Weed Garden: Why Republicans should support Prop 89

When big money wants to get its way, it donates to the party in power. In California, that means the Democrats. Why should a Democratic incumbent--such as Bill Lockyer--have an unfair advantage over a Republican Challenger?

Imagine if Claude Parrish had as much money to spend as Bill Lockyer. How would that affect the race?

Under Proposition 89, Parrish could compete dollar for dollar with Lockyer. Or, if they both chose the voluntary Clean Money public finance option, they'd each have to stick to $2,000,000--unless the Green Party or Libertarian candidate outspent them, in which case both Clean Money candidates would get funds matching what the non-Clean Money candidate spent. From Proposition 89 Blog:

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

2006 California State Treasurer Race

One of my new favorite "first read" internet sites is the LA Times' Mother's Milk, which has this graphic posted today.

Bill Lockyer has 35 times as much money as Claude Parrish.

Who do you think will win?

This isn't even a real race. There is no real debate about the role of the office. There probably won't even be a single public debate. Claude Parrish has already lost, he can't afford the ante necessary to introduce himself to voters. Right now, the Parrish campaign is so broke that they can't even seem to afford a website and you can put up a website for free. I don't know if the Parrish campaign even has enough cash on hand to pay attention.

Under Proposition 89, this would be a far different campaign. There would be a level playing field when it comes to financing, allowing the Parrish campaign the resources necessary to talk to voters. Also, one requirement of public financing is for candidates to agree to publically debate. Under Prop 89, this would be a campaign instead of a blowout.