Prop. 54 is an excellent reform law

Proposition 54 is a breath of fresh air.

It would end the state Legislature’s unethical practice of removing the text of bills at the last moment and replacing it with unrelated legislation that is quickly put up for a vote — with no chance for the public or affected parties to vet it.

The proposition also would ensure that proceedings of both houses of the Legislature and their committee hearings be video recorded and posted on the internet.

It’s long-overdue transparency. It’s hard to imagine why anyone would oppose it.

Of course, you know why. Many if not most politicians in Sacramento like the ability to make backroom deals and insert them into last-minute surprise legislation. They like the ability to bypass controversy or to pass bills that wouldn’t hold up in the light of day.

That’s why lawmakers have resisted years of attempts by good-government advocates to end the outrageous practice known as gut and amend.

It took an initiative drive bankrolled by Silicon Valley physicist and former Santa Clara County Republican Party chair Charles Munger Jr. to put this measure on the November ballot. Munger is one of eight children of billionaire Charles Munger, vice president of Warren Buffett’s multinational conglomerate, Berkshire Hathaway.

So far, Munger Jr. has dropped $7 million into the campaign. Brace yourself for the howling about his spending.

But this isn’t a case of moneyed interests trying to disproportionately influence elections for their own benefit. (Don’t get us started on the plastic bag manufacturers.) Munger happens to be appalled by legislative secrecy and happens to have the money to try to fix it.

Based on the broad support for Prop. 54, he has struck a chord. Backers include California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, California NAACP, California Chamber of Commerce, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and two leading open-government groups, the First Amendment Coalition and Californians Aware.

It’s not surprising. Who can reasonably object to requiring bills to be printed and published on the internet at least three days before the vote? Who can object to making videotapes of legislative proceedings available online?

This is the optimal use of a ballot proposition: to enact reform that the Legislature itself refuses to address.

Like most good things, transparency comes with a cost: $1 million a year. But that’s pennies in a multibillion-dollar budget.

And it’s nothing compared to the money at stake when special interests get their favorable proposals into last-minute legislation that bypasses public scrutiny.

We don’t always agree with Munger on issues, but we welcome Prop. 54. For both rich and poor, transparency rules are in the public interest. Vote yes.