June 7, 2023 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

Fundraising Blackout One Small Step Toward Trust:

With polls showing Californians distrust their state government more than citizens of almost any other state, it’s high time legislators at least began taking small steps toward earning back some of the public faith they have squandered.

One way to start might be to adopt an idea advanced this spring by Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla of Los Angeles, now a candidate to become secretary of state, California’s chief elections officer.

Even before the spring corruption indictments of fellow Democratic Sens. Ron Calderon of Montebello and Leland Yee of San Francisco, Padilla realized that one of the least seemly things lawmakers now do is raise campaign dollars right when they are deciding how to vote on important bills.

Even for the rare senator or Assembly member strong enough to heed the half-century-old advice of former Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh (“If you can’t drink their booze, (sleep with) their women, eat their food and then vote against them, you don’t belong in politics.”), decision-time fund-raising still looks bad and erodes public trust.

Especially when a legislator then votes precisely the way big-money special interest donors want. It’s often a “which came first, the chicken or the egg” question when trying to determine whether lawmakers attract special interest support because of their own voting proclivities or vote the way they do because of special interest donations. Whichever, the practice stinks and looks terrible.

So Padilla proposes to ban campaign contributions to lawmakers during the final 100 days of each legislative session. That’s not as extreme as forbidding donations during the entire session, but the longer ban (legislative sessions run seven or eight months yearly) might be impractical. For sure, outlawing donations for entire sessions could put legislators seeking reelection at a disadvantage against challengers not subject to a ban, while leaving millionaire self-funded candidates with an even bigger advantage than they often enjoy now.

A shorter, 100-day ban is something incumbents could live with. They usually enjoy huge advantages over challengers in both fund-raising and the name-recognition that’s so important to political survival in a large state where most voters never lay eyes on a candidate.

But some of Sacramento’s most prolific fund-raisers say it wouldn’t change much if either fundraising during entire sessions or during the finishing rush were outlawed.

 “It’s just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic,” said Dan Weitzman, who gathers funds for major Democrats. “This simply front-loads fund-raising. You’d simply tell people on July 1 to mail their checks in on Sept. 1 or Sept. 15 or whenever the session ends. Everyone would know it was coming.”

Adds Democratic consultant Steve Maviglio, a onetime press secretary for ex-Gov. Gray Davis who has worked for three Assembly speakers and run many initiative campaigns, “The concept is great, but the reality is not workable. This would be nothing more than a Band-Aid at best. I favor full disclosure of all donations within 24 hours instead; then everyone will know who’s getting what from whom.”

But past history indicates that even if donations were posted immediately, very few voters would check on them.

Still, it’s clear the public wants some kind of action to clean things up in Sacramento, where almost 3 million Californians today languish with no Senate representation at all because their convicted or indicted representatives are suspended while trying to fight off corruption and perjury charges against them.

So why not start with a small step like Padilla’s proposal? The one thing it would do is keep legislators from staging fund-raising events during the times they cast their most important votes. It is conceivable that not having to confront their big donors might make it a little easier for them to get back to basics, and actually vote their consciences or their constituents’ best interests.

Doesn’t sound like much, but it could at least lend a little more of the appearance of propriety to a polluted political environment. That’s better than doing no cleanup at all, which is what has happened so far amid all the pious talk of regaining public confidence.

in Opinion
Related Posts

Landmarks Commission Back From the Dead

June 2, 2023

June 2, 2023

For over three years, SMa.r.t. (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) has consistently warned that recently increased intense development...

SMa.r.t. Column: Improving Santa Monica’s Future: A Resident-Oriented Master Plan

May 28, 2023

May 28, 2023

Improving Santa Monica’s Future: A Resident-Oriented Master Plan Santa Monica, like many cities, requires a well-defined master plan to guide...

Pretext Stops Are a Vital Crime Prevention Tool

May 22, 2023

May 22, 2023

By Cody Green, Santa Monica Police Officers Association (SMPOA) Chairman and Lieutenant, SMPD  Recently the Santa Monica Public Safety Oversight...

Is City Government Listening to You?

May 21, 2023

May 21, 2023

Sometimes, it might feel like City Council members or local government staff aren’t paying attention to the concerns of residents....

New Program Can Help Protect Southern California Homes in the Event of an Earthquake

May 13, 2023

May 13, 2023

Residents Have Until May 31 To Apply For Seismic Retrofit Grants By Janiele Maffei, Chief Mitigation Officer for the California...

SMO (So Many Options) Part 1

April 20, 2023

April 20, 2023

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow)  The volume of discussion around the options for Santa Monica Airport (SMO)...

SMa.r.t. Column: Reusing Buildings for the Benefit of All

April 2, 2023

April 2, 2023

[Almost two years ago our colleague Michael Jolly prepared this analysis of the benefits and risks of repurposing existing buildings,...

SMa.r.t. Column: I Told You So

March 28, 2023

March 28, 2023

On January17, 2015  SMa.r.t. posted a prophetic article in the Daily Press written by Ron Goldman FAIA advocating maintaining a...

Column: SB 9 Ended R-1 Zoning, but It’s Not Meeting Goals

March 11, 2023

March 11, 2023

By Tom Elias More than a year after it took effect, the landmark housing density law known as SB 9...

SMa.r.t. Column: The Urgency to Retrofit Earthquake-Deficient Buildings

March 6, 2023

March 6, 2023

Recent early-morning tremors off the Malibu coast, and the huge and terrible earthquake in Turkey and Syria have made us...

SMa.r.t. Column: ​​Reinforcing the Future – A Revisit

February 27, 2023

February 27, 2023

Six years go we discussed, in these pages, the city’s then-renewed earthquake-retrofit rules. At the time we argued that the...

Column: The Inevitable Conversions Begin Multiplying

February 25, 2023

February 25, 2023

By Tom Elias It’s a phenomenon from New York to Dallas to Fresno and Los Angeles, one that seemed inevitable...

Column: The Fantasy World of California Housing Policy

February 20, 2023

February 20, 2023

By Tom Elias If you’re looking for sure things among bills under consideration in the state Legislature, think of one...

SMa.r.t. Column: Santa Monica City Council – Planners, Politicians, or Developers?

February 19, 2023

February 19, 2023

Santa Monica – a progressive city 20 years ago, a chaotic city today! A city that is struggling for its...

SMa.r.t. Column: What’s Wrong With This Picture?

February 16, 2023

February 16, 2023

The picture shown above is the future of Santa Monica. Large tall buildings along the Boulevards and Avenues plus Downtown...