Checks, balances of signing season

OC Register ^ | 10/20/05 | SORAYA SARHADDI NELSON and HANH KIM QUACH

[NormsRevenge]

SACRAMENTO – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he can't be bought. He has often lambasted state politicians for taking money from people with a vested interest in bills before the Legislature.

"Here's how it works," Schwarzenegger said in a television spot when he ran for governor. "Money comes in, favors go out. The people lose."

Yet during the four-week period this year when Schwarzenegger acted on the vast majority of bills passed by the Legislature, he raised far more money than his predecessors did during comparable periods: $8.7 million, about 14 times as much as Gov. Gray Davis ever did in bill-signing season.

Of that, Schwarzenegger's campaign committee collected more than $600,000 from six companies – or their executives – that had directly lobbied the Legislature on at least 50 of the 700 bills awaiting his decision during that period.

More money came to his coffers from companies whose industries have lobbied the Legislature, even if they didn't lobby directly.

The governor's office insists there is no connection between the donations he receives and his actions on bills. His actions are based solely on the bills' merit and sometimes go against contributors' wishes, his office says.

PAR FOR THE COURSE

Analysts say the governor's actions are not unique, even if they look bad: Such fundraising is the unpleasant reality of doing political business across America.

A handful of states ban fundraising during politically sensitive times such as bill-signing periods, but that's less doable in a state like California where the Legislature meets almost year-round, said Bob Stern, president of the non-partisan Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

[Amerigomag]

Analysts say the governor's actions are not unique, even if they look bad: Such fundraising is the unpleasant reality of doing political business across America.

[NormsRevenge]

If a system is 'broken', then it ought to be fixed, huh?

I know , I know.. :-}

[Amerigomag]

The system may be broken but the key to understanding this dilemma is that the system is changing. As political power became more centralized in California in the 1960's the money left the city council chambers or the county supervisor's boardroom and headed to Sacramento.

Return political power to the local level and the problem 1) becomes numerically smaller and 2) the graft money is returned to the local community by the local politician. Everybody shares in the new found wealth. The local grocer, real estate agent; car dealer; banker; barber; etc.. Better system.

[NormsRevenge]

Get the graft back to the local level? Did it ever leave?

I don't think some special interests are going to like that.

[Amerigomag]

Did it ever leave?

You bet it did.

In the 1960's teacher's unions were realitively insignificant. The minute Sacramento esentially took the power to hire teacher's away from local districts the unions grew in strength because they now had only one target, 120 state legislators, on which to concentrate their efforts and concentrate they did.

Ditto local zoning decisions in the 1980's, motor vechicle associated taxes beginning in the 1930's and locally chartered S&Ls in the 1950's. The list goes on and on. Today only a small number of issues, subject only to local review, generate local graft. The big bucks are in Sacramento.

[NormsRevenge]

Playing the cynic, it sounds like business at the state level will pretty much stay the same no matter what reforms are enacted... unless the players are changed out for a new set that have the state's interests as the top priority and not 'special interests';.