Money Madness

Editorial

EVER THINK of running for public office?

At one time, so did popular and effective candidates -- such as Leon Panetta. Want to know why guys like these don't run any more?

Here's why: The Democratic candidates in this week's primary race for governor spent more than $60 million battling each other. The winner, Phil Angelides, will have to pick up the pace just to match Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who hopes to raise $50 million for his re-election.

Need more evidence? Look at home. Right here in San Francisco, the race for the District 12 Assembly seat broke a new record -- but not a vision record, folks. Not an idea record or a turnout record. A spending record. The cash spent on Fiona Ma and Janet Reilly -- who pushed nearly identical positions -- came to almost $2 million.

Proposition 208, we hardly knew ye. The voters may have forgotten by now, but 10 years ago, Californians tried to stop this madness. They passed Proposition 208, which placed strict spending limits on political contributions and issued prohibitions on politicians' worst practices. It wasn't the best-written initiative, and that's why the courts were able to strike it down when both political parties, apoplectic at the thought of real change, challenged it. So here we are.

Unfortunately, the "Clean Money" bill (AB583) by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, which would set up a system of publicly financed campaigns, remains stalled in the Senate. History has shown that special-interest money will always find its way into an election, but we're optimistic. Public financing wouldn't mean an end to loathsome, loaded, independent-expenditure committees, but it'd offer grassroots candidates the chance to be seen. It might even encourage good candidates to run. To us, that sounds like money in the bank.

(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.)