Download issue (PDF) - Nieman Foundation - Harvard University

California Recallcember, shortly after Davis narrowlywon reelection. Most experts doubtthat Costa would have gathered therequisite 900,000 valid signatures ofregistered voters to place the recall onthe ballot without the infusion of twomillion dollars by multimillionaire RepresentativeDarrell Issa (R-Calif.). Issapaid petition circulators one dollar to$1.25 per signature and funded a directmail petition drive. Altogether, hewas responsible for 1.3 million of the2.1 million signatures gathered in thedrive, according to consultant DavidGilliard, who oversaw Issa’s petitiondrive. Issa had planned to use the recallto launch his run to replace Davis,until Schwarzenegger muscled himaside.During the recall, the public hadmore access to fundraising informationthan in any past election. CaliforniaSecretary of State Kevin Shelley’soffice expanded its Web site, making iteasier to search for donors and downloadlists of contributors. Like Lay, theSacramento lobbyist who knitted togethera Web site to track recall money,California Common Cause set up aWeb site allowing the public to conductmore detailed searches. The Timesand other papers published chartsshowing the amounts raised by eachmajor candidate.But as the campaign took shape,Proposition 34’s infirmities becameapparent. The California Fair PoliticalPractices Commission, which interpretsand enforces state campaign financelaw, carved some loopholes. Candidatesfound others:• There were no caps on donations tocommittees established to supportor oppose the recall, or on donationsto and spending by independentcommittees established to supportor oppose candidates.• The Proposition 34 provision restrictingdonors to giving candidates nomore than $21,200 did not apply tothe recall target, Davis. In his failedattempt to beat the recall, Davis acceptedat least 70 separate donationsof more than $21,200; he received46 separate donations of$100,000 or more.• While Proposition 34 barred candidatesfrom loaning themselves morethan $100,000, candidates couldtake out bank loans, so long as theterms were generally available tothe public. Schwarzenegger used thisloophole to borrow $4.5 million, atfour percent interest.Upon announcing his candidacy,Schwarzenegger portrayed himself as apolitical outsider who wanted to shakeup the establishment. He proclaimedas he entered the race that he wouldaccept no campaign contributions. Hequickly withdrew that pledge, sayinghe wouldn’t raise money from “specialinterests,” which he defined as publicemployee unions and Indian tribes thatown casinos. In both instances, hewould be in a position of negotiatingwith them. “I take money from [the]little grocery store, or the little shoestore or the guy that owns the realestate company or something like that,”Schwarzenegger explained. “But mostof my contributions, 90 percent ofthem, are just from regular people.”As it turned out, Schwarzeneggerled all other candidates in the moneyrace. He gave himself and borrowed$10 million and raised $11.9 millionfrom outsiders. I have begun buildinga new database on the new governor’scontributors. It shows that much ofSchwarzenegger’s money came fromlongtime Republican donors, many ofwhom will have interests in legislationand decisions made by the governorand his administration. He took moneyfrom farm interests, insurance companies,the financial services industry andmanufacturers, all of which have lobbyistsin Sacramento. Real estate anddevelopment interests, which are affectedby state environmental regulationsand various fees, accounted for14 percent of the nearly 12 million heraised.One of the hottest policy issues inthe recall campaign involved the vehiclelicense fee, also called the car tax.After presiding over its decrease in1999, Davis tripled the fee in an attemptto help erase what was a $38billion budget deficit. Car dealers haddonated a combined $450,000 to Davisduring his first term. But in the recall,after the car tax was increased, theirmoney flowed to Schwarzenegger.Schwarzenegger promised to roll backthe car tax, thereby shaving the cost ofnew and used cars. Car dealers accountedfor $500,000 in donations tothe new governor. Bert Boeckmann,who owns car dealerships that haddonated to Davis in his first term, helpedarrange a fundraiser for Schwarzeneggerin the recall. Boeckmann told myreporting partner, Joel Rubin, that therewere many reasons why car dealerssupported the new governor, but “thecar tax was one of the issues that wasvery strong.”Tracking money was an essentialpart of covering the recall race or, indeed,any campaign. The flow of moneyin the recall likely affected the fate of atleast one major candidate, Lt. GovernorCruz Bustamante. But reportingon the influence of money on politicsshouldn’t end when the voting does. Itought to be integral to governmentreporting in off years. Reporters mayfind that Internet disclosure of campaignmoney will help, though thepromise of Internet disclosure doesn’tyet match reality in many states. Groupssuch as the Institute on Money in StatePolitics also can assist.Reporters can make their own jobseasier by taking time to maintain an upto-dateand searchable database. To besure, there’s not always a direct linebetween donations and decisions.Honest reporting on the doings in astate house or city hall should includeinstances when politicians make decisionsthat appear to be in conflict withthe interest of their patrons. Still, inalmost any story about legislative andadministrative issues, a few paragraphsdescribing the donations from the affectedinterests can provide added edgeand give readers insight into the workingsof their government. ■Dan Morain is a staff writer for theLos Angeles Times based in Sacramento.dan.morain@latimes.comNieman Reports / Winter 2003 63