Cavala: Campaign “Reform” Claims Another Victim - California Progress Report
Bowing to realities, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell announced his withdrawal from the contest for Governor of California. The reason was money.
Under the rules in play through the election of Gray Davis, large contributors could supply the cash needed to run a political campaign to 20,000,000 voters. Now, with a system of contribution limitations in place, no one can run a serious campaign who is not already famous (viz Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown) or incredibly rich (Poizner and Whitman).
Was it the intent of the voters to place such limits on their choices for top leadership? I doubt it. The electorate was attempting – as it always does – to limit the influence of big moneyed interests in the process of government. They succeeded only in reducing the total amounts contributed, not the proportions. “Special interests” still contribute disproportionate amounts to candidates for office. But the ability to put the millions behind a favored candidate in a primary election – something the education coalition might have done for O’Connell in a different time – is no more.
O’Connell won his first campaign (for State Assembly) in 1982. His opponent was Brooks Firestone, the heir to the Firestone tire and rubber fortune. With four months before the election, Firestone had already outspent O’Connell 600,000 to 8,000. But the rules of the period allowed the Speaker, Willie Brown, to transfer large sums to candidate’s like O’Connell. He was still outspent by hundreds of thousands, but he had enough wherewithal to make his case – and won.
Bowing to realities, State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell announced his withdrawal from the contest for Governor of California. The reason was money.
Under the rules in play through the election of Gray Davis, large contributors could supply the cash needed to run a political campaign to 20,000,000 voters. Now, with a system of contribution limitations in place, no one can run a serious campaign who is not already famous (viz Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jerry Brown) or incredibly rich (Poizner and Whitman).
Was it the intent of the voters to place such limits on their choices for top leadership? I doubt it. The electorate was attempting – as it always does – to limit the influence of big moneyed interests in the process of government. They succeeded only in reducing the total amounts contributed, not the proportions. “Special interests” still contribute disproportionate amounts to candidates for office. But the ability to put the millions behind a favored candidate in a primary election – something the education coalition might have done for O’Connell in a different time – is no more.
O’Connell won his first campaign (for State Assembly) in 1982. His opponent was Brooks Firestone, the heir to the Firestone tire and rubber fortune. With four months before the election, Firestone had already outspent O’Connell 600,000 to 8,000. But the rules of the period allowed the Speaker, Willie Brown, to transfer large sums to candidate’s like O’Connell. He was still outspent by hundreds of thousands, but he had enough wherewithal to make his case – and won.