Tweet
Brian Leubitz of Calitics, a member of the state resolutions committee, reports:
On the Props, the resolutions committee went the right way on all the props, and we’ll approve them. They supported Prop 15, the fair elections initiative, and Prop 13, a measure that would change the way seismic retrofits are taxed. They opposed Prop 14 (“open” primaries), Prop 16 (PG&E Power Grab), and Prop 17 (Mercury Insurance power grab).
It’s significant that the party endorsed the Fair Elections Act, Prop. 15. Back in 2006, the state party failed to endorse Prop. 89, a more wide-ranging public financing initiative which eventually got trounced at the polls. This particular measure would set up a pilot program on clean money for the Secretary of State’s race starting in 2014, but it would also remove a state law that opens it up for local elections to experiment with clean money. So Prop. 15 is well worth supporting, and the state party did not stand in the way. State parties sometimes prefer the accumulated power that comes with money in politics, but the California Democratic Party stood against special interests today.
Most of the state editorials on Prop. 15 have been positive, and the Democratic Party endorsement could egg it on to victory. The fact that the bigger primaries are on the Republican side in June may make it difficult, however.
Jim Dean, the chair of Democracy for America, expressed excitement about Prop. 15 and the implications for the future. “This gets California back to being in the vanguard of the country, and to spur something that could go to other states.” Currently, Maine, Arizona and Connecticut, along with several other states, have some form of public financing, but repealing the ban on public financing in California would be a major step. “I talk to big donors all the time,” Dean said, “telling them ‘How would you like to spend $25 and max out to candidates?’”
It’s also positive that the CDP rejected the two corporate-funded measures on the ballot, Props. 16 (PG&E, which has to date dumped $34 million into the race) and Prop. 17 (Mercury Insurance). There was some thought that the CDP wouldn’t want to bite the hands of potential funders, but that didn’t materialize. Prop. 14, the open primary initiative, is one of those “reforms” that is advertised as a major step forward but in reality would do almost nothing it promises. Open primaries in Louisiana, for example, have done absolutely nothing to “moderate” politicians. Prop. 13 is a technical fix and opponents didn’t even put a statement on the ballot packet.
UPDATE: Just a note, the regulate and tax cannabis initiative will not be on the June ballot, but on the general election ballot in November, and so the endorsement will not get decided at this convention. John Burton, the party chair, did say over the weekend that the tax cannabis initiative would be a potential key to youth turnout.
UPDATE II: Robert Cruickshank has a really good piece playing off of this. I’ll have more thoughts later.
6 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Dear David,
First: You’ve got a tough job here. You’re obviously a dedicated Democrat trying to communicate such dedication to the FDL community. Please know, I acknowledge and wish to accord you the respect you deserve.
Second: When I post here I would ask you not to take it personally (though I know that’s easier said than done – have been there myself)!
Third: I write the preceding because, if you haven’t already surmised, there are a bunch of folk hangin’ around here who have either already left the party (me!) or who are on the verge of doing so. Which results in some tension, no question. Translate: I note you’re already getting some pretty significant push-back from posters on your other diaries. And what I wish to communicate about that: I hope you understand that some of us have reached a point where we can no longer continue to parrot the party line just so that the party stays afloat. Bottom line: It’s not about the party any longer.
It’s about principles. And values.
Yet I wish to extend my respect to you. Just openly acknowledge…I am not on the same page.
Case in point: When you write,
“This particular measure would set up a pilot program on clean money for the Secretary of State’s race starting in 2014, but it would also remove a state law that opens it up for local elections to experiment with clean money…”
…and tout it as some giant leap forward for campaign finance reform, hafta be honest: I sit back and shake my head. Let’s see: California waits FOUR YEARS before EXPERIMENTING with ONE statewide office while simultaneously VOIDING a CURRENT LAW that has already put in place a CLEAN MONEY PROCEDURE for local elections…
…and your headline is “Democratic Party Will Endorse Clean Money”?
With due respect: Some of us have reached a point where we can no longer sit by quietly and play these kinds of games any longer.
We are wanting truth. Integrity. And absolutely NO sleight-of-hand moves any longer. And quite clearly, the “clean money” ruse you’ve just described…fits none of the above.
Handshake to you, sir.
I appreciate the respect and will try to accord the same. But I think you’re minimizing the importance of allowing localities and municipalities to use public financing. That’s a pretty big deal; furthermore, it reverses a 1988 law passed by voters when then-Democratic Speaker of the Assembly Willie Brown put a competing measure to clean money on the ballot. Progressives have worked 22 years to reverse that ban, and they’re on the verge of it, with Democratic support, the same party that destroyed the promise of clean money two decades earlier. I’m just not going to minimize that. Clean money advocates only have to go to the ballot for this because the voters put that ban in place back in ’88. From this point forward, they can simply authorize more clean money races through the legislature. Another major victory. Progress is slow but serious.
And with respect, anyone trying to call me some kind of shill for state and national Democratic parties just hasn’t paid attention to what I’ve written over the past 6 years.
Please provide the link where you quote David as saying “This particular measure would set up a pilot program on clean money for the Secretary of State’s race starting in 2014, but it would also remove a state law that opens it up for local elections to experiment with clean money…” ; I’ve read thru the initiative and can find no such ‘removal of State law that opens it up for local elections,etc.’.
Here’s the best explanation, and it’s true – Prop. 15 really would repeal a state law passed by the voters in the late 1980s that banned public financing in the state. That’s why it has to go to the ballot in the first place.
Thanks David; futureisnow comment “while simultaneously VOIDING a CURRENT LAW that has already put in place a CLEAN MONEY PROCEDURE for local elections…” had me concerned.
As Cruikshank says “Prop 15 also removes a 20-year old restriction on local governments adopting clean money, and makes it easier to expand the system in the future by not requiring a follow-up vote to create public financing for other statewide races.” AND
“If Prop 15 passes, local governments will be able to create their own publicly funded elections systems, though they’ll have to also create the funding source. The state legislature could also expand public funding to other statewide offices as well, including governor, but they too would have to create a new funding source.”
If local governments already have ‘funidng sources’ in place for ‘clean money’ elections, they ‘SHOULD’ have no issues with setting up new funding sources.
What REALLY NEEDS to occur is the legislature addressing the outrageous costs associated with obtaining documents regarding elections and the costing associated with recounts. THEN you might see more citizen involvement.
Also, the state party platform committee officially has a plank supporting public financing of elections. And this is relatively new.