(May 26, 2010) The Long Beach Board of Education voted to lay off 243 employees, most of them teachers.

San Jose’s Fire Department is eliminating five of the city’s 34 engine companies.

Stockton lost 73 police officers over the last year and saw its homicide rate nearly triple.

And news that the state budget deficit continues to grow prompted the Governor’s Office to warn this week that even more “terrible” budget cuts are on the horizon.

Proponents of Proposition 15 think this is the perfect time to start a new state government program that would divert tax dollars from essential public programs to pay the campaign expenses of politicians.

Four years ago, 74 percent of voters said “no” to Proposition 89, a plan to tax businesses to finance political campaigns. In 2000, two-thirds of voters rejected another public campaign financing scheme, Proposition 25.

Proposition 15 on the June ballot will be the third attempt in 10 years to repeal the ban on public campaign financing voters enacted more than 20 years ago.

Proponents don’t phrase the argument that way, however. In fact, the Legislature, which put Proposition 15 on the ballot and wrote the ballot label, neglected to mention that the ban on public financing would be repealed. A judge added that critical fact to the ballot label.

No Harmless Pilot Program

Backers of Proposition 15 say it is a harmless pilot program that would charge lobbyists a fee to finance the campaigns of candidates for Secretary of State. But Proposition 15 goes much further than that. The repeal of the ban on taxpayer-funded campaigns means that legislators, with a simple majority vote, can expand taxpayer-financed campaigns to any races they want, including their own.

If the lobbyist tax is declared unconstitutional, as courts in three states have already ruled, the Legislature can use the General Fund or raise taxes to pay for campaigns.

The state has already seen legislation to charge insurance companies to pay for financing the insurance commissioner’s race. Observers note that nobody knows what’s next for public campaign financing, but it is a safe bet that business will pay the freight.

Wrong Provisions

Proposition 15 claims to reduce the influence of special interests in politics, but it explicitly allows politicians to continue to take money from special interests at the same time taxpayers finance their campaign expenses.

Opponents of Proposition 15 note that:

• If the measure’s backers wanted to reduce the influence of special interests, they wouldn’t have added that section.
• If they wanted to protect the General Fund from being used for campaigns, they wouldn’t have added that provision either.
• If they wanted to limit Proposition 15 to a pilot program for Secretary of State candidates, they could have written the proposition that way.

They did exactly the opposite.

CalChamber Opposes

The California Chamber of Commerce opposes Proposition 15 and is encouraging members of the business community to do the same.

More information on the opposition campaign is available at www.stopprop15.com.