Calls to Action: Citizens

For years public school families in California have been poorly treated by elected officials. That’s because they haven’t had political muscle. Fortunately that’s changing.

Whoever wins today’s elections will need to govern. While some elected officials will continue to talk about fighting or resisting, others will be ready to roll up their sleeves and to work across aisles. To succeed, they will need the protection of political philanthropists.

As we reported last month, if you’re an LA voter in search of guidance, we recommend the LA Voter Guide from Thrive LA, which is a fast-growing political philanthropy that we also recommend for your financial support.

Last year I wrote about GFC’s most expensive failure, which is our continuing lack of success in reforming the public-employee retirement system, and earlier this week CalMatters columnist Dan Walters wrote about what I consider to be collectively our most shameful failure, which was the prolonged shutdown of California’s public schools during the pandemic.

For years the University of California has been treated like a doormat by the state’s elected officials. That’s because UC supporters have not flexed their political muscles. That’s changing.

Inspired by the success of pragmatic political coalitions in San Francisco, two GFC chapters led by Alistair Thornton and Eli Bildner have identified political giving opportunities in the East Bay.

Earlier this month we wrote to you about $195 billion in annual spending by California governments on compensation and benefits for public employees but that figure did not include spending by counties, which the Mercury News reported yesterday to be $45 billion per year.

Last week I wrote you about the $195 billion California governments spend every year on compensation and benefits for public sector employees. Part of that cost is annual service on $270 billion of debt issued to public employees by lawmakers, none of which was approved by voters.

If ever you had any doubt that governments in California are run primarily for the benefit of public employees, look no further than $195 billion of annual spending by those governments on compensation and benefits awarded by elected officials who receive support or avoid opposition by public sector unions.

As we’ve reported to you before, GFC is already focused on the 2026 governor’s race because California’s next governor is likely to inherit a precarious situation from Governor Newsom, the candidates who have announced so far are from the usual depressing cast of characters who specialize in loudly signaling virtue to the common person while quietly doing the bidding of special interests, and we are hoping the prospect of early backing by GFC could help elicit a bolder alternative.

Yesterday Governor Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore McGuire and Assembly Speaker Rivas confirmed they still intend to close the budget deficit in part by drawing half of the state’s budget reserves when they finalize the budget in June.

As recent election results demonstrate, San Francisco has become ground zero for the effective political philanthropy movement. Next up is the November General Election, which will offer an all-important opportunity to elect a majority of pragmatists to the Board of Supervisors, protect a public-safety-oriented District Attorney, and enact important changes to the city’s charter.

We always encourage readers to explore Cal-Access to gain a sense of how campaigns are financed in California.

Our last email elicited several questions about campaign finance so over the next few months we will provide you with short briefings about that subject. Today we address direct donations to candidates and committees that can donate to candidates.

Unlike their counterparts in California, poor students in Texas and Florida didn’t fall behind in math during the pandemic. That’s because they were allowed to attend school in person. According to a new study by Harvard University,

Among the 2,167 bills we are reviewing are several dealing with mental health and homelessness. Recently the Newsom Administration issued a proposal to establish CARE (Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment) Courts “to deliver behavioral health services to severely ill and vulnerable individuals while preserving self determination and community living.” Yesterday we joined a webinar about CARE and will be paying close attention going forward.

GFC President David Crane walks through the surprising statistics and lesser-known history behind California’s state government and how the public can help to elevate the quality of their state government.

More than 30 open-seat races for the state legislature will be contested this year. Some of you have asked about our process for considering pre-election endorsements.

State legislators introduced nearly 1500 bills this week, bringing the total number of bills submitted this year to 2103. Here’s a small sample of measures proposed this week:

Three years ago, a California businessman/philanthropist who had spent $19 million to help elect charter-school-friendly state legislators asked me why so many of those he had helped to elect had joined in passing anti-charter legislation. I responded that they couldn’t count on him to be there for them. When it comes to political power, reliability beats wealth. Just ask former state official John Chiang, who during a recent forum said that politicians “make calculations about which interests will be there for them through thick and thin . . . cycle to cycle,” or former US Senator John Kerry, who once told me legislators favor interests who “are always there” for them.

USC Center for the Political Future (CPF) Co-Directors Bob Shrum and Mike Murphy were joined by former California State Treasurer John Chiang and former Gov. Schwarzenegger advisor David Crane to assess California’s governance and government services amid rising housing costs and tax rates, and the future of the Golden State on Wednesday, February 9. In partnership with Govern For California.

We looked high and low for an article that exposed the poison pill buried in Section 100610 of AB 1400, a single-payer measure recently proposed and withdrawn in the California State Assembly, but found none. That’s worrisome. Typical single-payer systems are not governed by boards dominated by providers as called for by Section 100610, which would put the fox in charge of the henhouse. California already has a fox/henhouse problem on its public pension fund boards, which since Proposition 162 passed in 1992 must give precedence to beneficiaries, thereby delegating residents and taxpayers to subordinate roles. That’s how, eg, CalPERS’s board employed biased actuarial assumptions in 1999 to justify a retroactive pension increase the cost of which is still crushing services and taxpayers today.

It’s that time of year when California state legislators rush to introduce bills before a February deadline. Because it’s also an election year, many — including some to whom we give support from time to time — support bad bills that are good for them politically. We will work to defeat those bills but not to defeat those legislators unless alternative candidates from their districts are better bets for us.

The quality of government services in California declined because for decades there was little resistance in the legislature to special interests who profit from providing those services. That started to change in 2011 with the launch of GFC to support legislators who serve the general interest.

When a private equity executive filed papers to run for governor of Illinois in 2013, I wondered if he had done due diligence. That’s because Illinois governors can do little without the consent of a majority of legislators whose terms of office, unlike the governor’s term of office, are not term-limited. To me, being governor of Illinois would be like being CEO of a business with 177 board members the consent of a majority of whom I would need to do virtually anything but unlike me with no deadline to act.

If ever you needed a reminder that our nation has always been a confederation of diverse states united only when facing a common enemy, re-read Democracy In America, Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1835 masterpiece.

In traditional philanthropy there’s likely a correlation between wealth and impact but that’s less the case with political philanthropy where steadfastness is more important. That’s because the path to political change is steep and narrow. To change any of California’s 29 codes of law, a legislator must gain the agreement of 61 other legislators, each of whom has their own priorities. What matters in that world are seniority, committee assignments and bank balances, and what legislators in that world need are supporters who are always there for them. That’s one reason we have 18 chapters, each of which is among the largest and most steadfast donors to legislators.

Recently a journalist concluded “the California Dream is dying.”

In June the governor and legislature quietly granted an unwarranted $500 million per year salary increase to state prison guards using a loophole inserted into state code in 1981.