Special Interests

Donors with business before the state and corporate leaders poured millions of dollars into Meg Whitman's campaign in the last three months, potentially undercutting her claim that her personal fortune makes her uniquely free of special-interest entanglements, campaign disclosure reports filed Tuesday show. Whitman, the billionaire former chief executive of online auction house EBay, raised more money from outside donors than her Democratic rival, Jerry Brown, whom she has criticized heavily for his dependence on support from the state's public employee unions.

President Obama used his weekly radio address Saturday to rip the GOP's recently unveiled "Pledge to America" manifesto, while a House Republican leader hit back in his own radio remarks. Obama accused Republicans of wanting "to put special interests back in the driver's seat in Washington," arguing that the latest GOP prescriptions are "grounded in the same worn-out philosophy: Cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires; cut the rules for Wall Street and the special interests; and cut the middle class loose to fend for itself.

It happens every year at this time. Overtired legislators are only days from the deadline to pass new laws, and there is so much bustle in the Capitol that keeping track of all the drafts of bills is almost impossible. That's when special interests can capitalize on the chaos. It's an opportunity to rush proposals to a Senate or Assembly floor vote with little vetting, media scrutiny or public notice. And this year, many groups are scurrying to do just that, convincing friendly lawmakers to use arcane procedures that allow them to step around rules meant to expose proposed laws to plenty of sunlight.

The issues and the special interests that pursued them in last month's primary election are familiar: Big oil, tobacco and insurance companies seeking armor against litigation and taxes; trial lawyers looking for more opportunities to sue; the state Chamber of Commerce working against proposals its members deem costly. But even battle-hardened veterans of special-interest wars were alarmed by how some of California's most influential groups flooded a few small campaigns with money in an effort to achieve their goals.

House Democrats are poised to vote Thursday on a sweeping campaign finance reform measure to blunt corporate spending before this year's congressional races. The bill would require advocacy groups that purchase campaign advertising to disclose previously confidential information about donors and finances. It was fashioned in response to a pivotal Supreme Court ruling this year that erased limits on corporate and union spending on political spots. That ruling by the court's five-member conservative majority, in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, has been targeted by Democrats ever since and promises to be a central theme of next week's confirmation hearing for court nominee Elena Kagan.

As the Senate scrambles to scale back a $140-billion recession relief bill, the poor, the elderly and the unemployed are bearing the brunt of the squeeze. But NASCAR track developers, movie producers and other special interests are likely to escape unscathed. Those businesses stand to gain $32 billion in tax breaks as part of the bill, which has been stalled for weeks because of rising complaints about deficit spending. In the hunt for ways to cut costs, neither party has proposed curbing the panoply of narrow tax preferences, which Congress has routinely extended each year.

Voters' approval Tuesday of an open primary system, combined with their 2008 decision to strip state lawmakers of the power to draw their own election districts, will reshape California politics. The question is: How? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who backed both moves, is confident that state elections will become more daunting for the rigid partisans he says plague Sacramento. Other politicians and election strategists are not so sure. The new system will put candidates of all political stripes on a single ballot, and all voters will be able to participate.

Two days after he was finally sworn in as California's lieutenant governor after a grueling partisan battle, Republican Abel Maldonado appeared on national TV with political comedian Stephen Colbert to discuss his signature issue, a primary election designed to reduce the influence of party hardliners in the Legislature. "Why on Earth would you want to destroy the two-party system?" demanded Colbert, who parodies a right-wing cable news host. Leaders from both major parties in California, who vehemently oppose the open-primary measure, are asking essentially the same question, only they don't see it as a laughing matter.

The cramped conference room at the Howard Johnson held a smattering of locals. They fretted about the economy, blasted Congress and brandished handmade signs smacking Goldman Sachs, their Wall Street punching bag of choice. This was no "tea party" rally. These were Democrats. But their feelings had a lot in common with their disgruntled counterparts on the right — anti-spending, anti-bailout and, most of all, anti-incumbent. The fact that such feelings are boiling up at both ends of the political spectrum speaks volumes about the angry, topsy-turvy political climate.

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.