A short Big 5 meeting between Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders apparently ended this afternoon with only one thing in agreement: they’ll be getting together back in Sacramento this weekend.

The midnight constitutional deadline will now come and go for the fifth straight year (and 12 of the last 15) without a new budget in place. The Assembly debated the budget and the Senate was supposedly about to, when the governor quickly summoned the 4 legislative leaders downstairs.

Democrats emerged with a sense of confidence that the governor is now not linking a new budget to any budget process proposals, like his “Live Within Our Means” ballot initiative. Especially adamant about that was Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, who indicated that the kind of “linkage” of issues, widely reported yesterday, was a non-starter.

When asked to describe how far apart Democrats and Republicans are, Perata called the amount so small as to amount to only “budget dust.”

Schwarzenegger spokesperson Margita Thompson says the governor is positive about negotiations thus far. And she confirmed that Schwarzenegger is not demanding a link between the budget and any “reform” proposals.

The Big 5 are now planning to meet this weekend, and negotiations are likely to not allow much time for any celebrations– either for Democrats hoping to spend time in LA with soon-to-be mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, or for anyone to light the fireworks for the Fourth of July.

Democrats have rolled out another suggested compromise over the budget, one that apparently will be put up for a vote on the floor of both houses tomorrow. And the governor’s advisers are now publicly suggesting that, in return, the governor would like powers similar to those in his self-titled “Live Within Our Means” initiative.

The Democratic proposal, which purportedly would shrink the structural deficit next year by a slight amount, was placed on the table by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez today… although he says most of it was actually given to Governor Schwarzenegger as far back as two weeks ago.

One of the most notable concessions by Democrats appears to be that they have accpeted a demand from Schwarzenegger and legislative Republicans for a quicker payback of some money to local governments, money owed after the VLF “car tax” rollback in 2004.

Republicans seem pleased with that concession. But Schwarzenegger budget spokesman H.D. Palmer says the use of one-time revenues for ongoing expenditures is still there. And what would make that proposal palatable to the governor? Some sort of power to make corrections– on his own– in the middle of a budget year, says Palmer.

Does that sound like one of the initiatives is now admittedly being linked to this year’s budget? It depends, in large part, on your own political biases.

The question now, though: what happens next? The Democratic budget is indeed scheduled for a vote in the Assembly and Senate tomorrow, but is this latest version enough to gain the necessary handful of GOP votes?

Even the schedule this week is a bit of a mystery, with many lawmakers and the governor planning to attend Friday’s swearing-in of new LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Legislation that would essentially undo the deal for an Indian casino in San Pablo passed out of the Indian Affairs Committee of the U.S. Senate this morning.

The bill, from Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-SF), would force the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians to follow the same federal rules as other landless tribes– rules they were given a way around in 2001 thanks to legislation amended by Congressman George Miller (D-Martinez).

The original Lytton deal was dead on arrival in the Legislature last year, and the tribe has since said it intends to operate a lower-level gambling operation that does not require the consent of state lawmakers.

However, that smaller operation might still run afoul of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). And Feinstein’s bill requires that the Lyttons fully comply with IGRA, which could mean a whole new round of approvals are required for any changes to the San Pablo facility.

“I believe that the Lytton tribe should have to go through the same process under federal law that all other tribes must go through,” said Feinstein, in a prepared statement sent to reporters.

Senate Democrats have now weighed in with a new offer on political redistricting, one that had been the subject of days of closed door negotiations… but one which did not result in a compromise.

The newest version of SCA 3 was rolled out today at a Capitol news conference, a redistricting bill carried for months, in various forms, by Senator Alan Lowenthal (D-Long Beach).

At one point, there was talk that SCA 3 would be a compromise between Senate Democrats, Senate Republicans, and the governor’s office. But for now it is a Democratic plan only, and one even Lowenthal admits may not even have full support from his caucus.

It also shares just about nothing in common with the initiative endorsed by the governor and written by anti-tax and recall crusader Ted Costa.

Costa’s plan has retired judges redrawing districts. SCA 3 would give the power to a 7-member commission of citizens: 4 selected by the Legislature (2 by Dems, 2 by Reps), and one each by the governor, the California Judicial Council, and the president of the University of California. 4 of the 7 have to agree to any new political boundaries.

Some good government groups have suggested that 4 votes isn’t enough, that it should take a supermajority. Why? Well, one worst-case scenario is that all 4 members appointed by the Legislature could agree to cut a deal on a new map, similar to the one cut by both parties in 2001.

But the other big sticking point for all of this: when? Republicans maintain they want redistricting before the 2010 census, while Democrats say that’s a deal breaker. And to make matters more complicated, GOP members of Congress, especially those in leadership positions, have indicated they also oppose mid-decade redistricting.

All of that may sound like an awful lot of issues to resolve, but there’s still a sense at the Capitol that redistricting is the one reform issue most likely to end in compromise.

However, that buzz may simply mean that the odds of avoiding a November showdown– on everything– are getting slimmer.

In just three days this week, the money from drug companies for the ballot battle over prescription drugs more than doubled.

New campaign finance records show that two major contributions were made to the initiative fund organized by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA). Glaxosmithkline handed over $8,388,607 on Tuesday. And on Wednesday, Amgen, Inc. wrote a check for $3,898, 500.

Before those two contributions, the entire PhRMA initiative fund totaled $11.37 million. Now, the campaign is sitting on more than $23.6 million… and the election is still more than four months away.

Glaxosmithkline, which holds the patents to drugs ranging from Flonase to Tagamet, now becomes the largest financial backer of the fall campaign, with its contributions alone totaling almost $9.7 million dollars.

It’s safe to assume the money will be used both to campaign against the prescription drugs initiative written by health access advocates, and to campaign for the alternative the drug companies helped qualify (which mirrors the legislative proposal endorsed by the governor).

And while there is a lot of buzz at the Capitol that compromises may be reached on some of the other November 8th ballot measures, this campaign looks to be gearing up for a nasty fight.

UPDATE, MONDAY JUNE 27: Another massive donation was recorded today, this one from drug manufacturer Eli Lilly and Company for $3,898,500. That bring the PhRMA war chest up to a grand total of $27,555,607.

With his new poll numbers headed southward, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger tried out a new tune this morning: humility.

In a news conference that lasted just under 20 minutes, the governor seemed to accept the validity of the latest Field Poll (read it here), which shows only 37% of those surveyed approve of how he’s doing his job.

“I guarantee you that all of us in this building can share blame,” he said. “All of us, including myself.”

Schwarzenegger continued by saying “people make mistakes sometimes, and I think we learn, those are very clear messages.”

Other notable comments from the governor this morning:

* He began the event by attempting to push back recent comments from Democrats about the similarities in their budget proposal and his. ” Nothing could be further from the truth,” he said. The governor said reporters should focus on what he says is a vastly different impact of the two proposals on the state’s structural deficit– a deficit he argues will be some $2 billion deeper under the Democratic version.

* Schwarzenegger defended his comments from the campaign trail last week about how some in Sacramento want to remove the tax limits under Proposition 13. But this time, he only referred to efforts at increasing “taxes”, and not any specific plans to raise property taxes. “I will continue talking about that, because those are the facts,” he said.

* And when asked about the possibility of convening a Big 5 meeting with legislative leaders, the governor took a jab at meetings that are the ultimate in insider politics.

“I’ve never reached any kind of an agreement, or accomplished anything, in a Big 5 meeting,” he said. Schwarzenegger depicted those meetings as more about “photo ops” and lawmakers who are trying to “position” themselves.

The eighth and final initiative to appear on the special election ballot has now been certified by the Secretary of State.

That initiative asks voters to wade into the difficult issues surrounding energy policy. It would essentially return California to a fully regulated market, similar to the one that existed in the state up until the late 1990s. (Read the initiative here)

That means the stage is now set for a November 8th showdown, with three initiatives from Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (budget/spending cap, teacher tenure, redistricting), two from Democrats and their allies (prescription drugs, energy), one from Republicans and their allies (public employee union dues for political contributions), one from drug companies (an alternative prescription drug plan), and one from social conservatives (waiting period/parental notification before a minor’s abortion).

Of course, the ballot could always feature measures placed there by the governor and the Legislature, such as alternatives to the budget and redistricting plans. The deadline for those kinds of measures is still a few weeks away.

If you’ve been meaning to read that brand new blog from Senator John Campbell (R-Irvine)… well, you’re too late.

Campbell recently joined the small-but-growing ranks of legislators in the blogosphere with his California Confidential site, a featuring a photo of an iniquisitive looking Campbell and a promise to “uncover the inner workings of the Capitol.”

The first entry was Tuesday, June 7th. The last: Saturday, June 11th. So what happened?

Today, Campbell posted a message saying that he was pulling the plug “due to an unforseen turn of events.”

Chances are he’s probably talking about the fact that there’s no time for blogging while he’s seeking a new job. Sen. Campbell has decided to seek the congressional seat being vacated by Congressman Chris Cox (R-Newport Beach), who was recently tapped by President Bush to be chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

There may not have been much big news out of the remarks made today by Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez to the Sacramento Press Club, but there was plenty of grist for the mill of budget watchers and political junkies:

* In what sounded like he was testing a new political slogan, Nunez said votes against the budget by GOP legislators, as well as Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger calling a special election, are a sign that “Republicans are not listening to the people of California.”

* The Speaker also stated that from now on, he plans to make public the status of any negotiations with the governor and Republicans. At first, it had sounded like he was saying he would only conduct negotiations in public. But he later explained he meant that he will be “more public about the fact that we meet in private.”

* The Speaker now says that the much talked about hope for a “global compromise” on the governor’s proposals– which would obviously have to result in alternative measures being placed on the ballot– should also include a deal on extending term limits and on the union dues initiative nicknamed “paycheck protection.” Getting the governor to keep his distance from that initiative might be especially tough, considering how strongly the Republican party is supporting it.

* When asked about his opinion of revising Prop 13, something the governor hinted this week that Democrats are clamoring to do, Nunez said the governor is mistaken. It’s true that there’s been no real talk about revising the protections for homeowners’ property tax rates. But Democrats have introduced legislation to revise Prop 13 by allowing tax increases on commercial property. Nunez wouldn’t offer a position on those proposals, only that he has never brought up Prop 13 in budget discussions.

* And in what sounded like a hint of disagreement in traditional Democratic circles, Nunez raised doubts about an initiative to provide universal preschool by raising income taxes on the wealthy. The initiative, which could make the June 2006 ballot, is the brainchild of actor/director Rob Reiner.

“I don’t know that I’m going to oppose it, but I don’t know that I’m going to support it,” Nunez said. The Speaker made that comment after talking about the need to fund programs already on the books before adding any new ones…. and, of course, he’s already pushing a tax increase on some of the same wealthy Californians to pay for education.

First budget vote, and very little surprise… the budget proposed by Democrats, one they argue is very similar to that of the governor, failed to gain the needed two-thirds majority in the Assembly.

The vote was 45-32, with 2 Democrats absent and one not voting. The Senate is expected to convene late this afternoon, and few budget watchers expect a different outcome.

UPDATE: The Senate also failed to pass the budget bill, SB 77, on a party-line vote late this afternoon. Afterwards, however, leaders on both sides of the aisle told reporters they’re ready to begin negotiating a compromise. And members were told to be ready to vote again, perhaps even this weekend.