Schwarzenegger unveils political reform plan

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (Reuters) - As a court across town examined his main Democratic rival's campaign finances, California gubernatorial candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger called for reforms Thursday that could put politicians in jail for currently acceptable campaign finance practices. "The people of this state do not trust their government," he said in front of a 19th century locomotive in the state railroad museum. "They feel it is corrupted by dirty money, closed doors and backroom deals." "They see contributions go in, the favors go out, and the people are punished with wasteful spending and high taxes." At the same time as his press conference, a Sacramento court heard a lawsuit charging that Democratic Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, who leads Schwarzenegger in recent polls, had improperly placed money into an old campaign fund to skirt current limits ahead of an Oct. 7 gubernatorial recall election. Publicity about six-figure contributions to Bustamante's old campaign fund from Indian gaming interests and unions have dogged the candidate's campaign in recent days. Meanwhile, the future of the Oct. 7 election to recall Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and choose a replacement remained uncertain, pending a decision by a U.S. appeals court on whether to review its decision on Monday delaying balloting until March.

Davis campaigned in Los Angeles with civil rights activist Jesse Jackson. Davis, borrowing a phrase from Jackson, urged voters to "make it nice, vote no twice" by casting ballots against the recall and against a controversial measure that would stop the state collecting racially based data.

Schwarzenegger, tanned and wearing a three-button gray suit jacket and light purple tie, said the law should be changed to make political funding tricks felonies.

"As governor, I will propose legislation to make the willful violation of campaign finance laws a felony punishable by up to one year in prison," he said. Schwarzenegger declined to say whether he thought Bustamante had skirted present campaign finance laws.

"That is something for the experts to decide. I do not pay so much attention to such things," he said. "Everything that I have said just now relates to future events. We want to prevent all of those things from happening."

The multi-millionaire actor -- whose past openness about sex and drugs have raised questions on the campaign trail -- , also proposed making more functions of the government open to the public, including internal e mails. He also called for a ban on campaign fund-raising during the months the state budget is under discussion.

As Bustamante campaigned in a different part of the state, a Sacramento County Superior Court Judge tried to cut through the complexities of California's campaign financing laws as they apply to Bustamante's campaign.

"We're talking about six- and seven-figure contributions made many months after the relevant election," said Attorney Eric Grant, representing State Sen. Ross Johnson in arguing Bustamante had not held to $22,200 limits on contributions.

Bustamante's lawyer Deborah Caplan replied: "What the Lt. Gov has done is follow the law precisely." She also said he was using the money for ads featuring Bustamante talking about a controversial initiative banning the state's gathering of racial information. "The money is not going to be used for the gubernatorial race," she said.

Schwarzenegger also criticized conservative Republican Tom McClintock, who has enough support in polls to possibly deprive the actor victory, for also taking money from Indian tribes with casino gaming interests.

"The question I have for him is: on what side is he on?" he said. "Does he represent the Republicans or does he represent Bustamante, because he is getting money from the same Indian tribes."

why can't the BIG DOGS in the GOP have a secret emergency meeting with tom and arnold??

Officially, they originally declared their hostility towards the recall effort in toto, preferring Davis in office until 2006, so that he alone could take the blame for the fiasco he created. IIRC, they felt also that that would best help GWB's reelection chances in 2004 by totally neutralizing Davis in his own state for the duration of the presidential election (since Davis is governor of a large state, it would have been a significant blow to the Demos).

After the recall petition snowballed at the grassroots level, they finally got behind it, realizing its inevitability. IOW, the state GOP leadership underestimated the animosity against Davis and underestimated the power of conservative grassroots level politics statewide.

They also declared their neutrality in the recall election. I'm not sure if they could have scheduled a primary if they wanted to, since (I am under the impression -- someone can step in and correct me here, glad for the help in advance) that there is no provision for it in state law. The recall law was passed during the populist era, about 100 years ago. That is around the time of William Jennings Bryant and Theodore Roosevelt.

Once they declared their neutrality, the campaign was open to all comers, including any number of Republicans who cared to run.

McClintock declared intent to run very early, and filed relatively quickly.

Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, had played coy but public indicators were that he did not intend to run.

Schwarzenegger waited until late in the candidate registration time period, and then announced his intent to run, surprising probably most people, especially other, more grassroots-oriented Republicans such as Simon, Issa, and McClintock, who (IIRC) had already declared by this time.

So one interpretation could be that Arnold read the sitation, decided that the existing (R) candidates were politically weak, took advantage of the declared neutrality of the state GOP leadership, and declared, in hopes of muscling out the other (R) candidates through his own campaign strategy.

His campaign strategy, it turned out, was based more on his star-quality popularity than on the issues.

McClintock, OTOH, has been a consistent grassroots politician who has been in constant contact with the "ordinary people" in his district and throughout the state.

Without a primary to unify the (R) party under one big-name ticket, the recall campaign became a free-for-all. Arnold managed to muscle out most of his (R) opponents by sticking to his strategy (rely on his star-power popularity, not issues). McClintock is the only major survivor of the grassroots (R) candidates.

So the state level GOP handcuffed themselves at the official and quasi-official level by their early decision to remain neutral. I suspect that they might now regret this decision, since it binds them to stay away from trying to broker a deal between Arnold and Tom-- at least, on the surface level. At the unofficial level, they held that straw poll of county chairmen which turned out heavily favorable towards Arnold.

From Tom's point of view, the state GOP leadership has screwed him, not just this time, but in several past campaigns, by either waffling, or holding back support, or withdrawing support, or reneging on their pledge to remain neutral.

Historically, the state GOP leadership has a rather long history of being ineffective in its ability to mount a serious, professional, statewide campaign behind (R) candidates for statewide office. More often than not, their leadership has been lean on strategy smarts. There is an ideological divide between state GOP leaders and the grassroots GOP volunteers. The latter are fiercely conservative, while the former tend to be polyester country club types. So the leaders often favor RINOs for state office, and the latter often favor conservatives. The end result of this feud is the infamous California state GOP "circular firing squad".

What everyone is witnessing from out of state is just a continuation of a historical trend which goes back many years.

Right now Arnold is probably viewed like a god by the county chairs. Lots of Gen-Y folks registering as (R). The state political campaign war chest is $500K in the red (IIRC, someone with firsthand knowledge can either verify or shoot this down, TIA). County chairs like Arnold (I surmise) because he is rich and famous, which mean they do not have to do much work to look successful (in terms of headcount and cashflow, anyway). The only thing they need compromise on is their commitment to be responsive to the grassroots true believers.

I do not know how the results of the straw poll were leaked to the press or what the circumstances of taking the poll were (were the results supposed to be kept secret, in which case the county chairs felt they had nothing to lose by revealing their preferences? or were they supposed to be leaked, so the county chairs felt that this was their chance to stab Tom in the back by abandoning their self-enforced neutrality? was it part of a wedge engineered by the state level GOP regulars?)

I am sorry but I am not on the inside on any of this. I personally think it was very unfortunate that a lot of delegates to the convention drifted off between Arnold's and Tom's speeches. It was Saturday evening, it was on the official agenda, and they could at least have politely listened in recognition of the neutrality their own statewide leaders professed. They should have realized that by drifting off, they only further alienated a large portion of their own grassroots base... (there must be a lot better informed folks out there, perhaps someone can fill in the blanks)

You have not been listening. I guess you are not living in Ca, if you were, you would hear him all the time on radio.

Arnold has not promised a tax cut. He has not even promised "no tax hikes." I listen to John and Ken for four hours every day, and I haven't heard anything about an Arnold tax cut. (OK, I'll give you this: maybe you can say the car tax, but even Davis is promising to roll that back, it's a political necessity at this point.)

There are a lot of ways to encourage business, to hang your opposition on ONE is silly.

Two problems with this answer--for one thing, Arnold hasn't made any specific pro-business proposals that Davis hasn't made (worker's comp is an easy one, since Davis has even voiced support for reform there). Second, the Family Leave Law, on its own, will destroy what's left of Calif's economy if it is allowed to take effect in July. It's a law that might be slightly unpopular to speak against, which is why Arnold will not speak against it.

Really, tell me what a Gov can do regarding abortion.

Inyour state, the governor has a line item veto. He can veto state funding for abortion and family planning services over the objection of the the entire legislature, minus one-third. The next governor will even be able to do it with the excuse that hey, we have a budget crisis, why are we paying for this crap? McClintock has promised to do it, too.

More importantly, the abortion issue is a test of character. Politicians who won't defend the right to life tend to be untrustworthy opportunists who will also (to give a few examples) vote to hike your taxes, ban smoking in public places, oppose opening ANWR for drilling, rescind the just death sentences handed out to killers, and go squishy on other issues. I'm not saying Arnold will necessarily do any of these specific things, but I think it's very likely he'll do some of them and other similar things if elected.

Just think Olympia Snowe, Connie Morella, George Pataki, Arlen Specter and George Ryan, for example.

McClintock would be magnificent, but it is getting the predominant left-wing in this State to see his truth and ability.

Here is what I would just guess is the McClintock angle. He does not get a lot of press exposure to showcase his positions, so he is used to being kicked around by liberal opponents, including liberal (R)s in his own party. This goes back years and has nothing to do with Arnold.

It's not necessarily wrong to have a sympathetic ear for Indians in California. Like Indians everywhere else (Oklahoma, for example?) Indians in California have been traditionally on the receiving end of policies in which the end result-- sorry, don't know how to put this in polite terms-- is genocide and disenfranchisement from whatever rights they had left on the (scrawny, small) reservations. This policy has extended on through to the present in California, where Indians with valid treaties have gone to court against special interests (on the order of PG&E, landholders) and the courts have come down with decisions that are fantastically contorted to avoid the treaty obligations and favor the big corporate landowners. More Indian tribes have yet to be recognized although by law stretching back in time to the late 1880s, they should be recognized. The problem is land. Much of the land that should have gone to the Indian tribes by federal law instead went to settlers or big corporations, and now that land is worth millions or billions, so honoring old treaties is not cheap.

The right thing to do imhp is to take a step back and look at things from all points of view, including the Indian point of view. They were here before everyone else, and most of them got ripped off, killed, or both, in the process of settlement of the state (Mexican and Anglo).

McClintock needs face time on TV. His campaign theme is fiscal responsibility. Most rational folks (though I don't about FR anymore these days ;-) are inclined to agree that McClintock's fiscal policies are the strong medicine the state government needs to get back on track, or at least he comes closest to the medicine that is called for. But the obstacle has been, and probably continues to be, exposure. Exposure costs big $$$.

Reports are that McClintock apparently has extended a friendly hand to Indians for many, many years. I am not sure that is particularly wrong. What most folks here-- especially out-of-staters-- do not seem to comprehend is that the laws governing Indians has changed drastically in the last few years. A proposition passed a few years ago gave recognized Indian tribes the right to set up casinos. Another law (?) also recently passed (? -- someone more informed is welcome to fill in the gaps and specifics here) creates a huge hole in the campaign finance laws which excludes Indian tribes from rules that all other organizations follow. The political power of Indian tribes has increased dramatically in the last few years. This creates a disparity and dynamic and eddies of power which simply are likely to be unique to California. In such a situation, comparing California to any other state is simply not justifiable IMHO. So here is the situation-- Tom's support for Indians apparently has remained constant regardless of whether they were dirt poor or they had newfound political and economic power. Now he's getting ragged for -- yet again -- being consistent in his support of Indians, and also getting ragged for taking money that can be used -- finally -- to bring exposure of his policies to the broad masses of Californians who wonder if they will wake up some day to a bankrupt government. At the same time, the one guy (Arnold) who could easily bring publicity to the specifics that McClintock has been championing for years, has consistently avoided appearing on the same stage with McClintock, up to, through, and past the Republican convention.

From a fiscal conservative perspective, Arnold is no different from the Democrats since the Democrats do the very same thing-- avoid debate, hog publicity, and duck and weave every time the question of specifics come up.

This leaves unaddressed the problems of unrecognized Indian tribes, who are still disenfranchised from the state and federal perspective.

Sorry for the length, but I don't think the situation is as simple as the Arnold supporters, especially out-of-state Arnold supporters, presume it to be.

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.