Proposition 33. Legislature. Participation in Public Employees' Retirement System.

This Proposition amends Proposition 140, passed in 1990. The only amendment is to allow California Legislatures to participate in PERS, the Public Employees' Retirement System, which is open to most state employees. Participation is voluntary, and the state has matching contribution much like a company 401k plan. Estimated cost to the state is under $1 million a year, although that money will come from other Legislature expenses rather than a new appropriation.

The Pro argument is that this is only fair, otherwise we're asking Legislators to take up to 6-8 years out of their careers where they can't contribute to a special retirement fund (other than Social Security). (Note that Prop 140 placed a term limit on Legislators, the reason for the 6-8 year max). They get the same benefits as other state workers, otherwise the Legislature will only be open to the rich and other people who can afford their own independent retirement plan. (Although at the current salary of $100 000 a year, I think most non-rich people wouldn't mind the trade-off).

The Con argument is that Legislators make $100k a year, plus have some expenses reimbursed. And that's pretty much their only argument. I don't know about you but that's not good enough for me. People should have a good chance and incentive to contribute to a retirement plan, since Social Security is going to die in 20 years. If you're worried that Legislators make too much money, have an initiative to limit their salary.

Proposition 34. Campaign Contributions and Spending. Limits. Disclosure.

Proposition 208, passed in 1996 to limit campaign contributions, is currently blocked in the state courts pending a lawsuit. This proposition has the same goal as 208, with higher spending limits and other provisions so that hopefully it won't suffer the same fate as 208. Most of the limits are just numbers to me, though keep in mind that there are no current campaign contribution limits in California. The only provisions that jump out at me are that lobbyists can't give campaign contributions and there is a $100 000 limit on self-financed campaigns.

For this proposition I don't have any real feelings for or against. So what I noticed in the Pro and Con arguments were the wordings. For the Pro side they ended with: "VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34 if you're tired of special interests controlling government. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34 if you want real campaign reform that can and will be enforced. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 34 if you don't want taxpayers to pay for political campaigns." I guess I'm starting to be too much like Pick but I don't like the blatant attempt at appealing to emotion rather than reason to get my vote.

Not that the Con side was any better. They used way too many ALLCAP sentences: "CANDIDATES SPEND CAMPAIGN MONEY TO SEND US INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR CAMPAIGN AND THEIR POSITIONS AND ISSUES. THIS ENABLES US TO MAKE CHOICES... ALL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS ARE NOW REPORTED. IF WE DON'T LIKE THE PEOPLE WHO GIVE MONEY TO A POLITICIAN, WE CAN VOTE AGAINST HIM OR HER!... DO WE WANT TO LIMIT OUR CHOICE OF CANDIDATES TO A GROUP OF RICH MOVIE STARS, FAMOUS ATHLETES OR CELEBRITY TALK SHOW HOSTS?" Really annoying. I swear, these people have to get better writers.

I actually am more for the Con side of this. Make sure that reporting is done accurately and people can't obfuscate their contributions. Make it readily available. Don't impose limits. So it's more of a enforce what we now have rather than making new laws approach. But of course the current approach isn't working all that well, which is why we need to concentrate on making the existing approach work rather than making new laws that probably won't work either.