California Democrats Pass Open-Campaign Bills

The California Legislature passed two bills this week designed to promote campaign transparency.  The bills have passed both houses and will now go to Governor Brown's desk, where he is expected to sign them into law.  Both are welcome, particularly considering what is happening on the federal level.  As usual when it comes to open campaign legislation, Democrats sponsored and voted for open processes while Republicans voted to keep pertinent information from the electorate.

Assemblyman Paul Fong of Cupertino introduced Assembly Bill 400.  It requires any initiative, referendum and recall petitions being circulated among the voters for signatures "to clearly state the top five donors who contributed more than $10,000 to fund the campaign."  The final version passed Thursday by a vote of 53-24, with 24 Republicans in opposition.  One of voters' best tools for sniffing out whose special interest is being served by prospective initiatives is if they know who is paying for them.  That's the main reason two recent self-serving insurance initiatives sponsored by Mercury Insurance have gone down to defeat.  People are savvy enough to be suspicious when an insurance company wants to directly write legislation, claiming it is only in the general public interest.  It's understandable why such interests and the politicians whose campaigns they fund would not want this information public.  But that's about to become a bit harder for them now, at least in California.  Thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010, most federal backing from "independent groups" will still be able to be concealed form the public.     

Assemblyman Tom Amiano of San Francisco sponsored AB 510.  It mandates campaign commercials "to disclose when paid actors appear in ads as doctors, teachers or other professionals."  The assembly passed this bill 54-17, again with only Republicans voting to keep the electorate in the dark.  It's certainly an advantage to have authoritative and official looking people to pitch your candidate or issue to the voters on television, implying that a respected and trusted institution favors you.  But if if they are just actors playing that role, from now on that will have to be announced.      

    

Retired Justice Stevens: Constitution Needs Amending

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has written a book: Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.  The nation's third-longest serving Justice, Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975 and retired in 2010 after over 34 years on the nation's highest court.  On April 30 he appeared and submitted testimony to the Senate Rules and Administration committee on his proposed amendments.  Though none are likely to pass in the near future, owing to the politics involved, all are excellent ideas for shoring up a democracy badly in need of some common sense help.  Maybe in the long run his wisdom will triumph.  Here they are.  My comments follow. 

1. The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
2. Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.
3. Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.
4. Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.
5. Death Penalty- (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.
6. The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

Amendment 1 clarifies the "supremacy clause," declaring that federal law supersedes state and local laws.  "State's rights" advocates, apparently still not reconciled to the outcome of the Civil War, will never stop until it is spelled out this obviously.
Amendment 2 is badly needed so that the actual composition of the voting population of a state will most often determine who is elected, rather than political tampering with district boundaries for partisan gain.
Amendment 3 is, in my view, the most badly needed of all.  If something like this isn't put in place we are well on our way to becoming a plutocracy.                                                                               Amendment 4 backs up his first suggestion, in case anyone didn't get the message.
Amendment 5 is a provision whose time has come.  In 1976, new to the High Court, Stevens voted to sustain the death penalty.  He has since evolved on the issue.  This barbaric practice must go.   Why? Two wrongs don't make a right, it's impossible to rectify a mistaken conviction, and once a person is in state custody and no threat, to kill him/her is simply murder.
Amendment 6 restores the original intent of the Second Amendment.  Good luck getting this passed anytime soon, though. 

California Disclose Act, SB 52

There's good news for the cause of cleaner, more transparent politics in California.  The State Senate just passed the Disclose Act, Senate Bill (SB) 52.  Now it goes to the Assembly for its consideration.  I urge everyone reading to communicate your support for this positive legislation to your State Assembly representative.  

The Disclose Act would require what its name implies, that the real backers of campaign advertising reveal who they are.  The disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision of 2010 has opened up the political process to unlimited and secret corporate and other spending on campaigns.  In the absence of laws making specific requirements, voters may have no idea of who is trying to influence elections and the political process for their own special interests.  Last year $475 million was spent in the state on advertising for ballot propositions alone, most of it unrevealed or under the misleading guise of euphemistic-sounding committee names. 

The Disclose Act mandates that political ads in California have to prominently identify the top three contributors, and do so on the ads themselves.  "Follow the money" requirements would make it illegal to hide the real funder or funders behind innocuous sounding front groups like "Citizens for a Wonderful Future," and would force disclosure of the original sources.  There would be no more shell games.  It applies to all types of political advertising, whether television, radio, print or web-based.    

SB 52 was introduced by Senators Mark Leno and Jerry Hill. and is sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign.  Go to their website here.  You can sign the petition urging support here.  After passing the Senate by an overwhelming 28-11 vote, it now goes to the 80-member Assembly.  The Disclose Act is endorsed by a host of bipartisan and nonpartisan groups such as the League of Women Voters.  To find your State Assembly representative to let them know of your support, click here.

Yes on Proposition 25

The most important election race in California this November is not the hotly contested contest for Governor between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman. No, it isn't Carly Fiorina's attempt to unseat U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer, either. In fact, it doesn't even concern a candidate. Instead, it's Proposition 25. If you want to end the state's recent budget pattern of deficit and delay, vote yes.

The passage of 25 will do more to resolve the state's now-chronic budget woes than the victory of any candidate possibly can. Residents of the Golden State will remember that former Governor Gray Davis was recalled in favor of Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2003. One of Arnold's popular tag lines was that he would "fix the crazy budget in Sacramento." Davis faced a $6 billion debt his last year. At this the Governator has failed miserably. Every budget has been late, most of them out of balance by over $20 billion. A current budget is already a month late with no resolution in sight, and faces a $19 billion shortfall between revenues and expenditures.

The sad fact is that it isn't really Schwarzenegger's fault. It's the state's budget process. Specifically, it's because California is one of only three states to require a two-thirds vote to pass its budget. The other two are Rhode Island and Nebraska. This doesn't cause a problem in the Rhode Island legislature because that state is so overwhelmingly Democratic. In the General Assembly there are 69 Democrats and only 6 Republicans. In the State Senate they dominate 33 to 4 with 1 independent. It doesn't cause a problem in Nebraska's unicameral legislature because that state is so decisively Republican.

In California the Democrats are in the heavy majority but they don't have two-thirds. This allows 14 Republicans to block action in the 40-seat Senate and 27 to do so in the 80-member Assembly. The result is constant gridlock. When a deal is finally worked out, long after IOU's have been issued and money has been borrowed at interest, the Republican price is usually new tax reductions for business that ensures the next year's revenue will be short even more. No one is accountable. It's not a Democratic budget or a Republican one. The Republicans say the budget is a mess because the Democrats spent too much. The Democrats say it is a mess because the Republicans slashed revenue too much.

If Proposition 25 passes that will change. The Democrats will be able to pass their budget. They will pass it easily and on time. It will be the will of the solid majority. If it works they can claim all the credit. If it doesn't the Republicans will be able to assign them all the blame. The voters will have a clear record and choice upon which to base their votes for the next election, not a muddled situation in which each side can justifiably point fingers at the other. It's time to end the gridlock, restore majority rule (also known as democracy) and establish accountability. Vote yes on Prop 25 this November.