A smaller plurality of voters also concur with the view that “followers of the Mormon Church are exerting too much influence on the state’s political process by underwriting an estimated 40 percent of the Yes on Proposition 8’s campaign contributions.” Statewide 40% of voters agrees with this view, 33% disagree and 27% have no opinion.

This poll was taken before the No-On-8 campaign’s latest attack, a press release about a “Secret Million-Dollar Mormon Donor to Prop 8” was picked up major news outlets, so that 40% is probably even higher by now.  We take issue with this singling out of a mysterious “Secret Million Dollar Mormon donor.”  Replace the word “Mormon” with “Jewish” or “Muslim” or “African-American” or “Chinese.”  How does that headline sounds to you now?

This “mysterious donor” tactic is the coup de grace of No-On-8s attempt to paint Barack Obama the entire Mormon church as something people should be afraid of, as some kind of “other.”  Boo hiss.

Ironically, the far-right so-called “Christians” are the ones who made Mormon bashing acceptable during the Republican primaries.  Remember Mike Huckabee’s horrendous slur against Mitt Romney?  The No-On-8 campaign’s willingness to pick up where the far-right left off is shameful.

Also, the No-On-8s outrage over the $1 million single donor is as cynical and phony as it gets.  When talking ballot props, it is absurd to single out one donor or a group of “followers of the Mormon Church” as possibly “exerting too much influence on the state’s political process.”  A single donor giving $1 million?  Hundreds or even thousands of Mormons giving 40% to the campaign?  That’s nothing.  Almost every measure on the ballot is significantly funded by a single individual or well-funded organization:

• The Humane Society gave $1.5 million for Prop. 2 (20% of total)
• San Diego-based publisher James Hollman gave $1.5 million for Prop. 4 (20% of total)
  
• Billionaire activist and philanthropist George Soros and lobbyist Bob Wilson each gave $1.4 million for Prop. 5 (40% of total)
• Billionaire tech mogul and accused drug trafficker spent $1 million on Prop 6 and $4.8 million on Prop. 9. (62% of Prop. 6 total and almost 100% of Prop. 9 total)
• Arizona billionaire Peter Sperling spent $9 million on Prop. 7 (almost 90% of total).

• T. Boone Pickens Clean Energy Sales Corp, who stands to profit from Prop. 10 spent $15 million on the measure. (88% of total).

If 40% of Californians are concerned about Mormons “exerting control over our political process,”, they should be completely freaked out by the Humane Society, the eccentric billionaires with axes to grind, and the natural gas tycoon whose ballot measure is motivated entirely by self-interest.

The problem here isn’t who gave what to which measure. The problem here is with the entire ballot proposition system, which instead of preventing “special interest” influence in the legislature by taking the matter directly to voters, allows for billionaires and well-funded organizations to completely dominate the process, no matter what the issue.   More on that after Tuesday.

Right now, the message to our fellow No-On-8ers is this:  There’s two days left. The way to win this thing is to work with undecided voters, stick to the issues, and play it clean.  Gaining civil rights for one group by making people afraid of another group is not the California way.

The No-On-5 campaign uses the “$50,000 worth of meth” line because it sounds scarier than the actual language of Prop. 5.  Prop. 5 says that anyone convicted of selling “less than one kilogram” of methamphetamine” will have parole reduced to six months from three years. The No-On-5 campaign arrives at the $50,000 figure by estimating the street value of one kilogram of methamphetamine.

This “less than one kilogram” thing is not something that the Prop. 5 drafters came up with out of nowhere, it is actually rooted in long-standing California law.  Under The California Health and Safety Code, people convicted of selling less than a kilo of meth are sentenced to a minimum of 2 years in prison.  People convicted selling more than kilo of meth face a minimum of 5 years in prison. (Cal. H&S 11370.4(b)(4)).

Law enforcement officials clearly believe that those caught selling more than a kilo of meth are bigger fish in the drug dealing world than those caught with less than a kilo. Those caught with less than a kilo are hardly kingpins, they are far more likely to be addicts who sell drugs to support their habit.

Also, no matter what the weight, Prop.5 does not allow the six month parole option to anyone convicted of selling drugs to a minor. Nor does Prop.5 eliminate sections of the Health and Safety Code which require harsher sentences for people who are not only caught selling drugs, but are also in possession of a firearm or more then $100,000 in cash.  These offenders would not be eligible for six month parole. (Cal H&S 11370.2 et seq.)

Now you may wonder why we’re letting so many prisoners out on parole in the first place?  Glad you asked.  We here at Johnny California read this super-long report from the University of California, Irvine and we had it all boiled down to some easy to understand facts.  But then the New York Times summarized the report last Friday.  The Sentencing Law and Policy blog did a good job of excerpting The New York Times article, and we’ve excerpted their excerpt:

According to a new federally backed study conducted at the University of California, Irvine, the state’s corrections costs have grown by about 50 percent in less than a decade and now account for about 10 percent of state spending — nearly the same amount as higher education. The costs could rise substantially given that a federal lawsuit may require the state to spend $8 billion to bring the prison system’s woefully inadequate medical services up to constitutional standards.

The state also has perhaps the most counterproductive and ill-conceived parole system in the United States.  More people are sent to prison in California by parole officers than by the courts. In addition, about 66 percent of California’s parolees land back in prison after three years, compared with about 40 percent nationally.  Four in 10 are sent back for technical violations like missed appointments or failed drug tests.

State lawmakers, some of whom are fearful of being seen as soft on crime, have failed to make perfectly reasonable sentencing modifications and other changes that the prisons desperately need.  Unless they muster some courage soon, Californians will find themselves swamped by prison costs and unable to afford just about anything else.

We’d like to add one fact from The U.C. Irvine Report:  66% of parolees have have substance abuse histories. Few receive any drug treatment while in prison, parolees invariably fail the tests and return to prison for short periods of time, still not receiving any treatment.

One of those “perfectly reasonable sentencing modifications and other changes that the prisons desperately need” is exactly what Prop. 5 proposes, treatment for non-violent parolees instead of re-criminalizing their addiction.

Prop. 5 also proposes diversion for addicts before they even get to prison.  Read about that here.