Author: John Wildermuth

If money talks in politics, it positively shouts when it comes to California initiative campaigns.

Take, for example, the ongoing effort to qualify a ballot measure that would require a two-thirds vote before local governments could spend the first nickel to get into the public power business.

The effort is being run by a group with the populist-friendly name of “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote,” although the required disclaimer adds that it has “major funding from Pacific Gas & Electric, a coalition of taxpayers, environmentalists, renewable energy, business and labor.”

Actually, that wide-ranging coalition of disparate interests is pretty much invisible, since every dollar of the $3.5 million that’s flowed into the effort so far comes from PG&E.

And where has the cash gone? Well, at least $1.5 million has been used to collect the nearly 700,000 signatures needed to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot, either for the June 2010 primary or the November 2010 general election.

The folks looking to put a same-sex marriage initiative on next November’s ballot should take a close look at Tuesday’s election results before they plop their card tables and petitions out in front of supermarkets across California.

Tuesday was a tough night for gay rights across the country and there were plenty of indications things could get worse before they get better.

In Maine, voters repealed a law that would have allowed gay and lesbian couples to marry, a law that had the backing of the Legislature and the governor. Opponents of the repeal raised more money, ran a better grassroots campaign and even had a nine-point lead in the polls three weeks before the election. But they still lost, 53 percent to 47 percent.

The news was better in Washington state, where voters backed a referendum upholding a law granting registered domestic partners the same “rights, responsibilities and obligations” as married couples.

Less than a week after San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom exited the race, the chattering class is putting up the names of Democrats who could maybe/possibly/hopefully jump into the race to challenge Attorney General Jerry Brown, who some party leaders quietly worry might be a bit too old and shopworn to win in November.

Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown suggested Southern California Rep. Jane Harman and California first lady Maria Shriver as possible candidates. Bill Whalen, a former aide to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, threw the name of John Doerr, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist, into the mix. The Los Angeles Times is taking an unscientific poll about whether Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa should get back in the race. Veteran Democratic operative Steve Maviglio has put together his own list, adding in former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg, state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Orange County Rep. Loretta Sanchez, who already has a campaign committee established, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who hasn’t ruled out a run, and, what the hell, even Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, who was elected to Congress last night.

Happy election day and a big shout out to the few Californians who will actually take time to cast ballots today.

Elections in odd-numbered years are generally a thin soup of city council races and school board contests, with a few local-interest ballot measures tossed in. The turnout numbers are usually dismal, with the statewide primary election that’s still seven months away usually drawing far more attention from the press and the public.

The special congressional election in and around Contra Costa County to replace Democrat Ellen Tauscher will add a little spice to the day, however. Political prognosticators across the country will be trying to tease the results there, in New York’s 23rd Congressional District and in the Virginia governor’s race to see what they can tell us about the country’s response to President Barack Obama and his policies.

Well, it’s Jerry Brown versus no one in the Democratic primary, but the yellow shirt he’s wearing for the ride to November has a bull’s-eye on it.

When San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom dropped out of the governor’s race Friday, he not only cleared the field for the attorney general, but also gave everyone on the GOP side seven extra months of free shots at Brown.

Sure, Republicans Tom Campbell, Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman will spend much of their time slapping each other around in an effort to convince GOP voters they have what it takes to run the state – and that their opponents don’t.

But while a non-stop intra-party mud fight tends to annoy voters and earnest discussions of public policy may bore them, a nasty attack on the other party’s likely nominee is a sure way to fire up the faithful.

There was a story in San Francisco earlier this month about a defense attorney who had seven gang members stand up in court and stare at a witness who was testifying against one of their buddies in a murder case.

A similar type of intimidation is the only reason for taking away the privacy protection that now exists for voters who sign an initiative or referendum petition. It isn’t an expansion of open government, but rather a dangerous attack on the people’s right to have a direct say in their government.

Earlier this week, my friend Joe Mathews argued in this space that the names, home addresses and phone numbers of people who sign an initiative petition should be made available to anyone interested, just as it is with voter registration cards and campaign finance information.

“Signing a petition is not like voting in an election,’’ he said. “It is in every way a public act.”

When it comes to reforming government in California, an old adage says it best:

“Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.”

To translate that into crassly political terms, every officeholder is anxious to improve the way California works, but only if he doesn’t get hurt.

Talk to a Democratic legislator about the current two-thirds vote required to pass a state budget and you’ll hear plenty of pious talk about how a simple majority should always rule.

But that “Democracy Forever!” argument would vanish if it were the state’s Republicans and not the Democrats who held a solid majority in the Legislature.

Gavin Newsom says “it’s absurd” that anyone would think he’d give up the race for governor and lower his sights to the second spot on the ballot.

“It’s Jerry Brown who’s putting those rumors out,’’ the mayor told the Chronicle.

There’s two bits of bad news for Newsom connected with the Sunday story. First, the story is coming from people close to the mayor and his campaign, not from the Brown camp.

But second, and even more dismaying for the mayor, is that just about the only person in California who thinks the rumor is ridiculous on its face is Newsom.

The talk about a lieutenant governor option has been swirling around the Newsom campaign for months. When Michela Alioto-Pier announced in late July that she was running for state insurance commissioner rather than lieutenant governor, there was immediate speculation that Newsom, who had appointed her to his old seat on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, had asked her to stay out of the LG race.

If it takes a crisis to spark real government reform, California at least has the first part down.

At Thursday’s public hearing for the new Select Committees on Improving State Government, legislators, academics, good government types and various others all agreed that the state has big problems and that the California Legislature right now isn’t part of the solution.

Not to worry. The committee has four more meetings and a little over two months to come up with the answers that will put the Legislature on the road to reform.

It’s a serious effort, though, aimed at a serious problem. A Field Poll taken earlier this month showed that the Legislature’s approval level had plummeted to a record low 13 percent among voters and the annual – or biannual or tri-annual or … — wrangles over the state budget have Californians wondering what the heck they’re getting for the $116,208 a year they’re paying legislators.