]> http://www.publicampaign.org/blog-tags/california Comments for "california" en http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/06/09/independent-expenditures#comment-28127 Very interesting webiste, useful information. Wed, 26 Nov 2008 21:18:29 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2008/10/01/victory-in-california#comment-27642 Lets go back to an honest decent America right now!! Mon, 06 Oct 2008 21:22:04 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/10/19/you-and-your-health#comment-20688 The forum that byron writes about was one of 2 parallel forums organized and sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign, entitled "Blood Money: Campaign Dollars and Health Care Policy in California." The first took place in Oakland on saturday, Oct. 13 and the second was last night, Oct. 18, in Pasadena. We videotaped the entirety of both forums. Watch the California Clean Money Campaign website, www.caclean.org, for the videos in the next week or so. Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:20:24 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/11/08/proposition-89-does-not-pass#comment-19928 Oh, that terrible :( Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:12:54 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/06/14/more-progress-in-california#comment-19343 Campaign spending limits is the only campaign finance reform that can really do enough. Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:48:41 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/06/05/multimillionaire-vs-multimillionaire#comment-19342 Simply closing the campaign contribution limits loophole that allows candidates to give as much of their own wealth as they want to to their own campaigns would stop the multimillionaire vs. multimillionaire problem. It doesn't take government funding of political campaigns (i.e., public financing) to do that. Furthermore, campaign spending limits is the only campaign finance reform that can really do enough. Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:46:31 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-19341 Simple, yes: but comprehensive, no. Campaign spending limits is the only campaign finance reform that can really do enough. Fri, 31 Aug 2007 08:40:16 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-18303 Since the public financing movement and the campaign spending limits movement still have so much left to accomplish, I'm putting my efforts into campaign spending limits, because its easier for people to understand than public financing is, and -- unlike public financing -- campaign spending limits is fair to all of the campaigns in an election race. Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:00:34 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/05/17/san-jose-city-council-plans-public-financing-vote#comment-16875 I lived in San Jose for a few years and found the city to be somewhat like the city of Long Beach and Los Angeles. I find that the locals of the city are quite sharp and can handle the most complex of issues. There are some potholes in the freeway and lack of oxygen. These issues need to be addressed through various channels. Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:00:58 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/04/18/clean-elections-returns-in-california#comment-14529 I believe clean elections may be the only way that Ammerica can return to being something resembling a democracy. Sun, 22 Apr 2007 22:56:56 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2007/03/08/clean-cities#comment-12643 Would someone please quote me the Cal. State Law that according to my county Superior Court "Stench from the Bench" interpretation of an issue a statement (pursuant to Section 632 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is "Because I said so". John Quincy, Recognized Commentator O.S.C. Sun, 11 Mar 2007 11:02:06 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-7483 Political ads should be moved from commercial media, to publicly-funded media with 'equal access' charters, such as NPR, C-Span, and public TV. The presentations should be restricted to debates, open forums, and formal statements of policy. A few new TV channels could certainly be dedicated to this very purpose. The benefits are obvious. There should be no serious impediment to creating and funding this kind of programming. It could be supported by a government mandate to the broadcast industry. Or, the plan could be supported by public campaign funds. However, the other part of the equation, banning political ads from commercial media is problematic. Legally, public campaign funding has to be voluntary. Freedom of speech laws guarantee the right of a well-heeled non-participating candidate to deluge the commercial media with sound bites and personal attacks. Maybe someday Americans will so highly value political debate that it is given its own special forum, and is indeed banned from commercialization. Then, banning political ads from commercial media would no longer be considered an abrogation of free speech. Suppose that "participating" candidates (those who don't use non-public campaign funds) agree to use only the public media forums. How do they stifle or counter competition from commercial ad campaigns run by non-participants? Or better yet how do we convince ALL candidates to be participants and forego the commercials? One possibility: If the new media political forums are funded by public campaign money, and the benefits of this funding are only made available to participating candidates, then non-participants would have only their commercial ads going for them. The persuasive power of those commercials would probably be much less than that of the public forums, and would certainly be more expensive. Another possibility: If it turns out that all candidates must be given access to the public media forums, then public campaign funds could be used to support a limited number of commercial ads on behalf of participating candidates. These ads would direct voters to the public media forums, and simply advise that the non-participating candidate is just that. The implied stigma should have the desired effect. Sat, 18 Nov 2006 19:29:49 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/11/08/proposition-89-does-not-pass#comment-7086 Why do you think it lost. One of my friends said it was not clear enough about who would be able to receive financing. I didn't read all the for and against arguments, just voted for it. Did it included public financing for all legitimate parties? Thanks Suzanne Mon, 13 Nov 2006 00:56:16 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/07/06/clean-election-fever#comment-5813 Here is a simple idea to clean up our campaigns. Ban political ads from public airwaves. Instead of spending millions of dollars on 30 second attack ads, hold public forums broadcast on local cable access channels and public tv. If candidates want to get their message out, then let them go door to door and make their case to the public in a meaningful way where they can explain their positions instead of trying to tell us what they think their opponent is saying. Millions are raised because the pols feel its necessary to place ads on tv. Take away the place where they waste the money and we will all be better served. Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:08:59 +0000 http://www.publicampaign.org/blog/2006/10/19/and-now-for-clean-elections#comment-4949 It was great to see the presentation on NOW about campaign finance reform. There must be a huge number of American people on the verge of hearing about viability of this reform and potentially waking up to the benefits. The pendulum has run the other way, away from populist democracy, for the past 25 years, and now there is momentum for a swing. These people-driven movements have been among the most powerful political engines in American history. What can be more important at this time for Americans to do than work on the quality of their own democracy? Sat, 21 Oct 2006 04:34:06 +0000