by chuck nasmith [courtesy of Blog for America]

After McGovern  and the anti war convention choosing him lost in the general election, the Democratic Party decided to have Super-delegates so the Party, not the people ,could control future surges by  anti-war delegates. The Democratic Party must ban super delegates if they want to represent the people, and not the special interests. Is this what Democracy looks like ?  Super-size Democracy, not war.

by David Dayen [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

by Brian Leubitz [courtesy of Calitics - Front Page]

Well, I suppose juls is the one that really should be writing this, as she wrote far, far more about Arnold than really anybody in the state, certainly in the blogosphere. But directly from the, uh, what took you so long files, comes this editorial from the right-leaning LA Daily News:

But Schwarzenegger has bested even Davis in fundraising. Whereas Davis grossed $120 million in seven years, Schwarzenegger has raked in $125.8 million in only six. And like the special interests that bankrolled Davis, the special interests that are pouring millions into Schwarzenegger are no doubt looking for something in return.
***
And as long as the special interests control the state's political process, they will continue to bankrupt California(LA Daily News 11.26.07)

Of course, the LA Daily News, as a typical reactionary, fails to make that last logical leap. That if the special interests are killing us, we need clean money. What other solution is there to the problems they've outlined? Of course, they don't think as corporations as special interests, that label is reserved for unions and other organizations that support workers' rights.

[courtesy of California Progress Report]

By Carmen Balber
Consumer Advocate
Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights

Three bills that would weaken good government laws suggest that California lawmakers have begun a sustained, but stealthy, attack on popular political and campaign reforms. Each bill has received unanimous, or near-unanimous, support from legislators.

The three bills attacking campaign reforms would: weaken disclosure of money in politics by increasing the amount that large donors can give before they must report their contributions; decrease disclosure and transparency of contributions solicited by a candidate for something other than his campaign; and, open a loophole in local campaign laws to allow special interests to skirt contribution limits by giving through political parties.

Politicians are whittling away at the laws meant to deny special interests a stranglehold on California politics. But the details of campaign laws are as important as their core – shave off the edges and the whole campaign finance structure crumbles.

The bills include: