If there's one thing you should be involved in and educated about right now, this is it.

Computer Voting Machine Security -- Prove It

July 10, 2008

I have been looking at the issue of computerized voting machine security for several years, and want to write about it today.

Many people have pointed out that there are a number of problems with the new touch-screen voting machines. They fear that these machines can be used to rig an election. Others feel more confident about the machines because they are "hi-tech" and computerized and make voting easier.

Computer experts warn that the machines cannot be trusted. Meanwhile, I have a relative who believes that computers can't make mistakes, so these machines will guarantee accurate vote counting.

I can give you my position on these machines in just a few words: "Prove it." Here is what I mean: The standard for trusting the results of an election should be based on what an average citizen can believe about the election results. If the election system that you set up is able to prove to an average citizen that the election results are accurate, then you have the right system in place. Elections are about average citizens making decisions and trusting the results, not about being told by people in positions of authority what has been decided and who our leaders will be. The whole "trust me" thing hasn't worked out so well in the past so people came up with "prove it" systems so everyone could see for themselves how the elections turned out.

Yes, I have an election system in mind that meets the "prove it" requirement. It's simple. I say that it simply doesn't matter what kind of machine (or no machine at all) is used in the voting booth or to count the votes later, as long as the voter can put a printed ballot in a ballot box. (The voter, of course, is expected to look over the printed ballot to be sure it has the right candidates and ballot measures marked. Just like with the old pen or punch card systems.)

Everyone understands printed ballots with marks on them, and putting the ballot into a ballot box. Time-honored methods for holding secure "prove it" elections with ballots have been worked out. At the start of the election day you check the ballot box to be sure it is empty. Each voter gets one ballot, marks it, and puts it in the box. At the end of the day the ballots are counted and the total is reported. Etc. I work in elections and I know the system well. It can be trusted.

If we use touch-screen computers as input devices to help the voter mark the ballot, all the better. This helps prevent mistakes like those in Florida in 2000. When the voter is ready the machine prints out a ballot with clear markings of the voter's choices. After the machine prints that ballot it doesn't matter if the machine has been hacked or is just making mistakes because you look at the ballot before putting it into the ballot box. And it doesn't matter how the count is reported because once you have a printed record of each voter's intentions, you can count them by hand if necessary. The voters or a trusted representative can watch the counting.

There is one safeguard that I think is very important. You must randomly test the reported vote counts against the paper ballots they are said to represent. And I am very strict about this part. If the count is off by even a single vote it means something is wrong with the counting system and the entire election needs to be counted by hand!

The controversy about touch-screen voting machines started because they do not use printed ballots that can prove the election's results to the average person! The machines come from private companies. Some of these prohibit anyone - even election officials - from knowing how they count the votes. There is no way at all to check whether the machines are reporting correct results. It is a matter of trusting these companies and not of proving to the average voter that the results can be trusted. We are just supposed to trust that the companies are telling us who won the elections! Remember what I said about being told by people in positions of authority what has been decided and who our leaders will be?

If these machines make mistakes or just break down, there is no way to figure out who really won the election. And if someone is able to rig the machines to change the vote counts, there is no way to know that, either. History tells us that this is a concern. People have gone to great lengths to rig even local elections. So with the huge stakes in today's election -- trillions of dollars and wars -- we certainly should understand that highly-skilled and well-funded attempts to dictate election results are likely to occur.

There are a number of ideas for making voting machines more reliable and harder to hack into and change results. One idea is that the public should be able to examine -- and experts allowed to repair and improve -- the source code for the programs used in the machines. This is called "open source" and the Open Voting Consortium has done a lot of great work in this area. (Send them some a few $$ to help their effort.) Open-source systems will help make the machines more reliable and easier to use and will reduce the chances that someone can try to rig an election. This is a great approach, but in the end it fails the "prove it" test. The average person doesn't understand the complicated programming involved. And there is no way to prove that the open-source code is the code that is actually running in every single voting machine on election day.

Other ideas involve elaborate security to test and guard the machines. This again fails the "prove it" test. Unless average people can see for themselves that the results are accurate, no security is sufficient.

I say that the system I describe above -- involving a paper ballot that the voter can check and put in a ballot box -- makes the reliability and security of any voting machines themselves less important because you can "prove it" by counting those paper ballots. You can test a sample of ballots against the reported counts, making it useless to try to hack the voting or counting machines themselves.

California's Secretary of State Debra Bowen understands these issues and is working hard to make sure that our state's elections are safe, fair and provable. Let's hope that the rest of the states can catch up to California.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Speak Out California Is Back Up And Running!

June 23, 2008

One day your website is yours, and the next day it is someone else's. Organizations, businesses and regular people are at the mercy of a confusing deregulated system.

A little over a week ago the Speak Out California website suddenly disappeared, and viewers instead saw a website full of advertisements.

We had no way of even knowing what had happened. It was just a surprise. One day typing "speakoutca.org" into a web browser took viewers to our website, the next day it took viewers to an ad site that someone else managed.

Some of us are more sophisticated and internet-savvy than most citizens so we were eventually able to track down some information. I'm not going into details here, except to say that no one at Speak Out California received any notice that this was going to happen. It took several days to even track down where the domain name (this is what internet addresses like speakoutca.org are called) had been registered, who had registered it, and contact info for the registrar. Then it took several more days to restore the domain name to us and get it working again.

Here's the thing: the only way we were able to get this name back and get the site operating again is because some of us are much more internet-connected than most people. Most people would have no idea where to even start to look for information and help solving a problem like this.

This is certainly not an uncommon problem. My wife had a business named Dancing Woman Designs with a website at dancingwomandesigns.com, and then one day she didn't. She received no notice, nothing. It was just there one day and gone the next and if she wanted it back it was going to cost her. It was going to cost her a lot. And so she doesn't have dancingwomandesigns.com anymore and that address takes you to an ad site. A whole business that took years to get going and build is history now. It was wiped out in a minute because someone was able to get the web name.

A larger business is more likely to have the resources to hire the necessary experts to fight something like this. But it can be an expensive proposition and it can take time.

This is the difference between regulation and deregulation. Regulations protect regular people. Deregulation enables and protects scammers, schemers, and cons. The Internet is largely unregulated and is full of scammers, schemers and cons. Most of the businesses and organizations on the internet are good, honest, credible and legitimate but regular people are also left completely at the mercy of numerous cons, scams, schemes and rip-offs and the burden is on us to find a way to tell the difference.

We got Speak Out California back up and running. It only took us a week and a little money. But we are sophisticated, internet-savvy and connected -- and lucky. Hmm ... maybe some new legislation is warranted.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Failure to Support Progressive Movement Dooms Another Organization

May 19, 2008

This is a guest post by Dr. Katherine Forrest, Co-Founder of the Commonweal Institute. It originally appeared at the Commonweal Institute Blog.

The Rockridge Institute wasn't the only progressive infrastructure organization that folded this spring. Another was the Center for Policy Alternatives , which shut down in April, 2008, after having been around for 32 years. CPA provided policy ideas for state governments, published an annual collection of policy recommendations, and trained future legislators. Like Rockridge, CPA's executive director, Tim McFeeley, stated in his final e-mailed message that a main reason for CPA's demise was the lack of support for infrastructure organizations among progressives.

Dealing with the need for ongoing support for their political movement's operations is a challenge that needs to be addressed successfully, regardless of whether modern "progressives" align themselves more closely with independents or liberals or any particular political party.

I know many people who call themselves progressive, and even more whose sentiments I would consider to be progressive. But VERY few recognize that ongoing support, year after year, not just at election time, will be needed to build and sustain a political movement that works for the things they care about. Fewer still act on that recognition.

This seems to be a blind spot for progressives. They exemplify two American traits--fixation on personality and lack of patience and perspective. Progressives keep looking for a messiah candidate who can lead them out of the wilderness, pumping their dollars into candidates and campaigns, while ignoring the need for continuing work on moving public opinion and building the progressive base between election cycles. Progressive funders, notably including many in large nonprofit foundations as well as individual political donors, tend to make grants for short-term efforts (seldom exceeding 2-3 years), after which they are eager to move on to some exciting new venture, rather than supporting long-term social change efforts that reasonably will take a decade or more to achieve.

Notably, some working with disadvantaged communities are talking about how to do fundraising to "resource the social justice movement." We can only hope that movement awareness spreads to encompass other issue areas, instead of remaining limited to social justice. After all, we're all in it together--across the board, people have economic, housing, legal, environmental, educational, medical, and transportation needs--and that list just scratches the surface.

A progressive movement is what we need, and that movement needs SUPPORT. Too bad it didn't come in time to save Rockridge Institute and Center for Policy Alternatives.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Why Building Progressive Infrastructure Matters So Much

April 22, 2008

On the same day that Barack Obama raised one million dollars in one minute for his campaign George Lakoff's Rockridge Institute announced that they will be closing their doors.

In the comments at the OpenLeft blog post, The Rockridge Era Ends, Paul Rosenberg wrote,

As If We Needed Any More Proof That Democrats STILL Don't Get It!
This is really terrible news--not just because of the loss of Rockridge, as if that wasn't bad enough, but because it shows so clearly that there is NO recognition of the need to build progressive infrastructure.

Just look at how many millions have been raised by the Presidential campaigns this cycle. And just a tiny fraction of it could have not just kept Rockridge afloat, but DOUBLED it in size. ...

I want to say this about that:

Donating a dollar to a progressive infrastructure organization like Speak Out California today is like giving ten dollars to EACH progressive candidate in every local, state and nation race this November, two years later, and every election following.

Let me explain what I mean. Progressive infrastructure organizations like Speak Out California and Commonweal Institute and information outlets like California Progress Report and Calitics are working to help the public understand and appreciate what progressives are about. By explaining the benefits of a progressive approach they help build public acceptance of and demand for progressive policies and candidates -- across the board. As more people understand why progressive solutions benefit them more than conservative proposals, they develop a lasting positive identification with the progressive "brand." Then later, during the election cycle, they vote for progressive candidates -- across the board.

This is how the conservatives have been so successful. They work year-round to convince people to identify as conservatives. (You've probably complained or heard people complain that that have managed to turn "liberal" into a bad word in people's minds.) When election time comes around it's as though all that their candidates have to do is point at the opponent and shout "liberal" to win. They ride a wave of nationally-advanced propaganda convincing people to support "tort reform" or "tax relief." This has been going on for years, so at election time everything is laid out for them on a silver platter, with the public prepared and primed.

Progressive candidates, on the other hand, are generally on their own, starting from scratch for each election. Their general campaign begins in the late summer or fall, they have to decide what "issues" to run on, they have to develop a message from scratch, by themselves, and then they have to reach their voters from scratch. And they have to do all of this on their own in just a few months. No wonder conservatives, even with their awful "you're on your own" philosophy, have managed to do so well and gain so much traction.

This is why building up a national progressive advocacy infrastructure would leverage all of those campaign donations and help us build a sustainable progressive majority. A few dollars to progressive advocacy organizations on any given TODAY builds long-term support for every progressive candidate on any given TOMORROW. It provides leverage -- lowering the need for massive election-cycle funding.

The demise of Rockridge Institute demonstrates that the Democratic Party donor base hasn't yet gotten that message. Instead, masses of money have to be raised for candidates at the very last minute -- for example a million dollars in one minute, the day before the big Pennsylvania primary. And almost all of that money will just literally go up in the air to pay for TV ads that leave nothing behind to show for the money. They don't build the brand, they don't tell people about the benefits of progressive ideas, they don't help other candidates... But almost nothing for the Rockridges and Speak Out California's and Commonweal Institutes.

Please think about donating to help build a solid progressive infrastructure of organizations that will work year-round to help the public understand why progressive policies and candidate are better for them than the conservative solutions. This will help build a sustainable progressive majority in America. Please help these organizations grow. It's about building a progressive ecosystem that benefits all of us.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Tax Cuts Make Us Poor

April 17, 2008

Some years ago the corporate-funded anti-tax, anti-government advocates paid their way to become the dominant voice in our civil discourse. They said there was a magic, simple formula that would lead to shared prosperity. All we had to do was cut taxes, and everyone would have more money.

Everyone wants to have more money so this sounded wonderful. It is always a seductive argument to tell people that you have a magic formula that can make things better for them. One example is machines that create as much energy as they use -- or more. A common myth is that doctors are conspiring to hide the cure for cancer because it would put them out of business. Another is that there is a formula that turns water into gasoline -- or lead into gold.

"Just cut taxes, and we will all have more money." "Taxes take money out of the economy." "It's your money and you should decide how to spend it."

"But," some people asked, "where will the money come from to pay for our roads and schools and all the things that have made us so prosperous?" The seductive response from the tax-cutters was that government is an anonymous, incompetent, inefficient "them" that spends too much money that we could all have in our pockets, and if we just cut out waste everything would be all right. Just cut the waste.

The thing was, whenever one tried to pin them down on specifics of this waste they would never really explain where all that fat really was that they were going to cut -- at least not in quantities sufficient to match their tax cuts. Don't worry, put us in power, cut the taxes, and it will all sort itself out.

So eventually we fell for it and cut taxes and put the anti-government people in power. When we noticed that their tax cuts went mostly for corporations and the very rich, they said don’t worry, the money would trickle down to the rest of us. So we quieted down and waited for the magic to happen. When we noticed that the corporations and wealthy were getting richer and richer while we were losing our pensions and health insurance and jobs, they said don't worry, tax cuts make us richer. We still didn't understand that you and I and the regular people of California were not part of their "us" that would get richer.

The fact is the public officials that We, the People had elected had done competent jobs and there just wasn’t really much waste to cut. Why would there be? The people that we had elected had been good managers of our money. Democracy and accountability require open, transparent processes that the corporate anti-government, anti-tax advocates labeled as "inefficient bureaucracy." That was the waste they had been talking about - the oversight and transparency of good government! Our elected officials had put these systems in place and they had made sure there was no waste -- it was a myth.

Our government had been humming along, paving the roads, educating our children and investing in projects that led to modern wonders like the Internet. And we had been enjoying the resulting prosperity. California had the best public schools, colleges and universities in the country. We had the best roads, courts, parks, libraries, health care system, water projects and most innovative and open government and this investment had led to a thriving economic ecosystem.

So instead of cutting imaginary waste we started cutting out this engine of prosperity. We cut the schools and the road maintenance and everything else. The education system started getting worse and the roads and other infrastructure started deteriorating. California fell from first to near the bottom on many scales. Companies started leaving the state because of the deteriorating infrastructure and lower education levels.

Then when cutting our own services wasn't enough we borrowed money to cover those tax cuts and pay for what government was left. We borrowed and borrowed and borrowed. We were just like the homeowner who refinanced every year as prices went up it seemed like the gravy train would run forever.

Today the borrowing is catching up with us. As so many homeowners are learning to their dismay: borrowing means payments. And borrowing more means larger payments. In California the payments on our borrowing just happen to be pretty close to the amount of our budget shortfall. The same is true of the federal government.

Now we approach a day of reckoning for our tax cuts. The bill has to be paid, and the people who received the big tax cuts are pointing the finger at you and me. We can continue to cut out government and lay people off. We can continue to cram more and more children into classrooms with fewer and fewer teachers. We can have longer and longer lines at the DMV. We can close parks. We can have fewer police patrols and fire stations and ambulances and health and safety inspectors. We can just get poorer and poorer.

Or, we can start to close loopholes like the one that lets wealthy people avoid sales taxes on yachts and private jets while the rest of us pay sales taxes on everything we purchase. We can start to close loopholes like the one that lets oil companies pump our oil out of the ground without paying us and then sell our oil to us. We can start to raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations who prosper because of the roads and financial and legal system we built, and whose taxes were cut leading to this mess. They need to stop simply taking and start paying their fair share. We can do these things and start to restore the thriving economic ecosystem we once had.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Tax Internet Sales -- Just Like Local Stores

April 15, 2008

Have you ever bought something online, had a problem, and tried to reach the company's customer support line? Could you even find a phone number to call? If there was a phone number to call did you reach a phone tree or a person? Were you on hold for a long time? If you ever did reach a human, was the person in the United States or did they at least speak English (or Spanish) clearly enough to be able to help you?

A local store employs people in your town, boosting the local economy. The local store either owns or pays rent for their space, which means they pay local taxes to support police and fire services and schools, etc. The local store has people who can help you when you have a problem.

But buying something from your local store usually costs a bit more. This is because they pay to have actual employees to help you, pay rent, pay to maintain a building, etc. And, finally, the goods cost a bit more because you have to pay sales taxes when you shop at your local store.

The state of California, in its wisdom, has chosen to provide a huge tax subsidy to anonymous internet businesses, at the expense of your local retailers. You pay sales taxes locally, but not online.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Shouldn't the state want to promote local stores, local employment, local police and fire services, local schools and a prosperous local economy? Shouldn't the state be promoting a thriving local economic ecosystem? Instead the state provides a huge competitive advantage to anonymous internet businesses.

With a huge budget deficit, with the Governor calling for 10% across-the-board cuts in your children's schools, police patrols, fire protection, parks, and all the other things our state government does for us, the state still hands the anonymous internet businesses a huge competitive advantage over our local retailers by letting them no charge sales taxes.

You owe it to yourself and your local community to find out if YOUR Assemblymember or Senator supports a requirement that internet companies charge the same sales taxes as your local businesses charge.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Justice For ... All?

April 08, 2008

You hear a lot in the news about big corporate lawsuits. If you closely followed this week's business news, for example, you may have read about a jury ruling that Microsoft has to pay Alcatel-Lucent $367.4 million for violating patents. Imagine the money that must have gone into lawyers, research and experts -- even the copying bill must have been enormous. And these cases take months to hear.

There were also court rulings about the drug Prevacid, another covering dialysis machines, and many, many others.

All of them big-money corporate cases with millions, even billions of dollars at stake. These big companies have the money to take these cases to court.

But what if you or I need to go to court? Are we on an equal footing?

A recent issue of The Progressive States Network’s newsletter, Stateside Dispatch, says,

According to Access to Justice: Opening the Courtroom Door [PDF file] by the Brennan Center, federal funding for legal services in real dollars has declined dramatically over the last twenty-five years. In 2004, federally-funded programs turned away at least one person seeking help for each person served, leading to approximately one million cases per year being turned away due to lack of funding.

In fact, the Brennan Center report states that “most low-income individuals cannot obtain counsel to represent them in civil matters.” On top of that, government-funded legal aid services are now by-and-large prohibited from helping people when they are harmed by corporations.

What do you do if you are a regular person injured by a product, or denied a job because of your age, or defrauded out of money, or any of things that can happen to people? It used to be that a law firm might take the case based on a contingency fee, where they receive a percentage of any award resulting from your case. But more and more these fees are restricted or awards are "capped." So attorneys cannot afford to take your case. Even if you can find an attorney willing to take your case "pro bono" there is still the cost of research, depositions, expert witnesses, etc. to consider.

Is this fair? Is there anything more fundamental to our American concept of democracy than equal justice? Access to the courthouse is an example of democracy leveling the playing field and providing fairness. But we no longer have equal access. And this means we no longer have fairness.

So what can we do about this? First, we need to restore our own understanding of democracy and our individual stake in its preservation. We must all recognize that equal justice is a fundamental requirement of a democratic society. One reason this country was founded was to level the playing field between the rich and the poor. So we all need to demand equal treatment under the law.

In California we must demand a rollback of the "tort reform" measures that have taken away equal access to the courts and removed a regular person's ability to fight back when harmed by a big company. We must either remove the award "caps" and limits on attorney fees or implement a system of government funding for attorneys who represent regular people. Is there an alternative to these approaches that levels the playing field and lets regular people stand a chance against the big money of corporations and the wealthy? If there is I don't see it.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0) - TrackBack (0)

Keeping the Progressive Voice Alive

March 02, 2008

Dear Speak Out California Readers,

Like most progressive, non-commercial organizations, we rely on the support of our friends and readers like you to provide the straightforward information you want and deserve. Although we've encouraged you to help out in the past, we've decided to come right out and ask for your help now. So as we enter the windy month of March, we're making it our fundraising campaign month.

We hope you've enjoyed reading our weekly updates over the past many months, used our Voter Guides to help sort through the complex and confusing ballot initiatives and campaigns we've had in California during the past three years, and been challenged and motivated by our stimulating and thought-provoking blog offerings since we began Speak Out California in 2005.

If you have, we hope you'll help us continue to provide the most comprehensive, knowledgeable and independent progressive California political news and commentary on the web. If we've become part of your Sunday or Monday back-to-work look at the State's political goings-on, we hope you'll realize the value Speak Out California has been providing to you.

We're anxious to keep going and keep alive the commitment to a progressive and successful future for our state. In order to do that, though, we need your help. We don't take contributions from any corporate sponsors, and operate almost exclusively on the contributions of our friends and readers. That's why we're asking you, today, to contribute to our work.

Please click here to keep Speak Out California's unique, independent and insightful work coming to you and other Californians anxious to get the straight and honest take on what is going on in Sacramento. We are a non-partisan, progressive organization unlike any other on the web. We hope you'll see the benefits to the progressive political infrastructure we provide. Help us continue doing this important work

Click here to help us continue bringing you the information you need to make the best progressive political decisions. Efforts like ours are starting to pay off in the state and national political landscape. Help us keep the progressive dream alive. Help us create the future we are all hoping for.

Thanks for your support.

Hannah-Beth Jackson and the rest of the Speak Out California Team

Posted by Jen - Comments (0)

Speak Out Wants to Reach Out

January 30, 2008

Speak Out California is proud to be able to assist progressive Californians by providing information like our voter guides, articulating arguments to use when discussing issues and by always promoting progressive values. It's what we are here for.

We feel that it is important that Californians hear about alternatives to cutting police, schools, road maintenance, and the other important things we use our tax money for. And we feel that it is important that Californians learn about democracy, community and the common good. If you feel the same please click here to contribute to Speak Out California.

Here's the thing. You're reading Speak Out California so it is likely that you probably understand and agree with a lot of what is written here. But most of the people in the state do not have the time or inclination to dig into the details of issues. There are few outlets for a progressive viewpoint. At the same time, everywhere Californians go they hear a conservative perspective.

That's why we need to counter this. We need to reach all Californians with a progressive perspective as well. Californians need and deserve to hear both sides.

Speak Out California wants to reach out past the Internet to the general public of the State of California.

We want to explain the benefits to them of progressive values and ideas. This will help create understanding and acceptance of progressive policies and candidates statewide.

We have plans to begin to do that, but we need your help to make this happen. Will you help make this happen with a contribution?-Just click here

How are we going to reach out to Californians? Let us count the ways...

- Imagine if we could develop TV and radio ads promoting the benefits of progressive values to Californians.

- Imagine if we could conduct ongoing testing of the impact of messages to learn what resonates with diverse groups, helping people understand why progressive values benefit them.

- Imagine how our state would improve if Speak Out California could reach out across the state and create lasting demand for Progressive candidates and policies.

If you can imagine how outreach activities like these would help us all, please click here to help us reach California by contributing to Speak Out California.

How does this help progressives?

A few dollars sent our way creates more change than lots of dollars later.

Here's how: As more people learn the benefits of a progressive approach they realize they share our our progressive dreams for California. This creates a lasting favorable progressive environment.

Speak Out California -- explaining to people the benefits of progressive values and ideas. Creating demand for progressive policies and candidates. Providing information about the issues. Helping create progressive change. All year, every year.

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (1)

The 2008 Primary Election Voter Guide

January 20, 2008

Our 2008 voter guide is up. Click here for SOCA's analysis of the issues.

Note - This voter guide has been updated since it first appeared.

The February 5th California primary is upon us. Our top rated progressive one stop voter guide for this election focuses on the ballot initiatives and includes links to the independent and highly regarded California Legislative Analyst's Office's analysis of each proposition. The seven measures that actually made it on the ballot are primarily about money, and how it should be allocated. The one measure dealing with state governance is the so-called Term Limits initiative. While each of these is important to a particular interest group, none of them really incorporate progressive values nor do they serve to advance or impede the progressive agenda. For that reason, Speak Out California has not taken a position on any of them, but we have tried to distill each measure down to its basic parts so you can decide how you wish to vote on each of them.

For more details on each group's endorsement, click on the name of the group in the table, and for details about the ballot campaigns, click on the proposition link on the left hand side of the table for a comprehensive research analysis and scroll down to read our summaries.

For updated endorsement coverage be sure to checked back to this page as additional endorsements come in. Make sure everyone you know votes February 5th, but with our values and state under such relentless attack, we all have to do more than vote. Freedom is a constant struggle. One way you can help is by making a donation, or by joining Speak Out California and forwarding this voter information to your friends!

The 2008 Primary Election SOCA Voter Guide

Posted by Hannah-Beth Jackson - Comments (0)

It Is Time to Undo Past Tax Cuts

January 18, 2008

California faces a large budget deficit, and the Governor has declared an emergency. The Governor has proposed "across-the-board" spending cuts -- which means cutting all state services by an equal amount.

This inability to prioritize the importance of any particular spending cuts should be taken as a de facto declaration that there is no waste or unimportant spending left to cut -- that all spending is equally crucial. Driving home this point, the Governor is asking for the release onto the streets of prisoners.

If we don't want prisoners released onto our streets the legislature must raise revenue.

MORE »

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

And A Progressive New Year!

December 23, 2007

This is the final Speak Out California post for 2007. We're taking the rest of the year off to celebrate all that we have to be thankful for. And we wish everyone a healthy, prosperous and progressive year ahead!

2007 has been an ... uh, interesting ... year for progressives. There was...progress (sorry - a little progressive humor for the holidays,) and there was disappointment. At the very least I think we all have a better understanding of the effort that will be required to restore our vision of progressive, citizen-oriented policies in the state and country. While recent elections have shown clearly what the people want, overcoming the corporate-backed conservative stranglehold on our political process is an ongoing struggle.

In the coming year progressives can expect a tough election season. Progressives have the people, the right ideas and policies, along with truth, justice and the American Way on their side.

MORE »

Posted by Dave Johnson - Comments (0)

The Year At Hand

December 02, 2006

The 2006 Election was truly historic. The American people elected a Democratic majority in Congress, making Nancy Pelosi the first-ever woman Speaker of the House.

But in California, progressives can do better. This past year saw our great success in reaching California's voters with key information about candidates and issues important to us. With over 2 million hits during the primary and general election campaigns, our voter guide has now become a leading source of information for progressive voters on state issues. But there are still too many progressive voters not engaged in state politics at all, and Speak Out California has been working to reach them as we move forward in reforming health care, addressing climate change, cleaning up the political process and creating critical new infratructure in our state.

Defining and advancing what it truly means to be a progressive, and organizing as many people as possible around those principles, becomes critically important as we head into 2008. Republican candidates for President in the same vein as Schwarzenegger -- claiming to be what they aren't -- will be competing for our state's 55 electoral votes.

With the help of our strong relationships with progressive members of the Legislature, Speak Out California continues to keep progressives informed on important state issues that will be advanced during the course of the legislative session. And of course, we are watching the Governor very carefully to expose the wide gap between what he says and what he does in the second term of his governorship.

With lots of speculation about his political ambitions, we will insure that Californians know just exactly what he's doing as opposed to positioning himself for a run at higher office with larger than life photo-ops and political proclamations.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

The 2006 General Election

October 01, 2006

The November 7th 2006 election is proving to be an epic battle for defining the future of our state. There are several outstanding progressive candidates and reforms on the ballot - as well as some truly scary conservative ones. See our 2006 General Election Voter Guide for the details...

READ MORE »

MORE »

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (2)

The 2006 General Election

July 08, 2006

The November 2006 election is going to be an epic battle for defining the future of our state, pitting the brilliant and dedicated Phil Angelides against accidental Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Although the Governor has tried to tack left recently, Mr Angelides is the obvious choice on issues progressives care about the most:

Education. Governor Schwarzenegger has bizarrely attacked teachers, including during last year's special election boondoggle. Phil Angelides will work with teachers in improving our schools, not against them.

Budget. Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed more bash, break and borrow, protecting President Bush's tax cuts for the rich over fixing problems like the millions of uninsured children in our state. Phil Angelides will balance the budget honestly so the state can do what it needs to do without passing the bill to our grandkids.

Immigration. Governor Schwarzenegger has praised racist border vigilantes as "doing a terrific job." Mr Angelides supports a moderate, balanced approach, including a path to citizenship.

Environment. Mr Angelides, whose innovative Green Wave inititative is jumpstarting our state's green economy, has a detailed, workable plan to reduce California's oil consumption by 25 percent over 10 years. Governor Schwarzenegger can't do much on this issue besides talk, having taken more than $2 million in campaign contributions from oil companies. At least that helps keep the eight full-size Hummers he owns running.

Traffic. Governor Schwarzenegger's approach to traffic is solely building more sprawl and more roads, which is like trying to lose weight by letting your belt out. Mr Angelides will encourage transit and smart growth, preserving open space and agricultural land at the same time.

If you've been waiting for a big statewide election where there would be a clear choice between the candidates, this is the one. Working together, we can send a real pragmatic progressive to Sacramento.

Posted by Dan Ancona - Comments (0)

The 2006 Primary Election

January 07, 2006

Not sure who to vote for in California's Primary election, coming up June 6, 2006?

Check out our 2006 Primary Voter Guide for more information on statewide races and a few key State Senate contests around California, including the candidates vying for the Democratic nomination to take on Gov. Schwarzenegger this fall. Primaries are historically low turnout elections, so help do your part to get people involved by reminding them of the election, and pointing them to Speak Out California as they make their ballot-box decisions.

In addition to the voter guide, Speak Out California will be publishing the results of candidate questionnaires, as well as following the money -- particularly what comes in late from big oil and development interests -- on the weblog.

READ THE 2006 PRIMARY VOTER GUIDE »

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (2)

The 2005 Special Election

June 30, 2005

We won! The results of the 2005 California special election are in, and progressives have sent a strong message that they do not agree with the conservative policies Gov. Schwarzenegger tried to push on them in this off-election year. All six of the measures the governor was backing were defeated Tuesday. Official Secretary of State election returns can be found here.

Defeating this special election was the first step toward getting our state back on track. Speak Out California is in the process of developing a plan for 2006. Read our post-election message and send us your ideas!

SPEAK OUT CALIFORNIA'S POST-ELECTION MESSAGE »

Posted by Jenifer Fernandez Ancona - Comments (0)