Mobilize for Prop 89 This Weekend!
Find a meeting or rally to join this Saturday or Sunday.
Join Your Local Phone Bank!
Join volunteers calling voters and asking them to vote Yes on Prop 89. Free food and likely voters are waiting for you!
Clean money activists are joining students, nurses and other community activists to clean up California this weekend!. So whether your bag is walking, talking, singing, standing, eating or sweeping, we have an action for you.
Mobilize for Prop 89 This Weekend!
Find a meeting or rally to join this Saturday or Sunday.
Join Your Local Phone Bank!
Join volunteers calling voters and asking them to vote Yes on Prop 89. Free food and likely voters are waiting for you!
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 Ventura County Star supports Proposition 89
The Star supports Proposition 89 because we believe it will help control out-of-control campaign fundraising, which taints the Legislature. It also allows more people to run for public office, as has been demonstrated in states such as Maine and Arizona, where similar measures were approved. Among its supporters is the League of Women Voters of California.
Star state bureau chief Timm Herdt captured the scene perfectly in an August article, "Lawmakers rake in end-of-session cash," which described state legislators working overtime raising campaign money just before the legislative season ended, at the time they were voting on hundreds of bills. Most fundraising events were breakfasts, lunches and dinners, attended by contributors with checks for $500, $1,000 or $3,000.
Raising money this way is a fact of life for politicians of all stripes, but it takes away valuable time from legislating and certainly creates the perception that lawmakers are beholden to big donors.
It is a perception, if not a fact, that Proposition 89 would address by changing the way political campaigns for state candidates and state ballots only are funded. [...]
Proposition 89 is needed to end what amounts to legalized bribery in Sacramento. The Star encourages a yes vote.
Imagine a world in which politicians didn't have to sweet talk special-interest groups in order to raise money to get elected, in which the support of a waitress would be just as valuable as the support of a CEO or a union president, in which a truck driver would have as good an opportunity to run for political office as a lawyer.
Imagine also a world in which the arrival of campaign season didn't mean that it was time for wave after wave of incessant, insulting and cynical television commercials about ballot propositions, paid for with tens of millions of dollars in big-business contributions.
This is the world envisioned by supporters of Proposition 89, the initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot designed to fundamentally change the way political campaigns are conducted in California.
It proposes to change races for public office by creating a pot of tax money that candidates for state office could tap into if they agreed to reject private campaign contributions, and it proposes to end the ballot proposition wars as we know them by limiting to $10,000 the amount that any corporation could give to an initiative campaign.
Supporters call their plan a cure for corruption.
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."
| 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'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).
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.
Timm Herdt has a great article in today's Ventura County Star:
Imagine a world in which politicians didn't have to sweet talk special-interest groups in order to raise money to get elected, in which the support of a waitress would be just as valuable as the support of a CEO or a union president, in which a truck driver would have as good an opportunity to run for political office as a lawyer.
Imagine also a world in which the arrival of campaign season didn't mean that it was time for wave after wave of incessant, insulting and cynical television commercials about ballot propositions, paid for with tens of millions of dollars in big-business contributions.
This is the world envisioned by supporters of Proposition 89, the initiative on the Nov. 7 ballot designed to fundamentally change the way political campaigns are conducted in California.
It proposes to change races for public office by creating a pot of tax money that candidates for state office could tap into if they agreed to reject private campaign contributions, and it proposes to end the ballot proposition wars as we know them by limiting to $10,000 the amount that any corporation could give to an initiative campaign.
Supporters call their plan a cure for corruption.
The run-up to this year's midterm election smells of scandal and corruption, which raises the question: Can anyone stop the influence of big money and big influence on political campaigns?
Before, you say "of course not," check out our special hour-long investigation into the fight to keep American elections free and fair across the country. Airing less than three weeks before Americans go to the polls, "Votes for Sale?" will spotlight the so-called clean elections movement, a radical public-funding experiment adopted in Maine and Arizona to revolutionize how campaigns are conducted. It works like this: candidates for public office receive a flat sum of money from the government to finance their campaign. In return, the candidates agree to use almost no private funds to run their elections.
Pushing special interest money out of the election process may do more than clean things up. It could also open the door for a variety of people who care about democracy to run for office with realistic hopes of winning. Case in point: Arizona State Representative Doug Quelland, a conservative Republican who supports clean elections by his own example. With a background in public school teaching and running a handful of neighborhood businesses, including a lawnmower repair shop, Quelland captured voter interest door-to-door armed only with his passion and point of view. He's now running for his third term in the state legislature and still sports his trademark handlebar moustache. "I don't want to owe anybody anything. I don't want to have to have the special interests. I just want to do it and not beholden to anybody," Rep. Quelland told NOW.
Quelland's state of Arizona is one of the biggest clean election battlegrounds, where the nation's only "clean-elected" governor, Janet Napolitano, sits in the statehouse. Governor Napolitano talks to NOW's David Brancaccio about her strong convictions regarding clean elections. "I think what Clean Elections allows you to do is be a better candidate and a better office holder, because you're not all the time having to raise money," Napolitano said.
In California, a very contentious debate is underway over Proposition 89, a clean election initiative about which voters will have the final say on November 7.
One of the most influential elected leaders in California, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, has endorsed Proposition 89, the initiative to stem political corruption and create a level playing field for California elections, Prop. 89 proponents announced today.
"At a time when far too many Californians are disenchanted with our political system, passage of Prop. 89 will be a big step forward in getting more people involved in our political system and restoring public faith in our democracy," said Villaraigosa.
"Prop. 89 will broaden the playing field and allow Californians from all walks of life to run for office and help solve problems affecting all Californians -- from improving our schools to protecting our environment to assuring access to quality healthcare for all," said Villaraigosa.
"We are especially proud to add the support of Mayor Villaraogisa to the more than 300 good government and community organizations and forward thinking political leaders who are committed to transforming politics in California," said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association, the sponsor of the initiative.
Villaraigosa's endorsement also comes amidst growing support for Prop.
89 among Latino political organizations and leaders, including the Mexican
American Political Association, Latino National Congreso, United Farm
Workers co-founder Dolores Huerta, State Sen. Richard Alarcon, and Assembly
members Ed Chavez, Cindy Montanez, and Pedro Nava.
Steven Harmon in the San Jose Mercury News:
A 30-second spot for the ``Clean Money'' Proposition 89 campaign is apparently catching fire in the so-called political echo chamber: the network of alternative, underground, and electronic messaging that drives younger voters to the polls.
The ad, which hit TV markets around the state this week, is the No. 1 political ad on YouTube, where it's been viewed 16,000 times in less than 48 hours, supporters said. That's 10 times more than the Proposition 87 ad featuring former President Clinton.
And it's gone even more viral since its debut. It's being featured on one of the most popular political Web sites in the country: Crooks & Liars.
The clever imagery of the ad -- a giant piston, representing corporate-financed ads squashing people -- tries to drive home the message that political ads are pounding people into submission. Proposition 89, the ad says, will put a stop to them by limiting contributions and publicly financed campaigns. Supporters hope it will awaken the apathetic voter; polls show the proposition trailing significantly.
``I don't know if we'll pull this off,'' said Bill Hillsman, who created the ad and is the media consultant for Connecticut senatorial candidate Ned Lamont's insurgent campaign against Sen. Joe Lieberman, ``but if the spot goes out enough, people will say this is how I feel, and if for no other reason but this, I'll go out and vote.''
Joe Trippi, the San Jose State University graduate who helped revolutionize the convergence of politics and the Internet as former presidential candidate Howard Dean's campaign manager in 2004, said the ad ``really captures'' the mood of the voter.
``It's the perfect spot,'' said Trippi, a consultant to the Proposition 89 campaign. ``It helps create the echo chamber between the Internet and TV that it will need to make that big move. This is getting moved around pretty virally right now.''
The most important spanish language newspaper in America:
Sí a la 89
California tuvo, en las primarias de junio, una cifra récord de abstencionismo electoral. Una de las razones es el desencanto de los votantes con el sistema político y el dominio del dinero en las campañas políticas.
La Proposición 89 contiene una serie de reformas a las leyes de financiación de campañas y, en general, reduciría la cantidad de fondos de intereses especiales que fluye en cada elección estatal.
La medida establecería un sistema de financiación público de campañas, pagado por un impuesto a las corporaciones, que aseguraría fondos a candidatos legítimos que cumplan con ciertos requisitos. Aceptarlo es opcional, pero los candidatos que no lo hagan tendrán límites estrictos de recolección de fondos.
La proposición también limita el dinero que una corporación puede desembolsar para financiar u oponerse a una iniciativa electoral. Podrían continuar donando a través de comités que reciban contribuciones individuales, pero se eliminarían los donativos millonarios que salen de los tesoros de compañías.
Medidas similiares han comenzado a tranformar el sistema en siete estados. La 89 es una reforma indispensable si se quiere dar algo de confianza a un sistema electoral en el que el dinero parece más importante que el voto.
Vote sí en la Proposición 89!
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.
1)
Strict contribution and expenditure limits
