In California ad campaign, so much for 'striking a balance'

ShareThis

I'm picturing backers of the California ballot measure to extend the terms of Democratic leaders in the Legislature trying to come up with a theme for their advertising campaign for the Golden State's Feb. 5 election."We've got a problem if we say Proposition 93 will keep our bosses in office longer," says an Assembly staffer on leave to work on the campaign. "So let's spin it to say that Proposition 93 strikes a balance between the benefits of term limits and the benefits of experience."All of a sudden -- at least in this fictional account -- heads start wildly nodding and everyone in the room is as giddy as when their bosses give another pension increase to the prison-guards union.This may not be exactly how Proposition 93 supporters decided that "strike a balance" would be the theme of their first ads in support of changing term limits, but it makes as much sense as the message they are sending to voters.The radio and television spots are very good, and an unsuspecting voter might conclude that Proposition 93 is worth supporting. The problem with these ads -- as with most political commercials -- is what they don't say.Here's some of what is left out. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata promised to combine a change in term limits with reforming the way boundaries of legislative districts are created in California.Right now, legislators draw the lines of their own districts to make elections as noncompetitive as possible. They have become very good at protecting their careers from the democratic process.You could argue that it would be good public policy to loosen term limits a bit if that reform had been coupled with a measure to give redistricting powers to an independent commission. That was what was supposed to have happened this year.Guess what? They skipped the part about reforming redistricting, but dummied up a group to put a term-limits measure on the ballot. So much for keeping their word.And then the Nunez/Perata anti-democracy machine got even more self-serving. By putting Proposition 93 on the Feb. 5 ballot, the Democratic leaders and their 32 other termed-out pals in the Legislature could run for re-election in June if it passes next month. Otherwise, they would be forced out of office.Saving their hides was the key reason they moved the presidential primary to February. It wasn't to give California more of a say in selecting the presidential nominees, although it has seemed to work out that way. It was to extend their own political careers.In the ad promoting Proposition 93, the argument is made that California has massive budget deficits because legislators -- that would be Nunez and Perata and the rest -- haven't been in office long enough to understand the complex budget process.So the 80 Assembly members and 40 senators are too dumb to budget properly because they are inexperienced. But let them serve more time in the Legislature and they will suddenly realize you can't spend more money than you take in?This really is a startling admission by Proposition 93 sponsors. They are saying that Nunez, Perata and the rest of the math-challenged gang need more on-the-job training.I could be wrong, but I've never heard people in office right now admit that they aren't very good lawmakers after only six years in the Assembly or eight years in the Senate.They surely don't say that when they are running for office, although this would be an interesting campaign ad: "Elect me, and in a half-dozen years, I might know what I'm talking about."There are some things to like in Proposition 93. It actually shortens terms for future lawmakers who might serve six years in the Assembly and eight years in the Senate. It would limit terms to 12 years, instead of 14, but they could all be served in one house.The big problem with Proposition 93 is that any reform of term limits should be coupled with redistricting reform. That's what Nunez and Perata promised, and they should not be rewarded for lying.Sponsors of Proposition 93 are gambling that their ads -- funded by the special interests who have caused the state's budget problems -- will persuade voters to change term limits. They might.This kind of manipulation is another reason for the public to be cynical about the political process in California. But those who lead us don't much care. They'd rather phony up a political ad with their special-interest friends.(Jim Boren is The Fresno Bee's editorial-page editor. E-mail him at jboren(at)fresnobee.com.)(Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, www.scrippsnews.com.)