An article in yesterday’s Los Angeles Times examines the role of so-called 527 committees (named after the section of the Internal Revenue Code that governs their tax-exempt status) in this year’s election. 527 committees are known as “issue advocacy groups” because their ostensible purpose is to advocate on behalf of or in opposition to political issues rather than to advocate the election or defeat of a specific candidate, a distinction which allows 527s to avoid filing campaign disclosure reports with the Federal Election Commission. Probably the two best-known 527 committees are Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, which spent $22.5 million in 2004 on TV ads and other material opposing John Kerry’s presidential bid; and MoveOn.org, which spent $21.5 million in 2004 on TV ads and other material opposing George W. Bush’s re-election campaign.

According to the Times‘ analysis of federal campaign finance reports, 527 committees have spent upwards of $300 million to influence the outcomes of various races and measures in this election. The main example closest to home is the significant amount of money that’s being spent by 527 committees on behalf of Proposition 90, although unregulated money is also being spent by 527s on behalf (or, more frequently perhaps, in opposition to) of many other ballot measures and statewide and congressional candidates.

According to the Initiative and Referendum Institute at USC, there are a total of 208 propositions on the ballot in 37 states nationwide this year, which is an increase from the 162 propositions on the ballot nationwide in 2004. California has the third-highest number of propositions on the ballot, with Colorado (14 propositions) and Arizona (19 propositions) coming in second and first. The most pervasive issues on the ballot this year are eminent domain (13 states), tobacco and smoking-related measures (10 states), and same-sex marriage (9 states).

Outside of California, several measures are being watched closely. These include:

• Referred Law 6 in South Dakota, which would repeal the state’s ban on abortion that was signed into law by Governor Mike Rounds in March.

• Four measures on the Arizona ballot are related to illegal immigration. The measures would deny state services to illegal aliens (Ballot Measure 300), deny them bail in felony circumstances (Ballot Measure 100), deny them punitive damages in civil lawsuits (Ballot Measure 102), and establish English as the state’s official language (Ballot Measure 103).

• Proposal 2 on the Michigan ballot would prohibit the University of Michigan and other state universities from “using affirmative action programs that give preferential treatment to groups or individuals based on their race, gender, color, ethnicity or national origin for public employment, education or contracting purposes.”

Update: There’s a good article in the October 30 San Francisco Chronicle about Michigan’s Proposal 2, pointing out its similarities (including sponsorship) to California’s Proposition 209, which was passed almost exactly 10 years ago.

The Center for Responsive Politics notes that the 2006 election is on track to be the most expensive in US history. “Candidates, national political parties and outside issue advocacy groups will spend roughly $2.6 billion by the end of 2006 to influence the 472 federal contests around the United States and pad the war chests of incumbents not running this year,” according to the group.

Take a look at the CRP’s list of the top 20 industries contributing dollars to the 2006 election fights.

A long article by Steven Harmon in this morning’s San José Mercury News revisits the notion that Angelides’ poor showing in polls could drag the rest of the statewide Democratic ticket down with him. The article points out that the races for lieutenant governor, secretary of state and insurance commissioner are far tighter at this point than the seeming national against the GOP would seem to predict.
Continue Reading »

Here’s another opinion to add to the meme that California is going to buck the anti-incumbent, anti-GOP national trend. (Note, though, that the “national anti-GOP wave” meme is itself not necessarily on solid ground, given the GOP’s significant advantages in cash, GOTV ground game, and congressional district boundaries — all three of those items are virtually ignored in mainstream media coverage in favor of the scandal du jour, but all three are structural bulwarks that undoubtedly favor the Republicans.)

Dan Walters, the veteran Sacramento Bee columnist, writes in yesterday’s paper:

Why, one might ask, isn’t the national Democratic tide washing over California? Partially, it’s because with the state’s incumbent-friendly, gerrymandered congressional districts, Iraq and other national issues are not generating political heat. Angelides has gamely attempted to link Schwarzenegger to President Bush, but the governor has carefully distanced himself from the White House, and the Angelides strategy doesn’t appear to be working.

Another factor is simply that Angelides is a poor candidate, with little ideological or personal appeal to swing voters, and several other Democratic candidates suffer from the same malady. Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante, for example, is a very weak campaigner with a less-than-stellar résumé — which explains why even liberal consumer advocates are opting for Republican Poizner as the two vie for insurance commissioner.

There was an intriguing report on tonight’s KTVU (the Bay Area Fox affiliate) “News at Ten” by political reporter Randy Shandobil. The gist was that while Democrats may be salivating at the prospect of retaking the House of Representatives for the first time since 1994, due to a series of scandals and other setbacks that have befallen the Republican Party, in California just the opposite trend may occur, due to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s double-digit poll lead. Shandobil outlined four statewide downticket races that some political pundits are predicting could go Republican in four weeks: lieutenant governor, controller, insurance commissioner, and secretary of state. Dan Schnur, visiting lecturer at the Center on Politics, said that he thought some Democrats might sit this election out if Angelides’ fortunes don’t improve:

In all likelihood, if you’re a Democrat in the first week of November and you know that Angelides is going to lose, and that he’s probably going to lose badly, it’s awfully tough to motivate yourself off the couch and down to the polls.