But Assemblyman Richard Gordon, D-Menlo Park, and the staff of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, California’s chief political watchdog, want to go in a different direction. FPPC staffers have endorsed AB 594, Gordon’s measure modifying the landmark Political Reform Act of 1974. This is from the L.A. Times:

Citing inflation, the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency is considering a proposal to raise the fundraising thresholds at which campaigns must report their financing, drawing some concerns from an advocate for fuller disclosure.

Currently, campaign committees and independent expenditure committees must report their fundraising and spending when they receive contributions of $1,000 or more in a calendar year. The state Fair Political Practices Commission staff is recommending that the panel support legislation that would raise that level to $2,000.

In addition, contributors must file special “major donor” reports disclosing all donations they make when they give $10,000 in a calendar year. The bill recommended by the FPPC staff would raise that threshold to $20,000.

Gordon depicted the measure as promoting democracy in comments to the Times:

“The proposed increases, while below what an adjustment for inflation would be, are intended to recognize that the cost of a true grassroots campaign has increased over this time and would allow those campaigns to still operate without the burden associated with filings.”

But the “burden” he cites has been diminishing for two decades, thanks to technology. At the national level, here’s where the campaign finance debate has been focused:

What’s the solution? Spending limits are off the table; like it or not, the Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse itself anytime soon. That leaves transparency as the issue to tackle. Mindful of potential First Amendment problems, Congress should revisit a policy Republicans offered in defiance of McCain-Feingold: Unlimited donations coupled with immediate transparency.

What could be a more modern, tech-fueled reform than requiring political candidates and groups to simultaneously deposit and disclose? Open-government groups could develop apps enabling voters to track donations to certain members of Congress or from specific interest groups, with customized alerts sent to their mobile devices.

That’s from the Jan. 27 column of Ron Fournier in the National Journal. Fournier is the former Washington bureau chief for The Associated Press.

The FPPC board is expected to discuss Gordon’s bill at its meeting Thursday.

That’s why he has a unique niche in American journalism: He’s a liberal who relentlessly argues against tolerating illegal immigration or “comprehensive immigration reform” on the grounds that the last thing a nation beset by income inequality needs is a flood of inexpensive, low-skilled laborers.

This has led him to focus on House Republican leaders’ interest in “comprehensive immigration reform.” Here’s an example excoriating House Majority Leader Eric Cantor as a secret champion of amnesty.

Overnight lots of folks began crediting Kaus for helping obscure econ prof Dave Brat beat Cantor on Tuesday in a Virgina GOP congressional primary and for suggesting it was a real possibility when the conventional wisdom was that the powerful Cantor would cruise to a lopsided win. CNN’s Jake Tapper called him “Kaustrodamus.”

Brat against crony capitalism and bailouts

Kaus likes Brat for his economic populism.

“Notes: 1) This is a pitch — against a ‘low wage agenda’ and ‘crony corporate lobby’ — that can appeal to Democrats as well as Republicans. Maybe partisanship will eventually be transcended, not at the top, with David Brooks, Gloria Borger and Jon Huntsman imposing a Beltway consensus they hammer out at an Atlantic panel, but at the bottom, where less sleek figures like Brat, Phyllis Schlafly and Jeff Sessions, can make common cause with Democratic workers who’ve gotten the short end of previous top-down triumphs such as global trade and Reagan’s 1986 amnesty, as well as of ineluctable technological trends like automation. 2) Perhaps not coincidentally, Democrats can vote in the Cantor vs. Brat primary. …

“Backfill: See also this earlier Brat release, which expands the potentially bipartisan anti-corporate agenda to other issues – like spending, debt and insider trading.”

Will Brat’s stunning victory presage a national populist uprising?

The National Journal’s Ron Fournier, who seems liberated since he stopped being AP’s Washington D.C. bureau chief, thinks it’s possible.

One way or the other, Cantor’s loss shows there’s no such thing as a safe House seat anymore.