Campaign Reform Is Just Too Taxing for Governor's Pals

By Tom Elias

If there was one thing the Arnold Schwarzenegger of the 2003 recall election stood for more than anything else, it was clean government.

Now, after almost three years of failure to do anything at all to move in that direction, Schwarzenegger has made it clear he never will -- at least, he never will as long as there's a possibility he might run for office again.

That's the meaning of his public opposition to this fall's Proposition 89, the latest in a long string of efforts to bring integrity to Sacramento. His stated reason for fighting the measure: It might raise taxes on some of his financial backers.

"The initiative requires a tax increase to pay for the reforms it proposes and a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court involving a similar effort in Vermont raises red flags about (its) legality," said a Schwarzenegger campaign statement.

In fact, Proposition 89 is vastly different from the Vermont law and its only new tax would be a tiny increase for corporations and banks.

The context of all this: In his first political campaign, the governor swore in 2003 that he would never take contributions from special interests. He promised to take a "big broom" and sweep the state Capitol clean. He castigated Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, then a rival recall candidate, for "skirting and violating the campaign finance laws passed by the people of California."

So far, the governor stands 0-for-4 on doing anything about his promises and complaints. He has yet to try keeping even one of his campaign finance-related promises. Meanwhile, he paid a $200,000 fine assessed against him by the state Fair Political Practices for violations of campaign contribution reporting laws during last year's special election campaign. The commission found Schwarzenegger and his committees committed 143 violations of the Political Reform Act.

By the time the ongoing campaign is over, Schwarzenegger since his first election will have taken almost $200 million from corporations and executives affected in major ways by state laws and policies.

But even after all this, there was always the possibility he might try to do something to assure a cleaner future, one where links between state policy and campaign contributions wouldn't be nearly so clear.

He could have supported Proposition 89, which hikes taxes on corporations and banks by 0.2 percent and earmarks the money for candidates who collect enough $5 contributions to qualify.

The number of small contributions needed to get public funding would vary from office to office and from election to election, with candidates for governor required to collect the most. The measure seems to embody the cleaning-house spirit of the original Schwarzenegger. But he's against it.

There's the small matter of that 0.2 percent added tax on big business --the focus of Schwarzenegger's statement of opposition. Might he be influenced by the fact that Proposition 89 would take about $200 million a year from the special interests that now bankroll everything he does?

Unless and until Schwarzenegger says more, no one can be sure whether cause and effect is at work here. What is certain is that if this measure doesn't pass, it will be business as usual in Sacramento indefinitely.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)