On a federal level, all 435 U.S. House of Representatives seats and 33 U.S. Senate seats (including one in California) are up for re-election. (Go Democracy!)

The minority House Republicans are itching to get back into the majority after maintaining a choke hold on government from 2000 to 2006. Congressional Republicans cite a January victory in Massachusetts to replace the late Edward Kennedy, over a dozen retirements of Democratic representatives since then, and the nearing conclusion of a Hawaiian and Pennsylvanian congressional special election to replace retired Neil Abercrombie and the late John Murtha as positive signs that Republicans will take back the House come November. Their spirits are high, the wind is at their sails and they are coasting forward.

I don’t want to sink the Republican boat, just poke it hard enough to start a leak.

Strategically, it’s to the Democrats’ advantage to allow Republicans’ perceptions to be their reality. When you feel like you are winning, you’ll elevate all the reasons you can win and diminish all the reasons you can lose. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. The special elections where Republicans won since January 2010 allowed them to concentrate their firing power. Every Republican or conservative leaning organization has weighed in with bussing in volunteers, sending checks and paying for television ads.

Political market saturation works, especially in areas were the Democratic infrastructure has eroded over the decades. It’s kind of hard for voters to get excited about electing someone for the nth time, don’t you think?

But what happens when 435+33 elections come to head? This is where the real fun starts.

Republicans have been outraised and out-organized up to this point, and right now they are playing catch up by trying to take over the Tea Party movement (good luck with that, those anti-government types aren’t all too excited to listen to Republican leaders say “Put us in power and we’ll fix it.� These guys are incumbents and the epitome of the establishment).

Republicans continue begging their uber-rich conservative donors for money (by flying them on privately chartered jets and sending them to bondage clubs in West Los Angeles; you have just got to love LA), incessantly pandering to Big Oil (uh, let’s keep drilling even though the South’s conservatives are about to become environmentalists, except  these environmentalists are the mussel-hugging, calm-coddling, shrimp-squeezing type; welcome to the club!), coddling Corrupt Wall Street (no, I am a Senate Republican and I will not vote to move forward debate on financial reform so corrupt financial institutions and banks can screw Main Street, again, and ask for another bailout, again), and finally egging on the anti-immigrant zealots by saying it’s OK to pull people over in Arizona because they think they are undocumented (not, illegal, as some put it).

This last one, this last one is a doozey for me. How does a political party, that is trying to maintain relevance (especially in California), in their right mind think that flicking The Bird to the fastest growing minority in the United States by saying the Arizona law is good is of any benefit? Seriously?! Anyone who supports the Arizona law will NOT have a political future certainly in California and, in the long-term, the United States. Keep a tally of all the idiots who are out their talking to anti-immigrant zealots, egging them on and attacking hard working people and families and making them feel like second-class citizens. I am all worked up; time for some organic strawberry-kiwi juice, ah.

California 2010 is a show down between the Attorney General Jerry Brown (yeah, that dude our parents first voted for in 1970-whatever) and whoever manages to survive the bloody, and amusing-to-Democrats, Republican primary between “Her Highness� Meg “Please Bailout Goldman Sachs So I Get My Own� Whitman and Steve “I Hate Immigrants, But At Least I Tell Them With Millions of Dollars in Television Ads To Their Face� Poizner.

Democrats will inch closer to obtaining a super-majority in at least one chamber and hopefully re-capture the Governor’s office.  2010 will set the ground for the 2012 Presidential election. (I think it’s best not to have an incumbent Republican Governor of California helping get media attention for the eventual Republican Presidential nominee and millions in contributions from some the sleaziest conservative corporate backers in California. Let’s just not have that this time around, ok? Bush 2, Round 2 and McCain, Round 1 was certainly too much.)

2012 is the key. I anticipate a lot of Generation Obama types will look at their face, degrees, and biological clocks and be like “no time like the present� to run for city, county, state and federal elected office. We have already seen the first wave of young America engaging in the political parties, processes and institutions that form the backbone of American democracy and some are even running for office. Organizations like the New Leaders Council and the Young Elected Officials network have been cultivating the under 40, progressive crowd for several years now with great success. Presidents Obama’s re-election will be supported by the emerging generation making the case to the current generation that the proverbial torch must be passed, albeit to a more progressive generation that is willing to spit in the face of the status quo.

However, there are concerns afoot. The OMG, Republicans-Are-Going-To-Win elements of the Democratic movement should be heard. Their concerns are legitimate because the prospect of losing too many elections this November (and possibly the majority of the House, the more progressive and legislatively active of the two chambers) is certainly cause for pause and will feel like a setback. But in my opinion it is a shiny distraction to the greater challenge ahead, and that is how Democrats, especially progressive ones, gain ground for the long-term especially with President Obama’s re-election battle in 2012?

There are five issues the progressive movement must own: equality for all, inclusiveness of immigrants, national security, progressive taxation and investment, and fiscal transparency.

Let’s start where we are strong. It’s clear that progressive Democrats own equality for all: we have done more to advance gay rights, further expand women’s rights and minority’s rights and develop essential civil rights in a post-9/11 era of overly invasive government in the private lives of citizens (Can anyone say PATRIOT Act?). The work will always continue on this issue, but when we end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, overturn Proposition 8 in California and ensure the same federal benefits and rights to homosexual couples that heterosexual couples currently enjoy, we can put the proverbial feather in the cap and continue forward, happily, merrily and gay. Take that Ultra-Conservative Right!

Inclusiveness of immigrants is a growing issue among progressive Democratic circles, but we need to do more. Most intuitively understand the need for “comprehensive immigration reform� and also fostering and promoting an environment of a society that is fair, open and welcoming of people of diverse cultures, socioeconomic backgrounds, opinions, beliefs and religions. We live in a global world, and while we compete with each other academically, economically and financially, the need to cooperate is growing ever more apparent as we become more interconnected.

Further, we will have to confront some wicked matters like nuclear proliferation, depressed-educated populations that are growing up in politically extremists controlled environments and the emerging socio-economies of the East and South. Being fair, open, welcoming in the United States will go a long way towards advancing the attitude aboard.

National security kind of comes from right field, I know, but we got to own it. Almost all Americans believe the government must do whatever it takes to protect the people of the United States from enemies foreign and domestic. To be strong on national security, we must change the definition of what “strong� actually is. Strong isn’t just how ridiculously big the defense budget is or what kind of fighter jets and anti-whatever defense systems we deploy, but also about how we engage other governments and the people of other nations.

We get dinged all the time as being contradictory, hypocritical or worse because of how the government treats people here and around the world. Eight years of President George W. Bush didn’t help us at all and thankfully President Obama is working our way back to the world. Things like the Peace Corps, Doctors Without Borders, regular anti-war protests (to symbolize the dissent that exists) and being a leader on reducing greenhouse gas emissions (like a self-imposed cap-and-trade) will go a long way in building a greater, stronger understanding of the United States and appreciation of its leadership on issues of vital international significance.

Now, tax and fiscal policy are not sexy (or even mildly attractive, at night, in a crowded club, after a few drinks). It is few and far between when I am traversing progressive political circles that I find myself engaged in thoughtful conversations about on our nation’s tax structure and fiscal policies. If we truly want to increase investment in pre-school to PhD (P2P) education, green and clean technology and research, international and humanitarian assistance, public transportation (maintaining highways, bridges, roads and expanding commuter, light and heavy rail and building high speed rail), conserving and recycling water and just a overall great place to live, we will need a progressive taxation system.

In California, the emerging generation already sees Proposition 13 (that famous initiative of the 1970s which reduced property taxes to ridiculously low levels and strangled funding to schools, cities and counties) as needing to be overhauled, we view the 2/3^rd voter requirement to pass budgets or raise taxes as utterly undemocratic, and we see corporate tax breaks and loopholes as needing to be eliminated or closed so instead of protecting the fat cats, we ensure upward mobility for everyone.

To advance our presence in this arena, we need to quantify the need to invest and advance the argument and every turn. The conservative movement has made the debate: government is wasteful and must be cut. It’s easy to find one bad apple in the bunch and claim it’s indicative of the entire system. (OMG, ACORN is teaching people how to skirt laws, let’s ban them from receiving federal monies.)

However, is waste hiring a city resident to work at a community college as a secretary? Is waste employing a teacher at the nearby high school? Is waste paying an electrician to keep the city power plant operating? Is waste paying a senior citizen to re-stock the public library book shelves? Is waste making sure we have scientist testing our drinking water for chemicals that cause cancer? Is waste offering a grant to a low-income student to be the first in their family to go to the university? Is waste making sure children have free, preventative health, dental and vision check-ups? Is waste having the aged, blind and disabled receive in-home support services? Is waste living in an American that is free, open and welcoming to the world?

The answer to all these questions and more is “No, it’s not a waste. Actually, it is an investment in our community and our society.�

What is a waste is that we let the Republican get away with the argument that everything government is wasteful and should be cut. We need to demolish the premise and build on the fact that government is a force of good and employs a lot of people directly and indirectly.

We lose the argument because we don’t have enough information. Example: I have asked by former community college in Southern California to produce two budgets, instead of one.

The first budget is called the sad face budget because it assumes decreased funding from Sacramento. The second budget is called the happy face budget because it assumes increased funding from Sacramento. Without an alternative, we lose because we can’t show what we want to invest in and why.

Right now, all we have is the budget. It’s hard to rally and cheer for less classes, less staff, less professors and a weakened learning environment (except, of course, if you are an anti-government fanatic that believes the budget doesn’t cut enough: we must cut more and more and more, ad infinitum).

But, if we had the budget, we change the ground of the debate from (cut, don’t cut) to (cut, don’t cut, invest). One day, I would love to argue, with a budget in hand, and turn the argument on anti-government ranting goon: “You say you want to cut? You say you don’t want to invest? Well, if we had the money, if we paid the taxes, we could hire X new staff, Y new teachers, serve Z more students and have the library open 24 hours during finals week.� Oh, I can’t wait.

This leads me to the final issue, fiscal transparency. Conservatives are not the only ones who care about spending our money wisely, everyone cares. We all have check books to balance, bills to pay and money to spend. For some reason, fiscal transparency (accountability, responsibility) is somehow viewed as conservatives’ bread and butter. Well, it’s our bread and butter too!

Instead of ranting and raving that government is wasteful; maybe we should sit down, calm down and read the President’s or Governors Budget, line by line. I know it’s hard, but give it a try. Recovery.gov, that website which shows how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act money is being distributed and used is just great. It even let’s you download spreadsheets so you can work with the numbers. Unfortunately, at a state level, we are vague about how money is spent. I know you can visit www.ebudget.ca.gov and dig into the budget top-level and department/agency-level numbers, but some people want to know everything. I have been searching, and still cannot find, one giant spreadsheet of all revenues and expenditures for the State of California. Fiscal responsibility is everyone’s responsibility. Like the President said about the BP/Halliburton/Transocean finger-pointing, blame-game testimony this past week: “there’s enough to go around.�

These five issues, equality for all, inclusiveness of immigrants, national security, progressive taxation and investment, and fiscal transparency, are important and some are more important to others. In a community of coalitions as diverse and colorful and outspoken as Democrats, our big tent philosophy is not just about making sure no one is left out in the rain (or blistering sun), but ensuring a forum for their thoughts, beliefs and concerns to be heard and made a part of the broader effort. This is the fundamental difference between the two parties, one is open, the other is not.

So what’s the bottom line: Democrats are losing (some) elections, but gaining (a lot of) ground. That’s American Democracy, that’s what the swinging pendulum of power does: it goes back and forth. As long as the pivot of the pendulum moves to the left, that’s what matters.

Moreover, the 5-4 majority justifies their overruling of Austin by claiming that “the First Amendment applies to corporations” and cites First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (decided 5-4 in 1978) and NAACP v. Button (decided 6-3 in 1963).

The Court’s opinion is being interpreted as providing a corporation the same right to free speech as a human being. In my opinion, the 5-4 majority is incorrect in overruling Austin and wrong in granting a corporation the right to free speech. It will take some time for the Court’s decision to be reversed.

It should be clear that corporations already exercise their right to free speech at a state level. The Court’s decision simply opens the proverbial gates of hell at a federal level.

With efforts already underway across the country and in Congress to mitigate the affect of the Court’s decision, the question is what can we do to inoculate ourselves from the onslaught of corporations exercising their right to free speech?

…

First and foremost, I believe each election matters, plain and simple, whether it’s your local school board or President of the United States.

Let’s think about the impact of elections on a local school board level:

• A local school board decides what classes your children will be able to take.
• Do you want your kid to become a doctor? Great! Then they will need to take advanced biology.
• Do you know that some schools do not offer advanced biology?
• If the school your child goes to does not offer advanced biology, what are you going to do about it? Petition the board and/or find a candidate for school board who will champion advanced biology. Board does not care and/or you can’t find a candidate, then run for school board and do it yourself.

Now, let’s think about the impact of elections on a state level.

On Tuesday, June 8, 2010, Californians will vote for 80 state assembly, 20 state senate, 53 congressional, 1 senatorial, 8 statewide offices and 5 statewide propositions.

People will start voting-by-mail as early as Monday, May 10, 2010, nearly a month before election day.

On June 8, and as early as May 10, Californians will vote for or against the following 5 statewide propositions:

• Proposition 13, Constitutional Amendment, Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.
• Proposition 14, Constitutional Amendment, Elections: open primaries.
• Proposition 15, Statute, Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.
• Proposition 16, Initiative Constitutional Amendment, New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.
• Proposition 17, Initiative Statute, Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.

Now, what do we know about these propositions? #13 is bad luck; #14 reminds me of my brother’s favorite soccer jersey number; #15 can only be divided by prime numbers; #16 would have been sweet, but I am not a girl; #17 is how old I was when I graduated high school (I turned 18 a week later). So to answer the question, at this point, not much.

From right… now, until… June 8, 7:59pm, we will be under the influence (and no, I am not talking about that), but the influence of our family, friends, local leaders, elected officials, political parties, labor unions and corporations to vote for or against these propositions.

Let’s look at who is officially for or against these propositions as of now:

Click Image for Larger View

According to the chart above, a couple of things:

Proposition 13, Constitutional Amendment, Property tax: new construction exclusion: seismic retrofitting.

• There is no support or opposition yet. This would imply it’s non-controversial at the moment or of less importance to organized interests.

Proposition 14, Constitutional Amendment, Elections: open primaries.

• There is both support and opposition.
• The support side has plenty of money to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
• The opposition side has not reported its funding levels. I expect this to change soon.

Proposition 15, Statute, Political Reform Act of 1974: California Fair Elections Act of 2008.

• There is support, but no opposition yet.
• The support side has enough resources to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
• I expect the opposition side to form late in April or mid-May and spend a ton of money on television and radio advertisements. There is no benefit to organizing early. If internal polling shows its winning, expect an infusion of resources from the opposition side who expect to lose from this proposition.

Proposition 16, Initiative Constitutional Amendment, New Two-Thirds Requirement for Local Public Electricity Providers.

• There is both support and opposition.
• The support side is extremely well-funded and has expended over $3 million dollars in 2009 to build support for its position. Click here to see who has contributed to the $3 million pool of money, you’ll be intrigued.
• The opposition side has virtually no resources. Barely enough to setup a rudimentary website.

Proposition 17, Initiative Statute, Allows Auto Insurance Companies to Base Their Prices in Part on a Driver’s History of Insurance Coverage.

• There is opposition, but no support yet.
• The opposition has enough resources to hire a consultant, build a website and air some radio advertisements in smaller media markets.
• I expect the support side to come in late April/early May. Again, if internal polling shows its losing, expect an infusion of resources from the support side who expect to win from this proposition.

Proposition 16 attracts my attention and highlights my earlier statement that corporations already exercise their right to free speech at a state level.

If you clicked “Click here to see who…” link above, you’ll find that Pacific Gas & Electric donated $750,000, another $750,000, a whopping $1.5 million and another mere $500,000 for a grand total, $3.5 million dollars.

Take this example and imagine it replicated across the country, in 50 states, over 435 congressional seats and 100 senate seats.

…

Returning to the question that I asked earlier, so what can we do to inoculate ourselves from the onslaught of corporations exercising their right to free speech?

You just did it by reading this post. You armed yourself with information. But there is more to know and at the very least, when you start to hearing and reading about Proposition 13, 14, 15, 16, or 17, you have a better sense of who really is supporting or opposing it.

But the onslaught has just begun and a corporation now has the same right to free speech that you do. The ultimate difference between a person and a corporation is that a corporation cannot vote, but it can certainly influence the thinking of those who can.

12 days ago, I was excited and nervous to see my friend (and boss ) announce that he is running for Governor of the Great State of California. The next day we woke up bright and early and drove to San Luis Obispo for the 7th Annual UC/CSU/CCC Sustainability Conference; that sure was a long drive (~8 hours round trip). I wanted to be sure to post his announcement video here.