Two bills pending in the California legislature would set up discriminatory public funding for state candidates. AB 583, by Assemblymember Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) applies to all state office. SB 536 by Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) just applies to Insurance Commissioner.

AB 583 is more favorable to candidates if they are members of a party that polled 10% for Governor, or 10% for the particular office involved, than other candidates. Favored candidates would need 500 $5 contributions to run for Assembly, 1,000 $5 contributions for State Senate, 7,500 $5 contributions for lesser statewide office, or 25,000 $5 contributions for Governor. If they met these hurdles, they would receive (for the general election) $400,000 if running for Assembly, $800,000 if running for State Senate, $2,000,000 if running for lesser statewide office, $15,000,000 if running for Governor.

Independent candidates would need to raise twice as many $5 contributions, for equal public funding; if they did not, they would receive nothing. Members of parties that hadn’t polled 10% in the past election for that office or for Governor would get 25% as much funding, if they raised half as many $5 contributions. They would get equal funding if they raised twice as many $5 contributions.

SB 536, dealing only with Insurance Commissioner public funding, would require members of parties that had polled 10% for Insurance Commissioner in the last election to receive 7,500 $5 contributions. Alternatively, if there were a party that had not polled 10% for Insurance Commissioner in the last election, but cast 20% of the total votes in the current primary, it would be treated equally (this provision seems designed to cover one of the major parties, in case that major party had failed to run anyone in the last election for Insurance Commissioner). All other Insurance Commissioner candidates would receive no public funding unless they submitted a petition signed by 5% of the last vote cast for Insurance Commissioner, in 89 days. For 2010, if this bill were enacted, that would be 416,270 signatures. The petition would say that the signers support the named candidate.

On April 13, the Texas House passed HB 2017. It moves the primary from March to February. It does not make the independent presidential candidate petition deadline any earlier. However, it moves the deadline for new party petitions, and non-presidential independents, from May to April.

The bill also moves the deadline for an unqualified party to notify the Secretary of State that it intends to try to qualify, from January 2 of the election year, to October 31 of the year before the election. New parties nominate by convention, not by primary.

No other state has ever had a law that forces an unqualified party to give notice that it intends to qualify, months before it is allowed to start petitioning (Texas won’t let new party or independent candidate petitions start to circulate, until the day after the primary). If HB 2017 is enacted as written, it will make the United States a laughing-stock in the world, if the existence of the law becomes generally known.

The Missouri Senate Finance, Governmental Organization & Elections Committee will hear HB894 on Monday, April 16, at noon, in the Senate lounge. This is the bill whose sponsor believes it requires independent candidates and the candidates of new parties to submit a declaration of candidacy in March, even if they are running for president. When one reads the bill, it is very unclear.