Look at the Initiatives Money Can Buy

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has received a resounding ovation for his performance in the election, what with his getting his way on nearly all the ballot measures on which he spoke out.

If that were the whole story, one might view it as a healthy sign for California governance, even if one disagreed with some of Schwarzenegger’s positions: He was elected to lead, after all, and there he is, leading.

But that’s not the whole story. And the rest underscores the profound sickness eating away at how we make law.

Consider the following figure: $198.7 million. That’s how much was spent by wealthy donors to sway voters on 13 contested statewide propositions on Tuesday’s ballot. (I am indebted to the California Voter Foundation for doing the math, which covers contributions from Jan. 1 to Oct. 16.)

Why pretend that any significant share of this sum came from little people standing up for their own interests? The overwhelming portion came in six-, seven-, and even eight-figure slabs from major corporations, investment firms and Indian tribes. Anyone here think these donors had the state’s or the public’s benefit at heart? Me neither.

And does anyone think that these millions were spent to promote vigorous public discussion of the merits of each measure? Of course not. Spending on this scale buys marketing, not discussion.

It buys that deluge of TV advertising that made it so hard to sit undisturbed through an entire hour of “America’s Next Top Model” in recent weeks, an endless parade of commercials starring suffering children, valiant doctors, beleaguered small-business owners, proud Native Americans, greedy Native Americans, slogans, catchphrases and lies.

For the contributors, the harvest must be gratifying. McDonald’s Corp. and Wal-Mart Stores Inc., among others, purchased the right to continue sticking taxpayers and health insurers with the cost of their own employees’ medical care. This comes from the defeat of Proposition 72, which would have upheld a state law requiring most medium and large businesses to provide their workers with health coverage. The vote was $6.6 million in favor, $13.4 million against.

Philip Morris Inc., ChevronTexaco Corp. and other big companies bought some relief from lawsuits over behavior that could include discrimination, pollution and fraud. A curtailment of the public’s ability to bring such litigation comes courtesy of Proposition 64, which passed $14 million to $1.7 million.

Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers and other venture capital firms bought a taxpayer-financed investment seed fund for embryonic stem cell research. This will enable them to piggy-back on successful investments and safely ignore the failures without investing their own cash in troublesome early rounds. Kudos to Proposition 71, which won in a landslide, $21 million to $274,550.

These are only a few of the measures whose effects are likely to undermine the public welfare.

Even some with laudable goals are bound to have harmful consequences. There’s Proposition 63, which prevailed $4.3 million to $17,425. This initiative finances state mental health programs with an additional 1% levy on all state personal income of more than $1 million a year.

The first provision is commendable, and the second is long overdue. But the combination is invidious. By sequestering new tax revenue of more than $600 million annually on behalf of this specific program, the measure will tie the hands of the Legislature and governor at budget time. For years, California politicians have talked about tapping millionaires for a few more bucks to shore up the general fund; that will be much tougher now because that money is already spoken for.

All of which illustrates the fundamental drawback of legislating by initiative: It’s inherently crude. In contrast with the legislative process, where proposals can be refined through compromise (admittedly, I am speaking of a Platonic ideal), ballot measures reach the public on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

Suppose you agree that California should encourage embryonic stem cell research but think that $100 million, not $3 billion, is plenty for a start. Tough luck. Your only choice is between voting for a profligate handout to biotech entrepreneurs or (as Proposition 71’s promoters would contend) condemning thousands of juvenile diabetics to years of unrelieved pain.

The California Chamber of Commerce and the other business interests that have usurped a system designed to benefit ordinary citizens have also become expert at exploiting its crudeness. Concerned over the possible expense of the health-coverage law, they could have joined the medical and insurance communities to devise responsible changes that would have benefited everyone. But why bother, when they could kill the measure outright by investing a mere $13 million in an initiative campaign?

No one would claim that the legislative process is pretty, efficient or uninfected by cash. Its tendency toward stupor has inspired some of the more short-sighted initiatives that have reached the ballot.

But no one should be misled into thinking that the initiative process any longer resembles what it once was -- a way for average citizens to get big government off their backs. Big government is off their backs, all right, but big business has saddled up.

Golden State appears every Monday and Thursday. You

can reach Michael Hiltzik at golden.state@latimes.com and read his previous columns at latimes.com/hiltzik.