Wallets Opening Wide for Election

Brushing aside concerns that donors are tapped out and tired, campaign warriors are preparing to spend upward of $100 million on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s special election.

In what otherwise would have been an electoral respite this year, politicians and patrons might have squirreled away money for 2006, when Californians will elect a governor and other statewide officers. But preliminary campaign reports filed with the state show contributions of more than $44 million in the first half of 2005 to the eight initiatives that are expected to appear on the Nov. 8 ballot.

“An estimate of $200 million from all parties, I would call that table stakes,” said Marty Wilson, Schwarzenegger’s main fundraiser. “My guess is that the pot grows from there.”

Donors spent $235 million on ballot measures last year, $88 million on the first-ever recall of a sitting California governor in 2003 and $130 million on the 2002 gubernatorial election.

Though the election is five months off, Schwarzenegger and his foes, primarily public employee unions, for weeks have been paying for television ads that denounce one another across the state’s airwaves. The total cost of the ads is not yet known. Such buys typically cost $1 million or more a week.

“This game is being played far above us, with a lot more money than any of us have spent on our own campaigns, at a velocity nobody has seen before,” Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata (D-Oakland) said, adding that the governor, in portraying himself as a populist, was trying to push the Legislature aside.

The election is generating large donations in part because some donors see it as a prelude to the 2006 gubernatorial campaign, and others see it as an attack on their ability to operate.

“The governor has made this a referendum on his administration,” said Democratic consultant Bill Carrick, who is not involved in the campaign. “He is taking on the labor movement. You’ve got huge stakes. I think everybody has to go to the limit.”

Schwarzenegger is promoting three of the eight measures. They would give governors more power over budgets and limit state spending on public schools when state revenue falls, alter how legislative districts are drawn and restrict teacher tenure. The governor has said that he will raise and spend $50 million on those measures.

The governor’s initiatives account for only part of the ballot. It is unclear what will be spent on measures to decide whether minors’ parents should be notified before they can obtain abortions, and whether to re-regulate aspects of the electricity system. Competing initiatives that promise price breaks on medicines are sure to come with eight-figure price tags. Drug makers already have gathered $10.5 million, viewed as an ante.

Public employee unions are dwelling on a measure that could dominate election spending -- an initiative that could limit their ability to generate campaign money by requiring that they obtain written consent from each member annually before the members’ dues can be used for political purposes.

Schwarzenegger has not endorsed the measure. But many Republican leaders embrace it, believing that it would weaken the influence of organized labor, the Democrats’ main source of campaign cash. Foes spent $24 million to defeat a similar measure in 1998.

Democratic consultant Gale Kaufman, who ran the campaign against the 1998 initiative and was coordinating the union-backed drive against Schwarzenegger’s initiatives, said that raising money has not been difficult. Unions see the initiatives “as a direct assault on working men and women.”

Organized labor has donated $8.6 million so far, but much more money is on the way. Two of the state’s biggest campaign spenders -- the California Teachers Assn. and the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. -- have sought dues hikes from members to fund the campaigns.

Over the weekend, the 335,000-member teachers’ union approved a $60-per-teacher fee hike aimed at raising $50 million for political campaigns over three years. The 30,000-member prison officers’ union expects to tally results early next week of its members’ vote on a $33 fee increase that is aimed at generating $17.8 million over a 17-month period.

“We’re a small labor organization trying to get our message out in a state of 33 million people,” said Lance Corcoran, the prison guards’ union executive vice president. “So, no, we had no choice.”

Schwarzenegger is relying on his backers, which include corporations and wealthy individuals, to finance his effort. He has raised $15 million so far this year.

“The business community will be involved in this to the extent necessary,” said California Chamber of Commerce President Allan Zaremberg, one of Schwarzenegger’s top allies and co-chairman of a campaign committee that was established to help run the campaigns.

But some major donors are less than enthusiastic.

“The pit isn’t bottomless, despite what it looks like out there,” said Jack Coffey, director of California governmental affairs for Chevron Inc.

The oil giant is capable of giving far more than the $50,000 it donated earlier this year to a committee that is promoting the governor’s measures. But Coffey said he was asking a fundamental question: What is the “real bottom-line impact” of the initiatives on his company’s fortunes?

“I have a feeling it is going to be difficult initially to raise a whole lot of corporate money,” Coffey said. “We’ve tried to tell the chamber that. We’re all in favor of good government, and we all love the governor.”

But in Coffey’s view, the measures don’t affect business like, say, an initiative aimed at the ballot next June that could raise property taxes on businesses.

“I think it comes down to: How much is it worth to have Gov. Schwarzenegger? His credibility is on the line,” Coffey said.

The California Nurses Assn. plans to pressure firms to steer clear. Union spokesman Charles Idelson said the nurses plan to begin a series of protests today outside the offices of the governor’s fundraisers and donors.