Governor Schwarzenegger is scheduled to visit the new UC-Merced campus tomorrow... but only after a couple of days of an awkward PR situation where it appeared he was passing on the opening of the new campus.

The first new UC in more than 40 years officially opens on Labor Day with a huge event. The VIP list includes former governors George Deukmejian and Gray Davis, and Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante.

Schwarzenegger is not planning to attend that event. Instead, he's taking his own private tour of the Merced campus tomorrow.

But the special trip was only announced late this afternoon. Over the past few days, there have been more than a few questions as to why the governor is skipping the big festivities on Monday-- so many so that the whole issue turned into a bit of a PR brouhaha. UC-Merced is the first of its kind in the Central Valley, and the school's final funding was championed by Schwarzenegger himself.

Still no word on why he's skipping the official celebration, or for that matter, what he'll be doing on Labor Day.

In what seemed like a foregone conclusion, Senate Democrats used their majority status this afternoon to reject Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's choice to lead the California Air Resources Board.

In a marathon session of the Senate Rules Committee, Democrats used their 3-2 committee majority to send Cindy Tuck packing, although the nomination appears headed for a full Senate vote tomorrow.

Tuck was nominated by the governor in June to chair the ARB, one of the most high-profile air pollution agencies in the nation. She's well known in Capitol circles, but mainly for her past work representing oil and energy companies. Environmentalists howled when the nomination was announced, saying that they had indicated support for several other candidates being considered... only to have the one candidate they opposed, Cindy Tuck, be chosen from the list.

Tuck tried to both defend her record and allay those fears in her appearance before the committee. But Democrats seemed to be in no mood to back down.

Some Capitol insiders say if Schwarzenegger had made a more "middle-of-the-road" choice to chair the ARB, it could have put Democrats in a tough position PR-wise. But as it was, the decision to dump Tuck was likely a political no-brainer.

A memo to staffers in the Capitol: if you're photocopying a sensitive document--especially one that may be political in nature (and not official government work)-- you might want to remove any paper jam and take the crumpled copy with you when you leave.

That would have been good advice to follow for the staffer yesterday who was making a copy of what appears to be a political strategy memo from the Latino Legislative Caucus, a caucus of Democratic Latino lawmakers.

Three pages were reportedly found jammed in the machine, and made their ways into the hands of the California Republican Party, who then distributed them to reporters.

Oops.

While some of the printing fell victim to a lack of toner, you can clearly read passages about the caucus' efforts to defeat the initiatives of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. That includes spending more than $2.7 million on everything from a campaign to encourage Latinos to vote absentee to a phone bank to call Latino voters.

The memo's summary says "the Schwarzenegger initiatives to cut programs, control legislative redistricting, and to rob teachers of the needed benefits of tenure along with the right-wing initiatives to attack working families are the greatest threat to progressive politics in the history of politics."

The issue, say Republicans, is that the memo seems to be political work being promoted (or copied, to be accurate) on the taxpayer's dime. The chief of staff to Latino Caucus chair Senator Martha Escutia (D-Whittier) says the senator has never even seen the memo, but admits that the mystery staffer clearly made a "mistake" by using a government copier-- one she says won't happen again.

They may be seeking a change the rules that would apply to everyone, but the package of bills outlined today by three Democratic members of the Assembly all trace their origin to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's "summer of snafus."

The bills were highlighted in a morning news conference called by Assemblymember Dave Jones (D-Sacramento), Assemblymember Cindy Montanez (D-San Fernando) and Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-SF). Each addresses a sore spot for the Schwarzenegger camp, from the clamor over his multi-million dollar fitness magazine consulting deal to the missteps made with the redistricting initiative Proposition 77.

The reforms would require more specific disclosure of an elected official's assets; require that all constitutional officers place those assets in a blind trust (but not the powerful leaders of either the Assembly or Senate); and require immediate disclosure of any outside business relationship that results in a lawmaker receiving more than $10,000.

One bill also would impose a death penalty on any initiative that was fumbled the way Prop 77 was: initiative backers would now have to formally disclose any problems (like wording changes, etc.) within 48 hours, or the initiative would be disqualified.

Truth be told, these bills face an uphill battle. They are two-year bills (which means they won't be pushed through before next week's legislative deadline), but most importantly they are all amendments to the voter-approved campaign finance law Proposition 34.

That means the bills require a two-thirds vote. And that means these 3 Democrats are going to have to find a few Republicans who don't mind highlighting the governor's missteps in 2006, an election year.

For those of you who wonder what it's like to be a political reporter, might I suggest you consider one example of the downside of this beat: trying to find anything newsworthy out of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's visit this morning to the California State Fair.

To be fair, the gubernatorial photo op is a time-honored tradition. But in the Schwarzenegger era, it's a staple of the weekly calendar. And sometimes, the photo op turns into a brief Q&A where, for lack of a better term, news is made.

Well, you read it here first today: news was not made at the fair.

With a state fair PR employee encouraging applause from fairgoers off in one corner, the governor arrived to shake hands, and then pose for photos with two bodybuilders and two boxers.

Then it was on to the smoothie hut, where we're told the governor sipped a strawberry and pluot smoothie (for those of you who don't know pluots, like my editor, it's a cross between a plum and an apricot).

Next, Schwarzenegger posed for photos beside a sand sculpture of his chiseled face. "It looks just like me, but it doesn't have any wrinkles," he joked.

Of course, reporters shouted questions: Will you ask for a stronger power to declare an emergency on the border, given all of this week's debate for him to do so in response to illegal immigration issues? Are you working with lawmakers on the issue of high school athletes and performance-enhancing supplements? Are you worried about those recent low poll numbers?

But Schwarzenegger, who will sometimes stop and answer a question or two, this time decided to stay on message.

"Everything is great, okay?," he said with a smile.

And with that, off he went to peruse displays in the fair's exhibition hall.

The politics of illegal immigration is alive and well this week in California.

One example: can-- and should-- Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declare an emergency along the state's border with Mexico, following recent similar actions by the governors of Arizona and New Mexico?

Democrats, apparently seeking to gain some traction on the issue, say he can. Last week Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez made a formal request of the governor to declare an emergency, a request Schwarzenegger (just as formally) turned down late Wednesday. In a letter to Nunez, the governor said that state law doesn't allow him to declare an emergency for a border issue like illegal immigration.

So why does the formal declaration matter? In part, because an official "emergency" might make the state eligible for more federal funding on the issue. Democratic staffers today distributed to reporters a congressional report that makes that very claim (a report, of course, that was written at the behest of Capitol Hill Democrats).

Meantime, Republicans here in Sacramento are also wading into the issue, calling on Speaker Nunez to help speed through new legislation to clarify any murkiness that might exist in the law with regards to declaring an emergency over illegal immigration. In a conference call with reporters this afternoon after a Mexico City meeting with President Vicente Fox, Nunez said he will not support the GOP plan if it also calls for "sealing" the border.

And the issue may be gaining traction. In today's new poll from the Public Policy Institute of California, illegal immigration was the third most mentioned topic when pollsters asked for the most important issue facing the state. True, the economy and education were chosen more often. But look what subjects illegal immigration beat out: crime, the cost of housing, health care costs, the environment, even the increasing cost of gas.

While this morning's release of a new survey by the Public Policy Institute of California will make headlines (more low job approval numbers for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, voters think things are going in the wrong direction)... there's a lot more in this poll that may shed some light into the state of politics in California.

* Schwarzenegger vs. Bush: If you want some perspective on how little confidence seems to exist in the governor these days, consider this: his job approval ratings are lower among California voters than even those of President George W. Bush. 38% of the adults surveyed say they approve of how Bush is handling his job, while only 34% say they approve of how Schwarzenegger is doing his. The governor has slightly more support among non-partisan voters, but slightly less among Republican voters (although within the margin of error).

* Bush "Si", Schwarzenegger "No": Perhaps even more troubling for Team Arnold might be the results from Latino voters. Some of the data wasn't in the PPIC report sent to reporters, but pollster Mark Baldassare says the survey found only 17% job support among Latinos for Schwarzenegger, but 37% support for Bush among the same voters. The margin of error for Latino poll results is 4.5%, so the dropoff between the two Republicans is statistically significant.

* Special Interests: It certainly seems like voters don't buy the notion that some interest groups are worse than others. Take, for example, two questions in the PPIC poll about possible limitations on political contributions. 55% of those surveyed approve of placing restrictions on campaign contributions from labor unions. That's essentially the crux of Proposition 75.

But before conservatives start cheering, they should read on: 61% of those surveyed approve of placing restrictions on campaign contributions from businesses and corporations. And that's the crux of an initiative now being circulated for signatures, which could appear on the June 2006 ballot. In other words: a huge battle over campaign cash appears looming.

You can find the entire poll here.

The "Big Five" used to be a meeting that was called for the top dogs to negotiate the budget. Then, it morphed into a way to also negotiate issues of major importance, even issues that could be taken to the ballot.

Today, the spectacle that is a "Big Five" became a meeting called to talk about... well, nothing specific.

A throng of reporters waited outside the office of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at midday for some sense of why the meeting had been called. In fact, the only sure thing after about an hour seemed to be that the meeting was winding down... and that only seemed likely because actress Marilu Henner (who had appeared at a Capitol event earlier in the morning) was quickly escorted inside, presumably to say hello to the governor.

On their way out, the four legislative leaders basically said the meeting was about everything... and nothing. I'm not kidding.

Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman: "We identified a number of areas, like transportation, energy, water, and education, that we're going to start working on at the end of [legislative] session and try and come up with some comprehensive proposals for next year."

Assembly Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy: "We set a framework to start working on it, a framework to actually come to a conclusion, a framework to actually solve the problems."

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez: "We talked about getting together more often, so that the ugliness of the election doesn't get in the way of us all working together to accomplish good things for California."

And from Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, who was probably the most specific about why he thought the meeting was called: "I think the governor understands the potential for a lot of [political] damage in the last two weeks [of the legislative session] because of the election. He wanted to make sure we were working together. And we have no problem with that."

In other words, everyone seems to be watching how the annual dance over bills passed, bills signed, and bills vetoed will impact the pending campaign on ballot initiatives that, if approved by voters, could dramatically change the way business is done at the Capitol.

If that's the case, the meeting was about a lot more than what was literally on the agenda.

[UPDATE: Audio is now online... click here, scroll down to this morning's newscast]

Legislative Democrats have now postponed next week's hearing into what happened behind the scenes this summer with the redistricting initiative, Proposition 77.

In part, the hearing was expected to examine the issue of just when Governor Schwarzenegger's allies discovered that different versions of Prop 77 existed, and how that was handled.

But the postponement may not end the quiet discussion in Capitol circles about one part of the story: should the governor's taxpayer-provided attorney have been involved in those private discussions, which included how to keep Prop 77 from being kicked off the ballot?

This morning on The California Report, we take a closer look at the involvement in the debate over Prop 77 by the governor's legal affairs secretary, Peter Siggins.

Despite what partisans on both sides are saying, the law may be vague in this case. Previous cases of partisan work being done on the state dime have focused on officials who were involved in full-blown ballot measure campaigns. But what standard applies to Prop 77? At the time in question, it had been circulated in a paid campaign for signatures, but was not yet the focus of a full-fledged political campaign for votes.

How much involvement of a state official, like Siggins, is allowable if a ballot measure representing the governor's policy agenda finds itself in legal limbo?

The most vocal critics are found in Democratic circles, including some former Davis administration officials (who would be interviewed for this story only on background). They argue the law is very clear, citing a court case known as Stanson v. Mott which says, in part, that the government can't "bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions" in a ballot measure campaign.

Siggins, however, says those critics are misstating where the law draws the line. "That line," says Siggins, "is engaging in the advocacy of a position that is before the voters in a contested election."

In other words, he seems to be saying that Prop 77 wasn't at the stage of an actual campaign (or even certified for the ballot) when he got involved.

In an interview this week, Siggins also provides a different opinion of a private meeting he attended on June 13 with Undersecretary of State Bill Wood, the meeting at which state elections officials first learned that one version of Prop 77 had been submitted to state officials, while a different version was circulated for voter signatures.

In court documents, Wood says that Peter Siggins and Prop 77 attorney Dan Kolkey "urged" that elections officials place the "circulated" version of Prop 77 on the ballot.

Siggins now says, however, that his position was simply that one of the two versions of Prop 77 deserved to be on the ballot (of course, if the version submitted to the Attorney General was chosen, then Prop 77 would likely have been ineligible for the special election-- a major blow to Schwarzenegger-- because it was not the version used to gather voter signatures, a constitutional requirement).

Karen Getman, a former chairwoman of the Fair Political Practices Commission, is a Democrat who doesn't agree with those on her side of the aisle proclaiming that Siggins' involvement was a clear violation.

"That's a gray area," says Getman. "It's not very clear whether it's okay to use public money to be influencing whether the measure actually appears on the ballot."

And Bob Stern of the non-profit Center For Governmental Studies, says that governors should be given a wide latitude on these kinds of questions, because their policy agendas are often inextricably linked with issues that have to be taken to the voters-- a key element of the way Schwarzenegger approaches the job.

"You have to give many officials who work for elected officials a lot of flexibility," says Stern.

At the very least, the case again raises the ongoing question of where the line should be drawn concerning how much political work is acceptable while drawing a state paycheck. Meantime, Democratic staffers now say the legislative hearing may not be convened until after the November 8th election.

When semi-annual campaign finance reports came out earlier this month, there was a lot of buzz about how not only how much money Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had raised... but also about how little of it he had left.

Times have changed.

The latest campaign contribution information shows that the governor's busy fundraising schedule has paid off. Between June 30 (the date of those semi-annual reports) and today, Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team had reported contributions totaling about $4.8 million.

That works out to about an average of $100,000 a day.

If you look back at the same committee's fundraising activity between January 1 and June 30, you find an average of about $46,000 a day. And the pace could likely intensify with six straight days of "grip and grin" events, beginning tonight in San Bernardino and later heading east to New Jersey and Boston.