Munger pushing scrutiny of laws

SACRAMENTO — Wealthy Republican mega-donor Charles Munger continues to pour money into his ballot measure aimed at increasing public scrutiny of the state Legislature, even as his campaign is outspending its opposition nearly 400 to 1.

Munger added $150,000 last week to his $10.6 million campaign for Proposition 54, a ballot measure in the Nov. 8 election. The opposition campaign has raised $27,000.

Prop. 54 requires bills to be made public at least 72 hours before lawmakers can vote on them. The Legislature would have to videotape its hearings

and publish those recordings online within 24 hours.

The measure also allows any person to make audio or video recordings of an open legislative hearing and allows the recording to be used for any purpose, such as a political ad.

The measure is supported by the California Chamber of Commerce, Bay Area Council and the California Republican Party.

Opponents include the California Democratic Party and the California Labor Federation, which warn voters that the ballot measure will give special-interest groups more time to influence lawmakers.

Democratic strategist Steve Maviglio, who is leading the opposition through his Californians for an Effective Legislature campaign committee, said the measure is a ploy by the Republican billionaire to slow down how many bills the majority Democratic party can pass in the Legislature.

The Democratic Party gave $27,000 to Californians for an Effective Legislature campaign committee in the past two months.

Maviglio said the ballot measure would mean every comma added into a bill would then restart the 72-hour clock, creating unnecessary delays.

“I think it shackles legislators from doing their jobs when they really need to do it, like when they reach compromises unpalatable to special interests and don’t want to be subject to arm twisting by lobbyists,” he said.

Maviglio pointed to the 2014 water bond as an example of legislation that would not have passed under Prop. 54. Lawmakers had wrestled over the water bond for years before reaching a compromise that was quickly voted on so the secretary of state had time to print voter guides with the revised water bond. Voters overwhelmingly approved the bond in 2014.

With a 72-hour waiting period, Maviglio said, lawmakers would have been subject to additional pressures from lobbyists and special interests fighting for earmarks in the water bond.

“Sausage making isn’t pretty to watch, but this is what it takes to accomplish big things,” Maviglio said.

Derek Cressman of the advocacy group California Common Cause said his organization supports the transparency required by the measure given the impact of laws created by the Legislature. He said it makes sense that lawmakers should be subject to the kind of transparency rules used by local governments.

There are a handful of bills at the end of every legislative session that lawmakers jam through with little public scrutiny in a process called gut-and-amend, where the contents of one bill are replaced with a new proposal. Sometimes, the first public viewing of the bills occurs as lawmakers are casting their votes.

For example, in 2014, Gov. Jerry Brown asked for a last-minute proposal to be added to the state budget. The proposal restricted how much money school districts could keep in budget reserves. Some Democrats who approved the bill said they didn’t agree with or fully understand the proposal, which was sought by the California Teachers Association.

Critics said the proposal was a ploy to ensure more money was left on the bargaining table so teachers unions could negotiate higher salaries.

“To me it makes sense that we require legislators to operate in the light of day,” Cressman said. “I find it hard to believe that many Californians disagree with that.”

Cressman said he’s not surprised a Republican is funding a ballot measure that would force the Democrats in power to be more transparent.

“The interests who are out of power are always the ones bringing this reform forward because they are the ones completely shut out from these backroom negotiations,” Cressman said. “It’s not a partisan bent — we find reform comes from outsiders no matter which party they are from.”

Dee Dee Workman, vice president of public policy at the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, said the ballot measure will provide transparency and accountability in the Legislature.

“It’s completely routine in San Francisco to do the things that Prop. 54 asks for,” Workman said. “We are particularly interested because it’s our small business partners that are impacted by their inability to participate. You can’t generally get away to go to an hours-long hearing.”