Peter Schrag: In the California air: Zephyrs of political reform

Sacramento Bee, The (CA)

February 22, 2006

Is good government coming back - again? The question isn't as facetious as it sounds. In the state Capitol, they're discussing reapportionment reform, liberalizing term limits and the public funding of political campaigns. There's a major new report from Berkeley on the possibilities and limits of competitive electoral districts in producing a more moderate, less partisan legislature and congressional delegation.

And in San Francisco last week, CED, the Committee for Economic Development, a national business organization, and some good government groups held a luncheon at which Robert Stern, the godfather of modern political reform in California , said that "this may be the decade of public financing." Just such a bill, AB 583 by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, passed the Assembly in January. The California Nurses Association is readying a similar measure for the ballot. Both would offer public funding to candidates in return for strict contribution and spending limits.

None of that means that anything will necessarily happen. The goo-goos haven't taken over. Republicans don't like public funding - none backed Hancock's bill. Democrats aren't thrilled about redistricting reform. Even Stern agrees that Hancock's bill will have tough sledding in the Senate, after which it requires the governor's signature and then has to be approved by the voters.

Still, when liberal voices such as Hancock's are featured at lunches of (albeit moderate and thus atypical) Republican business people, a little attention should be paid.

Stern's argument is based largely on the reaction to the political slime oozing out of Washington - the influence peddling of Jack Abramoff, the indictment of Tom DeLay, the K Street project, the felonies and resignation of Rep. Duke Cunningham of San Diego, plus all the associated dirt, some already known, much still under investigation.

Add to that the announcement earlier this month by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who once said he was rich enough he didn't need special interest money, that he intended to collect $120 million for his re-election campaign.

Given the corruption and the incessant reminders of the power of big money, this looks like a new Gilded Age. Its progressives are people like Stern, Hancock, and Sen. Alan Lowenthal, D-Long Beach , the author of a bill to put control of redistricting in the hands of an independent commission. The backers of AB 583 say similar public financing laws are working well in Maine and Arizona .

Still, don't expect too much, even if some of these proposals become law. None is a cure-all, despite the belief of campaign finance reformers that public funding is the "gateway" to reducing all other political evils, or the contention that creating more competitive Assembly and congressional districts will lead to a less contentious political culture.

Public financing of campaigns could well reduce big-money influence. But it will not end pork-barrel spending, which caters to the home-district voters that the finance reformers want to empower. It will not stop independent expenditure campaigns or "issue" campaigns not specifically naming any candidate. It may further reduce party discipline and thus increase voter confusion.

As to redistricting, the Berkeley study, by Bruce Cain, director of the Institute of Governmental Studies; Karin MacDonald, director of the institute's Statewide Database; and graduate student Iris Hui found that shifting control of the decennial reapportionment process from the legislature to an independent commission would almost certainly produce more competitive districts. (That's not hard: The legislature's cozy 2001 redistricting plan - with concurrence from the White House - produced none. It drew safe seats for each party).

But given California 's political demographics, the constraints of federal law, constitutional requirements and the need to maximize compactness and respect city and county boundaries wherever possible, the possibilities are limited. An independent commission, the IGS report said, could draw between 13 and 17 Assembly seats (of 80) where party registration would be close enough to make them theoretically competitive. For Congress, about 13 such districts (of 53) could be created.

The study warns, however, that keeping party margins close enough to make a district theoretically competitive doesn't necessarily mean many seats will change hands or party control. In the five elections of the 1990s, under a presumably fair plan drawn by judicially appointed masters, only 14 congressional seats (five percent) changed party hands in 260 contests. In the Assembly, six percent changed party hands.

"Competitiveness," Cain said last week, "is a vague concept" that doesn't necessarily lead to close elections. Democrats will continue to have an advantage. That doesn't mean control should be kept in the hands of self-serving legislators. Public trust is inevitably compromised when politicians draw the districts they run in.

But any redistricting reform, in Cain's view, may have less impact on turnover than many expect, nor will the districts look much prettier on the map. If it's done right, Cain said - if the process is transparent, if there is diversity on the redistricting commission, if the new system doesn't impose a formula for competitiveness - the outcome will be "marginally better."

---

About the writer:

•  Peter Schrag can be reached at Box 15779 , Sacramento , CA 95852-0779 or at pschrag@sacbee.com .