Marty Wilson, a leading Sacramento political consultant who is a favorite of your blogger, managed the campaign in favor of Prop 10, the T. Boone Pickens-backed $5 billion general obligation bond to fund alternative fuels. Prop 10 lost badly, despite the fact that it had overwhelming financial support and an opposition with little funding.

Wilson, a good-natured sort, asks himself the following question: at Fox & Hounds Daily: “Marty, how the Hell did you lose the Proposition 10 campaign when you were funded and your opposition had no money?” To which I answer, “It was harder than you think.” The rest of the story is here. His explanation of why the measure went down -- the cost, the size of the state's budget crisis -- matches the political problems I discussed earlier this fall in the Scientific American.

There isn't much of a campaign against Prop 10, the California initiative, strongly backed by a company of oilman T. Boone Pickens, to sell $5 billion in general obligation bonds to subsidize alternative fuels, mainly through direct to buyer rebates on certain kinds of vehicles. I was assured for months that the No campaign would find money to launch ads, but that kind of money never materialized. In the meantime a nasty, personal fight has broken out over the measure. At the center is Anthony Rubenstein, a consultant who is working for No on 10. Capitol Weekly has details.

Here's my piece, just now posted on the Scientific American web site, that looks at the poltical prospects of Propositions 7 and 10, two initiatives on the November ballot in California.

Complaints about the initiative process often have little to do with the process and a lot to do with the content of the initiative in question. Democratic legislators who rail against the process end up sponsoring initiatives to fund pet causes. And Republicans -- particularly those in California -- often talk about the initiative as a sacred expression of the people's will (especially Prop 13, the ultimate holy sacrament). Except when it produces policies they don't like.

The latest example of this comes from Dave Cogdill, the new Republican leader in the California State Senate. This week Cogdill proposed to balance the budget by raiding three accounts set up by ballot initiative: the county commissions for children established by Prop 10; the mental health services funds set aside by Prop 63, and the transportation fund established by Prop 42.

On the natural, each of these proposals is worth considering. Ballot box budgeting has its problems, and in a budget crisis, everything ought to be on the table. But the hypocrisy is nauseating. If someone suggested suspending Prop. 13 property tax limits, Cogdill and Republicans would be denouncing the notion. Next, Democratic legislators, who have been no friends of the initiative, predictably will rise to the defense of the people's will. The wailing you hear is California crying for leadership.