Prime Group

Earlier ballot props set the stage for California’s predicament

Forty-plus years ago the legendary political prankster Dick Tuck was an unsuccessful candidate for a Los Angeles-area congressional seat. The day after his defeat in the Democratic primary, Tuck opened a press conference by declaring, “The people have spoke, the bastards!”

This week, California voters rejected a batch of ballot measures that had been cobbled together by the Governor and legislative leaders in an attempt to forestall — or alleviate — further deterioration of the state’s fiscal situation. In a relatively low-turnout election, the measures lost by two-to-one margins.

Pre-election polls predicted the outcome, and postelection commentaries have helped us understand why Californians defeated every measure except the one freezing state officials’ pay. The voters are frustrated and angry with “business as usual in Sacramento.” We’ve been reminded of a well-recognized fact of political life — that complicated ballot measures are very difficult to pass. And, further, when it comes to initiatives and referendums, the “No” side prevails almost two-thirds of the time.

Lashing out at the current crop of politicians is understandable. Perhaps the failed measures could have been written better. And, to give “credit” where “credit” is due, the curious alliance of groups opposed to the package managed to exploit to their advantage both the angry public mood and the complexity of the proposals. But these factors represent only part of the picture.

It is time for a serious discussion about California’s acute addiction to direct democracy in the form of initiatives, referendums and recall. Ballot measures originally were conceived by the Progressive movement in the early 20th century as a way to break a public policy stranglehold exercised by narrow corporate special interests. Now, more often than not they are weapons wielded by all sorts of well-organized and well-funded special interests — left, right and center. I know that because I have spent the better part of the last quarter century managing or consulting on such campaigns, in California and elsewhere.

And I believe that initiatives sponsored by varied interests in previous elections contributed directly to the crisis in which California finds itself today. Three in particular deserve mention:

• Proposition 13, passed in 1978, has impaired the ability of local governments and school districts to accomplish their missions and has thereby fueled public disenchantment with their performance. Prop 13 has also hamstrung the ability of local government and of the state to craft and adopt sensible and effective tax policies.
• Proposition 98, approved by voters in 1988, wrote into the state constitution rigid educational funding formulas, further compromising the power of state officials to respond to shifting fiscal realities.
• Proposition 140 in 1990, setting term limits on legislators, was an expression of political consultant-driven populism, and it has left the state spinning through a revolving door populated by a never-ending stream of amateurs, thereby weakening leadership positions and strengthening the clout of lobbyists and the interests they represent. Folks might have winced on occasion at the tactics employed by Jess Unruh, Bob Moretti and Willie Brown, but those guys got the job done, make no mistake about it.

So, yes, California’s current leaders have come up short on any number of fronts. They are difficult to admire and almost impossible to follow. But the voters haven’t been a day at the beach either. The impact of the collision between progressive ideals and the viability of representative democracy is obvious, and it raises the question: Is it possible — just possible — that Hiram Johnson was wrong and Dick Tuck was right?

Barack Obama is Wrong on Lobbying

“We haven’t immediately eliminated the influence of lobbyists in Washington.”
President Barack Obama, March 24 White House press conference

What was expressed as a Presidential regret should, in fact, be cause for celebration by Americans of all political persuasions. And I say that as an unabashed Obama enthusiast—I backed his candidacy, was honored to be at his inauguration and applaud what he is trying to accomplish to secure and improve our nation’s future.

But, on the subject of lobbying, Barack Obama is wrong substantively, and he is close to being reckless rhetorically.

The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution assures, without qualification, the right of Americans, “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. Citizens have long enlisted the assistance of others to seek such redress on their behalf. Lobbyists—often paid but not always—exist to do just that.

Beyond that guaranteed right—which ought to be enough to end any argument—is another reality: Most public policy issues are such that few lay citizens have either the time or the expertise required to decipher, and then alter, legislative or regulatory language. Lobbyists have precisely that expertise, and it is as legitimate a skill as oratory or litigating a case in a courtroom.

Days before his most recent press conference, the President wrote to the heads of federal departments and agencies:

“Upon the scheduling of, and again at the outset of, any oral communication (in –person or telephonic) with any person or entity concerning particular projects, applications, or applicants for funding under the Recovery Act, an executive department or agency official shall inquire whether any individuals or parties appearing or communicating concerning such particular project, application, or applicant is a lobbyist registered under the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995. If so, the lobbyist may not attend or participate in the telephonic or in person contact, but may submit a communication in writing.” (emphasis added)

Among other things, the stated goal of these guidelines is to prevent what the White House considers to be “undue influence”. It argues, in effect, that any oral communications by a “registered” lobbyist on behalf of his or her clients is, by definition, undue influence; whereas oral communications by others—governors, mayors, corporate CEOs, labor leaders, Hollywood celebrities, non-lobbying lawyers, or campaign contributors (we can assume), and others are perfectly acceptable.

Thinking I must have missed something, I re-read the First Amendment; I found nothing that suggests that the right “to petition… for a redress of grievances” is limited to non-lobbyists. And, as I thought about it more, I remembered another time when people were asked, under oath, “Are you now or have you ever been…..?”

It is here where I think the President—who, by all appearances and accounts is quite smart, decent, and steady—is veering into dangerous territory. To single out a class or category of citizens for condemnation or isolation simply because of their class or category is—or ought to be—wrong.

The late and legendary California politician, Jess Unruh, once talked about the preferred relationship between legislators and lobbyists—and I will clean it up some and apologize as well for its obvious sexism— “If you can’t come up here (to Sacramento) and eat their food, drink their liquor and date their women and then vote against them, you’ve got no business being here!”

No one, including President Obama, has figured out how to legislate or regulate character. A good member of Congress—or a good federal agency executive— needs to have as part of his or her qualifications for the job a functioning “BS” detector, a commitment to check and verify, and the strength of character to either politely say “No! We’re not going to do that”, or not so politely, throw the occasional bad actor out the door.

It would also be good if the President were to keep in mind that his White House—and every federal agency—has an office of Congressional or Legislative Affairs. In those offices reside the Administration’s non-registered lobbyists, men and women who work every day trying to obtain Congressional approval of the President’s program. Moreover, if it hasn’t happened yet, I can assure the President and his advisers it will: When push comes to shove, Members of Congress will be wooed—with visits to the White House, to the Kennedy Center, to Camp David. And the harder sells will include conversations about public works projects, campaign help, and judgeships, among other things.

Undue influence? Maybe. Necessary to make representative democracy function? You bet.

In this economy, the ticket is to find a job you love and master it

Because this will be my last regular column in this space, I thought I’d use it to offer a little advice to young communications pros about to enter the toughest job market in recent memory.

Do what you love.
If it’s sports, music, cars, or cooking, look for a communications job in that field. If it takes you twice as long to find a job paying half as much, it’s worth it to go to work every day to do something you truly enjoy. You will be better at it, your enthusiasm will be obvious, you will advance faster, and, oh yes, you will be happier. The corollary is to make sure it is obvious to those interviewing you that you love the field they are in and that is why you chose them.

Become an expert.
Not just in communications, but also in what you are communicating about. The people you have to impress – to get that first job and to advance beyond it – will be substantive people (if they aren’t, look elsewhere). They will respect you if you know your stuff in whatever field you’ve chosen – finance, technology, entertainment, etc. They are less likely to respect you if you present yourself as an expert in communications on whatever.

Understand research.
Far too many communications pros do not understand or value research. They believe they can guess how audiences will react to a client’s actions and messages. If they do commission research, it is often for frivolous purposes like getting a quick, cheap headline. No political candidate runs for office without sound research. No company enters a market or launches a product without market research. When communications pros offer advice that is not based on research, they undercut their credibility in the eyes of sophisticated clients.

Become an expert in new media.
As a young person coming into the field, this is one area where you can be smarter and more experienced than the people interviewing you for the job (be careful to show this, not say it). Every client today understands the need to master the blogosphere, social media, and whatever is coming next, but few have the time or background to do it. You grew up with this stuff and, while that is critical, it becomes a marketable asset when you add to it a sophisticated knowledge of all the tools and their uses.

You are about to enter one of the toughest job markets ever, but don’t despair. Instead, commit yourself to finding a job – any job in a field you love – and spending the next few years becoming very good at what you do. Don’t worry about the money, you’re young and can live cheaply. Worry, instead, about getting the right job and the right experience. The economy will recover, and when it does, you will be ready. Good luck.

Click here to view a PDF version of this article.

Inaugural Impressions

I have lived in Washington, DC long enough to have celebrated, survived, witnessed or endured nine Presidential Inaugurations—Jimmy Carter (1977), Ronald Reagan (1981 and 1985), George H.W. Bush (1989), Bill Clinton (1993 and 1997), George W. Bush (2001 and 2005), and now Barack Obama.

January 20, 1977 was at once brilliantly sunny and bitterly cold—with snow and ice on the ground and temperatures in the single digits. Regardless, I was thrilled to be in the audience, seeing my preferred candidate, on whose successful campaign I had worked, being sworn in as the nation’s 39th President. At the time, I had no idea that just two months later I would be working for President Carter, with an office in the West Wing.

Four years later, I left town on January 19th to spend the night at an inn in near Annapolis, Maryland. I just could not bear the thought of being in the Capitol as the opposition celebrated the advent of Ronald Reagan’s Presidency. After all, I had worked in the Carter Administration for the better part of three years, eventually with the title of Deputy Chief of Staff in the White House. I moved to the reelection campaign in late 1979, and was a senior member of the team that lost 44 states to Reagan on November 4, 1980.

To say I was a bit grumpy as the victor’s inauguration approached would be an understatement. I didn’t feel a whole lot better when we said our farewells to President and Mrs. Carter at Andrews Air Force base an hour or so after Reagan took the oath of office.

After two terms of Reagan and one of “Bush 41”, I was delighted to attend all of the festivities associated with Bill Clinton’s 1993 swearing-in. That election cycle (1991/92) had seen me once again engaged in partisan political battle as Executive Director of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. We retained our party’s majority in Congress that year, and helped elect a Democratic President; we were more than ready to celebrate once again.

On January 20, 1997 we were in the crowd on the Capitol grounds for Clinton’s second inauguration, but as I recall the occasion, the mood was much less buoyant than four years before, more akin to a kind of “obligatory happiness”.

We watched the 2001 and 2005 inaugurations of George W. Bush on TV from the comfort of our home. And although I have never developed, let alone expressed, the severe animus toward Bush 43 that most of my Democratic friends feel, neither have I felt an urge to celebrate his time in office—to put it mildly.

But the inauguration of Barack Obama was different from all the others.

First of all, it was preceded by the very best presidential campaign anyone in my generation has ever seen, bar none.

Second, it came at a time of enormous difficulty and challenge—-on the international front and here at home.

Third—to state the obvious—the historic significance of America electing its first African American President cannot be overstated. It is simply wonderful and amazing; there is no other way to describe it.

Fourth, I believe Barack Obama is a very special guy—- he’s smart, cool, disciplined, charming and tough. As his close friend, former Senator and now Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tom Daschle once told me, “He’s the real deal!”

So, early in the morning of January 20th, 2009, Shari and I braved the crowds and the cold (temperatures in the teens), and took our seats on the lawn on the west front of the U.S. Capitol. We were surrounded by tens of thousands of very pleased and deeply hopeful fellow citizens. And, then, as we turned around and looked west—toward the Washington Monument and beyond to the Lincoln Memorial—we were awed by the sight: two million people bundled against the cold, standing shoulder to shoulder, waving small American flags, cheering, clapping, singing.

The ceremony was dignified, as one would expect, and the new President’s Inaugural Address was, again as we’ve come to expect from him, extraordinarily well-crafted and well-delivered. Aretha Franklin’s rendition of “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” was breath-taking. The Marine Corps band—“the President’s own”, as it is called—was wonderful, and “Hail to the Chief” has seldom sounded better.

But it was the sight of the crowd—-the huge and happy crowd—-that I will remember most vividly. I am so grateful that we were there, to both witness and participate in that historic moment.

Both parties need to relearn civility and compromise

With Barack Obama’s inauguration just over a week away, one cannot help but wonder how the new president can accomplish the many changes he has proposed.

I worked in the Carter administration, which sometimes collided with a Congress of its own party over the nature and pace of change, so I am particularly interested in how Obama will fare in this regard. I know from experience that a more robust Democratic majority in Congress does not automatically guarantee success for a new Democratic president.
Today, years of frustration associated with service in opposition have Congressional Democrats pushing for long-desired objectives. Two terms of a Republican administration relentless in its pursuit of a presidency with primacy among the three branches of government has further inflamed sentiments on Capitol Hill. And decades of increasingly bitter, partisan political warfare have made collaboration and compromise unthinkable in the minds of people on both sides of the aisle.

Neither Republicans nor Democrats have an exclusive franchise on the rancor and polarization that plague Washington, D.C., and too many state capitols today. Each party has been guilty of taking the low road when better options were available. From the right, factors that have helped diminish the quality of American politics and government include: the rise of the National Conservative Political Action Committee and negative campaigning against Democrats in the late 1970s and 1980s; Newt Gingrich’s “we had to destroy the village in order to save it” determination to take over the House of Representatives; and the refusal on the part of too many Republicans to accept the very legitimacy of Bill Clinton’s presidency from its outset, an attitude which eventually led to Clinton’s impeachment, a maneuver that produced much of the toxicity which remains in the political atmosphere today.

On the other side, Democrats cannot claim with a straight face to have been totally innocent bystanders. The residue from harsh, personal attacks in the successful effort to block Robert Bork’s 1987 Supreme Court nomination has poisoned the confirmation process for countless administrative and judicial nominees since. Democrats’ dismissive disrespect for Ronald Reagan, from his candidacy for governor of California in 1966 right through four successful statewide and national campaigns and a two-term presidency, was not only counterproductive, it demeaned the offices he sought and held.

Most recently, criticisms of President George W. Bush have often been extreme in their viciousness and recklessness. It is fair and I think accurate to argue that Bush has been largely, although not completely, wrong on policy directions and inept in their execution. However, being wrong is not the same as being evil, as some suggest. This nastiness was first apparent in the wake of the 2000 election, when many Democrats claimed that Bush had stolen the presidency from Al Gore in Florida — while conveniently ignoring the fact that if Gore had carried his own home state of Tennessee, or Bill Clinton’s home state of Arkansas, the Florida results would have been meaningless.

Barack Obama seldom misses an opportunity to guide us away from past battles and outdated assumptions. He has urged us to embrace the “audacity of hope” and to believe once again that America can be a proud beacon to the world. Nevertheless, he needs to do more to encourage the true believers on both sides of the partisan divide to rediscover civility and practice mutual respect. He needs to remind Americans that its leaders can and should disagree, but that political debate must stop short of personal destruction.

If if that isn’t enough, perhaps the new president can point out that last year’s vanquished might well end up next year’s victors. If nothing else, that sobering note might give the more vehement combatants pause to think about the price of bad and unrepentant behavior.