<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1515" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=role_body style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"
bottomMargin=7 leftMargin=7 topMargin=7 rightMargin=7><FONT id=role_document
face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>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. <STRONG>Note the comment that copies distributed at the last
GPSCC meeting are NOT the correct version and should NOT be
circulated.</STRONG> 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</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>************************************************************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 4/14/06 3:35:07 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
brogregm@sbcglobal.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent" face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>
<DIV>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.</DIV>
<DIV>By the way, all the petitions I brought to the meeting last week are
invalid---they contain errors, so please don't use them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Greg Miller</DIV>
<DIV>California Nurses Association</DIV>
<DIV>(408) 254-3311<BR><BR>Note: forwarded message
attached.</DIV>Thread-Topic: CNA clean money<BR>From: "Michael Lighty"
<mlighty@calnurses.org><BR>To: "Jim Doyle"
<j.m.doyle@sbcglobal.net><BR>Cc: "greg miller"
<brogregm@sbcglobal.net><BR>X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2006
18:45:30.0997 (UTC) FILETIME=<BR><BR>Jim -- Greg Miller asked me to respond to
your email, as I am the Director of<BR>Public Policy for CNA and worked on
drafting the initiative. As you may know,<BR>our initiative is based on AB
583, which was drafted by California Clean<BR>Money and Assembly member Loni
Hancock with input from state Green Party<BR>activists.<BR><BR>The bill and
the initiative balance the legitimate needs of independent and<BR>smaller
parties to get public funding with a reasonable threshold to obtain<BR>that
public financing. In fact, under our initiative Green Party
candidates<BR>would receive more money, and be more competitive, than in any
other state<BR>electoral system in the US. The levels of funding are
comparable, based upon<BR>demonstrated support. The bias is toward
inclusion.<BR><BR>To try to answer your questions in a simplified way, the
essence of the<BR>structure is that for political parties that hold primaries
and whose<BR>candidate for Governor got 10% or more of the votes in the
previous election,<BR>their candidates are eligible for full-funding. Other
candidates can qualify<BR>for minimum public funding based on getting
qualifying signatures and<BR>contributions, or becoming
"performance-qualified" by getting double the<BR>minimums, and thus eligible
for 50% of full-funding.<BR><BR>Since our initiative overturns Prop 34 limits
and its loop holes for<BR>political parties, and enables challengers to have
funding equal to<BR>incumbents, it is the opposite of incumbent and party
protection.<BR><BR>I hope this is helpful.<BR><BR>Michael
Lighty<BR><BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Jim Doyle
[mailto:j.m.doyle@sbcglobal.net] <BR>Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 3:35
PM<BR>To: Greg Miller (BOD)<BR>Subject: CNA clean money<BR><BR>Greg,<BR>I have
looked at the Initiative Measure being sponsored by the CNA.<BR>I had to
concentrate to pull out the parts I felt were crucial for the<BR>participants
from the various parties. Here is what I found.<BR><BR>I find seven
categories of candidates in the definitions in<BR>paragraphs 91037 to
91061:<BR><BR> independent candidate<BR> non
participating candidate<BR> office qualified
candidate (depends on office qualified party)<BR>
participating candidate<BR> party candidate<BR>
performance qualified candidate<BR> qualified candidate<BR><BR>I
did not achieve complete clarity on the distinctions. To wit<BR>
<BR>independent candidate: does not represent a party that has
been <BR>granted ballot status<BR> question - what about
candidates from parties that have not been granted<BR>
ballot status?<BR>qualified candidate: candidate
from a party that is not an office <BR>qualified party<BR>
comment - that includes party candidates and independent
candidates<BR>party candidate: represents a party that has ballot
status and holds a <BR>primary election<BR> question - where do
those fit in whose party does not hold a primary?<BR>performance qualified
candidate:<BR> either winner of a primary of an office qualified
party<BR> or gathers twice the number of qualifying contributions
as an office <BR>qualified candidate<BR> (comment - so much for a
level playing field)<BR> furthermore, independent candidates may
qualify as performance <BR>qualified candidates<BR>
question - does that exclude party candidates or qualified
<BR>candidates?<BR><BR>Section 91071<BR> part a refers to office
qualified candidates<BR> part b refers to party
candidates<BR> two qualifying criteria are
given<BR> 1) deals with filing
requirements<BR> 2) only mentions participating
candidates from office qualified <BR>candidates<BR> comment - so
part b pulls party candidate back into office qualified
<BR>candidate<BR><BR>Section 91073<BR> signatures (doesn't
mention qualifying contributions)<BR> qualified
candidate: half as many as an office qualified candidate<BR>
performance qualified candidate: twice as many
signatures<BR><BR> and at the end of the paragraph imposes a
condition on non office<BR> qualified candidates<BR><BR>Now to
funding amounts - section 91099<BR> primary election<BR>
1) office qualified candidate amounts<BR>
2) performance qualified candidate: 20 % of office qualified
<BR>candidate<BR> comment - that leaves out several
others completely<BR> comment - level playing
field? fair?<BR><BR> general election<BR>
1) office qualified candidate amounts<BR>
2) performance qualified candidate: 50 % of office
qualified <BR>candidate<BR> comments - half the pay
for twice the work; level playing field? <BR>fair?<BR>
3) qualified candidate: 25 % of the office qualified
candidate<BR> comments - third class citizen; 1/4
the pay for 1/2 the work<BR> level playing
field? fair?<BR><BR> party candidates are not
mentioned - do they receive any funding?<BR><BR>
---------------<BR><BR>So, Greg, since office qualified candidates - which
from the definition of<BR> office qualified means only democrats
and republicans in some 99 % or<BR> so of the cases -
receive at least twice as much as others this is <BR>a very<BR>
biased initiative. On the one hand it is incumbent protection and <BR>in
light<BR> of term limits it is party protection.<BR><BR>And Greg,
the definitions of candidates altogether leaves something to <BR>be
desired<BR><BR> ------------------<BR><BR>The Green
Party is all for public financing of campaigns.<BR>The Green Party's concept
of public financing would aim to allow<BR>all third parties into the race on
comparable financial footing.<BR><BR>A level playing field would be equal
number of signatures and equal<BR>funding amounts.<BR><BR>Jim
Doyle<BR></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>