Posted on 08/16/2005 5:26:11 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON (AP) - Two California House members from opposite parties are asking a federal elections panel for permission to raise unlimited money to oppose Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's redistricting measure.
Reps. Howard Berman, D-North Hollywood, and John Doolittle, R-Rocklin, are seeking an advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission that would allow them to collect "soft money" from unions, corporations and other donors to support or oppose ballot measures in the Nov. 8 special election.
Both oppose Schwarzenegger's redistricting initiative. Berman's chief of staff, Gene Smith, said the request was motivated by their desire to raise money to fight it.
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 legislative district lines away from lawmakers and give it to a panel of retired judges.
Under federal campaign finance law, federal officeholders are subject to strict donation limits. In this case, the law would limit Berman and Doolittle to soliciting $5,000 from each permissible donor for the election, according to the FEC.
"You've got one side that can raise unlimited funds to say why they approve it, and the other side cannot put forward to the electorate the reasons why they oppose it, so the voters don't have the opportunity to hear both sides," Smith said. "Certainly, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was not written to create that sort of a situation, where one side can tell its story and the other side cannot."
The Federal Election Commission is expected to consider the matter at a meeting Thursday. A draft opinion by commission staff recommends denying Berman and Doolittle's request, and limiting them to fund-raising limits set out in federal law.
Aides to Doolittle did not immediately return calls for comment.
I'm not familiar with the LWF gimmick.
In this measure, after all of the rigamorole of selecting "Special Masters" and ultimately coming up with new Proposed Districts, those Districts will be used in the same election in which the voters are being asked to approve the Districts.
If the Districts are NOT approved by voters, those elected using the Districts will serve out their term anyway (outlined in the law). This would supposedly be a one-time-only situation, but I think it is lousy precedent for lawmaking.
If the Districts warrant voter approval, as proposed in the law, then they should get voter approval BEFORE using them.
Just my not-so-humble opinion.
LWF s/b LWV.
LOL.
Another stupid, and/or selfish, Republican "leader" doing the Rats' work for them. A disgrace.
Scratch that. I missed this part about the "two largest political parties".
Not more than twelve of the twenty-four retired judges may be of a single party affiliation, and the two largest political parties in California shall be equally represented among the nominated retired judges.
If it's what I saw before... It's another huge stike at the heart of conservatism in CA!!! And just plain dumb on top of that. We've never needed it in the past and we'll never ever really need it at all!!!
I'm getting very anxious and agitated about this "instant election" crappola!!!
(g) The final redistricting plan shall be approved by a single resolution adopted unanimously by the Special Masters and shall become effective upon its filing with the Secretary of State for use at the next statewide primary and general election, and if adopted by initiative pursuant to subdivision (h), for succeeding elections until the next adjustment of boundaries is required pursuant to this article.
By "Instant Election", I simply mean that it will be USED in the SAME election that Voters will be asked to approve (or disapprove) it. I believe that would be November 2006. And, if they don't approve it:
(i) If the redistricting plan is approved by the voters pursuant to subdivision (h) hereof, it shall be used in succeeding elections until the next adjustment of boundaries is required. If the plan is rejected by the voters pursuant to subdivision (h) hereof, a new panel of Special Masters shall be appointed within 90 days in the manner provided in subdivision (c)(2) for the purpose of proposing a new plan for the next statewide primary and general election pursuant to this article. Any officials elected under a final redistricting plan shall serve out their term of office notwithstanding the voters' disapproval of the plan for use in succeeding primary and general elections.
I forgot to give you a link to the text of the measure.
http://www.fairdistricts.com/Initiative_Text.asp
Whew!!! Thank you!!! And thanks for the link... I'm so relieved...
Doolittle has always opposed fair redistricting.
In 1980 he made a deal with Willie Brown et al to get a district drawn for himself that would elect him to the State Senate. The deal with the dems resulted in fewer Republicans in the State Senate and a decade where the GOP lost on every single issue that went to the senate.
In 1991, Doolittle tried to make a deal again that would guarantee him a cozy safe district but the state GOP said they would endorse the opponent of any Republican who went against the party on redistricting - he backed off. The GOP plan that he had opposed got us 3 new GOP congressman from California.
Now he's opposing the party again. He can't convince me that he has any good purpose. He just likes to have easy easy elections for himself.
In 1980 he made a deal with Willie Brown et al to get a district drawn for himself that would elect him to the State Senate. The deal with the dems resulted in fewer Republicans in the State Senate and a decade where the GOP lost on every single issue that went to the senate.
Is this part of the 'smear Doolittle' to support Prop 77 campaign?
Interesting story, but apparently not supported by facts. He was only first elected to the Senate in 1980, and the Democrats redistricting effort, a year later, targeted his removal. Safe seat? It seems like everything but!
Dark-Horse Winner in 1980 Faces New Test
Los Angeles Times, Sep 29, 1982SACRAMENTO--Two years ago, an unknown conservative young Republican lawyer beat the venerable Democratic dean of the state Senate.
Now, Sen. John Doolittle (R-Citrus Heights), in political hot water because of reapportionment, is seriously challenged by veteran Assemblyman Leroy F. Greene (D-Sacramento).
Doolittle scored a major upset in 1980 by defeating Sen. Albert S. Rodda (D-Sacramento), who was supposed to be unbeatable, with a lot of money furnished by gunowner groups headed by Sen. H. L. Richardson (R-Arcadia).
Majority Senate Democrats got even by forcing Doolittle to run in two years instead of four under the 1981 upper house reapportionment plan.
They also sweetened the district by including more Democratic strongholds, and Greene, who has good local name recognition because he has represented Sacramento in the Assembly since 1963, was handpicked as the candidate.
The 6th Senate District now has a one-sided 57.9% Democratic to 30.3% GOP registration, which means that Greene should win.
(snip)
The Senate
Los Angeles Times, Nov 4, 1982(snip of election results)
Freshman conservative Republican John Doolittle of Citrus Heights never had a chance against Leroy Green (D) of Sacramento, the 20 year dean of the Assembly, after the Legislature's Democratic majoriy reapportioned Doolittle's upper house district in 1981 and forced him to run two years early in another heavily Democratic district. Doolittle still has two years to serve from his old district, however.
Here's the backstory. The senate has 4 year terms with half of the seats open each election cycle. Everyone knew the dems would use their power to reapportion to get their Sacramento based district back. So Doolittle and H.L. Richardson made a deal to renumber the districts so that Doolittle could stay in the senate even after Leroy Greene beat him. The districts were drawn so that incumbent Republican Ray Johnson would have to run against Doolittle. The old Johnson district was Chico and the upper Sacramento valley. They drew a district that snaked around from Chico through the foothills to Orangevale (an area they still call the Doolittle dip - I think it's his mormon church parish). Johnson's old district wasn't in the Sacramento media market so a majority of the voters in the new district had never known him. Ray Johnson was so mad at the senate leadership that he quit the party and ran as an independent. Doolittle won. But we had one less Republican in the senate.
In 1991 when Doolittle tried to make a deal with Willie Brown the entire party opposed him. The floor fight was led by CRA, YAF, CYR and county committee leaders. It looks like we're in for a repeat of that fight and I wouldn't be surprized if the same people are leading the charge.
Prop 77 has nothing to do with smearing Doolittle. The party regulars have been trying to pass a fair redistricting initiative for over 20 years. They know that nothing is perfect, but you've got to pass the best thing you can because the current system is completely and utterly horrible. Any active party member who opposes Prop 77 will be attacked. I think Congressman Doolittle knows this but he doesn't care what the party regulars think.
Would you please describe a CA "party regular" for me? Examples would also be helpful, oh! And please advise what keeps Doolittle from being considered a "party regular." And do you have anymore of these "backstories?" I find them extremely entertaining!!!
I just got back from a weekend on the houseboat on Shasta and missed your most intensely interesting reply from the end of last week till right now!!! Please provide more data, facts, feelings and rumor, if you will. It is intensely interesting!!!
Cut off your noser to spite your face. Good idea. We need lots more RINOs in Congress -- not!
This is the kind of nonsense Doolittle is going on about. The Dems will select RINO Republicans. The Republicans will select Dems. Since there are no Dem counterparts to RINOS, we get liberals all around.
>>The Dems will select RINO Republicans. The Republicans will select Dems. Since there are no Dem counterparts to RINOS, we get liberals all around.
And to the left the party moves.... sigh.
Thanks for the ping SW. I somehow missed the lasses last response in my inbox.
Irishlass--you obviously have first hand knowledge, but the way you make it sound is that Doolittle was only looking out for himself and didn't care if the Dems ended up taking over R seats. That is certainly not the way it is described in the news of the day.
I also find your backstories interesting, nonetheless.
If Mike Holmes were to win the primary, he would be a one-term Congressman. He would lose the 2008 primary to a conservative.
Nope it doesn't work that way. RINOs are impossible to get rid of once they are elected ESPECIALLY in conservative districts. Every member of the congressional leadership would run in to his defense as an incumbent. Millions would be raised. Bill Thomas who DESPISES John Doolittle (and all conservatives) would turn it into a holy war. The conservative challenger would be chastised, marginalized, and vastly outspent.
It sort of happened in the neighboring district (where I live) when gun-grabbing congressional has-been, Dan Lungren decided to carpet bag into the district to run against the very conservative well-loved local state Senator Rico Oller.
It happens all the time.
Sorry I didn't reply sooner. I've had a few evening engagements this past week.
In my experience, the party regulars are highly united on redistricting. They believe that incumbent politicians will put easy re-election way above the people's best interest. It is not a conservative vs. moderate issue. In 1991, Congressman Doolittle and Assemblyman Bill Baker were widely believed to be negotiating with Willie Brown for a redistricting map that would be favorable to them personally. I cannot provide links to support this, nothing was online then. The CAGOP passed an amendment to the party bylaws that stated if you oppose the party's interest in redistricting, the party can support your primary opponent. The team that led the floor fight included the moderates you dislike, but also the leadership of CRA, YAF and the like. It passed nearly unanimously.
I believe that it is human nature for people to have selfish impulses. And I think human nature also drives most people to come up with justifications for why their selfish behavior isn't really so bad. Congressman Doolittle is trying to spin this as a noble quest he's on, but if he really was doing something good for Republicans and Conservatives, why did he advocate the same action that Nancy Pelosi, Howard Berman and Zoe Lofgren?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.