Voters supporting limits on campaign contributions would do well to remember the old adage that money will always find its way into politics, the same way water finds its way through the cracks of anything holding it back.

And a new report out today confirms just that, calculating the total amount raised by politicians and candidates on the legislative and statewide level at more than $1 billion since 2001.
(more...)

There's plenty of coverage out there of President Barack Obama's southern California trip... which leaves a niche politics blog to highlight something else -- and that's what a difference a few months can make.
(more...)

Well, you won't be surprised to learn things are quiet on this day in California's statehouse, with all the political oxygen sucked out towards the east and the inauguration of the 44th President of the United States.

Many of California's leaders are bundled up and in Washington, D.C. Governor Schwarzenegger was on hand for the inauguration of President Barack Obama, as was Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, Lt. Governor John Garamendi, Attorney General Jerry Brown... and the list goes on.

Budget negotiations were put on hold, allowing staffers time to flesh out some of the proposals apparently being talked about in closed door meetings (that from gubernatorial press secretary Aaron McLear, who declined to say more about those proposals). We're told the legislative leaders and Schwarzenegger are likely to regather on Thursday here at the state Capitol.

In the meantime, I encourage you to check out some of the great inaugural coverage being done by my colleagues at The California Report -- namely, host Scott Shafer and producer Suzie Racho, who have been in Washington for about a week chronicling the Golden State experience of this moment in history.

And now, a pause from our regularly scheduled program. I'm headed back east for a few days with family... here's hoping all of you have a safe and happy holiday. Except for tomorrow's podcast (which was pre-recorded), no new postings are likely until after the New Year.

Yes, there might be budget news. But for now, I've settled in for a long winter's nap. Here's hoping you get to do the same.

[note: still trying to figure out why the formatting is mucked up below... apologies]

Call it a glimpse into California's political past.

That's one way to describe a collection of fascinating photographs now online from the archives of Time and Life magazines. The photos, hosted by -- who else -- Google offer an incredible glimpse at everything, everywhere, for the better part of the last 150 years.

But this is a blog about California politics... and the archive doesn't disappoint on that front.

There are an awful lot of photos of Ronald Reagan in his campaigns for governor, like this candid shot from 1966. The legendary incumbent he beat that year is also a photo favorite.

Photos of Pat Brown are numerous. This is a great shot from 1962 of the Democrat watching Richard Nixon on TV, the same year that Brown defeated Nixon for another term as governor.

There are also an awful lot of photos of Brown away from the office, like this 1961 photo of him surfing in Hawaii; the candid photos show a politician unafraid of being seen at play... a far cry from the pols of the modern era.

A foil of both Brown and Reagan, the legendary Jess Unruh, is also featured in a series of Life photos; this one is only pegged with a date of 1970 (perhaps from his gubernatorial run?). Unruh, the once powerful speaker of the Assembly, is mislabeled in a few other photos... most notably in the poignant photo of Robert F. Kennedy just moments before his assassination, where Unruh is noted as the mayor of Los Angeles (a job he unsuccessfully campaigned for a few years later).

And going backwards from that point, this photo is also worth noting: a chat between then outgoing Governor Earl Warren and incoming Governor Goodwin Knight, taken in the governor's Capitol office in 1953.

On the surface, the pitched PR battle waged today between Democrats and Republicans seems like it's flavored with a dash of the same old spin.

But in reality, it goes to the heart of the literal budget problem that's plagued California's statehouse for years: a stalemate caused by virtually incompatible political ideologies.

Today's first volley was fired by Republicans. In a morning news conference, GOP legislators placed plans for a new government spending limit on the negotiating table. The proposal outline calls for a constitutional amendment to limit the annual growth in budget expenditures to the percentage change in California's population growth and inflation. Any revenues above that estimate would be automatically transferred into a reserve fund earmarked for resolving budget shortfalls and/or debt repayment.

That part of the proposal is a dead ringer for plans submitted in 2003 by both a former GOP legislator and one backed by the newly elected Governor Schwarzenegger after the 2003 recall. Those plans used the same "cap" formula, one that a 2003 analysis by the California Budget Project suggested could result in extra deep cuts to almost everything but public school funding, which would still be protected by the Proposition 98 guarantee. But the proposal differs from the latest call for budget reform by the governor, whose much-ballyhooed plan focuses on revenue forecasting.

The dilemma of which side of the ledger to focus on is why today's skirmish is really a clear view of the chasm between the two parties. For several years, legislative Republicans have stuck to a saying that Schwarzenegger himself latched on to during the 2005 special election: "We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem."

Senate GOP Leader Dave Cogdill put it even more bluntly in comments to reporters this morning: "This state has a spending addiction."

An hour later, Democrats took Republicans to task, using-- for the first time I've heard-- the exact converse of the now well-worn GOP adage.

"We don't have a spending problem," said Assemblymember Noreen Evans (D-Santa Rosa). "We have a revenue problem." Democrats are pushing hard for a solution this year that includes some new source of revenue... as much as $6 billion... to pay for the state services that they say everyone in California, regardless of party, is demanding.

Some of this divergence in world views is clearly due to a dispute over just what kinds of factors should be considered when building a state budget. Should spending decisions only be made once revenues are known? Should the state first decide what services it values and then figure out how to pay for them? Should spending be tightly linked to the budgets of years past? Or should it be flexible -- both in tax increases and tax cuts -- depending on the needs of the time?

That's the problem that's kept several years worth of budget talks dragging into the sizzling Sacramento summer. And it's the problem that threatens to do the same this time, too.

A long November ballot for California voters just got longer, as Secretary of State Debra Bowen has certified a proposal to strip legislators of the power to draw their own political districts.

The redistricting proposal was penned by representatives of California Common Cause, AARP, and the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce; but it was undoubtedly carried across the goal line by the fundraising prowess of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's campaign operation.

If voters approve the measure, a bipartisan citizens commission would draw legislative districts after the 2010 census, while the Legislature would retain the power to draw congressional districts.

Redistricting reform is a cause celebre among government reform advocates, but has been summarily rejected by California voters several times -- most recently in 2005 as Schwarzenegger's doomed Proposition 77.

As noted here before, this may not be the end of the November 4 ballot. Although it's doubtful any more initiatives will be certified in time, the governor and legislators are toying with the idea of two budget-related measures (budget reform and lottery revenue borrowing) and a measure to sell bonds to help stabilize California's ailing water supply.

Some new numbers reinforce the growing influence of independent expenditure committees, those political entities that can raise and spend money in unlimited amounts because they're not controlled by candidates for office.

Data compiled by the state's Fair Political Practices Commission on yesterday's legislative races in open seats (no incumbent) concludes that just under $10 million was spent by IE committees either for or against various challengers for the Assembly and Senate.

Most of that money, about $5.9 million, was spent on the 19 open Assembly races. And tops on that list appears to be the Democratic primary in Assembly District 8, where Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada knocked off West Sacramento Mayor Christopher Cabaldon. That race alone attracted more than $1.15 million in IE spending, with big money funneled into IE committees by both the educational non-profit EdVoice (pro-Cabaldon) and the California Teachers Association (pro-Yamada).

Big IE bucks were also spent the Democratic primary in the Bay Area's Assembly District 19 ($787,310) and in the Democratic primary for Los Angeles County's Assembly District 40 ($705,408).

On the state Senate side, IE campaigns spent a combined $3.77 million on six open seats. Tops here was the Democratic primary for Los Angeles County's Senate District 25. Here, former Assemblymember Rod Wright beat three challengers, including incumbent Assemblymember Mervyn Dymally. More than $950,000 of the IE money in this race came from one committee funded largely by business, real estate, and energy interests.

The second largest draw for IE cash on the Senate side was the GOP primary in Riverside County's Senate District 37, where Assemblymember John Benoit defeated former Assemblymember Russ Bogh.

The FPPC recently released a detailed report on independent expenditure committees, whose appeal can be found in that they are exempt from any of the donation limits under existing state campaign finance laws.

The main story out of today's news conference from Governor Schwarzenegger is, of course, important news: the governor has officially proclaimed a drought in California but has stopped short of imposing water restrictions, opting instead to first try and get the word out for more water conservation.

Schwarzenegger is using the proclamation to renew his push for borrowing $11.9 billion to create long-term solutions to California's water woes. Water bond negotiations broke down here in Sacramento months ago and have been in limbo ever since.

And so now to our minor but noteworthy point: the governor hopes to add the water bond to the ever-growing ballot that voters will be handed at the polling place on November 4.

"Put it on the ballot this November [and] pass it," he said at today's Capitol news conference, "so that we can start building, and so that we can secure the water for the future."

For those not keeping score at home: the November ballot already consists of eight measures-- seven voter-circulated initiatives, one measure placed on the ballot by the Legislature. That includes the proposition that's likely to crowd out all others for attention, an attempt to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriages.

Add #9 if Schwarzenegger's political team successfully gathered enough voter signatures to qualify a redistricting reform measure. And most politicos think that they did.

Add #10 if you think the victim's rights intiative known as "Marsy's Law" will qualify. And that, too, seems likely.

Add #11 for a $5 billion bond encouraging fuel-efficient vehicles and energy research.

Add #12, #13, and #14 if the governor gets his trifecta of budget reform, authorization to sell $15 billion in bonds against future California Lottery revenues, and now... water bonds.

14 ballot measures is a heck of a hefty ballot. Not that there haven't been hefty ballots in years past in California. But it certainly would seem that this particular myriad of complicated subjects, layered on top of an historic presidential campaign, could saddle the voters with quite a challenge.

Needless to say, Schwarzenegger thinks they're up to the task. "I think that the people enjoy participating in the political process," he said.

His complete answer, which focuses more on the policy issue at hand, can be heard here.

Having lined all of these proposals up, perhaps it's time for a reality check. The budget reform and lottery ballot measure plans are the stickiest of wickets, so much so that the odds of both of these making the November ballot currently seem a little long.

Reality check #2: the Legislature and governor are technically supposed to submit any ballot measures for November by June 26. Ummm... okay. That formal deadline has been stretched to the point of breaking in the past, and would apparently have to be stretched again this time.

Reality check #3: negotiating multiple complicated things at the same time is a tough act to pull off at the Capitol, even though Schwarzenegger today (as you can hear below) urged legislators to give it a shot.

But were it all to come true... 14 ballot measures, four of which would be near and dear to Schwarzenegger's heart... then consider this: which one(s) would he campaign for? Which would he raise money for?

In other words, how many ways can you slice the time... and spread the influence... of the state's most recognizable politician?

Is there anyone running state government the voters like?

On this election day, a sobering analysis from the Field Poll: voters are less than enamored with either Governor Schwarzenegger or his colleagues in the Legislature.

The guv's job approval numbers have gone up and down more than a roller coaster at Knott's Berry Farm.

Today, only 41% surveyed like how Schwarzenegger is doing; 48% do not. That's down 19 points from his approval ratings just six months ago, but still a few points above his all-time low in the Field Poll back in 2005. Most notable, I think, in the breakdown of subgroups of voters: independent voters (who "decline to state" a party affiliation) are almost split down the middle with 44% approving and 46% disapproving. That group of Californians are the historical base of Schwarzenegger's political support over the last five years.

Of course, the governor is all the rage compared to the Legislature as a whole; Field puts the institution's approval at just 30% of those surveyed.

But the big number may be what politicos call the "right track/wrong track" -- the numbers of voters who say things are either headed in the right or wrong direction. Field's new poll says only 23% say things are on the right track, versus 68% who feel things are lousy.

That's the most glum Californians have been in Field's surveys since the summer of 2003... when a certain celebrity launched his political career by placing the blame on the state's sitting chief executive.