The Iron Law Of Institutions In California

If you've been watching California politics for a while you may already know this to be true, but for those who ask me why the Republicans are so intransigent and inflexible when it comes to the budget, hear former Assemblyman Ray Haynes (h/t CapAlert) explain to you the reason. It's really really simple and intuitive.

The key problem, I said, was that the Governor and the Democrats were asking Republicans to betray a key principle of a key constituency and get nothing in return. The result to any Republican who voted for that tax increase would be the end of their political career. I know, because, I said, I would do everything in my power to make sure of it for anyone who voted for that tax increase, and I know there are a lot of Republicans who think like me [...]

Democrats are asking Republicans to end their political lives, but are not willing to end their own. Democrat constituency groups are asking Republican constituency groups to sell out their core principles, but are not willing to sell out any of their own.

This is an example of the Iron Law of Institutions, which states: "The people who control institutions care first and foremost about their power within the institution rather than the power of the institution itself. Thus, they would rather the institution "fail" while they remain in power within the institution than for the institution to "succeed" if that requires them to lose power within the institution." It is an expression of self-interest over the greater interests of the state.

You can hardly blame them. Republican primaries in California can get nasty, far worse than their races against Democrats. And the last time Republicans crossed over in any numbers to pass a sensible budget, the far-right fringe of the party punished them - and reinforced the Iron Law.

Democrats and their constituency groups have already made it clear that they are giving up nothing for ending your political career. You had better get a lot personally for it, because once it is done, and you are out of office, they will forget you ever existed. Just ask Mike Briggs, Brian Setencich, Anthony Pescetti, Dave Kelley, Paul Horcher, and Dick Dickerson. They gave the Democrats what they wanted, and they are now enjoying their time in the private sector. You will too.

What's significant here is how Haynes uses this kernel of truth to promote a bigger lie - that Democrats have "given up nothing" in a grand bargain to save the state. This is simply not true. For years and years they have made painful cuts to key programs, have expedited projects by waiving environmental restrictions, and have gone at least halfway on the budget. In Haynes' conception of the Iron Law, Democrats have to be willing to do something that would lose them their seats in office in order to get cooperation. He is asking, in essence, for a suicide pact. The fact that Democrats control the majority and one would think are actually entitled to enact their policies, and subsequently get called to account on the effects of those policies periodicially by the voters, doesn't enter much into Haynes' thinking. He alludes to it here:

Getting a political majority does entitle groups and people to certain policy gains. That is what getting power is all about. Winners get to enact their policy initiatives. They don't get to whine however when the minority has the opportunity to advance their policy initiatives, and the majority has to give up something to get what they want.

Of course, the majority HAS given up plenty to get what they want. But what Haynes calls "whining" is simply pointing out that a democracy with majority rule in elections might want to take the same course in governing, lest a tyranny of the minority take hold and create a hostage situation. I assume he wouldn't see it the same way.

There are only a couple ways to break this. One is to reform the rules that gridlock the state so that every member can continue to vote their conscience without punishing the citizens in the process. The other is to make those members of the Yacht Party institution MORE afraid of their general election than their primary election. We have made small strides toward a 2/3 majority, but essentially have failed in the past two cycles, which were promising for Democrats nationally. Only by growing the party and breaking the working conservative majority in the legislature will the rule of the Iron Law become irrelevant.

The Drive For 2/3: Democratic Values On The Ronald Reagan Freeway

(The second in an occasional series of articles highlighting California legislative districts and candidates that could provide Democrats with a vital 2/3 majority.)

On the drive out from Santa Monica to Simi Valley, there's a moment when you know that you've left Los Angeles County and ventured into Ventura. Suddenly, the greenery recedes away, the canyon walls rise, and the scene becomes positively dramatic. If you let your mind wander, you could picture yourself in the middle of a John Ford movie backdrop or a national monument somewhere in Utah, despite being just 35 miles from downtown LA.

I was headed out to a fundraiser, driving along the 118 Freeway, which area transportation poohbahs see fit to remind you is named the "Ronald Reagan Freeway" about every 8/10th of a mile. Astonishingly enough, this was a Democratic fundraiser. For a candidate seeking a seat held by Tom McClintock, arguably the most rock-ribbed conservative in the entire state. And it's a seat Democrats can win. Things are changing along the Ronald Reagan Freeway.

If you want to look at it statistically, there's no better resource than ortcutt's fantastic rundown. The raw numbers are pretty clear. Over the last 5 years, Senate District 19, serving Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties, along with a sliver of LA County at Santa Clarita, has gone from a 7-point Republican registration advantage to just over a 4-point one, one of the larger moves in the whole state. The state's districts were designed not to have any variability, and yet that's what's happening. And this is not just about registration. Feinstein and Boxer both carried this district, and in 2004 Bush carried it by a mere two points. And that was before his disastrous second term. For this and other reasons, the demographics are changing here.

SD-19 (here's a map) covers major areas like Santa Clarita in LA County, Thousand Oaks, Simi Valley, Camarillo (hello outlet malls) and San Buenavento in Ventura, and large sections of Santa Barbara County like the city of Santa Barbara. Far more of the district is located in Ventura County, however, and the area has seen a migration of sorts, as residents priced out of the wealthier Santa Barbara housing market have moved in. And Ventura County Democrats have been relentless. I have seen their work up close; my region as an AD delegate stretches up through this district, and I have seen presentations of the innovative efforts that were instrumental in closing the registration gap. These shifts did not happen by accident. Sure, the different socioeconomic shifts played a part, as well as the failed leadership of the President and an incumbent State Senator who values budget numbers in a ledger far more than constituent services. But more than that, they were the work of aggressive new tactics. One of these programs is Vote Blue Committee Central Coast, designed to register and bring to the polls 13,900 new Democrats in 2008. The group is targeting new residents, building a reliable, locally-based voter file, and encouraging vote-by-mail. This is the kind of new tactics we need to see replicated throughout California to realize the goals of a true 58-county strategy.

This is why I'm excited about SD-19, regardless of who ultimately runs in the general election. On the Republican side, Tom McClintock is a termed-out incumbent who is already raising money for yet another statewide run, this time for the Board of Equalization. I'd be absolutely shocked if this committed conservative would go back on core ideology and decide to run a third term, should the ballot initiative pass and allow him to do so. Anyway, there's already a candidate, last year's State Controller nominee Tony Strickland. He has the signed endorsement of every member of the Republican Caucus. He's looking to join his wife, an Assemblywoman, back in Sacramento. But he's really just looking for something to do until Elton Gallegly retires from the Congress. There's no burning desire to serve the public here, just a resume-builder until Strickland graduates to the seat he thinks he's entitled to.

Which is why I think it's healthy to have two excellent candidates in a primary, raising the profile of Democratic values, fighting for the right to take down Strickland next November. We all know about Hannah-Beth Jackson from her incredible work at Speak Out California and her tireless advocacy of progressive ideals. Let me tell you a little bit about Jim Dantona, who's been in the race about four months and who you may not know as much about. First of all, Ventura County Democratic activists in the area pushed very hard for him to run. I usually give latitude to the locals on the ground for determining who is their best candidate to serve their district. In this case, Dantona has a resume that is undeniably impressive. After a brief baseball career with the Chicago Cubs in 1969, he taught elementary school before spending 10 years as chief of staff to longtime Senate President Pro Tem David Roberti. Later, he founded an organization called "Baseballers Against Drugs" to teach kids the importance of staying clean and addiction-free. And he's a single parent of three grown children.

I attended a fundraiser for Dantona last Thursday, featuring longtime friend and former Maryland Lt. Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend. The blogger Mark Gage at Conejo Valley Democrat, who I met at the event, has an excellent writeup. Dantona likes to style himself a "centrist," and I have no illusions that he'll be with the most progressive elements of the party on every issue. But I will say this. The three main points in his stump speech were jobs, health care for every Californian, and scrapping No Child Left Behind. As centrism goes, I'd say he's more Tip O'Neill than Joe Lieberman. And he didn't have a bad word to say about Hannah-Beth Jackson, which to me is crucial.

I'm agnostic about the primary, other than thinking it's very good for the Democratic Party in this area to have two Democrats discussing important issues that people in this district haven't heard about for 8 years. The locals clearly see this as a terrific opportunity to change the seat and get halfway to that elusive 2/3 majority in the Senate. And it would obviously set Republicans spinning in their McMansions to see a Democrat representing the towns along the Ronald Reagan Freeway.

Notes from the CDP Convention Floor, morning session

Hi, the morning session was spirited. A few notes:

• Art Torres did an incredibly quick and brief motion to push the agenda of the convention forward, essentially affirming all of the work of the Resolutions Committee. It passed without incident. Now the hard work begind of collecting signatures from the delegates on all the motions that people want to force to the floor. I'm collecting for the Audit Committee, and I think that having the signatures presented is an end in itself. It mandates that the shareholders of this party want some financial accountability and transparency, that they don't want it shunted off to some task force where they can kick the idea down the road. I think it's crucial for structural party reform and ensuring that we reach all districts.

• Hillary's speech was going fine, IMO, until she got to Iraq. Then she lost the crowd (and she had them earlier). It was interesting to see Art Torres and Fabian Nunez shooting daggers with their eyes from the podium at those delegates hissing and shouting about Hillary's Iraq policy, particularly when Nunez motioned to have people ejected from the hall (nobody was AFAIK). Still, I do believe that Hillary was fairly wide support. I can't tell you how many delegates I saw yelling "Impeach Bush! Impeach Cheney!" and then holding up their Hillary signs. I don't think her support is as soft as the netroots think.

over...
• Nonetheless, there were some who affixes "anybody but" stickers to their Hillary signs.

• I didn't go to the press conference, but you can read about it elsewhere. Apparently she showed some knowledge on particular California issues. I would have asked her about the craven deal made on prison "reform."

• Barack Obama speaks at 1:45pm PT.

CDP: Bringing Financial Accountability to the Floor

I'm sitting in the Progressive Caucus meeting, and the secretary has just announced that they are not going to be satisfied by allowing the Financial Transparency and Accountability Resolution to be remanded to an ad hoc committee. This is the resolution I mentioned earlier in the week. It would set up a standing Audit Committee that would audit the financial outlays of the Party for effectiveness and efficiency.

Essentially all of the "58-county strategy" bills have been pushed into this ad hoc committee. Well, that's apparently not good enough for the Progressive Caucus.

The caucus is going to gather signatures for this resolution to force it to the floor. This is a big deal, because putting oversight into the process of how the Party spends its money is the only way that we're going to get some real accountability.

The signature gatherers are going to meet at 8:00am at the outdoor ampitheater to start the process. If you want to help, meet there. The goal is to get 1,000 signatures by 5:00pm Saturday, much more than is needed to get the resolution to the floor.

I will be working this effort. It is insanity that we, the "shareholders" of the California Democratic Party, don't get so much as a financial statement. More as it develops.

Also, it's sunny in San Diego. Good times. More later.

Miller on Torres' Radar Screen? Torres Coming to the Blue House?

I'm slightly skeptical, but pleased, at Art Torres' answer to this question.

CMR: What is the 58-County Strategy and how is it going to help us be successful in 2008?

AT: Howard Dean and I worked together on the 50-State Strategy when he was running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee. I was part of an effort to make sure he was elected chair because I felt he would be the most progressive and effective chair, which has proven to be right. It’s taken a little time for us here in California to establish a 58-County Strategy, which I announced in December of 2006, and we’re going to be more incremental given the resources that we have available. But the most important priority for me is a Jerry McNerney seat, the Charlie Brown seat – which will be his seat once he defeats Doolittle – and Gary Miller in Southern California. We’re going to reach out to those communities where we can coordinate with counties with the resources we have available for voter registration and finally to make a mark on those counties that were up to this point considered red, that are now purple or turning blue.

I'm willing to give Torres a chance to live up to this. Miller didn't have an opponent in 2006, but if the CDP says they want to devote resources there, let's see it. Same with Brown in CA-04, and to be fair Torres has previously admitted mistakenly not making this a priority last year. What bothers me is that this 58-county strategy is being discussed on the federal electoral level instead of about local and state legislative races; that's where party-building really begins. As a delegate, I want to work with those leaders in the party who talk about reaching out to all counties. I also want to ensure that they actually go about doing it. That's why I'm supporting the creation of an Audit Committee and a resolution expressing support for a 58-county strategy.

CMR: How do you think the emergence of the netroots and the blogger community as a powerful voice has been helpful to the Democratic Party?

AT: I think it’s the healthiest result we could have imagined. That’s why I will be there honoring the bloggers on Friday night in their support of Charlie Brown and Jerry McNerney’s campaigns (at the "Blue House at the Brew House" fundraiser Friday night in San Diego co-hosted by CMR, California Progress Report, Calitics and fellow California bloggers) because the bloggers are important to our effort to get people moving. The bottom line is: whatever positive efforts other groups out there can do independent from us, I applaud.

I'll be happy to see Art and other party leaders at the event, and I hope he'll continue to show support to our efforts to grow the party.

(I also liked how Torres framed Perata's "Out of Iraq" referendum as a way to back the Governor into a corner, and how he consistently weasels out on his actions regardless of his words. We need more of that. I don't really support Perata's bill because it concedes that we'll still be in Iraq in February 2008. But as a way to get Republicans and the governor on the record, I love it. We don't do enough of that in California; holding Republicans responsible for their votes.)

What Real Accountability Looks Like

There's been a lot of chatter at the other site where I post, Calitics, about what resolutions to support at the CDP Convention this wekeend(incidentally, the Resolutions Committee will only allow about 10 to get to the floor, and unless you get a buttload of signatures, that's all that will be voted upon, so choose wisely). I'm going to make a plea for one that would actually change the way that the Party conducts its business. I don't think there can be any more important a proposal, one that would demand accountability from the CDP and move us on a course to a 58-county strategy, than the resolution to form a standing Audit Committee through a change in CDP Bylaws.

What we've been talking about these past couple days is how the CDP can best allocate its resources to give Democrats in the state the best opportunity to succeed. Any business dealing with such massive asset allocation would consider it a duty to check the books every once in a while and see how things are going.

Right now the CDP does not really do this. A seat on the Finance Committee is pretty much closed unless you are a major donor, can pull in major donors, or you promise your first-born son to the Chair. And the accountability for the decision-making on what candidates to support or to not support is practically non-existent. We know that $4 million dollars left over from the last campaign was magically transferred to Fabian Nunez' account for Assembly caucus work (some would say services rendered from AT&T). That money should not have been available at the end of an election season. Yet there is no transparency in the process. This is why there needs to be a change in the bylaws to allow an Audit Committee.

In a very smart and studied explanation of how this would work, the authors of the proposal state:

An audit committee is an operating committee whose members are normally independent of the management of the organization and/or drawn from outside directors. Audit committees are formed to assist the management of an organization by providing an independent review of the effectiveness of the organization’s financial reporting process and internal control system(s). Responsibilities of an audit committee typically include:

Overseeing the financial reporting process.
Monitoring choice of accounting policies and principles.
Monitoring internal control process.
Overseeing hiring and performance of the external auditors.

This essentially would act as a financial oversight committee that could make recommendations on how to best allocate resources. They would also ensure that the "financial statements" of the CDP meet with the approval of all of the "shareholders," in other words, us.

The California Democratic Party (CDP), a dues membership organization, directs the expenditure of tens of millions of dollars each election cycle, most of which is subject to compliance guidelines governed by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). The CDP commissions a bi-annual internal audit and an annual audit. Information regarding distribution of the auditor’s reports has not been disclosed to the general Party membership. Under the Nonprofit Integrity Act (SB1262), the annual audit of non-profit organizations required to register with the California Attorney General’s registry of charitable trusts must be made available within 24 hours to any member of the public who requests it. Although the CDP is not subject to that requirement, accountability to its donors would be served by adhering to the same standards for other organizations which raise their funds primarily from donors. The CDP’s auditor has reportedly been retained in his current capacity for nearly ten years. Most organizations change auditors every five years. Best practices, along with SB 1262 requires an audit committee for organizations with annual revenue of over $2 million, and the CDP certainly meets that criterion.

As for whether a resolution is in order, it would actually entail changing the CDP Bylaws. If enacted, an Audit Committee would be formed, just as we have a Rules Committee, Platform Committee, et al.

Here's what else I like about it: the Audit Committee would ensure regional diversity.

To ensure the Audit Committee’s continuity from term to term, the Audit Committee should have as many members as there are regions (21), with terms both staggered and elected. The first election would be for all regions; half of those elected serving for four years and the other half for two years). Three subcommittees would be formed: Finance, Performance and Compliance, with seven members each, respectively:

The Financial Audits Sub-Committee – would deal strictly with financial matters (allocations and expenditures)

The Performance Audits Sub-Committee – would deal strictly with the Party’s performance to assess whether it is achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the employment of its available resources.

The Compliance Audits Sub-Committee – would deal strictly with legal reporting matters and responding to published laws and regulatory agency requests.

We should not have to hear about $4 million dollar expenditures in the newspapers. We should not have an unaccountable system where money flows to various people for inscrutable reasons. We, as Democrats, deserve to have an independent board auditing the CDP, to ensure accountability and efficiency. And once that happens, more money can be freed up for the kind of year-round blanket organizing that you need in order to make this Party grow throughout the state.

Thoughts on Region 10 and Democratic Action in Ventura County

This weekend I attended a pre-convention meeting for Region 10 of the California Democratic Party, which stretches from Santa Monica all the way up to the Monterey/San Luis Obispo County line. This is a big coastal region, parts of which have not been sufficiently Democratic over the years. But there are some great people in the trenches doing the necessary work to change that. Here are some disconnected thoughts:

• It is extremely important to spread the Democratic message into outlying counties, because we can't expect to solely depend on LA and SF to carry us through. In 1992, Democrats controlled 41 counties in California; by 2006, that number had dwindled to 22.

• One of the most vibrant areas of the state for Democrats is Ventura County. Whether it's because of demographic shifts (more people moving in from Santa Barbara) or a lot of hard work, the results are impressive. While statewide, Democratic registration has faltered over the past 15 years, in Ventura County Democrats hold a scant 5,000 vote disadvantage currently, compared to 15,000 not but a few years ago.

• One of the great pilot programs that Democrats in Ventura and Santa Barbara Counties have rolled out is called Vote Blue. This is a neighbor-to-neighbor program that uses targeted canvassing to spread the progressive message in communities. They get new homeowner information and arrive at the new resident's doorstep, saying "Hi, we're your neighbors, here's some voter registration information for this area, here's some information on the Democratic agenda." I know we bloggers like to stay on the Internets and ensure never having to talk to anyone, but there's no substitute for this kind of real-life neighbor-to-neighbor contact. They also sweeten the pot by adding a 3-month free subscription to the local paper, which the papers are all too happy to give them. This is the kind of thing Democrats all over the state should be doing on a weekly basis, not just around elections. You can get more informaiton at the link.

• There is strong support at the grassroots for a 58-county strategy, and every single delegate reading this needs to add their endorsement to that issue and make sure the Resolutions Committee is flooded with people supporting it.

• The SD-19 race is not going to be a walkover for Republicans, even though it's currently held by Tom McClintock. I met Jim Dantona at the meeting, and hope to do a longer piece on his chances later. He ran for County Supervisor in Simi Valley last time out, easily the most Republican city in the region, and garnered 48% of the vote in a district that is something like +30 Republican registration. We may have parity in registration for this Senate district by the time this race comes around in 2008, and Dantona appears to be running. Keep this one on the radar screen.

• Another great success story was relayed by Henry Vandemire, chair of the Computer and Internet Caucus and head of the Big Bear Lake Democratic Club. Big Bear is also 2/1 Republican, and yet they managed to get 3 Democrats on the City Council for the first time in as long as anyone can remember. And they did it entirely through civic action, visibility and hard work.

There are opportunities for the party to grow, and there would be even more if the Party leaders fully commit to a 58-county strategy and strengthen the efforts of these progressive leaders in red counties. The Party must live up to its commitments of supporting Democrats everywhere. That means providing the money they promise to candidates, like Ferial Masry in AD-37 and Jill Martinez in CA-24 (that's very likely to be an open seat next time around). These two are both running again, and can win if they get even a modicum of support from the state party.

That's all I've got for now. I invited many of the people at the meeting to start posting on Calitics, hopefully we'll begin to see Ventura and Santa Barbara better represented here.

On Building Back Democracy In California

This is a really frustrating sign for democracy in the nation's largest state.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen said today that nearly one million fewer people are registered to vote in the state than two years ago. In February 2005 there were 16,628,673 registered. This year's figure is down to 15,682,358.

Bowen says part of the drop can be attributed to better procedures for eliminating deadwood -- those who have died or moved out of state -- from the rolls. But the overall trend is not good.

"The percentage of people who have regsitered to vote vesus the total number of people eligible to register has dropped 5 percentage points in the past two years. This means fewer people are making the critical decisions that affect the lives of 37 million Californians,'' Bowen said in a statement accompanying the newest Report of Registration.

We have two parties in California that are fairly dysfunctional. The gerrymander of 2001 means that relatively few races are contested statewide, and given how adamant Nancy Pelosi and her allies are about keeping things the same, I don't see that changing in the near future. When you don't have the energy and excitement that accompany contested races, you tend to get lower participation rates, and worse, less people even interested in the civic process at all. The recent post-partisanship and cooperation and progress between Democrats and Republicans Democrats and a Republican governor who wanted to save his job may push the needle on this in the other direction, but I doubt it. This survey by Binder research shows the real problem with the term limits initiative, the fact that the perception of it as a power grab by elected officials will threaten its viability.

We already know that voters don't like Schwarzenegger and the Legislature fighting. A survey by David Binder Research in January 2006 showed only 46% support for "adjusting" term limits. Now, that figure is 59% in support of modifying the law through a ballot proposition. That corresponds with a better view of the Legislature and Schwarzenegger. In 2006, 42% of voters said they approved of the job performance of the Legislature, but a year later that has jumped to 49%. Schwarzenegger himself jumped from 53% approval to 68% in the Binder survey.

But it comes with caveats. After the initial questions, the survey-takers explained some of the arguments against the initiative: It would grandfather current members and would permit some lawmakers to easily win re-election at a time when California needs "new blood." Support for the initiative dropped to 54% of those surveyed, with 35% saying they would vote no and 11% undecided. Anything lower than that - especially without an opposition campaign started yet - would be a major danger sign for any initiative.

I think the universal pre-school initiative was well ahead of that number in a similar poll a year out. It lost big.

The point is that voters believe that they have little direct voice in choosing their legislators; the gerrymander does it for them. They view all of the machinations of the legislators with cynicism, expecting that they're a bunch of people who want to keep power. They are disconnected from the business in Sacramento by a state media that, by and large, doesn't report on it. And the state parties are flaccid, irrelevant to the everyday concerns of citizens and disassociated from the grassroots.

I want this to change. The future of California as a national bellweather and the source of progressive change depends on it. That's why I got active in the party and became a delegate. The California Democratic Party convention next month is the perfect opportunity to begin to reverse this troubling trend of non-participation. It's important to note that there are many in the political class who don't really want more participation. A small turnout is one that is quantifiable and easier to manage. But it's corrosive to the process of democracy, and ultimately I believe that when people are engaged, progressives win because we have the issues in our favor.

We desperately need the state party to adopt a 58-county strategy and compete in every borough, village and hamlet in California, letting the residents there know that they have a choice. There's a second gerrymander at work here beyond the chopping up of legislative districts; there's the gerrymander created by the CDP choosing not to compete on what they consider unfriendly turf. Jerry McNerney, Charlie Brown and others ought to have put that fiction to rest. If we make the effort to fully fund Democratic organizations all over the state, activate core supporters everywhere, and make our case no matter what the environment or the partisan index, I have no doubt we will be successful. In addition, by becoming a presence at the grassroots level, the CDP will bring voters back into the process again, and help increase voter participation instead of contributing to the decrease.

You can read the resolution promoting a 58-county strategy for California. I will be at the Santa Monica Democratic Club's executive meeting tonight asking for their endorsement. This is absolutely vital to the future of democracy and the progressive movement.