Advertise Here
Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.
Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.
Our latest headlines
- Cavala: Rich-Guy Governor Demonstrates Insensitivity to Salaried Employees of California’s Government
- Political Robo Calls Are Illegal in California: You Can Help Enforce the Law and Protect Your Privacy
- I'd Buy That for $10 - Access To California State Parks
- Cal in the Capitol Gives Students a Bird’s Eye View of State Politics and Public Policy
- 11 Things I've Learned Running Over 100 Bond and Tax Measure Campaigns in California
- A McCain Meltdown?
- Cavala: Field Poll Suggests G.O.P. “Comeuppance” This November in California
About Us
The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.
About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.
Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.
Sponsors
Most of the Money Against Clean Money Initiative Prop 89 Comes from Insurance Companies—Wonder Why?

By Frank D. Russo
According to the good government watchdog group, the Foundation for Consumer and Taxpayer Rights (FCTR), 59% of the contributions against Proposition 89, designed to clean up the role of money in California politics, comes from the multi-billion dollar insurance industry, which just happens to be the one of the most prolific political donors in the state to candidates and officeholders.
The Contributions So Far
According to their figures, crunched from information from the California Secretary of State’s office, $415,000 of the $700,000 donated to the No on 89 political action committee has come directly from the insurance industry, and not in small chunks. This is only the beginning of what will be tens of millions of dollars that will be raised and spent against this measure by the special interests who have mastered the pay to play scheme in Sacramento. We have seen record fundraisers this August in the final month of the legislative session while bills die or make it to the Governor’s desk.
Contributions include:
* $200,000 from California’s 3rd largest auto insurer, Mercury Insurance, and its CEO George Joseph;
* $100,000 from Zenith, the largest private workers compensation insurer in California; and
* $50,000 from Farmers, the state’s 2nd largest auto and homeowners insurance company.
* Other insurance contributors against Prop 89 include IBA (Insurance Brokers and Agents) West, The Doctors Company and Fireman’s Fund.
The Reasons for the Contributions
FCTR says that what is driving the insurance money is fear of another revolt like that which spawned Proposition 103, which required automobile insurance carriers to charge premiums based on a driver’s record rather than the zip code the driver lives in and placed limits on the insurance companies’ profiteering. Others cite the health care area where high premiums and limitations on coverage are the areas that consumers want changed. Whatever it is, they contribute millions of dollars to those running for office and want their money to count in these elections and to benefit from the influence it buys. You won’t see mom and pop contributing heavily to the No on Prop 89 campaign.
“With Prop 103, insurers lost the right to gouge consumers; now they may the lose their ability to buy the Legislature, where insurers have long been able to stop further reform of their claims and pricing practices,” said Harvey Rosenfield, the author of Proposition 103. “In 1988, Prop 103 gave the voters a chance to protect themselves when corrupt politicians refused to reform the insurance industry. Prop 89 stops the political corruption that currently blocks so many needed reforms from gaining traction in Sacramento.”
"We pay enormous premiums for inadequate insurance protections, we have seven million people without health coverage, soaring chronic asthma rates as Californians breathe the nation's most polluted air, insufficient funding for our schools, and some of the highest gas and electric rates in the nation,” said Rose Ann DeMoro, executive director of the California Nurses Association, which is leading the drive to pass Prop 89. "The present system works for the insurance companies and the other big donors, it just doesn't work for the rest of us."
According to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, millions of dollars of insurance company donations to politicians, particularly those in key committees, have driven a string of anti-consumer votes in the State Capitol in recent years.
Assembly Insurance Committee chairman Juan Vargas, for example, has received at least $315,000 in campaign contributions from insurance interests. In recent years, his committee has blocked desperately needed homeowner protections in the wake of Southern California wildfires and has passed legislation allowing auto insurance surcharges on low-income drivers. As was reported in the California Progress Report in April, the committee passed a measure, AB 2840, that would have blocked Insurance Commissioner Garamendi’s landmark rules lowering rates for good drivers throughout the state.
“For years the insurance industry has held a death-grip on the State Legislature, using the Assembly Insurance Committee as its boneyard,” said Douglas Heller, Executive Director of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights. “Insurers know that their political donations buy them extraordinary power right at the key bottleneck for consumer protection bills. Prop 89 would relieve lawmakers of their dependence on industry cash and that scares insurance executives.”
Insurers spent “$25 million on lobbyists, campaign contributions and perks”
An example of how the insurance industry benefits financially from its huge campaign contributions was vividly cited by the Los Angeles Times in a February 27, 2006 article.
Following disastrous Southern California wildfires, lawmakers proposed six bills that would have made it harder for insurers to cancel insurance or raise rates, reduced paperwork homeowners needed to collect claims, and required insurers to provide consumers with more information about policy choices.
These provisions, hotly challenged by the insurance industry, died in the Assembly Insurance Committee whose members, Democrats and Republicans alike, had received more than $1 million in insurance industry money just in 2003-2004. Overall, the Times reported, “insurers have spent $25 million on lobbyists, campaign contributions and perks for lawmakers” since 2003.
Schwarzenegger Received $105,000 From Insurers on Day of Veto of Insurance Bill
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is another major beneficiary of insurance industry largesse, and responded with vetoes and other policies rewarding them. Among his insurance donors, Zenith has contributed over $244,000 to Schwarzenegger, Mercury just over $200,000 (see www.arnoldwatch.org).
Insurers were rewarded on October 7, 2005, when Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 399, a bill that would have required insurance companies, not Medi-Cal, to pay medical costs for uninsured drivers who are injured in an accident caused by an insured driver, saving taxpayers $225 million a year. On the same day that Schwarzenegger vetoed SB 399, the American Insurance Association gave Schwarzenegger $105,000.
Comments
For some time I have posted on this site that I thought the so called "clean money" measure was a bad idea because I believe that the rich and powerful always find a way to work around campaign reform measures before the campaigns that are trying to help the less well off ever catch up.
Well, to back up my belief, I would point out that you might have noticed that the Democratic Party is not doing a massive voter registration drive in this election as they have done in the past. Why is that not happening? Because the Party couldn't figure out an effecient way to fund the drive with McCain/Feingold rules in place and so they are simply running a couple of small drives primarily staffed with volunteers in competitive legislative districts.
The Republicans on the other hand, who weren't originally planning on relying on a large voter reg program managed to figure out how to fully fund their program to the level they wanted to reach and have gained ground in registration primarily through registering members of groups like conservative churches and others that agree with their point of view. This at a time when they are struggling nationally.
This is all another major hidden blow to progressive causes from campaign reform advocates who will probably never make the connection themselves.
Posted by: Tom Kaptain at August 27, 2006 09:59 AM
Mr. Kaptain sees some trees, but misses the forest. Just look at who's 100% free of special interest influence thanks to Clean Money:
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (D), one of the 10 statewide officials (out of 11 statewide elective offices) elected with Clean Money.
58% of the Arizona House of Representatives
23% of the Arizona State Senate
78% of state legislators in Maine, including majorities of both major parties in both houses.
Clean Money funds challengers in formerly uncontested districts. These challengers register voters, and they give unregistered people a reason to register because now there's a real choice. In Arizona voter turnout went up 27% between the 1998 and the 2002 gubernatorial election -- thanks to Clean Money.
I'll take Clean Money any day over California's current corrupt system of campaign bribery -- I mean financing.
Everybody knows that "he who pays the piper calls the tune," and politicians generally "don't bite the hand that feeds them." It's time for the voters to call the tune in the State Capitol, and take the big money contributors and lobbyists out of the political feedlot.
Posted by: David Schmidt at August 28, 2006 12:27 AM
P.S. And did I mention that Proposition 89, the Clean and Fair Elections Initiative, will establish a Clean Money Public Financing system in California? Vote Yes on 89.
Posted by: David Schmidt at August 28, 2006 10:20 AM
But what you forgot to mention is that Government subsidies to businesses have increased since "clean money" passed in Arizona and although Janet Napolitano is a very effective Governor (and in fairness I should add a clean money supporter) the state of Arizona has not come close to going down the progressive path most people predicted for it when both latino's and Indians started voting in dramatically larger numbers. The end effect in Arizona is that the special interests are stronger, not weaker.
Posted by: Tom Kaptain at August 28, 2006 04:21 PM
All those opposed to 89 are involved with the money. Either giving & wanting favors or receiving and willing to sell their souls.
Posted by: Robert Allen at August 31, 2006 12:50 PM
Post a comment
Get Email Updates
Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.
© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.
RSS 