CA: House members seek to raise money to oppose redistricting measure

AP on Bakersfield Californian ^ | 8/16/05 | Erica Werner - AP

[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.

[calcowgirl]

In my experience, the party regulars are highly united on redistricting.

As SierraWasp asked you in his post #33 above, "Would you please describe a CA "party regular" for me? Examples would also be helpful..."

...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...

Widely believed? i.e. Rumored? I know the newspapers don't cover everything, but what I read from the news of that time tells a bit different story (Public libraries offer online news going back many years).

The team that led the floor fight included the moderates you dislike...

I can handle moderates Republicans just fine. I had always considered myself one. What I dislike are Democrats in (R) clothing (that many call "moderate"). Them, I despise.

I appreciate your other input. I am truly undecided on this measure. I think it is a horrible law and that there were better and easier solutions. I don't like that the districts will be used before voter approval (why not after?). I don't like that we would turn over the power to only 3 judges (why not 5, or 7?); I believe this opens that body up to severe manipulation and corruption. I don't like that the process for selecting the pool of judges is being compiled by a pseudo-governmental body (The Rose Institute) who will be subject to unknown oversight, if any. I don't like that the Judicial Council will provide the initial list (the sole, two Legislators on this council are as left as they come: Joe Dunn and Dave Jones). I'm sure I forgot something, but you get the idea.

I do, however, find the current scenario horrible as well. So, I will have to decide.

[irishlass007]

I'm not surprised that there is no news records of this issue. 15 years ago there was no alternative to the MSM and the press isn't interested in stuff like this. I can remember having the Sac Bee top political reporter ask me about a parliamentary maneuver at a convention -- she didn't know what quorum was. So, I'm sorry but I can't provide any documentation. If you choose to believe I'm making this up, I'll understand.

By party regulars, I mean the bulk of people who attend conventions, serve on the county party, work on campaigns, etc. The amendment I'm talking about passed by an overwhelming margin. It may have even been unanimous. Someone may have minutes of the meeting to prove it, but I don't. If I kept all that type of stuff, my house would be condemned by the city ;^D

On first glance, I like the idea that we'll be voting in the districts before they're approved. If they had the vote for approval before they implemented the districts, the incumbents would be campaigning against the adoption of the lines with full vigor. People are possessive and politicians wouldn't want to give up even one precinct that they liked. The Rose Institute has been studying redistricting for many years. They are headquarted at Claremont McKenna College. I believe it's a private school.