Will Los Angeles Follow Stockton's Lead of Bankruptcy?

The City of Stockton, the now-infamous port city located in Northern California, is declaring bankruptcy. It is the largest U.S. City to take the drastic step of declaring bankruptcy. Stockton is facing a $26 million budget deficit, it has stopped making bond payments, and employee pay, and health and insurance benefits, have been cut significantly.

Is Los Angeles next? There is no doubt that it is in bad shape financially -- and I mean really bad shape. But for a number of reasons I do not think Los Angeles will go the way of Stockton. Its leaders, hopefully, still have a few more tricks up their sleeves. The key here will be to look at other available options.

The situation in Stockton is unique for a few reasons. First, Stockton was among those cities leading the country in foreclosures. Indeed it has the second highest rate in the country. Too many people bought houses they can no longer afford. When houses are foreclosed banks lose money and the government loses property tax revenue. That is and was a huge issue in Stockton. Second, Stockton gave public employees salaries and benefits that the city, in hindsight, simply could not afford.

Here, Los Angeles' chief administrative officer, Miguel Santana, is pushing hard for both higher taxes and lower spending. Los Angeles is and should consider adjusting the retirement age for new city employees. We are also exploring the option of outsourcing or partnering with non-profits to help run the zoo and other city-run properties.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

The Supreme Court Upholds the Health Care Law

Coverage the Supreme Court's decision re the ACA on SCOTUSblog.com. Click here for a short piece by Lyle Denniston.

And here is some more coverage:

Click here for a piece from John Cushman of the NYT. And here for a piece by Josh Levs at CNN. And here for a piece by Anna Wilde Matthews of the WSJ.

Campaign Donations via Text Message?

I appeared on the California Report with host Rachael Myrow to discuss.

Here is the link.

And here is a link to a great OpEd co-written by the Chair of California's Fair Political Practices Commission, who led the charge for allowing donations via text message.

Will Tree Trimming Make the L.A.'s Budget Problems Real?

This week much of the news coming out of City Hall deals with the newly-adopted City Council redistricting maps and whether to provide free wireless access at the Los Angeles International Airport. Instead of addressing those topics I will instead address something that may be of deeper concern: tree trimming.

Over the past few years I have wondered how many people living in our city or our state directly feel the consequences of the Los Angeles' financial crisis. Unless one works for the city or regularly uses city services, is L.A.'s financial distress only felt indirectly?

This week brings news that a city service we may all need at some point could be threatened by budget woes. Please take a moment to look out of your window and onto the street. Are the trees trimmed? The answer is "no" in a number of areas because the city's tree trimming schedule has been delayed.

Now what exactly does trimming trees have to do with how people are impacted by the city's financial crisis? Apparently some of the trees are so overgrown that it will be difficult or impossible for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles to drive down streets and respond to emergency calls. This is scary stuff.

How often are the trees trimmed? According to the the Daily News, every 40 years. Yes, that's right, every four decades. We used to cut the trees every 15 years, but that's apparently no longer possible in our current fiscal mess. The Street Tree and Park Maintenance budget was cut more than $1 million this year, from approximately $9.6 million to about $8.5 million.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Citizens United gives free speech a high price

My first piece on Politico is here.


Here is an excerpt:

As election 2012 progresses, there’s continuing hubbub about the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which paved the way for super PACs. Proponents of campaign-finance laws see the ruling as opening the floodgates for unlimited, often undisclosed, money to overwhelm our political system. Opponents view it as a victory of free speech over government regulation.

Where does the truth lie? While super PACs may be “speaking” up a storm, it’s now difficult to hear anyone else. That can’t be good in a representative democracy, which has long prided itself on protecting free speech.

A quick tour through the campaign-finance law landscape demonstrates there is much to be concerned about — unless you’re a wealthy donor or well-funded corporation.

It begins with the Supreme Court’s seminal 1976 Buckley v. Valeo decision. The court analyzed the constitutionality of Congress’s first comprehensive campaign-finance scheme, passed in the wake of Watergate. It essentially found that money spent in elections ? both by candidates and independent groups ? should be treated as speech and protected by the First Amendment. So expenditure limits are virtually guaranteed to be found invalid. But campaign contributions are less “speechy” and so subject to a slightly lower level of review. That’s why courts often uphold contribution limits.

 
 

State Lawmakers Passed a Budget, but Where are the Republicans?

Much of the news coming out of Sacramento concerns the Legislature's passage of a budget by the constitutional deadline -- June 15 -- last week. In the past the Legislature has blown right past that constitutional deadline. What is different?

Back in 2010 California voters approved Proposition 25, which lowered the requirement for lawmakers to pass a budget from two-thirds of members of the State Senate and State Assembly to a simple majority of both legislative houses. Proposition 25 also sweetened the deal for voters by providing that legislators would lose their pay if they "didn't do their jobs" and failed to pass a budget by June 15.

The consequence of Prop 25 is that Democrats can pass a budget without needing even one Republican vote. But what does this budget look like?

Well, only a simple majority is needed to impose spending cuts, but in order to impose revenue increases, either by increasing fees or taxes, two-thirds of both legislative houses must agree. That means Republicans must get on board in order to either raise revenue, or put a measure on the ballot asking voters whether they will agree to raise revenue. In what may be the understatement of the decade, it is safe to say that members of the GOP are averse to raising either fees or taxes.

Last year Governor Jerry Brown involved Republicans in budget talks because he wanted them to agree to put his tax proposals on the ballot. These efforts were unsuccessful, and Brown instead used the initiative process to gather enough signatures to put his proposals on the November 2012 ballot. This year Republicans seemed to play a much smaller role in the budget process.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

What's the big deal about Citizens United?

My OpEd appears in today's Capitol Morning Report.

The US Supreme Court's much-maligned decision in Citizens United has been described as a "watershed," "landmark," or "revolutionary" case. Few have asked whether it made much difference.

Citizens United, handed down in 2010, invalidated a portion of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as McCain-Feingold), which prohibited corporations and labor unions from spending general treasury funds on communications advocating the election or defeat of specific candidates.

The Court based its decision on two main conclusions. First, corporations must be treated as akin to individuals, at least in the campaign finance context. Second, the Court found that campaign expenditures by independent groups -those not coordinated with a candidate- are not corrupting. (In a 1974 decision, the Court found that corruption or the "appearance of corruption" justified placing limits on contributions made directly to candidates.)

As a result of the second provision, a circuit court and the Federal Election Commission later found that contributions to independent expenditure groups could not be limited either. If spending by independent groups cannot give rise to corruption then there is no compelling reason to limit donations to them. Thus, we now have so-called Super PACs. These are independent expenditure only committees that can raise and spend unlimited sums.

Sounds like a pretty big deal, right? Well, yes and no. The Court's decision in Citizens United did not change the law in California. Thanks to Prop 34, approved by voters in 2000, California's non-federal political campaigns have been under a Citizens United-like regime for a dozen years. Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United essentially means that the rules covering independent expenditures in California are in place across the nation and in federal elections within the state itself.

Nonetheless, I would argue that Citizens United represents an important psychological shift. The handcuffs are off. Corporations and labor unions no longer need to disguise their advertisements as anything other than pleas to get voters to vote for or against a candidate. Any concerns that corporations or labor unions may have had about whether it was legal to make certain expenditures have likely evaporated. We live in a new environment with very few limits on corporations and independent expenditure groups.

As a result of Citizens United and other factors, more money will be spent on California political campaigns. While full and accessible disclosure is important, it is not a solution to a system flooded by money. Money buys access and influence, whether or not it is disclosed. To think that candidates will not be grateful, and give more access to those who spend large sums on their behalf (even when those sums are not coordinated with the candidate's campaign) is to ignore common sense.

But California is a unique place for many reasons. Therefore I caution against using California as a bellwether for how Citizens United will affect elections throughout the nation. For instance, in California we have the initiative process. This process, designed to reduce the influence of special interests in our lawmaking process has ironically done just the opposite. What one needs to get a measure qualified for the ballot is money (to pay signature gatherers) and what one needs to try to defeat a proposed initiative is money (to pay for negative advertising). This is, in many cases, a process dominated by money. It is also an experience which is not affected by Citizens United.

It is also important to remember that campaigns in California are getting more expensive for reasons unrelated to Citizens United. First, we have a new open primary, top two election law. This law means that every candidate will attempt to appeal to every voter in the primary election, as opposed to just vying for the votes of members of that candidate's party. Reaching the entire electorate is expensive. This law also means that the general election between the top two vote getters could be a real, competitive fight. In the past the "real" race often happened in the primary election, and the general election was somewhat inconsequential, and therefore inexpensive.

Second, we now have newly drawn districts. In the past, sitting legislators, who drew lines to keep themselves in power and ensure that they were safely re-elected, drew legislative districts. This time around an independent redistricting commission drew the lines. These lines could lead to more competitive races, which means more money will be spent in these races.

In sum it is difficult to extrapolate much from California's experience pre-Citizens United. It is, however, easy to see that more money will be spent in California and throughout the nation thanks to that decision.

What's the big deal about Citizens United?

I ask and attempt to answer this question in today's Capitol Morning Report.

L.A. City Districts Poised to Change, but Not Without Some Drama

This week the Los Angeles City Council preliminarily approved new lines for city council districts. So we're almost done drawing new districts, right? Not so fast.

What is redistricting? Every ten years we count how many people live in the country, the states, and local jurisdictions. Then we draw new district lines for each of those areas. However, who the "we" is matters greatly. If the "we" is sitting legislators drawing their own district lines, then those boundaries may likely look quite different than if the "we" is an independent commission. Legislators will quite rationally draw lines that consolidate their power bases and help their changes at re-election. Independent commission members will -- hopefully -- draw lines that, among other things, best represent communities of interest.

In Los Angeles a redistricting commission draws the boundary lines. However, the commission is not exactly independent. Council members appoint those commission members.

There are 15 city council districts in the city of Los Angeles. The council voted 12-2 to approve the new districts. Jan Perry and Bernard Parks, neither of whom benefit from the new lines, opposed the new map. Put another way, Perry and Parks' districts were all-but-gutted.

There will be another vote next week. Then the plan will need Mayor Villaraigosa's approval. Assuming the lines are eventually approved the next stop on the redistricting train will likely be lawsuit center. In addition to Perry and Parks, who are unhappy with the district lines, Koreatown community activists have threatened to sue over the new maps.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

The Lessons of the June 5, 2012 Primary Election

Last week Californians voted in primary elections for the president, federal and state representatives, judges, and proposed ballot initiatives. Actually, let me rephrase that: Last week a small percentage of eligible voters in California weighed in on various ballot questions. About one-in-four people who could vote, did vote, which may, in fact, be the lowest in recent history for a presidential primary.

Californians, or the few of us who mailed in ballots and went to the polls, were faced with two proposed ballot initiatives. First up, Proposition 28, the successful proposal to tinker with the state's term limit laws. Now, instead of being able to serve 6 years in the state assembly and 8 years in the state senate, for a total of 14 years of service, our state lawmakers can serve for a total of 12 years in either or both houses.

Does that sound like a relatively minor change? Well, it is. It will be hard to determine whether voters approved of Prop 28 because they thought they were shortening the amount of time lawmakers could serve as state representatives, or because they thought they were giving lawmakers more flexibility. In any event, this is not the type of large-scale reform that California needs.

While we may not know why voters approved of Prop 28, we do know that it faced little opposition. Few ads were taken out to opposed it. Negative advertising matters, particularly with respect to ballot initiatives.
That brings us to Proposition 29, which may be this cycle's poster child for showing why negative advertising matters. Prop 29 looks likely to fail. That proposal would have imposed a $1-a-pack tax on cigarettes and used the revenues for cancer research. There was a great deal of advertising against Prop 29. Unsurprisingly, tobacco companies were willing to shell out great sums to defeat the measure.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

California Courts Are Cash-Strapped But Owed $7.5 billion?

I'll be on Patt Morrison today at 2pm to discuss.

D.A. Race Close as More than 115,000 L.A. County Votes Remain Uncounted

Quoted in this article on KCET.org.

KCET political commentator Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School said results do tend to hold after semi-official numbers are announced. She did, however, note that vote-by-mail voters are traditionally older and conservative, which could bode well for Jackson, a Republican.

Trutanich, who has already announced a reelection bid for city attorney, raised the most money and earned a number of noteworthy endorsements.

Meeting Jackie Lacey and Musings On the American Dream

The day after the California primaries I happened upon Jackie Lacey. When I say, "happened upon," I mean it. I walked into a building where I had other business to attend to and saw the open door to the press conference. There was Chief Deputy District Attorney Lacey, fresh off her primary election victory, heading into the runoff election against Deputy District Attorney Alan Jackson.

Lacey was articulate at the press conference and kind during our brief meeting. But this post is not about Lacey or her candidacy. Rather it is about something she said in the press conference. Lacey pointed out that what separates blue-collar workers and the second-in-command at the largest local prosecutorial agency in the nation is one generation. I have heard other people, in other places, make similar comments. Many of us have, I'm sure, have heard analogous stories. What those comments essentially boil down to is this: My parents (or grandparents) did not have the opportunities that I did -- I received an education, I achieved a certain position in my career. The implication being that catapulting up the socioeconomic ladder is possible here (and for our purposes today, "here" is Los Angeles).

But will these stories become fewer and further between? Is this narrative, in other words, soon to be a historical account?

We -- voters, citizens, Americans -- are told the story of the American Dream, which gives us hope, that if we obtain an education and work hard, we can have a better life than our parents and/or grandparents. But because of the problems currently facing our city (and indeed our state and our country), current and future generations may no longer be able to realistically think they can "do better."

Finish reading this article on KCET.org. 

Changes in campaign finance laws likely mean fewer indictments in the future

Quoted in this article by Martha Bellisle.

Here is an excerpt:

Super PACs are prohibited from donating money directly to political candidates but can give unlimited amounts to candidates as long as they don’t “coordinate with the candidate,” said Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Citizens Redistricting Commission Defunded, Will Cease Operations

Quoted in this article on KCET.org.

"We should make sure this isn't because the commission is politically unpopular," said Jessica Levinson, a Visiting Professor at Loyola Law School and KCET political columnist. "My guess and hope is that something is worked out... so there is some very, very bare bones ability to operate."

Happy (Almost) Election Day, California

Money may have an outsized influence over our political system and campaign spending may (consciously or not) sway legislative votes so it increasingly seems we have little power over that phenomenon. But we do have the power over our own votes.

We, the voters, just like they, the lawmakers, are inundated with campaign spending each election cycle. We hear radio spots, we see television commercials, we acknowledge online advertisements, we get slate mailers, and we may also get emails. But it is up to all of us to determine how much weight to give each of these.

Campaign spending undoubtedly skews the debate and the information that is readily available. Heavy campaign spending often means we, the voters, must spend more of our most precious resources -- time and energy -- to get useful information about candidates and ballot measures. The burden to educate ourselves in the face of substantial campaign spending is real. But the alternative is far worse than that burden.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

California's new 'jungle' primary could be tough for GOP candidates

I am quoted in this story on FoxNews.com

Residents voted in favor of the jungle primary in a 2010 referendum known as Proposition 14.

It was intended to get more moderate candidates elected to foster compromise and “to end  nasty, partisan wrangling and gridlock in Sacramento and Washington,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

“But whether California's jungle primary will achieve its stated purpose remains to be seen,” she said. “In particular, it is difficult to predict because of the recent redistricting process.”
Levinson says her “strong guess” is more moderate candidates will emerge as winners, but as a result of the new district lines and a shift in demographics “I think we are likely to see more Democratic lawmakers.”

 

Judicial Elections: Bad for Judges, Bad for the Public

It is almost election time again in Los Angeles. Angelenos will have the opportunity to vote on 16 candidates for six open judgeships in the Los Angeles Superior Court. And this is a bad idea.

Most members of the voting public know little to nothing about judicial candidates. This is not surprising. Judicial candidates cannot and do not campaign the way other candidates do. In addition, they are decidedly "down ballot" races, meaning fewer people pay attention to the candidates towards the end of the ballot.

Why is this a problem? Well, when the public has little information then each voter should take it upon herself to research that judicial candidate. That doesn't always happen. But when it does voters are heavily reliant on a few sources -- the Los Angeles County Bar Association, which rates candidates on a scale from exceptionally well qualified to not qualified, and the relatively few news outlets, which endorse candidates.

The more frightening (and all-too-likely) scenario occurs when voters do not look at the candidate ratings or newspaper endorsements. In that case voters are left to go only by what is on the ballot, which includes the candidate's name and a short description such as "gang prosecutor" or "environmental lawyer."

Finish reading this article on KCET.org. 

Money in Politics: Good Government Reforms Cost Money

When people ask me about the one government reform I would put into place if I had a magic wand, I often say "real campaign finance reform." I believe there is simply too much money in politics. The current situation gives rise to special access and undue influence by those who can and do spend substantial sums. And at least as worrisome is the appearance of such access and influence. The majority of members of the electorate increasingly feel that politics and elections are games open to the few and the cost of admission is a large donation or independent expenditure.

Why, then, do so many so-called good government reforms lead to more expensive races? Well, to start, let's take my least favorite government reform: term limits. As a result of them many elected officials are not just running for re-election every few years, they are endlessly eyeing and running for (and raising money for) the next post.

But what about something I would consider to be a positive government reform? Well, let's take redistricting. Now in California an independent redistricting commission draws the state and federal legislative lines.

Previously legislators drew their own district lines, not surprisingly in ways that best assured their re-election. By contrast, the independent redistricting commission was charged with drawing lines that, among other things, keep communities of interest together. So this seems like a good reform, but one of the consequences is that there will now be much more competitive races in some districts. The phrase "more competitive races" is often code for more expensive races.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Richard Alarcon: Good Riddance and Hello

Quoted in this article in LA Weekly.

Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, views the legacy of term limits in California as a game of "musical chairs" played by politicians whose desire is to hold long-running and powerful jobs.

Alarcon's ability to repeatedly jump around, while fresh-faced candidates who run against him are repeatedly rejected by voters, "sounds schizophrenic," Levinson says. "But it also makes sense. In the abstract, voters want new blood and think one way to do it is to legally mandate that politicians can only stay so long.

"But by the same token, incumbents wield so much power in name recognition, and they typically out-raise challengers in campaign fundraising, that, as anti-incumbent as we [Californians] are, we often vote for the person we know."

Citizens United: Answering Unasked Questions

I have an OpEd discussing this topic today in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. In it, I explain that in Citizens United the Court asked itself a question -- whether the portion of McCain Feingold at issue in the case could constitutionally be applied to anyone -- and then answered that question in the affirmative.

"Judging Candidates for the Los Angeles Superior Court"

I'll be on "Which Way, L.A.?" tonight at 7pm PST discussing the topic of judicial elections. You can listen anytime by clicking here.

Special-interest spending floods Cailfornia races in new political landscape

Quoted in this article in the Sac Bee.

Spending by independent expenditure committees has skyrocketed since voter-approved contribution limits for candidate-controlled committees took effect in 2001.

While the independent committees cannot be coordinated with the campaigns, some observers say the influence they wield is problematic. The possibility of independent committee support – or threat of an opposition campaign – could weigh heavily on the minds of legislators once they get to the Capitol.

"I think this kind of idea of independence doesn't play out in reality," said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/05/24/4512940/special-interest-spending-floods.html#storylink=cpy

With more court cutbacks, has the system reached its breaking point?

Here is a link to my appearance on Patt Morrison today.

In response to Governor Jerry Brown’s announced cuts of $544 million in state court funding in the next fiscal year, California Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye said such austerities “are both devastating and disheartening” and explained that they will seriously compromise the state’s “ability to provide equal access to justice.”
The judicial branch cuts are among $4.1 billion in new budget reductions revealed last week to balance the $91 billion state budget for the coming fiscal year beginning July 1. The budget changes will require trial courts to use $300 million of reserve funds and delay $240 million worth of courthouse construction and renovation, according to Brown.
The state will also require court employees to contribute more to pension funds, which will reportedly save the state $4 million. Both officials and attorneys are concerned about how much the cutbacks will impinge upon the judicial system’s ability to function properly.

WEIGH IN:

How badly funded are courts in California now? How well will the judicial infrastructure be able to sustain more funding cuts? Is the state of California in a financial crisis that it cannot recover from?

Guests:

Jessica Levinson, professor, Loyola Law School
Judge Margaret Henry, supervising judge, dependency, Los Angeles Juvenile Court;
Justice Douglas Miller, associate justice, California State Court of Appeal; member of the state judicial council (the policy making body of the state court)

California's 'Jungle Primary'

I'll be in "Which Way, L.A.?" talking about the following... 

The June 5 election will be like nothing California has seen before, with some office holders hiding their party affiliation — and even their incumbency. Republicans have given up some legislative and Congressional races altogether, and the general election will feature run-offs between candidates of the same party. A lawyer deemed "unqualified" by the County Bar has challenged a highly regarded judge with a foreign-sounding name. It's all pretty weird.

More court cutbacks, has the system reached its breaking point?

I'll be on Patt Morrison today to discuss.

What is in a Ballot Designation?

California law provides that candidates for political office can list a ballot designation that tells voters something about themselves. Often -- perhaps too often -- that is all, or almost all, voters know about a candidate. The designation is sometimes the first and last impression voters get from candidates.

Ballot designations cannot be false or misleading. While this may sound straightforward, there could be a great deal of gray area here.

Assemblywoman Beth Gaines (R) is running for re-election -- she joined the Assembly last year when she won a special election to fill a vacant seat -- and identifies herself as a "small business owner" on the ballot. Assemblyman Bill Berryhill (R) has identified himself as a "farmer." These two are not alone. In fact, there are at least 10 legislators who are not listing their current positions on the ballot.

These examples are important not so much for what they say about these particular candidates, but what they indicate about legislators' views of how unpopular state representatives are. We now have sitting legislators figuratively running from their current positions as elected representatives. They must think we really dislike our representatives. In fact, they're right. Public approval ratings linger around historic lows.

Let's take a step back. We now live in a state where winning an election and obtaining a position that allows an individual to represent their fellow citizens are things to hide (or at least not highlight) from the voters.

Finish reading this article on KCET.org. 

We the Corporations?

My latest law review article, We the Corporations?: The Constitutionality of Limitations on Corporate Electoral Speech After Citizens United, was cited in an amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock.

The issue in that case is whether Montana must follow the Court's holding in Citizens United, which struck down a federal ban on corporate electioneering communications.

Was Occupy Los Angeles Worth the Money?

Unfortunately the following statement is hardly a newsflash: the city of Los Angeles is strapped for cash. It faces a budget shortfall of about $200 million and a little pocket change will not help dig the city out from its current budget deficit.

Currently city officials are discussing whether, when, and how many city employees to layoff. Even police and fire employees are at risk.

It may be euphemistic to call the city's current fiscal situation precarious. Perhaps "precarious at best" is more apt. The point is that Los Angeles is in a financially bad state (both literally and figuratively).

A recent report released last week states that last year's Occupy Los Angeles protest will cost the City almost double the original estimate. Taxpayers will apparently be on the hook for almost $5 million in costs associated with the lengthy protest and encampment.

How, you may ask, do we get to this price tag? The price tag includes paying 1,400 LAPD officers to remove demonstrators who camped out on the lawn outside City Hall for two months and costs associated with cleaning up that encampment, which, according to some estimates, was home to about 500 protestors. One way to look at the cost of the protest is therefore $10,000 per protestor.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

California State Foundation bonuses pose conflict of interest

Following public outcry over six-figure pay raises handed out to top executives, the California State University Board of Trustees approved a plan last week to shift future pay hikes from taxpayer funds to nonprofit auxiliary foundations. The decision effectively freezes the amount of tax dollars spent on the college’s executive compensation, and Cal State officials hoped that would be enough to bring closure to the issue. ... “The CSU Board of Trustees’ decision to use funds from college foundations to pay for raises for campus presidents does raise some questions,” said Loyola Law School Professor Jessica Levinson. “If college presidents are in control of these college foundations, then it raises at least a question of the appearance of a conflict of interest.” Finish reading the article here.

Is California's Deficit Good for Governor Jerry Brown?

Back in January the estimate was that California was in debt -- to the tune of $9.2 billion. In our new normal, that was seemingly palatable news. Now comes less agreeable news, the budget deficit is actually much larger than that. Today Governor Jerry Brown officially announced that the Golden State is facing a nearly $16 billion deficit.

At the risk of making the understatement of the week, this is bad news. California does not have enough money to keep functioning -- better said, it is dysfunctioning at this level. Depending on your perspective, too little money is coming in or too much money is going out.

What is a Governor to do? Well, there will be more budget cuts. Cuts that were likely inconceivable five years ago are now very much on the table.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Another Obamajam? The President Heads to the Valley

Last night, I had the following conversation with my friend:

"Can you leave work early tomorrow?"

"I'm not sure," replied my best friend, who, for her own privacy, we'll name Jane.

"Did you tell your parents?" I asked.

"Yes, I told them not to leave the house tomorrow night."

Jane and I decided that we might be suffering from a minor case of post-traumatic stress syndrome since President Barack Obama is coming back to town tonight. Jane's 2.5 hour car ride home (for what is typically a 15-minute commute) during one of his past fundraising visits is still seared into our memory. As is my family member's unplanned two-hour ride home for a trip that normally takes around 10 - 20 minutes.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

America Doesn’t Need Another CREEP

Here is another piece by Ciara Torres-Spelliscy. Go Ciara! 

Here is the beginning of the article, which appears in Guernica:

There is a fresh Super PAC on the scene called CREEP. This is an homage to the original Committee for the Re-Election of the President or (CREEP ‘72), which broke campaign finance laws in the reelection of Richard Nixon. As revealed by the Watergate investigations, sins CREEP ‘72 committed included accepting illegal, laundered corporate contributions $10,000 at a time—often in cash. The last thing this country needs is another CREEP or another Watergate.

Unfortunately, the risk of a modern, Watergate-scale money-in-politics scandal is magnified by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which invites unlimited corporate and union expenditures into elections.
June 17, 2012 marks the 40th anniversary of Watergate. Of course, saying the word “Watergate” is an instant Rorschach test. The word could mean anything from an edifice, to an illegal entry, to an Executive exit. What was actually at the heart of the scandal was not a botched burglary, but rather good old-fashioned corruption and graft.

Prop 29: Should I Vote for a Good Proposal or Against a Bad Process?

As readers of my commentaries know, I am no fan of the initiative process. I believe that the process that was designed to protect against the influence of special interests has now been hijacked by those same interests. What one needs to qualify a proposal for the ballot is not a good idea, but money. Money also doesn't hurt much in getting initiatives passed (meaning money is one of the key factors to success). When and if an initiative is successful, dollars to donuts that measure will end up in the courts. We often spend time and resources litigating the meaning and constitutionality of initiatives. And a good percentage of the time at least a portion of an initiative is tossed. In addition to all of these problems, initiatives bypass the (hopefully) deliberative process that occurs when laws are passed by the legislature.

So why am I considering voting for one of these dreaded initiatives? One of the measures on the June 5, 2012 ballot in California is Proposition 29, which is called the "Tobacco Tax for Cancer Research Act." Prop 29 would increase the sales tax on each pack of cigarettes from 87 cents to $1.87. The additional revenue, which the Legislative Analyst's Office estimates to be about $735 million per year, would go to funding cancer research and programs aimed at reducing smoking.

You can likely see my problem as that proposal sounds good to me. Here are two fairly uncontroversial things that I believe: First, fewer people should smoke since smoking can cause serious health risks; second, more money should go to cancer research. But here is a third, more controversial belief: The initiative process is deeply flawed (see above).

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

As super PAC money flows, an effort to divert cash to charity

With the American political system deluged with super-sized donations, a few innovative proposals are trying to harness small donors and, in one case, divert campaign cash to charity.
...
Campaign finance scholar Jessica Levinson noted that a $100 donation to one campaign might not exactly cancel out $100 to another campaign if one side uses the money more effectively. But she likes the idea.

"If it's legal it could be a win-win, in terms of candidates saying, 'I’m helping to raise money for charity,' and people still being able to voice their support in a way," said Levinson, who teaches at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

Finish reading the article here. 

Judge dismisses L.A. Councilman Richard Alarcon case; DA Steve Cooley considers appeal

A Superior Court judge dismissed felony voter fraud charges against City Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife Thursday morning, saying the District Attorney failed to provide the grand jury with evidence that might have exonerated the couple.

...


Loyola law professor Jessica Levinson, who teaches election law, said the judge was holding the prosecution to the letter of the law in its presentation of the case of the grand jury.

"I do think this decision shows the frustration the judge felt with the prosecution case," Levinson said. "It also shows how easy it is to get an indictment from a grand jury."



Finish reading the article here.

DA Steve Cooley refiles perjury, voter fraud charges against Richard Alarcon and his wife

I am quoted in this article about perjury and voter fraud charges filed against Councilman Richard Alarcon and his wife.


But the aggressive response by Cooley's office shows that they believe they can win, said Loyola law professor Jessica Levinson.

"They also know this is a high-profile case, that the media is watching," she added. "They don't think these are frivolous charges."

L.A. Coliseum panel drops free-tickets provision from USC deal

I am quoted in this piece in the LAT.

In the heat of a broader financial scandal, the public officials who run the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum have agreed to give up decades' worth of free Trojan football tickets they negotiated for themselves in a proposed lease that would surrender control of the stadium to USC.
...
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies public corruption, said the decision to forgo the tickets was "a good PR move." The provision would have required USC to try to get the commissioners free tickets to pro games if a new L.A. franchise played at the Coliseum while an NFL stadium was built here.

"To get rid of the benefits and perks that come along with the position is good," Levinson said. "But it's different from getting rid of the corruption that happened."

Congressman Brad Sherman Could be a Savvy Financial Advisor

If Congressman Brad Sherman fails to gain another term in the U.S. House of Representatives he may want to consider another career as a full-time financial analyst.

In 2010, voters approved a ballot measure that took the power to draw congressional lines out of the hands of incumbents and gave that task to an independent redistricting commission. The commission was charged with drawing district lines that, among other things, did not take into account where incumbents resided. That means the commission's purpose was to draw lines that fairly represented communities of interest, rather than lines that gave incumbents a chance at winning.

As a result of the independent redistricting commission's work, districts are not as safe as they used to be. Perhaps the poster-child for this phenomenon is the much-discussed match-up between two Democratic Congressman: Brad Sherman and Howard Berman.

Sherman and Berman have both raised enormous sums for their re-election bids. They are both running for a seat in the San Fernando Valley. Disclosure reports reveal that Sherman has more than $4 million in his campaign war chest (including personal loans), and Berman has approximately $2.4 million in the bank.

Sherman, for his part, is showing his business acumen. Recent disclosure reports show that Sherman earned over $650,000 just based on investing his campaign contributions. Luckily for Sherman, the tax rates on campaign investments are lower than the tax rates on other investors. Interesting: were it not for high returns on investments, Berman would have outraised Sherman in the first quarter of 2012.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Proposition 25: Legislators Must Police Themselves?

Back in June 2010 California voters passed Proposition 25. That measure, named the "Majority Vote for the Legislature to Pass the Budget Act," lowered the threshold required to pass a budget from two-thirds of both state legislative houses to a simple majority of both houses.

But the initiative did more than that: It also stated that if lawmakers do not pass a budget on time they will not get paid until they do successfully do. Politically, it was smart move to sell the measure to the public by saying something like, "legislators shouldn't get paid if they don't do their jobs." That's true, but that little provision was really just there to sweeten the deal.

As it turned out in the summer of 2011, lawmakers did not pass a balanced budget on time after Governor Jerry Brown vetoed their initial plan. State Controller John Chiang, relying on Proposition 25, then stopped paying legislators' salaries. All told they lost less than two weeks of pay.

In an unwise public relations move, legislators sued, claiming that Chiang did not have the authority to stop legislators from being paid and a Sacramento Superior Court judge tentatively agreed last week. In essence the ruling said it is legislators who have the authority to stop pay, not the State Controller. Based on a separation of powers issue that may well be the correct legal decision, it is hard to imagine that the voters thought legislators would be policing themselves when they voted for this initiative.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa: The Next U.S. Secretary of Transportation?

Last Wednesday when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa delivered his state of the city address he largely avoided the main topic facing the city: the budget. That came on Friday in the unveiling of his budget, which included a proposal with significant layoffs.

The mayor's speech focused on transportation, and what may be his key achievement, the passage of Measure R. That measure, passed in 2008, includes a temporary half-cent sales tax slated to expire in 2039. It pays for transportation infrastructure throughout Los Angeles County. The tax, for instance, pays the construction and expansion of the region's rail system and maintenance of the highways. All of that work creates over 400,000 new jobs.

Now the mayor is pushing to eliminate the sunset provision of Measure R. That would make the tax increase permanent.

Beyond Measure R, the mayor also focused on America Fast Forward, a bill that would create a loan program from the federal government to local entities and agencies constructing roads and rails. The plan is in the transportation bills awaiting passage in the House and the Senate.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Campaign Contributions: What Are They Good For?

Do you know who your L.A. County Supervisor is? Most people don't. These little known elected officials wield an enormous amount of power, controlling the nation's largest local government.

In Los Angeles County we have five members of the Board of Supervisors. These five individuals represent portions of our 10 million-person county. The number of people residing in one district outnumbers the number of people who live in more than a dozen small states. These powerful politicians face little competition in elections. Incumbents are rarely challenged. It has been more than three decades since an incumbent lost.

So if incumbents face little, if any, competition at the ballot box, do they nonetheless raise campaign funds?

The answer is a resounding yes. One purpose, the main purpose, of raising campaign funds is to allow candidates to effectively advocate for themselves. Put another way, the idea is that campaign money allows candidates to get their messages to the voters.

But members of the board of supervisors have little need to persuade voters to vote for them, they have no challengers. Yet they -- in particular Don Knabe, Michael D. Antonovich and Mark Ridley-Thomas -- are amassing large campaign war chests, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Who gives campaign contributions to candidates all but guaranteed to win? Not surprisingly those who have business before the county. Knabe, who is running unopposed, has raised more then $350,000 from developers, contractors, and builders, among others. Antonovich has also raised more than $350,000, and much of this campaign cash similarly came from developers and contractors. Ridley-Thomas has outraised both Knabe and Antonovich, raking in almost $450,000.

Should Political Bloggers Have to Disclose Payments From a Campaign?

If you are reading this post, then you, like me, may get most of your political information online. You may also have a number of favorite political bloggers. You may appreciate their voice, perspective, point of view, or just find them entertaining.

Most of my favorite bloggers have a particular perspective, and it is rarely hidden. I neither expect nor crave blogs devoid of opinion.

You, like me, may know a little background on your preferred bloggers. It helps me to evaluate how much weight or credibility I will give to a certain argument to know, as we say, where the author is coming from. What I likely don't know, however, is whether that blogger is paid by a political campaign. Ann Ravel, Chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, the state's political watchdog agency, would like to change that.

If Ravel's proposal becomes law then California would become the first state to provide such information to the public.

The freedom of the expression is one of the most important, if not the most important, right enumerated in the United States Constitution. With very few exceptions, people should be able to say whatever they want, and the public should be able to listen to whomever they want. The same is true, with equal or greater force, for members of the press, whose function is to provide information to the public. A government that censors political speech by some speakers would and should be repugnant to our sensibilities.

However, this proposal does not limit the amount of information the people can disseminate or the public could receive. Rather it would just tell us something about who is speaking, thus providing the public with more information.

Finish reading this article on KCET.org. 

We the Corporations?

This post originally appeared in the Los Angeles Daily Journal. You can read the entire post by clicking here.

While the Republican presidential nominee and the ultimate victors of contests throughout the nation may be unknown, one thing is clear: the 2012 election will break campaign fundraising records. This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's fateful decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Since that decision, there has been a proliferation of campaign spending, most notably by so-called "Super PAC" organizations. These are independent-expenditure only political committees. Republican-backed Super PACs have already raised $81 million to date this election cycle. (Interestingly, only 17 individuals account for contributing nearly half of that amount to Super PACs.) Because of regulations promulgated under the internal revenue service, contributions by certain non-profit organizations to these Super PACs can remain undisclosed, and therefore hidden from public view.

So how did we get to this place of largely anonymous, largely unlimited campaign spending? The Court's decision in Citizens United, while surprisingly incremental in some ways, opened the doors for the record-breaking spending we are now seeing. In Citizens United, the Court essentially came to two conclusions. First, the Court said that speaker-based identity restrictions are impermissible. This means that if a restriction cannot be validly imposed on an individual, then it similarly cannot be imposed on a corporation. Second, the Court found that independent expenditures are not corrupting. So go ahead and spend $100 million in support of your favorite candidate (or against that candidate's opponent). As long as your expenditure is "independent" it cannot corrupt, according to our nation's highest court.

Although it may seem abundantly obvious, there are a number of reasons why for-profit corporations - artificial entities made up of individuals - should not be treated as the same as individuals in the campaign finance context. While certain non-profit corporations are essentially voluntary political associations, and therefore restricting their speech raises important political expression and association concerns, the same is not true of for-profit corporations.

Most campaign finance restrictions present First Amendment questions that ask the Court to analyze the speaker's interest in spending money, the public's interest in hearing campaign speech, and the government's interest in restricting the speaker from spending that money. In the case of corporate electoral speech, the interests of each of these groups weigh in favor of restrictions. In addition, the interests of another group, which the Court routinely discounts - those who speak but not by spending money - also favors regulation.

Political Watchdog Agency Steps into Mountain Lion Kill Controversy

This is a tale of the many dangers of mountain lion hunting -- kind of. Okay; not really, but how often do I get to use the phrase "mountain lion hunting" in the first line of blog posts about California governance and politics?
Recently Dan Richards, the head of the Fish and Game Commission, apparently did what one would expect the head of that commission to do: go hunting. Richards did what hunters do best; he killed an animal. And not just any animal, a mountain lion.

"But isn't that illegal in California?" you may ask. Well, yes, informed reader, it is. However, it is legal in Idaho where Richards' hunting expedition occurred.

How did Richards get to Idaho? Who paid to get him there? Well, now we get to the part of our tale that leads us back to the main topic of my posts: governance and politics. Richards received the guided hunting trip as a gift. The gift was apparently worth almost $7,000. Richards has since paid for the cost of the trip, a decision that seemed to coincide with media coverage concerning his controversial excursion. His decision also came after a complaint was filed with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), California's political watchdog agency.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Saving L.A.'s City Budget: More Taxes or Bankruptcy?

Last week Miguel Santana, Los Angeles' Chief Administrative Officer (i.e. our city's budget honcho), issued a report about the state of the city's finances. The city currently has a $222 million budget deficit. That number is only expected to increase in the next few years.

The report painted a dismal picture: While revenues have fallen, costs -- specifically costs of paying employees -- have not.

The city has cut close to 5,000 jobs in recent years, but it is still living beyond its means. The question is how the city will pay the bills. The report recommends taxes, potential layoffs, and farming out certain city services (like management of the zoo and the convention center) to private companies. An unsurprisingly contentious proposal suggests that we study different ways to provide for ambulance transport in the city. Read this as meaning different ways of hiring private companies. Currently the Los Angeles Fire Department (LAFD) provides such services. Four out of five calls to the LAFD are for medical emergencies. Would this be a smart economic move or a public health tragedy?

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.

Should Victims of Kinde Durkee be Able to Raise Money From Maxed-Out Donors?

Here is one of my recent posts on KCET.org

Last week disgraced Democratic campaign treasurer Kinde Durkee pleaded guilty to defrauding California politicians out of approximately $7 million. Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein lost over $4.5 million in campaign funds.

Feinstein wants to go back to the original donors to replace her lost funds. The problem is that many of these donors have already made campaign contributions to Feinstein of $2,500, the maximum legal limit. Even for those donors who have not maxed out on their contributions, this poses a problem for Feinstein. If a donor gave $2,000, the most they can now contribute is $500.

In a draft opinion issued by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) last week the federal agency signaled that it would reject that request. The agency will vote on Thursday regarding Feinstein's request.

Feinstein is not only heavily favored to win the election, but she was also able to loan her campaign $5 million after the Durkee scandal broke. What if that was not the case? What if we were talking about a candidate in a competitive race without the personal resources to loan her campaign money? Should that candidate be able to go back to original donors?

Finish reading the post.

"New ballot to greet voters in state's June primary"

I am quoted in this article in the SF Chronicle by Wyatt Buchanan regarding open primaries.

Another likely impact is more hotly contested general elections, said Jessica Levinson, a visiting associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School who is involved in political reform work. That's because districts with high numbers of people registered to one party could see two candidates from that party duke it out in November.

"Whereas before it was clearly going to be the Republican or Democrat who walks to victory after the primary, now I think ... there will be a real dogfight in the general," she said.

We the Corporations?

Here is an except of an OpEd that I authored, which ran on 4/4/12 in the Daily Journal. 

While the Republican presidential nominee and the ultimate victors of contests throughout the nation may be unknown, one thing is clear: the 2012 election will break campaign fundraising records. This is the first presidential election since the Supreme Court's fateful decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Since that decision, there has been a proliferation of campaign spending, most notably by so-called "Super PAC" organizations. These are independent-expenditure only political committees. Republican-backed Super PACs have already raised $81 million to date this election cycle. (Interestingly, only 17 individuals account for contributing nearly half of that amount to Super PACs.) Because of regulations promulgated under the internal revenue service, contributions by certain non-profit organizations to these Super PACs can remain undisclosed, and therefore hidden from public view.  

Prop 28: Will New Term Limits for California Lawmakers Make a Difference?

As regular readers of my commentaries know, I am no fan of term limits. On a basic level I dislike laws that force people out of their jobs for no other reason than that they have held a post for a certain number of years. Do a wonderful job, do a terrible job, it doesn't matter, you're out.
I also think California's term limit law is yet another example of a ballot initiative which succeeded at the ballot box but failed in application. Term limits mean our lawmakers lack experience and seniority and lobbyists increasingly have power over those lawmakers. Lawmakers are also constantly looking for their next job. Term limits don't create citizen legislators; they create a merry-go-round that politicians get on and off depending on when they are termed out.

Term limits have certainly not caused all that ails California, but they surely have done little to help.

Finish reading this article on KCET.org.