CA: Ruling excludes consumer group from governor's campaign suit

SACRAMENTO (AP) -- A Superior Court judge excluded a consumer group Wednesday from participating in a lawsuit brought by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and his supporters aimed at overturning a limit on campaign contributions.

Sacramento Judge Michael Virga ruled that the California Public Interest Research Group, CalPIRG, does not have legal arguments significantly different from the those of the defendant, the California Fair Political Commission, and shouldn't be part of the case.

CalPIRG wanted to join the suit to help defend a contribution limit the commission imposed last summer that closed a loophole in Proposition 34, a voter-approved measure that restricted large donations to candidates and committees.

Attorneys representing the governor and the Citizens to Save California, a political action committee organized by Schwarzenegger supporters, both filed briefs arguing against CalPIRG joining the case.

Schwarzenegger has argued the new rule limits his constitutional rights to participate in the election process and wants the cap lifted that so he can raise unlimited money for campaigns for ballot measures that may face voters during a special election expected in the fall.

The governor is in the process of raising $50 million to support at least four ballot measures he wants to put on the special election ballot.

Steve Blackledge, CalPIRG's legislative director, said he was disappointed by Virga's ruling, adding that the governor has both authority over the FPPC budget and appointments of some members of the agency's governing board.

"We're disappointed that the court didn't see that the deck was stacked against enforcing the law," said Blackledge. "On one side you have multiple parties, including Gov. Schwarzenegger, who controls the budget of the FPPC and will appoint two of its five commissioners. And on the other side you have just the FPPC. There needed to be an independent reform organization backing the state."

Schwarzenegger has argued the new rule limits his constitutional rights to participate in the election process...

It seems to me, the only ones participating in the election process, or the only ones heard, are those pumping $22,300 or millions into these campaign funds (left and right). Yet Arnold thinks his constitutional rights have been violated... amazing.

What about us ordinary folk?

The law and FPPC regulations that try to "lift & separate" the candidate controlled committee from independent expenditure committees is as big a battle as campaign finance reform and the separation of church and state!!!

Having been both a successful and unsuccessful candidate, I can tell you that the law of unintended consequences and Murphy's laws run hand in hand, much to the consternation of both the big money folks, the rest of us and the candidate who often finds his/her "controlled committee" impossible to control and the "independent committees" that try to help elect the candidate using issues, is the most dangerous element that a candidate has to face.

In other words, my adversaries I can deal with, but God save me from my well meaning friends that start-up independent committees I'm forbidden to communicate with!!! In the heat of a campaign, NO ONE, and especially the media, makes any distinction between the two and becomes too skeptical to care. The potiential for malicious mischief by ALL involved is phenominal!!!

For example: Remember the picture incident in the Simon vs Davis closing days of the campaign. The candidate and his/her consultant/manager looks bad, no matter what the truth is!!! CalPIRG, however, is one group I have absolutely NO use for! They've become worse than the League of Women Vipers!!!

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.