Not entirely unopposed, but the committee against a measure aimed at making legislative proceedings in Sacramento more transparent is unfunded and run entirely by the pro bono work of Democratic political strategist Steve Maviglio.

If approved by voters, the measure would amend the state Constitution to require that the Legislature make available online the final version of a bill at least 72 hours prior to a vote on either the Assembly or Senate floor.

It would also require videos of all open legislative meetings to be recorded and then posted online with 24 hours, and would allow individuals to record and share their own videos of open meetings.  

Maviglio has the political savvy to run the campaign — he’s working on two measures in support of the ban on plastic bags and against another measure to require voter approval for revenue bonds of $2 billion or more — but the money just isn’t there. 

“It’s an uphill battle to be sure because many donors have bigger fish to fry,” Maviglio said. “But this is a measure that voters don’t understand as evidenced by the extraordinary amount of money that billionaire Charles Munger (Jr.) is pouring into it.”

One donor is definitely interested

While the measure enjoys a broad coalition of bipartisan supporters, Munger, a Palo Alto physicist and GOP donor, has in fact bankrolled the effort thus far, giving nearly $7 million to the cause, according to campaign finance disclosures.

Maviglio has publicly taken shots at the measure when given the opportunity, most notably in the opinion pages of The Sacramento Bee.

In December, Maviglio pointed to the 2008 budget agreement, the 1959 Fair Housing Act, the 2006 climate change bill (AB32) and the 2014 water bond as tough votes taken without 72 hours notice. This measure, he argued, would subject iffy legislators to attacks from special interest groups and could derail the agreements.

But proponents of Prop. 54 say if a deal is a good one, it can be done with enough time for the public to know the details and which special interests, if any, are pulling the strings. And legislators, they argue, could feel assured they know what they’re voting on.

“Steve Maviglio is the ultimate political insider whose ‘committee’ opposing Prop. 54 has no members and has not reported any funding,” said Prop. 54 spokeswoman Mary Ellen Grant. “We can only guess that Mr. Maviglio opposes Prop. 54 because he believes the only way legislation can be passed in Sacramento is by continuing to keep voters in the dark.”

Is it necessary?

Frustration boiled over last month during the final days of the legislative session with last-minute deals that gave lawmakers little time to review the details.

One bill in particular, a measure to increase oversight of the California Public Utilities Commission, died because because CPUC officials requested last-minute changes and some lawmakers felt concerned there wasn’t enough time to vet the proposal.

Earlier this year, legislative leaders offered their own version of a similar proposal, but it was panned by Prop. 54 proponents who said it was “not palatable” and criticized lawmakers for waiting until 15 days before the deadline to begin negotiations. 

A hospital association just pumped $12.5 million into an effort to extend a tax on top earners — a tax that’s provided billions of dollars in education funding since 2012.

In fact, the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems quadrupled its investment from four years ago when Prop. 30 passed. So why do hospitals care so much about education funding?

Because there’s billions of dollars per year in health care funding at stake.

Health care funding

Since Prop. 30 passed — during an economic downturn when the state was confronted with sharp budget cuts — it has largely funded education with some money bolstering the general fund, which includes some health care programs.

But the 12-year extension vying for a spot on the November ballot — two years prior to the expiration date — would add up to $2 billion in funding per year for Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program. The contributions to Medi-Cal would come once other funding requirements have been met (the Prop. 2 rainy-day fund requirement and the Prop. 98 minimum education funding requirement).

Prop. 30

Prop. 30 imposed a “temporary,” seven-year personal income tax increase on earnings of more than $250,000, and a quarter cent sales tax increase for four years.

Some of the revenue went to help balance the state budget, but most went to education funding — 89 percent to K-12 and 11 percent to community colleges.

The extension

The proposed extension allows the quarter cent sales tax to expire, but extends the income tax increase until 2030, securing funding far enough into the future “to provide long-term stability for our schools,” said Jennifer Wonnacott, spokeswoman for the “Yes” campaign.

“We still need this investment,” said Wonnacott. “This is about asking those who can afford to pay a little bit more to keep doing so for a little while longer.”

Big money

With the heavy early investment from the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems — which only spent $2 million to help Prop. 30 pass in 2012 — this is shaping up to be one of the costliest battles this cycle.

Prop. 30 was a $135 million issue, one largely supported by the California Teachers Association ($11.4 million), Service Employees International Union ($10.7 million), Democratic State Central Committee of California ($5 million) and the American Federation of Teachers ($4.1 million).

In total, proponents spent $65.6 million to pass the measure. It has generated $13.1 billion in education funding since its passage, according to the state controller’s office.

The extension measure is again supported by the California Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union, which — along with the hospitals — forms a formidable alliance. The California Teachers Association and Service Employees International Union has already given $1.2 million on the effort.

While it won’t take a formal position unless the measure qualifies for the ballot, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association will make this a top target if it does qualify — the measure has reached the 25 percent mark for required signatures as of Sunday.

Many political donors will also fight this measure. In 2012, Charles Munger Jr. contributed $35 million to the “No on 30” campaign in opposition to Prop. 30, according to Ballotpedia.

Timing

Instead of waiting until the next cycle when the Prop. 30 income tax provision expires, proponents are banking on a favorable turnout, as Democrats vote in larger percentages in presidential cycles than they do in midterms.

There had been competing Prop 30 extension proposals, but the efforts consolidated around this measure, said Wonnacott.

Charles Munger, Jr., one of the state GOP’s most substantial activists and donors, linked up with former state Sen. Sam Blakeslee, R-San Luis Obispo, to write and file the initiative with attorney general Kamala Harris. “It’s time to put government transparency on the ballot and enact these reforms through direct democracy,” the pair announced in a release, as Politico noted.

The two have kept very different profiles in recent years. Blakeslee opted against seeking re-election in 2012, instead turning his focus to academia, now the founding Director of the Institute for Advanced Technology & Public Policy at Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo. Munger, once credited by a Republican strategist with preventing the state GOP from being “driven into the sea,” has thrown his support behind ballot measures in the past. “He has tried to block tax hikes, diminish the power of labor unions and stop lawmakers from drafting election maps to their liking,” the Los Angeles Times recalled.

Click here to read the proposed ballot measure.

Going public

A lawsuit brought by lawmakers in Phoenix, now before the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that only state legislatures have the right to draw — and redraw — congressional districts. According to the U.S. Constitution, redistricting must take place once every 10 years after the U.S. Census.

Like Californians, Arizonans passed a ballot measure vesting that power in the hands of independent citizens’ commissions. For Arizona, it was Proposition 106 in 2000.

As a result, the Supreme Court also has placed California’s Proposition 20 in the crosshairs.

The first step in the Golden State was Proposition 11 in 2008, which voters passed. It put state legislative and Board of Equalization redistricting under the control of the California Citizens Redistricting Commission.

Two years later, with Prop. 20, voters extended the reform to include congressional districts. Backed by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and spearheaded by influential Republican reformer Charles Munger Jr., Prop. 20 passed over the strenuous opposition of California Democrats in the House of Representatives, including then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

Litigating the gerrymander

The case now at hand, Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, could bring far-reaching consequences, not just in Arizona and California but around the country. Legislative district-drawing has come under fire for decades as an often corrupt and manipulative practice.

For even longer, critics have slammed lawmakers for self-servingly shaping “gerrymandered” districts — named for one of the early classic offenders, lampooned for possessing an outlandish shape reminiscent of a salamander.

In California, the most extreme gerrymander was for the 23rd Congressional District during the last decade. It’s the map at the top of this article. The map shows a thin district 200 miles long, hugging the coast.

After Prop. 20 was passed, the new 23rd Congressional District was given a more regular shape for the 2012 election, shown in the second map. The district currently is represented by Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield.

In an ironic twist, the Arizona case was launched by the Republican-led Legislature there. But if Prop. 20 goes down as a result, California observers are unanimous that Golden State Republicans will be adversely affected.

Yet nationwide, some career liberals have weighed in strongly against the Arizona Legislature’s action. As Politico reported:

“‘For entrenched political interests around the country, it would be the biggest New Year’s Eve of all,’ if the court backed the legislature, said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, which has been following the case closely and filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the Arizona commission.”

Mobilization

In California, meanwhile, Republicans have begun to mobilize support of redistricting commissions. With Bill Mundell, Munger co-authored an op-ed in the Sacramento Bee, breaking down the likely issues of constitutional interpretation at stake.

The case, he wrote:

“Rests on the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states: ‘The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.’

“The Arizona Legislature argues that the word ‘legislature’ must mean the members of its two chambers voting as a body. But the dictionaries of the era defined legislature as ‘the power that makes laws.’ Hence the case will likely turn on the Supreme Court’s conclusion about the intent of the Framers in 1787 and on how political thinking in that remarkable era conceptualized the structure of government.”

Former Rep. David Dreier has filed an amicus brief in the Arizona case with Munger, former California governors and the California Chamber of Commerce. Dreier took to the Orange County Register to press the issue. “California’s redistricting commission has flaws,” he conceded, “but they can be addressed before the next go-round in 2020.”

However, he maintained, Prop. 20’s constitutionality was not in question:

“An adverse court ruling would deprive the states of the power to structure their own government in the way they choose, and would sentence California to a return to the days of legislative gerrymandering. We’ve already seen that movie.”

The case for citizen commissions

Corruption has not been the only argument against gerrymandering. Part of the popular support for independent commissions has come from the notion that both major political parties have a mutual interest in creating “safe” seats, drawing districts which are certain, thanks to their forced shape, to include voters that will reliably return to office members of just one party.

Conceivably, this could lead to increased political polarization, as the parties run increasingly “extreme” or ideologically “pure” candidates that can win in safe districts, but not in competitive ones. (A similar logic led Californians to embrace the “jungle” primary system, also called the Top Two system, with Proposition 14 in 2010.)

Some scholars, however, have recently called that argument into question. In an analysis, Princeton Professor Nolan McCarty showed redrawing districts to avoid gerrymandering would not significantly reduce polarization in Congress.

Democrats and Republicans, he claimed, contributed to polarization mostly by the way they voted when they occupied relatively “unsafe” districts. McCarty even argued that doing away with gerrymandering would decrease diversity of representation, harming not only ethnic minorities but ideological ones as well.

Still, McCarty emphasized, leaving redistricting in the hands of legislators themselves “is an invitation to overt corruption. A key to any successful democracy is a widespread belief in the fairness and impartiality of elections.”

Although the Arizona case may have some California Republicans in political panic mode, their reliance on accepted principles of democratic governance has so far gone unquestioned.

On Friday, CalWatchdog.com suggested Rob McCoy, the Republican candidate in the contested 44th Assembly District, was being written off by the Assembly Republican Caucus. That was supported by grumblings from GOP sources and campaign finance reports showing the Ventura County pastor at a substantial financial disadvantage to Democrat Jacqui Irwin, a Thousand Oaks councilwoman and two-time mayor.

But political campaigns can change in an instant — or however long it takes to complete a wire transfer.

Shortly after our story posted Friday, McCoy’s campaign to succeed Assemblyman Jeff Gorell, R-Camarillo, received a “Herculean” campaign haul: $224,500 in contributions. The overwhelming majority of those funds, $200,000, came from three Republican central committees in Riverside, San Bernardino and San Luis Obispo counties.

In addition to party funds, McCoy received contributions from Assemblyman Brian Dahle, R-Redding, the New Majority CA and even a $2,000 check from Kevin Sorbo, the star of the 1990s television hit, “Hercules.”

Funding to remain competitive

The largest contribution to McCoy’s campaign on Friday was a $132,000 check from the Republican Central Committee of San Luis Obispo. The party committee has acted as one of the primary financial vehicles for state Republicans in the past few campaign cycles. The committee’s largest contributor is GOP super-donor Charles Munger Jr. Recently the party has accepted checks from Farmers Group, Motor Vehicle Software Corporation, Anthem Blue Cross and the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation.

Other contributions made to McCoy on Friday included $34,000 checks from the San Bernardino County Republican Party and the Riverside County Republican Central Committee.

Since Oct.  1, McCoy’s campaign has reported $293,975 in campaign contributions. That means in the first four days of October, McCoy raised more money than during the entire primary campaign. According to state campaign finance records, McCoy raised $277,762 through the first six months of the year.

McCoy grateful to Olsen-led GOP Caucus

The big money moves are an indication the Assembly Republican Caucus is committed to holding the Ventura County-based seat.

McCoy told CalWatchdog.com on Friday he’s grateful to have the full backing of Asssemblywoman Kristin Olsen, the Modesto Republican slated to take over as leader of the caucus later this year.

“Running for this office as a conservative, Kristin Olsen has been a tremendous help,” McCoy said. He described Olsen as “one of the best” in Sacramento. “I’m thankful for her support. She’s been nothing but helpful.”

That help included a $4,100 max-out contribution over the summer, which has yet to appear on campaign finance disclosure reports. Olsen’s contribution didn’t show up in the state’s campaign finance database because it occurred in the five-week window between the semi-annual campaign report and the 24-hour election cycle reporting period, which began Aug. 6.

Today, Oct. 6, marks the deadline to file campaign reports for contributions received from July 1 to Sept. 30.

Irwin’s $1.3 million campaign bankrolled by Democratic Party, unions

McCoy’s recent cash infusion couldn’t come soon enough and is needed to combat the $1.3 million campaign of his Democratic rival, Irwin.

According to her pre-election report filed late Sunday night, she received $447,990 in campaign contributions from Democratic Party committees since Jan. 1. Much of those funds can be traced back to the state’s powerful labor unions.

As CalWatchdog.com previously reported, the Democratic State Central Committee of CA received a $1.59 million cash infusion on Sept. 19. On just that day, state Democrats cashed $1.15 million from the unions, representing teachers, firefighters, engineers and nurses.

In addition to money transferred through the state party, labor unions have contributed tens of thousands of dollars directly to Irwin’s campaign account. Irwin’s campaign disclosure form reads like a “who’s who” of big union players, including max-out contributions from AFSCME, the California School Employees Association, the California State Council of Laborer’s PAC, the California Teachers Association, Los Angeles County Firefighters Local 1014, SEIU United Long Term Care Workers Local 6434, Service Employees International Union Local 1000, the State Building & Construction Trades Council of California and the United Nurses Association

Such massive support from public employee unions indicates Irwin is likely to fall in lock step with liberal Democrats on pension reform, tax increases and budget cuts.

“She has demonstrated leadership in protecting pensions, investing in law enforcement and concern for working people, while other cities were implementing drastic cuts,” longtime Democratic activist and union leader Hank Lacayo said in his endorsement of Irwin earlier this year. “She has proven that we can trust her to fight for seniors, children and working families as a member of the California Assembly.”

With the election just four weeks away, the McCoy-Irwin battle has become a bellwether on the future of the California Legislature and the GOP desire to break the Democrats’ Assembly supermajority.

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

California Gov. Jerry Brown likens himself to a canoeist who paddles a little to the Left then a little to the Right.  Lately, he has been paddling Left with labor unions to propose a new $9 billion tax increase that supposedly will plug an estimated $7 billion state budget deficit. Brown merged his tax proposal with one by the California Federation of Teachers.

But his proposal will get sucked over a giant waterfall to its doom if he ignores the consequences of the federal government’s extremely low interest rate policy on voters. There can be no real economic recovery without raising interest rates to savers and investors. And without an economic recovery, all tax increase proposals are doomed at the ballot box.

A mild increase in jobs will not be sufficient to pass a $9 billion tax hike. Voters won’t feel there is an economic recovery until interest rates rise at least two points over the current inflation rate of about 3 percent. That is, the rates must be at least 5 percent.

Presently, interest rates are below 1 percent for 82 percent of Treasury Bills.

Piddle Paddling at Tax Increases

Brown also still is working to keep off the November ballot a rival tax increase by Molly Munger, daughter of Pasadena billionaire Charles Munger. The “Munger Tax” initiative would increase taxes on everyone with an income of $14,632 per year or higher. It would apply to about 90 percent of all California households. Munger’s tax would mainly fund public schools and the remainder would go to childcare programs.

Both of these tax proposals are headed for a big fall at the ballot box because of the federal government’s deliberate policy of holding down interest rates.  Abnormally low interest rates for savers and investors are squelching an economic recovery.  This is likely to lead voters to vote “No” on any tax increases at the ballot box in November 2012.

By WAYNE LUSVARDI

Molly Munger’s proposed $10 billion school tax for the Nov. 2012 ballot had to be designed by a billionaire.  It’s hard to know whether Munger designed the ballot initiative for the “Make a Wish Foundation” or for the California state government.

Munger is the daughter of Pasadena billionaire Charles Munger, who co-founded the investment firm of Hathaway-Berkshire with Warren Buffett.

Munger’s tax proposal would increase the entire existing $39.2 billion K-12 state education budget by a whopping 25.5 percent in a protracted economic recession.

It would raise income taxes as a proportion of the current state budget by an incredible 16.8 percent, possibly driving the wealthy out of the state.  And it would raise income taxes an astounding 7 percent per year for public schools after the economy recovered.

Additionally, the increase would fully plug the $4.5 billion annual gap in the California State Teacher Retirement System without any pension reform.  It still would increase K-12 school funding by $5.5 billion per year beyond that.

The tax increase would be untouchable except by voter alteration.  The state’s existing school funding for K-12 public schools could not be reduced to offset for this additional source of funding.  The Munger tax would be in addition to existing public school funding.

During the first four years of Munger’s tax initiative, 30 percent of the funds would go toward paying down the past state budget debt. Thereafter, 85 percent of the funding would go to K-12 public schools and 15 percent would go to child care programs. Munger is a member of the First Five Commission for child-care funding.

Would voters pass it without any accompanying pension reforms? That’s perhaps a bigger question than whether it would split the vote three ways on competing tax initiatives by the governor and unions.  According to a Public Policy Institute of California poll, a majority of voters say they want. The California State Teacher’s Retirement System is only 54 percent funded.  CalSTRS needs an additional $4.5 billion each year to be fully funded.  So even this initiative passed, only somewhat over half of Munger’s tax proposal would actually go to into funding schools during the first four years.

And if history is any indicator of future behavior, any new school revenues would just go into backfilling ancillary school personnel — called “categorical” employees, such as art teachers, janitors, administrators, bus drivers, etc. — rather than to core classroom teachers.

In those wealthy school districts that already passed school parcel taxes to make up for budget reductions, Munger’s tax could provide a double windfall. That is because local school parcel taxes are always in addition to state school revenues.

Munger Needs to Get Educated About School Finance 

Molly Munger is a graduate of Harvard Law School and a former federal prosecutor.  But she doesn’t seem to even have a sound knowledge of the finances of her local school district in Pasadena, where she pushed for a school parcel tax in 2010 called Measure CC.  Voters rejected it.

Munger, other donors and the Pasadena school district put about $1 million into the effort to pass the tax, purportedly to prevent teacher layoffs.  The Munger family donated $50,000.  The election cost the school district $500,000 in administration costs.

But no core classroom teachers were ever laid off even though voters rejected the tax.   And the $1 million spent on the election campaign could have been put toward helping fund classroom needs.

The Pasadena Star News reports that only 20 employees left the Pasadena Unified School District since 2010, and that was due to attrition (retirements and departures).  If Pasadena’s school parcel tax had passed, the school district would have reaped a $35 million windfall over 5 years while taxpayers were suffering through a deep economic recession.  The school district alleged it had an unmanageable $23 million budget shortfall.

Munger’s new state school tax ballot initiative is about as illogical as her support for an unneeded local school parcel tax in her hometown in 2010.

Urban Myths About School Finance 

Part of the problem with school tax proposals is school districts seem to always “cry wolf” about teacher lay-offs.  Such layoffs most often never seem to materialize even if the school tax proposals fail. It is difficult for taxpayers to tell if a school tax proposal is based on hysteria or facts.

The Pasadena Star News reports that the money from Munger’s state school tax “can’t be spent on salary and benefits.”  But there is no such provision in the wording of the initiative.  Since salaries and benefits are the largest share of the state public schools budget, such a provision would not make sense.