Bond Issue’s Foes Losing Steam

After initial criticism from both conservatives and liberals, organized political opposition to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s $15-billion proposed bond issue is fading as the state’s March 2 election approaches.

Only weeks ago, fiscal conservative legislators Ray Haynes and John Campbell argued passionately against the plan to borrow $15-billion, and then they voted against it.

Now they support it and are urging Californians to vote “yes.” A half dozen other Republican Assembly members who voted with them are doing the same, along with most of the state’s anti-tax, anti-borrowing crowd -- from the Howard Jarvis Assn. to the California Taxpayers Assn.

Former Gov. Gray Davis “got us into such deep yogurt I don’t see any other way to get out of it,” said Assemblyman Haynes (R-Murrieta.)

Said Assemblyman Campbell (R-Irvine): “I’ve never voted for a bond. This will be the first.”

Despite opinion polls showing public skepticism about the bond measure, there is little in the way of a campaign against it. No fundraising. No political rallies. And no maneuvering to buy television ads to counter an expected media blitz from the bipartisan campaign Schwarzenegger has assembled.

“Most California voters will never hear any opposition to this,” said Republican consultant Dan Schnur. “The people who have the motivation don’t have the money. And the people who have the money don’t have the motivation.”

Even groups still opposed to the measure say the best they could hope for is making some kind of token effort, since it would likely be steamrolled by the governor’s bipartisan campaign.

On March 2, voters statewide will consider four bond issues, including two -- Propositions 57 and 58 -- that would permit California to sell $15 billion in bonds and forbid the selling of any more after that. It takes a majority vote on both for the package to take effect.

State Treasurer Phil Angelides -- who has been tagged Sacramento’s “anti-Arnold” by political strategists because the Democrat frequently criticizes the governor -- abandoned his advertising campaign against the borrowing as soon as the Legislature voted to put the measure on the ballot.

“It’s an allocation-of-time issue,” said Angelides. Though he is not raising money to fight the bond, he said he is continuing to speak out against it. “I think my obligation is to give my best view, not to wage a jihad.”

In the case of the conservative lawmakers who only weeks ago criticized the plan, there may have been more to gain politically from casting their symbolic “no” vote than from crusading against it now.

“It’s a way of going to heaven without having to die,” said Jack Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College and a former research director for the Republican National Committee.

Opponents fear that if the bond is rejected and if the state plunges into a fiscal crisis, they could be blamed, he explained.

The lawmakers and the tax groups rationalize that the “never again” part of the governor’s initiative -- Proposition 58, which would ban any future borrowing -- is a step in the right direction and makes the package worthy of their support. But opponents argue that the governor has shown that to be a shallow promise by proposing another bond sale of nearly $1 billion to balance next year’s budget.

Campbell and Haynes, for their part, argue that the borrowing at this point is unavoidable. There are not enough votes in the Legislature to balance the budget without it, they say, and most of the borrowing was already approved in the last budget, making it difficult to undo. Both say their earlier votes against the bond were out of frustration at the lack of a hard spending cap on the ballot as well.

Pitney said it is unusual for so few likely voters to support a major initiative -- just 35%, according to a recent public poll -- without an active political committee to fight it.

That leaves some grass-roots groups unhappy. “I think it’s extremely disappointing,” said Joe Armendariz, executive director of the Santa Barbara Taxpayers Assn. “I think the Jarvis association is missing an opportunity on this one to tell the truth. You can’t borrow your way out of debt.

“At the same time, I know they are working with Arnold on some stuff,” Armendariz said. “There are behind-the-scenes dynamics preventing Jarvis from taking that position.”

Sen. Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks), meanwhile, wrote a forceful argument on the ballot statement against Proposition 57, which asks voters for authorization to sell the $15-billion bond. And he speaks forcefully against it to reporters at every opportunity.

But the well-known conservative activist -- who ran against Schwarzenegger in the recall -- has no plans to tap into his grass-roots following for fundraisers, television ads and rallies opposing the plan.

“With the astronomical broker fees involved in the sale of these bonds, I have no doubt that the supporters will raise more than $10 million,” McClintock said. “The problem is there is no similar counterbalance on the other side.”

Bruce Henderson, president of the San Diego-based Assn. of Concerned Taxpayers, which opposes the bond package, said his group pondered trying to go head to head with the governor.

“We thought about it,” he said. “We figured we could raise maybe $250,000. What would we do with that amount that wouldn’t be wasted? How can I look someone in the eye and ask them to write a check when I know it wouldn’t make a difference?”

Both Democratic and Republican political strategists agree that if the same borrowing plan were being pushed by former Gov. Gray Davis, lawmakers and interest groups would have mounted a vigorous campaign to fight it. Right now, they say, nobody wants to take on Schwarzenegger.

“By the time most governors go before the voters again, they have signed budgets, raised taxes and done all kinds of things to take the sheen off,” said Schnur. “There is nothing between now and March 2 that would end Schwarzenegger’s honeymoon. That makes him a much more formidable adversary.”

But there is a caveat. If the governor is unable to capitalize on his millions of dollars in donations and lack of opposition by getting voters to support the bond, the sheen may wear off quickly.

“A defeat would be a huge setback, not only for his economic policies,” said Pitney, “but for his image.”