[Sosfbay-discuss] CNA clean money (various emails reposted)

[WB4D23 at aol.com]

Folks:  Below are several emails  regarding the California Nurses 
Association's public financing of campaigns  initiative proposal which  is being 
circulated for ballot qualification  signatures.  Note the comment that copies 
distributed at the last  GPSCC meeting are NOT the correct version and should NOT be  
circulated.  If you want to read the emails in roughly  chronological order, 
start at the bottom with Jim Doyle's inquiry, and the  response to it above 
Jim's post.  Hopefully, some clarity about this will  develop in discussions at 
the ERWG teleconference Sunday April 16th.   Warner
************************************************************
   
 
In a message dated 4/14/06 3:35:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,  
brogregm at sbcglobal.net writes:

Warner, I hope this explanation will suffice to gain support for the  Clean 
Money Initiative from you and the SCC Greens.  Let me know what you  think.  If 
you want to help us gather signatures, give me a ring and I  will get you 
materials---the deadline for turning in petitions is May  1.
By the way, all the petitions I brought to the meeting last week are  
invalid---they contain errors, so please don't use them.
 
Greg Miller
California Nurses Association
(408) 254-3311

Note: forwarded message  attached.
Thread-Topic: CNA clean money
From: "Michael Lighty"  <mlighty at calnurses.org>
To: "Jim Doyle"  <j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: "greg miller"  <brogregm at sbcglobal.net>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2006  18:45:30.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=

Jim -- Greg Miller asked me to respond to  your email, as I am the Director of
Public Policy for CNA and worked on  drafting the initiative. As you may know,
our initiative is based on AB  583, which was drafted by California Clean
Money and Assembly member Loni  Hancock with input from state Green Party
activists.

The bill and  the initiative balance the legitimate needs of independent and
smaller  parties to get public funding with a reasonable threshold to obtain
that  public financing. In fact, under our initiative Green Party  candidates
would receive more money, and be more competitive, than in any  other state
electoral system in the US. The levels of funding are  comparable, based upon
demonstrated support. The bias is toward  inclusion.

To try to answer your questions in a simplified way, the  essence of the
structure is that for political parties that hold primaries  and whose
candidate for Governor got 10% or more of the votes in the  previous election,
their candidates are eligible for full-funding. Other  candidates can qualify
for minimum public funding based on getting  qualifying signatures and
contributions, or becoming  "performance-qualified" by getting double the
minimums, and thus eligible  for 50% of full-funding.

Since our initiative overturns Prop 34 limits  and its loop holes for
political parties, and enables challengers to have  funding equal to
incumbents, it is the opposite of incumbent and party  protection.

I hope this is helpful.

Michael  Lighty



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Doyle  [mailto:j.m.doyle at sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:35  PM
To: Greg Miller (BOD)
Subject: CNA clean money

Greg,
I have  looked at the Initiative Measure being sponsored by the CNA.
I had to  concentrate to pull out the parts I felt were crucial for the
participants  from the various parties.  Here is what I found.

I find seven  categories of candidates in the definitions in
paragraphs 91037 to  91061:

independent candidate
non  participating candidate
office qualified  candidate   (depends on office qualified party)
participating candidate
party candidate
performance qualified candidate
qualified candidate

I  did not achieve complete clarity on the distinctions.  To wit

independent candidate:   does not represent a party that has  been 
granted ballot status
question - what about  candidates from parties that have not been granted
ballot status?
qualified candidate:    candidate  from a party that is not an office 
qualified party
comment -   that includes party candidates and independent  candidates
party candidate:   represents a party that has ballot  status and holds a 
primary election
question - where do  those fit in whose party does not hold a primary?
performance qualified  candidate:
either winner of a primary of an office qualified  party
or gathers twice the number of qualifying contributions  as an office 
qualified candidate
(comment - so much for a  level playing field)
furthermore, independent candidates may  qualify as performance 
qualified candidates
question - does that exclude party candidates or qualified  
candidates?

Section 91071
part a refers to office  qualified candidates
part b refers to party  candidates
two qualifying criteria are  given
1) deals with filing  requirements
2) only mentions participating  candidates from office qualified 
candidates
comment - so  part b pulls party candidate back into office qualified  
candidate

Section 91073
signatures  (doesn't  mention qualifying contributions)
qualified  candidate:   half as many as an office qualified candidate
performance qualified candidate:   twice as many  signatures

and at the end of the paragraph imposes a  condition on non office
qualified candidates

Now to  funding amounts - section 91099
primary election
1) office qualified candidate amounts
2) performance qualified candidate: 20 % of office qualified  
candidate
comment - that leaves out several  others completely
comment - level playing  field?  fair?

general election
1) office qualified candidate amounts
2) performance qualified candidate:  50 % of office  qualified 
candidate
comments - half the pay  for twice the work; level playing field?  
fair?
3) qualified candidate: 25 % of the office qualified  candidate
comments - third class citizen; 1/4  the pay for 1/2 the work
level playing  field?  fair?

party candidates are not  mentioned - do they receive any funding?

---------------

So, Greg, since office qualified candidates - which  from the definition of
office qualified means only democrats  and republicans in some 99 % or
so of the cases -  receive at least twice as much as others this is 
a very
biased initiative.  On the one hand it is incumbent protection and 
in  light
of term limits it is party protection.

And Greg,  the definitions of candidates altogether leaves something to 
be  desired

------------------

The Green  Party is all for public financing of campaigns.
The Green Party's concept  of public financing would aim to allow
all third parties into the race on  comparable financial footing.

A level playing field would be equal  number of signatures and equal
funding amounts.

Jim  Doyle





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20060415/5a0a239a/attachment.html>