Tag: Jon Fleischman

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall insider corruption term limits

Professional Politicians & Crony Capitalists

Yesterday, I explained how the official title for California’s Proposition 28 tricks voters who favor tougher term limits into supporting a measure that will dramatically weaken those limits.

The title’s slipperiness is anything but accidental. It was designed to fool, hiding the fact that the measure doubles the time legislators can park themselves in the state assembly and ups senate tenure by 50 percent. Instead, voters read that Prop 28 “reduces” (ever so slightly) the time a politician can serve in both chambers, from 14 years to 12 years – something affecting less than one in ten office-holders.

“The proponents of the measure are longtime opponents of term limits who have long wanted to roll back California’s voter-​approved legislative term limits,” says Jon Fleishman of the Flash Report, who serves as volunteer co-​chairman of “No on 28.”

Still, the sham ballot title is only one part of the Prop 28 scam.

The biggest financial backer behind Prop 28 has been billionaire developer Edward Roski. While at the very same time legislators were awarding Roski’s company the special environmental exemptions he needed to build a sports stadium, Roski just happened to plunk down over a million bucks to the politician-​prized petition drive, helping the measure get on the June 5th ballot.

“That’s crony capitalism and that stinks,” argues Fleishman.

“In a state with a 12-​percent-​plus unemployment rate,” Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits, points out about legislators, “the jobs they’re fighting the hardest to keep are their own.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
term limits

Ballot Trickery

When California voters read Proposition 28’s ballot title, they overwhelmingly support the June 5th measure. That support radically dwindles when they learn more.

The Public Policy Institute of California released a poll showing 68 percent in favor and only 24 percent opposed. Surveyed Californians were responding to the official ballot title, which reads that Prop 28 “reduces the total amount of time a person may serve in the state legislature from 14 years to 12 years and allows 12 years’ service in one house.”

Voters want to reduce the time legislators spend in Sacramento.

But a poll commissioned by Citizens in Charge Foundation addressed the same measure, except voters were told, “Proposition 28 increases the total amount of time a person may serve in the state assembly from 6 years to 12 years.  It allows a person to serve a total of 12 years either in the Assembly, the Senate, or a combination of both.”

Hearing that, voter support dive-​bombed to a mere 28 percent, with 49 percent opposed.

Wording matters. Under Prop 28, the maximum time legislators can serve in both houses will be slightly reduced, from 14 to 12 years. But an analysis by U.S. Term Limits shows that only 8 percent of legislators would likely have their time in office reduced, since few legislators swap houses. Prop 28 doubles the amount of time politicians can stay in the Assembly and weakens the senate limit as well, allowing 82 percent of legislators to serve longer terms.

Jon Fleischman of Californians for Term Limits calls Prop 28 “a sham” because the ballot title was “written to fool the voters.”

“Scam” is a good word, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.