One more proposition - Misleading NONSENSE

You can say two things about the supporters of tax funded elections in California; they don't listen very well and they will try anything to advance their notion.   In the last two decades, when voters have been presented with a chance to vote on public funding for elections they have consistently said no.  Current state law bans public funding.


The measure would require a new $350 per year fee for lobbyists to fund elections for the Secretary of State.  One supporter, Mark Leno, said "We've got a scheme here really would take all that special interest power out of our election system."   Evidently, Senator Leno never bothered to read the measure - it's ballot summary suggests that the measure will provide some money for candidates for Secretary of State.


Groups as diverse as Jericho (which is a social welfare lobbying group), the State Chamber and the California Fair Political Practices Commission have expressed opposition to the measure.  That should tell you something.  Most of the time Jericho is on the left in political debates - but this group understands something about robbing Peter - and they see this gimmick as just that - limiting their ability to effectively represent the poor.  A $350 annual registration fee for them would diminish their impact in the capitol.


The reason voters have rejected public financing before is that they realize that politicians will use any new scheme (not my word - it is Leno's) to feather their own nests.  I'm not much into feathers (political or other kinds), so I am voting NO.