By Timm Herdt, THE VENTURA COUNTY STAR

Stan Statham is a former California lawmaker who for the past 15 years has been president of the California Broadcasters Association, the trade group that represents television stations. About this time of year, he regrets that most of his neighbors know what he does for a living.

“Wherever I go,” he said, “my neighbors say, ‘Stop with the political ads already!’ ”

It’s been one of those springs in California.

Political ads have floated over the airwaves like pollen during a record-breaking primary election campaign in which billionaire Meg Whitman, multimillionaires Steve Poizner and Carly Fiorina, Fortune 500 company Pacific Gas & Electric, insurance giant Mercury and former Facebook attorney Chris Kelly have combined to spend $171 million, the bulk of it on television ads.

The spending spree ends – or at least pauses – on Tuesday, when those Californians who haven’t already voted by mail go to the polls.

Those who do vote at the polls will likely be in the minority in Ventura County. Assistant Registrar of Voters Tracy Saucedo said Friday that pre-election activity this spring closely resembles that which preceded the May 2009 statewide special election, in which 62.4 percent of ballots cast in the county were by mail.

Of the county’s 422,143 voters, 172,591 received mail-in ballots last month. Through midday Friday, 50,498 had been returned.

Low turnout expected

Turnout is expected to be relatively light, as is typical in primaries, even though numerous issues are at stake both statewide and locally. Saucedo said the return rate of mail-in ballots, which was very slow at first, picked up late last week, and she expects a turnout similar to that of the May 2009 election (31.5 percent), or the last gubernatorial primary in June 2006 (33.3 percent).

“It looks like it’s going to be in the low 30s, but who knows?” Saucedo said.

In California, Republicans will choose challengers to take on presumptive Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jerry Brown and incumbent U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer in the fall. Voters in both parties will decide multiple contested races for lesser statewide offices, including wide-open races for attorney general in both parties.

In Ventura County, voters will pick a new sheriff and clerk-recorder and select two finalists from a long list of candidates for treasurer-tax collector if no one gets more than 50 percent of the vote. They will also decide whether two incumbent county supervisors will return for another term.

In partisan races, there are contested primaries among Democrats to select a challenger for Rep. Elton Gallegly in the fall, and among Republicans to select a challenger for Rep. Lois Capps.

By far the highest-profile local partisan race is in Ventura and Oxnard’s 35th Assembly District, where Democrats Susan Jordan and Das Williams have combined to spend nearly $1 million in their contest for the nomination.

Record-breaking spending

Across the state, voters will decide on five ballot propositions, including one that would radically change how primary elections are conducted in the future.

The spotlight across California will be on the Republican contest for governor, which has spawned a record-breaking spending race between Whitman, the former eBay CEO, and Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner. They are the latest to join a long list of wealthy California candidates to significantly self-fund campaigns for governor or senator (18 since the early 1960s, according to a count compiled by the San Diego Union-Tribune).

All but one has failed, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger being the sole exception.

Whitman has already shattered the spending record, having put $68 million of her own money into the campaign so far. Poizner, who made a fortune selling GPS technology he helped develop for cell phones, has put in $24 million.

“In other states, that could be the whole state budget,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at USC’s School of Policy, Planning and Development. “Money, media and message – those three things have always been the driving force of politics. It’s not enough to have money. You’ve got to use the media well, and you have to have a message that resonates with voters.”

The most recent pre-election polls suggest Whitman has been getting the most for her money. A Field Poll released Friday showed her leading Poizner by 26 percentage points.

“She got a lot for her money,” Jeffe said. “She became a credible candidate, and she got to even with Jerry Brown in the polls. If she wins, then will come the real thing.”

Whitman and Poizner have been engaged in a weeks-long battle of negative advertising, with Poizner hammering on conservative themes and forcing Whitman to answer back.

One result has been that Whitman has lost ground in the polls to Brown, who faces only nominal opposition in the Democratic primary. “She did have to move further to the right than she wanted to,” Jeffe said.

Brown, the current attorney general, is hoping to return to the office he held from 1974 to 1982.

The other big-ticket contest is the three-way race for the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate, for the right to take on Boxer in the fall. That race appears both tighter and more fluid than the governor’s contest, although recent polls indicate that former Hewlett-Packard CEO Fiorina has opened a slight lead over former Congressman Tom Campbell and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore.

At the county level, most eyes will be on the District 2 contest for supervisor, which pits two longtime local Republican officeholders against each other: Linda Parks, seeking a third term, and Assemblywoman Audra Strickland, who is being termed out of the Assembly.

Money has also played a significant role in that race, as the county Republican Party has spent about $300,000 to promote Strickland and attack Parks.

Another high-profile local contest is the race for sheriff, the first contested campaign for that office in almost 40 years. It features two high-ranking officers from within the department, Cmdr. Geoff Dean and Chief Deputy Dennis Carpenter. They seek to replace Sheriff Bob Brooks, who is stepping down.

Lopsided measure funding

On the statewide ballot, the focus on the five propositions has centered largely on two being funded almost entirely by single business interests.

Proposition 16 would make it much harder for local governments to form either public power agencies or community electricity-purchasing collectives, by forcing then to first put the issue on the ballot and receive approval from two-thirds of voters.

It is sponsored by Pacific Gas & Electric, which has spent $46 million to promote the measure. Opponents have raised $98,000.

Proposition 17, sponsored by Mercury Insurance, would change state law to allow insurers to offer discounts to new customers who have at least a five-year, uninterrupted history of coverage with other companies. Mercury has spent $16 million to promote its initiative. Opponents, who say the measure will cause insurance premiums to rise for many motorists, have raised $1.5 million.

Despite the one-sided spending, history shows both measures could face tough going.

“Evidence suggests that if the public figures out that an initiative is sponsored by one group, they reject it,” said Ted Lascher, director of the Serna Center of public policy studies at Sacramento State University. “The default position of most voters is to vote no.”

Proposition 14

The most politically significant measure on Tuesday’s ballot is Proposition 14, which would create a “top-two” primary system for future elections. Under the proposed system, all voters in a primary could chose from among all candidates, whose party preferences would be listed on a single ballot. The top two finishers would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliations.

Again, proponents have outspent opponents by a sizeable margin, $5.1 million to $244,500. Activists from both major parties, as well as from the minor parties, are strongly opposed.

There will likely be a number of tight races in both parties in the so-called “down ticket” races for state offices. Two of those feature legislators who represent portions of Ventura County: Sen. Tony Strickland of Thousand Oaks is pitted against businessman David Evans for the GOP nomination for controller, and Assemblyman Pedro Nava of Santa Barbara is one of seven Democrats seeking the party’s nomination for attorney general.

That crowded Democratic field for attorney general includes Kelly, the other self-funded, multimillionaire candidate on Tuesday’s ballot. Kelly has put $12 million into his campaign.

Contact the author at: therdt@VCStar.com

Op Ed by Sharon Byrne, Deputy Director, California Common Cause

Common Cause California is a non-profit, non-partisan citizens’ lobby organization. we believe that by banding together, citizens can make a difference. we throw a spotlight on issues that affect all Californians. we work to strengthen public participation and to ensure that the political process serve the public interest, rather than the special interests.

Our purpose is clear: make public officials and public institutions accountable and responsive to citizens.

With that in mind, voters face 4 ballot propositions June 8th, and need to understand what it is they’re voting for. The following is somewhat abbreviated, to help people understand the ballot propositions as they vote on June 8th. Common Cause has not taken a position on all of these, but where we have, we note it. Voters are encouraged to research these propositions further, and vote on June 8th. Further information on Propositions 14 and 15 can be found on our website at http://www.commoncause.org/ca.

Prop 14 – top Two Primaries Act

This proposal is aimed at reducing partisan gridlock in state government. it was placed on the ballot by the California Legislature as part of the February 2009 budget deal. if passed, Prop 14 would establish a “top-two” primary system for electing California’s statewide constitutional officers, Congressional representatives and U.S. Senators. it would not apply to not to local elections or presidential primaries.

California’s primary system features political parties that nominate candidates through a closed June primary who then appear on a general election ballot in the fall. Prop 14 would eliminate the party primary in favor of a single “voter-nominated primary elections” ballot open to all voters regardless of their registered affiliation. Candidates would choose whether or not to list a party affiliation under their name on the ballot, and all voters would have the option of voting for any candidate. The two candidates with the highest vote totals, regardless of party affiliation, advance to a general election in the fall.

Possible Outcome: Under this process, some districts could see two candidates from the same party appear on their November general election ballot.

Arguments for Prop 14: it has the potential to increase the chance that moderate candidates will survive the primary process. less people vote in the primaries, and those that do vote do so more along extreme party lines than is true in the general election, so officials elected through the current modified closed primary may not reflect moderate majorities in their districts.

The top-two primary could also result in increased primary voter turnout as decline-to-state voters are able to cast primary ballots more easily and more choices on an elector’s ballot and the ability to vote across party lines could lure in voters who traditionally don’t vote in primary elections.

Arguments against Prop 14: Eliminating the partisan primary for the affected offices encroaches on the political party’s right to determine its own future and choose its own nominees. Voters who have little or no interest in the party’s success will have the ability to influence which, if any, of its candidates are advanced to the run-off election. Opponents have even argued that voters could seek to sabotage an opposing political party in their choices.

Since third-party candidates are rarely among the top vote-getters in a primary election, they would likely not appear on many general election ballots and write-in candidates would be prohibited. The consequences of this limitation would be to remove the voices of third-party candidates from the discussion and debate of the fall election, which is the election that a greater number of voters follow and participate in.

California Common Cause has taken a neutral position on Prop 14.

Proposition 15 – California Fair Elections Act

Put on the June 2010 ballot by the legislature and Governor Schwarzenegger to create a pilot project providing voluntary public financing for candidates running for Secretary of State in 2014 and 2018. Its passage will assure voters that the elected official guarding the integrity of elections has no need to raise private campaign contributions. Further, it will pave the way for expanding public financing of other offices in California. The Secretary of State is a key role as it regulates elections in the state. This office, in the state of Florida, was partly responsible for deciding the 2000 presidential election.

To Qualify: Major party candidates for Secretary of State must raise 7,500 five dollar qualifying contributions and signatures from registered California voters to prove that they have a broad base of support.

Fair Elections Candidates Receive: Enough baseline public funds to run competitive primary campaigns ($1,000,000). if they win their primary, they receive enough baseline public funds to run competitive general election campaigns ($1,300,000). these levels are comparable to what winning candidates spent in 2006, but future candidates will have fewer fundraising costs so this will represent more net funding.

Strict Rules for Participating Candidates: Once qualified, Fair Elections Candidates must agree to spending limits and accept no private contributions. they would be prohibited from raising or spending additional money beyond what they receive from the fund. Further, Fair Elections Candidates would be required to participate in two debates during the general election and one during the primary.

Paid for By Registration Fees on Lobbyists and Voluntary Contributions

CFEA will be paid for by voluntary contributions designated on state tax returns and by a registration fee of $350 a year on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers, the same as in Illinois, raising an estimated $8.0 million over four years. currently California lobbyists only pay $12.50 a year, among the lowest of any state. The Secretary of State is responsible for administering the lobbyist registration program, so it makes sense that elections for this office would be funded in this fashion.

California Common Cause recommends a ‘yes’ vote on Proposition 15. Mayor Helene Schneider supports Prop 15.

Proposition 16 – Taxpayer’s right to Vote Act

The titling of this act is misleading as to its contents. Placed on the ballot by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), it requires a two-thirds vote of the electorate before a public agency could enter the retail power business. This will make it more difficult than it is currently for local entities to form either municipal utilities, or community wide clean electricity districts called Community Choice Aggregators (CCAs).

The CCA program, established in 2002, allows local governments to purchase blocks of power to sell to residents, and to construct municipal electricity generation facilities, which means that cities and counties can become competitors to private utilities. Some cities may wish to engage in forming a utility to provide alternative energy, and this bill would make it harder to so, requiring a 2/3 vote of the electorate.

Pacific Gas & Electric is the primary financial sponsor of the initiative, having contributed $46.1 million through May 25, 2010. Prop 16’s opponents have raised less than $50,000 through mid-May.

California Common Cause has not taken a position on Prop 16.

Proposition 17 “Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage. Initiative Statute.”

This will allow insurance companies in the state to give what are known as “persistency discounts” to new customers. “Persistency discounts” are discounts for those who have had continuous or nearly continuous auto insurance coverage. California has 23.7 million licensed drivers who collectively pay billions of dollars in auto insurance premiums. currently 80% of drivers maintain auto insurance and qualify for a persistency discount. A flaw in current law prohibits drivers from taking this continuous coverage discount with them if they switch insurance companies.

About 20% of California’s drivers fall into the category of those who have had lapses in their insurance coverage to the extent that they would not be eligible for the persistency discounts allowed both under current law and Proposition 17.

Mercury Insurance is Proposition 17’s primary sponsor. Through May 28, Mercury Insurance was responsible for about 98% of the funding for the “Yes on 17″ campaign, having contributed $14.6 million.

The Los Angeles Times is urging a “no” voting, saying, “proponents can’t explain away is that insurers will have to offset the expected revenue loss from the new discount by raising rates on the people who don’t qualify for it. By proponents’ estimates, 80% of California drivers qualify for the loyalty discount, which means that the 20% who don’t qualify pay a surcharge. But more than 80% of drivers have been continuously covered by various insurers, so more people will be eligible for the discount – and the fewer people who remain will have to pay for it.

Like Prop 16, voters have to question why a major corporation is funding it, and what they hope to get out of its passage.

California Common Cause has not taken a position on Prop 17.