What Now?

So now that all eight of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's initiatives have been defeated in his special election, what now? What does it all mean?

It's tempting to conclude with absolute certainty that this election proves that California rejects its Governor. After all, though these initiatives were held in what was called the Governor's special election, initiatives don't equal governor. Those who are little more optimistic of the Govenor's gubernatorial future "argue that the landslide defeat was a one-time reaction to an unpopular special election." These optimistic folks, consisting mainly of Schwarzenegger supporters, insist that it's the policy that California rejected, not the person.

Unfortunately, politics is all about policy, and less about the person. Sure, Schwarzenegger got elected based partly on his charm and charisma, but mainly on his personality, his celebrity. But personality and celebrity didn't carry through this time around - which means time for reevaluation.

Could it mean that Schwarzenegger will begin eliminating some of his old advisors? Or, if his public approval rating drops low enough, will he even consider dropping out of the race for reelection next year? Or, might he try compromising and working more cooperatively with the legislature? It's a bit of a no-win situation for Schwarzenegger, because all three of those options mean admitting defeat and alienating someone in the process, whether it's his trusted advisors, the left, or the right.

Stormy times ahead for the Terminator..

Equal Opportunity...Or Not?

Given that Governor Schwarzenegger had spent over $26 million on the California Special election by August of this year, it seems obvious that by November 8, this number will have reached well over $50 million. Even after having learned the price behind the propositions currently at issue, the Iniative Bloggers retained a grain of hope that an idealized grassroots iniative would be possible to create. The reasoning behind such a process is that hypothetically, anyone in California's hyper-democratically oriented society with a realistic and beneficial vision for governmental reform should be able to propose that vision to the general public. Unfortunately, as it turns out, the only "anyone's" who can indeed exercise this right, are those with not only great ideas, but also very deep pockets.

The voice of reason and harsh reality in the case of the quest forged by the Iniative Bloggers was an attorney whose firm handles lots of initiatives for groups pursuing primarily local iniatives. A phone call aimed at consulting her extensive expertise laid out the tedious and very, very expensive steps behind launching a "grassroots" ballot measure. The particular ballot measure that the Iniative Bloggers had in mind adddressed environmentally-friendly California public transportation, its increased institution ot be exact. To many, this would seem fairly straightforward and an attempt at contributing to the general public. To the system, however, this is much, much more complex and, of course, costly.

To break it down, on top of the lawyer's own services (consultation alone running at about $350 per hour for tender hearted practitioners and more like $500 per hour in most firms) propositions require the additional expertise of: signature gatherers (1.1 signatures to be gathered in order to guarantee 800,000 valid signatures, each signature running one to two dollars resulting in at least one million dollars), a political consultant (mandatory and running rates of an absolute minimum of "several thousand dollars"), an advertising/publicity representative (necessary for any proposition's success, and "probably the most expensive component"), and a treasurer (actually mandated by the law and "very, very expensive" to say the least). In order for this iniative to be at all plausible, it must have a proposal for the way in which it will be funded. The options for such funding are a bond, a tax, or a way of redirecting some already-existing portion of the budget toward this new measure. In every case, some resistant response is sure to be triggered in some opposing party, and in order to determine the least offensive and therefore most strongly supported form of funding, it will probably require the consultation fees of economists and/or other experts in such areas. No matter which funding option is decided on, this large scope and great change would require to an amendment to the state Constitution, also known as a very ambitious feat. The grand total? Probably somewhere between three to five million dollars. How's that for an equal opportunity?

A "User Friendly" Process

As an absentee voter, I have already cast my vote and sent in my ballot, but hundreds of thousands of people will vote to possibly make some big changes in our state on November 8. With the Special Statewide Election only days away, it is time to take a step back and look at the actual initiative process.

Last Tuesday the Initiative Madness Bloggers had the opportunity to speak with a leading attorney in the California initiative process who told us about the steps to writing an initiative and getting it on the ballot. What we found out was not encouraging.

User Friendly? I don’t think so. The attorney informed us that to draft a credible initiative we would need to hire a lawyer, political consultant, and a campaign committee including a treasurer, conduct focus groups to see what the public would want out of our initiative, and gather around 1.1 million signatures. All of this and our initiative would only be considered for an election that would not take place for nearly a year. September 8 was the deadline for next year’s November ballot, so by the time we got anything done with our initiative, we probably would not see it on the ballot for two or three years!

Grass Roots Friendly? Unfortunately, the grass is not green on our side. The cost of getting an initiative on the ballot is in the millions of dollars range. A lawyer charges anywhere from $300 to $500 per hour and an initiative could take months to draft. Hiring a political consultant costs several hundred thousand dollars. Professional signature gatherers charge $1 to $2 per signature and while signature gatherers could be volunteers, there are many complicated rules about gathering signatures, so a serious campaign would hire professionals.

Will Anything Really Change? The attorney asked us to think about stipulations in our initiative. In the case that our initiative passed, but did not work exactly as written, would we give power to the legislature to change it or would we require that another initiative be passed to fix the error? Does our initiative really need to be statewide or could it be passed as a local initiative? Are there any past initiatives that we could work with? Are there any initiatives on upcoming ballots that we could ally with? If passing our initiative meant taking funding away from things like education, would we still be willing to try to pass it?

Speaking with this expert really opened my eyes to our state’s political process. Maybe the initiative process is user friendly, but to which users? In a system where only politically knowledgeable, wealthy people can get their opinions on the ballot, whose side is the government taking? Before voting this Tuesday, take a step back and try to see who exactly is behind each initiative you vote on. Good luck at the polls!

In the Hands of the Elite

As many of the Initiative Madness bloggers have established in the past few entries, California's initiative system is not all that user-friendly. It's complex, convoluted, and, most importantly and disillusioningly, it's costly.

In conclusion, California's initiative system, intended as a means for the common person to reach out and shape state politics without the influence of the professionals and politicians that make up the elite of our state, is a myth. From our experience endeavoring to initiate an initiative ourselves, I've learned that California's initiative process is not in the hands of the people. And if we don't have control over even that democratic function, then that makes California an elite-run state - we're just here to vote for the elite with their elite ideas.

Which brings me to another conclusion: why maintain this initiative system anyways? Not only is it not a true people-driven process, it's also kind of a screwed up one. Sure, it's the elite running the whole thing, but it's not the political elite who at least understand what goes around California. These are the rich white guys who happen to have a few bucks lying around to donate to their favorite cause. Rich does not necessarily equal politically savvy. In fact, as California history has shown, the initiatives that do get passed aren't guaranteed to have the most stable, sound implications for California. For example, Prop 13 eliminated the property tax, which was fine and dandy, until California realized that its schools would get severely short-changed in the process. Those sorts of negative consequences aren't always forseen with the initiative process, and so those sorts of consequences aren't always anticipated when these initiatives get drafted to begin with.

So what we have is incomplete legislation getting passed into law with both good and bad implications for California. It's not legislation we have a say in creating; even if we like the general idea, we can't do much about specific sections we don't like aside from voting down the initiative altogether or trying to start up another one to counteract the aforementioned initiative.

With all of the negative aspects of this process, why do Californians insist on maintaining the initiative process? I think the answer still lies with what Bruce Cain said back in October. Cain may have been slightly erroneous in his statement that California's initiative process is a "user-friendly" one but he was right when he also asserted that the initiative process is still here because people trust their own judgment. However twisted and inaccurate it may be that we see equate our judgment with the rich, the fact remains that we do - and we're still voting this November 8.

Public Appeal: The Universal Key to Campaign Success

It is undeniable that most things vary from political party to political party. However, interestingly enough I have recently had the opportunity to witness first hand a great component of politics that is consistent all along the left-wing to right-wing spectrum: the importance and craft of public appearance and speech making. Though varying both in their format and subject material, it is impossible to ignore the similarities between Governor Schwarzenegger's Special Election "Town Hall" forum and Senator John Edward's live-at-UC Berkeley speech on poverty.

The most striking aspect about the two performances (because they were both indeed precisely that, performances) was the politicians' similarity of approach despite their address of two rather opposite audiences. Both overwhelmingly consisting of supporters for the respective speakers, the audiences varied in almost every other way. However, the politicians hardly had to adjust. Unlike those present at the Governor's forum, Senator Edwards' audience was primarily made up of young college students, liberal and enthusiastic as possible. The prescription for such an audience? Jeans and an open collar, colloquial language, easy smiles, self-humbling jokes, references to his own younger years, and plenty of cliche-yet-inspiring emotional appeals. To cater to his older, more politically-savvy and supposedly less unquestioningly-supportive audience (a debatable supposition as it turns out), Schwarzenegger didn't stray far from the approachable and personable sincerity demonstrated by Edwards. He joked around with everyone present, even playing along with one audience member's attempt at a Terminator accent.

Given the campaign orientation of both appearances (the overt purpose of Schwarzenegger's was to rally backing before the impending special election, while there is merely speculation that the "Poverty Awareness College Tour" is preparation for a future campaign in Edwards' case) it is no surprise that both politicians catered to a broad majority opinion and thereby elicited very positive responses. Schwarzenegger glossed over true questions, sticking to fairly moderate mediations and popular promises. Edwards, rather arbitrarily, chose to speak on poverty, a fairly undebated issue and universal concern, guaranteed to provoke sympathy and patronage in any audience, especially one that is voluntary and predisposed to agree. Whether conservative or liberal; in the face of an impending Election or still unacknowledged as a candidate; addressing a broad, primarily middle-aged, and politically invested audience, or a crowd of college-aged left-wing enthusiasts, certain elements of public appeal are uniformly necessary. Even with the personal aim of uncovering these politicians' ulterior motives and manipulative tactics, I felt myself falling under their carefully constructed and convincing spells. Between natural human instinct, talented P.R. coaching, and meticulous monitoring of public perspective, politicians have discovered the key to campaign success. It is not a popular platform or a great council or good priorities. It is a public persona that is approachable, relatable, positive, and appealing to the majority. And both Senator Edwards and Governor Schwarzenegger, whatever their greater faults may be, have mastered it beautifully.