I agree with Nancy. Proposition 89 will help mend the current campaign finance rules that benefit major campaign contributors at the expense of ordinary citizens. Prop 89 will also expand the pool of candidates for office and allow elected officials to respond to the will of their constituents, not just the special interest groups who have helped elect them.

Can either of you name a campaign finance reform that has worked? We've voted for campaign finance reform measures many times in the past and every one of them had loopholes designed to benefit the politicians who put the measure on the ballot. This one is no different.



Here's what Prop. 89 will do, if approved:



• Takes tax funds that could be used on our schools and classrooms and puts them into the hands of political consultants, who will spend them on junk mail. Yeah, I call that a reform!



• Raises taxes on all small businesses. Odds are that one of you two might work for a small business or own one. This measure takes money out of your pocket and gives it to people who make those stomach-turning negative ads on TV.



• It won't stop wealthy candidates, and that's what you guys hate, right? Some billionaire like Al Checci, Ross Perot or Richard Blum (Dianne Feinstein's husband) buying a political office. Whoops, I didn't mean to put Blum on that list. Oh well, what Prop. 89 says is that if a self-financed candidate runs, the opponent will be given an equal amount to what the rich guy is spending -- up to $200 million. To put $200 million, that's enough money to run PAUSD for 18-20 months.



Prop. 89 doesn't level the playing field. It loots the public treasury, giving money to political consultants (Republican ones too) while putting small businesses, labor and non-profits at a disadvantage in campaigns.



If you really favor free speech, vote NO on 89

When were union members given the right to opt out of political contributions, as Nancy Neff claimed above?

I agree that we have not yet had successful campaign finance reform in California. Does that mean we should give up?

Proposition 89 is on the ballot precisely beacuse it is a true reform. The core of it was in AB 583, which passed the Assembly but not the Senate, but if passed would have been weaker than Proposition 89 which contains tough penalties including jail time for breaking the law.

Clean Money public financing has been working in Maine and Arizona for three election cycles. More candidates every year--over half in 2004--use the system, and are able to spend their time talking to voters and doing their jobs instead of raising money. In Arizona the number of races won by the candidate who spent the most money went from 79% in 1998 down to 2% in 2002. You can learn more by watching "The Road to Clean Elections" at www.89now.org.

As far as small businesses go, many of them are either not incorporated, are "S" corps, or are not turning a profit. Prop 89 will increase their voice in government, because they can't compete with the millions spent by large corporations.

As Dan Walters pointed out in a column on Monday, political donations are an excellent investment for industry. They will be an excellent investment for voters too. At a cost of a fraction of a percent of the budget, we can regain control of the other 99% of the budget.

Public financing addresses the issue of wealthy candidates in the only way allowed by the Supreme Court: by providing funds to the publicly funded candidate. Matching funds (up to five times the baseline, or four times for governor) are triggered if he/she is outspent by the privately funded candidate. Matching funds are also provided if independent expenditures are made against the Clean Money candidate and serve to put brakes on spending. Whenever both or all candidates in a race are using the Clean Money fund, spending is limited to the baseline amount only.

Proposition 89 attempts to address every existing loophole that can legally be addressed. If it turns out to need tweaking, there is a provision for that too. Please vote yes on 89.

The right of union members to opt out of political contributions has been affirmed in a number of Supreme Court decisions relating to the National Labor Relations Act. Check with your union for the procedure.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?