You name the political reform and California’s political parties
will be against it. Not just the major parties, but all of them.
It’s almost like a caveat emptor: whenever there’s an issue where
the parties all agree, let the voter beware.
You name the political reform and California’s political parties will be against it. Not just the major parties, but all of them. It’s almost like a caveat emptor: whenever there’s an issue where the parties all agree, let the voter beware.
This was true of the recently defeated Proposition 62, which aimed to set up California for completely open primary elections. Not only did the parties co-sponsor a rival proposition to keep things the way they’ve been, but they made it known they would file a joint lawsuit if 62 won.
That was no empty threat: the parties also sued together to eliminate the old “blanket” primary of the late 1990s, when all candidates were listed together on the ballot, and the top vote-getter from each party made the November runoff.
Now, on the heels of beating back the open primary, they’ve teamed up for another victory over openness and reform.
This joint win over the public interest came when they secured a preliminary injunction from a federal judge in Sacramento, striking down a provision of the 1996 Proposition 208 that has required all political advertisements and mailers to disclose prominently the names of the two largest donors behind them.
Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. cited a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that he said “recognized the respected tradition of anonymity in the advocacy of political causes” in nixing the disclosure requirement on all ads and mailers funded by the parties themselves. His decision leaves the disclosure rule in effect for other political committees, like those that buy independent expenditure ads or back ballot propositions.
Wait a minute here, Judge. What “respected tradition of anonymity: in advocating political causes?” While there may be a tradition of campaign donors trying to hide the fact they back self-serving measures and candidates, that tradition been more reviled than respected. In fact, since the Political Reform Act of 1974 passed as an initiative with 63 percent of the vote, no California proposition aiming to increase campaign disclosures has ever failed.
That means openness in politics has the respected tradition, not the practice of the parties which try to mask the fact that most of their money comes from corporations and individuals whose causes they further whenever they can.
Damrell goes on to say that in ads and fliers put out by political parties, “the ‘true speaker’ is the party…in fact, identifying a political party’s two largest contributors as the ‘speakers’ could mislead voters because these contributors may not endorse the message in the advertisement.”
If ever a legal decision was based on shallow sophistry, this is it. Over the last 200 years, the number of times when political parties have taken out ads contrary to the wishes of their big donors can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If the parties act counter to what their donors want, those donors won’t be donating again very soon. And the parties know it. So does Judge Damrell.
All the his decision accomplished was to give large corporations and other big money interests a new mask to hide behind as they try to influence public policy in California.
“It’s a bad ruling,” said Robert Stern, president of the California-based Center for Governmental Studies. “It’s actually shocking that the big political parties would claim to represent the vast majority of the people and still fight disclosure. But they’re unified on this. They don’t like reform and they don’t like any change in the system. They hate change because they like the way they control the current system.”
In fact, the major political parties have consistently opposed contribution limits and all changes in how Californians vote. The California parties are not unique in fighting change, either. All significant parties in Colorado this fall opposed a measure that would have split that state’s electoral votes roughly proportionately with the popular vote , rather than awarding them all to one candidate, no matter how slender his vote margin.
So Stern is right, the parties hate change and they despise openness, which might help voters learn more about them. That’s one big reason why increasing numbers of voters detest the parties, and refuse to register as members of one.
