Dan Lungren is no stranger to California politics. Former state attorney general. 1998 GOP candidate for governor.

And... he's apparently no stranger to the chaise lounges sitting poolside on Hawaii's Big Island.

Tonight's investigative report on ABC News featured one of the most bizarre politician-apparently-caught-on-tape explanations you'll ever see. And Lungren, who represents the Sacramento suburbs in the U.S. House of Representatives, is the pol in the hotseat.

The story in a nutshell: a new federal ethics law bans lobbyists from paying the way for members of Congress to symposiums that look more like lavish vacations. And while the law apparently stopped most lawmakers from attending a Hawaiian getaway in January sponsored by the American Association of Airport Executives, it didn't stop Rep. Lungren.

Here's where it gets interesting.

ABC reports that AAAE threw a political fundraiser for Lungren at the same resort where the association's annual gathering was also underway. And thanks to donations to the fundraiser, the network's report claims Lungren was able to use $4,900 of lobbyist "donations" to pay for the trip... thereby avoiding any direct "gift" from AAAE.

And now, the payoff: ABC's interview with Lungren, a chance for the veteran lawmaker to explain how he appeared to have found a clever way around the new ethics rules.

Hopefully, the video will be posted later so you can see it for yourself... because the following ABC online version doesn't do it justice:

"Organizations have their conventions usually at nice places," Rep. Lungren told ABC News. "I'll admit I like to go to that particular one."

Lungren, a member of a key committee that oversees airport security issues, insisted he carried out important discussions with airport executives while at the pool. "I'm a California kid," Rep. Lungren told ABC News. "I grew up around pools. We do a lot of business around pools." Asked if he would have attended if the January conference were held in Pittsburgh, Lungren said, "Do I look like I go to Pittsburgh in January?"

Lungren delivered most of the comments above while smiling at ABC chief investigative correspondent Brian Ross.

It's unclear why the story, documented back in the winter, only aired tonight. But one has to wonder how his explanation on national TV fared with constituents in the tony suburbs of Sacramento.

A few days ago, a new billboard went up alongside Interstate 5 here in Sacramento, at a location on the freeway where you can see the dome of the state Capitol in the background. That's not by accident.

The above logo plastered on the billboard is new... but the issue is not. In fact, it appears we're in for a new chapter in a contentious battle-- a fight over legislation to require most dogs and cats be spayed or neutered.

AB 1634 by Assemblymember Lloyd Levine (D-Van Nuys) was one of the most talked about bills of 2007 in Sacramento. Thousands of letters, emails, and phone calls on both sides were launched at the Legislature. Levine amended the legislation seven times in hopes of mollifying critics that called it, among other things, an unfair limit on their basic freedoms.

But since July of last year, AB 1634 has sat in the Senate Local Government Committee.

So what gives with the new campaign?

"We're gearing back up," said Judie Mancuso of the pro-AB 1634 California Taxpayers for Safe and Healthy Pets. Mancuso says the billboards were paid for by a Los Angeles physician, and that her group is hoping to revive the issue of mandatory spay/neuter before time runs out.

Mancuso's group commissioned a poll earlier this year where two-thirds of respondents said they either somewhat support or strongly support a proposal like AB 1634. She also says the group hired a powerful lobbying firm to try and run the bill across the goal line in the Legislature.

That being said, there are likely to again be large throngs of opponents decrying what they call a "one size fits all" approach to the pet population. Still, Assemblymember Levine said in a brief phone interview today that "the need for this type of legislation still exists."

Time is short on this one; Assembly bills have until June 27 to make it out of policy committees in the Senate.

Every good pollster will tell you that a poll is merely a snapshot in time. That may mean no one should read too much into today's Field Poll showing a slim majority of Californians now support same sex marriages. After all, opinions change.

But another argument may be made that this is far from a fleeting development, as support for the idea has slowly but measurably grown. And that theory can be backed up by more than 30 years of surveying on the issue by respected pollsters Mervin Field and Mark DiCamillo.

Today's headline is clearly the poll results showing 51% of voters surveyed approve of gay marriages, while 42% oppose them. The poll will be online here later today.

But beyond that is some fascinating data about how the issue has changed over time. First, the historical context. In this poll, and six others dating back to 1977, Field asked the following question (used verbatim every time in the past 31 years):

Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?

Only 28% of adults agreed with that statement in 1977. By 1997, it was 38%. In 2004, 44% of voters agreed. Today, it's eeked over the majority line at 51%.

So what's going on? No definitive answers, but some reasonable theories:

1. Young vs. Old: The generation gap on this issue is now enormous. Field's new poll finds those between the ages of 18 and 39 strongly favor same sex marriages, while those 65 and over strongly reject them.

2. Urban vs. Rural: The familiar schism in California politics is holding true on this issue. Los Angeles and the Bay Area approve in the new poll, while voters in the Central Valley and Inland Empire generally do not. The divide is roughly the same when breaking the state down by coastal counties versus inland ones.

3. Religion: In one of the more controversial and murky areas of the poll, more Catholics and Protestants surveyed disapprove than approve. And those describing themselves as born-again Christians strongly reject the concept, 68%-24%.

As you might expect, the other big attention-getter in this poll is the fact that the likely November intiative to amend the state constitution and ban gay marriage looks to be in trouble before it even qualifies for the ballot. Regardless of how the question was asked (and it was asked two different ways), at least 51% of registered voters said they oppose such a plan. Field notes that the findings mirror other surveys on whether the issue should be amended into the U.S. Constitution -- perhaps that major step is the problem.

But one particular item stands out in my quick analysis, and it's the growing acceptance of same sex marriage among California's new power players in state politics: the indepedent "decline to state" voters. In Field's August 2003 survey on the issue, just 50% of these voters said they approved of gay marriages. This time around, support among decline to state respondents is at 61%.

Remember, this is the single fastest growing group of California voters -- now almost 20%. This is also the group that has been closely tied to the political fortunes of Governor Schwarzenegger, who has said he will oppose the initiative if it makes it to the ballot. The convention wisdom is that most Democrats support same sex marriage and most Republicans oppose it. But the real action, to borrow a phrase from the guv, is with non-partisan voters. And they may hold the key to whether California takes the national lead on this issue in November... one way or the other.

It may not yet be a fully formed proposal for voters to consider, but from what they've heard... they don't seem thrilled about Governor Schwarzenegger's plan to sell bonds paid back by future revenues from the California Lottery.

That's probably the headline in the poll released tonight by the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC found 58% of all adults and 62% of likely voters are opposed to the governor's $15 billion lottery bond proposal.

But even more interesting is the fact that they actually seem to like the one idea that seems the least likely to materialize: a temporary one cent hike in the sales tax.

Schwarzenegger proposed the tax hike as an insurance policy should the voters reject the lottery idea. Legislative Republicans unanimously rejected the idea. But the new poll finds 54% of adults like the idea, and 57% of likely voters like it. Even 51% of Republicans surveyed said they'd support the plan, though all respondents made their support contingent on the tax being temporary, not permanent.

Also on the subject of taxes, voters seem to prefer sticking it to big businesses and rich people. 63% like the idea of raising the state corporations tax; 69% like the idea of raising the top income tax rate for the most wealthy.

Elsewhere, 78% of those surveyed by PPIC are either somewhat or very concerned with the governor's new plan to cut another $3 billion out of health and human services programs. But only 17% said these programs were their priority in protecting; not surprisingly, the one sacred cow for the voters continues to be K-12 education (61% said it should be spared from budget cuts).

Meantime, only 35% of likely voters said they like the governor's budget on the whole. In fact, only 17% of the adults surveyed said they prefer Schwarzenegger's budget ideas above all others, while 57% said they'd pick either the ideas of legislative Democrats or Republicans.

So what's the silver lining for Schwarzenegger? Not his approval numbers; they're down to 41%, a 15 point drop in just five month's time.

No, the top vote getter for the guv may just be his ideas on changing the budget process... or at least as much as the voters know about it. PPIC asked whether voters like the idea of a new limit on how much state spending could increase from year to year. 68% of likely voters said they'd go along with that.

Governor Schwarzenegger has never liked to call himself a politician, but he's certainly mastered what could be called a different "theory of relativity" -- one that's a key skill to succeeding in politics.

This morning, after a speech at the California Chamber of Commerce's annual event here in Sacramento, the governor met with reporters for a few minutes of rapid fire Q&A in what we affectionately call a "scrum."

Rugby references aside, the reporter briefing was noteworthy for how quickly the governor switched from talking about protecting the future... to using the future.

Specially, we're talking money. I asked the governor about convincing the public that his lottery bond proposal is a good idea (stay tuned for more on this tonight and tomorrow).

Schwarzenegger compared the proposal -- technically a revenue securitization plan (careful, don't raise the ire of the administraton and call it "borrowing") -- to the state's actions a few years ago in getting an advance loan on future settlement money from a tobacco industry lawsuit.

Here's what he said:

But just minutes later, as he discussed his ideas on budget reform and reining in state spending, Schwarzenegger laid down a challenge to lawmakers to stop depending on the future, and to instead live in the here and now when it comes to revenues.

Here's what he said:

So does that mean the future is fair game... or not? And if you use future money now, then isn't that just another way of avoiding a real balance of revenues and expenses?

Yes, all of this may only be a word game. And techincally, the governor may not have been inconsistent, if you believe that getting money now -- regardless of where it comes from -- counts as the kind of cash in the bank he's talking about.

But budget relativity... where someone says let's not wait until tomorrow to solve today's problems but let's leverage tomorrow to make today balance out... is the very kind of logic maze that induces the same kind of brain freeze as a milkshake being drunk too fast.

The governor is far from the only one who expertly navigates such mazes. But he's also better than most, and Schwarzenegger has historically been very good at creating just the image he wants. You might even call him a skilled... politician.

It seems like California's official campaign finance watchdog is barking a little louder these days about the role of money in politics. And its top target: the murky world of interest groups who ostensibly operate independently of the campaigns run by candidates for office.

The Fair Political Practices Commission recently began a new effort to shine light on the millions of dollars in "independent expenditures" spent in support or opposition of various candidates. IEs, as they're known to politicos, gained special prominence after the passage of Proposition 34 in 2000. The ballot measure was marketed as a way to dampen the influence of money in politics. But it seems to have mostly been a measure cleverly crafted by legislative leaders to change the flow of cash from one path to another that's not as transparent... and one where contributions can be made in unlimited amounts, as long as the committee in question is legally independent of any candidate.

The FPPC recently launched a page on its website devoted to tracking IE money in the 2008 campaigns. This morning, the agency released a detailed and fascinating look at who's been behind the most expensive IE efforts since Prop 34 took effect.

The report, "Independent Expenditures: The Giant Gorilla In Campaign Finance," finds that over the past six years IE committees have made a whopping $88 million in political contributions. Of that amount, a full $61.7 million was above and beyond the contribution limits outlined in Prop 34. Again, it's not that the contributions were illegal; rather, that they were made through a legal but not-so-visible loophole in the law.

The new report can be found online here. Some of the more juicy morsels worth pondering:

* The #1 IE since Prop 34 took effect was in support of Democrat Phil Angelides in the 2006 gubernatorial primary. That IE committee, known as "Californians For a Better Government," spent more than $9.8 million to help Angelides defeat rival Democrat Steve Westly. The FPPC report says more than 80% of that money came from Sacramento developers Angelo Tsakopoulos and his daughter, Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis. Angelides was a one-time business partner of the elder Tsakopoulos.

* The report reaffirms what most political watchers already knew-- that much of the money funneled into IE campaigns has come from familiar political players: labor unions, business groups, and Indian tribes with casinos.

* The FPPC identifies seven politicians it calls "Million Dollar Babies," meaning that at least $1 million was spent in support of that candidate's campaign. The list, in order of IEs spent on their behalf: Phil Angelides in his losing 2006 race for governor ($19.6 million); Democrat John Chiang in his winning 2006 race for controller ($3.5 million); Republican Tony Strickland in his losing 2006 race for controller ($2.1 million); Democrat Lou Correa in his winning 2006 race for the state Senate ($2.4 million); Democrat John Dutra in his losing 2006 race for the state Senate ($1.8 million); Democrat Gloria Negrete-McLeod in her winning 2006 race for the state Senate ($1.2 million); and Democrat Nicole Parra in her winning 2006 race for the state Assembly ($1.2 million).

The FPPC's new chairman, former legislator Ross Johnson, is no stranger to the world of campaign finance-- having worked on a number of contributions rules and regulations for the better part of the last two decades. His new reign as the top man at the FPPC is shaping up to be one of the most activist eras at the agency in recent memory.

Governor Schwarzenegger's revised budget may balance on paper, but it's got some serious underlying risks.

That's the new assessment of Legislative Analyst Elizabeth Hill, whose nonpartisan overview of the guv's so-called "May Revise" is hot off the presses this morning.

Hill says her analysts agree that the budget shortfall to solve for the coming year is $15.2 billion. An important note: you're going to see a $17.2 billion problem talked about a lot in other news reports and by the Schwarzenegger administration. But that tacks on the governor's desired $2 billion in stashed away reserve funds. No argument that such a fund would be helpful; but given that's not actually part of the accumulated deficit, we're going to stick with $15.2 billion.

But the LAO analysis raps Schwarzenegger and his team on the knuckles regarding both their lottery bond proposal and their budget reform plan.

First, the lottery. Hill says the governor's $15 billion dollar loan from Wall Street investors, to be paid back over 30 years with future California Lottery proceeds is "overly optimistic." And in language sure to catch the eye of powerful education interest groups, she projects the plan could actually end up hurting public school funding in the future.

The "proposal would create the strong likelihood that distributions to public education from the lottery would fall well short of their current levels --perhaps by $5 billion over the next 12 years combined," says the report.

The reason for this: the governor's budget advisers can only speculate about how changes in the way the lottery is allowed to operate (games offered, size of jackpots) will increase overall revenues. Their model, according to the LAO, assumes that lottery profits will double in the next five to nine years. And as mentioned in a posting last week, the administration admits that investors, not public schools, will be first in line for a share of future lottery revenues. In other words, if the new and improved lottery fails to bring in double the amount of profits it currently has... it will be education, not investors, that take the hit.

And a new little nugget found by the LAO analysis: Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed that if the lottery proposal is rejected by voters in November or is otherwise stymied (by lawsuits, perhaps?), an additional one cent sales tax would be imposed across California. Granted, the governor says the tax hike is an insurance policy only (though even that's not enough for his tax-averse GOP friends in the Legislature). But the LAO says if that sales tax hike is triggered, the timing of the process may not produce as much cash as the lottery bonds; the budget could then be in the red, the report says, by $2 billion. If that wasn't enough, another quirk to the sales tax option: Proposition 98 requires a portion of those new revenues to go to schools and not to the General Fund.

Finally, there's the governor's ideas on budget reform... which, by the way, still has not been introduced as legislation even as the deadline to get it on the November ballot is a little more than five weeks away.

The LAO analysis claims the governor's plan, as much as can be gleaned without the actual proposal, would lock in budget shortfalls. In fact, the LAO says the formula of capping budget spending could mean requirements to deposit cash into a new reserve fund even when a budget shortfall forces spending cuts elsewhere. A similar criticism of the budget reform proposal was released late last week by the folks at the California Budget Project.

Granted, the governor's revised budget is merely a starting point for negotiations with the Legislature over the next few weeks. But it's now clear that current criticisms of many key assumptions in his proposal can't be merely dismissed as being partisan.

"I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

That's the official statement from Governor Schwarzenegger after this morning's announcement by the California Supreme Court that same sex couples have the same rights to marriage as do heterosexual couples.

The 4-3 decision is sure to dominate the state's airwaves and newspapers for the next few days; the ruling takes effect in 30 days and it's reasonable to assume that thousands of gay couples will be applying for marriage licenses at that time.

Setting aside the decision and the details of the issue for a moment, let's consider the politics.

Public opinion polls have found some changes in the attitudes of Californians about the issue of same sex marriage in recent years... with what appears to be more support than existed when Proposition 22 passed in 2000.

Prop 22 was focused on state statute and not the California Constitution -- hence, it's a little tangential to the high court's ruling today. It's also a tangent to the initiative that voters may be asked to weigh in on this November: an actual amendment to the state constitution to ban same sex marriage... in other words, a cancellation of today's legal victory for gay couples.

But it's not tangential to the politics, with many seeing all of this as a cultural battle. The new initiative appears to be a lock to qualify for the ballot. And that raises the likelihood that it will dominate what's going to be an already crowded ballot. As his above statement makes clear, Schwarzenegger has firmly stated his opposition to the anti-gay marriage initiative. That puts him, once again, at odds with his conservative GOP brethren.

But will he campaign against the measure? Or better yet, how broad a coalition will arise to challenge conservative supporters? How will the political campaign influence the race for the White House (California is, after all, the big enchilada when it comes to electoral votes)? How might the debate shape the political future of possible gubernatorial candidates... in particular, the gentleman from San Francisco?

There are many, many layers of political intrigue here. And the ink is barely dry on the historic ruling.

For complete coverage of today's ruling, tune in to KQED Public Radio this afternoon for a half hour special news report, and more coverage tomorrow on The California Report.

Ah, where to begin?

Governor Schwarzenegger's new budget proposal reminds me of the old adage that journalists have used so much that it's become a badge of honor in our profession: if people on both sides of something are mad at me, then I must be doing something right.

Of course, it's never that simple... in the news biz, or with this state budget plan.

The $144 billion spending proposal seeks to erase what the governor's advisers say is a $17.2 billion shortfall (to be fair, it's actually $15.2 billion in red ink, with $2 billion more for a reserve). $9.1 billion of the solutions are spending cuts. Those are, in several cases, serious cutbacks... many in health and welfare programs.

But it's the new revenues the guv is counting on that are getting a lot of the attention.

And more than 60% of those new revenues are found in Schwarzenegger's unusual... and already controversial... plan to sell bonds repaid by future profits from the California Lottery. The governor's team doesn't like that many of us are calling it "borrowing." Call it "securitization," or "selling future lottery profits," they say. But it's also true that the state would be asking for a loan from Wall Street investors for $15 billion in future lottery earnings up front, to be paid back with interest.

Only $5.1 billion of that loaned cash would be used now; the rest would be stashed away. The entire plan would have to be blessed by voters in November, because the lottery itself was created by an initiative in 1984.

The lottery idea isn't a new one. Three other states -- Oregon, Florida, and West Virgina -- have already embarked on somewhat similar lottery bond offerings.

But what is new is the ultimatum that Schwarzenegger and legislators (who'd have to agree to place it to the ballot) would be sending to voters: agree to change the lottery... or the state will enact a 1% sales tax increase.

The threat of a tax increase immediately had legislative Republicans threatening to go to the mattresses. But it may also become perceived as a "give us your money one way or the other" kind of strategy: buy lottery tickets or pay more in sales tax at the register.

And how might you get more people to play the lottery? Many of the ideas were discussed back in March when a state Senate committee considered the idea of lottery privatization: more marketing... perhaps even to younger Californians... more machines in more neighborhoods... and bigger jackpots. Those same kinds of changes are currently enshrined in SB 1679 by Sen. Dean Florez (D-Shafter), a lottery reform bill upon which the governor's plan appears modeled.

But bigger jackpots means that the long-standing guarantee of 34% of lottery sales going to education must be eliminated. And that's raised the ire of the powerful California Teachers Association, which formally opposes SB 1679.

Education's role in lottery revenues would be further diminished by something made explicit today in a Q&A between reporters and Schwarzenegger's budget director, Mike Genest: Wall Street investors would have first dibs at future lottery revenues. "Education revenue is subordinate" under this plan, said Genest.

Something tells me that's going to be a tough pill to swallow.

There will be much more to examine on this issue... and the budget battle... in the coming weeks. But one other thought to ponder on this sweltering day in Sac Town: the lottery proposal and the governor's much ballyhooed budget reform plan both have to be on the November ballot.

The first (and official) deadline for getting them on the ballot is June 26. That's fine if the budget's enacted in time, too, for the July 1 fiscal year. But almost no one in Sacramento thinks that will happen... meaning elections officials could also be scrambling to get these two measures included in the fall lineup.

That title has only been used once before in the California Assembly (and then only under unusual circumstances), but it'll be the buzz word for today when Karen Bass is sworn in as the 67th speaker of the lower house.

Bass hooked the top job several weeks ago, but today formally assumes the title and the power. The 53-year-old Los Angeles Democrat replaces Fabian Nunez at the helm, three months after Nunez's gambit to modify the existing term limits law was rejected by voters.

Speaker Bass spent some time with several Capitol reporters over the past few days, including a brief interview with me late last week.

In such a setting, it quickly becomes clear that she's much more succinct than the often verbose Nunez. That truncated communication style may be the perfect fit for her similarly slim agenda as leader of the Assembly. In almost every recent interview, including ours, Bass has said that there are only three things on her to do list: solving this year's budget mess, examining systemic reform of the state tax code, and strengthening California's overburdened and often neglected foster care system.

Click below to hear my profile of Bass that aired this morning on The California Report.

Aside from the big items on her agenda, a few other comments on recent issues from my interview with the new "Madam Speaker":

Redistricting: Bass says she supports an effort to remove political map drawing duties from the hands of the Legislature... but she's stopping short of an endorsement of the proposal that appears headed for the ballot thanks to the work of Governor Schwarzenegger and government reform groups. In fact, she expressed reservations about the proposal, and a desire to see what might come out of a new effort on the issue pledged by the outgoing Speaker Nunez.

Health care reform: Bass also said she'd like to return to last year's discussion on changes to the state's health care system... and dismisses any speculation that legislative efforts on the issue are all but dead in the near future.

Foster care reform: And back on her pet issue, Bass explained her interest in a future ballot initiative to find a new way of paying for the state's troubled foster care system... and why the needs are so great.

Today's big ceremony in the Assembly chambers will feature a who's who of VIPs, including many of the politicos who once held the job of speaker. And then it's back to work... and Bass' greatest challenger... as Governor Schwarzenegger unveils his much anticipated revised budget tomorrow afternoon.