Letters to the Editor and Op Ed Pieces

League of Women Voters^®
of San Jose/Santa Clara

Newspaper

Letters to the Editor of Mercury News and other local newspapers. Op Ed pieces

Sunshine Week. Prop 90. Prop. 85. Prop 89. Op-Ed Prop. 89.

Sunshine Week

To the editor,
March 11-17 is Sunshine Week, a national initiative promoting government transparency. San Jose has come far since last year's initiative, when the Mercury News together with our organization called for open government and several city council members proposed Sunshine reforms. A Sunshine Reform Task Force was formed little more than two months later. By August, the City Council began to enact new ordinances reflecting Sunshine concerns, and since January that pace has accelerated, under the clear direction of the new mayor. There has clearly been a change in direction for the city that will benefit all who live in San Jose.
The League of Women Voters is always working to keep our community strong, healthy and vibrant, which requires an open government.
President, LWVSJSC

Re: Prop 90

The two following letters were submitted to the editors of the San Jose Mercury News for consideration in their letters to the editor columns.
On October 11, 2006:
Editor:
The League of Women Voters agrees with the Mercury News (October 2nd), recommending a "No" vote on Proposition 90. The League supports regulation of land use and protection of natural resources. In the name of private property rights, Prop. 90 would undermine any future regulation and protection. Increased payment would be necessary for acquisition of property for public use, since land would be valued at the use to which the government plans to put the property, rather than at current fair market value. Enacting new land use policies that control, direct, or limit growth, for environmental concerns, for example, would require payment to the landowner for "damages" even if community services and infrastructure are inadequate to support full development. Vote "No" to protect our communities.
Sincerely,
President

Re: Prop. 85

On October 16, 2006:
Editor:
The League of Women Voters urges a NO vote on Proposition 85. Requiring parents of minors to be notified 48 hours before an abortion could put the safety and health of some of our teenage daughters in serious danger. Those who come from homes where there is violence or where a family member has sexually abused them may be forced to choose between talking with parents and having illegal, unsafe abortions. The possibility of obtaining a waiver of notification through juvenile court is not the answer for already-vulnerable teens. If our daughters cannot come to us, for whatever reason, we must make sure they get safe medical attention.
Please join the League and doctors, nurses, educators and parents in voting NO on Proposition 85.
Sincerely,
President

Re: Prop 89

Editor:
A YES vote on Proposition 89, the Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, is an opportunity to put voters back in charge of elections. Candidates will have the chance to run and win without personal wealth or connections to special interests, so that our elections could become focused on the issues that matter to you and me. After election, office holders will be accountable to the voters, not to big money contributors. Arizona and Maine have had similar systems since 2000 and have seen an increase in the number of candidates for office and in voter turnout.
Please join the League of Women Voters in voting YES on Propositon 89 to help limit negative campaign advertising and reduce the influence of money over ideas.
Sincerely,
President

Op-Ed Prop. 89

We were asked by LWVC, as part of their campaign for Proposition 89, to submit an Op Ed article to the Gilroy Dispatch. The following was sent to them on October 27, 2006.
Change the System with Proposition 89
Bobbie Fischler, President, League of Women Voters San Jose/Santa Clara, serving the cities of San Jose, Santa Clara, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and Milpitas
With 13 propositions on the statewide ballot and campaign spending on this election topping $400 million, voter dissatisfaction is high. A recent poll by the Public Policy Institute of California finds that a large percentage of unenthusiastic voters may stay away from the polls on November 7th . Adding to voters' malaise are the highly publicized examples of politicians who have been entangled in campaign finance scandals.
Proposition 89 would restore integrity to California's political process and take government back from the special interests and lobbyists. Similar election laws now in place in Arizona, Maine and other states and cities have increased voter participation and inspired a greater diversity of candidates, thus making elections more competitive and reducing the influence of money over ideas.
Prop. 89 was carefully drafted by some of the foremost constitution and election law experts in California. It attacks the problem head on with strict new limits on political contributions to candidates, parties, PACs, and so-called independent committees -- from individuals, corporations and unions alike. Lobbyists and groups seeking business with the state will be barred from making contributions. The measure offers public funds to qualifying candidates who accept spending limits (a concept known as "Clean Money"), allowing them to serve their constituents free from obligation to big private contributors. If an opponent chooses not to participate in public financing and spends more than this limit, a capped amount of matching public funds will be available.
The amounts of money donated to support or oppose state ballot measures, currently unlimited, will have restrictions. Corporations will be limited to $10,000 contributions. If a candidate for state office is significantly involved with a committee supporting or opposing a ballot measure, contributions to that committee from individuals and other groups, as well as corporations, will be limited to $10,000.
The result of the measure would be incredibly positive for all but a handful of the biggest political spenders in California. Regular people would have a greater voice in the decisions and priorities of state government. Candidates would be judged on their ideas, not on the amount of money they raise. The state legislature, whose habitual gridlock is caused in no small part by the conflicting demands of well-financed competing special interests, could legislate.
Supporting Proposition 89 are AARP-California, Common Cause of California, the League of Women Voters, Sierra Club, the California Clean Money Campaign, the California Nurses Association and more than 200 other organizations. Lined up against the measure are a number of the biggest spenders in California politics, including oil companies, insurers, drug companies, developers, HMOs, and some big unions.
These special interest opponents, with a strong stake in maintaining the current system, are focusing on the financing mechanism for the Clean Money portion of the initiative (a 0.2 percent tax increase on banks and corporations) or on criticizing its limitations on corporate spending on initiatives. The alternative they offer to Prop 89 sounds suspiciously like the status quo. They trumpet disclosure, even though California's current disclosure laws+some of the very best in the country+have done nothing to check the dominance of special interest money in Sacramento.
The price tag on Prop 89+$200 million overall, predominantly from the wealthiest corporations in the state+is paltry compared to what special interests make in tax loopholes, labor contracts, and favorable legislation. From the cost-benefit perspective of the average voter, this one should be easy: bringing an end to the corrupt status quo will save taxpayers money.
Common sense and human nature dictate that elected officials will always be accountable to the people who fund their campaigns. Thus the question becomes, "Who funds the campaigns? Is it the voters, or is it other interests with their own agendas?" Under Prop 89, it's the voters. If you're fed up with the current system, make a choice to level the political playing field. Vote for Proposition 89.

Comments, suggestions, questions? Contact our webmaster. Last revised: September 2, 2008 14:25 PDT.