On the millions spent on the November election
“The majority of the money was spent by those trying to defeat the propositions – the big pharmaceutical companies, who successfully squashed Proposition 79, and the teachers and healthcare unions, who successfully defeated 74, 75, and 76. The figure I’ve seen for the pharmaceutical companies was that they spent $80 million, and I estimate the unions spent about $100 million on 74 through 76. That’s why this was the most expensive election in state history.”

On screaming money
“That’s a lot of money, but it’s probably well spent, because these propositions would have been more expensive for these parties if they had turned out differently. Still, what it says is that money doesn’t just talk, it screams. The more money spent on elections, the more public opinion is wooed to that side of an issue.”

On the Special Election’s irony
“The idea of initiative and referendum used in this election comes out of the Progressive Era. The point was to democratize the process by taking power away from big corporations that had come to rule the legislature like the railroads and mining corporations and giving it back to the little guy. The ultimate irony in this election then is that this original idea has been completely stood on its head where, once again, those who spent the most money on ads were able to dictate the election’s outcomes.”

On how to stop money from winning out
“This has been going on for the past 20 years, and I doubt it will stop. The only thing that can be done is to have spending limits put on these issues, but there’s not a very robust attempt to do that. They’ve done it in Canada and in Britain and successfully done it here in the U.S. in presidential elections, but outside of that, nothing has worked, and I don’t expect it to.”  

On biting the hand that feeds
“There are two main reasons why I don’t expect to see serious pushes for campaign finance reform. First and foremost, it doesn’t seem to be a very salient issue for the public. The other major reason is that the very people who would make such rules, the legislators, are the vary ones who benefit from the lack of campaign finance limits.” 

On the Governor’s coffers
“People say the Governor’s support is dwindling, but he has still raised an enormous amount of money. There was a list in the L.A. Times that said three individual donors have given him more than $1 million each. I think he’s raised more than $80 million and by the time the next election comes around, I expect he’ll have raised more than $100 million. He’s pursuing plans that big business favor and that’s where a lot of his donor money comes from. If the November election and other recent elections have anything to say about it, that money will transfer into a change in public opinion.”  

On predictions of Arnold’s next steps
“Everyone thinks he’ll lose because public opinion is down, but he’s smart enough to do a few things soon to change that. Right now, he’s perceived as opposing the unions. I can almost guarantee he’ll do something to benefit education and he’ll publicize it. That will get some of the teachers back. Then he’ll do something to win back some of the nurses. And he’ll also do something to help police and firemen to win some of them back. So when the next election comes, people won’t be as raw as they are today and many won’t remember what happened on Nov. 8, 2005. They’ll remember more recent things the Governor did to win over public opinion and then he’ll place lots of ads to support this position. It’s just the nature of the game.”