Arnold

The current governor and the once (and future?) governor have had a warm relationship, campaigning together for municipal finance protections and against changes in the state's three strikes law. But Monday, during a long Schwarzeneggerian soliloquy at a Riverside event to promote his rainy day fund proposal, the governor took a shot at Brown in response to a question from a Southern California Gas official about the state's infrastructure problems. Here's the direct Arnold quote in the transcript, in full context:

"Well, California for 40 years has not really rebuilt our infrastructure in water, so we have now the stuff that was done under Governor Brown from the '60s. Not Jerry Brown, but Pat Brown, because Jerry Brown did not build infrastructure. They stopped building infrastructure when Reagan came in and so Pat Brown was the last one that built infrastructure. And so, since then our population has gone from 18 million to 38 million but we haven't built any new infrastructure. So, you still have the same water delivery system, we still have the same amount of reservoirs that are now between 50 and 75 percent down. We're running out of water, so there's a major problem."

If Californians see the petition circulators outside their grocery stores smiling this week, you'll know the reason: Gov. Schwarzenegger. The Sacramento Bee's Capitol Alert is first to report that the governor has kicked in another $700,000 to the redistricting initiative. As reported here first Sunday, the per-signature price paid to gatherers goes up, from $2 to $2.25 this week, making it the best-paying of the three major measures still on the street.

This continues Schwarzenegger's pattern of putting his money where his mouth is. For all of the criticism he's received for his more than $100 million in fundraising since launching his political career in 2003, Schwarzenegger has been the number one donor to his own career -- more than $25 million -- and most of that money has been spent not on his own election but on ballot measures to advance his agenda. Governing has never been so expensive in California.

Here's an up-to-the-minute report from the streets of California: Gov. Schwarzenegger's redistricting ballot initiative appears to be struggling to attract enough signatures on the street, but it's unclear if the problem is lack of voter interest, hoarding by signature gatherers expecting a price increase, or some combination of the two.

This weekend, gatherers were told to turn in the current petitions they have for redistricting, three gatherers told me this afternoon. Signatures on these are worth $2 per signature. The idea behind the turn-in is to fight hoarding. (Unless you issue new versions of a petition -- either with a different letter on the sheet or in a different color paper, gatherers will hold onto signatures until sponsors raise the per-signature price) A new version of the redistricting petition -- same initiative but different color paper -- will be issued this week. Signatures on that new version will be paying $2.25 a signature, the gatherers have been told. The price increase suggests that the redistricting initiative is still seriously short of signatures, and time is running short to get the measure qualified for the November ballot.

In contrast, the anti-same sex marriage initiative appears to have enough signatures, according to gatherers. Sponsors of that initiative have ordered a "final turn in" for tonight. Those sigs are worth $1.40 or $1.50 per signature. Initiatives on victims rights ($2) and alternative fuels ($1.90) continue to circulate.

DEPARTMENT OF MOON HOWLING: The Las Vegas Review & Journal takes a long look at one of the country's more important signature firms, National Voter Outreach and its CEO Rick Arnold. I've interviewed Arnold in his Carson City home, and found him to be one of the more thoughtful people in the petition trade, critical of its problems and clear-eyed about its limitations. This story is built heavily around criticism from the liberal/progressive Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, which is quick to lable signature gathering as corrupt (at least in cases where it opposes the cause in question). There is a "shocked, shocked" quality to this criticism. The signature gathering business has plenty of problem workers, many of them poorly trained folks who, for lifestyle reasons, have taken a job that usually pays them in cash. But BISC and other critics invariably propopse to criminalize the process of gathering signatures, as in Oklahoma. In supporting these restrictions, liberals are hurting themselves, by establishing precedents restricting political speech that can be used by their political opponents. And such restrictions don't stop direct democracy. They merely slow it down, adding to the costs (and thus the influence of interest groups) that progressives love to denounce. The more you regulate, the more firms like National Voter Outreach will benefit.

Given the last several years' experience, redistricting supporters should take this with a Mt. Wilson of salt, but California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez says he's working with Republicans on a package of constitutional reforms -- redistricting, a term limits extension, and a fundraising ban during certain parts of the legislative calendar -- that could go on the November ballot. Legislative leaders have had several chances in recent chances to support redistricting -- including last year, when they might have gained more support for a term limits extension if they had paired with redistricting -- but couldn't do it. A redistricting ballot initiative, backed by the governor and good government groups, is on the street gathering signatures, and Democrats have been criticizing it. One wonders if this isn't a trial balloon designed to hurt that measure.