Arnold's 'Very Special' Election

By Steve Lopez, Points West

Could this be it? Have we finally been subjected to a campaign so annoying, insulting and distasteful that we'll finally rise up and charge the gates?

Maybe, possibly, hopefully, says Susan Lerner of the California Clean Money Campaign. She's smiling through her misery, even as the ka-ching of campaign cash echoes through the state.

"This most recent story about the drug company money is really depressing," she said Friday, the day Dan Morain reported in The Times that pharmaceutical giants had given stacks of money to Republicans, Democrats and civic leaders of the NAACP and Mexican American Political Assn.

And what did all those recipients have in common?

They endorsed Proposition 78, a smarmy piece of handiwork â€" sponsored by the drug-makers â€" that would avert state caps on the cost of prescription drugs.

"These are good people, good organizations," Lerner said of the cash recipients, an observation now open to debate. "It's very disheartening to see them caught up in this."

Who isn't caught up? The unions own the Democrats, the insurance companies and developers own the Republicans, and two years after a historic coup driven by a Hollywood has-been who promised to clean up the mess, California is for sale as never before.

Virtually every election cycle, I talk to Lerner or one of the other sad and lonely advocates for the kind of campaign reform that has drained the political swamp in several other states. We grumble and gag and agree we've sunk to alarming new depths. I blow the bugle for radical change, and then the next election is even worse than the last.

But this one is championship stuff, says Lerner. "Special" is a good name for Tuesday's election, because it's a perfect snapshot of everything that's wrong.

First off, more than $200 million has been raised to campaign for and against the ballot propositions, money that pays for TV ads designed to bludgeon the last active brain cells in the state. Second, the appearance of pay-to-play conflict is so abundant, the election stinks halfway to Texas. Third, we're paying at least $50 million in tax dollars to stage the thing.

But that's not all.

There's Arnold.

Gov. Schwarzenegger, you may recall, said he didn't need anyone's money. Right around that same time, he vowed to get the special interests out of Sacramento.

Can you believe this guy?

Schwarzenegger has busted all fundraising records, leading the charge in a runaway cash derby. He has forced an unnecessary election he'd love most voters to avoid in hopes that a small group of conservative zealots will win the day. And to put a ribbon on it all, the Terminator has chickened out of face-to-face debates with opponents.

I'm not sure it's possible to be more hypocritical or insulting than that.

And then we've got Arnold's Big 4 on the ballot.

Teacher tenure (Proposition 74) is a preposterous distraction from any honest discussion of education reform.

Cracking down on the political influence of a single group (Proposition 75's attack on unions) raises the question: what about the rest of Sacramento's sweethearts, including the hordes of corporate hooligans?

The cap on spending (Proposition 76) sounds good until you realize it could be a disaster for schools and turn the governor into a king.

Redistricting (Proposition 77) is a nice idea. But this thing reads like assembly instructions on Christmas morning, it's certain to invite legal challenges and might not accomplish its intended goals.

This stuff is frippery, not reform. If Schwarzenegger really wanted to shake things up rather than blow kisses to the Chamber of Commerce, he'd stump for rewriting the rules on term limits and lead the call for campaign reform.

Term limits are fine, but not if they're so short that we're guaranteed a preponderance of amateurs who spend half their time learning the ropes and the other half raising money for reelection.

"We need them to stay in Sacramento and … figure out very complicated details of public policy issues none of us have the time to study or the expertise to understand," Lerner said. In other words, they should be doing the work they're asking us to do in Tuesday's election.

As for cleaning up campaigns, there are different ways to go, but Lerner favors only one.

"Both [Democratic Assembly Speaker] Fabian Nuñez and Gov. Schwarzenegger have been quoted as saying they think public financing is interesting, but they're not sure the time has come yet," Lerner says.

Of course not. Let's have a dozen more fundraising contests like this one and see if we can drive voter turnout down to the single digits.

To be fair, Lerner says, California has been fairly progressive in limiting donations and requiring candidates to disclose the names of the donors. But there are no limits on money raised for proposition battles, and loopholes are used to help hide the identities of donors who are forking over millions of dollars.

Lerner's group has a reform bill, AB 583, scheduled for consideration next year, the details of which are on the website at caclean.org. In its current form, it wouldn't apply to initiative campaigns, but Lerner is trying to remedy that after watching this debacle.

As written, AB 583 would make public money available to statewide and legislative candidates who raise enough $5 donations to be considered legitimate. With public money in hand, they wouldn't have to grovel before union bosses or corporate sharks who would later expect a return on their investment.

If some gazillionaire runs for office and spends his own money, he'd drive up the public financing of other candidates and incur our wrath.

The estimated cost to the public?

About $5.50 per adult per year.

"It's money we believe we'll make back many times over," Lerner says, referring to the elimination of tax loopholes and other bones that get tossed to the bankrollers of campaigns like this one. "Do we want to have this same conversation over and over, or do we want to pay the cost of a latte and a muffin?"

If only that question were on the ballot Tuesday.

Reach the columnist at steve.lopez@latimes.com and read previous columns at latimes.com.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)