No on Proposition 89 Ad

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

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.

Conflict of Interest

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.

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.

We have them on the run

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.

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

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

Big Oil Throws Down Against Proposition 89

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.

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

"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

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!

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?

$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.

Question of the Day

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

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

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