SCOTUS decision on corporations: "Going to be worse than you can possibly imagine"

By GottaLaff

Michael Hiltzik has a must-read column in today's L.A. Times that explains why the Supreme Court decision morphing corporations into people is, as he says, "worse than you can possibly imagine":

Speculation has been raging over whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent junking of federal campaign spending limits on corporations will be very bad for democracy, or not so bad.

As with many important trends in American society, California was there first, and we have the answer. Thanks to a nakedly cynical $6.5-million ballot campaign launched by our biggest utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, we can say this: It's going to be worse than you can possibly imagine. [...]

Corporations can't vote or run for office, and "their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters," [Justice John Paul Stevens] observed. [...]

Proposition 16, in any case, is written broadly to apply to all public power systems. By undermining all competition from public power agencies, it will benefit no one except PG&E and other private utilities. [...]

In reality, it's profoundly anti-democratic: A two-thirds vote is nothing but a tool to thwart the will of the voters by giving an extreme minority an outsized voice.

S. David Freeman, general manager of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the nation's largest municipal utility:

"This is just another attempt by a private utility to inhibit the right of public power to be a competitive yardstick. It's so hurtful of consumers that it would be laughable, except that PG&E's ability to put up brainwashing ads makes it a real threat."
Worse, state law prohibits elected officials and public agencies from spending public funds to oppose a ballot measure. That means any effort to counteract PG&E's bankroll will be crippled from the start.

This is only the beginning, just one example of what we're up against.

Please go read the whole thing.

Conservatives try to suspend California's global-warming law

By GottaLaff

I cannot fathom how these people can be so shortsighted. It's beyond comprehension. Do they not realize that all that money they'd supposedly save won't do anyone any good if nobody is around to spend it?

Republican politicians and conservative activists are launching a ballot campaign to suspend California's landmark global-warming law, in what they hope will serve as a showcase for a national backlash against climate regulations.

Supporters say they have "solid commitments" of nearly $600,000 to pay signature gatherers for a November initiative aimed at delaying curbs on the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants and factories until the state's unemployment rate drops.

GOP gubernatorial candidates and Tea Party organizers paint the 2006 law, considered a model for other state and federal efforts, as a job-killing interference in the economy. Talk radio is flailing at what John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, drive-time hosts on Los Angeles' KFI-AM (640), call "the global-warming final solution act" promoted by "fascist, Nazi" officials.

"We are on fire," said Assemblyman Dan Logue (R-Marysville), a sponsor of the proposed initiative. "People are calling from all over the country. This will be the most intense campaign the state has seen in 50 years."

"We are on fire." Hey Dan Logue, so is the planet.

The measure would halt proposed regulations until the state's jobless rate dips to 5.5% or below for a year. That's a level that California has not seen since 2007.

This is mind-achingly stupid. California's habit of governing via ballot initiative needs to be broken. Schwarzenegger* is proof of that.

*To be fair, he's fighting this campaign. I'll give him that.

A post by our Commenter in Chief from Connecticut

By Commenter Chris via GottaLaff

Chris e-mailed me the other day regarding the subject below, and I invited her to send me a full post on it. It's happens to be about, but not limited to, Connecticut and the effort to introduce ballot initiatives, bypassing the state Constitution:

First, a little background: Connecticut amends its Constitution through conventions . They meet and propose whatever changes, which are then put before the electorate for approval. Any proposals approved by the voters become part of the Constitution.

So, November 4, 2008 being the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November in the even-numbered year next succeeding the expiration of a period of twenty years from the date of convening of the last convention, electors in Connecticut will vote on the ballot question:

"Shall there be a Constitutional Convention to amend or revise the Constitution of the state" as required by Article 13 of the CT Constitution. [Sec. 2] If a majority votes yes, then a convention must be held no later than one year after the date of the vote [Sec. 3]. If a majority votes no, a Constitutional Convention may be held in one of the intervening years [but not earlier than 10 years from the date of the last convention] at the request of a two-thirds majority in each house of the Legislature [Sec. 1]

That's how we do it and it's complicated for a reason.

This year, proponents of holding a convention want to put forth the proposal of changing Article 13 . They want to implement an "Initiative Referenda", which basically means doing away with the conventions and bringing proposed amendments directly to the voters, the way it's done in other states, such as California. I don't like it.

For the record, I live in California, and I don't like it either.

Our Constitution has been around longer than the US Constitution and it's supposed to be difficult to change it.

It's supposed to be a deliberative process, rather than one that is subject to popular whims and fears, which is what direct initiative will bring us.

The proponents say that they will push for an agenda to amend the Constitution to provide for limiting property taxes (how well did that work out for ya, CA?). They also want hard changes to the Constitution for immigration reform, a three-strikes law, ethics reform, eminent domain reform, term limits, a recall provision, and "More!!! Much More!" .

All of those things (except eminent domain – which does need reform) can be accomplished by the Legislature. We don't have to change the Constitution for them, except maybe the recall provision, which I'm not convinced is a good idea anyway.

And then there's gay marriage. The CT Supreme Court decision earlier this month made direct initiative imperative if the voters want gay marriage banned. Richard Blumenthal, CT Attorney General, said that the court was the final arbiter and the decision would be respected.

Jodi Rell acknowledged that banning gay marriage was a fight she could not win. The decision was based on the equal protection under the law clause of the Constitution, so any amendment would have to address that. Do we really want to screw with equal protection? Do we really want one segment of the population deciding what rights another segment is allowed to have??

A major point of the Constitution is to protect the individual from the tyranny of the majority!

There are others ideas out there which could find their way onto the ballot from initiatives - things we haven't thought of yet. And every popular whim that can gather enough signatures on petitions will make it to a ballot in November. We could be taking a lot of the decision-making power out of the hands of the people we've elected to make decisions about the way the state is run.

After writing all this, it is clear to me that my opposition to the ballot question isn't about amending the Constitution; it is against direct initiatives.

It is an argument best given when the question is about amending the Constitution to allow for Initiative Referenda. But still, I'm voting NO on the ballot question, just to be safe.

I completely agree with Chris. We have had election after election in which we vote on initiatives that are worded badly, are too convoluted for many to understand (I believe Rachel Maddow made that point last night), and most importantly, should never have made their way on to the ballot.

Chris's heartfelt and intelligent e-mail to me was too important to gloss over, and I'm thrilled to have been able to share it with you.

IWRC* Palin may have violated law re: mining initiative

By GottaLaff

IWRC* Palin has so many scandals brewing, it's hard to believe she's not already vice president:

Palin's intervention in dispute may have violated law against state advocacy on ballot measures.

Alaska law forbids state officials from using state resources to advocate on ballot initiatives. [...]

Asked about the initiative at a news conference, she invoked "personal privilege" to give an opinion. "Let me take my governor's hat off for just a minute here and tell you, personally, Prop. 4 -- I vote no on that," she said. "I have all the confidence in the world that [the Department of Environmental Conservation] and our [Department of Natural Resources] have great, very stringent regulations and policies already in place. We're going to make sure that mines operate only safely, soundly." [...]

For Palin to intervene as she did, with a brief, seemingly off-the-cuff statement just days before the election, also showed a lack of serious engagement on complex and important issues, initiative supporters say. Palin, they say, was simply going on the word of officials in her administration that the existing regulations sufficed, without taking into account their possible biases: Her natural resources commissioner hails from the mining industry, and mining companies directly subsidize some regulators' salaries.

"She has this great faith that nothing will go wrong, which gave her a false sense of security, so she went off a little half-cocked" and spoke out, said Tim Bristol, Alaska program director for Trout Unlimited. [...]

Palin's comments rocked the contest. Within a day, the pro-mining coalition fighting the referendum had placed full-page ads with a picture of the governor and the word "NO." The initiative went down to defeat, with 57 percent of voters rejecting it.

Three days later, Palin was named Republican Sen. John McCain's running mate, throwing Alaska into a media frenzy. But the fallout has lingered from an episode that may stand as one of the most consequential in Palin's 21-month tenure. The state ethics panel is examining whether her comments violated the law against state advocacy on ballot measures; it had already ruled that a state Web site was improperly slanted toward mining interests.

TrooperGate, now this. Add in a dash of Couric and a pinch of Charlie Gibson and we have a pot of extra chunky Palin scandal stew. Serve that up with a smelly hunk of Gramm-pa McCain bad-judgment Limburger and voila! A toxic meal that would make even those of us with the strongest stomachs nauseous.

*"In What Respect, Charlie?"

Are there equal rights for gay embryos?

By GottaLaff

To Womb It May Concern:

If I get really, really mad at an embryo, can I sue him/her? Can 2 embryos legally marry? Do African American embryos have the same rights as white ones? Questions abound! My mind is reeling! There are more embryonic-rights questions than you can shake a test tube at! They're everywhere... all around us... The womb is spinning....

On Tuesday the group Colorado for Equal Rights submitted 131,245 signatures to place an initiative on the November ballot that would define a fertilized embryo as a person. Voters will decide on the measure that would amend the state Constitution to extend a fertilized embryo equal rights and protections. It would define "any human being from the moment of fertilization" as a "person" for purposes of the state's constitutional provisions "relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice and due process of law."

But wait. Just who are these microscopic beings? When do they become beings at all? Who decides? The Embryo Fairy? The Judge and Jury of the Embryonic CourtWomb?

Never mind that the 'moment of fertilization' is not a medical definition and is almost impossible to determine. Consensus from women's rights organizations is that the amendment would be catastrophic for women and their ability to determine their own futures. Doctors and legal rights experts say the amendment could trigger governmental investigations into miscarriages, restrict in-vitro fertilization by couples trying to conceive, and could limit birth-control methods.

What about twins, triplets, quintuplets? Will Mommy get fined for failing to improve overcrowded conditions? Do the embryos owe their mothers womb and board? Will they set a new precedent for went contwol? If a pregnant woman robs a bank, is the embryo an accomplice? Would there be an ultrasonic police lineup?

And to those hundred thousand-plus Coloradoans who endorsed the measure into being, if they so passionately believe in equal rights, what about the gay embryos? Equality still fair game? Just a thought.

Let's not start spreading wombers about gay embryos. It might throw the whole initiative process into a tizzy.