With the mad dash to end the legislative session in three weeks, the legislature is making no bones about the fact that the money players had better step up with campaign cash before then. No doubt about it---with a record number of political fundraising events scheduled this month, the message is clear: It's time to pay up if you want any consideration for bills blasting through the legislative process and onto the Governor's desk for signature or veto.
Of course, the number one culprit in all this is our Governor. He has taken political pay-to-play to a new and embarassing level. With hundreds of millions of dollars already spent by him or on his behalf by big corporate special interest and equal amounts yet to be sucked in by his well-honed and shameless vacuum-cleaner approach to policy-making, this Governor has given new meaning to the word "reform" which he has misapplied to virtually all of his self-dealing, ethics-devoid behavior while playing the role of Governor for the past three years.
But at this time of year, to see the legislature following so blatantly in Schwarzenegger's footsteps is truly the rallying call for passage of Proposition 89- the Clean Money Initiative. As I write this entry, there are more than 20 fundraisers scheduled today---equal parts Republican and Democrat. The folks in Sacramento count about 75 of these "fundraisers" scheduled during August. These stand-up, finger-food and mediocre wine fests permeate the numerous eating establishments around the Capitol, (usually within walking distance of each other so lobbyists can run between several of them scheduled at the same time). In the second and final year of a legislative session, this type of open and unabashed pandering has become unconscionable, even by political standards. Is it any wonder the public doesn't trust, like or care about Sacramento's politicians? Whether campaign contributions do or do not actually influence the course of legislation, they create such a bleak perception about just what is and isn't important ( special-interests yes, public interests, no) that the battle for public confidence is lost, regardless.
Comments (0)
