[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Joseph A. Palermo

Wealthy right-wingers from out of state are flooding California with cash to try to change the way the state's electoral votes are allocated. In time for the 2008 election (and thereafter) the Republicans want to snatch up at least 20 of California's 55 electoral votes in a new system that would replace the traditional winner-take-all method. As with past Republican shenanigans they intend to accomplish this feat by tricking the voters with a well financed, deceptively-worded ballot initiative.

"Take Initiative America -- California" is a corporation set up in Missouri that is charged with funneling hefty amounts of cash into the coffers of a group calling itself "Californians for Equal Representation." We'll be hearing a lot from "Californians for Equal Representation" on our radios and TVs as the group uses the latest techniques in post-Swift Boat propaganda to convince enough Californians that they should vote in favor of diminishing their state's relevance in national elections.

If successful, the Republican initiative will have the effect of diluting the impact of the state of California on the Electoral College.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Peter Scheer
Executive Director
California First Amendment Coalition

News organizations are notoriously bad at covering news stories in which they are participants. Recent examples include the Wall Street Journal, whose top editors knew about Rupert Murdoch’s offer to purchase Dow Jones (owner of the Journal and related businesses) for days before the news was made public--not by the Journal, but by CNBC, a competitor.

In California, the Hearst Corporation, owner of the San Francisco Chronicle, and MediaNews Group, owner of all Bay Area daily newspapers except the Chronicle, recently reached a settlement in an antitrust suit that had been brought against them by Clint Reilly, a San Francisco politico and businessman. The settlement was announced in dueling press releases in which lawyers for the litigants gave their respective, and often conflicting, accounts of what they had all agreed to.