National Nurses United

8 J A N U A R Y / F E B R U A R Y 2 0 0 6 C A L I F O R N I A N U R S E A ll I want for Christmas is a clean elec- tion. If not by then, I'll take it for New Year's, Valentine's Day, Mother's Day, or Election Day (which seems to come about every other month). Cash register politics got you down? The sight of political payoffs for political payments more than you can bear? Had enough of the well-heeled lobbyists and the multi-million dollar campaign consultants? There's a common sense solution. It's called clean money elections. It's not even a new idea. Arizona has it. So does Maine. In early December, Connecticut became the first state to establish a clean money system enacted by the legislature (Arizona and Maine did it by initiative). Connecticut's new law bans contribu- tions from lobbyists and state contractors and creates a voluntary system for public financing of campaigns for state office, beginning with the 2008 legislative races. Think we could use that approach in California? Here are ten reasons why: 1 $300 million—the amount spent on the November special election in California (assorted news reports). 2 $74.5 million—contributions collected by Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor, most in exchange for legislation, regulatory, or other actions favorable to the donor, as of December 15, 2005 (ArnoldWatch.org). 3 $1.1 billion—spent on federal lobbying, mostly by big corporations, from January 1, 2005 through June 30, 2005, an average of over $187,000 per month (Political Money Line). 4 $229 million—collected by California Senate,Assembly,andstatewideofficecan- didatesin2004election(followthemoney.org). 5 Over $1 million—donations Gov. Schwarzenegger has accepted from political appointees (ArnoldWatch.org). 6 $80.3 million—amount collected by drug companies on behalf of Prop. 78 in the November, 2005 special election (California Secretary of State's office) 7 20%—increase in voter turnout in Arizona after switching to clean money, public financed, election system (Cali- fornia Clean Money, caclean.org). 8 Triple—increase in the number of minority candidates in Arizona after the switch to clean money campaigns (California Clean Money, caclean.org). 9 October 7, 2005—the day Gov. Schwarze- negger vetoed three consumer laws and, the same day, collected $450,000 from Wal- Mart, the American Insurance Association, and the Wine Institute. All directly bene- fited financially from the vetoes (Orange County Register, October 23, 2005). 10 Ameriquest, Nestle USA, Fox, ChevronTexaco, Wal-Mart, Dole Food, Hewlett- Packard, Target, Blue Cross, Yahoo, California Grocers Assn., The Gap, Irvine Company, California Restaurant Assn., California Farm Bureau, (partial list)—corporate interests that have each given $200,000 or more to Gov. Schwarzenegger (ArnoldWatch.org). It wouldn't be hard to add to the list. The Secretary of State's office, for example, reports on its website campaign contributions and lobbying activity. On the lobbyist page, you can see reports on indi- vidual lobbyists, the lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers, the mostly corporate interests who hire the individual lobbyists and lobbying firms. Look up the employer of lobbyists and you'll find hundreds of listings and how much they have paid to influence legislation in California. Regrettably, the Secretary of State no longer totals the amount, but it would add up to hundreds of millions of dollars. They get a lot in return. In his first year in office, Gov. Schwarzenegger, while collect- ing millions in contributions from business interests, vetoed 33 of 38 bills opposed by the Chamber of Commerce, one of the principle lobbying arms for those corporate donors. Over the first nine months of this year, the Chamber of Commerce alone is listed on the website as having spent $1.9 million in lobbying. For the prior legislative ses- sion, the Chamber reported spending $5.2 million in lobbying. Neither figure includes the hundreds of thousands of dollars individual compa- nies or industry trade associations, such as the California Hospital Association or California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also spent, often lobbying on the same issues. These days, you practi- cally need a forklift to get past the lobby- ists in the Capitol corridors. Following the wreckage of the Novem- ber special election, the Los Angeles City Councilvotedunanimouslytomovetowards acleanmoneysystemforcityelections.That's a start, but it should be extended statewide. The idea is now so popular that vot- ers need to be wary of deceptive, limited plans that preempt more meaningful cam- paign finance reform. With Californians gasping for fresh air to rid the stench of a corrupted political process and the perception of the buying and selling of politicians, no less than genuine, compre- hensive reform will do. Rose Ann DeMoro CNA Executive Director Cleaning House Californians who are serious about reform know the first step is to take money out of politics By Rose Ann DeMoro There's a common sense solution. It's called clean money elections. It's not even a new idea. Arizona has it. So does Maine. In early December, Connecticut became the first state to establish a clean money system enacted by the legislature.

• Cover