The Times recommends a yes vote on Proposition 15

 Proposition 15's idea to levy a fee on lobbyists to fund political campaigns is worth a try.

EDITORIAL

Los Angeles Times, April 22nd, 2010

Candidates for office have to raise so much campaign money that they become beholden to the big-spending interests that fund them rather than to the voters who elect them. But there's an alternative. In concept, at least, candidates who are instead fully financed by the public and elected by the public have undivided loyalty to the public. The problem with that system is that no state or local government that offers public financing may prevent candidates from choosing to raise and spend money the old-fashioned way, because the 1st Amendment guarantees their right to do so. So the solution - again, in concept - is a voluntary program in which each candidate chooses whether to be funded publicly or privately.

That leaves one last problem: Where does the public come up with all that money to pay for campaigns when it can't find enough now for schools, roads, human services and other necessary programs? One possible source is a special fee on some particular group. The Times initially opposed the legislation that became this year's Proposition 15, which would raise fees on lobbyists to pay for a limited public financing program, because there is no clear nexus between the lobbying profession and elections.

But it's worth noting that the initiative would try public financing only for two election cycles, and only for one office - the relatively low-key secretary of state. The proposed $350 lobbying fee is not unreasonably high, and besides, many (but by no means all) of the people who lobby elected officials are financed by the same people who made the big-money contributions to the candidates. Notwithstanding The Times' earlier reservations, we find that our concern about politicians' financial fealty to big-moneyed interests outweighs our worry over singling out lobbyists. The Times recommends a yes vote on Proposition 15.

The ballot measure has another key provision that also weighs in favor of a yes vote: It would lift an earlier ban on public financing. Even if the pilot program lapses without being renewed, or even if the lobbyist fee provision is struck down in court - as lobbyists for the lobbyists insist it will - city and county governments would still be able to experiment with their own public financing programs. Such local experimentation is a good thing, even if it doesn't ultimately lead to broader statewide programs. The Legislature too would be free to try additional statewide programs if it could muster the two-thirds vote needed to fund them.

Importantly, Proposition 15 gives candidates no entitlement to public money, so if the lobbyist fee doesn't generate enough, there is no automatic recourse to general taxpayer money without additional authorization. The program is limited in all the right places.

We're by no means sure that public financing is the solution to the troubling - and growing - problem of money in politics. It will certainly be hard for publicly financed candidates to compete against deep-pocketed candidates who opt out of the system. But it's worth a try.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-prop15-20100422,0,6881064.story

Campaign reform: Vote yes on Prop. 15

EDITORIAL

Bakersfield Californian, April 25th, 2010

Americans aren't unanimous on much, but they come close on this issue: the deleterious effect of big money on politics and good governance. The latest evidence is a new Quinnipiac poll that finds 79 percent of those surveyed disapprove of January's Supreme Court campaign finance ruling giving corporations, nonprofits and labor unions the all-clear to spend unlimited amounts on individual campaign ads and advocacy.

Why the resounding chorus of public objection to the Court's 5-4 ruling? Because Americans acknowledge that big money buys influence, no matter what politicians might tell us.

In the laudable quest to put individual voters back in the driver's seat, many reformers have championed the merits of public campaign financing. But, given its challenges, is public financing truly a workable solution? One way to find out.

Proposition 15, the June ballot initiative that would reverse the state constitutional ban on public financing of campaigns, takes a unique approach that would allow voters to have a taste before they commit themselves to anything bigger.

Proposition 15 would authorize public financing of just one statewide race, secretary of state, and only for two election cycles, 2014 and 2018. Registered lobbyists would pay most of the financing bill with a $350-per-year fee. If those two campaigns play out well, the Legislature could expand public financing into other races. But we'll at least have some hard evidence of public financing's workability and its effect on the ballot.

We've all seen the consequences of the existing system. Legislators are engaged in perpetual campaigns, with the perpetual attendant pursuit of money. Candidates spend so much time chasing donations, they can't devote sufficient time to ordinary constituents. And as political watchdog groups note with regularity, the correlation between campaign donations and the votes of individual legislators benefiting those benefactors is solid. Vote-buying is an American institution.

As it stands, the constitutional ban on publicly financed campaigns doesn't merely block the practice in gubernatorial and legislative races, it prevents municipalities from exploring the option on a smaller scale. As such, the statewide ban on public financing is a limit on local control. Remove the ban, and cities and counties have the freedom, should they choose to exercise it, to diminish the influence of special-interest money within their boundaries. Kern County voters, having passed Measure K in 2002, have already expressed such concerns.

The Proposition 15 pilot project would work like this: Candidates would be compelled to demonstrate broad support by gathering 7,500 $5 contributions. That would make them eligible for at least $1 million for the primary and $1.3 million for the general election. They could get as much as $4 million for the primary and $5.2 million for the general to match a candidate who declines public financing, or for responses to the attacks of independent groups.

The Legislature would need to come up with other sources of revenue should public financing be expanded to include other races. Sacramento can't simply impose new taxes or write funding into the budget without a two-thirds vote. But the 14 states that provide direct public financing to candidates have figured out ways to pay for it. (Another 10 states, as well as several U.S. cities, have some sort of limited public funding of campaigns.)

Proposition 15 frees up state and local governments to explore public funding of campaigns, and it authorizes a test case so we can see how it works. Big money has played an outsized role in politics (and, as a result, governance) for too long. Public financing may or may not be a real or complete solution, but we'll never know unless we give it a try. Proposition 15 provides that opportunity. It's worth your "yes" vote.

http://www.bakersfield.com/opinion/editorials/x735123861/Campaign-reform-Vote-yes-on-Prop-15

Prop. 15 is worthy test of 'clean money'

EDITORIAL

San Francisco Chronicle, April 24th, 2010

Proposition 15 would establish a pilot program for public financing of campaigns for secretary of state, but its more significant long-term impact might be the lifting of a 1988 voter-approved prohibition on public financing of local or state elections.

"That," said Bob Stern, director of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, a supporter of Prop. 15, "is the most important part of the initiative."

As Stern noted, the measure would allow all cities and counties to decide for themselves whether they wanted to install the type of public financing that heretofore has been limited to charter cities such as San Francisco, Oakland and Sacramento. State legislators also could vote to extend public financing to other state offices.

"We think that's the most important reason to vote no," said Richard Wiebe of the No on 14 campaign. He contends the "voters have spoken up loud and clear on this issue" when they defeated Proposition 89, promoted by the California Nurses Association in 2006.

However, there were concerns specific to Prop. 89 - such as its attempt to tilt the playing field toward unions and against corporations on ballot measures - that do not exist in Prop. 15. The 2006 measure was a head-first and ideologically tilted dive into public financing; this latest initiative merely sanctions a test of public financing, with the possibility of expansion later.

The beauty of Proposition 15 is that it targets an office that should be well insulated from fundraising dependence on parties and interest groups. Californians have seen what can go wrong when the secretary of state is not an honest broker. Democrat Kevin Shelley resigned in 2005 amid allegations of questionable campaign contributions and his workplace conduct.

Proposition 15 would set up a system in which major-party candidates who could collect 7,500 contributions of $5 or more could qualify for public financing of their primary campaigns. The plan is modeled after voluntary "clean money" systems in other states that have found that candidates spend less time dialing for dollars and more time talking with the people they hope to represent. It was put on the ballot through a 2008 bill authored by Loni Hancock, a state senator from Berkeley who championed the clean-money cause during her Assembly tenure.

It's a worthy experiment. Our only quibble is that it wasn't initiated with the insurance commissioner's office, which is peculiarly vulnerable to appearance of conflict when the parties directly regulated by the office (insurance companies) openly bankroll a candidate for office. One such industry stooge, Republican Chuck Quackenbush, resigned in disgrace in 2000.

Funding for the pilot project for the secretary of state campaigns would be drawn from an increase on the fee of Capitol lobbyists to $700 every two years. Opponents warn that the fee could be unconstitutional - and, if it is invalidated, would require a tapping of the general fund, thus putting a strain on dollars otherwise spent on law enforcement, social services and other government priorities. However, even in that worst-case scenario, the several million dollars spent on a secretary of state campaign would be a tiny fraction of the California budget.

We recommend passage of Prop. 15.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/04/24/EDG71D178P.DTL