Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

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

Learn more about ads.

About Us

Frank D. Russo

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

Books

Four Years Later, Arnold’s Tonight Show Pledge Rings Hollow

Derek-Cressman.gif

By Derek Cressman

On August 6, 2003, Arnold Schwarzenegger stunned the world by declaring his candidacy to become California’s governor during a conversation with Jay Leno on The Tonight Show. The announcement was surprising not only for its unusual setting, but because even Schwarzenegger’s closest political advisors expected Arnold to announce that night that he would not run.

Schwarzenegger further excited his audience by proclaiming that he, unlike Gray Davis, would be free from entanglements with Sacramento special interests: “As you know, I don’t need to take any money from anybody. I have plenty of money myself. I will make decisions for the people.”

Arnold’s campaign staff, who had not prepared him for this statement, quickly qualified the promise to mean that Schwarzenegger would in fact be raising money for his campaign, just not from special interests. One of Schwarzenegger’s most powerful campaign ads decried the current system of political fundraising: “Special interests have a stranglehold on Sacramento. … Here’s how it works. Money goes in—favors go out. The people lose. We need to send a message. Game over.”

Voters sent the message. They fired a sitting governor for only the second time in U.S. history. Unfortunately, both Schwarzenegger and members of the legislature appear to have forgotten about it.

Schwarzenegger raised $136 million from 2003-2006. Gray Davis, by comparison, raised $120 million over a seven-year period. With both men, most of this money came from donors with agendas in Sacramento that were distinctly different from the interests of the public at large. You could fairly describe these particular agendas as “special.” Others simply had their own “special” ideologies that they could promote by making political expenditures that dwarfed those that ordinary citizens could afford. More than three-quarters of Schwarzenegger’s political funds came from donors who gave more than $10,000.

Far from ending the game, both Schwarzenegger and the legislature have taken special interest fundraising to new extremes while refusing to enact reforms to the system. Twice the California Assembly has passed a bill to provide a way for candidates who want to run for office without taking any special interest money to do so. The idea, modeled after successful reforms in Arizona, is to give candidates who swear off private funds a limited amount of public funding for their campaigns. Twice the California Senate has failed to take it up while Schwarzenegger sat on the sidelines.

After pledging to blow up boxes, the strongest campaign finance reform that Schwarzenegger has proposed is to restrict fundraising during certain parts of the legislative session—a mere fig leaf that would simply alter the schedule by which special interests continue to call the shots. Worse yet, in 2005 Schwarzenegger actually went to court to throw out a campaign finance rule that the Fair Political Practices Commission had set in response to abuses by Cruz Bustamante during the recall campaign.

To his credit, Schwarzenegger has pushed for reform in the process by which legislators self-interestedly draw political districts to protect their own careers instead of accurately representing local communities or providing competitive elections. Legislators have toyed with giving this task to an independent commission but are now considering it only as part of a deal to extend their own tenure in office by changing legislative term limits. Even if this package were adopted, it would not reduce the power of special interests to elect friendly politicians through campaign contributions.

If Schwarzenegger has learned one lesson as governor, it is that he is more popular when he works with Democrats in the legislature than when he fights them. This may have been the lesson of the 2005 special election, but it was not the lesson of the 2003 recall. With three years left in his final term as governor, Arnold would do well to remember the original reason voters sent him to Sacramento. It’s time for Arnold to get out the broom he campaigned with and put it to use.

Derek Cressman is a fellow at the Poplar Institute and author of The Recall’s Broken Promise: How Big Money Still Runs California Politics.

Posted on August 06, 2007

Comments

"Far from ending the game, both Schwarzenegger and the legislature have taken special interest fundraising to new extremes while refusing to enact reforms to the system. Twice the California Assembly has passed a bill to provide a way for candidates who want to run for office without taking any special interest money to do so. The idea, modeled after successful reforms in Arizona, is to give candidates who swear off private funds a limited amount of public funding for their campaigns. Twice the California Senate has failed to take it up while Schwarzenegger sat on the sidelines."

This equates to 13,600 individual and corporate campaign donor at $10,000/place fund raising dinner.

This DOES NOT REFLECT the vast majority of CALIFORNIANS. The GOVERNOR does not represent the residents of CALIFORNIA and does not care for the interest of CALIFORNIA WORKERS.

He is just another HIGH PRICE figure head thats been paid for by the HIGHEST BIDDERS.

WHAT A SHAME. That our leaders has betrayed and deceives us AGAIN.

Posted by: Anon at August 6, 2007 09:35 PM

Arnold is the puppet; I smell former Republican governors hands influences way too much. Arnold has dragged, or been swayed into bringing, too many former individuals like Pete Wilson in on his team.

Didn't Pete Wilson want privatization of government? The same issue as Hannah Beth Jackson's "What is Really Going on with the California State Budget—From the Perspective of a Former Legislator" says --->

"...Republicans want to debilitate government and frankly, privatize the whole thing."

If Arnold wansn't a puppet, he would realize that these external influences are not in the best interest of the citizens of California; these influences are in the best interest of big business.

Posted by: SprainedBrain at August 7, 2007 01:52 PM

Post a comment




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Get email updates!

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

Stat tracker