SUBSCRIBE
Getting this forwarded from a friend? Subscribe to get our newsletter delivered directly to you!

IN THIS ISSUE

Table of Contents

Letter from the President: Connecting the Dots

Notes on the Right: The Enduring Importance of Strategy

EJS December 8 Fundraiser Features Harriet Tubman Jazz Oratorio

Vote Yes on 89: 'Clean Money' Initiative

First California, Now Michigan: Putting Race up for a Vote

Supreme Court to Revisit Brown v. Board in School Cases

EJS, CTA Look at Unconscious Bias in Schools

U.N. Committee Criticizes Racism in U.S.

New Voting Rights Act Under Attack

A First Look at the Roberts Court

Latina/o Law Student Symposium

Foundations Support EJS Efforts to Balance Racial Justice Debate

Farewell from our Irmas Fellow

Staff News and Notes

Newsletter Editors:
Elaine Elinson
Miguel Gavaldón

Email Feedback

'Clean Money' Initiative Prop. 89
Important to People of Color

By Rico Oyola

The Equal Justice Society urges all California voters to support Proposition 89, the initiative on the November 7 ballot that will reduce political corruption and the influence of special interests, and create a level playing field for California elections.

Proposition 89 sets tough limits on how much corporations, unions or individuals can give to candidates, and bars contributions to candidates by lobbyists and government contractors. It supports candidates who reject private fundraising with a set limit of public funds, paid for not by individuals but by a small two-tenths of a percent increase in the corporate tax rate. If politicians or lobbyists break the law, they can be fined, removed from office, or jailed.

This initiative can have a very real impact in our state.  Remember when Governor Gray Davis vetoed a bill prohibiting racial profiling by law enforcement in 1999 even though the measure passed the Legislature with bipartisan support?  When we were asked why, we were told that the Governor vetoed the "Driving While Black or Brown" bill because Brown and Black people did not contribute to his campaign.

On the other hand, the California Correctional Peace Officers – the prison guards’ union – opposed the bill. The same group had paid the bill for a huge chunk of Governor Davis’s election campaign.and spent a third of its budget, almost $8 million, on political contributions and lobbying.

The result: no meaningful racial profiling bill, but 20 new prisons filled disproportionately with black and brown inmates. A stark and frightening picture of how the unparalleled and increasing importance of campaign fundraising drowns out the voice of the less affluent and communities of color.

That is why EJS joins other organizations of color such as National Latino Congreso, Greenlining Institute, Latinos for America, William C. Velasquez Institute and the California Black Chamber of Commerce, and leaders such as Sen. Barbara Boxer, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Congresswoman Barbara Lee, Congressman Mike Honda, union leader Dolores Huerta and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in supporting Proposition 89.

Does Money Equal Speech?

The campaign spending problem stems for the United States Supreme Court 1976 ruling in Buckley v. Valeo, invalidating congressional campaign spending limits passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal.  The Court equated money with speech in the political process and stated that such limits violated the First Amendment.

After Buckley, jurisdictions across the country rapidly rescinded campaign spending limits laws.  Since the Buckley ruling we have witnessed an explosion in the costs of political campaigns.  The average cost of running a winning campaign today for the U.S. House of Representatives is nearly $1 million, and for the Senate more than $5 million.  This is a one thousand percent increase from 1976.  The Buckley ruling unleashed a fundraising arms race that has made it virtually impossible today for non-wealthy candidates to compete meaningfully for public office.

Those who suffer the most under this system are the poor and the traditionally disenfranchised.  Neighborhoods comprised mostly of people of color are severely underrepresented in campaign contributions, and subsequently in our democracy.

In California, where nearly one out of two residents are people of color, the William C. Velázquez Institute revealed that 85% of the campaign cash comes from zip codes that are predominantly non-Hispanic white.

Prop. 89 Changes the Equation

Proposition 89 would address several of these troubling concerns.  It would allow politicians representing minority districts and ethnic communities to focus more directly on the unique needs of their constituents because they won’t have to seek or respond to corporate and special interest contributors who often aren’t even located in their districts.

Because we want to tackle this problem on all fronts, EJS and other voting rights advocates have filed amici briefs in the United States Supreme Court in cases arising from Vermont and New Mexico arguing that governments have compelling interests in promoting meaningful participation by all members of the electorate. (See “EJS Brief Supports Campaign Spending Limits in Supreme Court Aims to Protect Rights of Voters and Candidates of Color” in our Winter 2006 newsletter.)

Campaign finance reform is a key issue for people of color, poor people and women who know from deep experience what it is like to be shut out of the political process.

Our political system today is separate and unequal.  Those with enormous wealth wield disproportionate power, effectively choosing the candidates.  Without campaign finance reform, our right to an equal and meaningful vote, which includes equal and meaningful participation in the process, is undermined.

Visit www.89now.org for more information.

Back to Table of Contents