Opinion: In today’s pages: Fundraising, prisons, the UCs -- and healthcare. Again.

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The editorial board takes up the case of ‘Hillary: The Movie,’ a slash-and-burn documentary about then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton that the Federal Election Commission declared to be a violation of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The board urges the Supreme Court to overrule the FEC and allow communications that don’t expressly endorse or oppose a candidate:

The Clinton documentary was clearly more than a campaign ad; as a critique of her career, it remains relevant long after Clinton abandoned her presidential campaign. If the government can ban the broadcast of a political ad, a lawyer for the Obama administration conceded during initial arguments in March, then it could stop the publication of a book ‘if the book contained the functional equivalent of express advocacy.’ When a law is so broad that it can justify book-banning, something is amiss.
The board also supports the efforts of State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) and his bill that would make California universities’ fundraising auxiliaries, or foundations, subject to the same disclosure requirements as the universities. The foundations provide 20% of the Cal State system’s operating budget, and trouble has surrounded such fundraising entities and their vague legal status. The solution can be found in Yee’s bill and the board urges the California legislature to pass it.

Over on the Op-Ed page, Jamie Fellner, senior counsel for the U.S. program of Human Rights Watch, writes in about California’s prison crisis and the horrible conditions that resulted in a court mandate that California reduce its prison population and address deficient medical and mental healthcare:

Absent a miraculous and massive infusion of cash, states face a choice. They can reduce prison populations by instituting sensible criminal-justice policies, reserving prison for dangerous offenders and using alternative strategies for low-level, nonviolent offenders and parole violators. Or they can go the California route and let the crisis get steadily worse until the courts intervene.

One can only hope that economic necessity and the court order will finally lead California to do the right thing. It remains to be seen whether and when other states will follow suit.
Marc B. Haefele, a commentator on KPCC, thinks the UCs could be in trouble. With the passage of Prop 209 banning race-based affirmative action in California, the University of California system is faced with the challenge of making the university system reflective of the state it serves in terms of makeup, while also cutting back on how many students can be offered even a chance at admission. The UCs take only the top high school students in the state, but they are predominantly Caucasian and Asian-American. So what’s the answer?

The real answer won’t come from tinkering yet again with admissions policies. In the absence of better secondary education, rule changes can only amount to what economists call ‘pushing on a string.’ Even in these dark budgetary times, the only long-term answer is for all students in the state to have access to the kind of elementary and secondary education that prepares them for admission to the state’s best universities. Only then will the state’s institutions of higher learning be able to fulfill their true mission.
Finally, columnist Jonah Goldberg puts his two cents into the ever-growing money pot as to why the ‘Obama-care’ plan just won’t work. He says advocates should blame its less-than-stellar showing on ... wait for it ... President Obama. Surprise, surprise.

-- Catherine Lyons