INITIATIVE MADNESS

test

2006-03-27T13:37:00.000-08:00

What Now?

2005-11-14T00:01:00.000-08:00

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..

The Special Election

2005-11-13T20:47:00.000-08:00

We know how the state voted, but how did Berkeley do? According to the Secretary of State’s website, in Alameda County 44.6% was the turnout rate for the 2005 Special Election. Out of 704,036 registered voters in the county, 314,462 voters cast their ballot.

Specifically, Alameda County tended to be consistent with the statewide vote. On Proposition 73 (Minor’s Pregnancy) Alameda County (AC) voted 69.3% NO and the state of California (SC) voted 52.6% NO. On Proposition 74 (teacher tenure) AC voted 72.1% NO and SC voted 55.0% NO. On Proposition 75 (union dues) AC voted 70.4% NO and SC voted 53.4% NO. On Proposition 76 (State spending) AC voted 79.5% NO and SC voted 62.0% NO. On Proposition 77 (redistricting) AC voted 74.0% NO and SC voted 59.5% NO. On Proposition 78 (drug discounts) AC voted 68.1% NO and SC voted 58.5% NO. On Proposition 79 (drug rebates) AC voted 52.5% NO and SC voted 61.1% NO. On Proposition 80 (electricity regulation) AC voted 60.7% NO and SC voted 65.7% NO.

The Special Election- Alameda County was with the masses, and the masses trampled Arnold…

Two Cents: The Initiative Process of C.A. = too cool for school

2005-11-07T23:54:00.000-08:00

For the past few weeks, us Initiative Madness Bloggeroos have been studying the California initiative process as it relates to Tuesday’s special election. We’ve tried to make sense of some of the initiatives and even began to look into the process of getting an initiative passed. We’ve spent hours painstakingly analyzing every aspect of the eight propositions on the 2005 special election ballot.

So what did I come away with after all of it? Well, on top of the replenished zeal for democracy (Woo!), I discovered that the initiative process of California is nowhere close to being the noble, power-to-the-people process that most believe.

The harsh realities of advertising costs, legal fees, consulting fees, bribes, drug money, etc. soon put a stop to my dreams of a truly grassroots initiative. Our class spoke to a lawyer representing a firm that specializes in initiatives for Democrats and their allies. She estimated that we would need multiple millions of dollars just to get our feet in the door. Signature gatherers would leech the first couple million dollars. The lawyers would get a sizable compensation, followed by a slew of political advisors, advertisement firms, and focus groups. It’s no wonder that initiative campaign websites look like crap.

With my dreams of a noble, grassroots initiative that would bring affordable public transportation to everyone and at the same time save the environment thoroughly crushed, I almost didn’t feel as if I could go on. The disappointment was getting to be too much to bear when I remembered that soon, I would be given the power to change the course of history. On November 8, 2005, I would be able to vote and apply my newfound knowledge of the initiatives to have a say in our government. The right to participate in the democratic process is truly an amazing one. I hope you, the readers of Initiative Madness, will too take part in this wonderful and integral part of our country’s foundations.

Is there such a thing as grass roots anymore?

2005-11-07T22:27:00.000-08:00

The American Civil Rights Movement, now that was grass roots! Common people coming together to fight for something they truly believe in, using any means possible. Sound familiar? It should, but for some of us who are too young to remember the time when picket signs and letters to your congressman actual accomplished something, the idea of a grass root movement is foreign. Politics has always been a rich man's game and in the year 2005 in the liberal state of California this remains true.

As a Californian I feel I have been abused by the Government during the special election campaign. In the past few months I have been lied to, harassed by campaigners and advertisements, and befuddled by the legal jargon of the initiatives. More importantly, I was robbed by the Governor himself, who decided to call this special election which, according to comcast.com, costs somewhere between 52-55 million dollars. I am outraged! I guess I will just create my own initiative, to call for the end of all special elections.

Oh wait. I can't. Despite the "user friendly," initiative process I lack the millions of dollars that creating my own initiative would require. Last Tuesday, exactly a week before the special election, I along with the rest of the initiative madness bloggers, decided to see just how hard it would be to create an initiative of our own. We spoke with an expert attorney who made it clear that it would be impossible to pass an initiative ourselves. We would need lawyers, political consultants, a campaign committee, signature collectors and most importantly money. It came down to one simple question: "How much were we willing to spend to buy a law?"

How will the madness of the last few months end? In a complete upset or victory for the Governor? According to an article in this Monday's LA Times, Schwarzenegger's opposition has been mobilizing, hitting the streets and rallying support for the cause. Hold on, that sounds characteristic of a grass roots movement. True, many of the people gathering support for or against the initiatives are employed in that faculty, but there is a minority who chose to campaign during this special election because it is something they believe in. So, despite the monetary corruption of the initiative process elements of grass roots still remain.

It's all about the Moooo-lah

2005-11-07T19:58:00.000-08:00

Well-known professor Bruce Cain may consider California's initiative process "user friendly," but he never told us who the "user" is. After talking to an attorney whose firm handles initiatives for Democratic clients, it was extremely clear that the CA intiative process is only "user friendly" if the user has at least couple of million dollars to drop. At least.
A break down of the money flow for pushing through an initiative is striking. Consultation with a kind-hearted lawyer who believes in your cause rings up the hefty price of $300-350/hour, a bargian, because many people charage as much as $500. And that "bargain" would only come up if the proposed initiative is convincingly beneficial and "good." And let's never forget: you also have to convince the lawyer that it wouldn't conflict with the firms other major clients.
Legal consultation aside, here's where the money would be shoveled: According to the CA Secretary of State's office, initiative petitions must be signed by registered voters and the number of signatures must be at least 5% of the total votes cast for the last gubernatorial election. The number of signatures required for initiative statues for circulation before the November 2006 gubernatorial election, is 373,816.
Amending the Constitution, however, requires more signatures. Petitions for initiative constitutional amendments must also be signed by registered voters, but instead of just 5%, there must be at east 8% o the totalvotes cast for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. For circulation before the November 2006 gubernatorial election, that comes to 598,105.
These signatures don't come cheap. Our expert noted that signature gatherers typically charge $1-2 per signature, although more controversial initiatives cause the cost to hike up. In addition, since only about 70% of signatures are even valid, it's much safer to over-gather than to just stick to the number of signatures required. Just gathering signatures charges a million dollars to a bank account.
Since signature gatherers charge so much, the obvious thing to do would be to assemble a group of volunteers. However, our legal eagle shoots down that suggestion quickly, "I can't even remember the last intitiative that qualified with volunteer initiatives. There are all kinds of rules about who can circulate a volunteer petition. The problem with volunteers is that you have to make sure that your volunteers are qualified and make sure that volunteers know all the rules. I think that you are unrealistic to think that you can save very much money. There's no way that you can get around that intitial cost."
If we solely focus on legal consultation charges and signature gathering, we're already topping a million dollars. Numbers like these don't come easy for most people.
While the initiative process may be "user friendly" for those with money, it leaves people sorely lacking -- grassroot elements, concepts and progress are left behind.
Since it's my last blog of the semester, I just want to leave readers with this last question: how can we help the initiative process in CA return to its roots?

Equal Opportunity...Or Not?

2005-11-07T19:53:00.000-08:00

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?

2005-11-06T20:53:00.000-08:00

California is known to be one of the most democratic states in the nation and for its "power to the people" motto. Even Bruce Cain, Director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, argued that the California initiative process is very "user friendly." However through consulting a lawyer about the facts of the initiative process, I have discovered that it is only "user friendly" to the wealthy user who has patience to deal with the long, complicated process.

Eager to get a hands on experience of the initiative process, the bloggers of Professor Rasky's class, made a mock initiative. The initiative was about an environmentally, safe transportation system. When we called a lawyer to discuss the possibility and process to pass this initiative, I realized just how costly and time consuming the initiative process is. For starters this lawyer, in real life, would charge a hefty $300-350 per hour. In addition to a lawyer, we would need focus groups (which would cost thousands of dollars), political consultants (which are even more expensive than lawyers), a campaign committee (with a treasurer and someone who knows the laws), and signature gathers (who charge $1-2 per signature). According to the lawyer we would a total of 1.1 million signatures. When we asked about volunteer signature gathers, the lawyer laughed and explained that volunteer signatures have not been used in a while because of the strict rules. Therefore, just to gather signatures, it could cost anywhere between 1.1 – 2.1 millions dollars.

It is not only the initiative process itself that is unfriendly, but also the process of voting. Many citizens find it hard to register. In addition, registered voters have a hard time getting to their precinct before or after work or school, making the voter turnout even less than the percent registered. According to the Secretary of State website, about 70% are registered to vote in California. A Mercury News article by Aaron C. Davis reports, "Historically voter turnout in California's special elections has ranged between 36 and 47 percent, although more than 61 percent of registered voters turned out for the recall election in 2003." Even if most citizens do not have the money to initiate a proposition, all citizens at least have the chance to vote, which most do not take the advantage of. Ironically, as amendments have been made to broaden the opportunities for people to vote, the voter turnout rate has steadily decreased.

A "User Friendly" Process

2005-11-06T14:28:00.000-08:00

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

2005-11-06T00:36:00.000-08:00

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.

Rich People vs. Regular People User Friendly

2005-11-05T20:01:00.000-08:00

As you all know, the Journalism 24 bloggers recently listened to Bruce Cain, a respected political scientist, speak about the special election. During his speech, Bruce Cain made a statement that “the California initiative system is user friendly.” But is this really true? After Tuesday’s class it didn’t seem like it.

We decided to test the system ourselves. We brainstormed, gathered ideas, and finally put them together into our very own initiative. Then we called a lawyer for expert advice. We wanted to know what it would take and how much it would cost to pass an initiative.

The first thing you need to do is pay a lawyer to draft the initiative. Since we had an idea our lawyer was sympathetic to, the charges would about $350 an hour. That's greatly discounted compared to other lawyers’ rates. Regular lawyers may charge up to $500 an hour. Lawyers can take a few weeks or even a few months to finish drafting. Next you need signatures. 373,816 signatures are required to pass an initiative, but 598,105 signatures are required to pass an initiative that amends or changes the constitution. In order to get those signatures, people usually hire professional signature gatherers. However, they have only a 70% validity rate and charge about $2 per signature. You can try to save money by getting volunteer signature gatherers, but they tend to have an even lower validity rate. Thus, passing the initiative already costs more than one million dollars. However, it doesn’t stop here. You also need a political consultant (which costs much more than a lawyer), a focus group (which costs tens of thousands), and a campaign committee with a treasurer who knows the state law. And don’t forget you have to pay for advertising! People do not exaggerate when they say advertising costs A LOT. Even without adding all of this up, you can see that just putting an initiative on the ballot costs millions. Putting an initiative on the ballot doesn’t guarantee it will pass. I doubt anyone has a few millions lying around to just spend or play with. It is true that the California initiative system is user friendly, but it is “rich people user friendly,” not “regular people user friendly.”

Our Initiative

2005-11-05T16:51:00.000-08:00

As Initiative Madness blogger Amy said, we at Initiative Madness are working on a way to fix the pathetic transportation system in California. We would like to propose an initiative that will make public transportation in urban areas more available as well as to make transportation more environmentally friendly. Who wouldn’t want an initiative like this?
According to the lawyer we consulted, our initiative was likely to rub the wrong way with the California Teachers Association (CTA). As can be seen with their fight against Arnold and Proposition 74, CTA is one union that we don’t want against us! The lawyer explained that the CTA wouldn’t have objection to the positive environmental intentions of our initiative, but rather because of a little-known-phenomenon called $money$! Proposition 98, passed in 1988 “establishes a minimum funding level or guarantee for K-12 education and community colleges” (California Budget Project). Thus, if we were to fund our public transportation initiative with money from taxes, we would be upsetting the teachers’ initiative.
Our expert suggested that we research previous initiatives that focus on the same themes we are trying to incorporate in our initiative and to work with groups from those initiatives to get our measure passed. For example, we might want to consider the “EMERGENCY RESERVE. DEDICATION OF CERTAIN TAXES TO TRANSPORTATION. APPROPRIATION LIMIT CHANGE. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT” (HLL) of 1987. Because this initiative is very much like our own, especially in regards to where the money would come from, it would be very beneficial to our efforts to not only come in contact with the introducing group of this initiative, but also to find out where this initiative went wrong.
However, considering what Initiative Madness blogger Jared said about the costs of our hypothetical “grassroots initiative” I think it’ll take a lot more than this…

User Friendly*

2005-11-05T16:26:00.000-08:00

Bruce Cain, Director of Cal Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies, argued in a speech to the Journalism School that California’s initiative process is much more “user friendly” than other states’. This being said, what type of user is it friendly to?

In short, the well-wishing citizen who tries to make a contribution to the state of California by passing an initiative will need to fork out at least 3 million dollars if they would like their proposal to have a shot at becoming law.

Clearly, the type of user that California’s system is friendly to is not Jack, the determined and optimistic middle school teacher. However, as the expert lawyer we consulted seemed to make clear, developing an initiative is expensive, but it’s pretty much just a formula. After hiring the attorney, political consultant, signature gatherers and focus group members, there are simply a number of questions that must be answered, and all the people you have working for you will churn out the rest. Where will the funding come from? If your initiative fails, would you mind only the acceptable parts turning into law?

California’s initiative process is clearly not friendly to the average citizen with a good idea, but the wealthy one who believes that turning their idea into law is worth several million dollars is in luck.

*This applies to those who believe that their initiative is worth about five million dollars

2005-11-04T01:36:00.000-08:00

According to Tom Abate of the San Francisco Chronicle, California has the lowest bond rating of the 50 states despite being one of the world’s largest economies. California has long faced the problem of spending while not raising enough revenue. Within 5 years, the sate deficit has more than doubled from $26 billion to $54 billion. Ever since the cap on property tax (Proposition 13) passed, the state has relied heavily on sales and income tax. The problem California faces is either to cut spending or to raise taxes, but neither side can come to a consensus. California requires a two-thirds majority to approve a budget and the same two-thirds to raise taxes. This issue is a major obstacle in the initiative we are trying to launch.

The Initiative Madness Bloggers have decided to start our own initiative. We want to fund public transportation in major cities while being environmentally friendly and energy efficient. The idea behind this initiative is to provide an alternative to driving and spare the environment. We realize that this is a huge task to take on but someone has to do it. The way the transportation measure would be funded will be through bonds, a portion of the state budget, or maybe even taxes. However, from past surveys of the Californian population, none of these ways is popular.

According to a June 2005 survey from the Public Policy Institute of California, transportation only receives 3% of the State General Obligation Infrastructure Bonds. While other propositions have tried to earmark money for funding transportation (such as Proposition 42), the money has yet to be directed toward transportation, due to the state’s current budget crisis. So it is unsure whether funding for this measure can happen.

In another July 2004 PPIC survey of the environment, Californians are very much aware of the increasing problems in the environment. Air pollution ranks the highest with 26% in the top environmental problems California faces. The survey states that 75% of Californians support tougher air pollution regulation laws and 56% would be willing to pay a higher price for a vehicle if it benefited the environment. Despite these findings, California still rejected Proposition 51 which allow “thirty percent of the General Fund revenues generated from the sales tax on the lease and sale of motor vehicles to be used only for state and local transportation-related purposes.”

In trying to save our environment and to increase public transportation, we are looking to spend several million dollars to try to pass an initiative. Is clean air and public transit worth the cost? We sure think so.

The Price of Democracy

2005-11-03T09:23:00.000-08:00

A lawyer at one of California’s leading Democratic law firms spoke with the Initiative Madness bloggers on Tuesday to discuss the process of passing an initiative. We learned that while Berkeley Professor Bruce Cain argued that California has one of the easiest initiatives process compared to other states, it is by no means open to anyone with a good idea.

Our lawyer, who considers her rates to be "bargain" because she only takes on initiatives in which she has faith, charges approximately $350 an hour, whereas most charge in the ballpark of $500. That is simply for drafting the initiative, one of many steps in the process. Then, the lawyer said, we would have to hire a political consultant, a necessary step for those who want an initiative to have the potential to pass. These consultants, who help to organize focus groups and publicity, cost much more than lawyers, in addition to the potential millions of dollars spent on ad campaigns.

In order for the initiative to qualify, however, it must get between 400,000 and 600,000 valid signatures depending on whether it is a statute or a constitutional amendment. On average, though, only about 70% of signatures gathered are deemed valid by the Attorney General of the state. This statistic is based upon professional signature gatherers, who oftentimes charge as much as $2 per signature. "Grassroots" volunteers have a much lower validity rate, and therefore, it is necessary to spend the potential million or so dollars on campaign gatherers.

In addition to this, a campaign committee is needed. Though these can be volunteers, it is required by law to have an accountant or treasurer who handles all of the monies and donations for a particular initiative campaign. Since high fines or lawsuits can result if this accounting is done inaccurately, most hire professionals.

Organizations can spend millions and millions of dollars, then, on simply getting an initiative statute or constitutional amendment onto the state's ballot – not even a guarantee that it will be passed. While it is still possible for simple ideas to begin at the grassroots level, it is not probable. I would argue that California's initiative process, like a great deal of politics, favors the rich, which is not what the initiative process is about for many. However, how else can things be done? Should California further loosen its already lenient laws?

Public Appeal: The Universal Key to Campaign Success

2005-11-01T12:02:00.000-08:00

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.

Two Cents: Up Close and Personal

2005-10-31T21:59:00.000-08:00

Senator John Edwards' visit to UC Berkeley was so obviously his jumpstart on his 2008 presidential campaign. Nonetheless, it was nice to see political figures swing by our campus, especially since most Republicans or Conservatives don't dare to tread near the Bay area!

What was the best about the talk though? The giant mob of supporters actually got to speak with Edwards mano-a-mano after his speech. Although the crowd converged into one giant sea of Berkeley faces, pushing and darting in and out of the tsunami-surging crowd put me first close enough to poke his back, and then even closer still, to the point that I was actually able to get a few photos in, ask for and receive an autograph and actually ask questions.

My final review of last Tuesday night?

Like the Ah-nold of Sacramento, Edwards is incredibly good at the laid-back, smile-as-if-you-mean-it, you-are-important-to-me attitude. Possessing charisma by the bucket-load, Edwards' grand entrance was marked by casual jeans and a simple collared shirt, with the first few buttons undone for the full laid-back effect. However, no matter how well he did the ordinary-guy routine, it was easy to remember that he is what he is -- a politician.

Although he was an amazingly motivational speaker, Edwards' speech was stuffed with more anecdotes than content. His main ideas were drilled into our brains, but there was very little talk about what actions we could actually do. Much like Schwarzenegger, he presented problems, buffed up his own image, but didn't really offer a true solution in his speech.

The best answer I did get out of him was in the crowd. Looking me directly in the eye, he answered my question about the poverty of the mentally diseased with a far more realistic answer than the entire night's event had provided: "We can't really do anything but be there for them and try to provide better healthcare and medicade."

And thank goodness he left me with that parting comment! I didn't decide to attend Berkeley just to be disillusioned politically.

John Edwards: An Inspirational Example

2005-10-31T17:36:00.000-08:00

Senator John Edwards put on quite a show when he visited UC Berkeley in late October. The man was—at the risk of my sounding corny—purely inspirational. In contrast with Governor Schwarzenegger’s appearance on television only a few days earlier, Edwards’ presentation was refreshing and genuine. He appeared on campus to support the new program Opportunity Rocks, and even explained his own progression from a son of a poor man to a senator of the United States, which he claimed would have been impossible without the opportunities open to him because of people willing to help. The fact that this politician fully understood the cause he was supporting and knew how it should work meant so much more than empty promises from a politician merely trying to please his major financial supporters.

Edwards projected a likeable and personable persona, while still maintaining an air of professionalism and leadership. The mastery of this delicate balance worked in great favor of the charming middle-aged man, depicting him as someone the people can rely on to represent them accurately and with conviction. He spoke in favor of raising minimum wage, offering more assistance to underprivileged students, and the basic principles of justice and fairness. Instead of resorting to flattery of the crowd, Edwards presented his facts in a straightforward manner, making his mission sound more genuine and easy to understand.

Also, in addition to statistics, Edwards provided a few anecdotes in his speech, proving that he, himself, is active in the causes he supports. Ranging from explaining how he worked up to his position with an education from an ordinary public university and his trips to meet with recent hurricane victims, Edwards proved to be one of the people, and a very powerful and motivating speaker. Another, and possibly one of the most important things John Edwards accomplished in his speech, was presenting himself as a role model—and a very good one at that.

Edwards - Berkeley's new celebrity

2005-10-31T10:29:00.000-08:00

On Tuesday, October 25th, I had an amazing opportunity to hear Senator John Edwards speak in the MLK ballroom. Edwards has been touring around the country and speaking at colleges as part of the Opportunity Rocks program. The crowd was full of enthuisastic liberals that overflowed the ballroom.

I agree that Edwards's greatest strengh is his emotional attachment to the audience. Throughout the entire speech he had the audience clinging to their seats, and cheering him on. He told us stories about poverty victims not only in America, but also across the world. Furthermore, this emotional attachment not only carried through the speech but also afterwords, when he socializied with fans one-on-one. Edwards was surrounded by fans ranging from college students to the elderly. It reminded me of a swarm of teenage girls pushing each other for a chance to meet their boy band celebrity. As I myself was part of the crowd, eager to meet John Edwards, I noticed that he was unlike any politician I have ever seen. He actually cared about the people, more than the money and power. And he wasn't faking it. Edwards not only took the time to take pictures, shake hands, and sign autographs, he also really listened to the people. I saw one lady tell her entire life story, and how he inspired her. The entire time Edwards was holding her hand and nodding in appreciation. Another lady gave him a poem that she wrote for his family, which he really appreciated. When I had the change to talk to Edwards, even though he had tons of other fans swarming for his attention, he took the time to shake my hand, take a picture, sign an autograph, and even thanked me when I told him that I phone banked for him during the primaries.

In contrast to the Governor's presence for the Special Election "debate," both politicians interact well with the audience. However, Edwards's is much more heartfelt and emotional, where as the Governor sounds as if an advisor told him what to say. Throughout the entire debate the Governor emphasized that the people's voice is the most important. However, when I have seen him "up close and personal" he does not appear to sincerely listen to the people's voices as Edwards does. Our Governor is essentially an extremely good actor.

The Rundown of Prop 78 & Prop 79

2005-10-31T02:25:00.000-08:00

Proposition 78 lowers prescription drug prices for families with an income at or below 300 percent of the federal poverty level and people with Medicare, but only for those drugs not covered by Medicare. These people would obtain a discount card and pay a fee of $15 to participate. However, those who have private health insurance are not included in the discount program. The way this proposition works is that the pharmacies will voluntarily participate and agree to sell prescription drugs at a discounted price pre-negotiated by the pharmacies and the state. The pharmacies could then further discount the rates through rebates decided by the state and drug makers. The state would collect money for the rebates from drug makers. The Department of Health Services (DHS) would oversee this. The DHS will decide who is qualified for a discount card and can terminate the program if not enough people join, no vendors participate, or there are not enough discounts.

Vs.

Proposition 79 would offer discounts to families with an income at or below 400 percent of the federal poverty level. Also, families with a higher income can qualify if their medical expenses exceed 5 percent of their income. However, those who receive coverage from Medi-Cal or Healthy Families Program may not participate. The DHS would regulate the discount program by having contracts with private vendors. Participants of the program would pay $10 each year. This proposition will work the same way as proposition 78 in regards to how discounts and rebates will be obtained. Under Proposition 79, the DHS will not be able to contract with drug makers if they do not offer a discounted price. Also, there will be a requirement that doctors will need prior approval to be able to prescribe certain drugs to patients if the drug makers do no agree on the contract. In addition, a nine member Prescription Drug Advisory Board will be created to oversee the pricing of the drugs and the access of participants.

Proposition 78 vs. Proposition 79

2005-10-30T14:49:00.000-08:00

Since I did not have the opportunity to listen to the amazing John Edwards speak, I will be blogging about the medical propositions, Proposition 78 and Proposition 79 =]

More than half of American adults report taking prescription medicine on a daily basis (League of Women Voters). It is becoming more and more obvious that Americans pay more than anyone else in the world for their medications. Discounts for prescription drugs are becoming a necessity. According to The Official Voter Guide Online, several state and federal currently provide prescription drug discounts to those who are eligible based on income, age and/or disability. This also includes individuals enrolled in the Medi-Cal and Healthy Families programs. Starting January 2006, this will be extended to include people enrolled in Medicare, which is a program for elderly and disabled persons. People may also have their prescription drug coverage benefits provided by private insurance companies, which is paid for by the individual or their employer.

Propositions 78 and 79 on the November ballot both deal with prescription drug discounts. In fact, they differ in only a few points. The Official Voter Guide Online provides a table comparing the differences between Proposition 78 and Proposition 79. Proposition 78 creates a new state drug discount program for people who do not already have coverage from a government program or private insurance. For $15 a year, Californians with incomes up to three times the federal poverty level (about $29,000 for one person or $58,000 for a family of four) can get a card that gives them discounts on prescription drugs at participating pharmacies (Easy Voter Guide). The participation of drug companies would be completely voluntary. Proposition 79 is the same except Californians with incomes up to four times the federal poverty level (about $38,000 for one person and $77,000 for a family of four) would be allowed to purchase a drug discount card for $10, not $15. Furthermore, drug companies who do not participate in the program could have their drugs removed from the “preferred status” list in Medi-Cal and could be sued for making extra profits on the sale of drugs.

The main arguments for Proposition 78 are that it would give millions of Californians access to affordable prescription drugs and that Ohio already as a similar program that is successful and discounts there have averaged 31 percent. The main arguments against Proposition 78 are that it won’t provide the best discounts since participation of drug companies is completely voluntary and that Prop 78 was put on the ballot by drug companies to defeat Prop 79 which covers more people. The main arguments for Proposition 79 are that participation of drug companies can be enforced and that Prop 79 will cover millions more people than Prop 78, including people with existing drug coverage that does not cover their expenses. The main arguments against Proposition 79 are that it requires federal approval and will also have many legal challenges which would prevent it from ever getting started. Also, opponents argue that Prop 79 allows unnecessary lawsuits against drug companies which will benefit trial lawyers more than the public.

In the case that both propositions pass, the proposition with the most “yes” votes will become law.

Pre-Packaged Politics

2005-10-30T14:07:00.000-08:00

“This is your movement, this is your effort to end poverty in America.”

These words resonated throughout Pauley Ballroom on Tuesday night, October 25, as John Edwards addressed a packed crowd about getting involved in the war on poverty in the United States. UC Berkeley was just one of the former U.S. Senator and Vice Presidential Candidate’s ten stops on his Opportunity Rocks Tour around the country. Edwards is encouraging college students to take a stand and do something about poverty.

However, one thing was clear on Tuesday night: this “plea” to fight poverty was more than just a political stance. It was part of Edwards’ political strategy to help gain momentum for his 2008 presidential campaign. While he did not come clean about running for president, his attacks on the Bush administration and the war in Iraq were good indicators of his intended political future.

That being said, there are many similarities between John Edwards and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both politicians are doing certain things now to potentially help them come election time in the near future. Edwards is promoting fighting poverty on college campuses and Schwarzenegger is throwing a statewide special election. While these two maneuvers are different from each other, both are alike in that these politicians are making the issues our issues. By getting the people more involved in and connected to the issues, they are hoping that more people will participate in politics and support them.

So, will this strategy work? For Schwarzenegger, whose popularity seems to be continually dropping, the statewide special election on November 8 will be a good indicator of how he will fare in reelection. For Edwards, however, only time will tell. With the next presidential election being three years away, Edwards has got to make more of a lasting impact on the electorate in order to be a contender in 2008. Both of these politicians have proved that no matter the issue at hand, there are only so many political strategies to use. Good luck, gentlemen.

Propositions 78 & 79: Who Do They Benefit?

2005-10-30T13:04:00.000-08:00

Judging the arguments made by pro-Proposition 78 advertisements, it seems as if this proposition is supported mainly by consumers. The "Yes on 78" website touts that "Prop. 78 does not require a big government bureaucracy to implement. The discounts go right to the patient in their community." This, I must admit, is true. However, because there is this lack of government bureaucracy, pharmaceutical companies are not obligated to participate. In fact, according to the Alliance for a Better California (ABC), California's previous voluntary drug discount plan dissolved just four years ago because of a reluctancy on the part of drug companies to participate.

ABC also argues that Proposition 79 will be better for Californians that Proposition 78 because, in addition to having a wider eligibility requirements, 79 will actually save California taxpayers money beyond those who actually are eligible, since less will be reliant upon Medi-Cal or other public health programs. Prop. 79 requires the money to be taken from drug companies, not from taxpayers, which is obviously why pharmaceutical companies strongly back Prop. 78. The drug companies argue, however, that Proposition 79 will encourage frivolous lawsuits because of a stipulation in the proposition which allows people to sue the companies over "unjust or unreasonable profits." If the drug companies already argue that their prices are low enough, than why are they worrying?

Overall, both proposition 78 and 79 say that they provide discounts for Californians when it comes to prescription drugs, but, only one can actually pass. Do the research for yourself and see which one you'd rather support.

Politicians are my Rockstars…

2005-10-29T22:27:00.000-07:00

… John Edwards is my Brad Pitt!

That being said-

What struck me most about Senator Edwards’ speech were the risks that he was taking with it. Sure, you could argue, the Senator was speaking at UC Berkeley, historically one of the most liberal schools in the country; but I would argue that he took a risk even then.
Some of the ideas that Senator Edwards was suggesting were, what the President and others would label, “un-American,” but what I will call- the message we’ve been waiting for. Senator Edwards wants people to be taken care of. And he wants America to take care of them.
Senator Edwards didn’t come out and say it, but I think he wants a national health care system. And you know what? I do too. And I think America does. However, this idea of helping others and allowing all Americans equal advantage in terms of health care, which opponents call “European socialism,” does not sit well with many Americans. But this is due to the way that we as Americans have been socialized to think.
I so much admired Senator Edwards’ courage to come out and give the speech that we needed to hear. And not only did he have the right message and the guts to say it, but he had the capacity to make every person in that room want to hop on the train to fight poverty, right then and there. Thanks to Senator Edwards, I anticipate a lot more action fighting poverty here in Berkeley!

Down With Politicians!

2005-10-27T17:33:00.000-07:00

It seems that when all else fails, ignore the politicians.

That appears to be the common mantra these days among our nation's major political figures.

On Tuesday, October 25, 2005, I had the opportunity to listen to Senator John Edwards speak at UC Berkeley on poverty. Engaging and polite, Edwards spoke on the face, color, and nature of poverty in the United States, highlighting the failure of the Bush administration to provide for the victims of Hurricane Katrina and the psychological success of the War on Poverty policy from former President Lyndon Johnson's administration.

Edwards revealed his personal side to the audience when he admitted that though he may have been successful, he didn't do it alone.

"I did not get here by myself," he insisted, listing his education, relative wealth, and supportive parents as reasons for his success. From there, he pointed to the need of the impoverished for the same, if not increased, external help from the rest of America to aid them in their daily struggles to succeed in this society.

"Where is America?" Edwards quipped several times throughout the evening, citing the need for the United States to step up its efforts to eradicate poverty from society. "Where is our voice?"

Cue Edwards' solution to the poverty problem: raise the minimum wage, integrate racially segregated neighborhoods, build good housing for all, stop cutting education funds... and ignore the politicians.

"We can't wait on them [politicians] anymore," Edwards stated, a statement which received applause from the audience, consisting mainly of Cal students. Throughout the evening, Edwards continued to defend America's need for young people and college students such as ourselves get involved in community service for poorer neighborhoods.

Despite the division in party lines, several of the assertions that Edwards made on Tuesday night were an echo of the statements Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made this past Monday on October 24, 2005 during a forum for California's November 8 special initiatives election.

"Let's give the power back to the people ... not let the politicians go in the back room, slap each other on the back and smoke a stogie," Schwarzenegger insisted, and made similar statements several times the rest of the evening.

Ironic though it may be that it's politicians asking the people to take power from them, it makes sense considering that both Edwards and Schwarzenegger are considering running for election soon, with Edwards in the running for the 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate and Schwarzenegger campaigning for reelection in California's next gubernatorial race. With the coming elections, both candidates seem to feel the need to relate to the people on a personal, rather than political, level - and if that means bashing their fellow political leaders, so be it.

In comparing their styles, Schwarzenegger and Edwards appear to be at ease with crowds, giving off an easy-going, down-to-earth attitude while up at the lectern. Both are good at elicting applause from the audience, and both do well handling mobs of adoring fans: immediately following the conclusion of his speech, Edwards was surrounded by a large group of audience members eager to snag a photo shot with the Presidential hopeful; Edwards remained calm and composed, and what glimpses I could get of him through the crowd showed a smiling and cheerful man comfortable with the attention. Finally, both have physical fitness and, dare I say it, handsomness on their side: Schwarzenegger built his movie career around body building, after all, and judging from the comments I heard from a few female fans of Edwards standing nearby in line to the event, Edwards is one good-looking guy, too.

Edwards Meets Expectations

2005-10-25T22:37:00.000-07:00

John Edwards, a symbol of the American dream, wore jeans and a collared shirt when he spoke about poverty in the United States to a packed auditorium, primarily composed of Berkeley students. A man of the people, Edwards, decided to give informal talks on college campuses around the country in order to motivate students to become involved in their communities. He said that we need to bypass the bureaucracy of Washington politics and actually invoke change in real, even if small, ways.

One thing that separates Edwards from other politicians is his sincerity. No, I don’t mean that he is simply better at faking it. He finds ways to relate to people that are real and his speech on Tuesday was no exception. He spoke about the experiences of loss that many of poor in the United States have. Reaching out to the audience John Edwards mentioned his own feelings of loss upon hearing of his wife’s illness. His speech was simple, his message was clear and best of all he was quick and to the point.

Edwards spent most of the time talking about issues that highlight President Bush’s failures as president, namely the most recent disaster of Hurricane Katrina. Focusing on the hurricane’s affects on the impoverished citizens of New Orleans Edwards used the situation to show how it is simply a microcosm of a larger problem in America. The problem was not just in the levee’s design but in the United States economic structure. It is always the poor who are hurt the worst, Edwards said. He explained how the poor live on the edge of a razor every day, many struggling to stay alive. How do we fix the problem? Edwards offered genuine solutions: volunteer, raise the minimum wage, get cheaper higher education, etc . . .

Edward’s is not exactly what one would call a larger than life figure. But, that’s what’s appealing about him. He’s just a man, the son of a mill worker, who became an attorney, then senator, then vice presidential nominee. After the Bush regime ends I think America may be sick of all the lies and conspiracy theories and turn to an honest man who can work to heal America.

A "Poor" Job

2005-10-25T19:30:00.000-07:00

First off, John Edwards is an incredible speaker. He dominated the crowd and kept their attention wrapped around his every word. However, when it comes to substance, he was not nearly as solid. He did a great job of showing how serious of a problem poverty is, but when it came to solutions, he came up short.

He initially appeared to be proclaiming independence and the value of individual hard work. He told the story of a hurricane victim who woke up at 5 a.m. every morning in hope of being picked up for a job. Then he told the story of a third year law student who had a baby and was looking for work, but if she were to get one she would lose her eligibility to receive Medicaid. He made it sound like government health insurance should extend to all who are facing financial troubles, even if they’re employed. Independence and hard work or extended government to support those in need—which is it, you can’t have both?

Moreover, when he went into his “solution” to the problem of poverty, he suggested raising the minimum wage (what about the cut in jobs that’ll cause?), college for everyone (can a society function without a working class?), and moral leadership. Great.

John Edwards proved eloquently that poverty is a huge problem; however, when has that not been known? The speech was entertaining, but impoverished when it came to actual solutions.

Two Cents: Union Check-Off Forms

2005-10-18T08:56:00.000-07:00

Proposition 75- Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement, State of California.

In other words, “Should public employee unions be required to obtain annual written consent from each member in order to use a portion of that member's dues for political activity?”

This all sounds really petty and confusing? Why would it matter if unions workers have to sign in or sign out of dues going toward political activity? And, what is an employee consent requirement?

The following links are the sign off forms that union workers now have to fill out if they don’t want their dues going toward political activity.
The United Food and Commercial Workers Union
The Office of Personal Management

Those check-off forms the complexity of the situation. So this proposition isn’t just about Arnold, our beloved governor, usurping his power. It has something to do with making the situation more difficult for union workers.

Two Cents: Apathy Pays

2005-10-18T00:09:00.000-07:00

It is easy during my consideration for each of these Propositions to get caught up in all of the opinions and reports within my own blog, Initiative Madness. Though somewhat tilted to the left, the blogs by my classmates are varied and resourceful, not to mention thought-provoking and insightful. However, to break out of my habit, I decided to investigate the blogs written on the same topic but by a new crowd. The interesting, though sometimes limiting, thing about blogs is that to bother to maintain one, most people must be strongly opinionated on their subject matter. Political blogs are hardly an exception to this rule. After sifting through many vehement and often fairly unsupported reports, a special election blog by a reliable news source was an exciting find. This brings me to a recommendation of the San Francisco Chronicle 2005 Election Blog as an additional source of information and opinion about the November 8 ballot Propositions.

Thanks to my quest to focus on Proposition 75, the posting entitled "Governor: Unions derailing California" caught my eye. The report stuck mostly to facts, quoting the Governor's anti-union stance and aim to blame various state issues on the actions of unions. It resorted to personal commentary only in reflection at the end of the blog. But it did not emphasize the discrepancy that I myself found most startling. In those quotations, the Governor makes outright claims against unions. However, on his campaign homepage, he aims to sell Proposition 75, appealingly dubbed the "Paycheck Protection" Proposition, as beneficial for the unions and "based on the premise of fairness." How is it that the Governor expect this glaring hypocrisy to be overlooked? Probably due to the fact that many (if not the majority of) voters fail to gather sufficient information about each special ballot Proposition.

The reassuring aspect of Proposition 75 is that its outcome is not absolutely decisive about the allocation of union money. Whether we stay loyal to the current system or implement the proposed change, each union member retains an individual decision. The change concerned in Proposition 75 is simply a matter of the default setting of union spending. As of now, it takes effort on the part of the union member to NOT have the union determine the spending of their membership contributions. Proposition 75 would make effort on the part of the union member necessary to HAVE the union determine the spending of their membership contributions. The reason that such a trivial matter, that is which condition is the fall-back condition, is worth arguing over is also due to the lack of participation in politics by the average union member. Whether in the instance of researching the truth about the content of a Proposition or bothering to designate the control of union membership money to the union or oneself, apathy pays. That is, it pays the Governor...

Prop. 75 is still up in the air.

2005-10-17T23:28:00.000-07:00

The "Paycheck Protection Act" might be headed for failure, despite huge initial support in the polls. Prop. 75 still holds public support according to a recent poll by the Pacific Research Institute, but the margin has diminished. This trend is similar to the one that occured in 1998 with Proposition 226. Poll numbers from 1998 indicate large initial support that gradually declined over the months preceding the election. 226 was eventually defeated, 53%-47%.

Of course, it's impossible to predict the outcome of this election based on past results, but other interesting parallels exist. According to Berkeley's IGS, opponents of Prop. 226 spent over $23.5 million to defeat it, nearly four times as much as support contributions. This year, Prop. 75's opponents have a "war chest" of over $80 million, according to the PRI.

And speaking of donations, it's fairly obvious that 75 is a completely partisan measure. It's primary supporters are Lewis K. Uhler, founder and president of the National Tax Limitation Committee, and Joel Fox, president of the Small Business Action Committee. Opposition to the measure is primarily composed of a coalition of unions and the League of Women Voters.

Two Cents: Paycheck Protection, Or Is It?

2005-10-17T22:42:00.000-07:00

After reading about the advantages and disadvantages of Proposition 75, I think I have been persuaded to the side against the prop. Let’s begin by defining the prop. According to The League of Women Voters of California, Prop 75 is “an initiative that requires public employee unions to get annual, written consent from a government employee in order to charge and use that employee's dues or fees for political purposes. This requirement would apply for both members and nonmembers of a union.”

Groups arguing against this prop made several good points. The first was that this initiative restricts unions, but “does nothing to restrict political spending by corporations” (Easy Voter Guide). Corporations are allowed to contribute as much as they want to politics without getting the approval of their shareholders. If we want unions to first get approval, why not make it fair and require corporations to get approval too?

Furthermore, this initiative seems to me to be just another hassle with paperwork. Currently, workers are allowed to choose if they want to join a union or not. It is true that they still have to pay dues even if they choose not to join the union, but workers are also allowed to prohibit a union from spending their payment for political purposes. In Communication Workers of America v. Beck, the Supreme Court already has ruled that nonunion workers who pay agency fees to unions to support their collective bargaining efforts are entitled to a full refund of that portion of their dues used for political activity (League of Women Voters of California).

What I found most interesting was that some people feel this initiative is an attack on the Democratic Party. Apparently, it is well known that the Democratic Party receives most of its funds from unions. A similar initiative passed in Utah in 2001, The Voluntary Contributions Act. The law requires public employee union members to give authorization before their dues can be used for political purposes. As a result of the law, political contributions in Utah fell drastically. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, “between spring 2001 and last spring, the number of members making political contributions fell from 68 percent to 6.8 percent…Political Action Committee contributions have also fallen, from $143,000 a year to $40,000.” Those who oppose Proposition 75 are afraid Proposition 75 will have the same effect in California, thus handicapping the Democratic Party. They say that this initiative is about paycheck protection, but to me it seems like an argument over monetary support of the Democratic Party.

Two Cents: FAIRNESS FREEDOM AND CHOICE!

2005-10-17T21:09:00.000-07:00

The banner on the Californians for Paycheck Protection website reads: Fairness, Freedom, and Choice. Each word corresponds with a picture that supposedly denotes the word's meaning. On most pages the word "Fairness" is written on a picture of a teacher (of varying ethnic backgrounds), the word "Freedom" is set against the American flag, and behind the word "Choice" there is a picture of a firefighter (who looks like the average WASP). Give me a break!Why isn't the site showing pictures of Richard Gilder, Fred Sacher or other such millionaire tycoons who are donating monies to its campaign? Millionaires for Prop 75 gives a sampling of the people who are really supporting this ballot measure.

Members and leaders of unions have been campaigning to beat Prop 75. Darry Sragow, attorney and Democratic consultant, was quoted in an LA Times article this Wednesday:
"This is really life or death for these organizations. This is a real direct attack. If there's one thing that anyone who knows anything about the labor movement knows, it's that unions don't back down from a fight. They just don't."

Jeanette Singleton, a union member and employee at the Berkeley dining common DC3, says that she will definitely vote no on Proposition 75. In fact, she says that she intends to vote against anything Schwarzenegger supports. According to Jeanette, there is an anti- Schwarzenegger sentiment amongst members of the union (that she personally knows) at Berkeley. A member of the teacher's union at Berkeley, who would rather remain anonymous, stated that Proposition 75 is "just another example of corporate America trying to keep the working man down."

It comes down to one simple and undeniable fact: no one is forced to be a member of a union. Therefore, the supporters of the proposition who claim that "Proposition 75 protects public employees from having political contributions taken and used without their permission" are either trying to fool the voter or they themselves have been misinformed- what do you think is the case?

In their stand against Proposition 75, the League of Women Voters makes the point that there is no attempt to restrict political contributions from major corporations:
"While the Paycheck Protection Act would require prior written consent from union members before their dues could be used for any political activities, it imposes no similar restraints on corporations. When corporations use general revenues to make soft money contributions or run sham issue ad campaigns, they are using corporate profits. The Paycheck Protection Act would in no way provide stockholders who disagree with a corporation's political activities a means for receiving a refund of those portions of their profits used for partisan electioneering purposes."

Voters of California, unite! You have everything to lose and nothing to gain if you vote yes on Prop 75!

Two Cents: Don’t Be Fooled By Sneaky Campaigning

2005-10-17T16:01:00.000-07:00

Sure, judging by all the ads supporting Proposition 75, you would think that this measure would be helping public workers by giving them options they inherently deserve. You would also think that if this proposition is even on the ballot that teachers, nurses and firefighters must already be working for unions while stripped of their rights to determine what their dues support. Though the headlines and the ads make the choice seem obvious to support Proposition 75, doing so would be voting against the rights and voices of public workers all across the state of California.

No public worker can be forced to join a union, nor are any that do participate in unions robbed of the right to determine whether their dues go to a political cause. Any member of a union already has the right to vote for its leaders and rules, and can opt out of having their dues submitted to support a political campaign. If Proposition 75 is enforced, the dues that would have rightly gone to supporting the unions the workers are apart of will go to waste. This dilemma would be due, in part, to the fact that many workers would not even realize their money would be restricted from backing a cause they would have supported, anyway. The funds Prop. 75 would prevent from supporting union campaigns would not even go back into the pockets of the workers. Money would slowly dribble out of the savings needed to combat harmful measures proposed by greedy politicians and businessmen, thus giving big corporations an edge in political disputes and business.

In the campaign supporting Prop. 75, promoters have taken the low road when trying to gather support. They sent over 90,000 emails to teachers in California, spreading lies about what might happen to unions if the measure were not to be passed. In an effort of resistance, several teachers tried to respond only to have their emails rejected and blocked. These sponsors of Proposition 75 obviously did not have the teachers’ rights or voices in mind when they pulled that stunt. Though the politics surrounding this measure may be confusing at times, the right choice is to vote NO on Prop. 75.

Two Cents: Proposition 75 Goes Against American Values

2005-10-17T13:29:00.000-07:00

In my political science class we were learning about the different types of liberalism systems in different countries. America uses Lockian Liberalism, which emphasizes individualism and minimal government in the economy. It basically follows the American credo: "The Government is best the governs least." Proposition 75, which prohibits the use of public emplyee labor organization of public employee dues or fees for political contributions, completely goes against the fundamentals of America - Lockian Liberalism. According to j.lowe's blog, Two Cents: Whose Right is it Anyways?, "Prop 75 is an intrustion by the state government of the rights of a private organization to administer its finances."

However, despite the fact that Proposition 75 is going against the American ways of Lockian Liberalism, according to Field Poll, 55% support the proposition and only 32% oppose it. This is probably because voters are blind to the Governor's misleading campaign ads. For example, according to Robert Salladays LA Times article, Some Firefighers Angered by Mailer, one of the campaign photos implied the support of firefighters for Proposition 75, when in fact, "Schwarzenegger's camp bought the image from a photo archive in Seattle." Todd Harris, a campsign spokesman for Schwarzenegger admits, "The fact of the matter is we would have loved to have used a California firefighter," Harris said, "but every single time a member of one of these unions voices support for us, they receive threats and massive levels of intimidation from the union bosses." Unaware of the Governor's sneaky tactics, voters are persuaded by the image of a firefighter, a heroin figure, supporting Proposition 7

Two Cents: Prop 75 Perhaps the Most Partisan Measure on the Ballot

2005-10-17T12:20:00.000-07:00

Out of all the propositions Initiative Madness has covered, proposition 75 is perhaps the hardest to understand for voters who are unfamiliar with unions. Consequently, Prop 75 is one of the most puzzling propositions as well as one of the hardest to get hard facts on.
Prop 75, which deals with how the fees of big government employee unions are used, is one of the most partisan and politically split propositions on the ballet for this November. Schwarzenegger's team desperately tries to sell it as protective proposition that protects the average working guy from unions bosses. Schwarzenegger's Voting Guide claims that Prop 75 "protects government employees by guaranteeing them the right to give their permission before union posses can take money from their paychecks and use it for political contributions." The Voting Guide goes so far to say that "we owe them [firefighters, police officers, teachers and other public employees] a huge debt... that's why it's only fair that public employees give their permission before their hard-earned dollars are taken..."
Arnold's men are really trying to push Prop 75, but what are the politics behind that?
Since unions are typically Democratic institutions, this hindrance on the flow of money can drastically shift partisan lines; Democratic party funding may be postponed or ceased. Schwarzenegger makes a valid point in identifying that "powerful and politically-connected union leaders... can make unilateral decisions with these 'forced contributions.'"
But does that mean that Prop 75 should be embraced?
The problem is that JoinArnold.com only gives half of the story. Voteno75.com presents the rest of the deal: although it's not democratic for just a few union leaders to make "unilateral decisions" with union fees, nor is it fair that the proposition would in effect mute the voices of the unions. Although the union leaders may, in some situations, possess more power and be less representative than desired, it's also important for the union leaders to have that decisive ability. Voteno75.com claims that "Schwarzenegger, right wing extremists and large corporations clearly want to use Prop 75 to cripple employees' ability to fight on a levl playing field." Exaggerated? More than likely. But there's still a measure of truth in that statement.
Moreover, according to Voteno75.com, "Prop 75 is an elaborate plan to take away your pensin and health benefits -- the 1st step in a politically-motivated 2-step plan." Where Voteno75.com gets that idea is murky and obscure, but it's still a concern that should be considered.
However, even with both sides of the deal, it's hard to tell what the real deal behind Prop 75 is. The facts are more slanted than ever. The only thing voters can do is research both crooked versions and decide for themselves.

Two Cents: Whose Right is it Anyways?

2005-10-17T11:08:00.000-07:00

With all of the rancor going on lately about who gets what from Proposition 75, it easy to lose sight of Prop 75 itself. This initiative is a seemingly sincere call to unite the workers of America - the teachers, the firemen, the police, and the nurses, among others - and give them even more power to combat the evils of capitalism that they face, even, allegedly, from within their own union organizations. Its premise - require that union members be allowed to opt-in to contribute their dues to their union's political causes - seems like a pretty decent, worker-friendly initiative.

The problem is that it's not. Darrel Steinberg from VoteNo75.com provided an interesting insight into how paradoxical this claim of "workers' rights!" is in light of the reality of this initiative:

They [Republicans] claim to want limited government. Yet, they propose a ballot initiative that imposes government intrusion into how private organizations collect dues from their members and participate in politics.

Essentially, Prop 75 is an intrustion by the state government of the rights of a private organization to administer its finances. Ironically, Republicans, the ones who are most adamant about the rights of private organizations to work free from government regulation, are also the ones most adamant about passing this initiative.

What's going on here? Why target unions specifically? Is this really about rights?

I think not. Like many of the iniatives on the ballot, Prop 75 has a definite conservative agenda. Republicans know that by passing this iniatitive, not only do they score a big one for the government by getting more control over those irksome unions that are constantly getting in the way of big business with their calls for unnecessary things like worker protection and decent pay, they also get to diminish the voice of union members within their own unions. That is to say, funding for union political funding will undoubtedly be diminished as a result of this initiative, which means that unions will have even less power to defend the rights of their members in general - which means even fewer calls for a decent amount of state funding for institutions such as hospitals and schools.

Money, Money, Money

2005-10-17T01:46:00.000-07:00

According to Field Poll, prop 75 is leading the polls with 55% in support and only 32% opposing. With the proposition very likely to pass, supporters of Proposition 75 seem to have everything under control. The opponents of prop 75 have shelled out a huge amount of money to try to defeat this proposition. The question is why are they putting so much money into this and who is putting the money there?

The main donor to the opposing side of Proposition 75 is the Alliance for a Better California. Along with other donors, the opponents have raised over $35 million. Now that seems like an outrageous amount of money.

According to Organize Not Politics, over $33 million has been spent in the past on issues that the majority of the union members oppose. Whether it was the recall of former Governor Davis or the effort to end proposition 13 with the increase of the property tax, a majority of union members defied and voted differently than what the union supported.

On the other hand, according to Millionaires For Prop 75, the proposition has been funded by right winged conservatives trying to give more power to the governor by hiding behind the façade of “protecting” paychecks.

A similar proposition (Prop 226) was defeated in 1998, where the “proposition tried to force all unions and associations to gain approval from their members to spend money for political purposes. Proposition 75 focuses on only public employees.” The question remains: will the labor unions triumph over corporate leaders again as they did in 1998?

Two Cents: Part of the "Team"

2005-10-16T17:34:00.000-07:00

As a registered democratic voter and self-proclaimed left-of-centrist, I find Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaigning not only amusing, but just plain silly sometimes. Case and point: the new Animation found on the Join Arnold Website. This cartoon depicts two union bosses stealing money from a helpless school teacher. As the bosses drive off, their license plate shows the amount of money union bosses are pouring into their campaigns to fight reform. Oh and do not worry, this total is updated daily.

So when I joined Arnold’s Team (and “Publicly” committed my “support” for Governor Schwarzenegger and his efforts to “Reform and Rebuild California”), I expected to be joining a mailing list for the sole purpose of learning about his campaign’s opinions of the November 8 initiatives in order to report on them more fairly. Little did I know I would be inundated by e-mails with enough brainwashing tactics to write a book. In the six days I have been on the Team, I have received four e-mails; one welcoming me to the team, one reporting news about the campaign, and two informing me of the additions of new media to the website.

Some of the information I have received actually seems helpful for the standard Schwarzenegger-ite to learn how to vote along their party lines, such as the link to the campaign’s TV ads and their handy voter guide.

What is still standing in my way of actually taking the Governor’s campaigning seriously is the plea by the Governor to “Dust off your disco ball and throw a 70’s House Party”. According to the Governor’s website, “People across California are throwing 70s House Parties to show off their support for Arnold’s reform agenda. We want you to as well”. All you have to do is send the Governor an e-mail and he’ll send you “a special DVD with a message from [himself], voter guides, bumper stickers, brochures and all the necessary materials to throw a fantastic party.” So if I sign up, do I get hors d’oeuvres and streamers, too?

In the past week I have seen some good things from the Governor’s campaign that have helped me to understand and even sympathize for his side a bit more than before. However, I don’t think I will be able to take Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaigning completely seriously until he does.

Two Cents: Petty Partisan Politics - Part II

2005-10-16T11:49:00.000-07:00

It's me again with yet another update on why Governor Schwarzenegger and his cronies are engaging in petty partisan politics. While I do believe that it is inherently fair for union members to opt where their money should go, there are a few reasons why I don't think it could work, and why I'm ultimately not supporting the initiative.

Firstly, a union-member is a part of that said union because they trust their leaders to do what is best for the group. That usually turns out to be to support pro-labor Democrats. If only a certain percentage of a union wants to support a certain cause, it would clearly not have as wide an effect.

This couldn't be why Republicans want proposition 75 to pass, could it? Possibly. It seems only fair to me, then, that corporations, who overwhelming support Republican candidates, should let their shareholders opt out of political contributions, which would probably have an even larger affect on politics and campaigns. It just so happens that such an initiative is in the works. It is currently in circulation, and needs about 300,000 by the end of the year to qualify for the ballot.

Its only fair, afterall, that if Proposition 75 passes, businesses should be on a level playing field with its workers, says the "No on Prop 75 Coalition".

Take Your Hands Off My Wallet

2005-10-14T12:26:00.000-07:00

Proposition 75 on California's November 8th Special Election ballot calls for “prohibit[ing] the use by public employee labor organizations of public employee dues or fees for political contributions except with the prior consent of individual public employees each year on a specified written form.” In short, union member will annually have to check a box that says, "You can use my dues on politics." The enactment of this proposition will surely decrease the funds that union leaders have to work with for political purposes. However, the ultimate problem with this initiative is that the only party involved here is the union members.

Why is the state of California being asked to answer this question? Early polls indicate that by a slight margin, union members are in favor of Proposition 75, though surprisingly few know very much about it. Despite this, it only affects them. It is their question to answer.

Ultimately, although this is an important question, it is only the members of public unions to which it should be asked. After all, it is only their money that is being spent. Following Arnold’s logic, he should let California decide what he eats for dinner. If the Governor wants to pick his own dinner, he should leave the allocation of dues to the members of the unions.

Two Cents: How to save the CA initiative system.

2005-10-10T23:50:00.000-07:00

Last Tuesday, Dr. Bruce Cain of Berkeley’s Institute for Governmental Studies spoke at a dinner for journalism students. He discussed a wide variety of points and the people in attendance asked a number of very interesting questions. Almost all of it flew over my head because I knew practically nothing about California politics. I could only tell you the basics of the way California’s political system is set up, and experience tells me that I am not alone in feeling this way. Yet if I’m correct in assuming that like me, many if not most Californians couldn’t explain how their state government works, why is it that we put hugely important and monstrously complex issues in the hands of Joe Sixpack?

Dr. Cain said that any efforts to change or reform the California initiative process would be political suicide because the people like the idea of being able to directly influence state law. On this, I would tend to agree with the people. Anything that acts as an extra check and/or balance on government is a good thing, and also, in this day and age I trust the people more than I trust politicians to make good decisions. That’s not to say that the system is perfect, but I believe that the basics of it should stay in place.

So then how to solve the original problem? One way to start would be to make some sort of state-level government education a part of the high school curriculum the way it is for federal government. By getting people to realize that state government is just as important if not more so than federal government, there might be an eventual rise in the number voters who are educated on all the initiatives and candidates. The improved participation might even bring about the added bonus of returning power to states and weakening the federal government’s stranglehold on what should really be state issues. Even more important though is the fact that once people are more informed, the initiative system can become an even more powerful and useful tool.

Two Cents: Understanding the Special Election

2005-10-10T21:17:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday October 4^th, 2005, I was given the opportunity to listen to a respected political scientist speak. The reception began with dinner-mixed rice, roast beef, seasoned bread, pasta, and wine. The delicious food set a light and relaxed atmosphere that everyone enjoyed. The audience consisted of a wide range of people, although most of them were involved with journalism. There were graduate students, professors, my classmates from the freshman journalism seminar, and even a little elementary school girl! All of these people had gathered together to listen to one person: Mr. Bruce Cain.

Bruce Cain’s presentation gave me some further insight to the special election. I was able to see some facts about the election as well as his opinions about it. He began by naming and defining the three types of initatives-volunteer, paid, and governmental. He then talked about why we are having a special election. Bruce Cain stated that the governor felt he was closer to the people than the legislature was to the people. Also, the people trust their own judgment more than they trust someone else’s. Thus, the governor was using the special election to try to appeal to the people.

Next Bruce Cain spoke about various topics regarding propositions on the ballot. According to Mr. Cain, when a proposition is too technical, that is, when it is too long and has too many subsections, people of the general public will not understand and they will then vote simply based on the title of the proposition. Party members and proposition writers use this to their advantage by entitling propositions in more appealing words, even if the title hardly relates to what the proposition is about. This finally explained to me why the propositions that I had researched were named the way they were! Another topic Bruce Cain talked about was how unconventional the governor was. Bruce Cain claimed that Arnold “abandoned a winning strategy,” that he caused his own ratings to diminish.

In the end, Bruce Cain allowed questions from the audience. Many excellent questions were asked. In fact, there were so many questions that my journalism seminar professor had to stop the questioning process so Mr. Cain could leave. I was glad to be able to listen to Bruce Cain speak though. Because of his presentation I now have a little more understanding of the special election.

two cents: why CA's special election procress encourages abuse

2005-10-10T20:21:00.000-07:00

Although we at Initiative Madness seem to have coined Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to be the "unconventional governor," it is interesting to note that Schwarzenegger isn't unconventional -- he's just unconventional in an American sense. Like Professor Bruce Cain noted, Arnold's methods have actually paralleled a lot of European practices.
Although I can honestly say that I don’t know of any other European leader who used to be a body-builder, Arnold’s take on the special election rings very true of former French president Charles De Gualle. Like De Gaulle, Arnold enjoyed a period of immense popularity, and, in the footsteps of the former French general turned president, Schwarzenegger planned to reap the benefits of that popularity in a special election. However, what Schwarzenegger doesn’t realize, though political scientists all around campus and across the nation, as well as we at Initiative Madness all understand this quite clearly, is that European politics are not synonymous with Californian politics. In fact, American politics don’t even parallel Californian politics!
But, as Professor Cain noted, “Arnold is not only in love with himself, but he also believes in his own persuasive ability.”
Somebody needs to clue the poor Austrian in!
That’s not to say that it isn’t understandable that Arnold wants to shape the special election into a political tool; others have tried to do so.
What I’m getting at is that the real problem is in how special elections in CA work. Like Professor Cain noted, California’s special election process is significantly more welcoming than the special election process for other states. Although ideally that is supposed to be for the “grass root” concerned citizens, it has been exploited by companies and is now being exploited by the governor. As Professor Cain said, "Not everything on our minds should be voted on," and the ease of CA special elections makes it too tempting and too easy to do so.
Although signature gathering is protected by the Constitution, it must be realized that the special election process in California has weakened the legislative and is no longer used the way it was envisioned. The special election process needs change, perhaps starting having a cap to the amount of money a group can collect. Whatever the case, as Professor Cain noted, the special elections are taking away from the political process, "what I'd like to see is more compromise and more discussion."

What Special Election?

2005-10-10T19:43:00.000-07:00

California politics is not considered of much importance to the rest of the world, this is expected. But, how important is California politics to those who live in California? To answer this question I went around the UC Berkeley campus and asked people one simple question: What do you know about the special elections? “There’s a special election, what’s so special about it,” was the reply of freshman Christina Catania. Other replies such as the response of Alexander Han, “I have no clue,” were very common amongst the undergraduate students. Not much. Nada. What election? Should I know about it? Do the students of Cal not read the paper? (The LA Times has done a good job at covering it).

From the steps of Sproul Plaze and Doe Library to the dorms of Unit 3 I was met with blank stares, confused utterances and panicked exclamations about conspiracies in the government (Okay that wasn’t a student, rather is was a “resident” of Telegraph). But, if you seek them out you can discover that there are many Berkeley students interested and well informed about the up and coming election. They are the ones displaying the no or yes on prop. seventy-something.

Admittedly there were several less conspicuous students who knew about the elections. And, many of the students who had no idea about the election had heard about proposition 73. Not only did they know about the proposition but, they knew all the fine details of the initiative and had already formed their own opinion about its goals. When I informed them on some of the more publicized propositions the reactions were generally the same. Firstly, people were shocked to hear that our governor was holding a special election that was costing the state so much money. Upon hearing about the initiatives students were shocked and disgusted though a minority were pleased. (Learn more about the special election from The Field Poll).

This is an election that will affect us all. If you are a resident of California or attend a UC then this is a significant moment in time. To register to vote students should go to www.voterguide.ss.

Two Cents: Why Abandon a Winning Strategy?

2005-10-10T11:42:00.000-07:00

I have always found it interesting that elected officials often do not retain majority support for their actions once they are in office. It seems so straight forward to me: if your proposed course of action wins you a majority vote, follow that course of action and you will retain majority support. That makes sense, right? But apparently not to a great deal of politicians. So when Bruce Cain, professor of political science here at University of California Berkeley, mentioned that the Governor himself has abandoned a "winning strategy," my ears perked up.

The well known Bell Curve of voters' preference evidences the fact that most voters fall in the mid range of political affiliation. Resultantly, the successful candidates are usually not too far from moderate, though favoring to some degree the politics of their affiliated party. This was true of the moderately Republican Schwarzenegger who California elected, but not so true of the radically traditional Republican Schwarzenegger who is currently holding office. Since, as Cain puts it, "People are not looking for solutions that are imposed from one side of the spectrum or another," why would this shift toward the far right come about? Especially just as the Governor is dependent on public support in the special ballot election?

Cain offered three possible explanations. The first has to do with one of the Governor's advisors, Mike Murphy. He is a political and media consultant who played a huge part in Schwarzenegger's 2003 campaign. He has a great deal of influence over the Governor and a history of great state success, and could be partly to blame for Schwarzenegger's unconventional shift farther right. The second theory, in my opinion, holds more weight. The Governor does a great deal of decision making by committee. It is possible that in trying to keep everyone happy and cater to each individual in such a large group, Schwarzenegger amended his ways so many times that his original tactics are no longer in sight. Also, this reform would most likely develop to the right since his advisory board is presumably largely Republican. The last and most harsh possible explanation is one of personal short comings on behalf of the Governor. With little or no governmental background, Schwarzenegger's political thinking is probably unconventional and unsophisticated. Elected based almost solely on public appeal, perhaps the Governor is convinced that the public will love him no matter what. Please, please let's prove that this isn't the case...

Two Cents: An Unconventional Governor

2005-10-09T22:15:00.000-07:00

This past Tuesday, October 4, 2005, I got to schmooze with the brilliant and the articulate at a neat little dinner and political/journalism discussion with Bruce Cain (a political scientist at UC Berkeley), my freshman seminar class, and quite a few journalism graduate students. These grad students were really something. One of them even brought her daughter to the dinner, and considering that if all goes well, I'll be a grad student myself in a few years, it was a bit... daunting to realize that that could be me. With a kid. WITH A KID. I can't even see what I'm going to do tomorrow, let alone in the far-off years of grad school, and I certainly can't imagine married life and/or children.

But I digress. Grad students are pretty cool, and when Bruce Cain opened up the floor for questions, these grad students asked some really interesting questions, and Cain had some equally interesting answers. I remember one answer in particular, and that was Cain's comment on how previous gubernatorial incumbents lose public ratings because of things that happen to them, whether it be a recession or a natural disaster or whatever. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, causes things to happen to him - and his increasingly low ratings may indicate that perhaps his actions aren't always the most advantageous.

In short, Schwarzenegger, as Cain noted, is an "unconventional governor." He's been unconventional from the start - I mean, what other political figure has gone from one of Hollywood's biggest movie stars to replacement for a recalled California governor? It was his "unconventionality" that won him the recall election, but can his unconventional moves as governor, such as his current special election, bring him reelection?

I say it's doubtful. It was unconventional popularity among the people that helped Schwarzenegger shine, but once the initial infatuation to the movie star died down, hostility towards the governor's new (and sometimes costly) plans - and to the governor himself - increased. With his approval ratings so low, and with so little support for the special election, I just don't see how this special election will help Schwarzenegger win another one in office. As interesting and as fascinating at this special election with its initiative madness is, it is definitely a costly experience, and I'm not sure if Californians are too happy with the idea of spending on an election they don't approve of.

Two Cents: Dinner and Discussion

2005-10-09T22:14:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday October 4, 2005, we gathered in the North Gate Library for dinner and a discussion. We started the evening with a variety of drinks, including wine—which of course I didn’t have any. I took a seat next the rest of the freshmen class and we were completely surrounded by graduate students. I felt so young and inexperienced. But the catered dinner was interesting. We had some sort of rice, salad, roast beef, pasta, and desserts.

Now on to the main event!

Bruce Cane is an excellent speaker. His knowledge of the propositions and the initiative process gave me greater insight to the whole wacky process. He gave a brief overview of the initiative process and the three basic types of initiatives (volunteer, paid, and governmental). He also said something very interesting, and that was the governor is successful because the governor is closer to the people than the legislature. That is why this is a good way for our governor to push his agendas, by bypassing the legislation and calling for a special election. And, of course, people of California like the initiative process because they trust their own judgment. However, most people can’t understand the words of the official proposition because the wording is too technical. The more words a proposition contains, the more technical it is. As the wording becomes more technical, the less successful the initiative will be. So people are at a lost when the proposition is too technical.

I just can’t understand how the initiative can work if we cannot understand it. People say change is good~but is it really? There is constantly a need for propositions to amend the constitution or change how a law is worded. There will never be an end to this strange and crazy process. But that is our right as a Californian…so take advantage and vote!

Two Cents: What’s in a name?

2005-10-09T21:36:00.000-07:00

The wording of an initiative has a direct impact on its success in an election. According to HealthVote.org, “Many voters lack the education, reading skills, or time to fully understand ballot initiatives.” When I recently received my Sample Ballot and Information Pamphlet for the November 8 Special Election, all I had time to read were the very simple, very brief descriptions of each proposition provided in the pamphlet. Few voters are going to take the time to read the full definitions, arguments, and rebuttals for each proposition. Many voters will vote on each initiative based on first impressions, when they read about it probably two minutes before they cast their vote.

Because of this lack of knowledge about an initiative, voters are often swayed to cast their vote based on the title of a proposition. On August 4, 2005, The Mellman Group released a survey about prospective Proposition 76 Poll Results. The survey found that in July, when the name of Prop 76 was “The School Funding. State Spending. Initiative Constitutional Amendment”, “Just 28 % of voters said they would vote yes on the initiative, while 39% said they would vote no, and 33% were undecided." When asked in August, when the new ballot label for Proposition 76 was “The State Spending and School Funding Limits. Initiative Constitutional Amendment”, “The new initiative wording has the support of just 28% of voters. […] Moreover, today a 51% majority oppose the initiative.”

Subliminal messages placed in initiative titles, such as adding the word “Limits” behind “School Funding” for Prop 76, often sway voters into casting their vote for or against an initiative. No book can be judged by its cover, just as no initiative can be judged by its title. Voters should not vote blindly and unfortunately they are sometimes tricked into voting for something they do not support, simply because the title of the initiative is misleading.

Try not to fall into this name trap when you go the polls on November 8.

California Initiative Overload

2005-10-08T22:11:00.000-07:00

Bruce Cain, Political Science Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, spoke Tuesday night about California’s “User-Friendly” initiative system. According to Cain there are three types of initiative movements:
1) The Grassroots Initiative
This is an ideologue initiative that is “more or less nonexistent today.” It involves a group of people getting motivated to spend their weekends getting signatures and making things happen.
2) The Professionalized Initiative
This is also a grassroots initiative, but is different in that it involves professionals. It takes place when an interest group hires a lawyer to draft a measure of an initiative for them. They then take the measure to the Attorney General who titles and summarizes the measure. Following this the group must get signatures, those signatures must be verified, and then the measure is sent to the ballot!
3) The Candidate Initiative
This initiative, also called the European initiative, is what we have in the case of Proposition 77 and the redistricting act, put forward by the Governor, making it a gubernatorial initiative. It is when a candidate (or in this case governor) tries to get elected by putting reform measures on the ballot. Arnold is certainly already looking forward toward his race coming up in 2006.
These three types of initiative are just one of the vehicles that make it so easy for Californians to introduce so many initiatives. In fact, according to Professor Cain, the initiative system in California has been used over 450 times! So, the question is, does California need to amend its initiative system? That’s up to you to decide…

Two Cents: A Couple of Questions Left Unanswered

2005-10-08T13:48:00.000-07:00

California has had significantly more special elections in its history than any other state. In fact, from 1915 to the present, there have been fifteen. Despite the fact that most state constitutions allow for special elections, there are fewer barriers to this type of vote in California than in other states.

However, California law does not allow a governor who is up for re-election to have any of his own initiatives on his re-election ballot. Thus, partially as a way to get around California’s Democratic Legislature and partially as a way to get around his inability to have his propositions voted on later, our Governor has decided that it is in California’s best interest to spend approximately $65 million on this one ballot.

Should the governor be pushing an election that 62% of Californians think is not worth the cost? If Schwarzenegger’s goal is for us to “live within our means,” as Prop 76 would suggests, wouldn’t it be smarter for us to use those $65 million dollars elsewhere?

Redistricting and Competition

2005-10-08T13:13:00.000-07:00

According to Bruce Cain, the most important propositions in the upcoming Special Election are Proposition 77 (Redistricting) and Proposition 76 (State Spending and School Funding Limits). Proposition 76, because more important than returning the $2 billion, it would give more power to the Governor. Under Proposition 76 the Governor would have the power to reduce appropriations of Governor's choosing and state spending. Proposition 77 amends the process of redistricting for California's Senate, Assembly, Congressional and Board of Equalization districts. If the proposition passes, legislative leaders would select three retired judges to make a new redistricting plan.

An article from LA times, The Special Election, but Nancy Vogel, discusses the possible future influence of redistricting. Although a study from Claremont McKenna College's Rose Institute shows a great increase in competition, Vogel argues that "a power shift is thought unlikely." According to the study, "Districts drawn according to Proposition 77 are likely to split many fewer communities, create more districts likely to elect ethnic minority representatives and create significantly." Districts are considered "competitive" if there was less than a 10% margin in the 2000 Presidential Election, and "party registration in the district shows an advantage of less than 5% for Republicans or less than 10% for Democrats." However, the executive director of FairVote believes that this study exaggerates the competitiveness Proposition 77 would create. Richie says that incumbents can still depend on a 7% advantage over new candidates.

The California Initiative: Good or Bad?

2005-10-08T11:18:00.000-07:00

Dr. Bruce Cain, a University of California, Berkeley politician scientist, and specialist on California politics, noted the state has the easiest initiative process in all of the United States. Dr. Cain argued that because theoretically any California voter can place an initiative on the ballot, that the state has much more of a traditional grassroots political system. However, he then went on the point out that this theory in practice does not always play out.

Today, it is extremely rare, possibly nonexistent, for an average person to begin an initiative at the true grassroots level. This requires them to gather signatures by themselves, whereas nowadays, most signature-gatherers are well-paid professionals.

However, does this relatively easy initiative process encourage idiotic policies to be passed? Maybe, Cain argues, but probably not. In fact, California has had hundreds and hundreds of initiatives in its past, and very few of the ridiculous ones have passed. Cain says that voters are smarter than one might think, and therefore, most initiatives that get passed are not crazy. Let's hope that's the case this November.

Two Centz: Republicans need to step up the campaign

2005-10-04T01:45:00.000-07:00

At first, after seeing the California Teacher's Assocation ads on Prop. 76, I was ready to storm off to the voting booth to vote No and get that 2 billion dollars back that Arnold stole from California's students. Their ad campaign effectively makes the governor look like a power-hungry asshole who hates kids, and the ads are cleverly worded so that viewers can draw sweeping implications from statements based on mostly facts.

What do the Republicans have to counter this behemoth of advertising? Two ads that consist mostly of catchphrases for each of Schwarzenegger’s four pet initiatives. The only thing I learned about Prop. 76 is that if I vote no, my taxes might go up. Not exactly a great rebuttal to accusations of stealing money from kindergarteners.

The thing is, while Prop. 76 is to me one of the iffier measures up for consideration, it’s not necessarily a horrible idea. Education takes only a minor hit in terms of funding, which is offset by a number of other factors. Transportation funds are stabilized. Budget crises that arise in the middle of the fiscal year can be dealt with. The list goes on, presumably.

But none of this comes up in any of the governor’s advertisements. If Schwarzenegger wants to get 76 passed, he needs to invest some serious resources into an ad campaign. On any sort of complicated or boring issue, most voters will likely listen to whoever gives the most compelling argument. As of right now, the Republicans’ technique of making broad generalizations about four different ballot measures just isn’t cutting it.

Two Cents: What a waste!

2005-10-03T21:54:00.000-07:00

Proposition 76 is basically BS! Not only is the Governor breaking a promise to the teachers, but also to the children. He promised the children, in Proposition 98, that there will be enough money for smaller classrooms and more textbooks. However, the Governor broke that promise and ultimately took the money from the teacher's union.

Furthermore, he can no longer make the excuse of there not being enough money. According to Amy's post (Two Cents: The Power Hungry Governor?) the Governor wasted $180 million dollars. Two million of which could have been returned back to the teacher's union (and $178 to cover other deficits), and thus there would have been no Proposition 76 to campaign and waste money for.

Although, the Republicans say that the upcoming "Special Election" is for the people. It gives people the right to choose what they want. However, I think that the Governor called for this election in order to try and approve his popularity ratings. However, this tactic seemed to have failed. According to John Wildermuth, of the San Francisco Chronicle">the San Francisco Chronicle: "Less than a third -- 31 percent -- of the state's adults approve of the job the governor is doing in Sacramento, down from 54 percent in February. The numbers are only slightly better among registered voters, 37 percent of whom are happy with Schwarzenegger's performance and 53 percent dissatisfied. . . Schwarzenegger's approval rating among registered voters is lower than any number recorded by the Field Poll for governors Ronald Reagan, Jerry Brown and George Deukmejian. He now ranks fourth in unpopularity, behind Democrats Gray Davis and Pat Brown and Republican Pete Wilson." Unfortunetly, for the Governor, although in theory a Special Election usually increases popularity rates in the polls, in this circumstance it has only done the opposite.

Two Cents: Promises Should Never Be Broken

2005-10-03T20:01:00.000-07:00

According to dictionary.com, a promise is “a declaration assuring that one will or will not do something; a vow.” Governor Arnold promised teachers he would pay back the $2 million he borrowed from them if they approved Proposition 98. By approving Proposition 98, the CTA would sacrifice $2 million in order to help Arnold appease the deficit. However, Arnold has not fulfilled this promise. Budget cuts still continue today and with Proposition 76 on the ballot, the governor shows no signs of planning to reimburse California teachers.

Personally, a promise means a lot to me. Doing what you say and fulfilling your word builds reputation and trust. How can anyone trust a person who breaks a big promise such as this? Proposition 76 “would allow him [Governor Arnold] to amend the state budget as he saw fit” (http://www.buyblue.org/node/3036). Giving Governor Arnold this much power is not a smart move. He proved that he was untrustworthy before, so why let him trick us like children into giving him complete power to change the budget?

Proposition 76 would also cut school funding my over $4 billion every year, leading to more overcrowding in schools and more bankrupt schools. It would eliminate minimum funding for K-12 schools, leading to overcrowding, less money for books, and other necessary items for our schools. Education is one of the most important issues today. Schools are what make the next generation of America. Governor Arnold needs to realize this. Proposition 76 should not be passed.

Two Cents: Prop 76 Is a Joke

2005-10-03T19:50:00.000-07:00

It seems as though our governor believes the people of California to be blind. Unfortunately for him, we can see—and what we see is another Proposition 98 in Proposition 76. Except this time, Governor Schwarzenegger has constructed an amendment that will allow him to steal money from the school systems without ever having to deal with the prospect that he might not be keeping a promise. Proposition 76 will allow him to take money at will, whenever he deems California to be in a state of fiscal emergency. Under Proposition 76, the governor would not have to ask permission from the schools in order to take more money, even though he never paid back the $2 billion he promised when he convinced the system to support Proposition 98.

The governor obviously has no regard for the future. How does he think further funding cuts for schools is going to help the economic state of California? Sure, he’ll have more money to put into his own projects and other things he deems more important, like this special election, which is costing the state an extra $180 million. If California needs money so badly to boost the economy, Schwarzenegger should not be wasting $180 million to take even more money from the programs that really need it. California kids are the future of the state, and if the governor hopes this measure will help improve things so we can get back on track, he is most definitely mistaken. Not everyone can afford a private education, and taking away from public schools will only widen the gap between social classes. Proposition 76 has nothing good to offer California—instead, over time it will only magnify the problems Schwarzenegger says he’s trying to fix now.

I just cannot fathom how a $180 million election is going to fix the problem of solvency. There are plenty of other groups Schwarzenegger can get his money from, instead of hitting the school system time after time. Soon enough, the public schools will have plunged into a rut that nothing can ever completely repair. California will then fall behind other states because its future leaders lack the quality of education present in the majority of the rest of the country. No sensible governor would take so much from one of our most important institutions, nor could he hope that the people of California would be foolish enough to support such a selfish and fiscally irresponsible proposal.

Two Cents: What the Governor Misjudged

2005-10-03T17:34:00.000-07:00

It's no surprise that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is calling for a special election based on his pet initiatives; special elections have had a long history of being misused as ways to sway the people. Most notably, special election voters often don't know much about the issues at hand so they will simply just support the side of the people in power. Ironically, however, such special elections go against American republicanism in that we forego our elected state legislature and bring the issues to an uneducated public. Sounds like a complete contradiction to what the founding fathers had in mind when they drafted the Constitution.
But I digress.
However, it is important to point out that special elections have been used as a tool in the past, internationally and within the US. However, the Governor is not using this tool correctly, he doesn't quite understand what situations invite the use of the special election political tool and what situations merely harm his argument.
This year's deciding vote on Prop 76 should have stayed in the hands of the state legislatures, people who are more aware of the details of California's money-crisis. The state legislatures may not have approved, but they would not shoot down the proposition as significantly as California voters will.
Why?
Just like any election, the Governor has been putting out ads, making speeches and 'meeting the people,' heavily pushing his spending reform proposition. Some of his ads and speeches, as seen on Join Arnold really are politically good and smack of focus groups. However, despite the Governor's campaigning for living "within our means," this political coup belongs to the teachers.
The reason is simple. The Governor's appeal to the public is good, his stilted descriptions of the propositions he support all do a passable job at being convincing. His political campaigning, the ignorance of the public and the special election itself should all deliver his proposition baby into happy waiting Republican hands. But, one thing that he overlooked was that Prop 76 is such a hot piece of work because of what it deals with -- the children.
The Governor's campaign ads all fall short when compared to the simple but amazingly effective appeal to emotions that the California Teachers Association presents in their broadcasted anti-Prop 76 ads.
It's the children, think of the children!
Well, actually, it's the voters.
Who are thinking about the children.
According to the Field poll, 71% of women reported that they would vote 'no' to Prop 76 late August. 65% of all total likely voters said that they don't support Prop 76.
Why such huge numbers?
Not only are the CTA's ads better appeals to emotion, special elections tend to only work when the people who push for them are still popular. The Governator's popularity has dipped so much that as of late August, 65% of all registered voters said that they were not inclined to re-elect Schwarzenegger.
To sum it up, Schwarzenegger simply used the wrong tactic; pushing a special election that costs $80 million when his popularity is low and the proposition in question deals with the sensitive issue of school spending were bad, bad ideas.

Two Cents: The Power Hungry Governor?

2005-10-03T01:42:00.000-07:00

Proposition 76 doesn’t make sense. The governor wants to limit spending to “live within our means” so we are now having a “Special Election”, which has “amassed more than $180 million to persuade voters” on the eight initiatives.

According to Gale Kauffman, “Nobody wants to give him [the governor] any money for initiatives that are badly drafted and nobody cares about.” This costly battle sparked very few interests except for major drug companies on Proposition 78 and 79. So if we don’t want this election, why are we having one?

According to the LA Times, the governor has started to back away from his ads as his popularity declines. The governor is starting a new strategy in hopes that this election will be successful. Schwarzenegger believes that if he “wins just one, [he] probably will claim a victory of some sort.”

The governor knows that the people do not want an election, but he is still pushing his own agenda. He fundraised and “had collected about $35 million between January and the Sept. 24 filing deadline. [But] they had spent most of it.” This costly campaign will have to come out on top for the governor to regain some of his popularity loss.

But it’s not so easy.

The money spent on the election can be put to better use, such as developing ideas to help the spending problem. Instead of fundraising for his campaign to create more chaos, the governor should think of better ways to solve the fiscal problems California is facing.

Opponents of Proposition 76 claim that “this initiative also undermines our democratic system of checks and balances by giving the governor awesome new powers without any oversight. Under this initiative, the Governor could declare a “fiscal emergency” and cut funding for vital services like education, health care, fire and police without approval from anyone else.”

The governor according to Prop 76 can have budget cuts whenever he feels necessary. Since he only gives legislature 45 days to solve the monetary problems, he is basically taking their power. Just like this election, the people of California will not have much say, but to go along with whatever the governor wants. The governor is giving more power to himself. So, we have to ask ourselves: who is this special election really benefiting?

Two Cents: Petty Partisan Politics

2005-10-02T19:13:00.000-07:00

Yes, I'm guilty of petty partisan politics. I can't stand the man who calls himself "Governor" of this great state.

I don't support Proposition 76 for a number of reasons. One reason is because I think that education is one of this state's most important investments. Without an educated populace, how can we expect to run anything in the future? Schwarzenegger cannot short change our schools the way he wants to!

The other two reasons that I don't support this bill are for more partisan reasons, I admit. I do not think that we can let this governor get away with what he did to our teachers. He borrowed $2 billion from the teachers' association, promising them he would pay it back the following year. What's more, the teachers even worked with Schwarzenegger to help him get what he wanted. Now, he's going directly against his word, not paying them back. If we as voters approve of this by voting for Proposition 76, what sort of a message is that sending to Schwarzenegger? That he can do anything and get away with anything!

Secondly, I feel that this Schwarzenegger's support of this initiative is entirely hypocritical. Just weeks ago, the governor vetoed the gay marriage bill, saying that it was not what the people of California wanted based on the earlier Proposition 22. Tell me then, Arnold, why you think we should support your precious 76, when voters voted "yes" on Proposition 98 in a past election? Proposition 98 mandated a minimum level of funding for education, which 76 directly contradicts.

For these reasons, I say, vote NO on 76, and show Arnold Schwarzenegger who's really in charge.

The Terminator v. The Teachers

2005-10-01T23:48:00.000-07:00

The groups supporting and opposing proposition 76 have been clearly defined and are now eagerly campaigning for the November 8 special election. Without getting too technical, the proposition adds an additional spending limit to the State Appropriation Limit. It also gives the Governor new powers to reduce state spending. Furthermore, it essentially eliminates the minimum funding guarantee established by proposition 98. For a more detailed analysis go to: http://www.lao.ca.gov/ballot/2005/76_11_2005.htm

In an effort to balance the state budget the governor has promised Californians that proposition 76, or the "Live within our means act," will control spending without raising taxes. According to the Join Arnold Campaign the problem with the budget is not the lack of revenue but the excess in spending.

Labor unions have spent approximately $70 million in their effort to defeat propositions 74, 75, and 76. (The California Teachers Association has donated $45.5 million of that $70 million.) Both the C.T.A. and the Alliance for a Better California argue that proposition 76, also referred to as the "Cut School Funding Act," would not only cut school revenue but it would cut monies going to the local government thus cutting funding for health care, the police and fire departments. Despite the governor’s promise that this proposition could balance the budget without raising taxes there is no guarantee, except the governor’s word, that taxes won’t be raised in an effort to balance the budget. The Los Angeles Times has also voiced concern about the governor’s proposition to reduce state spending. Last Wednesday the LA Times quoted Barbara Kerr, the president of the C.T.A. as stating:
"By making the deals and getting to the point where he had to keep his promise and he broke it, frankly he showed his hand earlier than he planned to," she continued, "We will get that money back."
After Arnold broke his promise to pay back the $2 billion he had borrowed from the school budget, the C.T.A. is fearful of the new powers that the governor would be granted under the proposition.

Proposition Promises

2005-10-01T23:36:00.000-07:00

Thanks to advertisements opposing Proposition 76 for this fall's special election, the history of the related Proposition 98 has been repeatedly brought to the attention of the general public. To recap, in exchange for a promise of escaping budget cuts in the future and being reimbursed for current cuts, the teacher's union made a deal with the Governor that would help him to reduce California's deficit. They sacrificed two billion dollars last year, only to be disappointed this year as cuts continue and no reimbursement is in sight. Though well intentioned, Governor Schwarzenegger's apologies on the matter are not restitution enough, and this failure to follow through has brought a number of issues into question. Perhaps the most pressing of these issues is that of how realistic his promise was in the first place. Did he truly believe that it would be possible to rectify the budget that greatly in one short year? And, if this aim was unrealistic, does the same hold for his other intentions?

There are many analysts that claim that the improvement necessary to so greatly reimburse the teachers would be nearly impossible to achieve in a single year of budget redistribution. In order to do so, the best strategy would incorporate the elimination or suspension of tax expenditures. Schwarzenegger's campaign promise to make education a high priority was not actualized through such measures and now casts suspicion in reference to his other platforms. It is impossible to conclude for certain whether Schwarzenegger truly believed he would be able to honor his promise to the union or if he never intended to fulfill this optimistic goal. Either way, it would be surprising for the schools to grant him another mercy like their deal over Proposition 98.

Enter Proposition 76. Without good graces to fall back on, the Governor has introduced a proposal to create his own terms for educational funding. He will no longer have to convince anyone of the crisis the budget is in, ask for favors, or cut deals. Instead, he will be able to declare fiscal crisis himself, remove funding as he so chooses, and never make promises about the future, realistic or otherwise. That is, he will be able to do all of this if Proposition 76 is passed.

Partisan Cuts

2005-10-01T11:03:00.000-07:00

In an effort to reduce state spending, Proposition 76 "grants the Governor substantial new authority to unilaterally reduce state spending during certain fiscal situations." This "new authority" allows the Governor to:

(1) declare a fiscal emergency based on his or her administration’s fiscal estimates, and
(2) unilaterally reduce spending when an agreement cannot be reached on how to address the emergency.

Once the Governor declares a fiscal emergency, the Legislature must be called into special session. From there, the Legislature is given little over than a month to write, vote on, and enact legislation for the purpose of resolving the fiscal emergency that the Governor called. If the legislature cannot enact a new law in time, then the Governor is given the authority to use his own judgement to reduce state spending.

What this all means is that Prop 76 gives an unprecedented amount of power to the Governor to spend or save as he will. In a perfect world, this would not be a problem, for the Governor would be a bi-partisan, all-knowing leader with fair judgement when it comes to finances. Of course, it's not a perfect world, and Prop 76 gives a single person too much subjective power over the state's wallet. California's declared fiscal emergencies and, consequentially, the financial areas that will receive cuts, will depend entirely on who the Governor and his party is at the time of the declaration.

In addition to that, the Governor is not held accountable to anyone for where he spends or cuts California's money. He's certainly not entitled to notify the Legislature, one of the people's only sources to advocate change through. His power overrides the Legislature, thus undermining California's system of checks and balances.

It is interesting to note that while some, such as the League of Women Voters of California hold a similar stance, others, such as Daniel Weintraub from the Sacramento Bee, warn that rejecting this proposition, with or without its implied constitutional amendments, means the inevitable: raised taxes.

Arnold, Not Education

2005-10-01T10:31:00.000-07:00

Proposition 76 will “[limit] state spending to prior year's level plus three previous years' average revenue growth, [change] minimum school funding requirements...and [permit the] Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations.” Proponents of Prop 76 argue that this will safeguard against future budget deficits and that it will reduce wasteful spending. However, those against it argue that it will only reduce school funding and give the Governor an un-restrained power.

In an article in favor of the proposition, ABC news reminds us that “since 1999-2000, the state has increased spending by twice as much as it has increased its revenue.” California is not spending within its means. It is clear that something needs to be done to rectify this discrepancy; the ultimate question is from where the Governor should cut the money.

However, in a state that is consistently ranked with one of the lowest per student daily dollar amounts and that ranks consistently in the bottom half nationwide for standardized test scores, education needs to be more of a priority. Considering this, how smart would it be to enact a piece of legislation that, according to the California Budget Project, if passed in 1990, would have left California in 2005-06 with a budget $12.6 billion below its current amount? At best, the answer is not very.

Thus, although it is clear that some action needs to be taken to address California’s budget shortfall, giving the Governor the unrestricted ability to further slash the state’s already impoverished education budget is not the solution that we need.

What's in a name...

2005-10-01T10:14:00.000-07:00

“State Spending and School Funding Limits.” “Limits state spending to prior year's level plus three previous years' average revenue growth. Changes minimum school funding requirements (Proposition 98).Permits Governor, under specified circumstances, to reduce budget appropriations of Governor's choosing.” (Smart Voter)
The name and summary for Proposition 76 on the Special Election Ballot was not chosen by the writer of the proposition, nor was it chosen by a non-biased, neutral official. “One of the many responsibilities of the Attorney General is to prepare a title and summary for proposed initiative measures prior to the circulation of qualification petitions… State law requires a proponent to furnish the Attorney General's Office with the complete text of a proposed ballot measure for preparation of an official title and summary. The proposed measure must be submitted with a $200 filing fee, which is refunded if the measure qualifies for an election ballot. By law, the Attorney General's title and summary may not exceed 100 words. After preparation, the title and summary is submitted with the proposal to the Secretary of State.” (Initiative Measures)
So our Attorney General Bill Lockyer was the man who christened Proposition 76 “State Spending and School Funding Limits.” And, not to say that it isn’t an incredibly articulate name for a proposition, but it is funny to note how our Democratic Attorney General offered such a negative title and summary for the Proposition initiated by our Republican Governor. Governor Schwarzenegger titles this same Proposition the “Live Within Our Means Act.”
So really we find that, with any initiative, the title and summary give only one person's biased opinion of the proposition. And thus I urge you California voters, Don't judge a Proposition by it's title!

Cutting School Funding Within Our Means

2005-10-01T09:26:00.000-07:00

Proposition 76, the State Spending and School Funding Limits initiative, would do a number of things with the intent of trying to solve the state’s budget deficit.

According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office of California the main provisions of this initiative are an additional state spending limit, budget-related changes, school funding changes, and other changes related to things such as transportation funding and loans to other state funds. This initiative would also give the Governor greater power over appropriating the state-budget and would even give the Governor ultimate power of the budget in the case that the state legislature could not come to an agreement or in the case of an emergency.

Supporters of this initiative, headed by Governor Schwarzenegger, refer to it as the “Live Within Our Means Act” because of its limits on state spending. As the budget deficit continues to grow and grow each year, this proposition would hamper the ability of the state to spend more money than it actually has and to add to the growing deficit. Supporters also believe that these limits would help “fix the broken system in Sacramento” and “rebuild California”.

Opponents of this initiative, headed by Alliance for a Better California, refer to it as the “Cuts School Funding Act”, in reference to the contempt for Proposition 98. Passed in 1988, this proposition “guaranteed kindergarten through community college education a minimum amount of state and property tax revenue each year.” That guaranteed amount “is largely based on the health of the state’s economy,” according to EdSource. The problem with Prop 98 is that fund allocations can be tampered with in order to give less money to the education system. Opponents feel like the state is “shortchanging” the education system and “breaking [their] word to our schools and kids” by not respecting the “voter approved minimum level of school funding”. Prop 76 would give the Governor even greater power to cut school funding and disregard the provisions of Prop 98.

Something needs to be done about the budget, but perhaps the answer should not lie in the Governor’s hands alone. Proposition 76 may or may not hold the answer to our state’s economic problems, so we all need to evaluate it before adding it to our constitution.

Two cents: Let's be consistent here.

2005-09-26T23:07:00.000-07:00

Let's face it: in this country, minors don't have a whole lot of rights. Sure, they're entitled to free speech and all, but aside from a few basic rights, minors just aren't considered adults. Instead of making their own lifestyle choices, whether it's choosing to accept aspirin from the school nurse or choosing to watch an R-rated film, parents are the ones making these decisions. Or at least consenting to these decisions. Or at least being notified of these decisions. From tattoos to piercings to just being allowed to go on a field trip to medical treatments-

Oops. Wait a second. Did I just say "medical treatments"? Yeah, kids can't make their own decisions about their health... except in the case of abortion.

Hold on there. It doesn't matter who you talk to: abortion is a sensitive issue. It's a controversial issue, with a lot of unknowns. That's not even acknowledging the overall seriousness of abortion itself. It's not about some school nurse being allowed to put on a band-aid for a student's cut without notifying the parents. Abortion is a surgically invasive treatment, with major physical, emotional, and psychological implications for the mother. As a nation, we can't even agree if the fetus inside the mother is just a fetus, or if it is indeed an unborn life. With all of these major factors in mind, I think we can agree that abortion is definitely a serious matter, as both a political and a personal issue.

And yet, the greater irony is that what with all of the slightly pettier activities that minors need permission/consent/notification for, whether it's just watching sexual congress on a television screen or punching a hole through an ear, teenage mothers are completely at liberty to decide as they will about abortion.

I'm sorry, but that is just plain inconsistent and hypocritical. I fully support the woman's right to choose, but considering the fact that teenage mothers really aren't considered adult "women" but are relegated the label of "minors," I really do think that abortion is another one of those things that should definitely be included under the "parental-notification" category.

Two Cents: More Than an Abortion Argument

2005-09-26T21:45:00.000-07:00

It’s a sticky situation- should a minor be required to notify a parent before obtaining an abortion. Parental notification certainly might be beneficial to minors in some cases. However, as many anti-prop 73 groups have pointed out, there are situations in which Proposition 73 could be dangerous for minors.
The thing that I think is so funny is the way that the parties have split on this issue. Obviously most liberals have taken the “pro-choice” view by opposing the proposition, while most conservatives support the “pro-life” aspect of it. But when I think about this division, I see that the parties have really got it all wrong. Conservatives should be opposing this proposition that wants to make another law regarding California families. Haven’t they always been against unnecessary legislation, especially when it deals with individual parent- child relationships?
It seems to me that this proposition has been unfairly categorized into yet another pro-choice/ pro-life argument. People who have already “made up their minds” on the issue of abortion are now going to automatically form their “opinion” on the proposition based on that issue. What they are ignoring is the idea that this is merely a case of government involvement in situations which might otherwise be left to the families. I think that if Conservatives come to see this proposition for what it is as a piece of legislation, rather than being blinded by its social aspect, this proposition would never be passed.
This should be a proposition on which both major parties agree. Conservatives ideally want as little legislation as possible affecting their dealings with their families, and how they as parents will deal with their children. Liberals want to protect the minor’s right, in these sometimes horrific situations, to make her own decision without needing to be afraid of what would happen if a parent found out. Both parties can agree; Proposition 73 is not in the best interests of Californians.

Two Cents: The Governor Comes Out of the Closet on Prop. 73

2005-09-26T10:39:00.000-07:00

So, he finally admitted it. The warning signs were all there and everybody knew the truth, but now it’s out in the open. Arnold Schwarzenegger supports Proposition 73. After coming out the governor was abused by much of the liberal media. The San Diego Union-Tribune quoted Gale Kaufman:

"If there was any visage of bipartisanship left in this governor, I think he's just about put a nail in that coffin."

Governor Schwarzenegger’s political orientation surprised none but disappointed many. The LA Times slandered the governor this past week for his flashy television-adds and provocative statements. Such statements included this quote given to the Sacramento Bee last week:

"I wouldn't want to have someone take my daughter to a hospital for an abortion or something and not tell me, I would kill them if they do that."

But, do we Californians want Schwarzenegger’s personal fears and beliefs shaping our laws? The San Francisco Chronicle quoted Kathy Kneer, president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, in a recent interview admonishing the governor:

"We believe that if the governor thinks about it, he will understand that not all teenagers live in homes like his and that, in fact, many teenage girls who, for whatever reason, cannot go to their parents, will be put at risk by Prop. 73."

So has the governor taken all sides into account? Or has he put on a pair of partisan blinder? If the proposition passed, many teenage girls would risk obtaining abortions illegally or by going out of the state rather than divulging their pregnancies to their parents. So what is Arnold concerned about, his political career or California’s familial relations? According to the Field Poll the vote is evenly split between those who support and oppose Proposition 73. In the most pro-choice state in the country why is it that our self-proclaimed pro-choice governor is taking sides with pro-life activist James Holman (the financial muscle behind the proposition)? With people already discussing the 2006 election maybe this girly-man is looking at his approval ratings with fear. One cannot help but speculate that he is attempting to strengthen a conservative Republican base in California. What California needs is a Governor who can be straight with us and represent California.

Two Cents: Who is Affected?

2005-09-26T01:33:00.000-07:00

All of this talk about girls having to come clean to their parents got me thinking... If I were certain that I didn't want to share something as life altering as a pregnancy with my parents, I don't think that a new law would change that. The most obvious way around this situation is, of course, to obtain an abortion in another state, a state with no age-oriented limitations on abortion. This is presumably what brings about the statistic that Blaise quoted, that with "the enactment of a parental notification statute in 1993, the ratio of teenage to adult abortions decreased 13%; however, this was offset by a 32% increase out-of-state." Certainly this suggests that the enactment of such laws does not achieve either of their proposed aims: to reduce the number of under-age abortions, and to involve parents in the abortion process of minors. So, if passed, who would this law truly affect?

Statistics show that teens account for nineteen percent of all abortions obtained in the United States. To emphasize how likely an outcome abortion is in the instance of teen pregnancy, consider that eight abortions are given for every live birth by a girl under the age of fifteen and four are given for every ten live births to girls between the ages of fifteen and nineteen, according to one abortion demographic study. Fifty-seven percent of women who obtain abortions are below the federal income standard. This could be due to the young median age of such women, or to the fact that the majority of these women are unmarried, or to some other fact entirely. Whatever the case, teenagers are no exception to this rule. The majority of teens hardly have the resources to afford abortion, much less to leave the state in order to do so or to avoid parental detection along the way. With Proposition 73 instituted, it would be the poorer and the younger and the less resourceful teens who would be left with no option other than to involve their parents. This does not scare me because I do not believe that parents should be involved. It scares me because once the parents are involved, it is much more likely that abortion will no longer be an option for these girls, and that an undesired pregnancy will be carried to term.

"Freakonomics" is a book that proposes a surprising but well supported explanation for the extreme and unexpected drop in crime rate across the United States during the 1990's. The book cites the legality and availabliity of abortion as the cause for this sudden improvement. With abortion as an option for women, many fewer unwanted children were born, and therefore many fewer children were born into adverse family circumstance. Basically, an entire generation of children prone to criminal activity simply never existed. It was unmarried, under privileged, teenage women like the women who would encounter the effects of Proposition 73, who are proven to produce the adverse households that tend to breed criminals. It is impossible to say if Proposition 73 has the potential to un-do the positive effects of Roe v. Wade on society. I, for one, think that it is too risky of an experiment to find out for sure.

Two Cents: What About the Boys?

2005-09-25T16:03:00.000-07:00

Proposition 73, the initiative that would mandate a waiting period and parental notification before the termination of a minor's pregnancy, is obviously a very hot issue. It is an especially hot issue for young voters who are just barely adults and who have only recently aged-out of the jurisdiction of the proposed initiative. So, as a one of these young voters, I’d like to share a few thoughts about the madness of Prop. 73 and ask the question, ”What about the boys?”

It seems that all anyone can talk about over this issue is the young, soon-to-be mothers who would be forced to get support from their parents in order to have an abortion. Granted I am all for parents supporting their children, especially in cases like these where their daughters are extremely scared and vulnerable, but what about the young, soon-to-be fathers? Where do they fit into this calculation? If a girl is going to be forced to notify her parents, it is only fair that the boy who impregnated her should be forced to notify his parents as well. It takes two to tango and both partners are equally responsible for this dilemma.

Now, I know what you must be thinking. Does this mean that the adolescent girl would be forced to inform the father before having an abortion? In such a sticky situation, I think it is in the girl’s best interest to put some of the pressure on her male partner’s shoulders. Soon-to-be mothers should not be alone in such a situation and soon-to-be fathers should not run away from their responsibilities.

The conditions would be different in cases of rape. If the girl knows her offender, he should be notified and punished, which is already the case. If the girl does not know her offender, then this idea does not apply.

In the era of women’s rights and gender equality, there is obviously something wrong with Proposition 73 and the list of opponents proves it. How can such an initiative even be considered if it does not examine half of the problem?

Two Cents: How Effective Will Parental Notification Really Be?

2005-09-24T23:31:00.000-07:00

Presumably, the aim of Proposition 73 is to facilitate good, informed decision-making by a minor before she receives an abortion. It tries to do this by notifying her parents if they have not already given consent or if it is deemed to be best to allow the girl to get the abortion without their knowledge. However, there are several fatal flaws in this logic.

Family Planning Perspective says that in states where parental notification is required, underage abortions rates decline, but out-of-state levels rise. For example, in Mississippi, following the enactment of a parental notification statute in 1993, the ratio of teenage to adult abortions decreased 13%; however, this was offset by a 32% increase out-of-state. Is this effective?

The Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance argue against parental notification because it prolongs the abortion process. Teens are twenty-four times more likely to die from childbirth than from an abortion in the first trimester. Moreover, each week into the third trimester, the risk of death or serious complications increases drastically. Proposition 73 drags out the abortion process and thus increases the risk to the girls. How is this in California’s best interest?

Really, the biggest problem with this attempt to improve decision-making is that it only applies to those who it will hurt the most. Parental notification is waived if a minor’s parents provide a signed acknowledgement that they are aware of the abortion; however, studies by the Alan Guttmacher Institute conclude that the only time that the girl would not be able to tell her parents is if her family is “unsupportive, in crisis, dysfunctional or abusive.” Thus, she would not only be unable to get helpful advice from them, but notification would damage their already unstable relationship.

Although Proposition 73 may have good intentions, it will cause more harm than good. If for no other reason than lightening the load on other states, saving a couple of girls’ lives and avoiding an extra issue for some dysfunctional families to worry about, Vote No on Proposition 73.

Costs and Questions

2005-09-24T23:30:00.000-07:00

Currently, according to aroundthecapitol.com, a total of $190,000 has been contributed in support of the Life on the Ballot campaign (yes on prop 73), and a total of $1,310,284 has been contributed in support of the Campaign for Teen Safety (no on prop 73). It's interesting to note that much of the funds for Life on the Ballot have come from 3 specific individuals (James Holman, an editor of a San Diego reader; Don Sebastiani, owner of Sebastiani vineyards and a former Assemblyman; Tom Monaghan, former owner of Dominos Pizza), while most of the funds for the Campaign for Teen Safety was provided by individuals all over California. In the long run, more supporters will definitely be an advantage.

On another note, current regulations allow teenagers to obtain birth control and the Morning-After Pill without parental notification. The Morning-After Pill kills a fertilized egg just as an abortion kills a fetus. If prop 73 is passed, what will be next? Minors will have to notify their parents in order to obtain contraceptives?

Abortion Trivia

2005-09-24T15:28:00.000-07:00

Proposition 73 promises to be one of the most prominent issues of this year’s special election. People take up arms at the mere mention of the word “abortion”, and with Proposition 73’s focus on minors, the fight is sure to be a bitter one. With that in mind, I decided to look for some abortion trivia to lighten the mood in what is one of the most heated, vicious arguments of all time.

From Wikipedia:

The ancient Greek colony of Cyrene at one time had an economy based almost entirely on the production and export of Silphium, a powerful abortion inducer in the parsley family. Silphium figured so prominently in the wealth of Cyrene that the plant appeared on the obverse and reverse of coins minted there. Silphium, which was native only to that part of Libya, was overharvested by the Greeks and was effectively driven to extinction.

Before the Middle Ages, women induced abortion with sharpened sticks, poisonous herbs, abdominal pressure, special exercises, and other techniques.

In 1920, Lenin legalized all abortions in Russia. In 1936, Stalin reversed this decision in order to encourage population growth.

In 1935, Iceland became the first Western nation to legalize therapeutic abortions.

Beginning in the 1960s, many women attempted to use Coca-Cola as a means of inducing miscarriage.

In 1967, California and Colorado became the first U.S. states to legalize abortion.

That’s all for now. These fun facts make great icebreakers at parties, doctor’s office waiting rooms, church bake sales, etc. Just remember where you heard it first – initiativemadness.blogspot.com.

Individuals Play Heavy Roles in Prop 73's Budget

2005-09-24T09:31:00.000-07:00

Much of Prop. 73’s monetary base is from individual donors, according to NARAL Pro-Choice California,

"The majority of the financial support to date has come from a few major donors, all with reputations for being far outside of the mainstream."

One major – and eccentric – donor is James Holman, publisher of the Los Angeles Mission, the San Francisco Faith and the San Diego News Notes. Record-wise Holman is heavily conservative on the pro-life fence, supportive of outlawing apportion in all cases, including cases of rape and incest. Holman has even pled guilty to charges stemming from abortion clinic protests. Definitely a major donor, Holman has contributed or loaned the Prop 73 campaign almost $1.3 million, most of it early on for the campaign to gather signatures.

Political figures also come to play in the abortion battlefield; State Assemblyman Don Sebastiani is known in the State Assembly for working to limit access to abortion and reproductive health services. The Owner of Sebastiani Vineyards & Winery, Sebastiani has contributed more than $250,000. In an article by The Press Democrat, Sebastiani said,

"We are talking about the taking of innocent human life. What could be more precious?"

Other donors include Tom Monaghan, the Ann Arbor, Michigan based former Domino’s Pizza chain owner. Monaghan has donated $250,000, unremarkable for Monaghan since he is known for his pro-life support. Notably, in an interview with The Irish Catholic,

"Tom Monaghan hit the headlines in December 1998 when he sold his company, the international pizza giant Domino's, and raised over a billion dollars from the sale. His motivation: to give his money away to Catholic and pro-life charities. 'I feel it's God's money and I want to use it for the highest possible purpose - to help as many people as possible get to Heaven.'"

ElectionTrack by Around the Capitol cites that other recent heavy donors include Marsha L. Griffin ($45,000) and Stephanie Rote ($45,000).

Opposers of Prop. 73 are less individual based, although a few notables pop out of Around the Captiol's records such as politically-known Rebecca Q. Morgan ($100,000) and self employed/philanthropist M. Quinn Delaney ($50,000). Most of Campaign for Teen Safety's heavy donors are Planned Parenthood centers.

Prop 73 expenditures

2005-09-24T02:15:00.000-07:00

In less than 24 hours, according to Field Poll, the expenditures for both sides of Proposition 73 has increased quickly. The "YES"or "Life on the Ballot" funds has increased to $190,000, and the "NO" or "Campaign for Teen Safety - No on 73" has increased to $1,310, 284. The individual donars for "Life on the Ballot" include: James Holman (newspaper editor), Tom Monaghan (former dominos pizza chair owner from Michigan - one of the only donors outside of California), and Don Sebastiani. Where as, expenditures for "Life on the Ballot" heavily relies on these individual donars and most recently the Governor (see below), "Campaign for Teen Safety - No on 73" recieves most of their funds from Planned Parenthood.

According an article in rough and tumble Governor "Schwarzenegger announced Friday his support for measures restricting teen abortion." Although the Governor's contribution is not yet posted on the Around the Capitol Scoreboard, we can expect that the dramatic increase in "Yes" funds is due to the Governor's support.

As Amy mentioned, most of the funds supporting Proposition 73 came from Catholics. However, this is ironic since according to Field Poll, "Among Catholics just 21% want more restrictive abortion laws, while almost twice as many Protestants (39%) take this position."

The Real Deal

2005-09-23T01:44:00.000-07:00

Field Poll reports that currently the voters are split equally with 45% in favor and 45% against Proposition 73. With a drop of those in favor and a gain for those opposing, the undecided voters have a great influence in the outcome of this vote. With the different groupings provided, there is little difference in the Yes and No column except for the Democrat/Republican and liberal/conservative. Mainly split down the line, the vote will up for grabs.

The governor speaks out on the issue of parental notification. An article from the Sacramento Bee interviews Governor Schwarzenegger and “despite what he called his belief in ‘the concept’ of Proposition 73, Schwarzenegger, who supports a woman's right to have an abortion, said he's not sure whether he'll endorse the measure.” The governor is not yet endorsing this measure even though he believes that if it were his daughter, he would want notification.

Californians and friends have reached deep into their pockets for Proposition 73. So who is really behind, pushing the ballot?

According to Bee columnist, Peter Schrag:

“Most of the roughly $1.5 million raised to put it on the ballot came from three deep-pocket conservative Catholics - James Holman, publisher of an alternative San Diego weekly and of a string of Catholic papers; vintner and ex-legislator Don Sebastiani and Domino's Pizza founder Tom Monaghan.”

Furthermore, the California Bishop has issued a statement:

“We strongly encourage Catholics in our state to offer their full support in promoting Proposition 73 as good public policy, and in exercising their citizenship in voting for it in November.”

On the Around the Capitol Scoreboard, the “YES” funds reported a donation of $100,000 from Don Sebastiani of Sonoma, CA while having an expenditure of $825,966. The other mysterious funding was not shared by the “YES” campaign on the scoreboard. While the “NO” campaign has a reported fund of $1,203,284 and no expenditure reported. Most of the funds donated to “NO” came from Planned Parenthood of different areas. Planned Parenthood is a strong opposition to the parental notification along with a list of over 150 organizations and people.

After throwing in millions of dollars, both sides, in support or in opposition of parental notification, are heated for November 8^th ballot.

Nonsensical arguments from the right

2005-09-21T14:49:00.000-07:00

Proponents of Proposition 73 say that their initiative makes sense, because it is naturally a parent's right to know if their daughter is going to have an abortion. This, of course, seems like a sensible argument. However, to have this be mandated by the government could have potential dangers.

“Most girls say something like ‘My parents are going to kill me,’” says John Dragoun, former director of the anti-abortion rights group Bakersfield Pregancy Center. “We hear it all the time, but in my 15 years as director, I never heard of that actually happening.”

The fact that this quote was used on the Yes on Proposition 73 website to persuade people to support the initiative is counterintuitive. Dragoun completely misses the point when he says that he's never heard of parents actually killing their daughters. What needs to be realized is that some girls do have the immense fear of talking to their parents, and, if this is the case, it will more than likely raise the levels of illegal and unsafe abortions. What should people care about more: parental notification or the safety of teens?

These arguments are supported by research found on the Advocates for Youth website.

In states with parental consent or notification laws, many adolescents who did not consult their parents said it was because they feared emotional and/or physical abuse, including eviction from their homes.

Additionally, the website, drawing from the experiences of other states, says that the laws do not even guarantee that parental notification can be enforced.

In one study, parental notification laws had almost no effect on an adolescent's decision to talk with her parent or guardian about her decision prior to an abortion. The chief factor determining whether a teen consulted her parent was, not legislation, but the quality of the teen's relationship with her parent.

A breach of civil liberties?

2005-09-17T23:22:00.000-07:00

With courts in states such as Michigan, Arizona, and Idaho striking down abortion bans within these past few months, California's latest abortion initiative, Prop 73, seems a peculiar and unique piece of legislation to surface in the political arena. One of the major issues that have been raised in this ongoing fight is simply the question of women's rights - especially a minor's rights - and their rights to privacy. Currently, California law does not require minors to notify or consult their parents should she decide to get an abortion. In fact, according to Pro-Choice California:

The California Supreme Court has already ruled that parental notification laws are unconstitutional because they violate young women’s right to privacy and threaten their health.

Many feel that Prop 73 serves only to restrict women in their right to choose to have an abortion. Under this initiative, the minor in question would have to not only notify her parents about her abortion, but also wait forty-eight hours after said notification before proceeding with the abortion. Such a delay upon the abortive process may not only serve as an impingement on the minor's right to choose but even an endangerment to her safety.

In what ways and to what extent does a minor maintain rights, however? Minors are required to notify and/or gain the permission of their parents before proceeding with a variety of events, whether getting piercings, receiving tattoos, or even watching R-rated films in school. If a minor is restricted from the "freedom" of choice with such "smaller" issues involving her body, how is it justified that she have the freedom to engage in an abortion, a process potentially more harmful and with greater psychological implications than a tattoo or piercing? As much as we might wish, minors do not have all of the same rights available to them as do adults, and the very serious matter of abortion can arguably fall under the same category as do drinking, driving, voting, and, yes, tattooing.

A Helpful Measure

2005-09-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

Abortion continues to prevail as one of the most sensitive issues in American society. A proposed constitutional amendment in the state of California, Proposition 73 attempts to place more restrictions on any teen intending to terminate her pregnancy. The measure would require any individual under the age of eighteen to have written parental notification from a doctor, ensuring that the parents know what medical risk their daughter is taking. A forty-eight hour waiting period would also be necessary before an abortion could take place. These modifications to the current laws regarding abortion would promote more responsible sexual activities among teens, as the amendment would ensure their parents would know of any choices they have made if abortion is used as a way out of an unwanted pregnancy.

Parental notification and consent are required for any other serious medical procedure undertaken by a teenager in the United States, and abortion is obviously a serious medical procedure. This measure would encourage more thoughtful decision-making among minors, as well as display abortion as the serious surgery that it is, and better illustrate the risk that it entails.

In the case of teens dealing with the issue of abusive families who will not grant consent for a termination of pregnancy, a court can determine the youth exempt from the rule. Also, if the pregnancy poses a health threat to the teen, an emergency procedure can be conducted at the doctor’s discretion without prior notification or consent from the individual’s parents. Requiring that teens with abusive parents go through the courts before receiving an abortion also ensures that they will be helped through their current situation, rather than dealing with it secretly when the pain and stress of abuse could continue without external assistance.

Additionally, California is not the first state to propose introducing such a measure. Rather, thirty-four states already require some sort of parental notification or consent, making this state one of a minority of seventeen which has not yet made a law similar to Proposition 73 a part of the state’s requirements for dealing with the issue of abortion. This measure will only help to ensure the health and safety of the state’s youth, not imposing any unnecessary restrictions upon a medical procedure that should be neither abused nor banned completely.

California’s Current Abortion Legislation

2005-09-17T19:51:00.000-07:00

Proposition 73 on the California Special Election ballot deals with the argument about whether it is in best interests to enforce a law making it imperative that physicians inform the parents of minors prepared to have an abortion at least 48 hours in advanced of that scheduled abortion.

The history of California’s current legislation on the issue of abortion is as follows:
In 1953 California authorized that unmarried minors may receive all “hospital, medical, and surgical care related to pregnancy,” thus including abortion, without the consent of a parent.
In 1961 California added to the previous legislation saying that married minors and minors actively serving on the armed services did not need consent of a parent for “any medical service.”
In 1968 this legislation was extended so much that minors 15 or older who live on their own and manage their own economic affairs do not need the consent of a parent for medical services.
In 1978 California passed that minors over the age of 12 did not the consent of a parent for medical attention regarding “sexually transmitted diseases, rape, sexual assault, drug or alcohol problems, or mental health outpatient treatment.”
In 1986 California passed Assembly bill 2274 which said that minors must receive the consent of at least one parent in order to receive an abortion.
In 1996, however, this amendment reached the California Supreme Court which ruled that Assembly bill 2274 was, indeed, unconstitutional.

So, November 8th, 2005 will determine whether California adds a 32nd section to Article one of its state constitution. See HealthVote.org for more neutral information regarding Proposition 7.3

Fun with Abortion

2005-09-17T18:32:00.000-07:00

Anyone looking for examples of logical fallacies should just look at any of the countless pro-death or anti-freedom websites dotting the Internet. Abortion is possibly the most ridiculous debate ever, simply because the arguments on either side are based on a supposition (“an unborn child/fetus is a human being/not a human being”) and consist mostly of wild appeals to emotion. For example, here are a few gems from yeson73.net and the official voter information guide arguments:

“Investigations have shown that secret abortions on minors in California are rarely reported to child protective services although these pregnancies are evidence of statutory rape and sexual abuse. This leaves these girls vulnerable to further sexual abuse, rapes, pregnancies, abortions, and sexually transmitted diseases.

That’s why more than ONE MILLION SIGNATURES were submitted to allow Californians to vote on the ‘Parents’ Right to Know and Child Protection’ Proposition 73.”

One million other people care about their daughters. Why don’t you?

“When parents are involved and minors cannot anticipate secret access to free abortions they more often avoid the reckless behavior which leads to pregnancies. Older men, including Internet predators, are deterred from impregnating minors when secret abortions are not available to conceal their crimes.”

Did you hear that, parents? Older men and Internet predators will impregnate your daughters if you do not vote Yes on 73.

And finally, we have this wonderfully level-headed tagline:

“Vote “YES” on PROP 73 TO ALLOW PARENTS TO CARE FOR AND PROTECT THEIR MINOR DAUGHTERS !”

PLEASE! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, THINK OF THE CHILDREN! THESE CAPITAL LETTERS SHOW THAT I REALLY MEAN IT THIS TIME!

Of course, the pro-murder camp isn’t completely blame-free either. The classic “coathanger abortion” argument rears its head again, just as it should in any good anti-life argument.

And if, in desperation, teenagers turn to illegal, self-induced or back-alley abortions many will suffer serious injuries and some will die.

To top it all off, both websites show pictures of teenage girls sitting with their smiling, caring, all-American families. And what better way to show how much you love your family than by voting a certain way on this ballot initiative? I, for one, can think of nothing.

I guess that ridiculous arguments and abortion are two things that will always go hand in hand, but knowing this doesn’t make the abortion hysteria any easier to stomach. As a final note, I will say that I think it speaks volumes that it was much, much easier to find these baseless emotional appeals on the Yes On 73 website than on their opponents’.

Colorado Teen Abortion Laws

2005-09-17T17:37:00.000-07:00

Though a new concept to the state of California, the issue of Parental Notification in reference to teen abortion has already been considered, or even instigated in the majority of states. As of 2004, forty-four states had passed some version of the law being proposed for this year's California election. The interesting component of the issue is the extreme variation of the laws from state to state. The largest separation is between "Parental notification" laws (requiring no consent, only notification) and "Parental consent" laws (requiring explicit permission). However, there are other inconsistencies between the states as well. Some of the details they address are: whether one parent or two must be consulted; whether there is a mandatory wait period between parental notification and the procedure; whether other family members or guardians are legal alternatives to parents; and whether "Judicial Bypass" is an option in the instance of extenuating circumstances. For a complete listing of the exact details of the laws in every state click here: http://www.coolnurse.com/abortion_laws.htm.
Since of these forty-four states, Colorado was the first to propose age-oriented restrictions on abortion, it is interesting to consider this state's interpretation of the law. Amendment 12, as proposed on the 1998 state election ballot, dictated the necessity of parental consent in order for minors to obtain an abortion. Though it passed by popular vote, it was soon struck down by the courts. Then, in May of 2003 a similar version of the same law was passed by Colorado state legislation. Judicial Bypass is offered as an option for minors (defined as under the age of 18 in Colorado) who believe that parental notification would put them at risk for violence, or if the minor declares herself as a victim of abuse, incest, or neglect. Also, a minor's reasonable request to inform only one parent is guaranteed to be granted. In order to obtain waiver of parental mandate, a court order is submitted to a judge for review. In order to avoid extreme time delays for the procedure to take place, when a decision has not been made after four days, the request is considered granted. For a complete detailed account of Colorado's laws on teen abortion restrictions, click here: http://www.prochoiceamerica.org/yourstate/whodecides/states/colorado/issue.cfm?issueid=2493. An interesting account of Colorado's adoption of this law from the other side of the issue is provided by Mary Beth Bonacci, a columnist and "frequent lecturer on chastity." To view her article, click here: http://www.catholicherald.com/bonacci/03mb/mb030522.htm.

The Real Cost of Proposition 73

2005-09-17T02:17:00.000-07:00

Proposition 73 can potentially force teenage girls to choose illegal abortions over notifying parents. The proposition does not allow teens to get an abortion if they simply do not want their parents to know. The new law requires girls to have a compelling argument in order to prevent parent notification. But what if the teen simply does not want to communicate with the parent, the law proposes a judicial review to approve the abortion. Hillary Selvin of The Jewish Journal states:

"Teens who don’t usually have a reason [not to tell]…pursuing a judicial waiver to parental notification, which Proposition 73 would allow, is an unrealistic option for a pregnant teenager to pursue."

Other states that have passes similar laws to this proved to be not as successful as intended. According to Campaign for Teen Safety:

"Currently, 35 states have some form of mandatory parental involvement laws and the results should serve as a warning to California’s parents. In other states, when parental notification laws make teenagers choose between talking with parents or having illegal or unsafe abortions, some teens choose the illegal abortion – even though it is dangerous. These laws also cause teens to delay access to medical care and/or travel out of state."

Illegal abortions add to the dangers of teenage health. If performed poorly, the abortion can lead ultimately to death. The other option of traveling to neighboring states increases the risks and dangers of abortions. Teen would have to provide finances necessary to travel and then pay more by having an abortion. Abortions performed in different states force teenagers to not follow up on their abortions. This is also a great health risk that teenagers do not take care of themselves after the abortion, performed in a different state or illegally. Fear of consequences would further encourage a teenager to seek other options to avoid parental notification. NARAL—Pro-Choice California claims:

"Some daughters don’t want to disappoint their parents. Other daughters know that telling their parents would get them kicked out of the house or beaten or worse. This amendment is a one-size fits all government mandate that does not help parents keep their daughters safe."

Besides the cost of safety and health issues of the teenager, there are also costs that will be forced upon the government and taxpayers. Proposition 73:

The net cost to the state would probably not exceed several million dollars annually for health and social services programs, the courts, and state administration combined.

The millions of dollars can be better spent on education programs for teenagers on pregnancies. Costs to produce new forms will add up to nearly $350,000 with an additional $150,000 each year. Additional costs will also include courts, judges, waivers and appeals totaling several million dollars. Social welfare costs will add to several million dollars more. This implication of the new law will increase state spending and taxes will most likely increase. So the important question is: What is the ACTUAL cost of Proposition 73?

Yes or no? What’s the deal with proposition 73?

2005-09-17T01:35:00.000-07:00

On November 8th the citizens of California will be asked to cast their votes in favor for or in opposition to proposition 73. This proposition deals with one of the most contentious issues in politics: abortion. However, the subject of this debate is not the woman’s right to choose, but rather it is the parent’s right to be forewarned if their underage-daughter decides to get an abortion. The proposition, which requires a 48 hour waiting period after parental notification before an abortion can be performed, allows for the minor seeking an abortion to appeal to the courts to waive the notification. Many states have adopted parental notification laws and now it is up to the voters of California to decide yes or no on proposition 73.

The supporters of proposition 73 come as no surprise. The campaign to pass the proposition is mainly funded by right-wing religious-republicans. Many supporters are also in favor of completely abolishing the practice of abortion. One such pro-life group, the Roman Catholic Church, came out in support of the prohibition on the first of September, stating that parental guidance is necessary when making life changing decisions (http://www.cacatholic.org/docsppr/BishopsPNIStatement.pdf).
To rebut this argument Steve Smith, campaign manager for the Campaign for Teen Safety: No on Prop 73, said, "Voters understand that good family communication can't be mandated by government. Proposition 73 puts the safety of our teenage daughters at risk. The more voters think about the harm this initiative will cause teens, the more they join us in voting no"(http://www.noonproposition73.com). Other groups such as planned parenthood, NARAL and the ACLU share Steve Smith’s belief that it is not up to the government to intervene on the side of the parent. According to the proposition’s opposition this new law may be detrimental to the mental and physical health of an adolescent girl seeking the abortion. The American Academia of pediatrics stated that, "Mandating parental notification does not achieve the intended benefit of promoting family communication, but it does increase the risk of harm to the adolescent by delaying access to appropriate care"(http://www.prochoicecalifornia.org/). The process of appealing for a waiver could have the effect of delaying an abortion, a medical procedure which could get more dangers the later in the pregnancy it is performed. Furthermore, the ordeal of going through the courts to receive a waiver would be emotionally draining for a fragile girl.

To become more informed about this proposition go to http://www.healthvote2004.org/73/factsanalysis.php?pid=73&sid=1 and decide yes or no on prop 73.

An undecided voter

2005-09-17T00:58:00.000-07:00

When I first read about Proposition 73, I was honestly against it. I thought that the government should not interfere with family problems. And that the daughter has the right to privacy. What if the girl is in an unsupportive family, who would beat her when they found out. Does this law apply to girls without parents, but are living with some form of a guardian? Just like the voters of California(48% opposing and 44% agreeing) who are divided almost in half (keeping in mind a 3% margin of error), I am also divided in my opinion of Proposition 73.

Here are some reasons why I would support Proposition 73:

The rate of reported rapes would increase, making our state more aware of this problem. It is a big problem that many rapes are not reported today. It is emotionally overwhelming to have to deal with rape, especially if one keeps it to oneself.
Minors will be more protected from sexual abuse by older men.
It would result in improved medical care for girls (see http://www.yeson73.net/wst_page2.html) According to this site it would achieve this goal in 3 ways: allows parents to help their daughter choose a safe abortion provider and physician, parents can provide helpful medical history, insures that parents have knowledge to guide their child after the abortion.
If it is state law for a minor to have parental permission to get a peircing, shouldn't we at least have parental notification for something as serious as abortion?
If the child comes from a supportive family, it would be a positive impact for her parents to be involved during a truamatic experience, like abortion.

Reasons to say no to Proposition 73:

Abortion should be the women's/girl's choice (and sometimes the father of the baby). Although, Proposition 73 only allows parent notification and not permission, the parent's may still effect the girl's choice even by means of abuse.
Girls from unsupportive or abusive families may be better off emotionally and psychologically without their parents notification. Instead they should get help from others.
Teenagers who cannot tell their parents, may turn to "dangerous measures, like back-alley or self-induced abortions" (http://www.noonproposition73.com/).
It would be even more emotionally draining for a teenager to have to go through the court system. As http://www.noonproposition73.com/ quotes, "Teens don’t need a judge, they need a counselor."

All in all, like all propositions, Proposition 73 has a positive impact for some and negative effect for others. It may be a positive impact for close-knit, supportive families, and a danger to teenagers from troubled homes. Although, according to the polls, more voters are opposing to the proposition, I think the circumstances would change when parents consider being in the position of a parent with a pregnant child considering abortion.

Going Through the Courts

2005-09-16T17:40:00.000-07:00

While the passage of Proposition 73 would make it harder for adolescent girls to secretly get abortions, it would not make the secret abortion impossible to attain. According to The Official Title and Summary of Proposition 73, if a girl receives a waiver approved by the California State Court, her parents would not have to be notified in order for her to get the abortion. The process of going to court is fairly simple and all an adolescent girl needs to do is show up to or call her local State Court and request to speak with a judge about getting the waiver.

However, do not be deceived by the apparent simplicity of this task. Getting a judge to grant a waiver would not be simple. In fact, just getting a judge to agree to hear the case could be near impossible. Within the last two weeks, judges in Tennessee, Alabama, and Pennsylvania have refused to hear cases involving parental notification of adolescent pregnancy abortion. These judges put their personal opinions ahead of their duty to serve the court system to make a statement, but they also caused many troubled girls to find themselves in even more trouble. The laws that were designed to protect these girls from dangerous abortions are instead hindering their legal right to an abortion.

Once an adolescent girl can convince a judge to hear her case, she must prove that she is “sufficiently mature and well-informed to decide whether to have an abortion or that notification would not be in [her] best interest,” according to the legislative analysis of this proposition. Doing so could prove very difficult for a young, scared girl.

Supporters of Proposition 73, like Yes on Proposition 73, argue that adolescent girls in this condition are too vulnerable to know what is best for them, while opponents of the proposition, like The Campaign for Teen Safety, argue that adolescent girls should not be forced to defend themselves in court and notifying parents should be a personal decision.

Some Issues to Consider

2005-09-15T22:42:00.000-07:00

Although the outcome of prop 73 cannot yet be determined, studying states that already have either parental consent laws or parental notification laws in practice may help in predicting prop 73's effects. According to Nikki Katz of About.com, there are currently 21 states that practice a parental consent law while 14 states require parental notification. However, despite the number of states that already require parental notification, questions arise about the effectiveness of parental notification laws.

According to Advocatesforyouth.org,

"The chief factor determining whether a teen consulted her parent [about an abortion] was, not legislation, but the quality of the teen's relationship with her parent."

Advocatesforyouth.org's fact sheet cites,

"In states with parental consent or notification laws, many adolescents who did not consult their parents said it was because they feared emotional and/or physical abuse, including eviction from their homes."

Are the concerns of those adolescents valid? Does this mean that parental consent and notification laws are not only detrimental in adolescent-guardian relationships, but also cause for potential abuse?

Such questions of potential worsening of the current situation invariably lead to one of the greatest concerns of anti-prop 73 campaigns: will prop 73 just encourage teens to resort to dangerous and/or illegal self-induced abortions? Campaign for Teen Safety, an anti-prop 73 campaign, says a strong 'yes.' Moreover, not only will there be an increase in illegal and dangerous abortions, but requiring parental notification may also be especially dangerous in the case of teens victimized within their own homes.

Those facts don't mean that the Supreme Court does not protect teens in states that have parental notification or consent laws in place. Teens are allowed to appeal to other adults, but although the bypass procedure is designed to protect, it may be dangerously time-consuming.

Advocatesforyouth.org states,

"Although bypass procedures are an important safeguard for teens who reside in states with parental consent or notification laws, studies have shown that forcing pregnant teens to apply to a court, physician, or other authority figure may have significant, adverse physical and emotional effects on these young women."

Since the court process may be protracted, the time-element involved is a definite concern, especially since the appeal process may even delay the abortion into the second trimester, increasing the risk of complications.

The Ongoing Debate

2005-09-15T21:39:00.000-07:00

The debate over the parental notification and approval of a minor's abortion has been an ongoing battle in the courts since 1971 when the U Supreme Court first introduced a ruling enabling minors to attain abortions without parental consent or awareness. The ruling continued to be contested in the courts until 1997 when the Supreme Court finally ruled that requiring parental approval of a minor's abortion is unconstitutional and evades the right of privacy.

Due to the constant volleying back and forth in the courts, both sides can call upon precedence to support their cases. Colorado, for instance, has already adopted parental notification laws and there is speculation that other states will follow. Some voices from the pro-life sector of the debate express concerns that this is a step towards more restrictive abortions laws however others applaud it as in the best interest of the minor.

Concerns over the ability of a minor to cope with the medical and mental trauma of an abortion have been voiced by both parents and professionals. Currently a minor as young as eleven, the average age of a fifth grader, can receive an abortion without guardian notification. Is this justifiable under the right to privacy? Some disagree, particularly parents with daughters - of either political persuasion. Recounts of adults who underwent abortions reveal shocking accounts of the aftereffects: In 1989, Wanda Franz Ph.D. stated that "[Women] report horrible nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood". There is dissent over the ability of a minor to mentally cope with the aftermath and is parental notification necessary to prevent mental harm.

The question of which way the vote will swing is not yet backed by sufficient evidence. Both sides express concern or doubt as to the outcome. There is a wide margin for possible spin. It is possible that some pro-choicers might approve of the law as it pertains solely to minors and there is current question over the persuasion of pro-life parents with young daughters whom this law directly affects. At the time being, the direction that the ongoing debate will take is wooly with multiple questions over the rights of minors, the rights of parents and the right to privacy in this context.

Dangers of Increased Teenage Childbearing

2005-09-15T20:03:00.000-07:00

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecolegists, one of the leading proponents of Proposition 73, mentions in their argument in favor of the initiative that its passage will likely mean fewer abortions by minors and, logically, a relatively increased rate of teenage childbearing. However, Planned Parenthood says that "teenage mothers are more likely to drop out of high school and live in poverty, and their children frequently experience health and developmental problems." Is California's priority to maintain a high quality of life or a high quantity of life?

Planned Parenthood: http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/teensexualhealth/fact-pregnancy-teens-us.xml

American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: http://ss.ca.gov/elections/bp_nov05/voter_info_pdf/entire73.pdf

Defintion of abortion

2005-09-15T16:26:00.000-07:00

The Campaign for Teen Safety, an anti-prop 73 organization sponsored by a variety of pro-choice groups, including The Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, states that the drafters of the initiative are concerned with more than simply parental notification. This initiative, many argue, is dangerous for pro-choice supporters, because it actually would amend the California's constitution, and define abortion as:

...the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.

Many feel that this is a first official attempt by conservative pro-life supporters to outlaw abortion entirely in this state. Conservatives are all about traditional family values, but they can't make good family communication a government mandate! This begins long before an unemancipated minor becomes pregnant; pro-life supporters need to promote talking to their daughters about responsible and safe sexual behavior while they are still young. They need not amend our state constitution to make it harder for an already pregnant teenager to terminate her pregnancy before becoming parents far too early.

USEFUL LINKS

2005-09-13T13:12:00.000-07:00

CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE