CA: FEC allows unlimited donations to oppose redistricting initiative

Monterey Herald ^ | 8/18/05 | Erica Werner - AP

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON - The Federal Election Commission voted Thursday to let members of Congress raise unlimited "soft money" donations to fight Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative.

The 6-0 decision by the commission came in response to a request from U.S. Reps. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood, and John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, both of whom oppose the redistricting plan.

The decision will allow federal officeholders to raise unlimited sums from unions, corporations and other donors to support or oppose any measure on the Nov. 8 special election ballot.

In general, federal campaign finance law limits federal officeholders to raising $5,000 each from donors for nonfederal elections. Commissioners decided those limits should not apply in the case of the special election, in part because there are no federal officials on the ballot.

Schwarzenegger's campaign committee will not be bound by limits in raising money to boost the initiative. Proposition 77 would take the responsibility of drawing boundaries for congressional and state legislative districts away from lawmakers and give it to a panel of retired judges.

[CasearianDaoist]

The GOP should be ashamed of themselves (not to mention the FEC.)

[NormsRevenge]

[Mister Baredog]

The GOP should be ashamed of themselves (not to mention the FEC.)

WHY???

[pogo101]

Doolittle needs to be ousted. It is one thing "not to support" Prop 77 for want of some "even better" approach ... but to take a public stand against a sitting Republican (-flavored) governor, and seek to raise as much money as possible to oppose him over the measure, is an excommunication sin, IMHO.

I support Prop 77 for the same reason that 99% of partisan Democrats hate it: It will end their unfair leveraging of 55% of the vote into 65% of the seats.

[BIGZ]

What better reason would one have to vote for and work for the passing of Prop 77 than this Hubris. What are these groveling politicians afraid of.

These are the same individuals who don't understand the meaning of ILLEGAL.

[calcowgirl]

I want to see more of what he has to say. If this is a big rush by our Kennedy Conservative Governor to make the R's a minority, he may have a point.

https://www.fairdistricts.com/news/news_sb-01-09-05.asp

Meanwhile, some members of the state's Republican congressional delegation also oppose the idea.

They too could become vulnerable if ex-judges drew new districts that pitted them against a same-party incumbent in a primary, or against a stronger Democratic incumbent in a general election. Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville, has said his party might lose as many as four seats in such a situation.

[Czar]

I'm in favor of anything that will sweep clean that Sacramento dung pile.

[calcowgirl]

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0208-03.htm

"California now has more clout in the House of Representatives than at any time in previous history," said U.S. Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-Rocklin), referring to the committee chairmanships held by California Republicans.

"It would seem to me self-defeating if we set in motion forces that could result in the loss of seats in California, which in conjunction with a loss of a handful of seats elsewhere in the country could spell a return to the minority for Republicans in the House. I just don't think that's a risk worth taking."

Doolittle bristled at an argument made by proponents of new voting districts, who say that the move would bring more moderates into elective office.

"As a conservative Republican, it makes me very nervous when I hear people say that their overt objective is to remove the conservatives," Doolittle said. "I don't want to see that happen. I will fight to the death to make sure that does not happen."

[calcowgirl]

>>I'm in favor of anything that will sweep clean that Sacramento dung pile.

Me too. But I don't think this is it.

[pogo101]

This is an excellent measure, supported by Tom McClintock and Ted Costa. Now, it's true that the GOP gets a few TOTALLY safe seats as a result of the Democrats' gerrymandering allllll the conservatives they can into those few GOP districts. But consider the cost. The same gerrymandering means that Democrats get 65% of the seats with only 55% of the vote. With all respect to Doolittle, that is too high a price to pay.

And the Doolittles of this world should look beyond their own fiefdoms and consider the larger picture, including state legislative seats. God forbid the GOP should have some competitive races -- in exchange for even more Democrats with current "safe seats" being forced to do the same!

[Czar]

I've said before that I am skeptical of any panel composed of appointees unaccountable to the voters. That almost always spells trouble. It certainly helps that McClintock is onboard, but I will wait to see the exact makeup of that panel. If it turns out to be a majority of Rat appointed drones, that will be that.

[StoneColdGOP]

Bastards. Poltical types just covering each others asses.

[NormsRevenge]

As the GUb said some time ago..

"It's not my job to build the Republican Party."

[pogo101]

I am skeptical of any panel composed of appointees unaccountable to the voters

Sensible enough out-of-context, but currently the alternative (the status quo) is lines drawn by the 65% Democratic state legislature -- a legislature that would be only about 55% Democratic (Kerry's 2004 vote) if lines were drawn fairly. Technically those legislators are "accountable to the voters," but the trouble currently is, the legislators (via gerrymandering) have CHOSEN WHICH VOTERS they're going to be accountable TO. Namely liberal ones. Conservatives are herded into overwhelmingly GOP districts and have no effective voice to stop unfair districting, other than the initiative process involved in Prop 77.

I will wait to see the exact makeup of that panel

It'd be nice to know ahead of time, but that's not how the measure is designed. Only after it passes would the panel be created: http://www.fairdistricts.com/Initiative_Text.asp

First 24 retired judges are chosen at random with the following qualities:
- have indicated willingness to serve;
- have NEVER held partisan elective office;
- committed not to seek or accept political office afterwards for at least 5 years; and
- have not received income from politicians or committees within the past year.

From the 24 judges thus selected at random, the following state legislators EACH pick 3 judges (with no overlap; no one judge can be picked by more than one legislator) to advance in consideration: Speaker of the Assembly (Democrat); minority leader of the Assembly (GOP); President pro tem of the state Senate (Dem); and minority leader of the Senate (GOP). That creates a list of 12, thus far. Then, each of those four politicians gets to "challenge," i.e., eliminate from consideration, ONE of the nine judges picked by the other three legislators, idea being to weed out the worst or most partisan-leaning of judges. That leaves NINE (to twelve; technically the challenges may go unused) judges thus far.

Still with me?

With some details and unusual scenarios left out, what happens next is this. The Clerk of the state Assembly draws three of the 9-12 judges' names by lot. (At least one of the 3 must be Dem. and at least one GOP.)

My preference would be to give the Governor a role, by letting him "pick three and strike one," like the other four politicians get to do.

Is this perfect? No. It seems to me to be much, much better than the guaranteed scr*wing we're getting right now, however, and it can be improved in elections to come. But consider: Why is the Democratic Party foaming at the mouth over this, while most of the GOP opposition is coming from individual GOP politicos (not the party generally, as with Dems) who fear losing the "safe seats" that are a by-product of the Democratic gerrymander?

[Czar]

"Still with me?"

Yes, and still skeptical.

"Is this perfect? No. It seems to me to be much, much better than the guaranteed scr*wing we're getting right now, however, and it can be improved in elections to come."

I hope you're right. We shall see.

[calcowgirl]

>>From the 24 judges thus selected at random, the following state legislators EACH pick 3 judges (with no overlap; no one judge can be picked by more than one legislator) to advance in consideration:

There is nothing in the measure (from your link) that says this will be "random". There are NO guidelines or criteria outlined as to how the Judicial Council will select the 24 nominees.

You mention that each legislator (Nunez, Perata, McCarthy, Ackerman) each get to pick 3 candidates.

You don't mention that they cannot select members of their own party. Therefore, the only GOP candidate who ever has a chance of being in the pool or selected as a "Special Master" will have to be chosen by Nunez or Perata (or their successors).

[pogo101]

There is nothing in the measure (from your link) that says this will be "random". There are NO guidelines or criteria outlined as to how the Judicial Council will select the 24 nominees.

Wrong. It says "the Judicial Council shall nominate by lot twenty-four retired judges willing to serve as Special Masters." "By lot" means chosen in an out-of-the-hat, bingo-ball manner.

You don't mention that they cannot select members of their own party.

True, but that only makes the measure better.

Therefore, the only GOP candidate who ever has a chance of being in the pool or selected as a "Special Master" will have to be chosen by Nunez or Perata (or their successors).

So what's the difference? 6 will be chosen by Democrats and 6 by Republicans.

What you never say is why you prefer the current approach. Obviously you'd rather have 65% of the state legislature in Democratic hands, and meanwhile find fault with anything and everything proposed by Tom, Arnold and Ted to start fixing the problem (even if it's not perfect), than actually put your own preferred solution on the table. Until you do that, you're no better than Fabian Nunez.

[Czar]

The mechanical details are, of course, very important. My concern is simply that I am inherently suspicious of blue ribbon panels filled with appointed individuals, unaccountable to the voters, who are always politically well connected. As pogo pointed out, the alternative may well be worse. Perehaps so.

I trust McClintock and would be inclined to go along with his endorsement. I do not trust Arnold who has by now established himself as a promise-much/do-nothing RINO. What a disappointment he has turned out to be.

[Amerigomag]

Why is the Democratic Party foaming at the mouth over this

Because many of the state wide, Democrat leaders are elected from contrived districts. If these districts were redrawn leaving ethnic or racial gerrymandering to chance these vetrans would lose their edge. Without that guarantee that they would be just another partisan candidate and would find it difficult to coerce campaign funds from business or labor. Much like Schwarzenegger they probably wouldn't even survive the partisan primary.