More on campaign financing
A reader forwarded the following response to my question about Prop. 89 - clean campaign measure on the ballot - from Gail Jonas, a Healdsburg attorney and clean campaign activist.
What I said: The editor's comment: I have tried to decode to campaign finance reform measure on the state ballot - Prop 89. The only thing that has me worried is that it limits corporate spending but not union spending. I am told that I may be misreading it. What's confusing is that while I'm told the teachers' unions are against it because thety believe it limits them too, the nurses union helped write it. Does anyone know what the facts are about union giving?
Gail's response: I have immersed myself in Prop. 89, and it's not easy to get a handle on it. Corporations are limited to $10,000 donations from their corporate treasuries to ballot measures, but can still, like unions, give to PAC's which are all treated the same regarding donations to ballot measures. If a union is a legitimate non-profit corporation, it is exempt from the $10,000 restriction, so I have to agree with the editor that unions and corporations are not treated the same.
The CTA apparently misunderstands Prop. 89, at least based on the speakers that showed up at the progressive voters gathering in Santa Rosa last night. The CTA website refers people who want to know about its position on Prop. 89 to another website, Californians To Stop Prop. 89, that shows that its sponsors includes Chevron.
No state imposes limits on ballot measures. California is attempting to break new ground here. I understand why: we frequently use the initiative process to make an end run around the legislature. It may well be susceptible to a legal challenge. However, if candidates who are accountable to the voters are elected using clean money, perhaps we wouldn't need too many initiatives. Some states don't even have them.
Corporations, unions, and individuals, are all treated the same regarding donations to candidates who do not elect public funding: $500 per election cycle to individual legislative candidates, $1,000 for statewide offices, and $1,000 to independent expenditure committees.
I believe the CNA imposed limits on corporate donations to ballot measures because it is corporations who have donated inordinately huge amounts of money to oppose or promote ballot measures. So far the insurance industry has donated $1.4M to fight Prop. 89. The CNA has stated that it took on campaign finance reform because it wants to get a single payor health insurance bill in place in California. The Gov. recently vetoed the last one, undoubtedly grateful for the $4.4M contributed by the insurance sector directly to him since he came to office.
I have notes, which unfortunately I can't attribute to a source at the moment, that in California in 2005, pharma contributed $152M to support its position on candidates/ballot measures, and unions contributed $90M for all issues and candidates.
My take on why some organizations, like the Democratic State Committee, which is neutral, and the CTA, which opposes the bill, is that these organizations want to be treated like special interests and be excluded from any restraints on their giving. They fail to realize that corporate contributions and influence outweigh their ability to impact election results. If you go to www.followthemoney.org and go the link to California, it gives the stats on campaign contributions, including the 20 top contributors to candidates in 2004 and so far in 2006. In 2004, the top contributor was the California Democratic Party for a total of $11,400,000, followed by the California Republican Party, which contributed $6,065,000. The CTA donated $723,100, so you can see how outgunned it is by the parties.
In 2004, the top ten industries in descending order: Party Committees: $24,200,000; candidate self-finance: $9M (rounding off);lawyers and lobbyists:$7M; public sector unions: $6M; real estate: $6M, and so on (you can go to the website if you're interested).
While I think that Prop. 89 is complicated and certain provisions may be flawed (there's a severability provision), it is an effort to enact comprehensive campaign finance reform to get the influence of money out of politics. In the hue and cry against Prop. 89, the fact that it sets up a program of public funding for candidates almost gets lost.
On another topic, for those of you who did not get a chance to attend Norm Vroman's wake Saturday, a video of it will air at 3:30 p.m. and again at 6:30 p.m. Wednesday on local cable channel 56.