More Campaign Disclosure Coming to California, But It's Not Enough

As we finish celebrating the unofficial beginning of summer, those in favor of more robust campaign disclosure can already start looking forward to the unofficial end of the season. 
By Labor Day, California's campaign finance database will be downloadable, Secretary of State Debra Bowen has announced.

This is a big step forward for advocates of campaign disclosure and transparency. As it stands the Cal-Access database (which should perhaps be re-named the Cal-Lack-Of-Access Database) allows visitors to download information by committee. This imposes a significant burden on any users seeking to obtain a comprehensive view of campaign finance data. The change will allow visitors to download the entire campaign finance database in one sheet.

This marks a difference between information that is disclosed online and information that is disclosed in a way that is actually useful for visitors.

Bowen's decision marks an about-face from her previous position that this change would not be cost-effective. After discussions with members of the reform community, Bowen apparently changed her mind. The prior request for the database change was signed by media outlets and nonprofit organizations including MapLight, the Los Angeles Times, the Sacramento Bee, Common Cause, California Forward, and the Sunlight Foundation.

Although campaign disclosure is vitally important, this database is not a panacea. In an era of PACs and SuperPACs that do not disclose their donors we need more than information that is easy to download. We need that information to be useful and understandable. To use a fictional example, the utility of knowing that Americans for Apple Pie spent $14 million in races throughout California may pale in comparison to knowing who is actually behind Americans for Apple Pie. The Chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, Ann Ravel, has been among those leading the charge for smarter disclosure in California.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org 

The Failings of the IRS Go Far Beyond Targeting Conservative Groups

Here is my latest op-ed on the IRS "scandal."

Here are the first two paragraphs:

Public outcry regarding the Internal Revenue Service’s apparent targeting of conservative groups has been swift but largely misguided. The so-called “IRS scandal” essentially boils down the following: conservative groups that applied for 501(c)4 status were subject to more rigorous vetting by IRS employees than liberal groups.

At first blush this is no doubt problematic. The IRS, a vitally important government agency, must function in a neutral and non-partisan manner. However, the true scandal behind the IRS’s actions stretches far beyond this incident targeting conservative groups.

Vote on pot shops could end lingering LA issue

Quoted in this piece in the AP. 

Here is an excerpt:

The new law will do little to serve as a model for other cities, said professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School.

"I think we've been the perfect picture of dysfunction," she said. "Most of the guidance is actually what not to do."

"The pot shops are not going to take this lightly," Levinson said. "I think they will drag their feet exactly as long as it takes until police officers are at their door."

If people don't want to vote, should we want them to?

My op-ed in the Los Angeles Daily News on this topic is here.

Combo of record spending and low turnout in LA mayoral race sees 87 dollars spent per vote

Quoted in this one on the California Forward blog. 

Some argue that money doesn’t matter, but Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson disagrees.

“Heavy spending can crowd out other voices and harm the diversity of the debate,” she explained. “It drives the campaign narrative, the issues that are being discussed and what the candidates talk about.”

Additionally, the rising influx of campaign money can undermine the democratic principal of one person, one vote. Large political donors expect a return on their investment and can often exert a greater influence on policy-making than the average voter.

The issues important to special interest groups do not necessarily overlap those in the public interest. In an election where less than one-fifth of eligible voters actually voted, it would be particularly easy to ignore the concerns of the general electorate.

Full campaign finance disclosure is the best way to level the playing field. It ensures that elected officials feel held accountable to voters and not special interests.

To confidently make an informed decision at the ballot box, voters need to know who is funding who and why. If money is speech, as the Supreme Court has ruled, Levinson says, “it’s really important for the public to know who is speaking.” Californians deserve to know who is trying to influence elections.

In Los Angeles mayor's race, a big win for Eric Garcetti

Quoted in this one in the Christina Science Monitor. 

“Garcetti did not receive the vast majority of the union endorsements and may be seen now as in a good position to extract concessions from the city's labor unions,” adds Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Many voters in this very low-turnout election saw union endorsements as toxic. Garcetti was not viewed as beholden to the unions. He will now have to negotiate with them.”

Union money looms big in L.A. mayor's race

Quoted in this one in the LA Daily News.


In race with two pro-labor candidates, with similar backgrounds, the unions' power is noticeable, say political observers.
"The outside spending is changing the campaign narrative," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. "It's changing the tenor and tone."
...

The flood of money concerns Levinson, who said the outside spending dilutes the "one vote, one voice" concept of the electoral process. The spending also shapes the conversation along the campaign trail, she believes.
A confusing County Fed-backed mailer promising a $15 wage if Greuel is elected forced both candidates to weigh in last week. And Greuel has spent months seeking to prove to voters that she'll be independent from the DWP, despite the union's spending.
At a recent debate in Sherman Oaks, the moderator intervened, asking the candidates to stop bickering about DWP, and move on to new topics.
Outside money "changes what issues they talk about," Levinson said. "It's not even the candidates' debate anymore."

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."

Who Is Funding the LA Mayor Race?

Quoted in this article. 

Here is an excerpt:

Campaign finance experts say that most donations are given to influence candidates or gain access.

“There’s this question of why we give money,” said Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson. “Is it legalized bribery, or do we just support candidates and expect nothing in return, or is it okay to expect something in return?” 

She said figuring out who's donating what and to whom is an important step in figuring out donors’ motivations.

It's Time for the IRS to Crack Down on Phony Non-Profits

Here is my latest on Huffington Post. 

Here is the beginning of the piece:

For many of us, the initials I, R and S strike fear into our heart. But now the Internal Revenue Service is apologizing. The IRS has admitted that during the 2012 elections some relatively low-level employees in Ohio required additional information from some conservative groups seeking tax-exempt status.

Groups with the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications were flagged and asked to submit additional materials. Other groups may have been targeted as well. There is little doubt that the IRS' approach to determining whether to grant tax-exempt status should be politically even-handed, without regard to partisan affiliation. But this kerfuffle is merely the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

The IRS' actions evoke a much larger question about which groups should be able to obtain the benefit of tax-exempt status and lack of transparency that inures to certain non-profit organizations. Thanks in large part to the United States Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, corporations are constitutionally free to raise and spend unlimited sums to advocate for the election or defeat of political candidates as long as that spending is not coordinated with candidate campaigns. This is true for non-profit corporations as well, unless, as discussed below, there are statutory or regulatory restrictions placed on those groups.

How important are nonprofit organizations and other committees to election campaigns? Estimates put independent spending by nonprofit corporations -- political action committees (PACs) and super PACs -- at more than $1 billion during the 2012 elections. Unlimited spending by all of these entities is harmful to the integrity of our electoral process, but the worst offenders may be those entities organized under section 501c4 of the IRS code.

The 501c4s, as they are commonly known, are social welfare organizations. However, the IRS has interpreted the regulations affecting these nonprofit organizations as allowing them to engage in some political activity, as long as that does not become the organization's primary activity. This is, at best, a line drawn in the sand on a windy day, to quote Justice Scalia in another campaign finance case.

And here is the kicker: while these 501c4 non-profit corporations can engage in some political activity, they need not disclose their donors. This leaves the public without the most important piece of information about those spending money to try to sway their votes; the identity of those organizations' supporters. While other organizations, such as PACs and super PACs, must disclose their donors, when those donors are 501c4 corporations then all that is disclosed is the name of the corporation, but again, not those supporting that corporation. This situation blasts an enormous hole through our nation's web of disclosure provisions.

The Reverse Revolving Door: How Corporate Insiders Are Rewarded Upon Leaving Firms for Congress

Quoted in this article. 

Here is an excerpt:

“It strains common sense that when employers are giving employees who are about to enter government work these huge bonuses, that there isn’t a hope that there will be influence and access,” say Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who compared the bonuses to how special interests seek access to politicians using campaign donations. “I think the main gist of the payment is the same,” notes Levinson. “It’s: ‘I hope when I’m pushing a piece of legislation, you’ll remember me with fondness.’”

...

At least eight financial firms, including Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, have had employment policies that provide executives with financial incentives to join the government. The bonuses on Capitol Hill appear so routine, law professor Jessica Levinson noted, “This is becoming the way we do business.”

Welcome to the Super PAC Era

Is candidate centered campaign fundraising a thing of the past?

Greetings, and welcome to the Super PAC era. Thanks in part to the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, we now have new entities called "Super PACs," which are organizations that can raise and spend unlimited political funds.

Contributions given directly to candidates are unlimited, but again, contributions to outside groups such as Super PACs are not. Therefore, as many predicted, individuals and entities who wish to support candidates but have given up to the legal limit, now have a new outlet for their campaign donations. This pattern, however, is nothing new. Before there were Super PACs big donors gave to political parties or other outside organizations like independent expenditure groups.

Campaign fundraising by candidates is increasingly being marginalized and fundraising by independent groups including Super PACs is coming to the forefront. We are seeing this phenomenon play out real time in the Los Angeles mayoral race where the contribution limit to candidates is $1,300 both in the primary and the runoff elections. 
While fundraising by candidates is still outpacing fundraising by Super PACs in the mayoral race, at some point in the near future that could change. In this election both candidates have raised approximately $5.7 million and independent groups have raised roughly $4.7 million for Greuel and $1.3 million for Garcetti. That means about one-third of the money raised in the mayor campaign has been raised by outside organizations. Again, the lion's share has gone to groups supporting Greuel.

Of course those giving money to outside groups are generally those who have a financial interest in what happens in City Hall. For instance, donors include real estate developers, labor unions, members of the entertainment industry, and lawyers and lawfirms. This set up raises a host of problems including corruption, the appearance of corruption, undue access and preferential treatment.

Because of the Supreme Court's misguided interpretation of limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, there is little hope, at least in the short term, of limiting how much can be given to and spent by outside groups.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Do California Lawmakers Actually Write Our Laws?

Who writes the law? Many of us assume that legislators or their staffers perform this task. But that answer may be only partially complete.

In California, a bill's "sponsor" is listed in legislative analyses. This purportedly gives the public important information about the identity of those supporting measures which may become law.

Who are these sponsors? Often they are special interest groups, and specifically lobbyists, who supported or authored proposed legislation. A recent report found that more than one quarter of the approximately 4,800 bills introduced in California last legislative session were sponsored bills.

But the listed sponsor may not tell the entire story. The rule requiring that sponsors be listed on bills appears to be inconsistently applied. Members of the public still lack information that would give them a complete picture of the lawmaking process. For instance, legislators may rewrite bills which were sponsored by a special interest before the legislative session, legislators may be squeamish about identifying bills as sponsored if the sponsoring group is unpopular, or staffers may fail to list as sponsored when writing an analysis.

It would be interesting to determine whether outside groups have more influence over legislators after the advent of term limits. Thanks to term limits legislators have less seniority, experience, and expertise. It seems logically that they have to rely more heavily on outside groups.

With respect to the electoral process, campaign disclosure, meaning disclosure of political contributions and expenditures, gives the public information about who is trying to influence their vote on candidates or measures. The same is true with respect to the legislative process. Full and complete disclosure regarding who is sponsoring bills allows the public to obtain a fuller picture about which groups are seeking to work with our legislators to enact laws. Legislators are, after all, representatives of the people, sent to city halls, state capitols, and the nation's capitol to serve the public.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

L.A. Election: 3 Medical Marijuana Measures, a Long Way to a Solution

On May 21 voters in Los Angeles will have the opportunity to vote for the city's next mayor. But that is not all. Those few Angelenos who venture to the polls or send in their ballots will also weigh in on three competing ballot measures all dealing with medical marijuana. Two qualified for the ballot via the initiative process, one was put on the ballot by the City Council.

As with all other types of ballot measures, those supporting the various measures will financially benefit from their passage. Indeed, the measures have divided the medical marijuana community, to the extent that there was such a community.

(To understand the specifics of these measures, Ballot Brief's Ben Gottlieb has done some great in-depth reporting here.)

It is possible that none of the measures will garner the 50 percent of the vote necessary to become law. In that event it seems likely that the next election will bring one or more new proposals concerning the sale of medical marijuana.

In any case, the May election will not be the end of the story. The city is facing dozens of lawsuits, suits which are likely to continue. All of this wrangling occurs against the backdrop of a stark contrast between state and federal laws.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Will the SEC save us from Citizens United?

I wrote an op-ed in the Sac Bee, which you can find here.

Here is a portion of the first paragraph:

An unlikely government agency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, may help to stem the tide of undisclosed money pumping through our political system in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC. The SEC is not the first government agency that comes to mind when thinking of campaign finance regulations.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/05/04/5394092/will-the-sec-save-us-from-citizens.html#storylink=cpy

San Gabriel council deems itself judge over election results

Quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times. 

San Gabriel Councilman-elect Chin Ho Liao was the second highest vote-getter in the city's March elections, but his first time on the council dais last week was as a witness under cross-examination.

The City Council voted not to seat Liao after resident Fred Paine filed a complaint alleging that Liao's true residence is outside of the city's borders. Though Liao has filed suit in Los Angeles Superior Court to contest the council's vote, the city has also created its own hearing process to determine Liao's residency.

... 

Jessica Levinson, an elections law professor at Loyola Law School, called the council's actions "atypical" and "fairly inappropriate."

"The City Council has a clear conflict of interest," Levinson said. "It's ousted incumbents, purporting to have the jurisdiction and power to adjudicate whether their victorious challengers can be seated."

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. 

Why I want to teach my students to be skeptics...

I explain here in a Loyola spotlight video.

Experts question San Gabriel's decision not to seat councilman-elect

Quoted in this article in the Pasadena Star.


SAN GABRIEL-- Election experts and fair government advocates questioned a decision made last week by the San Gabriel City Council not to seat Councilman-elect Chin Ho Liao because of a challenge filed with the city questioning his residency qualifications.
Doug Johnson, a fellow at the Rose Institute of State and Local Government at Claremont McKenna College, said the council's decision not only to refuse to seat Liao but also launch its own investigation into his true residency was "very unusual. "
"It's a question for a court to remove him from office, the city is on shaky ground in trying to refuse to seat him," Johnson said. "Councils aren't really judicial bodies. "
The city received a complaint and threat of litigation from resident Fred Paine on March 19 against Liao. In turn, Liao's attorney George Yin has threatened legal action against the city.
Though Liao was the second-highest vote-getter in the March 5 vote, the old council - which included ousted incumbents Mario De La Torre and David Gutierrez - voted Tuesday not to swear him in along with the other winners, incumbent Kevin Sawkins and newcomer Jason Pu.
The council also voted to hold a public hearing to determine whether Liao can be seated on the council. Assistant City Manager Marcella Marlowe said the city has not yet determined the details.
Only Councilwoman Juli Costanzo voted against the council hearing,
arguing that the issue be referred to an outside party. But Councilman John Harrington said Tuesday he did not want to "shirk" the responsibility. "If someone raises a question, it's my job to investigate," Harrington said. "My goal is to make sure justice is done. "
Many residents spoke out against the council's decision Tuesday, accusing the council of going against "the will of the people." During the tense campaign, Liao did not deny that he had moved from the home where his wife and daughter still live in to a San Gabriel apartment six months before the election.
Costanzo and Harrington endorsed Sawkins, De La Torre and Gutierrez, who ran as a unit. The three brought up Liao's residency during the campaign.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, said the council's decision prematurely convicts Liao.
"If someone is elected, until it's been proven that person doesn't live in the district, I'm not clear that just based on their own findings that they do have power to just not seat someone," Levinson said. "And it seems to be there is kind of a conflict of interest here when the losing incumbents decide to hold hearings on basically whether or not they should be replaced."

 

State hires consumer group to help it review healthcare rates

Quoted in this article in the L.A. Times.

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones lashed out Tuesday at another double-digit rate hike for thousands of small businesses getting their health insurance from industry giant Anthem Blue Cross.
But this time Jones got some help from a surprising source. He has quietly tapped Consumer Watchdog, his political ally and the state's most outspoken industry critic, to help review health insurance rate increases under a one-year contract worth as much as $88,000.

The insurance industry expressed dismay that the state enlisted its longtime nemesis to help review rate increases, and some experts questioned whether it's necessary to further antagonize insurers at a time when state officials are trying to work closely with the industry to implement a massive healthcare expansion.
Public-policy experts also scoffed at the arrangement.

"Their very aggressive stance against insurance companies raises serious questions about a conflict of interest," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor and expert on government ethics. "You want an independent researcher."

Angelenos: United in Voter Apathy?

Mayoral candidates Eric Garcetti and Wendy Greuel are now in the final stretch of their campaign to become the next mayor of Los Angeles. Following the March 5 election, both candidates will seek to motivate voters to go to the polls. But what voters? According to preliminary numbers, only 16 percent, yes that's right, only one out of six voters went to the polls or mailed in ballots. In a city divided over so many issues, it seems elections have managed to unite 84 percent of eligible Angelenos in laziness, boredom, apathy, or all of the above.

In Los Angeles, the second most populous city in the nation, there are approximately 1.8 million eligible voters and 3.8 million residents. This means approximately 290,000 voters weighed in on decisions that will affect nearly four million people. Another way of thinking of this is that each voter voted for the interests of 12 people living in Los Angeles.

I cannot claim to have a comprehensive knowledge of the reasons behind this significantly depressed turnout, therefore I cannot seek to propose solutions to this problem. But I do know that by sitting out elections we are giving a few of our fellow Angelenos, those who cast ballots, a great deal of power over the face of our city government. In essence what we have is a city of residential representatives who chose our political representatives. But, of course, no one appointed or elected this first group -- they merely decided to take part in our democracy.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Candidate-Controlled Ballot Measure Committees: Corruption Potential?

Candidate-controlled ballot measure committees arguably represent a legal gray area. They live somewhere in between candidate campaigns and ballot measure campaigns. The Supreme Court has said that contributions to candidates can lead, or at least appear to lead, to corruption and can therefore be limited. The Court has also said that contributions to ballot measure committees cannot lead, or cannot appear to lead, to corruption because there is simply no one to corrupt. But what about those committees which are controlled by candidates?

On the one hand, these ballot measure committees are separate from candidate campaigns. Their purpose, at least ostensibly, is related to the passage of a ballot measure, not a candidate. (But it is important to note that these committees can be formed to support proposals which may or may not ever make their way to the ballot).

On the other hand, it strains common sense to believe that candidates who control these committees are not aware of the identity of contributors, and would not in some cases feel predisposed to express their gratitude for contributions. Under this view, the ability to give unlimited sums to these ballot measure committees represents a huge loophole in our state's system of contribution limits.

The Sacramento Bee recently published a piece detailing how committees use campaign contributions. It shows that contributions are sometimes used for questionable purposes, such as out-of-state fundraisers, contributions to non-profit organizations, and even a legislator's tuition. However, it is also the case that not all donations to candidate controlled ballot measure committees raise red flags.

Given the current legal landscape, it seems highly unlikely that states and localities will be able to impose limits on contributions to these candidate controlled ballot measure committees. The most practical step is to impose robust transparency and disclosure provisions. 

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Outside Groups, Teachers Union Fight to a Draw in L.A.

Quoted in this article in the WSJ. 

The teachers' union, United Teachers Los Angeles, threw resources at the races, sending volunteers to help get out the vote.

Mr. Zimmer's win shows "the teachers union is still powerful" in L.A., said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School and a local-government expert. "They may not have spent as much money, but they have a lot of foot soldiers."

Top 2 candidates for L.A. mayor share a lot in common

Quoted in this article in the Christian Science Monitor. 

Garcetti has positioned himself as the frontrunner, which you can tell in his ads because they are overwhelmingly positive,” says Jessica Levinson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and former director of political reform for the Center for Governmental Studies. “Greuel is capitalizing on her time as city controller by fashioning herself as the one who can clean the fiscal house.”

As Eight Candidates Vie to Be Los Angeles’s Next Mayor, Voters Tune Out

Quoted in this article in the Daily Beast.

Unless a candidate breaks 50 percent Tuesday, the two top contenders will face off May 21. “The expectations are it is Greuel and Garcetti in the runoff,” says Jessica Levinson, an associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School. “It is their ability to raise money, get endorsements, and garner independent expenditures on their behalf. They’re gathering the lion’s share of both.”

Garcetti, a Navy reservist and Rhodes scholar who served as council president between 2006 and 2012, is running as “a big-picture visionary,” says USC’s Schnur. His pitch is “I am going to create jobs and get the city moving,” adds Levinson.

...

[Re Greuel] “Her connections with the business community are probably better than any of the candidates’,” says Levinson.

Although Perry has been called a champion for local business interests, supported dozens of housing projects in the downtown core that led to a steady flow of jobs, and did more for Skid Row residents than any councilperson before her has done, she has had difficulty raising money and has been battered by attack ads from Greuel over long-ago financial problems. Perry admitted that she filed bankruptcy twice 20 years ago, but blamed the bulk of the problem on her former husband’s law practice.

“She has been fairly anemic in terms of fundraising,” said Levinson. “The name of the game in politics is fundraising prowess, and she hasn’t been able to match Greuel and Garcetti.”

..

[Re Kevin James] “He is the archetype of the outside candidate,” says Levinson. “The ad screams, ‘I want to go viral.’”

California lawmakers avoid campaign contribution limits with ballot measure accounts

Quoted in this article in the Sacramento Bee. 

... 

In addition to their campaign accounts, legislators create "ballot measure" committees of their own that set no limits on the amount donors can contribute. The committees allow legislators to ask special interests for far more than the $4,100 per election they can solicit for their own campaigns.

State regulations require the accounts to be used to support or oppose any ballot measure, including proposals still under development that might not pan out.

A Bee review found that some of the more than $2.7 million lawmakers collected through these committees in the last two years paid for items with tenuous connection to such measures, including thank-you gifts to donors, a lawmaker's tuition and contributions to nonprofits. In some cases, they also spent heavily on extravagant, out-of-state fundraisers.

Any company or other large donor interested in spending on a ballot measure can do so directly.

But after California voters approved campaign contribution limits in 2000, committees controlled by lawmakers became another vehicle for raising the large amounts of campaign cash needed for ballot measure campaigns.

Routing contributions through the candidate-controlled committees can "kill two birds with one stone" for donors, said Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance and ethics expert at the Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.

"If you support the ballot measure and you want to just support the candidate because of just emotional support, or you want to support the candidate because you want to get something in return, it's kind of a win-win," Levinson said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/03/10/5250295/california-lawmakers-avoid-campaign.html#mi_rss=Top%20Stories#storylink=cpy

Talking about the LA Mayoral Election

Looking forward to being on "Take Two" on KPCC this morning talking about the Los Angeles mayoral election.

Let's Stop Celebrating the 'Record' Number of Women in Congress

Here is my latest on HuffPo Politics. 

As we watch and wait for news about the sequester, I have seen an increase number of stories about how the sequester will affect women. Some of these news items mention the record number of women in Congress as if these two developments will cancel each other out. The thinking goes, I believe, that the sequester could disproportionately affect "women's issues" but that the "historic" number of women in the halls of Congress could work to prevent that from happening.

I am eagerly awaiting the day I do not read stories these stories. Both about women's issues and about the record number of women in Congress. This is not because I think there are too many female political representatives, quite the opposite.

In January the 113th Congress was sworn in. Amidst the predictions and prognostications for this Congressional session, came a number of stories about the historic number of women now in Congress. Specifically there are now 101 women in both chambers. This number includes three nonvoting members. There are 535 people in Congress total. Simple math tells us that less than 19 percent of our representatives are women. Women account for slightly more than 50 percent of the population of the United States.

By any stretch of the imagination women are still woefully underrepresented in the halls of Congress (not to mention board rooms and executive offices). Yes, given recent history women are "making progress," however, it is difficult to take too much solace in this lopsided number.

I am frankly deeply saddened that we must find cause for celebration when fewer than one in five representatives, but approximately one out of two members of the population, are women.

I am not someone who advocates voting for (or hiring or promoting) any individual solely because of their gender. Our nation faces real and serious issues; we need the best representatives advocating for their constituents, not the second or third best. 

What we need is a society in which we can vote for the best candidates and in which our representatives are actually (at least roughly) representative of the American population. There are many systemic reasons why they are not more and better female candidates, and I do not endeavor to outline them here.

My point is that we are quite far from that place in which roughly equal gender representation is accepted as the norm. This may be why I sometimes cringe when I hear about "women's issues" or how a particular issues (such as the sequester) affect women. Its time to start talking about how issues affect people, period.

Women's issues are conventionally used to mean issues related to healthcare (including issues related to abortion and childcare), education, and workplace issues such as fair hiring and pay equity. These are "people issues" not women's issues. Certainly laws related to abortions more directly affect women, but it speaks volumes about our society that basic issues related to educating children, and pay in the workplace are still considered to be mainly the province of women. A paradigmatic shift is in order.

So please forgive me if I fail to scream my excitement about the record number of women in Congress from the proverbial rooftops. The day there is nothing to write on this topic because it is expected that fifty percent of the population will account for roughly fifty percent of our representatives, and that "women's issues" simply become "issues," is the day I will celebrate.

California Supreme Court Considers the Legality of Banning "Pot Shops"

You can watch my appearance on SoCal Connected discussing the California Supreme Court's upcoming decision regarding medical marijuana here. 

Under California law, it's legal to buy medical marijuana, but it's not so under federal law. That's why some localities have banned pot shops.

California's highest court heard arguments Tuesday over whether cities can do that. In essence, the court will decide, when it comes to medical marijuana, whether federal or state laws prevail here in California, and whether cities can regulate dispensaries through zoning laws.

Medical Marijuana, Regulation, and the California Supreme Court

This week I was honored to be on "SoCal Connected" to speak with Madeleine Brand about the California Supreme Court's consideration of whether localities can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries (watch it here). Our state's highest court is wading into a confused thicket of laws concerning marijuana, and more specifically medical marijuana. Here is a quick synopsis of the legal landscape.

Under federal law, marijuana is a schedule 1 drug. This means it is an illegal narcotic and there is no accepted use for it. Recently a federal appeals court rejected a suit seeking to change that classification. It is now up to Congress and the Drug Enforcement Administration to act. The federal government could take a number of different routes. First, it could classify medical marijuana. Second, it could legalize medical marijuana. Third, it could reduce penalties for the use and/or possession of medical marijuana.

Next we move on to California State laws. In 1996 the voters passed Prop 215, commonly known as the Compassionate Use Act. That law, among other things, allows doctors to recommend that certain patients use marijuana for medicinal purposes. Patients with such a recommendation can possess and grow marijuana for medicinal purposes. The law was later amended to allow collective distribution of medical marijuana. Still, the contours of the law are far from clear. 

In the local level, cities and states have four primary options. First, they can prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries (maybe -- more on that in a moment). Second, they can impose moratoriums on such dispensaries. Third, they can impose regulations, like zoning laws, which restrict such dispensaries. Fourth, they can impose no local regulations. To date many localities have taken the first route and banned medical marijuana dispensaries. These include Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, and Culver City. As I have previously noted in Los Angeles voters will likely face three different ballot measures dealing with medical marijuana this May.

This week the California Supreme Court heard arguments concerning the issue of whether localities have the power to ban medical marijuana dispensaries in light of State laws, primarily the Compassionate Use Act, which address this topic. 

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Debating the Mayoral Debates

In Los Angeles, elections are non-partisan and, despite the state's new top-two law, send two candidates to a run-off unless a one garners more than 50 percent of the primary vote. Considering the competitiveness this year -- five frontrunners seen in dozens of debates -- it is assumed two will move from the March 5 primary to the May 21 general.

Therefore, I'm curious how voters will decide which candidates to send to the May election. After all, what do we really know about them?

Judging by the number of debates -- some 30 of them -- we should know a lot about them. However, having watched a number of these increasingly predictable forums, I'm simply not sure if the voters are able glean tons of useful information.

It brings up questions. Are there new and better ways for candidates to reach the voters? Can't we do better? I'm not convinced that the debates so far do much more than allow the candidates to hit their talking points in different forums. Many of those talking points are, quite understandably, less than surprising by the time the 30th debate rolls around.

But there are certain groups that have benefitted from the dozens of mayoral debates held over the past couple of months. Those are the groups hosting the event. Often those groups, or the interests supporting those groups, are able to extract pledges and promises from the candidates.

Perhaps if we made the debates fewer and further between they would feel more like special events worth watching or listening to. In addition, making debates more rare would reduce the repetition we hear in the candidates' answers.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Will localities in California be able to ban medical marijuana dispensaries?

I spoke with Madeleine Brand about this question on an episode of SoCal Connected.

The Case of Lady Gage and California Political Fundraising

Wondering if legislators ever go back to their offices and "just dance?" Don't think your elected officials have a "poker face?" Dubious as to whether your lawmakers were "born this way?" Curious as to whether, just like us, our lawmakers sometimes have a "bad romance?" 

We may not know the answer to those questions, but we do know that State Senators Ricardo Lara and Ron Calderon were at Staples Center this past weekend to take in a Lady Gage concert. Is this official business?

Well, it's officially a fundraising event for them. Lara is running for re-election to the Senate and Calderon is running for state controller next year. The two democratic senators were slated to hold a joint campaign fundraiser at the concert. Contributors who gave $3,900 were rewarded with a ticket to the concert and a night in a nearby hotel.

Lara and Calderon's joint fundraiser at Lady Gaga's concert likely says less about their devotion (or lack thereof) to the performer than it does about their desire to raise large campaign donations at popular venues. In our current system, in which campaign contributions to candidates are limited, but expenditures by candidate campaigns are not, the third for campaign funds is all but unquenchable. Put another way, once candidates get on the fundraising treadmill, it is difficult to see when and how they will ever get off that treadmill.

The seemingly endless fundraising race is not, of course, the fault of the candidates and officeholders. The current legal framework breeds the almost ceaseless need for campaign cash. This actually harms not only the public, but also officeholders who spend so much of their time fundraising rather than legislating or governing.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

The Phil Mickelson effect: Do millionaires flee states with high taxes?

Quoted in this article in the Christian Science Monitor. 

Here is an excerpt:

The issue is a politically sensitive one for California. In November, state voters passed Proposition 30, which raises tax rates 1 to 3 percent for those making more than $250,000 a year. The initiative is integral to California's new budget, which shows a surplus. But along with Washington's "fiscal cliff" solution – which also will raise taxes on the rich – there are questions about how California's millionaires will respond.

“If there is anything that can be termed a mass exodus, then I think that will be symbolically very important,” says Jessica Levinson...

Experts acknowledge that any migration effect is hard to gauge.

Will Medical Marijuana Be Legal in California?

Looking forward to being on SoCal Connected tomorrow (Monday 2/4/13) to discuss this issue.