Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Money and Direct Democracy in California Professor Richard L. Hasen Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Prepared for presentation at 2010.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Money and Direct Democracy in California Professor Richard L. Hasen Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Prepared for presentation at 2010."— Presentation transcript:

1 Money and Direct Democracy in California Professor Richard L. Hasen (rick.hasen@lls.edu) Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Prepared for presentation at 2010 Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy, San Francisco, CA, August 1, 2010

2 Outline of presentation 1. No era of “hybrid democracy” in California. 2. The connection between candidate elections and ballot measure elections in California 3. The importance of disclosure in California ballot measure elections

3 “Hybrid democracy”  Some predicted era of “hybrid democracy” after 2003 recall election, where initiatives would play greater role in governance  Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to use initiative process to bypass legislature  Over $1.3 billion spent on ballot-measure related activity between 2000 and 2006

4 Passage Rates of California Initiatives Time periodPercentage approved 1912-200234.5% 1970s29% 1980s48% 1990s40% 2000s (through June 2010) 31%

5 California government seen as dysfunctional during period  Perennial budget battles (disagreement over effect of initiatives on budget process)  Record deficits  Divisive fight over Prop. 8  Lots of government reform (open primaries, redistricting), but no constitutional convention

6 Candidate controlled ballot measure committees  No limits on contributions in ballot measure elections because no candidate to corrupt (U.S. Supreme Court CARC case)  Ignores reality of California politics

7 California Elected officials and the Ballot Measure Process  Extensive party involvement  At least 43 candidate-controlled ballot measure committees 1990- 2004, raising at least $84 million  63% of ballot measures feature argument or rebuttal in pamphlet signed by elected official

8 Top Donors to California Recovery Team (controlled by Gov. Schwarzenegger) as of Nov. 1, 2004 NAME OF CONTRIBUTORAMOUNT AMERIQUEST CAPITAL CORPORATION/LONG BEACH ACCEPTANCE CORP$750,000.00 JERRY PERENCHIO LIVING TRUST$750,000.00 MR. ALEX G. SPANOS$500,000.00 WILLIAM LYON HOMES, INC.$250,000.00 AG SPANOS COMPANIES$250,000.00 WILLIAM A. ROBINSON TTEE$250,000.00 AMERICAN STERLING CORPORATION$250,000.00 PAUL F. FOLINO$250,000.00 HEWLETT - PACKARD COMPANY$250,000.00 ROBIN P. ARKLEY II$250,000.00 TWENTIETH CENTURY FOX FILM CORPORATION$200,000.00 TARGET CORPORATION$200,000.00

9 Importance of Disclosure of Funders in Ballot Measure Elections  Prop. 16: would have protected private electrical utility from public utility competition  Total contributions to “Yes” campaign: $40.6 million (amount from PG&E: approximately $40.5 million)  Total contributions to “No” campaigns: approximately $80,000

10 Measure went down to defeat 47% - 53%. Why?

11 Disclosure


Download ppt "Money and Direct Democracy in California Professor Richard L. Hasen Loyola Law School, Los Angeles Prepared for presentation at 2010."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google