There’s one reason why this fall’s contest for governor remains
at least somewhat unpredictable with only days to go before the
vote: It has focused almost entirely around campaign finance, a
factor that has never before proven so critical in any California
political campaign.
There’s one reason why this fall’s contest for governor remains at least somewhat unpredictable with only days to go before the vote: It has focused almost entirely around campaign finance, a factor that has never before proven so critical in any California political campaign.
The unprecedented emphasis on campaign money and its sources has almost incredibly managed to obscure the huge differences between the contestants on almost every other major issue.
That’s because inept as many aspects of Republican challenger William Simon Jr.’s effort has been, until this month he kept his eye on the ball, never letting up on his claim that incumbent Democrat Gray Davis runs a “pay-to-play” administration where he presides as a “coin-operated” governor. That concentration was broken only when Simon humiliated himself by falsely accusing Davis of accepting a contribution in his state office.
Simon’s unrelenting hammering at the Davis fund-raising, in turn, placed a heavy focus on his own decision to plunk at least $9 million personal dollars into his campaign as loans, rather than gifts. If he wins, the loan designation makes them subject to possible repayment by post-election contributions from companies and individuals doing business with the state.
For despite his blasts at Davis’ fund-raising practices, Simon repeatedly refused to pledge never to take donations from individuals or interests that deal with the state.
Instead, like many past self-funded candidates, Simon contends his own bucks make him impervious to influence from donors, while his opponent is the virtual property of his fiscal backers.
While this drumbeat might lead to healthy changes in campaign finance even beyond those of the 2000 Proposition 34, which take effect for the 2006 election, it has completely overshadowed massive policy differences between the candidates. Those differences are likely to have far more impact on the mass of Californians than the funding of the eventual winner’s campaign.
Some examples:
• Davis supported and then signed a bill bringing California’s privacy and abortion laws in line with the standards of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision. That’s important because if President Bush appoints just one more anti-abortion justice, the high court will likely toss out Roe and return control of abortion to states. The new law makes California immune from any change from such a shift. Simon said he would “never” sign such a law.
• Davis signed bills guaranteeing overtime pay for hourly workers who put in more than an eight hours in a single day. He okayed an increase in the state’s minimum wage and he required employers to allow workers to use their sick leave to take care of ill relatives. And he signed a family leave law requiring employers to give workers six weeks off at 55 percent of their normal pay to help care for newborns. Simon claims all these changes “strangle” business, vowing to “roll them back.”
• Simon advocates less regulation for businesses in California; he’s even suggested major loosening of the state’s Environmental Quality Act to ease the permit process for developers of large projects. Davis has refused any such changes.
• Davis advocated and signed into law the nation’s toughest regulations on Health Maintenance Organizations, allowing patients to demand independent reviews of many HMO decisions. Simon won’t say whether he would have signed those bills, but his opposition to business regulations suggests the answer would be a strong no.
• Davis signed landmark laws recognizing same-sex domestic partners. Simon says he would never okay anything like that.
These are only a few examples, but they make it clear that rarely have differences between candidates been so stark. But it’s been in Simon’s best interests to downplay these differences as much as possible and imply at every opportunity that Davis is a crook.
For Simon’s stances on everything from abortion and gun control to guaranteeing parental leaves for workers run counter to what the polls say most Californians want. He’s even suggested that the problem with electricity deregulation and the market manipulation it led to was that California’s disastrous plan didn’t go far enough.
If Simon can pull an upset, knocking off a California governor after just one term for the first time since Culbert Olsen lost in 1942, his ability to keep attention focused on fund-raising and off many major issues confronting the state will go down as a mark of political genius.
If that happens, the Simon campaign would be remembered not for its many pratfalls, but for the candidate’s persistence and focus on a single issue almost to the exclusion of all others.
Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,” now available in an updated third edition. His email address is td*****@ao*.com
