundraisers this month, compared with about four in July, when the Legislature was on summer recess.

This new trick of evading accountability utterly destroys the argument that disclosure is the only safeguard necessary.

Political insiders say they can't pinpoint when the practice of pledging started, but watchdogs say it's a new phenomenon.

"This is the first time I've heard about it," said Bob Stern, former general counsel for the California Fair Political Practices Commission and author of the Political Reform Act of 1974. He said the practice undercuts the intent of the state's disclosure laws.

"It has opened the door for abuse," Stern said. "You no longer can figure out when the contributions are being made. It evades the date question." [...]

Robert Flanigan, an account manager for Capital Campaigns, which organized the DeVore event and events for President Bush, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Orange County Sheriff Mike Carona, said that "99 percent of the time" pledges are good.

The best way to describe pledging?

"It's like Enron accounting for politicians," said Doug Heller, executive director for the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights and a vocal critic of end-of-session fundraisers.

"That's a total evasion of the disclosure expectations we have of politicians. The reason we have disclosure is because we want to have confidence that politicians are not making decisions based on contributions."

To clean up pledging, pledge to support Proposition 89 by signing up for email updates.

Angela May Fundraiser Reporting

End of Session Lobbying

This is the time of year when Sacramento is chocked with fundraisers, which happen to occur at same time as lawmakers are deciding a ton of bills and lobbyists want to curry favor. The Sacramento Bee Editorial Board wants to know more:

Those of us on the Bee editorial board are disappointed we never get invited to the fundraisers lawmakers schedule while they are dealing with key legislation at the end of the session. In fact, we don't even know what we're missing.

So, lobbyists, help us out! Fax us or email us some of the invitations you have received recently -- and especially in the last couple of days. We’d like to experience the thrill, if only vicariously. Fax them to Stuart Leavenworth at (916) 321-1996 or sleavenworth@sacbee.com. Discretion is assured.

I hope the Bee has plenty of toner for their fax machine.