California voters shot down Proposition 89, which opponents said would have severely limited corporate political strength in addition to its goal of implementing publicly funded campaigns similar to those in Arizona.
The California Nurses Association sponsored the initiative strongly opposed by insurance and energy industries and other business groups that labeled Prop. 89 as a union attempt to stack the political deck in its favor.
Rose Ann De Moro, executive director of the CNA, said in a recent PBS documentary the union is pursuing a variety of goals ranging from clean air and improved access to education to the limiting of job outsourcing.
And given the financial might of corporations, supporters of Prop 89 argue that political changes to benefit ordinary citizens are not likely.
“None of this is possible in the current political system,” she said. “We don’t have a hidden agenda, we have an overt agenda and that is to bring a more economic and democratic system to California.”
The measure, which was rejected by 75 percent of the voters on Nov. 7, sought to further restrict individual contributions made to privately funded candidates and limited corporate contributions for ballot initiatives to $10,000.
Corporate profits would also have been prevented from reaching political parties, political action committees and independent expenditure committees, though corporate officers, shareholders and employees would remain free to contribute under the failed proposition.
Funds to be raised for campaigns, expected to reach $200 million annually, were to come from raising the state’s corporate tax to 9.04 percent from 8.84 percent.
“The initiative was a tax on business with the main effect of silencing business,” said Vince Sollitto, a spokesman for the California Chamber of Commerce. “It was really nothing more than a power grab by one special interest.”
Hijacking of clean elections movement
The provision to limit the ability of corporations to financially contribute to ballot initiatives drew particular condemnation from the chamber and newspapers.
One editorial from the San Francisco Chronicle called the measure a “hijacking of the ‘clean money’ movement” and a “blatant attempt by one special interest to neutralize its political opponents.”
But the CNA and select unions and non-profits would not face the same restrictions and the 65,000-member nurses’ group has been forthcoming about the imbalance and their prime motive behind Prop 89 — the establishment of a universal health care system in California.
An effort to establish that failed during California’s last legislative session when Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger vetoed SB 840, which would have eliminated private health insurance in favor of state-operated health care.
Besides making it easier and cheaper for the unions to fund future ballot initiative drives, there was another reason for the attempted reforms, said Chuck Idelson, a spokesman for the CNA.
Voters overwhelmed≠
The incredible sums of money thrown around by corporations to influence candidates and ballot initiatives is tiring voters and casting the shadow of corruption, if not creating corruption itself. Voters are abandoning the political process as a result, he said.
“At a certain point, they feel overwhelmed, bombarded and disenfranchised,” said Mr. Idelson. “Sanity needs to be restored.”
Records kept by the California Secretary of State’s Office show that 23 percent of the state’s 22,543,000 eligible voters cast ballots in 2006 primary election. In the 2004 general election, 57 percent of California’s eligible voters participated, compared to the national average of 64 percent, as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau.
But insanity is tinkering with the First Amendment to “enhance the voice of one group and restrict the voice of others,” said Ben Barr, a research analyst with the Goldwater Institute and former elections law attorney.
“The solution in a free society is to let the California nurses and doctors and insurance companies duke it out,” said Mr. Barr, a staunch opponent of publicly-funded elections. “Let them all be able to get their voices out.”
The electorate can consider the self-interests of contributors and can make their decisions accordingly, but corporations, like individuals, should be welcome to exercise their political liberties, said Mr. Barr.
He looks to the campaign system in Virginia as a role model. It is highly deregulated in regard to contribution and expenditure limits and there is no credible evidence that would “point to Virginia as being a corrupt state,” Mr. Barr said. He favors full campaign finance disclosure so citizens can keep tabs on politicians and vote as they wish, he said.
The Clean Elections Institute, a non-profit advocate of publicly funded elections in Arizona, supported California Prop 89. Eric Ehst, its executive director, released a pre-elections memo to Arizona supporters urging them to contact friends and family in California to help the initiative pass.
He regards the fate of Prop 89, which was resoundingly defeated, as a blow to the publicly funded campaign movement.
“I think it’s certainly a setback and they’re going to have to go about it another way,” said Mr. Ehst, noting a more ideologically “pure” version of the proposition stalled in the California legislature.
The CEI was contacted for consultation by the nurses’ group, but only after signatures had been collected, he said. The institute held no position on the additional restrictions targeting corporate power, but helped establish guidelines for supervisory rules regarding reporting requirements and the prevention of overspending by candidates.
“We gave them our lessons learned,” said Mr. Ehst, who believes the measure was defeated due a negative public reaction to the proposition’s corporate tax funding mechanism.