Migden-FPPC Brawl Finds New Venue

posted by Alan Greenblatt

The ever-escalating war of words between state Sen. Carole Migden and California's Fair Political Practices Commission will move formally into the judicial realm today, with a lawsuit pitting the parties against one another reaching federal court.

Migden sued the FPPC and then agreed to pay a record fine for improperly using campaign funds. The FPPC then launched a $9 million countersuit. The Sacramento Bee outlines the resulting bickering between Migden, her political consultant Richie Ross and FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson, a longtime veteran of Sacramento brawls:

Johnson says the San Francisco Democrat is trying to "bully" the FPPC. Migden has accused Johnson of "Nixonian" behavior. Ross, no stranger to verbal warfare himself, contends a $9 million countersuit the FPPC filed against Migden is "retaliatory."

Bee columnist Dan Walters notes that Migden has also got cut up in the ongoing feud between Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, with Núñez seeking to give aid and comfort to Mark Leno, one of Migden's opponents in the June primary:

For months, Núñez and other Assembly leaders have been helping Leno push high-profile legislation while sidetracking Migden's bills. The Perata-led Senate has been treating Leno the same way.

The leadership duel went public as Núñez and designated successor Karen Bass urged delegates to endorse Leno because he has "made California the envy of the rest of the nation when it comes to changes in the areas of civil rights and the environment" and Migden's camp passed out "an important message" from Perata and his successor, Darrell Steinberg, urging delegates to "honor the decision of the regional caucus."

I Can Hardly Wait

posted by Josh Goodman

November 2010 is only about a 1,000 days away, so it's high time we had some news about the election after next. Finally, we do.

In California, where the Governator will be term-limited, the outgoing CEO of eBay, Meg Whitman, is mulling a bid for governor. The Los Angeles Times has the scoop on Whitman, who is a Republican and a billionaire.

Despite Schwarzenegger's success, the California Republican Party still doesn't have much of a bench, which makes a self-funding outsider like Whitman more intriguing. The Times notes that the only other Republican statewide elected official in California, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (also a billionaire), is another possible candidate.

Illinois' situation is different. Governor Rod Blagojevich is in his second term, but he isn't term-limited. Nonetheless, the governor's legal troubles and his unpopularity raise questions about whether he will run again.   

Recent finance reports seem to indicate that fellow Democrats aren't waiting for Blagojevich to decide. Blagojevich is still raising a ton of money (though he's spending quite a bit of it on legal bills), but so are Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Comptroller Dan Hynes, both other Democrats. Primary challenge, anyone?

Finally, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican, is pledging to help his party raise $7 million to win control of the state legislature in 2010. Democrats have big majorities in both houses (61-43 in the House and 22-13 in the Senate), although the party loyalty of some of those legislators is open to debate.

There are no legislative elections in the state this year -- Alabama is one of those strange states where legislators from both houses serve four-year terms. Riley is term-limited in 2010, so this fundraising push should make executive-legislative relations interesting for the rest of the governor's term.

posted by Josh Goodman

November 2010 is only about a 1,000 days away, so it's high time we had some news about the election after next. Finally, we do.

In California, where the Governator will be term-limited, the outgoing CEO of eBay, Meg Whitman, is mulling a bid for governor. The Los Angeles Times has the scoop on Whitman, who is a Republican and a billionaire.

Despite Schwarzenegger's success, the California Republican Party still doesn't have much of a bench, which makes a self-funding outsider like Whitman more intriguing. The Times notes that the only other Republican statewide elected official in California, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner (also a billionaire), is another possible candidate.

Illinois' situation is different. Governor Rod Blagojevich is in his second term, but he isn't term-limited. Nonetheless, the governor's legal troubles and his unpopularity raise questions about whether he will run again.   

Recent finance reports seem to indicate that fellow Democrats aren't waiting for Blagojevich to decide. Blagojevich is still raising a ton of money (though he's spending quite a bit of it on legal bills), but so are Attorney General Lisa Madigan and Comptroller Dan Hynes, both other Democrats. Primary challenge, anyone?

Finally, Alabama Governor Bob Riley, a Republican, is pledging to help his party raise $7 million to win control of the state legislature in 2010. Democrats have big majorities in both houses (61-43 in the House and 22-13 in the Senate), although the party loyalty of some of those legislators is open to debate.

There are no legislative elections in the state this year -- Alabama is one of those strange states where legislators from both houses serve four-year terms. Riley is term-limited in 2010, so this fundraising push should make executive-legislative relations interesting for the rest of the governor's term.

Forget Public Financing

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Events of the past week have not been cheery for fans of campaign finance laws.

First, there was the Supreme Court decision saying that the federal McCain-Feingold law's restrictions on outside interest groups running ads knocking or praising candidates in the runup to elections are unconstitutional. Then, there was Barack Obama's record-shattering $32.5 million second-quarter haul.

Both of these stories point out something that had been increasingly obvious anyway -- the federal system of public financing for presidential candidates is dead. This is a system that had worked well for a number of years, limiting what candidates could spend and fully funding the fall campaigns. But Bush and Kerry both opted out of the system in 2004 (as did Howard Dean), and it was already clear that Obama, Clinton and the big spenders on the Republican side would do so this time around.

Which leaves the also-rans. That's what tends to happen with public financing schemes. They don't provide enough money to keep the playing field level for races and candidates that matter the most. That's been true about state-level financing efforts, as well.

Some public finance laws have grown obsolete over time. Some of the 1970s state laws have simply not kept up with campaign inflation, meaning no serious candidate for, say, the Wisconsin Senate will participate in a system that will leave her campaign underfunded.

The current fashionable template is the so-called clean elections model, pioneered in Maine and Arizona and since adopted to some extent in several other states. Under this law, all candidates who do enough local fundraising on their own to show serious intent are provided with enough money to run a decent campaign. The funding changes with each cycle, based on an average of what was spent in the previous cycle.

The Value of a Vote

posted by Josh Goodman

Valentine's Day has come and gone, but don't tell that to two lovers who remain in a tight embrace 365 days a year: money and politics.

To see how this relationship played out in last year's governors' races, I calculated the amount candidates spent per vote received. I didn't look at every state and in some cases I could only find information on money raised (rather than spent), but, thanks to helpful news clips and this handy chart, I was able to cover 15 key states.

* Unsurprisingly, Michigan's free-spending Republican nominee, Dick DeVos, spent the most at almost $26 per vote. But if I'd been looking at primaries too, California's Steve Westly would have far surpassed him at $40.6 per vote. Both lost.

* Maryland was the most expensive state, with Republican Bob Ehrlich ($21.7 per vote) and Democrat Martin O'Malley ($15.9) both spending freely. Other top spenders included Nevada's Jim Gibbons ($20.4) and Massachusetts' Kerry Healey ($16.0).

* In contrast, Minnesota was the land of frugal candidates. Even though Governor Tim Pawlenty decided to decline public funding so he could break the state spending cap, he did so rather sheepishly, spending only $3.9 million or $3.8 per vote. His Democratic opponent, Mike Hatch, went even lower at $2.7 per vote.

* Of course in Minnesota, as elsewhere, these numbers don't reflect the spending of political parties or outside groups. As one example, Florida's Charlie Crist raised $20 million, but the state G.O.P. raised twice that much just from September to November. In California, $330 million was spent campaigning on ballot measures. In others words, Californians could have skipped the ballot measures and bought themselves 10,000 70-inch HDTVs instead. Who would have objected?

Throwing Down the Paddle

posted by Zach Patton

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to a challenge from a potential campaign donor. The donor, an 80-year-old Sacramento man, said he would donate to Arnold's campaign -- but only if the governor would play him in a match of table tennis.  (The octogenarian is a ping-pong champ.)

Arnold accepted the challenge, but a date for the Table Tennis Campaign Finance Deathmatch (our words, not theirs) has yet to be set.

Check back next week, when Arnold agrees to a game of badminton with a 90-year-old Oxnard woman.

Empty Chairs at Empty Tables

posted by Zach Patton

Lobbying gift bans: Good for clean elections, bad for the local economy?

That's what restaurants in Tallahassee are reporting. Bars and eateries in the state capital say business is bad ever since the state passed a law banning legislators, their staffs, and other government officials from accepting gifts from lobbyists.

One private club says its business has fallen 20 pecent since the law took effect in January. Other places that had been popular with lawmakers are predicting similarly dire consequences of the ban.

Lobbyists are suing to overturn the ban, but it's not really clear if the damage suffered by these restaurants will make that much of a difference. If you pass a gift ban like this, you're already choosing ethics over economics. Does it make a difference if a restaurant can prove it's lost money?

(Incidentally, restaurants in D.C. are saying the same thing would happen here if Congress approves a federal gift ban.)

Check Yourself

posted by Zach Patton

Memo to gubernatorial hopefuls: When filing to run for office, don't bounce the check.

Crusader's Comeuppance

posted by Alan Greenblatt

Michael Aguirre, the city attorney of San Diego, has been slapped with a $9,000 fine by the city's ethics commission for campaign finance violations. What makes this common story worth noting is the fact that Aguirre has been the leading crusader in trying to hold other public officials to account in the city's pension and budget follies.

Aguirre has been largely right about his complaints. But he's been extremely impolitic, constantly calling on his City Hall brethren to resign and embarrassing witnesses at open council meetings. Even some of his fans say his conduct has been unbecoming of his office, calling him a latter-day Savanarola seeing guilt everywhere he looks. George Mitrovich, head of the City Club of San Diego, likens him to Cromwell--"Oliver or Thomas, take your pick."

That the accuser now stands accused should provide rich fodder for his enemies. Of course, as Aguirre points out himself, he quickly copped to his own mistakes and is trying to make them right. That's more than some of his political opponents can say.

Speed Dating for Lobbyists

posted by Zach Patton

The lights are low. You smile across the table at your date. This is going well, you think. You take a sip of your drink to calm your nervous energy. You decide the time is right. You lean in. You ask the question. "What are your thoughts about credit union regulations, Representative?"

That's what may play out in Utah, where some Republicans in the state House of Representatives are going to let lobbyists "date" them in exchange for campaign contributions. The House Republican Caucus is organizing a "speed dating" session where lobbyists will be able to buy a brief "date" with lawmakers. The announcement for the event even sounds like a personals ad: "House Republican Caucus seeks fun-loving individuals to share warm winter evening."

Organizers say it's just a fun, new way to raise money. But the speed-dating plan is drawing a lot of criticism--some of it from other House Republicans. One legislator calls it "disgusting" and "absurd." Others say they won't participate.

Paying for access to lawmakers is hardly a novel concept. But with so many lobbying scandals on the national level right now, setting up "dates" between elected officials and lobbyists might be crossing the line. As one Utah Republican puts it, "It just doesn't pass the smell test."

Mike and Arnold: Big Spender and Panhandler

I haven't looked at any financial statements from Arnold Schwarzenegger or Michael Bloomberg lately, so I don't know just how rich either of them is.  But I can't help noticing, as Bloomberg campaigns for re-election in New York City and Arnold for passage of the California ballot measures, that they've seemed to treat money in precisely opposite ways during their brief political careers.

Bloomberg has self-financed both of his campaigns, made an issue of his independence from special interests, and generally behaved in ways that have reinforced his image as a man who, whatever faults he may have, can't be bought.

Arnold set out to win the same reputation, as a rich man free of the interests, and generally succeeded during his campaign for governor two years ago. But from the moment he took office, he has projected himself as a man just as consumed with  money as a politician who didn't have any would be.  From his lucrative deal with the publisher of the National Enquirer to his virtually incessant schedule of fund-raisers, Schwarzenegger has all but undone the image of financial altruism he started out with. 

I bring this up in part because, at this moment, Bloomberg seems to be headed for an easy re-election, while Arnold appears likely to lose on most of the ballot issues he's spent the year promoting. There are many explanations for this. But their divergent approaches to money, and the public perceptions those have created, must have something to do with it.

I also mention it because I'm genuinely puzzled about why Schwarzenegger has let this happen. I concede that he's not quite as rich as Bloomberg, and that politics in California costs more than politics in New York City. But surely Arnold had enough in the bank to maintain himself above the level of campaign finance sleaze. If he had done so, as Bloomberg has, he might be poised for a triumph next month instead of an embarrassment.