"Gavin Newsom Talks His Three Big Issues For 2016"

Wonderful to speak with Marisa Lagos for this piece on KQED.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor who studies campaign and ethics issues at Loyola Marymount University, said it’s all part and parcel of the Gavin Newsom playbook: Play to a liberal base, get ahead on issues that are controversial now but will likely be more broadly embraced in a couple years and also, yes, focus on more mainstream issues like the economy while you are at it.

She said it’s a smart strategy.

“I think Gavin Newsom knows his brand very well, and it’s using his office and using ballot measures to really try and come out clearly as a solid liberal — and maybe just a few years ahead of the curve,” she said.

“So by the time we are voting for governor,” she added, “we will be looking at Gavin Newsom and saying, ‘You had ESP, you knew where the state was going when it came to minimum wage, you knew where things were trending when it came to pot and you saw the importance of stronger gun control before other people were acting on it.’ ”

‘He Embraces Being a Liberal Democrat’

Levinson said Newsom’s positions may be risky for a moderate, but “he can’t run away from the fact that he’s a liberal Democrat, so I think he’s basically decided to embrace it.”

She noted the lieutenant governor is also talking about the economy and water — “he just made a trip to the Central Valley” — but that voters won’t be paying attention to the actual governor’s race for a year or more anyway, so it makes sense to lay the groundwork around other issues.

“I think he is going to be one of the top contenders, and he’s basically laying claim to a number of areas now,” Levinson said, noting Newsom has been “trying to lose the lieutenant part of his title since before the day he was sworn in.”

She said it’s smart to use ballot measures to burnish his political credentials for another reason: Initiatives are not subject to the same campaign finance limits that candidates are.

“You can tie yourself to an issue without the same rubric of money restrictions, and in some ways it’s less risky, because if a ballot initiative goes down, it’s not a referendum on you as a candidate,” she said.

"AP Exclusive: Brown had state workers research oil on ranch"

Great to speak with Ellen Knickmeyer for this one. 

Jessica Levinson, a governance expert and professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said that if state regulators had done that kind of work before for private landowners, they should be able to provide examples.

Of Brown's request, Levinson said, "if no other private individual is able to avail himself of this opportunity, and it's clearly just for personal gain instead of public benefit, then it's clearly problematic."

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/latest-news/article43086021.html#storylink=cpy

"Gov. Brown's unnecessary fundraising is certainly legal — but a turnoff"

Great to talk to George Skelton of the Los Angeles Times for this piece.

"It's about access and influence," says Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who specializes in political funding. "It strains common sense to believe that in giving they won't want something in return."

"It's pretty depressing," Levinson adds, "that this is the way we do business in every state capitol and city hall in America. Large donors call the tune and have enormous influence. Members of the public who can't give big donations don't play as large a role in representative democracy.

"It's very discouraging and dispiriting."

"Carefree Gov. Brown vetoes freely, ruffling some fellow Democrats"

Wonderful to talk to Melody Gutierrez of the San Francisco Chronicle for this article. 

“You are seeing 'Dem vs. Dem’ vetoes,” said Jessica Levinson, who teaches election law and governance at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “It’s symbolic of the fact he’s not scared of the California Legislature and he thinks he can work with them regardless if he vetoes certain bills.”

During his current term, Brown's four-year track record with vetoes moves him closer to the 15 percent to 16 percent average veto rate of his Republican gubernatorial predecessors Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian and former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. 

Former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed an average of 26 percent of the bills sent to him during his seven years in office.

“It is one of the most aggressive moves a governor can make,” Levinson said. “It’s an act of confidence in oneself to veto.”

"Trailing in polls, California candidate offers scholarships, gift cards"

Wonderful to speak with Sharon Bernstein of Reuters for this article. 

Trailing in the polls and getting little media coverage, California's Republican candidate for governor handed out $40,000 in scholarships on Tuesday, just two weeks after offering gift cards to attendees at a campaign event.

Neel Kashkari, a former U.S. Treasury official who is challenging popular Democratic Governor Jerry Brown in the lopsidedly Democratic state, is offering the incentives as his campaign trails Brown's by double digits in the weeks before November's election.

"Candidates spend money to reach the voters and get support and that’s what he’s doing," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. "It’s just more in your face than what we typically see."

"California power regulator to exit amid criticism"

Great to speak with Ellen Knickmeyer of the AP for this one. 

Brown is headed into a November re-election ballot with a wide lead over his little-known Republican challenger. He had nothing to gain politically from taking public note of a scandal that still was below many voters' radar, said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola University law professor, political analyst and vice president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

Brown late last month vetoed ethics bills — regulating campaign donations and gifts — that lawmakers had presented in response to other political scandals.

"I don't think that he's running on a pro-reform platform right now," Levinson noted. With Peevey stepping aside, "Brown's breezy re-election has just gotten even breezier."

"Jerry Brown surges ahead with the 'non-campaign' campaign"

Always wonderful to talk to Carla Marinucci of the SF Chron. More on Jerry Brown's non-campaign here. 

Brown's strategy is "a non-campaign, which makes it a very smart campaign," said Jessica Levinson, who teaches political ethics as a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

The 76-year-old Brown, who first held statewide office in 1971, "doesn't need to introduce himself" to voters, Levinson said. "He has better name recognition than anyone else in the state. His platform is totally known. He's been governing since the Earth cooled."

And clearly, she said, "he's running against someone people don't even know."

"California Debate: No Knockout Moment for Kashkari"

Great to speak with Alejandro Lazo at the WSJ for this one.

“He showed himself to be a very prepared and articulate debater. I don’t know what Neel Kashkari is going to run for next, but I don’t think he hurt his cause,” said Jessica A. Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who focuses on government.

"GOP challenger tries novel tactics against Brown"

Wonderful to speak with Juliet Williams of the AP for this article. 

"He's been independent enough to convince them to come out for him, so add that to name recognition, being an incumbent and fundraising prowess, and I think you have a very strong incumbent," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles with expertise in state politics.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/government-politics/article1320473.html#storylink=cpy

"Gov. Brown's Mexico trip provides business, lobbying opportunities"

Good to talk to Chris Megerian for this piece with Melanie Mason. 

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said that changing how the trips were funded wouldn't stop special interest money from flowing to politicians in other ways.

"I don't see a perfect solution here," she said.

"California Democrats replace 'spend' with 'invest'"

Quoted in this one in the AP. 

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, described Democrats' replacing the word "spending" with "investment" as a rhetorical device to make their budget proposals more acceptable.

"Is it smart rhetorically to categorize this as an investment rather than just an expenditure? Absolutely, because it makes it sound like we're not just spending money," she said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/06/11/6476065/california-democrats-replace-spend.html#storylink=cpy

My initial thoughts on last night's elections: What the what?

My op-ed is posted here, on Politix. 

Here is the beginning of the piece:

I have three words to describe the primary elections held in California this week: What the what? Special thanks go to Tina Fey for coining this apt phrase.

Sure, the outcome of many races was not a surprise, but election night took a few unexpected turns.

First, voter turnout statewide was 18.3%. Read that again. Less than one of the five people who are registered to vote bothered to show up. There are about 17.7 million registered voters in California and just over 3.2 million cast a ballot in the June 3 elections. Over 38 million people live in the state, which means that each person who voted essentially weighed in on behalf of almost 12 others.

Things were worse on the local level with 13.1% of registered voters in Los Angeles County casting a ballot in a variety of contests from County Board of Supervisors to Sheriff. More on the Sheriff's race in a moment. Over 9.9 million people live in the County, and over 4.8 million are registered to vote. This means that each of the over 636 thousand people who voted in Los Angeles County made decisions affecting 15 others.

There are a number of reasons why this is the case. The "biggest" race on the statewide level was for Secretary of State, and that office typically does not bring people to the polls, although ironically it is that office that helps run the polls.

New title announcement - I am an "Election Sherpa" -- "What you need to know before you vote"

Here is a link to my appearance on "Press Play" with Madeleine Brand.

CA Budget News: "Brown Links Budget Dollars To Department Reforms"

Interviewed for this one on Capitol Public Radio.

"GOP hopeful defends comment on Nazi, Israeli flags"

Quoted in this article in the San Francisco Chronicle.

Jessica Levinson, a professor of political law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said it appeared that Donnelly "was just calling out two sides of the debate" when he said he would allow the sale of the Nazi flag, the Israeli flag or any other flag in a state-run store.

"It's completely defensible to say, 'There are good things, there are bad things, and I won't vote to ban any of them,' " Levinson said. "But when voters hear it together, that's not how it plays."

She added, "Whenever a comparison is made to Hitler or Nazis, it's never good politics."

Special elections: They mostly just waste money

Here is my latest op-ed, which appears in the Los Angeles Times. 

Here is an excerpt:

There was a special election in Los Angeles County last week. Didn't know? Didn't vote? Didn't care?

Well, you're in the majority. Less than 9% of registered voters in the 54th Assembly District bothered to show up at the polls or mail in ballots. Angelenos, a generally disunited bunch, coalesced around apathy. But what does it say about us that the one thing we can agree on is indifference?

The appalling turnout last week is a symptom of a much larger problem.

 

Chris Christie is Silicon Valley's new favorite cause

Quoted in this article in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

One explanation for Christie's dot-com cash is, simply, Zuckerberg.
"They may be giving because Mark Zuckerberg said, 'Come to my house and give money,' and they want to do business with [Zuckerberg] in the future," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in campaign finance.
...
Christie's foray into Silicon Valley is a recognition of the region's potential should he defeat his expected Democratic gubernatorial challenger, State Sen. Barbara Buono, in the fall. If he could tap more money from Silicon Valley than Democrats have in the past, he could use it as a 2016 presidential campaign ATM to counter Democratic money from liberal Hollywood.
"I think this is a group and a generation that has been less politically involved, but we may be seeing that changing," Levinson, the professor, said of the tech industry. "They're tycoons, they're aging, and they're getting wealthier. . . . While they may wear sweatshirts and flip-flops, they have a lot of money they want to protect."

Should Special Interests Have Funded Jerry Brown's China Trip?

Governor Jerry Brown recently returned from a trip to China, the purpose of which was to increase trade between the country and the Golden State. He was accompanied by 10 staffers. Sounds expensive, right? It no doubt was.

You might be wondering how strapped taxpayers could afford to foot the bill for such an international trip. Well, you need not ponder this issue. Brown did not travel on the public dime. Instead special interest groups footed the bill for his international voyage. These groups include the California Beer and Beverage Distributors, the California Hospital Association, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, State Farm Insurance, Bank of America, Wells Fargo & Co., United Airlines, HSBC, and Siemens. No doubt, all of these groups would like to secure favorable treatment by the state.

Many smart people have voiced concern over this arrangement. It strains common sense to think that special interests that lobby state officials do not want something from Brown in return for their generosity. By definition, lobbyists would not do their jobs if they did not attempt to persuade public officials. There is nothing illegal about this set up. One problem, however, is that those without money or lobbyists do not gain the same access and/or ability to influence their elected officials.

So is the solution, as some have proposed, to prohibit special interests from funding these trips? Well, that also raises concerns. For one, the state is not exactly flush with money, and whenever we can save taxpayer dollars, we should. For another, these trips can serve important purposes: If Brown is able to increase trade and revenue, it would be very difficult to say that the trip did not pay off. It would be a shame for Brown and other officials to miss out on these trips all together.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Will Two Competing Tax Initiatives Spell Loss at the Ballot Box for Both?

As most Californians who follow politics know by now, there are two measures on the November 2012 ballot, which, if passed, will increase taxes to fund public education.

The first is Proposition 30, Governor Brown's tax measure. This ballot measure would temporarily increase the sales tax by a quarter of a cent and increase income taxes on those making above $250,000. The increased revenue would go to fund public education. Last year's budget was passed assuming that Prop 30 will pass. If Prop 30 does not pass, so-called trigger cuts to education will go into effect.

Brown tried a number of times, to no avail, to get the needed two-thirds of both legislative houses to agree to his tax proposal. Finding no success in the legislature he is going directly to the people through the ballot initiative process.

But Governor Brown was not the only one with an idea to increase taxes to fund education. Attorney Molly Munger, the daughter of uber-wealthy Charles Munger, the vice-chairman of Berkshire Hathaway, had a proposal of her own. Munger paid to gather the signatures to get Proposition 38, the competing tax measure, on the ballot. Prop 38 would raise income taxes on almost everyone in California and would also put the increased revenue toward public education.

There are a number of differences between the two measures, and I do not purport to give anything here but a very high level overview of the two proposals.

I believe there should be something disturbing about Proposition 38. Even if you whole-heartedly agree with the substance of that proposal, its route to the ballot is an uneasy one -- at least for me. Prop 38, like so many other ballot initiatives, was put on the ballot by someone elected by no one, and arguably accountable to no one.

If Munger's purpose is a broad one -- of increasing taxes to fund education -- it may have behooved her to put the tens of millions she is putting into supporting Prop 38 (and opposing Prop 30) into supporting Prop 30.

Voters now face what may be a confusing choice between two competing measures purporting to do a similar thing through similar means. It seems to me that this was a missed opportunity for two individuals with comparable goals to use a terribly imperfect process to achieve a common aim. Instead Munger tread her own path, and with it, risks losing not only her personal battle, but what seems to be from a general perspective, her larger war.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

"Tricky Call for New Governors: Price of Inaugurals"

More on the politically sensitive decision that the nation's 26 new governors have to make about the size and price tag of their inaugurations. Many governors are planning less extravagant, toned down affairs in light of the budgetary constraints facing their states and constituents. Click here for more from the NYT.