The Big Endorsement

I'm fairly amazed that the California Democratic Party ended up giving a neutral stance on the Clean Money initiative set for the November ballot in California. The rank-and-file Democrats support the measure, but the state party, which is institutional and cloistered, has no reason whatsoever to support changing a system that protects their incumbents and maintains the status quo. The only reason they went as far as they did, offering a neutral stance, is because the gubenatorial candidate strongly endorsed it, and they didn't want to put themselves at odds with their standard-bearer.

This is why Angelides' endorsement was so huge. Changing the party from a "No on 89" to a "Neutral on 89" means that the proposition won't go on the state party mailers, on which low-information Democrats base a lot of their votes. They won't spend money on the No on 89 effort. They won't sign their names to the No on 89 effort in the state's ballot pamphlets. In short, they won't get in the way of the grassroots efforts to get Prop. 89 passed. Of course, the state GOP will. And they'll have a lot more money to do so. But having to beat one party is better than having to beat two.

People see the role money plays in Sacramento, where the lobbyists run the show far more than inexperienced, term-limited legislators do. There will be 75 fundraisers in the last 3 weeks of the legislative session. The electorate gets this, and if the Prop. 89 message can actually get out, that the playing field can be leveled in state and national politics, that you don't need millions of dollars to serve the public, that you can change the system, that it's been done in Arizona, done in Maine, and can happen here, I think the electorate will be very receptive. And it helps plenty that the CA Democratic Party won't stifle those efforts.