CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 22, 2010 |
If your dream — most likely fantasy — is to install public financing of California state political races, then Proposition 15 is worth voting for. Barely. It would create public financing — sort of — for only one office, the low-profile secretary of state. But it could pave the way for a much broader system later. I'm one of those who shares the pipe dream but doubts it ever will become a reality. I've always felt that if the public doesn't buy the politicians, the special interests will.
April 22, 2010
How much does it cost to buy an election in California? Northern California utility Pacific Gas & Electric aims to test that question with Proposition 16, the most odious piece of special-interest electioneering to come around in, oh, a year or so. PG&E is expected to pour $35 million into its campaign for the measure, which features commercials and glossy mailers so misleading that they could have been written by the Iranian information ministry....
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
October 17, 1988
The proponents of Proposition 92 do not go far enough in their proposal in changing the Commission on Judicial Performance. If you're going to amend the Constitution then do it right the first time. Too many ignorant and incompetent lawyers are appointed as judges, who too often become arrogant in their security of immunity. The record of the Commission on Judicial Performance given by the proponents, i.e., only 25 out of 7,185 complaints resulted in public punishment in 27 years, speaks for itself--wimpy--merely a wrist-slapping public entity that is neither useful nor cost effective in its present state.
November 5, 2012 |
There's been a lot of back-and-forth over the last few days on Proposition 37, the initiative to require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Too bad that almost none of it has had anything to do with whether or not this is a worthy measure. Supporters of 37 raised a stink about the opposition campaign's alleged misuse of a quote from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The campaign had implied, wrongly, that the FDA had said Proposition 37 would lead to "inherently misleading" labeling.