Posts Tagged ‘NewsStory’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Figuring Out the June 8 Ballot Propositions

June 3rd, 2010

By Claudia Elliott, THE PORTERVILLE RECORDER (California)

Five propositions appear on the statewide ballot for the June 8 election — with voting by mail already taking place. Of these, three were put on the ballot by the state legislature and two by the petition process, meaning that sufficient signatures were collected to put the question to the voters.

Proposition 13

Proposition 13 may sound familiar because of the famous first Proposition 13, passed in 1978, which limited property taxation in California. This latest Proposition 13, actually is also related to property tax because it seeks to allow owners of older brick buildings to make seismic upgrades without triggering a reassessment that results in higher property taxes. The benefit is similar to one extended to owners of newer buildings. State Senator Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield, was the primary sponsor of this proposed constitutional amendment; it passed through the state legislature and senate without any “no” votes and there is no formal ballot argument against it. However, the California Nurses Association is among publicly-announced opposition which also includes the Green Party of Alameda County. The Green Party’s opposition reportedly stems from a suspicion of Ashburn related to him voting against gay rights measures and then admitting to being gay after being arrested for a DUI. According to the Secretary of State’s office, Proposition 13 would result in a minor reduction in local property tax revenues.

Proposition 14

Proposition 14, which has been called the “Top Two Primaries Act,” is also a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment. I wrote about Proposition 14 in April following a visit by then Senator Abel Maldonado who was actively campaigning for the ballot measure. A few days after his visit he was confirmed as California’s new Attorney General (and he is also on the Republican primary ballot for that seat). Although the Legislature agreed to put Proposition 14 to the voters — as part of a deal made with Maldonado last year to get his Republican vote to end the state budget battle — the measure is opposed by the state’s Democratic and Republican Central Committees and a number of smaller political parties including Libertarians and the Green Party. In spite of — or perhaps because of — this opposition, a new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California shows likely voters support the “open primary” proposal by a two-to-one margin.

Proposition 15

Proposition 15, also put on the ballot by the Legislature, would repeal a ban on public funding of political campaigns. If passed, it would create a voluntary system for candidates for Secretary of State (only) in 2014 and 2018 to qualify for a public campaign grant if they agree to limitations on spending and private contributions. Each candidate demonstrating enough public support would receive the same amount. Participating candidates would be prohibited from raising or spending money beyond the grant which would be funded by voluntary contributions and a biennial fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms and lobbyist employers. The California Chamber of Commerce opposes Proposition 15 and the League of Women Voters supports it. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association opposes Proposition 15, noting that interest groups would still be able to support favored candidates by contributing to their ballot-measure committees and with other campaign activity conducted independently.

Proposition 16

Proposition 16 is one of those types of initiative measures which I hate because so much about them is misleading. In this case, the proposed law is called the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act,” which really doesn’t tell you much. I found the state Legislative Analyst’s website to be most helpful in trying to understand this proposition. Basically, you need a little background first. According to the LAO, Californians generally receive their electricity service from one of three types of providers: investor-owned utilities (IOUs), local publicly owned electric utilities, or electric service providers (ESPs). These provide 68 percent, 24 percent, and 8 percent, respectively, of retail electricity service in the state. Locally, most of us get power from Southern California Edison which is an investor-owned utility. The California Public Utilities Commission regulates the rates charged by investor-owned companies and how they provide electricity service to their customers and the territory is divided up so one gets service from whichever company serves a given area.

State law now allows a city or a county, or a combination of the two, to arrange to provide electricity within their jurisdiction through a contract with an electricity provider other than the investor-owned utility that would otherwise serve that local area. This is referred to as “community choice aggregation” or CCA. Although only one CCA currently exists to provide electricity in California, several communities are exploring this option, according to the LAO.

As it stands now, a given jurisdiction (for instance, a city) might decide to go the CCA route and move that direction by a majority vote of its governing body (City Council).

If Proposition 16 is passed, the CCA would only be an option if approved by a two-thirds majority of the voters in the jurisdiction (for instance, a city).

I don’t know whether a CCA is a good idea, or not. I do know that PG&E is reportedly spending $46 million to help pass it. Edison is reportedly not taking a position. My suggestion if you don’t know how to vote — skip the TV commercials and seek out out a source of information such as that of the LAO (online at www.lao.ca.gov).

Proposition 17

This one needs a little background, too, also available from the LAO: In 1988, California voters passed Proposition 103, which requires the Insurance Commissioner to review and approve rate changes for certain types of insurance, including automobile insurance, before changes to the rates can take effect. Proposition 103 also requires that rates and premiums for automobile insurance policies be set by applying the following rating factors in decreasing order of importance: (1) the insured’s driving safety record, (2) the number of miles they drive each year, and (3) the number of years they have been driving. Proposition 103 also contained a provision related to individuals who were previously uninsured. Specifically, Proposition 103 prohibits insurance companies from using the information that an individual did not previously have automobile insurance to: (1) determine whether the individual is eligible for coverage or (2) decide the premiums charged for coverage.

Proposition 17 would amend Proposition 103 to allow an insurance company to offer a “continuous coverage” discount on automobile insurance policies to new customers who switch their coverage from another insurer. If an insurance company chooses to provide such a discount, it must be based on the length of time the customer continuously had bodily injury liability coverage. Customers would generally be eligible for this discount so long as their coverage had not lapsed for more than 90 days in the past five years, except if any lapse was the result of a failure to pay the premium. Also, customers would still be eligible for this kind of discount under the measure if a lapse in coverage was due to military service in another country. Children residing with a parent could qualify for the discount based on their parent’s eligibility.

Who’s for it — and who’s against it?

Reportedly Mercury Insurance is Proposition 17’s primary sponsor and has provided about 98 percent of the funding for the “Yes on 17″ campaign, having contributed $14.6 million.

According to opponents — the list includes a number of unions — Proposition 17 is deceptive and would allow insurance companies to surcharge people who have not been previously insured –even if they are perfect drivers but weren’t insured because they weren’t driving or didn’t own a car. The slogan for the opposition: “When was the last time an insurance company spent millions to save you money?”

Personally, I almost always vote against initiative propositions on principal —  I think we Californians have made a lot of bad law and spent a lot of money cleaning up after ourselves through the initiative process. Fewer and fewer of these seem to be passing, so I think I’m not alone in this regard. Happy voting!

Claudia Elliott is Editor of The Porterville Recorder. Send E-mail to celliott@portervillerecorder.com

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

Endorsements for June 8th Primary Race

June 3rd, 2010

By Marta Evry, VENICE FOR CHANGE

You do know there’s a primary this Tuesday, don’t you? Here’s your one-stop shopping list for all the ballot initiatives, state-wide primary races and local races in AD-53 (Los Angeles County).

PROPOSITIONS
(a big thank you to the Courage Campaign for the following proposition endorsement list)

PROP 13: VOTE YES
Seismic retrofits – Provides a tax break to property owners for making seismic retrofits to their buildings.

SUPPORTING: AFSCME, CA Democratic Party, Calitics
OPPOSING: CA Nurses Association

PROP 14: VOTE NO
Top-two primary – Changes the way primary elections work, sending top two votegetters at the primary onto the general election regardless of party. Intended to undermine progressive candidates and limits voter choices at the general election.

SUPPORTING: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
OPPOSING: AFSCME, CA Democratic Party, Calitics, CA Federation of Teachers, CA League of Conservation Voters, CA Nurses Association

PROP 15: VOTE YES
Fair elections – Repeals ban on public financing, allowing expansion of clean money to limit influence of corporate donations. Raises fees on lobbyists to fund a public financing system for Secretary of State election beginning in 2014.

SUPPORTING: AFSCME, CA Democratic Party, Calitics, CA League of Conservation Voters, CA Nurses Association, CREDO Action, League of Women Voters
OPPOSING: California Chamber of Commerce

PROP 16: VOTE NO
PG&E power grab – Placed on the ballot by the efforts of PG&E, Northern California’s privately owned electric utility, this proposition requires a 2/3rds vote to create public power districts or allow local governments to purchase their own renewable power. Protects PG&E’s existing monopoly.

SUPPORTING: PG&E, California Chamber of Commerce

OPPOSING: CA Democratic Party, Calitics, CA League of Conservation Voters, CA Nurses Association, CREDO Action, League of Women Voters

PROP 17: VOTE NO
Auto insurance surcharge – Placed on the ballot by the efforts of Mercury Insurance, this proposition would weaken existing consumer protections and allow auto insurance companies to charge drivers as much as double premiums if they are late with their payments.

SUPPORTING: Mercury Insurance, California Chamber of Commerce
OPPOSING: AFSCME, CA Democratic Party, Calitics, CA Nurses Association, CREDO Action

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

June 3rd, 2010

By Jake Armstrong, PASADENA WEEKLY

There’s plenty at stake with the propositions on the June 8 ballot, pardner

It’s been many moons since voters have been ‘round these parts, but it’s time for the electorate to mount up for the June 8 primary election.

While overtones of race-baiting and opportunism have consumed some of the political contests, voters face a much more diverse and wide-ranging list of decisions in the five initiatives appearing on the ballot. From car insurance to earthquake retrofits, voters are being asked to settle many debates over issues that will no doubt shape the state’s future.

But how’s a fella supposed to get ready for this showdown, especially since the initiative process is rife with misdirection and prevarication? The trick is recognizing the good, the bad and the ugly in each.

Proposition 13
Currently, homeowners who retrofit their unreinforced brick homes to withstand the state’s infamous earthquakes face a reassessment of their property values, the most likely outcome of which is higher property taxes. This initiative, perhaps the least publicized of all on the ballot, would eliminate that reassessment for qualifying seismic retrofit improvements until the building is sold.

The Good: Fear of a higher property tax bill may keep some homeowners from protecting their homes from earthquakes, and this initiative might help assuage that fright.
The Bad: Governments already strapped for cash may see a small reduction in property tax revenues.
The Ugly: So low are the stakes that no committees have been formed to support or oppose the measure.

Proposition 14
Right now, some of California’s candidates for state and federal office are fighting tooth and nail to get their message to their party’s faithful — the Democratic and Republican voters who will settle the score when they vote partisan ballots on June 8. But what if there were no political parties in primary elections? That’s the question Proposition 14 seeks to answer. It would eliminate partisan ballots for state and federal primaries, meaning voters could choose from the array of candidates running for election, rather than just those from their stated political party. Moreover, it would make it so only the two candidates with the most votes would compete in the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.

The Good: The initiative would open up the primary election to all voters, rather than just the party faithful, meaning the growing and influential bloc of decline-to-state and non-partisan voters would get a louder voice in primary elections, according to Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles Based Center for Governmental Studies. By sending the top two votegetters to the general election regardless of their party affiliation, the initiative could also give a boost to more moderate candidates who might otherwise lose a primary election, Stern said.
The BAD: Third parties like the Greens and Libertarians may suffer at the polls because their candidates will no longer appear on general election ballots in November, Stern said. Moreover, candidates will have to make their pitches to many more voters, rather than just the party faithful, meaning they may have to raise considerably more campaign cash to make a successful run, which could force them to become even cozier with special-interest groups whose cash is the lifeblood of many elections. Sending the top two votegetters to the general election would almost ensure that only Republicans and Democrats will be competing in the general election, Stern said. While the measure would likely create more moderate Democratic candidates, there is little chance it would produce more centrist Republican candidates because voter registration in most of the state’s political districts more strongly favors the Democrats, he said.
The UGLY: Proposition 14 would do away with write-in candidates, which could complicate matters if candidates with extremist views are competing in the general election. The measure could also make the process vulnerable to manipulation if candidates were to launch preemptive campaigns against one another, as former Gov. Gray Davis did against Richard Riordan in the 2002 gubernatorial primary to take on the weaker Republican contender, Bill Simon, in November.

Proposition 15
With all the debate over the influence of money on the political process, it’s incongruous to some that California law currently bans public financing of political campaigns. This measure, dubbed the California Fair Elections Act, would scrap that ban and launch a public funding experiment for Secretary of State candidates in the 2014 and 2018 elections. Candidates in those races who agree to limit spending and private contributions would have their campaigns funded with grants paid for through new fees charged to lobbyists, which will exceed about $6 million each election cycle.

The Good: The measure could remove the financial barriers that keep many political hopefuls, especially women and minorities, from running for office, as occurred in Arizona and other states that enacted public financing of elections, according to Common Cause California, which supports the measure. It also would permit cities and counties to pursue publicly funded campaigns, though charter cities, such as Pasadena, were never affected by the state’s ban.
The BAD: If the measure passes, lobbyists will almost certainly file a lawsuit to stop it, arguing their fees should only be spent on administering the state’s lobbying program, Stern said. In fact, lobbyists already have filed suit, but a judge tossed it and told the lobbyists to wait and see if the measure passes before challenging it, he said.
The UGLY: If Proposition 15 passes but a judge strikes down the lobbyist fees that fund most of it, the Legislature will have to choose whether to appropriate taxpayer money to the public funding experiment.

Proposition 16
Local governments looking to begin selling electricity to their residents and businesses would have to get two-thirds of voters to agree before getting into the electricity business.

The Good: Voters should have a say on how their tax dollars are spent, though they essentially do that by electing council members to represent their interests in such municipal decisions. Pasadena already has its own municipal utility, so it’s basically a non-issue for Crown City voters.
The BAD: The initiative is seen as little more than a way for Pacific Gas & Electric, which put more than $40 million toward the campaign, to kill competition from cities in its Northern California service area, a task the utility has been mostly successful in so far.
The UGLY: While PG&E put many millions of dollars toward the effort to pass Proposition 16, public utilities face the unfair disadvantage of being barred from using public money to oppose the measure, Stern said.

Proposition 17
The Good: When voters in 1988 backed a host of new regulations intended to keep a thumb on California’s then-wild insurance market, they established a mandatory discount on auto insurance for drivers with clean records. But voters were never asked whether drivers should be able to transfer to another insurer discounts based on the length of time they’d been insured with a different carrier. This initiative would make that possible, allowing insurers to increase or decrease premiums based on a motorist’s history of uninterrupted insurance coverage.
The BAD: Funded with millions from Mercury Insurance, Proposition 17 could drive up insurance costs by hundreds of dollars for anyone who does not qualify for a discount, as well as for anyone whose insurance lapses for more than 90 days, says John Van de Kamp, former California attorney general who co-authored the ballot argument against the initiative. “All of those people will pay a penalty even if they have an excellent driving record,” he said.
The UGLY: In the zero-sum game of for-profit insurance, someone is going to have to shoulder the cost of the new discounts insurers would be able to give to new customers, which means many existing customers would likely have to pay higher premiums.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

Big Wallet: Insurance Industry Throws $17 Mil at June 8 Contests

June 2nd, 2010

By Eric Bailey, PROTECT CONSUMER JUSTICE.ORG

ScreenHunter_01 Jun. 02 12.30

A new report by the Campaign for Consumer Rights has found that big insurance companies and their political action committees have funneled more than $17 million into legislative race  and a key ballot initiative in a bid to “quietly influence” the outcome of next Tuesday’s election.

On several fronts, the insurance industry’s campaign giving has been swathed in a stealthy cloak, the consumer group charged, noting that “populist-sounding” groups associated with insurers have thrown more than $600,000 against one Assembly candidate in Los Angeles’s South Bay — Betsy Butler in Assembly District 53 — and more than $1.47 million  against Mary Salas in San Diego’s Senate District 40 race and for her opponent Juan Vargas.

But the largest expenditure by far is the nearly $15 million that California’s 3rd largest auto insurer, Mercury Insurance, has spent to pass Proposition 17, which would legalize surcharges on consumers outlawed since 1988.

“Insurers are spending millions of dollars to influence the outcome of Tuesday’s election, but most voters don’t know insurance companies are out there propping up initiatives and attacking candidates,” said Doug Heller, executive director of Santa Monica-based Consumer Watchdog and the man who prepared the analysis.

Heller contends that the insurance funded groups are campaigning under names that would not lead most voters to believe that the mailers, phone calls and TV ads are actually paid for by the insurance industry. The Mercury Insurance campaign for Prop 17, he noted, has been operating under the moniker “Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates.”

The insurance industry dominated Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC) has also funded three separate campaign committees.  Two medical malpractice insurance company-funded committees have also spent hundreds of thousands of dollars campaigning for and against candidates for the state legislature.

CJAC’s political committees have spent well over $1 million in support of Vargas and against Salas in the San Diego Senate race. Among those on the CJAC board are Mercury, Allstate, AIG, Liberty Mutual, the Hartford and the Travelers insurance companies as well as the industry umbrella group, the American Insurance Assn. Other CJAC board members include Chevron and BP, the British oil giant under fire as it struggles to contain a cataclysmic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

Latinos, Children Seem To Lose In This Year’s Elections

June 2nd, 2010

By Adrian Perez, SACRAMENTO LATINO POLICY EXAMINER

California is on the brink of deciding what its leadership is going look like for the next four years and what public laws will be passed come the June 8, 2010 primary election. Along with the barrage of television, radio, print and internet commercials, voters are being tugged by the political pundits, newspaper editorial boards, and bloggers on how to vote.

Campaigning for an elected office is one thing, but once in office all elected officials for the last decade have been swept into the broken system making them a part of an establishment voters are not happy with. This year is a little different. There is a movement of angry voters that crosses ethnic and political lines with a goal to create change. But, will we actually see change?

Let’s take a quick look at the campaigns:

Governor of California
The two leading Republican candidates, Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman, are moderates who have spent tens of millions of dollars trying to convince conservative voters that one is more conservative (or liberal) than the other. In the process, they have ignored the majority of the voters main concern, the state’s sluggish economy. Yet, the Republican candidates have created such a sour note with Latino and other voters by spending tens of millions bashing illegal immigrants and each other that their messages have lost their meaning and voters are reluctantly looking at Democratic candidate Jerry Brown.

In the meantime, Brown has continued raising funds for the fall election, demonstrating to moderates and conservatives he is tough on crime since he now serves as California’s Attorney General. This is an interesting strategy since his non-presence during the primary campaign could backfire for Brown in attracting young voters, but those over 50 will need little to remember him well, good or bad.

Among older Latinos, Brown is remembered as catering favorably to the Latino community, mainly because of the continuous pressure applied by the late labor leader Cesar Chavez. Even Chavez spoke about that in several speeches he gave at Harvard. Today, things are different. There is no strong Latino leader to pressure Brown, and his lack of Latinos in his administration as Mayor of Oakland and as Attorney General may serve as indicators of what may come.

The latest polls show Whitman leading Poizner by 23 points and also shows she is behind 6 points to Jerry Brown. Whitman and the rest of the Republican Party have Poizner and the state of Arizona to thank for that shift.

Constitutional Officers
This year is seeing the largest number of Latinos running for statewide constitutional offices like Lt. Governor, Insurance Commissioner, Attorney General, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Yet, none were formally endorsed at their respective political party conventions this past April. Why? Those of us who follow the numbers guessed that at least one out of the over half-dozen Democratic candidates that are Latino would garner support, but they didn’t. And we know that the Republican leadership is not too happy with their lone Latino candidate seeking the Lt. Governor post.

The issue is that both parties are run by leaders representing the majority white male voter, with Republicans being too far to the right and the Democrats too far to the left and neither able see the growing political power Latinos have become in California. But, this growing group, which will be adding almost a million new voters each year this decade is still not a majority, as a result, no Latino has a chance to win a constitutional office, with the exception of Republican Abel Maldonado . Having been appointed last month as Lt. Governor has made history and gave him additional visibility.

California Legislative Races
Here is where Californians appear to lose. Although the majority of the state’s voters have a poor opinion of legislators as a whole in Sacramento, they have no problem with electing their local state Assemblymember or senator repeatedly. Apparently, at the district levels, theses folks are great. But when they get to Sacramento, the established partisan system consumes them, making them a part of a dysfunctional team that caters to special interests more than the needs of California.

Legislative partisanship and special interest catering has created a bottleneck in resolving critical issues facing Californians today. Crime will go up as less-taxes are collected to pay for secure neighborhoods (let’s thank the Tea Party  for that short-sighted strategy.) Businesses will either continue to fail or leave the state as long as they are seen as the bread and butter for all our ills (let’s thank the liberal social groups for that short sighted strategy.) Finally, the quality of the state’s workforce is diminishing as long as innovation, streamlining and efficiency in industry are forgone to maintain an aging workforce (let’s thank the union  for that short sighted strategy.)

Who suffers most under a government system that deviates from its role? The children. Most of California’s children have little or no health coverage to address their physical and mental development. They cannot learn in an education system that is broken and more interested in protecting jobs than helping Billy to read. Plus, with two working parents, the streets are becoming the nannies of these kids, almost guaranteeing many of them to become school dropouts or future wards of the state. These Californians are our hope to help us as we age yet the legislature has thrown out the concept of future cultivation for self-preservation.

Before you vote for your local legislator, ask: 1) What has he/she done to improve the lives of our children? 2) If I vote for him/her will they keep their promise to help all Californians? 3) Are they willing to steer away from special interest ideas that could harm our children?

The Propositions
There are three propositions that are the most contentious. The public referendum process was established to ensure voters had a say in the development of statewide laws. This year two of the three contentious propositions are obvious attempts by corporate America to attain larger market share. Let’s look at each:

Proposition 14 is supported by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and was a brainchild of appointed Lt. Governor Abel Maldonado. The idea behind this proposition is to have primary elections decided by voters at-large and not decided, as it currently is, by each party. In other words, the two top votegetters will be matched in a runoff in the fall, even if they are from the same party. This would weaken the current hold Democrats and Republicans have on many districts. If passed it could provide a chance to change the status quo in 2012 and could increase the number of Latinos elected to local and statewide office without statewide political party intervention.

Proposition 16 is a referendum introduced and funded by the Pacific, Gas and Electric (PG&E) company, whose goal is to standoff previous attempts by a public owned utility company, the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), to overtake their current market share. Currently, voters can decide to create a public owned utility with only a majority vote and hundreds of millions of dollars initially raised through a tax, an investor, or both. If passed, this proposition would require a two-third vote to create a public run utility, essentially giving companies like PG&E continued monopoly. Some groups, like the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), have found that this proposition would have a negative impact on the poor, especially Latinos living in the Central Valley since there is limited control on rate hikes. The problem with that argument is that rate hikes are now controlled by the economy and not by each private or public utility. Either way, ratepayers will be stuck with the bill, unless green energy takes hold and each home can produce their own utility needs.

Proposition 17 is sponsored by Mercury Insurance contributing over $14.6 million to attain voter approval and with 23.7 million licensed drivers in California, who can blame them for seeking a larger market share. The proposition is suppose to ensure good drivers keep their persistency discount when they shop for new insurance. The problem is 20 percent of the state’s drivers will not qualify for this credit, placing the burden on them to offset the discount offered to the other 80 percent. Guess where Latinos and other poor people fit? This will drive up the number of uninsured, driving up the cost of uninsured motorist insurance, increasing rates for everyone. Again, in the end everyone pays.

When you look at how much has been spent in this primary campaign, several dozen schools could have been saved across the state, several thousand college students could have paid their tuition, and thousands of children could have healthcare coverage for the first 18 years of their life. Perhaps we should limit campaign expenses to a hybrid car, a few hundred gallons of gas, motel rooms, and meals at local mom and pop restaurants so us common folk can talk to each of them face-to-face.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

California Propositions

June 1st, 2010

By Kevin Drum, MOTHER JONES

This is a special post for California readers. The rest of you may safely ignore it.

There are five initiatives on the California ballot next Tuesday. As longtime readers know, my default position is to very strongly oppose all initiatives (reasons here [1]), so keep this bias in mind as you read this. For what it’s worth, though, the only ballot measure this bias might affect even slightly this year is Prop 14. The other two NO votes are completely solid regardless of what you think about initiatives in general.

  1. Seismic retrofits: [2] YES. The original Proposition 13, passed in 1978, froze annual property reassessments for existing buildings. New construction was supposed to be assessed at the time it was finished, but in 1984 Proposition 23 created a 15-year exemption for seismic retrofits of “unreinforced masonry buildings.” In 1990, Proposition 127 exempted seismic retrofits entirely but didn’t remove the 15-year limit for unreinforced masonry buildings. I have no idea why, and the [3]five minutes of googling I was willing to apply to this question didn’t provide an answer.This year’s Proposition 13 (it’s just a coincidence that it has the same number as the original) would exempt all seismic retrofits completely. It was approved unanimously by one of the most famously partisan legislatures in the country and the voter guide doesn’t even have an argument against it — which is pretty remarkable given that even the most innocuous initiatives usually prompt an argument from at least one wingnut group or another. So go ahead and vote for this. It seems harmless.
  2. Open Primaries: [4] NO. This initiative would create an open primary system: instead of separate primaries for Republicans and Democrats, there would be only a single comprehensive primary and the top two vote getters would proceed to the general election even if they’re from the same party. Supposedly this would produce more moderate candidates — though the evidence for this is pretty slim — but even if it did, I’ve always been pretty uneasy about open primaries. If political parties are to have any meaning at all, they have to be allowed to pick their own candidates and they have to be allowed to contest general elections. This is especially true for third parties, which would be shut out of general elections almost entirely by Prop 14. It should also be clear at all times which party a candidate belongs to, something Prop 14 obscures by allowing candidates not to declare a party. For all its flaws, the current system strikes me as fairer and more transparent than Prop 14’s pseudo-runoff system.
  3. Fair Elections Act: [5] YES. This is sort of an interesting little initiative. Basically it’s an experiment in public financing of political campaigns: it applies only to one office — Secretary of State — and only to the elections in 2014 and 2018. On January 1st of the following year it automatically disappears for good unless voters decide they like it and want to extend it. It’s funded by a tax on lobbyists and requires candidates to raise $5 from 7,500 registered voters in order to qualify for public funding. This might or might not be a good idea, but Prop 15 is the kind of thing we should do more often: experiment. If Prop 15 fails, not much harm is done. If it works, it will have proven itself in the toughest arena of all: real life. It’s a small bore way of allowing voters to find out if they like the idea before committing themselves to a sweeping and permanent change. We could use more initiatives like this.
  4. Municipal Power: [6] NO. This is one of the sleaziest initiatives I’ve seen in a long time. Here it is in a nutshell: PG&E doesn’t like having to compete against municipal power companies, so they’re sponsoring an initiative that would prohibit the creation or expansion of any municipal power system without a two-thirds approval from voters. Which, of course, is essentially impossible. And the best part? Municipal agencies aren’t allowed to spend public money on political campaigns, so PG&E, which has spent nearly $50 million so far promoting Prop 16, is basically running unopposed.Prop 16 is a poster child for everything that’s wrong with the initiative process in California, and it’s as pure an example as you’ll ever find of a big corporation using the ballot box to cynically undercut its competition. Even if there’s nothing else on the June ballot you care about, you should make sure to get to your polling place just to vote against Prop 16. Ditto for your family and friends. Your enemies too. Liberals, conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, it doesn’t matter: everyone should vote against Prop 16.
  5. Auto Insurance: [7] NO. Most auto insurance companies give you a loyalty discount if you stick with them for several years in a row. Proposition 17 is framed as fixing a “flaw” in California law that prevents you from taking this discount with you when you switch insurers, but that masks the real issue at stake here: should insurance companies be allowed to give you a discount merely for being insured continuously? Or, put another way: Should insurance companies be allowed to penalize you if you drop your insurance for a period of time (perhaps because you sell your car, or sign up for hitch in the Army, for example) and then later re-apply?Proposition 103, passed in 1988, was designed to stop insurers from basing their rates on factors unrelated to the likelihood of filing a claim (where you live, for example, or your income). To accomplish this, Prop 103 mandates that insurers consider only three factors: your driving record, the number of miles you drive, and the number of years of driving experience you have. The insurance commissioner can approve other factors as well, but only if they bear a substantial relationship to the risk of loss.

    Continuous coverage doesn’t qualify on that score. This isn’t a flaw in the law, it’s the whole point of the law. (Loyalty discounts are a little questionable on this score too, but it turns out that they do correlate with driving safety, so they’re allowed.) Mercury Insurance, which has been fighting this battle for years, is pretty much the sole sponsor of Proposition 17, and their motivation is simple: they think it would help them poach more business from other insurers. And it might! But it would do so by lowering rates for some and raising them for others based on a factor that has nothing to do with the likelihood of filing a claim. We decided to put a stop to that two decades ago, and I don’t see any reason to change it now.

Links:
[1] http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_09/004787.php
[2] http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/13-title-summ-analysis.pdf
[3] http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/
[4] http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/14-title-summ-analysis.pdf
[5] http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/15-title-summ-analysis.pdf
[6] http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/16-title-summ-analysis.pdf
[7] http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/pdf/english/17-title-summ-analysis.pdf

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

$65 Million Raised to Pass, Defeat Primary Propositions

June 1st, 2010

By Wendy Poon, News10/KXTV ABC (Sacramento, CA)

SACRAMENTO, CA – Gubernatorial candidates are not the only ones spending millions of dollars on the June 8 Primary Election.

According to new numbers released by California State Secretary Debra Bowen, the campaigns for the ballot measures raised more than $65 million by May 27.

Supporters of Proposition 14, the Open Primaries measure, reported raising $4,536,050, while opponents of Proposition 14 reported raising $208,550.

Supporters of the Fair Elections Act, Proposition 15, reported collecting $261,416, while opponents of Proposition 15 reported collecting $203,450.

Groups in favor of Proposition 16, the Local Public Electricity Act, reported raising $46,000,000 while Proposition 16 opponents reported raising $90,100.

Groups in favor of the Auto Insurance Discount Act, Proposition 17, reported collecting $14,664,709, while Proposition 17 opponents reported collecting $1,277,407.

The staggering amount raised and spent is raising eyebrows among some voters like Art Camacho of Sacramento.

“It’s a big waste of money and someone is getting fat off of it,” Camacho said. “You know it’s sad because it could be used for other things like to promote other good causes. Sometimes it’s just a pack of lies.”

Other voters said the campaign advertisements help them make their decision.

“I do pay attention to the commercials, and I know a lot of people’s vote is swayed by the commercials,” said Sacramento resident Mary Anderson.

Voter Steve Brenizer said that people need to their own research before voting.

“People just always have to remember to weave through the information and look at who is supporting all those ads,” Brenizer said.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

Why California Government Is the Pits

May 30th, 2010

By Jerry Remmers, THE MODERATE VOICE

Today’s discussion is why governments are dysfunctional and I offer you Proposition 17 which is unquestionably the least sexiest item on the June 8 primary ballot in California.

Prop 17 is the Rodney Dangerfield of the June 8 primary.

All the attention is focused on Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner spending millions on television ad attacks for the Republican nomination for governor. Incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer is fending off lesser opponents from her own party knowing full well that she will go to the big dance in November most likely against another Republican millionaire in Carly Fiorina.

Essentially, Prop. 17 would allow good drivers to change automobile insurance companies without losing their discounts. Sounds as good as motherhood and apple pie, right? The devil is in the details. Well, let’s take a look at the Official California Voter Information Guide, which, as far as these things go, is a good read.

The insurance commissioner regulates automobile insurance companies doing business in the state. Because the elected commissioner and Legislature refused demands from consumer groups, voters in 1988 passed Proposition 103.

The essence of administering Prop. 103 is that its provisions cannot be changed by the commissioner, nor the Legislature, but by another voter state initiative, thus Prop. 17. Progressive democracy at its best, right?

Why, one might ask, did it take 22 years to correct what proponents maintain is a glitch in Prop. 103?

A groundswell of irate drivers, it wasn’t.

It was Mercury Insurance Co.

It bankrolled 99% of the cost to pay for the signature drive qualifying Prop. 17 for the ballot and to fund the campaign for its approval June 8. That’s according to some former powerhouses in state government, former Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi and former Atty. Gen. John Van De Kamp.

Mercury’s face is not on this pig. Proponents are listed as Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce, and Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee.

They say the current law does not allow “drivers from taking this continuous coverage discount (under Prop. 103) with them if they switch insurance companies to get lower rates.” Yet, they use Mercury’s claim that families can save as much as $250 annually in premiums as well as “increased competition” and “more choices and options for consumers” under the cloak of Prop. 17.

The big losers in Prop. 17, the antis argue, are good drivers who drop auto insurance for 91 days for any reason. The largest segment in that group would be our military who serve their country out of state for continued periods of time.

Using Mercury’s own numbers, these good drivers would pay up to $1,000 annually in surcharges to renew coverage as required to drive a vehicle in the state.

Nor so fast, argue the proponents. In their rebuttal, they make the following claims:

Prop. 17 eliminates existing surcharges for changing insurance companies; exempts the military serving out of state; protects drivers whose insurance lapsed because of loss of jobs or illness, and preserves Prop. 103 protections in which insurance premium rates are based on driving safety record, miles driven and driving experience.

Whom is one to believe? Mercury Insurance Co., or an affiliation of watchdog groups forced into action?

The answer is in the fine print of exceptions, conditions and qualifications of each driver based on the whims of any given auto insurer whose claims of savings are models based on new market conditions that have not been tested.

—————–

EPILOGUE

Auto insurance is big business in California. It collected $19.7 billion amounting to 36% of all insurance premiums paid in 2008 in the state. If Prop. 17 passes, certainly Mercury will not be the only auto insurance company benefiting. The question is whether consumers will. It sill remains this entire process is a travesty. You cannot have good, efficient government when every time you want to make a rule change you must have a vote of an electorate which in California is part of 32 million residents. With Prop. 17, there was no burning drive from the electorate to change the law. For all you (lower case) democrat purists, once a state agency is created, the job of running it is, in this case, the elected insurance commissioner with the overseers being the governor and state lawmakers. Voters still hold the upper hand by outing the elected officials if they don’t approve how they are running things. California voters are a piece of work. They approve bond issues for new prisons, rail transit, schools and state-or-the-art embryonic cell research — all worthy causes — and then bitch bloody murder when the bonds cost them a fortune because the state’s bond rating has tanked from AAA to the bottom of the toilet. They blame it on their elected leaders and the cost of supporting illegal immigrants. Perhaps this outrage should shift to examine their inner selves for they are as much to blame for the dysfunction in Sacramento as anyone. It was California voters, mind you, that changed the state constitution in an initiative passed by a simple majority that required a two-thirds vote by the Legislature to adopt a budget. In California, as is most areas of the country, even motherhood and apple pie would fail a 67% majority threshold.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

Propositions 16 and 17: Welcome to the Corpocracy

May 30th, 2010

By Paul Tullis, TRUE/SLANT BLOG

On June 8, Californians will vote on a couple of exceptional propositions that are the first attempts in decades by corporations to use the ballot initiative process to change the law in their favor.

California’s ballot initiative system was implemented during the Progressive era to enable citizens to amend the state constitution without going through the legislature (though the legislature can also put initiatives on the ballot). The idea was to provide the citizens with a method of protecting themselves from well-funded special interests lobbying the legislature by providing them with their own direct avenue to lawmaking.

Its ironic, therefore, that the system should become a means by which well-funded special interests circumvent the legislature because they know that a well-informed professional lawmaker would never buy the line of bullshit now being propagated by an ad campaign paid for by the states largest private utility, PG&E.

Prop 16, the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act, would require a 2/3 majority in a voter referendum to create or expand any municipally-owned utility, which in most of the state would mean competing with Pacific Gas & Electric or shutting it out of a potential market. PG&E is the measure’s sole sponsor, and has spent $35 million pressing for passage. (The company told shareholders to expect a short-term decline in share price as a result of the expenditure.)

Nearly every city, town, county, consumer group, environmental group, and newspaper in the state opposes the measure, along with AARP, the League of Women Voters and even another large private utility, San Diego’s Metropolitan Water District.

“This is a for-profit corporation trying to kill off its not-for-profit rivals,” said San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi told the SF Chronicle. Prop. 16 is a colossal fraud perpetrated on the people of California.

PG&E wants to hike rates because it spent a lot of money on dirty-energy infrastructure just before California passed its Renewable Portfolio Standard, requiring the state to get 20% of its energy from fossil-fuel-free sources by the end of this year. Its ad dollars have shouted down proposals to create public utilities in the past”and those only needed a bare majority to pass. Experts say the 2/3 requirement, which is a major factor in the annual disaster in California known as the state budget, would effectively doom any future proposal”and with it efforts to accelerate the transition to green energy.

Prop. 17 got on the June 8 ballot through a $3.5 million signature-gathering campaign by Mercury Insurance Co. The company has been accused of illegally discriminating against some applicants, but Prop. 17 would make such behavior OK, and roll back many other consumer protections. California’s Insurance Commissioner (yes, since 1991 California has had a statewide elected official with this title), a Republican, has written of Mercury’s lengthy history of serious misconduct [and] contempt toward and/or abuse of its customers.

Nothing like these initiatives has been tried since 1988, when the law which Prop 17 is attempting to overturn was enacted. That November, there were 4 competing insurance-related initiatives on the ballot, one of which was backed by an insurance company that spent over 90% of the money in support of it. Because there were 4 competing initiatives, and it was a November Congressional election with high turnout, the initiatives got a ton of press coverage and a consumer-friendly one that Ralph Nader supported won the day.

Ever since, I was told by Eric McGhee, an expert on voter initiatives at the Public Policy Institute of California, companies have been discouraged by the experience from using the ballot-initiative process and have instead mainly spent their political-influence money on lobbying and campaign contributions. McGhee says they largely prefer lobbying because its more likely to get them the specific break in the law that they’re seeking. (Of course, Props 16 & 17 will get them a specific break in the law, too.)

This isn’t to say corporations have stayed out of initiative campaigns, but its usually been on the No side, to stop a proposition that goes against their interests. With 16 & 17, the companies are pro-actively seeking to change the law in their favor in a way that’s exceptional.

Bruce Cain, a poly-sci prof at Berkeley who’s on the California Fair Practices Commission, which interprets federal law as it applies to elections in California, told me the measures will fail only if voters are paying attention [and] there is enough money on the no side.

So far the latter question is a definite no: PG&E is outspending the No’s by more than 1000:1 (yes, one thousand to one.) As for the former, well just have to wait and see on June 8; the fact that a proposal to write an article similar to the one you are now reading was turned down by The New Republic, The Nation, Mother Jones and The Nation may not bode well for a well-informed electorate.

The failure in ‘88 discouraged companies from using ballot initiatives to push their agendas for a generation. But someone at one of the groups opposing the measures told me that the PG&E attempt is the most brazen attempt he’s ever seen.

If PG&E &/or Mercury are successful, it could have as strong an influence as ‘88 did, but in the opposite direction, unleashing corporate money into the initiative arena like never before.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

This Election Season Deception Is the Name of the Game

May 29th, 2010

By Daniel Willis, THE CONTRA COSTA TIMES

I plan to vote no on the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act based solely on the fact that it’s called the Taxpayers Right to Vote Act.

Don’t get me wrong, I always pay my taxes in full. And I certainly love voting since it’s the one time per year where I have power over the people in charge. But what does that name have to do with the act? Why doesn’t it mention municipal power generation at all?

Euphemistic proposition names and questionable honesty are nothing new. Perception has always meant as much as   if not more than   the content of the debate itself; it’s no mistake that both sides of every issue are pro-something. But this election cycle is especially veiled and deceptive, campaign managers and publicists seem to think we’re more gullible than usual.

And they clearly think we’re very, very gullible. Take for example a recent Prop 17 television ad hilariously titled “The Facts.” It begins, “There is only one place to get the facts about Prop 17: The official voter guide.” It then goes on to read from the section of the voter guide given to the proponents to make their case, implying it’s an official unbiased document rather than a block of text written by the campaign. This despite that you can even vaguely see “PRO” written above the text, though heavily blurred, and a column labeled “CON” which is never mentioned.

In case you were curious the blurred text reads, “Mercury Insurance is spending millions on Proposition 17 so auto insurance companies can RAISE PREMIUMS AS MUCH AS $1,000 on good drivers. It reverses a voter-approved law and allows new insurance surcharges that will harm middle-class families and lead to more uninsured motorists.” And that’s a fact according to the Yes on 17 campaign.

The easiest way to stop this is to simply vote the propositions down. It would send the message that we want at least some semblance of honesty and would stop them from trying again, if for no other reason than because it doesn’t work. After all, there’s no reason to call your low-income tax increase the “Hooray For America and Puppies Act,” if nobody’s going to fall for it.

Maybe people really are that gullible and both propositions will pass on the strength of misinformation. In that case I’d like to see the Honesty in Proposition Naming Act on the ballot in 2012. It will, naturally, guarantee $10,000 to anyone whose byline appears on a newspaper opinion page.

Daniel Willis is a database producer at the Bay Area News Group.

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in In the News | Comments Off

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »