This should come as a surprise to absolutely no one. For months the California Republican Party has been paying professional petition gatherers to get enough signatures to put up a ballot initiative to repeal AB 32, California's climate change legislation passed in 2006. At the eleventh hour, they succeeded.

Now that they've succeeded, huge contributions are flowing into California to make sure the measure passes. In the name of "corporate speech", Tesoro has contributed $500,000, Occidental Petroleum $300,000 and Valero Energy has contributed $1,000,000.

Those are the ones we know about. Then there's the "Adam Smith Foundation."

The Adam Smith Foundation is a Missouri 501(c)(4) organization. It was organized in 2007. The Board of Directors is a fairly unknown bunch: Kurt Killen, William Clark Hardin IV, and John Elliott.

John Elliott is a mid-level player and associate of former Missouri Governor Matt Blunt. Matt Blunt is the son of Rep. Roy Blunt, who is closely linked to Jack Abramoff, Tom Delay, and the rest of the Republican graft gang. Were it not for the Abramoff connection, Roy Blunt would be sitting in John Boehner's minority leader seat today.

William Clark Hardin IV is another director. You can read more about him here.

And then there's Kurt Killen. He's the one who is most interesting to me. Kurt Killen served in 2003-2004 as an officer of the Missouri Republican Party. Mainstream, straight up Republican who loves Boy Scouts, libraries and...Rep. Sam Graves, at least enough to donate to him. In fact, Graves is the only candidate I see any donations going to from Killen in 2008-2010. Sam Graves is an interesting fellow. He also has ties back to Abramoff and his Gang of College Republicans. Major donors include the Busch family, Tony Rudy (the convicted Abramoff crony), and Sheldon Adelson. Oh, and Kurt Killen has been a member of the Citizens Club for Growth since 2004.

In 2010, Sam Graves has received four times as much in campaign contributions from corporate PACs as he has from individual donors. But the donor who caught my eye is KochPAC.

To review, we have a 501(c)(4) organization incorporated in Missouri. Its stated purpose is to "promote conservative principles and individual liberties in Missouri." (2008 990 filing) On December 31, 2008, its net assets were $5,300 and 2008 contributions were $30,000. In April, 2010 this same organization cut a check for $498,000.00 to fight a California Ballot Initiative.

One of the directors is a member of the Club for Growth and other directors have ties back to the Missouri Blunt machine, Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and KochPAC.

Who do YOU think wrote the check? Here are your choices:

1. Club for Growth
2. Koch Industries
3. Citizens United
4. All of the above

And even more ties that bind...here.

California Gov. ArnoldSchwarzenegger announced Wednesday night that he will veto legislation allowingsame-sex couples to marry.The announcement,made through his press secretary, Margita Thompson, said that the bill is inconflict with Proposition 22 a ballot initiative passed in 2000 to preventCalifornia from recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere...

by Jamie Court, President, Consumer Watchdog

During my two decades battling in California's ballot initiative process never before have large corporations been poised to gain so much so cleverly as in next Tuesday's election.

Industries have long tried to lard ballots with outright power grabs and voters have sent them packing. What Tuesday's ballot represents is new stealth strikes by corporations going at it alone for discrete rights and privileges that legislatures, courts and voters have denied them before.

These new "smart initiatives" cloak their corporate sponsors and target a single change to their business model, at the expense of the general public, so they don't risk incurring the collateral damage of hurting another special interest with the money to fight back. If the smart initiative strategy succeeds, spending tens of millions of dollars on deceptive television advertising could be enough to buy public policy in California. You can bet companies across America will be watching closely to see what happens.

Propositions 16 and 17 are the model for the smart initiatives. Pacific Gas and Electric has spent more than $40 million on Proposition 16 to create a nearly insurmountable two-thirds vote hurdle before a municipality can create a public utility to challenge the company. Listening to the advertising PG&E is buying, the average voter would think the issue is taxpayer waste, preserving local police departments and taxpayers' right to vote, not a big utility wanting to stifle competition through a political power play.

You need to have strong eyesight or powerful glasses to read about PG&E's funding in the fine print of the disclosure at the end of the television advertisement. Since there's not sufficient moneyed opposition to the proposal to run advertising against Proposition 16, PG&E is able to create its own narrative. The cutbacks in newspaper, television and radio newsrooms over the last few years have created even less chance that honest reporting can hold the sponsor of Prop 16 accountable for its true motives.

Prop 17 is an almost identical case. One insurance company, Mercury Insurance, has spent $15 million to allow it to raise or lower rates based on a factor that voters ruled illegal in 1988: whether or not you had insurance previously. Courts and regulators have told the company 'no' repeatedly, but hidden behind a paper tiger coalition of nice sound groups, which largely only exist around election time, the insurance company is going to voters under the pretense of offering "discounts" for continuous coverage. Every major editorial board in the state has weighed in against Proposition 17 under the grounds it's deceptive, hurts those who don't drive during domestic military service and will raise rates for those least able to afford it. A group of consumer advocates, including myself, have raised about $1 million for television advertising to warn the public an insurance company is behind Prop 17. All we can really say in the 15 second television ads we can afford is this: when has an insurance company spent millions of dollars on a ballot measure to save you money? Will it be enough?

Corporate corruption of the ballot initiative process is nothing new, but what is unique in this primary is companies taking the offensive and exploiting the demise of a vital free media sector to buy all the paid media they need to overcome the few opinion leaders that help the public see past their advertising. The Federal Communications Commission once had a "Fairness Doctrine," which required equal time for both sides on electoral issues, regardless of who paid for advertising, but it fell prey to legal and lobbyist attacks. Now we have conditions where a powerful corporation with a story to tell may be able buy its own laws from an unsuspecting public.

Most initiative battles come down to finger pointing. The details of ballot initiatives are usually way beyond the public's attention span, so what matters in the end is who stands on which side of an issue. Consumer groups vs. insurance companies. Cops vs. marijuana dispensaries. The governor vs. public employee unions. Voters will have a hard time knowing whose interests are being served by the key ballot measures Tuesday.

More than six out of 10 ballot initiatives fail because voters are rightly suspicious of proponents and their snake oil. Getting a "no" vote is a lot easier than winning a "yes." Until now, the real power of an influential interest group rested in its ability to frighten voters and defeat populist ballot initiatives that threatened business as usual. The pro-active smart initiatives on Tuesday's ballot will have their own policy ramifications but they are also trial balloons for a new wave of corporate comeuppance. Let's hope voters again prove that they are smarter than corporations think they are.

The Orstrahyun: Murdoch warns Aussies about becoming too "anti-American (does he really mean anti-Bush?) Pretty amazing stuff, and stunningly hypocritcal, even for Rupert.

earthfamilyalpha: Only after the last creature has been consumed, will it dawn on ill-informed skeptics that you can't eat money

Weazl's Revenge: Nothing to see here? Not for our inept press corpse. Not much about this, either...but they will tell you all about this

Shakespeare's Sister: "Go to a proper University"

Boregasm: Epilogue on the meddlesome millionaire, Howie Rich, who financed and promoted wingnut ballot initiatives in 14 states. A Crook?...probably. A Liar?...fo' sho'

Crazy Little Thing Called Blog: Hitchins Hearts Borat

On Friday, September 22, 2006 on PBS (check local listings for times), NOW will be covering items of critical importance to the upcoming elections. In the voting booth this fall, voters in states across the country will find ballot initiatives with titles like "Taxpayers' Bill of Rights" and "SOS - Stop Over Spending."

The aim is to slash state spending, including deep cuts in health care, education, and other social services. But are these local initiatives really "home" grown? NOW investigates how one wealthy New Yorker is secretly providing major funding for these and other ballot measures way outside his neighborhood, in states across the country. NOW also takes a look at the questionable tactics used to put these issues on your ballot.

Starting this Friday, the NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will feature a state-by-state tool that will allow users to see the ballot initiatives they'll be facing in November and check how their states score on a campaign finance report card.