1 / 11

Money and Direct Democracy in California

Money and Direct Democracy in California. Professor Richard L. Hasen (rick.hasen@lls.edu) Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Prepared for presentation at 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, San Francisco, CA, August 1, 2010. Outline of presentation.

oona
Download Presentation

Money and Direct Democracy in California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Money and Direct Democracy in California Professor Richard L. Hasen (rick.hasen@lls.edu) Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Prepared for presentation at 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, San Francisco, CA, August 1, 2010

  2. Outline of presentation • No era of “hybrid democracy” in California. • The connection between candidate elections and ballot measure elections in California • The importance of disclosure in California ballot measure elections

  3. “Hybrid democracy” • Some predicted era of “hybrid democracy” after 2003 recall election, where initiatives would play greater role in governance • Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to use initiative process to bypass legislature • Over $1.3 billion spent on ballot-measure related activity between 2000 and 2006

  4. Passage Rates of California Initiatives

  5. California government seen as dysfunctional during period • Perennial budget battles (disagreement over effect of initiatives on budget process) • Record deficits • Divisive fight over Prop. 8 • Lots of government reform (open primaries, redistricting), but no constitutional convention

  6. Candidate controlled ballot measure committees • No limits on contributions in ballot measure elections because no candidate to corrupt (U.S. Supreme Court CARC case) • Ignores reality of California politics

  7. California Elected officials and the Ballot Measure Process • Extensive party involvement • At least 43 candidate-controlled ballot measure committees 1990-2004, raising at least $84 million • 63% of ballot measures feature argument or rebuttal in pamphlet signed by elected official

  8. Top Donors to California Recovery Team (controlled by Gov. Schwarzenegger) as of Nov. 1, 2004

  9. Importance of Disclosure of Funders in Ballot Measure Elections • Prop. 16: would have protected private electrical utility from public utility competition • Total contributions to “Yes” campaign: $40.6 million (amount from PG&E: approximately $40.5 million) • Total contributions to “No” campaigns: approximately $80,000

  10. Measure went down to defeat 47% - 53%. Why?

  11. Disclosure

More Related