DISCLOSE Act Passes State Senate, 28-11; 27 Yes Votes from Dems. ‘Bipartisan’? Bull!

• D’Marie Mulattieri Thank you to all the people who signed SB 52, the California DISCLOSE Act, the people standing for hours getting signatures, those who did phone calling, sending emails, letters and faxes to your Senators, the volunteers that went to Sacramento, the volunteers that met with the Senators’ Staff, the volunteers that inputted all the petition signatures; so much work went into getting this passed. Thank you to everyone that touched this bill!!! Now on to the assembly!!!

  Thank you to all the Callfire volunteers that took training and spent hours dialing the constituents of the Senators and transferring them to the Senators’ office to ask them to vote YES on SB 52. 

  Thank you to all the organizations and individuals that endorsed SB-52!

  Thank you!!! Thank you!! Thank you!!! 

  And huge Thank You to Trent Lange, the Executive Director of California Clean Money…our man behind the curtain…the great OZ of Clean Money!!!! And so much more!!! You ROCK TRENT LANGE!!!!

By the way, I agree with all that.  But something really bothered me.  So a man named Jim (whose last name I won’t use as he is sort of an innocent bystander here) and I started discussing it.

• Greg Diamond I’m sorry, but when only one Democrat votes no and one Republican — whose vote is not even necessary to pass it — votes yes, they don’t get to call the bill “bipartisan.” If the Republicans want to take any credit for it at all, let them earn it in the Assembly.

  Jim  Well, as piddling as their participation is, that’s something we want to encourage so that maybe there will be more like it. If they continue being pigheaded like they have been for years now though, they’ll have it shoved up their caucuses.

  Greg Diamond Nope. I don’t want them to get a bit of credit for it that cheaply. Let them actually earn it.

  Jim  Obama recommended a Republican as FBI chief today – one who donated to the campaigns of both McCain and Romney. That doesn’t thrill me, but if the GOP doesn’t get that, they’re brain dead.

  D’Marie Mulattieri Greg, we get to call it a bi-partisan bill because Sen Cannella voted YES. It has no bearing whether a Democrat voted no. You have no idea the work that went into getting the YES vote from Senator Cannella. We will call it a bi-partisan if we want to.

  D’Marie Mulattieri The credit doesn’t go to the Republicans, it goes to all the volunteers of California Clean Money Campaign that worked unbelievably long hours without wavering.

• Greg Diamond Of course you can call it bipartisan if you want it to. However, it is only barely and technically true and it is massively misleading. Republicans were overwhelmingly opposed to this — to what should be their shame — and calling it “bipartisan” just serves to hide that shame.

  The word “bipartisan” absolutely, in the minds of those who unfamiliar with the facts who hear it used, gives credit to the Republicans. Thinking that such an audience will instead give credit to the volunteers — as they should — is self-delusion. The word “bipartisan” says NOTHING about the volunteers.

  It’s nice that you’re so sensitive to Sen. Cannella. Does it not occur to you to be sensitive to the Democrats who provided the other 97% of the votes for the bill — and get recognized solely as “one of the two parties that had people supporting it”? Because that IS EXACTLY what “bipartisan,” without a lot of extra explanation, means.

  D’Marie Mulattieri Since you were so closely involved with CCMC, I guess you know the particulars and have room to talk Greg…NOT!!!!

• D’Marie Mulattieri We have another long road to hoe, I believe that our Executive Director, Trent Lange, Field Organizer Daniel Tamm, and Senator Leno, know what they are doing!

• Greg Diamond I’m relying on basic math here, which being or not being part of CCMC doesn’t affect. And basic math tells me that you as an advocate of this bill should feel BETRAYED by the Republican Party *as a whole* and VERY GRATEFUL to the Democratic Party *as a whole*.That doesn’t fit your “no difference between them” model of politics, so instead we get the word “bipartisan.” Sorry, there are good guys and bad guys here — and all but one of them on each side were from the same party. There’s your headline.
• D’Marie Mulattieri Greg, we don’t play politics that way. The more you draw lines in the sand, the less gets accomplished. And since you like to have the last say…go ahead, be my guest.
• Jim Old news, Greg. Time to reframe the problem.
• Greg Diamond You didn’t need a single Republican vote to accomplish this in the State Senate — which is a damn good thing because you barely got even one of them. The 27 Democrats who voted “yes” and the 10 Republicans who voted “no” don’t get named — just the solely exceptions from each party get named.As a result, the Republican party gets equal credit — at least for those who read just the numbers or stop after the second paragraph — without doing almost a damn thing to get the result. I say: if they want respect, make them earn it in the Assembly. If they give just 1 or 2 votes in the Assembly, they deserve to be raked over the coals.@Jim — 27/28 > 1/11. That’s a pretty serviceable frame.Thanks for letting me have the last word, D’Marie.

Like many conversations within people who had been with Occupy OC (and they still take place often online, with me, Vern, Inge, and others around here often part of them), I thought that this was pretty good.  I get D’Marie’s points, that this was technically “bipartisan” and that there is value in aspiring to bipartisan support where possible — but I think that once you get a vote result like this you don’t ignore it — you bang the drum and make sure that everyone sees it, because that’s the only way that you get the people who oppose these reforms to change.

I’m sure that my remarks up there look quite partisan.  That’s sort of funny, given how much cooperation I’m doing with Republican anti-corruption advocates these days.  More significantly, as pretty much everyone in the Democratic Party of Orange County leadership can tell you, I tend to be extremely hard in my criticism of Democrats from within the party.  Of the names that former DPOC Chair Frank Barbaro used to invoke pretty much every time we had a meeting at any level — Miguel Pulido, Lou Correa, Jose Solorio, Tom Daly, and Jordan “I’ll tell ya, I think that this young man is the future of our Party” Brandman — I have strained (if any) relationships with all of them.  (On the other hand, while I may disagree on particular issues with some of the Democratic moderates who are actually from somewhat moderate districts — Loretta Sanchez, Sharon Quirk-Silva, Al Lowenthal — overall I think that they are just fine.)

Here’s why I don’t think my remarks are partisan at all, though: I do not want to have a partisan advantage over Republicans on these issues of good government.  I want them to be a complete wash for voters because I want us all to be on the same side.  After all, 78% of Republican voters support this sort of transparency reform!  But if we vote and we are not all on the same side — if the Democrats (and I have to admit that I’m really impressed by this) manage to get all but one person to fall into line for good government and the Republicans get all but one person in line to oppose good government, then I am going to kick the Republicans in the ass on that issue until my legs give out.

It’s not because I think that all Democrats are better on all issues than all Republicans — that belief would be childish.  It’s because on this particular issue, apparently the Republicans desperately need an ass-kicking.  They cannot be allowed to believe that one good vote from one of them can mask all of the disgraceful bad votes that they cast against this bill.  They don’t get to hide behind Anthony Cannella!

You want me not to call you assholes, Republican legislators, on these good government issues?  THEN DON’T BE ASSHOLES!  It’s not that complicated.

Instead — and my Juice friends Vern and Inge, and many others, are part of this faction — there seems to be a real desire to perceive and portray no real difference between the two major political parties — so much so that smart people of good will will scratch wildly like cats in a litter box to cover up the turd that the Republicans just lay with this vote.  “We don’t play politics that way.”  Oh yeah?  That’s too bad, because this time around, the Republicans certainly seemed to play politics this way!  IGNORING THAT is “playing politics”!

The idea that appeasement — and that’s what giving them equal credit in the lead paragraph is — towards a party that just gave you less than 10% of their votes on an issue is going to make them give you more votes later in the other legislative house strikes me as damn near insane.  NO!  IF THEY DON’T PAY A POLITICAL PRICE FOR VOTING BADLY, THEY HAVE NO REASON TO CHANGE HOW THEY VOTE!

I — even as a party official — am willing to hold those in my own party to that standard.  You have seen me do it here repeatedly.  If Tom Daly votes against this bill in the Assembly — I’m sure that Sharon Quirk-Silva will vote for it — I’ll rip into him like a wildebeest.  But if he does the right thing, then he gets my applause.  That’s how politics works.  Well, given that I’ll hold Democrats to that standard, I am NOT going to fail to hold the opposing party to that same standard — just to be nice and sensitive to their feelings.

Here, I’ll say something here to help the California Republican Party.  You want the public not to think that you’re a bunch of corrupt, politics as usual, servants of craven and secretive special interests?  Then vote YES on the DISCLOSE Act in the Assembly.  Vote for it overwhelmingly.  You do that, and I will do nothing but compliment you on your actions.  I’ll have no desire to do anything else.  That would be playing politics — and what I care about here is not your hurt feelings, but results.

As a partisan, I’d love to rake Republicans over the coals for blocking the DISCLOSE Act for the next year and a half.  But I’m not a partisan first, I’m a citizen first — and I’d rather have the better policy in hand than the prospect of a partisan win.  I’ll happily praise bipartisanship — if that’s what you deliver.

Meanwhile, anyone who wants to tell me that “there’s no difference between the parties” after this vote — all I can say is “prepare to learn some math — at a high volume.”