They Did What !

Proposition 89 may not be perfect but it is a much needed start. This proposition:

Provides that candidates for state elective office meeting certain eligibility requirements, including collection of a specified number of $5.00 contributions from voters, may voluntarily receive public campaign funding from Fair Political Practices Commission, in amounts varying by elective office and election type.

Increases income tax rate on corporations and financial institutions by 0.2 percent to fund program.

Imposes new limits on campaign contributions to state-office candidates and campaign committees, and new restrictions on contributions by lobbyists, state contractors.

Limits certain contributions and expenditures by corporations.

WHO WILL BENEFIT IF PROPOSITION 89 IS DEFEATED?

DRUG COMPANIES have contributed $2 million to Democrats and Republicans in California in the last 2 years. They fought to dilute the prescription drug discount bill and to constrain the law when it goes into effect this January. It will be up to the discretion of the next governor to exercise the provision in the law that would eliminate from the program any drug company that doesn’t offer meaningful discounts. Industry attempts to stop the law will leave the “fight or fold� decision up to the governor. Both Angelides ($30,000) and Schwarzenegger ($1 million) have received a lot of money from the industry. Makes me wonder how hard they will fight for the law. Proposition 89 would stop big money from influencing the political process.

INSURANCE COMPANIES have contributed half of the dollars against Prop 89 to date. The insurance industry sees the anti-89 contributions as insurance against any change in the status quo in Sacramento. (www.latimes.com) Doesn't say much for our current legislature! Blue Cross contributed $95,000 to the campaign against Proposition 89 according to campaign finance report filings. Blue Cross was fined in California for illegally canceling a woman's policy because she did not disclose corrective surgery she had 23 years earlier and reform to stop such denials is in the works. Proposition 89 would stop insurance companies from using their cash in elections to stave off reform.

FINANCIAL SERVICES INDUSTRY as a whole has given $12.2 million to Schwarzenegger since 2003, second only to real estate and development companies. The industry also contributes freely to the Legislature. What has been the result of these contributions? Maybe they were a factor in the death this year of a bill to protect financially stressed active-duty military families from the so-called "payday lenders." The industry pressed for amendments that gutted the bill and blocked a 36% annual interest cap on such loans to military members. Possibly they have something to do with the lack of consequences when credit card companies fail to protect customers' data. Could be those contributions are the reason we have to take the time to “opt out� instead of being asked for permission to share our names and financial data - an issue that has been killed more than once by lobbyists. (www.arnoldwatch.org) Proposition 89 would end industry's ability to decide which laws are passed and which are not.

AT&T wrote a bill that Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez sponsored. This bill does away with local cable franchises and establishes state-wide cable and video franchises. The new franchises are devoid of consumer protections. AT&T spent more than $18 million lobbying for the telecom deregulation bill. It also pre-thanked Nunez in May, as the bill was pending in the Assembly, by sponsoring a Pebble Beach golf tournament/fund-raiser that brought in $1.7 million in contributions, under Nunez' name, for the Democratic Party. On the Republican side, Governor Schwarzenegger received $284,940 from AT&T, SBC and Verizon -- the main beneficiaries of the bill. The California Cable and Telecommunications PAC contributed $54,600 to Schwarzenegger. (www.watchdog.org) Proposition 89 takes away special interest control over Sacramento, and eliminates this kind of anti-consumer legislation.

This is just a small representative sample of special interests at work in our government. With this and everything else I read, a YES vote on Proposition 89 makes sense to me. However, if, after all this, you still believe the repeated claims by elected officials that their votes are not influenced by contributions, then you should vote No.

After that, give me a call, I have a bridge you might be interested in.