Once upon a time, California was infested with corruption at all levels of government. Big businesses ran the show, and the state was more of a banana republic than the present giant that would qualify as a G-7 nation. One hundred years ago, this state had a governor, a Republican, who was a visionary. That man was Hiram Johnson. He pushed for direct election of Senators (eventually passed nationwide in a constitutional amendment), women’s suffrage, and the initiative process, which gave Californians a level of direct democracy unheard of at that time. Johnson ended up running for vice president with Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, and served as a senator for 30 years.
Johnson’s legacy of direct democracy has been perverted over the last 30 years. Now anyone with money can hire a gaggle of lackeys who get paid to troll out signatures, with the end result placing initiatives on the ballot that often confuse and confound voters. Sometimes the initiatives (mostly called proposition, or “props”) are absurd, such as the one a few years backed that banned the sales of horse meat. Others become controversial, such as Prop 187, Pete Wilson’s lame attempt to turn immigration, a federal responsibility, into a state one—whatever you thought of that issue (which passed but the courts overturned), it definitely changed the political culture of California, turning a state that was reliably Republican into one that for the most part is one of the bluest of the blue states, thanks to enraged Latinos who finally realized there were reasons to register to vote. And I’m just scratching the surface here.
Now let’s talk about Proposition 16, an egregious example demonstrating why the initiative process needs to be reconsidered.
Have you ever been confused upon receiving your voting ballot and all the nonsense that floods your mailbox during voting season? I certainly have. The text of these initiatives and referenda are so confusing, making you wonder if completing a college degree was really worth the effort. I learned years ago that instead of trying to decipher the legalese, the best way to sort out voting for these confusing measures was to see who was for—and against—the passage. Voting then got easier. Proposition 16 is a great case in point.
“The Taxpayers Right to Vote Act” purports to express concern of citizens’ pocketbooks and issues concerning local control. If passed, it would require that a local government garner two-thirds voter approval for spending any public money or incurring debt to enter the electricity business. Who’s the sugar daddy behind this scheme? PG&E, who has spent at least $35 million dollars backing up this campaign—very cleverly, too, I must say. The “Yes on 16” commercials do not even include “PG&E” in the small print—its initials are spelled out. I’m sure most people know who PG&E is, but not Pacific Gas and Electric. The commercials are well produced. They are also full of hideous lies.
Clearly there is a concern over any government wanting to enter the utility business. Government is at its best when it ventures into businesses that require high capital investment and little profit: roads, police, parks, libraries, and wildlife protection, just to name a few. Utilities are a grey area—anyone who is a LADWP (LA Department of Water & Power) customer probably cringes when they get their bill and wonders where that money is going.
But some areas, like San Francisco and Marin County, are experimenting with giving customers the option of purchasing their utilities from PG&E or programs that provide government-procured power. That gives customers a choice; and it also forces PG&E to compete.
Proposition 16 is a crass measure that would not level the playing field—it would devastate it. By requiring a two-thirds vote, the utility would almost guarantee that any municipality fed up with high utility rates—or the sources generating that power—would have no chance at starting its own electricity program.
Of course citizens should be wary of local politicians who can offer clean, cheap power: especially when marginal politicos like Antonio Villaraigosa spout off words like “sustainability” when they don’t really know what it means (or live by the rules they preach).
But Proposition 16 denies citizens that choice. This measure is an obnoxious example of how an organization with deep pockets can manipulate the system in order to get the results that it wants. You should be nervous about the money PG&E is throwing at their ad campaigns. This is about PG&E’s bottom line, not false concerns about citizen democracy. Don’t fall for it. Vote No on Tuesday!
