Insurance Commissioner

Your Sept. 10 editorial respecting my bill to permit state voters to decide whether they wish to return to an appointive insurance commissioner system, while facile, misleads readers. You state that a reason not to abandon the election of an insurance commissioner is “that California dramatically overhauled its campaign finance laws by passing Proposition 208 in the last election” and that “it’s no longer possible for any industry to pour millions of dollars in unrestricted contributions into a candidate’s campaign.” You’re either unwitting or disingenuous.

Proposition 208 does not (and cannot) bend independent expenditure committees by the insurance industry, including insurance brokers and agents. There are 1,400 insurance companies and about 197,000 brokers and agents licensed in California. Next year they’ll pour millions into independent expenditure committees, which while not technically “contributing into a candidate’s campaign,” will be used to reelect the incumbent overwhelmingly. Moreover, your own reported research shows that in the other 10 states that elect insurance commissioners, the insurance industry controls the result with its million-dollar campaign contributions.

There’s no more reason to elect an insurance commissioner than there is to elect the commissioner of real estate, the superintendent of banks or any other profession-regulating department head. SB 225 will allow the voters to decide in November 2000.

QUENTIN L. KOPP

State Senate

I-San Francisco