Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

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.

Books

Prop. 89: We’ve Opened a Door for Reform That Will Never Be Closed

By Rose Ann DeMoro
Executive Director
California Nurses Association

Despite a defeat in Tuesday’s election, the campaign for Proposition 89 has laid the groundwork for the inevitable enactment of a change in the political system. We have opened a door for reform that will never be closed. Prop. 89 helped generate a statewide discussion of the problem and the need for solutions.

Across the board, the biggest winner on Tuesday in California was big money. The November election was the most expensive in California history with well over $550 million reported by late October. Through Monday, over $258 million was raised just on two ballot measures, Prop. 86 and 87, mostly by a handful of large oil and tobacco firms.

Across the U.S., it was also the most expensive midterm election ever, according to figures from the Center for Responsive Politics. At least $2.8 billion was consumed nationally, a 20% increase over the last midterm election in 2002.

What is most dismaying, is the decline in the voting population and the alienation of ordinary Californians from the political process. Big money continues to overwhelm voters who feel shut out of the political system and are increasingly showing it by abandoning participation in our elections.”

A Tuesday Field Poll projected that just 36% of citizens eligible to vote would be at the voting booth. In the final numbers reported this morning, only 6.74 million votes were cast in the Governor’s race, less than 19% of the state’s total population.

The California Nurses Association will work with Assembly member Loni Hancock and the large coalition that backed Prop. 89 for re-introduction of another bill to curb political corruption and to reduce the influence of special interests in Sacramento.

Ten years ago, CNA sponsored an initiative, Proposition 216, to end HMO abuses. Though Prop. 216 lost, it was the catalyst for a series of reforms that within three years had resulted in legislative implementation of virtually all of the provisions of 216, including nurse-to-patient ratios.

We believe similar results will follow this election. California polls have shown that 66% of Californians believe big interests dominate Sacramento, and 61% believe large campaign contributions have an adverse effect on public policy. A CNN survey Tuesday night reported that 94% of 32,000 people participating believe politicians “generally do the most for their donors,” not their constituents.

Now it is time for the legislature to act. We challenge all Californians, including those who claimed they favor reform but just disagreed with some provisions in Prop. 89, to show their commitment to genuine reform of our dysfunctional political system, and support this effort.

It is also time step up efforts for reform on other critical issues facing Californians, especially the growing collapse of our healthcare system and the disgrace of having 6.5 million uninsured and millions more under-insured residents. We will transform healthcare in California, soon.

A unique campaign

Prop. 89 pushed the debate on campaign finance reform and helped shine a light, literally in many cases, on the debilitating effect of massive corporate spending on our political process.

Additionally, many will recall Prop. 89 as establishing a new model in a statewide grassroots campaigns. Features of the unique effort included:

 Bus fleets of nurses that traversed the state talking to thousands of voters
 A much praised rap video and song by Colette Washington that was aired, played on the radio, and performed across California, It’s About Time for ‘89
 A Spanish language song Si en la 89, recorded and performed by the noted Los Angeles band XochiSoneros, that also aired on many stations across the state.
 Frequent appearances by Batman, the bat signal shining on sites of political corruption, and visits to sites of corruption by disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff (or someone closely resembling him)
 Political theater outside campaign fundraisers, including a “Dash for the Cash” on the final day of the legislative session was being held, accompanied by dozens of fundraisers across the street from the Capitol.

On a personal note, the California Nurses Association expresses our thanks to the thousands of volunteers who worked on behalf of Prop. 89, and the hundreds of community organizations and leaders who supported the initiative. CNA nurses are inspired by the dedicated clean money election volunteers who worked tirelessly on phone banks and wrote hundreds of letters to newspapers. We look forward to continuing our coalition efforts.

Posted on November 09, 2006

Comments

Wonderful news. I was hoping to read something like this.

Please, set up a blog (with comments) or a similiar kind of community to keep the grassroots/netroots in the loop on your progress. We are here to help you!

Posted by: Dan Wood at November 9, 2006 10:41 AM

I'd like to let you know about a new, nonpartisan public database of money and votes in California that was recently launched, MAPLight.org.
To learn more about this new resource, visit http://www.maplight.org

Posted by: MAPLight.org at November 10, 2006 08:16 AM

UH .. what about limits on Union spending members dues?

Posted by: steve at November 11, 2006 03:59 PM

the last comment. What about limits on Unions spending members dues?
Well, that is the current law. Unions can only spend special money, PAC money. It must be collected specifically for this purpose and the members get a vote on it.
General union money can be used only to communicate with their own members. Unions also have to spend significant money to track this PAC money and to separate the funds.
What specifically are your refering to? It appears that you have accepted a stereotype about union money. Or, as another alternative, perhaps you have some information which I do not understand.

Posted by: Duane Campbell at November 12, 2006 05:04 PM

Duane, I do recall in the special election last year an attempt to get individual union members to authorize their specific segment of dues being used towards the union leaderships PAC's interests. That initiative LOST, no doubt due to the heavy campaigning bu the unions themselves.

Why indidviduals cannot individually decide where/who their union PAC money goes to is beyond me. Another example of a not very intelligent electorate in our state in not voting in favor of this last year...

Posted by: Sid at November 12, 2006 11:45 PM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker