Petitions, Hippies and Totalitarian rule in California
June 18, 2007Say do you want to sign a petition to for more free parking in San Francisco?
The friendly looking slightly intellectual looking guy outside offers me and anyone else entering the supermarket the opportunity to take part in democracy.
Of course I’m thinking, it’s not exactly going to be free for any of us tax payers here in one of the most highly regulated parts of the US.
The issues don’t really matter for our friendly activist (or his he a temp worker). Today it’s free parking tomorrow it’s better police pensions or banning something pointless.
California seems to have has more folk democracy than I’ve seen anywhere. These start as petitioners annoying people outside supermarkets, then they become propositions or bill’s presented by ever active state representatives (or girly men as our governor once called them).
Thats good isn’t it? It’s democracy in action. People fighting for important issues right? Well the problem is that these annoying propositions, petitions and bills and what have you are turning California into a ridiculous web of local and state legislations aimed at making the people who sign or vote for them feel good. Only problem is that they seriously are messing up the civil liberties that Californians like to think they love.
Christian Probasco outlines a long list of the outcomes of these propositions, bills etc in his article California Looms. (Via Samizdata )
Back in 2005, San Francisco Supervisor Sophie Maxwell tried to pass a bill which would have required bloggers engaged in “electioneering communications,” i.e. political advocacy, to register their blogs with the city’s Ethics Commission and report all financial activities related to their sites.
I think it’s beyond annoying now, it’s pretty damn scary.
The most annoying to me is Proposition 65 which smacks anyone living in California in the head every day with warning labels and signs that “The State of California knows we are going to die a violent death of cancer”, because we are entering a garage, buying this mouse, walking buy a shop where once 5 years ago someone sold a cigarette.
Yes, I know I’m going over board a bit here, but I’m sure I’m not the only one who hates being reminded of his mortality 20 times daily.
Proposition 65 probably started with some sincere looking guys outside supermarkets asking passing shoppers if they wouldn’t want to help keep carcinogens out of your childrens drinking water. And who wouldn’t want to sign that petition? It sounds perfectly reasonable. Then when it came to the election in 1986 where the proposition was approved I’m sure it sounded perfectly reasonable and the right thing to do.
Comments:
Your information about the electioneering communications law was a scare that was circulated by the very highly paid political consultants in San Francisco. There was no such proposal. We did enact laws that required the disclosure of who is paying for an electioneering communication when they are paying over $1,000. Is there something wrong with knowing who is pouring the money into a campaign?
Did you know that money in San Francisco politics puts to shame all the other cities in the country? Mayor Newsom paid about $6 million to be elected in a city with 750,000 residents. Dallas with a population of 1.2 million just concluded the most expensive mayoral campaign in its history -- $2 million. Look how much more was spent by Mayor Newsom!
Now you can see why this cottage industry spread the lies about the blogging proposal. They want secrecy and will use lies to keep their identities from the public; they need to be controlled before Madison Avenue controls our elections rather than informed voters.
Joe Lynn
Posted by: Joe Lynn at June 20, 2007 02:31 PM
San Francisco Ethics Commissioner 2003-2006
I agree that Campaign Ethics is a very important thing and thank you very much for being part of that. I did not know about the Newsom campaign. That does sound kind of sickening.
It would be nice to know such things as who is pouring money into a campaign, this is a very obvious breach of the 1st amendment. i would say that the $1000 rule as well is a serious breach as well.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Both these laws such as registering as a blogger or reporting if
you've received more than $1000, do specifically abridge the freedom of speech in a very material way.Journalists then have the same right to digg down and expose these things.
Posted by: Pelle at June 20, 2007 02:33 PM
I also wanted to comment on your raising the First Amendment. I realize that the Supreme Court has ruled in Buckley that money equals speech. I respectfully disagree with elevating property rights to this level although the ruling is consistent with the Southern Pacific case which held that corporations had first amendment rights. I see these cases as the flip side of the Dred Scott decision which held that human beings did not have the rights of persons because in that case the human being was property. Within a generation, the Supreme Court held that property should be given equal respect to persons. The common thread is that those who have win over those who don’t.
But even under this line of cases, the courts still allow laws requiring disclosure of spending and contributions. We require the disclosure of who pays for lobbying activities. In San Francisco, those who make over $1,000 a year advising campaign strategy must also disclose their work. Do you believe that these laws are unconstitutional as well?
Thanks for your nice note. Whenever you’re in San Francisco, look me up.
Posted by: Joe Lynn at June 20, 2007 02:34 PM
Hi Joe,
Whether you agree with money equals speech is one thing, I don't know anything about these rulings so I can't comment.However I think it comes down to the most basic interpretation of the 1st amendment. As it is curtailing speech directly and the money part is a separate issue. The way I look at it is that the 1st amendment guarantees free speech without any 'if' or 'but' tagged on to it.
For me regardless of the good intentions behind these measures it is a definite dangerous step down the very slippery slope towards totalitarianism.
Now, I'm absolutely against crooked politicians (aren't' they all crooked?), but we can't have their acts cause us to loose our most fundamental freedoms. The same way we shouldn't let terrorism make us roll back our constitution.
BTW I'm currently living here in SF, but no nothing whatsoever about local politics here.
Posted by: Pelle at June 20, 2007 02:41 PM
Bah. The point is valid, although lost in a discussion about your example.
. California has become the land where populism rules in some areas. Yes, computer mice have lead, and so does nearly any piece of electronic equipment you may lay your hands on. Mebbe the warning label should read, "Contains Lead. Do Not Eat." You are a good man to step up and admit your data had been faulty; however, the fact is that the story was entirely believable, given California's history and political climate.
On a similar vein, a county in California recently moved to have the words "master" and "slave" stricken from all vendor documentation. This was to be done because the words "offended some." Yup, documentation for a "master" hard drive would have to call it something that it is called no where else. The same would be true for mechanical documentation in which there would be neither "master" nor "slave" cylinders. "Free at last! Free at last!" said the cylinders.
See Snopes.com: http://tinyurl.com/wd6v
Posted by: Will Kamishlian at June 23, 2007 09:39 AM
