D-Day Votes 2006

Well, I just filled out my absentee ballot (me like pen and paper when it comes to voting), and I thought I'd deliver the all-important D-Day endorsements. Take them or leave them.

• Governor: Phil Angelides. About six months ago I wrote about how this Governor's race seemed like the 1996 Presidential race: a loyal soldier from the party being made a sacrificial lamb against a high-on-charm opponent. I still feel that's what's going on. I don't think the California Democratic Party put their best foot forward in this race. This race was defined in November 2005, when the CDP and the unions let Arnold Schwarzenegger up off the mat after being destroyed in his own Special Election. The Democrats in the Legislature wanted to get their agenda implemented, and that's fine, but clearly Arnold had a good year because everybody took a break and stopped challenging him.

That said, my opinion of how the race will go, unchanged in six months, has no bearing on who I think would make a better governor. I've gotten to know Phil Angelides through a bunch of appearances and a couple personal discussions, and he'd made a great chief executive for this state. I believe he'd work to strengthen the middle class and make California a leader in alternative energy. He has a true progressive agenda, unlike the Republican in Democrat's clothing that is his opponent. It felt good to vote for him.

• Lieutenant Governor: John Garamendi. His opponent Tom McClintock is a complete lunatic. Bottom line.

• Secretary of State: Debra Bowen. I've been proud to work for a true defender of voting rights on a few occasions. Like I've said, the second most-important elected official in this state (behind President) is the person who controls elections in the most populous state. Nobody's sharper on election issues, e-voting, etc., than Debra Bowen. Her opponent authorized voting machines that didn't pass inspection and let officials take other machines home on sleepovers back in June. No contest.

• Controller: John Chiang. Bright, young guy. Fresh face. His opponent is trying to buy the election through Indian gaming groups.

• Treasurer: Bill Lockyer, though I'm not so into the musical chairs and retreads. California's Democratic Party needs a shakeup. Maybe next time.

• Attorney General: Jerry Brown. See above, though for some insane reason I've always liked Jerry Brown.

• Insurance Commissioner: Larry Cafiero. I draw the line at Cruz Bustamante. He's a political hack whose hand always seems to be in the till. Steve Poizner, the Republican, is trying to buy the election with his wealth. I punted and went with the Green. See, I'm not a straight-ticket guy!

• Board of Equalization: Judy Chu. I've actually met her. Nice lady.

• US Senate: Dianne Feinstein. This was right on the knife's edge. I'm not all that happy with my choice here. Dick Mountjoy wrote Prop. 187 and lied about his military service. Feinstein voted for the war after acknowledging that her constituents didn't want her to do so. Todd Chretien is the Green and he looks like an 8 year-old. In the end, the most important vote in the Senate to me is the one for Majority Leader. I expect a challenge to Dianne in 2012.

• US House: Henry Waxman. He's awesome.

• State Assembly: Julia Brownley. I've met her, and I want her to advocate for getting money out of politics. Candidates for state assembly spent obscene amounts of money in primaries this year.

• Judges: Smart Voter was very helpful on this.

• Propositions: My baseline vote on propositions is NO unless I have a compelling reason.

1A-1E: No on all but 1E. I simply don't believe in borrow and spend economics, leaving our children and grandchildren with a birth tax. 1E is different only because the levees and flood protection walls in Sacramento are in such bad shape that it's nearing disaster.
83: No. This is a violation of civil rights that won't make any child safer.
84: No. See the 1A-1E explanation.
85: No. We beat this parental notification initiative last year, and we'll beat it this year.
86: No. Cigarette users pay like $5 in taxes per pack in this state. It's enough already.
87: Yes. Our oil extraction tax is way too low. Funding alternative energy research ought to be a priority. Anytime I see Chevron's name on ads I vote the other way.
88: No. It's a regressive tax. Big no-no. The supporters of this bill bailed out months ago.
89: YES YES YES we need public financing of political campaigns. Again, Chevron's on the opposition ads, so I go the other way.
90: Absolutely not, it's a power grab by developers.

• Santa Monica issues: I won't bore you. But I will say that, even here in "The People's Republic of Santa Monica," we have a political machine. And it's ugly.

Six years ago, nearly 60% of Santa Monica's voters approved an anti-corruption law that banned a politician from accepting jobs, gifts or campaign donations from contractors or others who had benefited from that politician's vote.

Sounds reasonable, right?

City Hall didn't think so. The bulk of its notoriously liberal council members went on a rampage. Since the law passed, they've tried to subvert the will of the people and wipe the Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000 off the books.

This has cost taxpayers more than $400,000 in legal fees. At one point, Santa Monica officials sued their own city clerk over enforcement of the law, hoping a court would rule that it was unconstitutional.

I asked Susanne Griffin, a Santa Monica resident since 1967 and a supporter of the anti-corruption measure, what it's like to watch as your city attorney uses your tax dollars to sue your city clerk so your vote can be invalidated.

"The city is very progressive in many ways," she said. "But when it comes to this, I just don't know what they're doing."

The argument by city officials was that restricting donors would be an infringement of their right of free speech. But the city lost in court, and then lost on appeal, and then the state Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

End of story?

Forget it.

Unable to accept defeat, the City Council ordered up Proposition W for the November ballot and shamelessly called it the Good Government Act, with only Councilman Kevin McKeown voting against it. Essentially, it would rip up the 2000 reform law and replace it with a measure that would limit the size of gifts a politician could accept, but allow him to accept a campaign donation or even a job after voting on matters affecting the donor.

There's virtually nothing of substance in W, says Carmen Balber of Election Watchdog. For the most part, she says dismissively, it simply restates restrictions that are already covered by state law.

Anytime I see an incumbent on the Santa Monica ballot, I vote against them. They are as slimy as could be (Bobby Shriver, Maria's brother, is a bright spot).

You are now free to use these endorsements and vote in good conscience.