Calif. ballot proposal's GOP ties (Swift Boater)

Source: Yahoo/AP

Lawyers behind a California ballot proposal that could benefit the 2008 Republican presidential nominee have ties to a Texas homebuilder who financed attacks on Democrat John Kerry's Vietnam War record in the 2004 presidential campaign.

Charles H. Bell and Thomas Hiltachk's law firm banked nearly $65,000 in fees from a California-based political committee funded almost solely by Bob J. Perry that targeted Democrats in 2006. Perry, a major Republican donor, contributed nearly $4.5 million to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that made unsubstantiated but damaging attacks on Kerry three years ago.

Hiltachk has been pushing a proposal to revamp the way California awards its electoral votes, a change Democrats claim would rig the 2008 race. He and Bell are the sole officers of a new political committee, Californians for Equal Representation, that is raising money to place the plan on the ballot in June.

Their success could hinge on whether they get the financial backing to collect more than 400,000 petition signatures needed to qualify the proposal for the ballot. And while Perry has not donated to their cause, his wealth and connections make him a potential financier for a drive that could cost more than $1 million. Running a statewide campaign would cost millions more.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070904/ap_po/california_votes;_ylt=AnB4wZ6kOmrfQu0ks1rKNA.s0NUE

elections in all the big vote states.

I just have to keep the thought of him, and his evil, out of my head.

which is coming soon anyway - why not now?

over and over and over again

But, California has been "used" quite often in the past despite it's liberalness -- to foster right-wing programs -- beginning with Proposition . . . what was it . . . . the tax cap going back decades ago?

The Swiftboating of Gov. Grey comes to mind on a "recall" -- as well.

My taxes are about 10 times higher than my neighbors since I bought my house after Prop 13 went into effect.

It was terrific for businesses since they don't move nearly as much as the general populatuion.

Mz Pip
:dem:

And since their voting machines have been kicked to the curb by the SOS, this is their next move.

And the gubernatorial recall was rigged as well. Along with our special election in CA51 that replaced Cunningham. Diebold everywhere in San Diego.

Almost every single time I go to the local Whole Foods Market there is someone outside soliciting to have everyone sign on to qualify some type of ballot initiative. They will tell you it is to "help the police" or some such other noble cause. I have asked them before, "Can I read the initiative?" Well no because they just don't have one with them. Well, I ask "Who is employing you?"

Answer "Some political action committee."

Well what is their name? "I am not sure."

And I say that as an agnostic!

You know if they had the DRE's, we'd be toast with them trying to scam that prop.

The ballot measure to divide California’s 55 electoral votes by congressional district would magnify the worst features of our antiquated system of electing the President.

If the district approach were used nationally, it would less accurately reflect the will of the people than the current system. Although Bush lost the national popular vote in 2000, he won 55% of the country’s congressional districts. In 2004, Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote, but 59% of the districts. If the district approach were installed in only one large state such as California, it would greatly increase the chance that the winner of the presidential election would not have received the most votes nationwide.

The district approach would not, as claimed, make California relevant in presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to campaign in districts (or states) where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. Currently, candidates concentrate over two-thirds of their money and visits on just six closely divided “battleground” states, and 99% of their expenditures in just 16 states. Thus, two thirds of the states are ignored in presidential elections (including California). In California, the presidential race is a foregone conclusion in 50 of the state’s 53 congressional districts. Candidates would have no incentive than they do now to pay attention to California remaining 50 districts. Even if the district approach were used nationally, there are only 55 “battleground” districts that are competitive in presidential elections, so seven-eighths of the county would be left out of presidential elections. This is even worse than the current system, where two-thirds of the states are spectators.

A national popular vote is the way to guarantee that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states becomes President. It is the way to make every person’s vote relevant, regardless of where that person lives.

The National Popular Vote bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President. When the legislation is in effect in that sized group of states, all of the electoral votes in the participating states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Thus, the National Popular Vote bill would guarantee that the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in all 50 states will win the Presidency.

The bill has 320 legislative sponsors in 47 states. It has been signed into law in Maryland. The bill has passed by 11 legislative houses since its introduction in February 2006 (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, and North Carolina, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, and California).

See www.NationalPopularVote.com