Why the Bad Economy Is Good for Whitman

I’m sure she isn’t this callous. But, if I were Meg Whitman,
I’d be rooting hard against a quick economic recovery.

Why? Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve had conversations
with California fundraisers and donors from across the political spectrum. They
all said the same thing: no one has any money. And donations to campaigns and
causes of all kinds are way off. Gavin Newsom’s recently publicized
difficulties in turning President Clinton’s endorsement into a big fundraising
score are only one example of this trend. Raising money for politicians is
very, very difficult right now. Estimates that the 2010 governor’s race could
be a $500 million campaign are way too high, I’ve been told.

Staring At Goats and Paycheck Protection

If the first two times you don’t succeed, fail. Fail again.

One would think that the devastating defeats of so-called
"paycheck protection" initiatives — Propositions 226 (in 1998) and Prop 75 (in
2005) — would have ended the fantasy that California voters are going to back
initiatives to limit how labor unions use their dues.

But I have in my hands an Oct. 7 letter from Robert W.
Loewen, president of the Lincoln Club of Orange County, declaring to supporters
of those defeated measures that his organization intends to launch another
paycheck protection initiative in 2010 and in "2012 if necessary."

The letter’s logic – and I use that word generously – is
that there are four main reasons why the next 2-3 years are the "perfect time"
to pass paycheck protection. 1. The state of the economy (the letter offers no
explanation of the connection between paycheck protection and the economy). 2.
"Widespread populist outrage over the expansion of government, much of which is
already being blamed on the unions." 3. A recent Supreme Court decision
upholding Idaho’s ability to ban the government from automatically collecting
dues for government unions.

I Investigate My Own Voting Record and Apologize for It

I’ve never run for office before, never worked in politics, never worked in government. And if you know me, you know I have real trouble making up my mind. So when it was pointed out to me recently that my status as an inexperienced outsider made me a natural choice to run for governor of California, I began plans to form an exploratory committee, though I’ve been careful to keep up the fiction that I’m completely devoted to my duties as a think tank fellow, whatever the hell they are.

I have a clear recollection of reading somewhere, though I can’t remember exactly where, that it’s important to have voted. And that it’s especially important to have voted if you run for office, since voting – along with personal wealth, campaign contributions and opposition research — are what decide elections in this country. And I just know that the press is going to investigate every little random little inconsequential thing, such as whether I voted, instead of investigating my management experience, which involves coaching a series of highly successful Little League teams in Pasadena.

The George Retention

It appears California will have an election next year that turns on the big questions of constitutional change, the budget, and the problems of the initiative process.

Which election is that? Not the governor’s race, which is unlikely to produce a debate of real substance. Ballot initiative reforms? It’s far from clear that the constitutional convention or any of the things produced by California Forward will make the ballot.

No, the election most likely to focus on the big questions is the retention election for California Supreme Court Justice Ronald George.

California Supreme Court justices are appointed to the bench. But every 12 years, they have to face voters, who decide whether to retain them. A justice facing retention is usually advised to be cautious and keep his head down. But George seems to be courting opposition.

Arguing Property Taxes – A Century Before Prop 13

For a forthcoming book
with my New America colleague Mark Paul, I’ve been studying the constitutional
history of California. I recently read the transcript of the 1878-79
constitutional convention, the last such convention in the state.

One
argument that took place among the delegates on Feb. 10, 1879, had to do with
adding a limit on property taxes. Excerpts of the debate follow. It began with
the following proposed amendment:

"The
State tax on property, exclusive of such tax as may be necessary to pay the
existing State debt, shall not exceed forty cents on each one hundred dollars
for any one year."

Ballot Initiatives and Public Records

As part of a federal lawsuit challenging the Prop 8 ban on same-sex marriage, plaintiffs have demanded that the Yes on 8 side turn over internal campaign documents. Last week, a judge approved the disclosure request. Why? The plaintiffs are alleging that the ban is discriminatory, and want to see if the Yes on 8 campaign’s records offer evidence of discriminatory attitudes.

This case — and a recent case in Washington state, involving questions of whether signatures on an anti-domestic partnership referendum petition could be made public — point to a weakness in the law on initiative and referendum campaigns: lack of disclosure. Initiative and referendum campaigns are conducted by private organizations and interest groups. But the act of sponsoring such a campaign is very much a public act — it’s the act of legislating. Legislative records should be public so voters and elected leaders are making choices based on the best available information.

Whitman’s Silent Majority

Meg Whitman badly bungled her handling of her voting record — by not addressing it at the beginning of her campaign and by putting out inaccurate information about her registration history.

But it’s not at all clear that the facts of the record – she was a non-voter before the age of 46, and a fairly low propensity voter after that – will hurt her very much. As a low propensity voter, Whitman isn’t an outlier. She’s very much in the California mainstream.

I live in Los Angeles, where more than 80 percent of registered voters regularly fail to turn out in local elections. The state legislators with whom a Gov. Whitman would be negotiating are often elected with support of 10 percent of adults eligible to vote – or less.

Clinton for Governor

President Clinton is headed out to California next week to do some campaigning for San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who trails badly in the polls.

I wish he would ditch Newsom and run for governor himself.

I started having Clinton rescue fantasies the morning this summer when he landed at Burbank airport with two California journalists he’d rescued from North Korea. Then, as now, five people were running for governor – two Democrats, three Republicans – and none of them had set the world on fire.

Polls suggest that as many as half of voters are undecided about whom to support for governor.

So why not Bill Clinton?

The Whitman Meltdown

Wow. That was fast. Last Tuesday, Meg Whitman was officially launching her campaign. (Again). Now she’s melting down and her campaign is in deep trouble.

I just listened to audio of Meg Whitman’s press conference at the CRP. It was nothing less than a disaster. I say this as someone who has written, repeatedly, that it’s early in the campaign and that it’s unwise at this point to focus on the lack of specifics in her campaign. The transition to politics is a difficult one, I’ve written. Give her some space.

That’s over. No more space. A candidate for governor of California, even a political novice, should be able to answer, accurately, basic questions about her life and record. And the current controversy over her failure to register to vote before 2002 shows her to be incapable of this basic task.

Reporters – good and fair reporters – asked her very straightforward questions about her own voting that she couldn’t answer. The main query was: why didn’t you register to vote before 2002? The follow-up was: why did you mislead the public by saying previously that you had been registered to vote before that (and as a Republican)?

The Strategic Mistake Behind the Attacks on Whitman

I drove down to Fullerton at lunchtime Tuesday to watch Meg Whitman make the official announcement of her candidacy for governor.

It should have been a ho hum day. But Whitman’s political opponents and critics in the press took it as an opportunity to renew once again their demands that she produce more policy specifics and join in debates. Watching Whitman speak for more than half-an-hour in quite a bit of detail convinced me that this line of criticism is strategically foolish.

In action, Whitman reveals herself to be what she is: a grind, the sort of A student who triumphs not necessarily on brain power but by doing all the homework and the reading twice. The speech was dutiful but not exciting. It suffered from a desire to be careful, cover every base, and be complete in every way. She seemed, if anything, hyper-prepared. That can be problematic in a candidate, but over-preparation is an attractive quality in a governor.

So what’s wrong with the criticism that she’s not detailed enough and won’t debate? It’s dumb because such criticism is so easy to neutralize. In fact, it’s a sure thing it will be neutralized. By the time voters start to tune into the race next year, Whitman will be (happily, by my reading of her) suffocating voters with detail and debating all over the state. Voters who see her then will quickly discount the criticism that she’s not specific enough.