Debt Consolidation

Capitol Addiction

Posted on: June 11, 2008
Written by: UWSA Staff

Home |CPR |Why Reform? |The Initiative |The Campaign |The Threat to Reform

Capitol Addiction

A Common Cause Report on 1995 California Legislative Fundraising




1995 was a tumultuous year in the California State Legislature: there was the perpetual yearlong speakership battle; three recall elections -- unprecedented in California history; and, Willie Brown, the Legislature's premier fundraiser, ran for Mayor of San Francisco after a fourteen year reign as the speaker of the Assembly.

While this chaos had a negative impact on legislative fundraising, particularly on fundraising by Assembly Democrats, the overall amount raised by the Legislature actually increased slightly over 1993, the most recent comparable period. We attribute this increase to two factors: the March primary and record setting fundraising by the freshmen.

In order to get an accurate picture of fundraising by legislators in a year when they are not up for election, the author did his best to separate amounts raised and spent on recalls, specials and non-legislative races. The amounts attributed to Willie Brown only include his legislative committees. The numerous recall and special elections were analyzed apart from the rest of the Legislature. The amount given for the total raised by all legislative members is adjusted to exclude transfers, thus avoiding double counting.


The 1995 fundraising year is distinguished by two phenomena; the largest freshmen class in California history raising a record amount, and the Assembly Republicans reaping the benefits of being in the majority.

  • The 1995 freshmen quickly learned the art of fundraising. They raised nearly $5 million, an all time record and over $2 million more than the 1993 freshmen group. The freshmen also demonstrated a propensity to generate large contributions; 10 freshmen raised contributions in amounts of $10,000 or more from Sacramento interest groups and individuals.

  • For the first time in recent history, the Republicans outraised Democrats, collecting 52% of the total raised. This shift can be attributed to two factors; the Republican majority in the Assembly, and the departure of Willie Brown. In fact, if Willie Brown would have raised the $2.2 million he did in 1993, instead of the $1 million he raised this year, the Democrats would have outraised the Republicans again.
The total raised by California legislators not involved in special or recall elections in 1995 was $17,987,692. The total raised by Constitutional officers was $8,591,666 for a grand total of $26,579,358 raised by California's elected officials who were not running for office in 1995.

I. Legislative Fundraising

Continuing a trend of never ending fundraising, legislators in 1995, not running in special elections, raised $17,987,692 in contributions, a 2% increase over 1993 (1). In addition, $5,802,518 was raised for special and recall elections, bringing the total raised by the Legislature in 1995 to $23,790,210.

The shift in the balance of power in the Assembly from the Democrats to the Republicans had a dramatic effect on the fortunes of both parties.

  • Legislative Democrats not running in special elections raised $8,453,645, 47% of the total. Republicans raised $9,350,417, 52% of the total. The Independents, Sen. Quentin Kopp and Sen. Lucy Killea, raised $183,630, 1% of the total. The average amount raised by Democrats was $143,282; while, Republicans averaged $176,422.
An analysis by chamber, provides a vivid picture of the shift in the balance of power.

  • Senate Democrats maintained their fundraising advantage collecting 61% of the $6,646,271 raised by Senators. The Republicans were far behind collecting just 36% of the total.

  • By contrast, Assembly Democrats collected just 38.6% of the $11,341,421 raised by Assemblymembers, a precipitous drop from the 65% raised in 1993. Willie Brown alone raised $2.2 million in 1993, he only raised $1 million in 1995.

  • Assembly Republicans collected 61.3% of the total raised, almost double the 35% they raised in 1993. As Assemblyman Jim Brulte said in an August 1995 memo touting Republican fundraising, "What a difference a majority makes."
Despite expectations that the March primary would lead to a significant increase in fundraising in 1995, the evidence points to the contrary. Undoubtedly, this outcome is due in large part to the chaos in the Assembly. Major contributors, unsure of who would ultimately be in charge, simply withheld their dollars.

  • Only 51% of the 1995 legislative contributions were received during the last six months of the year, the period in which one would have expected to see an increase because of the March primaries. Excluding specials and recalls, the Democrats raised 52% of their funds during the second period of 1995. The Republicans raised 50% of their funds.

II. Top Recipients - The $250,000 Club

Twenty legislators raised over a quarter of a million dollars each in 1995. With the departure of Willie Brown, Sen. Pro Tem. Bill Lockyer became the top fundraiser at $1,484,879, almost double the amount he raised in 1993. Lockyer's total is a Senate record and marks the first time that a Senator has raised over $1 million in a non-election year.

Lockyer was followed by Assemblymember Jim Brulte at $1,193,935, and Willie Brown dropped to third place at $1,030,467. Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle was fourth at $661,872, and Assemblymember John Burton was fifth at $605,373. These five members account for 24% of the total legislative contributions received excluding special elections.

  • The seven legislative leaders--Lockyer, Maddy, Hurtt, Brown, Katz, Brulte and Pringle--raised $5,402,117, accounting for 26% of all contributions raised.

  • Four of the top twenty recipients are Assembly Republican freshmen: Hawkins, Firestone, Grandlund and Poochigan.
Top Twenty Recipients
Officeholder 1995 Receipts
Lockyer, Bill $1,484,879
Brulte, Jim $1,193,935
Brown, Willie $1,030,467
Pringle, Curt $661,872
Burton, John $605,373
Hawkins, Phil $480,076
Leslie, Tim $409,658
Hurtt, Rob $370,568
Thompson, Mike $369,529
Maddy, Kenneth $362,642
Officeholder 1995 Receipts
Firestone, Brooks $324,082
Richter, Bernie $301,776
Granlund, Brett $299,894
Katz, Richard $297,754
Vasconcellos, John $288,601
Rainey, Richard $272,201
Johnston, Patrick $269,021
Poochigian, C. $260,071
Tucker, Curtis $259,624
Costa, Jim $254,428

III. Freshmen

"Proposition 140, will remove the grip that vested interests have over the legislature..."
Ballot argument in favor of Prop. 140.

Proposition 140 promised a new breed of "citizen" legislators independent of special interests and accountable to their constituents. The reality is far different: Freshmen are raising record amounts from special interest.

Prior to Prop. 140, special interests could afford to ignore freshmen fundraising requests and the freshmen did not have to worry as much about fundraising because they could rely on the legislative leadership to look after them. With Prop. 140, freshmen are quickly becoming important players and can no longer be ignored by special interests. They must also be far more self-sufficient in fundraising because of the relatively constant turnover in leadership.

A record number of freshmen entered the Legislature in 1995: 20 Republicans and 10 Democrats. After taking office in January, the freshmen wasted little time jumping on the fundraising bandwagon.

  • Freshmen raised $2,268,994 during the first six months of their first term. The total contributions they received in 1995 was $4,962,888, (almost 28% of the total raised by the Legislature) a record amount for freshmen during a non-election year, and over $2 million more than the freshmen in 1993.

  • The freshmen raised an average of $165,429. This average is $24,000 higher than the average for all other legislators excluding the leadership. It is also over $60,000 more than the freshmen average in 1993.
Indicative of the shift in the Assembly balance of power, Republican freshmen raised far more than their Democratic counterparts. Of the $4,962,888 raised by freshmen, the Republicans received $3,910,525, while the Democrats received only $1,052,363. This difference is partly explained by the 20 to 10 seat advantage by the Republicans, but the Republican average was also significantly higher at $195,526 compared to $105,236 for the Democrats.

  • The top fifteen freshmen recipients are all Assembly Republicans. Leading the pack is Phil Hawkins at $480,076 followed by Brooks Firestone at $324,082; and, Brett Grandlund at $299,894.

  • The top freshmen Democrats are: Kevin Murray at $131,803, Antonio Villariagosa at $125,563 and Denise Ducheney at $120,639.
The freshmen wasted little time becoming involved in the partisan battles in the Assembly, engaging immediately in the game of transfers. In 1995, Assembly freshmen transferred $511,350 to fellow officeholders or recall committees. The average transfer by each Assembly freshman was $17,632. This average is almost $3,000 more than the average transferred by the Assembly rank and file.

Freshman Fundraising
Officeholder Receipts Transferred
Hawkins, Phil $480,076 $12,443
Firestone, Brooks 324,082 10,000
Granlund, Brett 299,894 114,280
Poochigian, C. 260,071 50,150
Setencich, Brian 244,479 30,500
Olberg, Keith 227,360 25,150
Kuykendall, S. 204,912 568
Frusetta, Peter 193,398 0
Brewer, Marilyn 188,802 842
Bordonaro, Tom 187,373 5,150
Battin, Jim 178,041 17,567
Cunneen, Jim 177,380 250
Morrissey, Jim 142,772 6,575
Kaloogian, H. 139,515 198
Thompson, Bruce 133,691 17,000
Murray, Kevin 131,803 23,514
Rogan, James 130,122 25,958
Villaraigosa, A. 125,563 21,950
Baldwin, Steve 121,911 0
Ducheny, Denise 120,639 21,171
Mazzoni, Kerry 113,466 9,000
Knox, Wally 107,924 43,371
House, George 101,339 600
Davis, Susan 97,553 9,579
Figueroa, Liz 95,318 14,500
Woods, Tom 95,254 5,765
Gallegos, Martin 94,780 11,200
Sweeney, Michael 85,205 14,417
Kuehl, Sheila 80,112 19,652
Monteith, Dick 80,053 4,000

IV. Lame Ducks

Lame Ducks can be broken into two categories: those who are termed out in 1996 with no announced plans to seek another office and mid-term Senators who are termed out in 1998 with no announced plans.

Ninteen members (2) have no plans to run for office after their term expires in 1996, and yet, collectively, they raised $1,249,395. The average raised was $65,757. A little over 50% of this was raised in the second half of 1995. These members spent slightly over $1 million.

  • Assemblymember Richard Katz raised the most at $297,754, followed by Senator Henry Mello and Assemblymember David Knowles at $136,937 and $110,611 respectively.
Eleven Senators are termed out in 1998. Together, they raised $2,994,159. Senator Lockyer's contributions constituted 49%. The average raised, excluding the leadership, was $127,404, nearly identical to the average raised by rank and file Senators.

V. Constitutional Officers

Coming off their 1994 election victories, the Constitutional officers took full advantage of their incumbency, raising $8,591,666 in their first year in office. This is over $3 million more than Constitutional officers raised in 1991, the last comparable period. In 1995, Constitutional officers spent $5,255,936.

  • Three constitutional officers raised over $1 million in 1995: Governor Pete Wilson raised $3,786,454. These figures do not reflect Wilson's Presidential committee; Attorney General Dan Lungren raised $1,540,160, and Treasurer Matt Fong raised $1,079,766. In 1991, the last comparable period, Pete Wilson was the only constitutional officer to raise over $1 million.

  • Lt. Governor Gray Davis ended the year with $1,083,127 in cash-on-hand, more than any other constitutional officer. Attorney General Dan Lungren ranked second with $696,634 cash-on-hand.

VI. Recall & Special Elections

1995 was an unprecedented year for recall elections which accounted for the biggest portion of special election fundraising. Assemblyman Mike Machado and former Assemblymembers Doris Allen and Paul Horcher received $2,747,912 to fight the attempted recalls. The Republicans, under the leadership of Brulte and Pringle, raised $2,068,510 to unseat them.

  • Over $4.8 million was raised for the Horcher, Allen and Machado recalls.

  • The total raised for special elections was $986,096, bringing the 1995 total for recalls and specials to $5,802,518.

VII. Transfers

The recall frenzy in the Assembly led to an unusually high level of transfers for a non-election year. Transfers in the Legislature last year totalled $2,513,127, with Democrats leading the Republicans $1,433,213, (57%), to $1,079,814 (43%). 74% of the Democratic transfers occurred during the first half of 1995; while, the Republicans only transferred 54% of their funds during this period. This difference is in large part attributable to the massive mobilization by the Democrats in opposition to the Republican effort to recall Paul Horcher.

  • Assembly transfers totalled $2,321,204, constituting 17% of contributions raised by its members.
Willie Brown transferred the most at $793,178 which was 77% of his total contributions. Brown transferred $644,697 in the first half of 1995, much of which went to the Horcher campaign. Assemblyman Jim Brulte ranked second in transfers at $289,648, 24% of his total contributions received. 81% of Brulte's transfers were in the first half of 1995. (Brulte's transfers may seem low considering the amount of recall activity; however, most of the contributions for the recalls went directly into the recall committees and the Republican supported candidates.) Assemblyman Curt Pringle ranked third with total transfers of $136,203, accounting for 20% of his contributions received.

  • - 74% of Pringle's transfers occurred during the second half of 1995, much of it going to the Scott Baugh campaign and the Recall Allen committee.
Officeholder Transfers % of Contributions
Brown, Willie $793,178 77%
Brulte, Jim 289,648 24%
Pringle, Curt 136,203 21%
Granlund, Brett 114,280 38%
Poochigian, C. 50,150 19%
Bustamante, Cruz 46,536 23%
Hoge, Bill 45,484 19%
Knox, Wally 43,371 40%
Sher, Byron 43,000 45%
Hurtt, Rob 42,159 11%
  • The average amount transferred by Assemblymembers not in the leadership was $14,842. By contrast, the average for Senators not in leadership was only $3,200.
The transfer activity in the Senate was far more typical for a non-election year. Senate transfers totaled $191,923, constituting just 3% of the total amount raised by its members. Rob Hurtt transferred more than any other Senator at $42,159. Senators Jack O'Connell and Richard Polanco were next at $21,271 and $21,125 respectively. Sen. Pro Tem. Bill Lockyer transferred only $14,000.

  • The seven legislative leaders transferred $1,325,938, constituting 53% of all funds transferred.

VIII. The $10,000 Contributor Club

Legislators not running for special elections received over $2.2 million from special interests and individuals in amounts of $10,000 or more per recipient. (The totals reported are as accurate as possible, but the author undoubtedly missed some contributors given the frequent mistakes by legislators when reporting cumulative contributions.)

  • Senator Bill Lockyer was the top recipient of contributions over $10,000. He raised $507,153, or 34% of his total receipts, in contributions of $10,000 or more. The largest contributors to Lockyer include the Southern California District Council of Carpenters at $50,000, followed by the California Commerce Club, a card club, at $37,000, the California Teachers Association at $31,000, the Consumer Attorneys PAC (formerly known as the CA Trail Lawyers Association) at $30,191 and the Zenith Insurance Co. at $30,000.

  • Willie Brown ranked second at $331,766, 32% of his total receipts. His largest contributors were Philip Morris at $40,000, Waste Management at $20,000 and the Consumer Attorneys PAC at $19,038.
  • Brulte ranked third at $316,640, 27% of his total contributions. His largest contributors were the Gov. Pete Wilson Committee, at $168,650, followed by Waste Management at $27,000, and Browning-Ferris at $25,500.

  • On average, the leadership received 26% of their contributions in amounts of $10,000 or more, considerably higher than the 11% received by the Legislature as a whole.

  • Freshmen legislators received 13% of their contributions in amounts of $10,000 or more. This is dramatically higher than the 3% received by legislators who are not in leadership positions. Ten of the thirty freshmen were part of the $10,000 club, while only eight of the entire rank and file received contributions of these amounts.

Once again the promise of the Prop. 140 proponents that the "citizen legislators" would not be indebted to Sacramento interests is clearly contradicted by the numbers.

  • The Association of California Insurance Companies PAC (ACIC) was the top contributor to four freshmen: Jim Battin at $12,500, Jim Cunneen at $10,000, Steve Kuykendall at $10,000, and Jim Morrissey at $10,000.

  • Brett Grandlund received nine $10,000 contributions, more than any other freshman. The largest contribution was from Food 4 Less Supermarkets, Inc. at $26,000, followed by the CA Optometric PAC at $11,000 and Ralph's Grocery Co. at $10,500.

  • Phil Hawkins led the freshmen in total received in large contributions. His $300,000 in contributions came from just one source, Christina Yee who is listed as a housewife on the disclosure forms.

IX. Small Contributions

Contributions in non-election years are almost exclusively from those with business before the Legislature. Legislative incumbents not participating in special elections reported receiving a total of $422,801 in contributions under $100, accounting for just 2.3% of all contributions received. Eight Assemblymembers and seven Senators reported receiving no contributions under $100.

The following list contains members who received the highest percentages of small contributions.

Officeholder Cont. Under $100 % of Total Cont.
Hayden, Tom $3,921 55%
Kopp, Quentin 36,213 22%
House, George 15,029 15%
Sweeney, Michael 9,631 11%
Bates, Tom 4,694 11%
Takasugi, Nao 8,209 10%
Campbell, Bob 21,889 9%
Cortese, Dominic 5,261 9%
Lee, Barbara 18,723 8%
* This list does not include those who were involved in special elections. It is worth noting that Mike Machado received $138,162, in contributions under $100, accounting for 11% of his total contributions received.

Not all candidates were efficient in reporting all the small contributions received; thus, there may be some degree of variance in what was actually received and the numbers reported in this study.

X. Debt

Legislators who were not in specials/recalls ended the year with $4,982,654 in debt. The debt owed by Assemblymembers is $2,344,424. Of this, 64% is owed by Republicans and only 36% by the Democrats. The Senate owes $2,638,230, which is evenly split between the two parties at $1,309,184 for the Republicans and $1,319,546 for the Democrats. The Independents, Senators Quentin Kopp and Lucy Killea, owe just $9,500. The special election incumbents owe an additional $1,356,305, bringing the total debt for the 1995 legislative incumbents to $6,338,959.

The debt accrued by several candidates was from personal loans or loans from family. During an off-year, these loans may frequently be used to scare off potential political rivals and creates the appearance on campaign statements of a depth of support for the incumbent.

  • In examining the campaign reports, it appears as though several legislators timed their loans to coincide with the deadlines for filing campaign statements.
Assemblymember Bernie Richter's loan game vividly illustrates the way in which incumbents use loans to scare off potential challengers. On the filing deadline 6/30/95 Richter received $111,000 in loans from himself and relatives. This resulted in contributions reported at $211,247 as opposed to the $100,247 he would have listed without the loans. Richter then paid these loans back shortly after the next filing period began. No other loan activity occurred until 9/28/95 -- two days before the next filing deadline, when Ray's Liquors (owned by Richter) loaned the campaign $100,000.00. Again, this amount was repaid 5 days after it was received and after the filing period began. Then on 12/29/95 Mary Richter loaned the committee $125,000. According to SOS reports, this loan was then repaid just 5 days after the receipt on 1/3/96. This $125,000 enabled Richter to post a healthy $57,937 contribution amount for the last filing period of '95, as opposed to the negative $68,000 he would have shown without the loan.

XI. Warchests

Warchests raised in non-election years give incumbents an enormous advantage over challengers and in many cases discourage potential challengers from running. This advantage is most dramatically illustrated by the difference in the percent raised by incumbents running for office in 1996 and their challengers.

  • 1996 challengers raised just 1.2% of the total raised by incumbents.

  • Incumbents who were not involved in special elections ended the year with $10,669,779 in cash-on-hand. Assemblymembers ended the year with $4,892,644 cash-on-hand Senators ended the year with $5,777,135 cash-on-hand.

  • Reflecting the balance of power, Assembly Republicans have 63% of the Assembly cash-on-hand; Democrats have 37%. Senate Democrats have 59% of the Senate cash-on-hand; Republicans have 38% and Independents have 3%.
Termed out legislators not running for another office ended the year with $957,975 in cash-on-hand. This amount may be used for contributing to other candidates, retiring campaign debts, or charity donations. Incumbents may also transfer this money to another committee of theirs unless it is a federal committee. It cannot be used for personal purposes after leaving office. Richard Katz tops the lame duck list with $226,389 in cash-on-hand.

Termed out legislators who are running for another office ended the year with $1,343,421 in cash. The leader of this group is Assemblyman John Burton at $516,988, followed by Assemblymen Jim Brulte at $190,686 and Byron Sher at $93,342. All three of the above transferred significant amounts from their Assembly committees to their new Senate committees.

XII. Expenditures

Legislators not running in special/recall elections spent $13,052,683 in 1995. Democrats outspent Republicans $7,105,974 to $5,870,582, and the Independents spent just $76,127.

  • Willie Brown outspent all legislators at $1,716,789, of this 46% was spent on transfers. Assemblymember Jim Brulte ranked second at $914,088, of this 32% was spent on transfers, and Senator Bill Lockyer ranked third at $343,214.

  • Senator Tom Hayden spent the least at $1,275, followed by Senator Milton Marks at $4,378 and Senator Lucy Killea at $5,529.The Assembly outspent the Senate by almost three to one at $9,653,405 (74%) compared to $3,399,278 (26%).
It is difficult to determine the exact purpose of expenditures because most are reported under the very broad categories of general operations and fundraising. As always, fundraising and travel costs accounted for a high percentage of the expenditures. Without the computerization of disclosure reports, we were simply unable to categorize the expenditures for every member. Therefore, we simply made note of a few interesting examples:

  • Assemblymember Paul Horcher's committee spent over $3,000 on donuts.

  • Assemblymember David Knowles spent $12,948 on 6 trips accompanied by family members. These included $6,700 on a trip to Honolulu with his wife and three other family members and $1,800 on a trip to San Diego with three family members.

  • Senator Henry Mello spent $4,136 on an alarm system.

  • Senator Charles Calderon spent $1,395 for the Super Bowl.

  • Assemblymember Bustamante listed under general operations $6,000 in restaurant bills.

XIII. Conclusion

The millions raised by California's elected officials in 1995, a non-election year, dramatically illustrates the Capitol's addiction to fundraising. Freshmen legislators, whom the proponents of term limits promised would be a "new breed" quickly picked up the fundraising habit and became even better fundraisers than their predecessors. Legislators who are termed out in 1996 and not running for another office could not break the fundraising habit.

Instead of "removing the grip of special interest" over the Legislature, term limits have tightened the grip. Freshmen legislators are receiving record amounts from special interests because they will be in positions of power the longest. Freshmen are also under greater pressure to raise money because the caucus leaders, who traditionally can be relied upon to provide financial support, now change every session. Termed out Assemblymembers who want to remain in the Legislature are raising record amounts to run for the Senate. When two Assemblymembers run against each other the fundraising pressure is even greater.

Non-election year fundraising is one of the worst aspects of the current campaign system. It enables incumbents to build huge warchests which can be used to scare off potential challengers and, if they are not deterred, to far outspend them. The contributions raised are almost entirely from special interests with business before the Legislature, thus, substantially increasing their influence over the legislative process.

Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, AARP and United We Stand are sponsoring a comprehensive campaign reform initiative on the November ballot that will put an end to non-election year fundraising. The initiative, the California Political Reform Act (CPR), would prohibit legislators from fundraising until six months prior to an election. Constitutional officers would be prohibited from fundraising until one year prior to the election. In addition, it would limit contributions to $250, for those candidates who agree to spending limits the contributions limit would be $500; it would ban transfers, and prohibit elected officials from soliciting lobbyists for campaign contributions.

Had CPR been in effect in 1995, there would have been no fundraising by Constitutional officers, termed out legislators, or Senators in the middle of their term. Legislators running for office in 1996 would not have been permitted to start fundraising until September. No contribution would have been greater than $500 and there would have been no transfers. The result: 1995 fundraising would have been reduced by over 80%.

XIV. Methodology

  1. The information provided in this study was compiled from campaign disclosure statements filed with the CA Secretary of State's office. The contribution amounts for 1995 were arrived at by tabulating the contributions reported for each filing period for each incumbent: column A of form 490. The amount reflects monetary contributions, non-monetary contributions, and loans received.

  2. The amount given for the total raised by all legislative members is adjusted to exclude transfers, thus avoiding double counting. Transfers between a candidate's own committees are subtracted immediately.

  3. Amounts reported for the individuals reflect the total contributions they received for CA legislative and statewide offices. Federal and local campaign committees are excluded.

  4. Loans received and paid back in the same year are automatically deducted from the contributions amount. The disclosure reports have candidates automatically deduct any loan payments from contributions received. We believe this does not accurately reflect the total contributions received in a period; therefore, we adjusted the final contributions reported to reflect the contributions used for pre-'95 loan payments. This methodology provides a more accurate picture of '95 fundraising.

  5. Loans received prior to 1995 and remain outstanding are not included in contributions.

  6. The analysis of Democrats vs. Republicans, Assembly vs. Senate, Freshman vs Others, Lame Ducks vs Others, etc. was done using only those incumbents not running in a special election.

  7. The amounts listed for expenditures come directly from the candidate reports and have not been adjusted for transfers.

  8. The recall committees were not officially controlled thus we did not attribute contributions to these committees to any particular legislator. However, these committees were operated under the direction of legislative leadership in much the same way a controlled committee is operated; therefore, the amount raised and spent by these committees were included in the end totals and were attributed to the appropriate party.

1. This percentage was determined by comparing gross raised in 1993 vs. 1995. The net numbers were not available for 1993.

2. Assemblymembers Archie-Hudson, Bates, Canella, Friedman, Hannigan, Hauser, Isenberg, Katz, Knowles, and Speier. Senators Alquist, Beverly, Boatwright, Killea, Marks, Mello, Petris, Rogers, and Russell.

This report was written by Brian Tanner and Ruth Holton, withresearch assistance provided by Robyn Tirschel and Ian Lymnan.
California Common Cause -- 926 J Street, Suite 910, Sacramento, CA 95814 -- (916) 443-1792