Final campaign finance reports for the 2006 election are due today, and are still trickling in as the day ends.

And boy, there was a lot of cash changing hands.

A few notables (updated as more info becomes available):

* The campaign against Proposition 87, may have set a record of their own: a whopping $92.95 million spent to beat back the initiative that would have imposed a tax on oil drilling, with proceeds to go to alternative energy research.

* The main political team organized to pass the infrastructure bonds (Propositions 1A-1E) spent about $7.3 million. You might think that’s a lot, until you see what the team that campaigned specifically for the education bond, Proposition 1D, spent: $11.3 million.

* Governor Schwarzenegger’s campaign spent $45.9 million in his successful bid for another term. However, the governor personally chipped in $5.5 million of his own money in 2006. But what’s really odd is that Schwarzenegger wrote a $2 million check on October 26. That’s one day after a statewide poll showed him beating Democrat Phil Angelides by 18 points. It begs the question… why chip in so much so late, especially when he was so far ahead?

* Speaking of Angelides, his campaign spent more than $39 million. That’s almost $85 million between the two major gubernatorial candidates.

* The most expensive legislative races appears to have been the race for Orange County’s 34th Senate district, where Democrat Lou Correa edged out Republican Lynn Daucher. The two campaigns spent a combined $6.24 million, with Daucher spending slightly more than Correa.

* The California Republican Party outspent the California Democratic Party, with the GOP shelling out almost $48 million and Dems spending a little more than $34 million. It’s hard not to notice that the GOP’s spending largely only got them the governorship. They failed to pick up any legislative seats, and the only other Republican winner– Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner– largely paid for his own campaign, writing personal checks for more than $10 million of the $15.3 million he spent to win.

That kind of sums up the latest chapter on efforts to bring two tribal casinos to the city of Barstow, as new legislation was introduced today to finally ratify these unusual… and controversial… deals.

The formal gaming compacts struck between Governor Schwarzenegger, the Big Lagoon Rancheria of Humboldt County, and the Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Indians of San Diego County failed to make it out of the Legislature last year. Los Coyotes’ reservation is easily more than 100 miles from Barstow; Big Lagoon is easily several hundred miles form the desert city.

But a lot of folks like the plan. Barstow officials like the economic possibilities; enviros like the fact that Big Lagoon would no longer try to build a casino on their pristine north coast reservation; and labor unions like the fact that the compacts allow casino workers to organize.

So who doesn’t like the deals, and who helped convince legislators not to ratify them in 2006? That would be some of southern California’s most powerful gaming tribes. Some wonder whether it’s an issue of casino competition. But the gaming tribes in question argue the compacts would set a precedent of tribal casinos on non-Indian lands, an eventual threat to the tribal monopoly on gaming in California.

This afternoon, the Big Lagoon and Los Coyotes compacts were re-introduced as SB 157, by Sen. Pat Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) and Sen. Roy Ashburn (R-Bakersfield).

Representatives of the two tribes hope that a new crop of legislators will give the compacts new life; but the opposition of tribes like the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians still persists. Interestingly enough, the Agua Caliente have their own problems with the Legislature, as a revision to their gaming deal remains stuck… largely because of its lack of labor provisions demanded by unions.

So what does the “Three Months” in the headline refer to? Well, that may be all the time that’s left on the Barstow deal.

The Big Lagoon tribe’s legal battle with the state over their original plans for a casino in Humboldt has been on hold, while the tribe has attempted to set up shop down south. But tribal chairman Virgil Moorehead told reporters today that the time out could end as soon as May. In May, the tribe can legally walk away from the Barstow project and take their chances in court with a casino back at home.

“We decided to go to Barstow upon the request of the governor of this state,” he said. “This legislative session is the final go for us.”

Republicans in the state Senate have rolled out their health care reform proposal, and it includes a final swipe at the commission once led by actor/director Rob Reiner: abolish the commission, and use the money to fund an expansion of health care for kids.

Senate GOP leaders outlined the proposal in a news conference at the Capitol this morning. Unlike the plan from Governor Schwarzenegger, it does not promise to cover everyone who is uninsured; rather, Republicans peg the number of folks who will be newly insured under their proposal at about 2 million.

It does not include any mandates on either individuals or businesses, and would offer tax credits and other incentives for employers who offer coverage (much more on the plan tomorrow morning on The California Report).

But one of the more politically intriguing elements to the plan is the idea to “reallocate” money from the Proposition 10 tobacco tax approved by voters in 1998. The estimated $580 million that tax brings in would no longer go to fund the California Children & Families Commission (commonly known as the “First 5″ commission… for its focus on programs designed to impact the first five years of a child’s life).

Every health care reform plan now on the table in Sacramento proposes ways to more fully cover the needs of children. But this one seems to be a ‘two-fer’ for legislative Republicans, as it takes direct aim at an agency they’ve been criticizing for the past year.

“We believe these funds have been misused,” said Sen. Dave Cox (R-Sacramento). Cox was one of the leading critics of the First 5 Commission when, then under the direction of Reiner, it spent millions of dollars on a PR campaign for universal preschool at the same time Reiner was mounting a political ballot initiative campaign on the same subject.

A state audit of the commission last fall called some of the payments by the Reiner-led agency “questionable and inappropriate.” Reiner resigned as chairman of the First 5 Commission last spring.

Because it was established by voters, any plan to abolish the First 5 Commission would have to be placed on the ballot. That means the money for kids’ health care couldn’t be available before late 2008.

If this were Jeopardy, then that’s the answer to the question posed today by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys): “How many legislators does it take to change a light bulb?”

Levine announced today that he’s introducing legislation to ban the sale of incandescent light bulbs in California. If you’re not a light bulb junkie, let me put it another way: a ban on the sale of “regular” light bulbs.

Levine’s proposal would require the state to fully move to fluorescent light bulbs by 2012. Fluorescents, which put out a more whitish/bluish light that the yellowish light of incandescent bulbs, have been found to produce less carbon emissions and result in cheaper electricity bills.

“Incandescent light bulbs were first developed almost 125 years ago, and since that time they have undergone no major modifications,” said Levine in a written statement. “They remain incredibly inefficient, converting only about five percent of the energy they receive into light. It’s time to take a step forward.”

So, yes, it would take 62 legislators to “change” the light bulb. 41 in the Assembly, 21 in the Senate. That would be the bare majority.

Of course, passage by the Legislature would only lead to another question: would Governor Schwarzenegger sign the light bulb ban into law?

An interesting new report from the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office gives some real numbers to fuel the frustration most Californians have with traffic jams and other transportation woes.

One good example, lifted right out of the first pages of the LAO report: from 1990 to 2003, California’s population increased by about 21%… travel on the state’s highway system rose by 26%… while highway lane-miles only increased 3%.

Also interesting is the LAO’s analysis that aside from LA, the Bay Area, Orange, and Ventura counties, highway capacity increases have been almost “nonexistent” in some parts of the state. That’s significant when measured against the list of the three areas with the highest population growth in the 1990-2003 period: Sacramento, Bakersfield, and Riverside-San Bernardino.

And one final piece of not-so-good news: congestion on urban freeways costs Californians at least $16 million per day in wasted time and excess fuel.

Maybe I should leave early today.

The full report is here.

Some interesting tidbits can be found in the just-released poll from the Public Policy Institute of California about Californians’ opinions on health care reform, their elected leaders, and the state’s troubled prison system.

You can read the entire poll here. But the highlights:

* The mood seems brighter out there. 55% of those surveyed think things in California are going in the right direction… 40% approve of the job being done by the Legislature (that may look low, but the legislative branch’s ratings have been much lower for a long time)… and 58% now approve of the job being done by Governor Schwarzenegger.

* 71% say they approve of the governor’s health care reform plan, based on what they know, while 63% support going even further: a state-run health care system, even if it means raising taxes to pay for it… 79% like health care for kids in low-income families, but that drops to 56% when undocumented children are included.

* 63% of those surveyed say they support the governor’s call for an additional $43 billion in bond borrowing. And while that proposal includes money for prisons, a separate question in the PPIC survey finds some unhappiness about new prison spending. 54% oppose using new state revenues for prisons. And only 34% of those queried want the state to devote more resources to prisons.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez’s morning news conference was billed as a preview of his trip to a Swiss economic forum touting California’s global warming initiatives. But before it was over, he found himself sticking up for some issues, hinting at compromise on others, and avoiding a comment on a few topics at all cost.

Nunez will attend next week’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland to brag a little about AB 32, the greenhouse gas reduction law he co-authored in 2006. He will reportedly be only one of two elected officials from California in attendance [note: an earlier version of this posting said he was the only one, but an astute CN reader pointed out the somewhat controversial atttendance of SF Mayor Gavin Newsom]. Governor Schwarzenegger had originally wanted to attend, but his healing right femur is keeping him from any international travels these days. Nunez’s office says the LA Democrat will also participate in a BBC televised debate on global warming issues.

And the Speaker told reporters that he even paid $136 to the Davos Climate Alliance in “carbon offsets”– thereby finding a way to balance the environmental impact of his flight overseas.

Also from the Nunez chat with the Capitol press corps:

* The Speaker said his friends in the environmental community may be rushing to conclusions in their opposition to liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals off the California coast. “I choose my words very carefully,” he said. But he added, “when we’re looking at alternative fuels, we’ve got to look to all the things that are out there. And I don’t think we ought to draw the line in the sand on LNG.”

* The chances of the long-delayed high speed rail bonds actually making it to the voters next year may not be as glum as thought earlier this month. Just before the State of the State address, aides to Governor Schwarzenegger suggested the $9 billion in bonds for the project not only be taken off the 2008 ballot, but possibly sidelined for good. But Speaker Nunez today expressed support for a 2008 bond measure. “I think it’s the right thing to do,” he said.

* Nunez is a skilled negotiator… for proof, take his answer on whether plans for new dams on California rivers should move forward. Most Democrats loathe the idea; most Republicans, including the governor, think new water storage is vital. “I didn’t even realize how religious an issue water storage was,” Nunez said about last year’s legislative fracas on the issue. But just moments after saying he agrees with most Democrats who oppose new dams, the Speaker said this: “If there’s a deal on something here [at the Capitol] that’s going to help poor people, that’s going to expand health care coverage to every Californian… I might be more open to taking a look.”

* And while he walked a tightrope on the subject of dams, the Speaker dodged the issue completely when talk turned to a soon-to-be-introduced bill from Assemblymember Sally Lieber (D-Mountain View) to put restrictions on the spanking of children.

Was Nunez spanked as a child? “My father tried to spank me a couple of times, but he had to chase me around the block, because he couldn’t catch me.” Does he spank his children? “No, I don’t spank my kids.” Will he support Lieber’s bill? Ah, the tough question.

“This is a very deep, personal issue for families,” Nunez said. Looks like the Speaker’s father is not the only one who can’t catch him.

The ink is hardly dry on the various health care reform proposals floating around the Capitol, and already one of the big players in the debate has taken his case to the airwaves.

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) today released a 30-second TV commercial touting his own health care reform proposal, in a manner somewhat like he pitched his own infrastructure bond proposal last year in TV ads that debuted early in the debate.

The ad describes the Democratic leader’s proposal as a plan “covering more Californians, controlling costs, and asking Washington to do its fair share.” Perata’s political team says the ad will air in Sacramento and the Bay Area, but did not provide any info on the size of the ad buy.

You can see the ad here.

(Above photo: Perata’s campaign website)

Our friends at National Public Radio have launched a series of reports this week on the new buzz around the nation of bipartisanship, in a series they call “Crossing The Divide.”

This afternoon, NPR correspondent Ina Jaffe took a closer look at the man who some hope will lead the way. As they say, so goes California, so goes the nation.

You can hear the story online here.

Governor Schwarzenegger made his annual appearance today at the Sacramento Press Club. And as usual, he fielded questions on just about every political and policy topic out there.

Contrary to some of the suggestions made recently, the governor downplayed his intentions vis-a-vis the 2008 race for the White House. He said he wants the major parties to address important issues, but he’s not ready to get too involved in the campaign.

“I’m not going to chase the presidential candidates from state to state,” he said.

[More of that answer can be heard here.]

The governor also reiterated his support for moving the state’s presidential primary to February. “I’m interested in making California a player,” he said.

And is there any chance he’d endorse a Democrat for president? “We all should look at all the candidates carefully,” said Schwarzenegger. Later, he seemed to reiterate support for Republicans… but not without a lot of caveats. [You can here that answer here, with the Q asked by George Skelton of the Los Angeles Times.]

Asked about whether he was willing to reform the state’s troubled health care system in separate steps, the governor quickly said, “No. Absolutely not, because I think that we should not piecemeal this.” [You can here that question & answer here.]

And at one point, Schwarzenegger was asked about the status of his relationship with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-SF). “I really don’t have a relationship with here,” he said matter-of-factly. The governor went on to say he hopes to have a working relationship with Pelosi, especially when it comes to federal funding for the Golden State. [You can hear those comments here.]

Look for audio from the full event on the SPC’s website later tonight.