The Battle Over CA Prop 5: Special Interests Overwhelming the Public Interest

Here is picture that sums up much that is wrong with American politics. Five governors of California, Democrats and Republicans, joining forces to oppose something that is indisputably in the public interest.

This is an image that could be repeated, with different faces, in region after region of our country, involving issue after issue. Public officials standing against the public good, with the disastrous results on display from Detroit to Wall Street. All suffering from the same destructive force: the power of entrenched special interests to cloud the vision of our leaders, causing them to thwart good sense, good legislation, and the will of the people.

                                                                                                                                                AP/Nick Ut

In today's version, we have Jerry Brown, Pete Wilson, Gray Davis, George Deukmejian, and Arnold Schwarzenegger coming together to oppose Prop 5, a common sense ballot initiative that seeks to effectively and intelligently tackle the chronic problems facing California's deeply flawed criminal justice system.

California's prisons are a budget-busting debacle. There are currently more than 170,000 inmates crammed into prisons designed to hold 100,000 people. Around 70,000 of these prisoners are nonviolent offenders, with over half of them incarcerated for a drug offense.

A large part of the problem is a parole system the New York Times recently called "perhaps the most counterproductive and ill-conceived" in the U.S.. California's recidivism rate is 70 percent -- twice the national average. This stems in no small measure from the state's insistence on treating paroled murderers the same way as paroled nonviolent drug offenders. They all spend 3-5 years on parole. This overburdens parole officers, who end up spending very little time with any of their charges -- violent or nonviolent (According to the Times, 80 percent of California parolees have fewer than two 15-minute meetings with their parole officer per month.) Wouldn't it make more sense to keep a closer watch on rapists and killers than on nonviolent drug offenders?

As a result of this dysfunctional system, prison costs have risen 50 percent since 2000, to over $10 billion a year -- close to 10% of the state's budget (and roughly the same amount California spends on higher education). It costs $46,000 a year to keep a nonviolent prisoner in the state behind bars. Is it any wonder California is gushing red ink?

Enter Prop 5, a ballot initiative that will reduce prison overcrowding, increase public safety, cut costs, expand drug treatment programs inside California's prisons, and start the state's first drug treatment program for at-risk youth.

Prop 5 is structured to build on the proven success of Prop 36, a law promoting drug treatment over incarceration for nonviolent drug offenders. It was approved by 61 percent of California voters in 2000, despite almost unanimous opposition from public officials. Since being enacted, Prop 36 has saved California taxpayers $2 billion -- and graduated 84,000 people who, according to studies, are far less likely to become repeat offenders.

"Prop 5 finally addresses the twin tragedy of crushing prison costs on society and the revolving trapdoor of incarceration that stems from locking up too many nonviolent offenders," filmmaker Gabriel London, who has documented the state of our prisons, told me.

Given all this, and the fact that a majority of the public favors low-cost treatment models over the high-cost incarceration model, passage of Prop 5 would seem like a no-brainer. Especially given its support from a wide-range of drug treatment professionals, good government advocates, and clearly-not-soft-on-crime law enforcement types such as former San Quentin warden Jeanne Woodford who, blogging on HuffPost, wrote of Prop 5:

Prop 5 may well be California's last chance to bring about a solution to the many, intertwined problems in our criminal justice system... Incarceration of non-serious non violent drug offenders does not improve public safety. Treatment and accountability do. Prop 5 provides treatment and accountability. It is accountability for the drug user, the prison system, treatment providers, probation departments and the courts.

Yet Prop 5 is struggling because of a very powerful special interest: the prison guards union. It has funneled $1.8 million into the campaign to derail Prop 5.

For the guards, prison overcrowding means more overtime pay. So the state's prison industrial complex has unleashed the full force of its financial power -- funding an array of ads that blatantly mischaracterize Prop 5. Truth has gone out the window, replaced by overheated claims that the initiative is a "drug dealer's bill of rights," "a get out of jail free card" for meth dealers, and a law that will allow parents to abuse their kids and escape punishment.

Goodbye reform, hello fear. The special interests are, once again, overwhelming the public interest.

And, sadly, many politicians, many on the receiving end of prison guard contributions, have fallen in line. As Margaret Dooley-Sammuli, deputy campaign manager for Yes On 5, puts it: "The prison guards hold the keys to the California statehouse, so it's not a surprise that those thinking of running for governor in 2010, like Jerry Brown, Diane Feinstein, and even Meg Whitman, have come out against Prop 5." (Here's Daniel Abrahamson, co-author of Prop 5, on his dealings with Jerry Brown.)

The truly disturbing thing about their opposition to Prop 5 is that not one of them -- nor any of the governors at today's photo op -- has stepped forward with an alternate solution to the undeniable criminal justice crisis California is facing. A crisis so pressing that, if Prop 5 doesn't pass, in all likelihood the federal courts will step in. On November 17, a three-judge panel will consider putting California's entire prison system under federal control -- a move that could require the state to spend an additional $8 billion to bring the system up to constitutional standards.

So to review: Prop 5 follows a successful model, will lessen over-crowding, will save a cash-strapped state billions, will reform a "counterproductive and ill-conceived" parole system, and will shift criminal justice dollars from incarceration to treatment -- an effective approach favored by a majority of the public. Yet our leaders are opposing it, without offering any alternatives.

The drug war continues to be an electrified third rail in American politics. And political money continues to be a roadblock to real reform.

Don't believe the hype. Don't allow a sensible solution to be drowned by a torrent of money.

Vote Yes on Prop 5.

If you are in the San Francisco area, I will be speaking at the Web 2.0 Summit on Friday, November 7th.

Follow Arianna Huffington on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ariannahuff

Comments

[TexasHorns]

REALITY - Prison solves nothing & freedom for 20% of convicts serving non-violent drug related crime leads to a SECOND OFFENSE COMMITTING VIOLENT CRIME.

Is there any evidence that convicted drug offenders can be rehabilitated - what percentage?

THE DILLEMA - "a fourth of those initially imprisoned for nonviolent crimes are sentenced for a second time for committing a violent offense. Whatever else it reflects, this pattern highlights the possibility that prison serves to transmit violent habits and values rather than to reduce them." Source: Craig Haney, Ph.D., and Philip Zimbardo, Ph.D., "The Past and Future of U.S. Prison Policy: Twenty-five Years After the Stanford Prison Experiment," American Psychologist, Vol. 53, No. 7 (July 1998), p. 721.

According to the US Justice Department,
STATE PRISON: 27.9% of drug offenders serving time for possession;
69.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 2.7% are in for "other."

FEDERAL PRISON: 5.3% of drug offenders serving time for possession;
91.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 3.3% are in for "other."

"17% of State and 18% of Federal prisoners committed their crime to obtain money for drugs."

Source: Mumola, Christopher J., and Karberg, Jennifer C., "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Oct. 2006) (NCJ213530), p. 1.

[ibsteve2u]

STATE PRISON: 69.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses
FEDERAL PRISON: 91.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses

How valid are those statistics, when states and arresting officers use arbitrary numbers linked to amounts in possession to decide whether to charge with "intent to distribute", or trafficking?

Anybody who buys a lot - and I can think of a good reason, like limiting the number of times they are exposed to danger, both physical and of arrest - so they don't have to buy again for awhile can be charged - incorrectly - with trafficking.

[avraamjack]

.
Do you know how many people illegal drugs kill every year?
.
Do you know how many people legal drugs kill every year?
.
I doubt it.
.

[returnofthejedi]

Don't have specifics, but i would be willing to bet alchohol and tobacco kill far more people than the drugs that are deemed illegal.

[donklinestiver]

Cocaine /amphetamines 5600 Narcotics 5400 (99% overdosage) Cigarettes 500,000 and Alcohol 250,000 guess who profits from those. Pot 0.

[Zofomofo]

It reflects our society deeming their initial behavior as a crime. So de-criminalize and problem solved.

[bereasonable0]

I think you make an excellent argument for legalization. If such a large percent of the prison population is for drug related offenses then our current policies are not working. Legalization removes the violent crime component (gang violence is related to trafficking turf wars ?). Then like alcohol and tobacco, the government gets to levy a tax on legal sales. Perhaps like all other wars, the war on drugs is just too profitable to those who supply the warriors.

[MSB]

Sorry.

I am a devout liberal. I am actually for the legalization of many drugs. I believe that many, many prisoners should be in hospitals (thank you Ronald Reagan), but I also believe Prop 5 is poorly written and is horrible for the citizen. I am absolutely against it. I think citizens should read about exactly who gets released. This isn't just guys caught smoking a joint. It can be dangerous criminals claiming that meth "made them do it."

I am for alternative treatment to addiction and non-violent incarceration, but the idea of just releasing a wide swath of offenders to save money is ridiculous, as is the notion that this is all the fault of prison guards. Our system needs to be reformed, but inciting the public to blame the guards' union is absurd. These folks just oversee the people that the citizens of California tell them to oversee through the legislature. They don't have any say over WHO goes to jail. They only see who is IN jail.

When is the last time you toured a prison? Most people have NO idea what the job of a guard is, nor do they know what the environment or oversight of a prison entails.

When there is a problem with prisons it is always blame the union, just like when there is a problem with education we blame the teachers' union. Maybe the folks that do the job actually know something about what they are talking about.

[GuyRC]

And the beer manufacturers, what do they know about prisons?

[SOLERSO68]

Thats a lie. a distortion. its not about violent crime or property crime, its about sale and possesion of drugs.thats all

[MSB]

What's a lie?

I'm not sure to what you are referring.

[Honest George]

Dear Ms Huffington,
I have been a union member most of my adult life. Both Teamsters and National Assoc. of Letter Carriers. Shame on the guards union.I hope all the people on the( Left Coast) JOKE- read this post by Ms Huffington. As far as the Left Coast comment I would like to explain I am a white liberal Democrat and proud of it. I have an Obama/Biden T shirt I wear and have two Obama/Biden signs. Please pass Prop. 5
Tom Boyle
Laurel,Md.

[ibsteve2u]

Seems to me that it is time for another Amendment to the Constitution to prohibit campaign donations from anybody but individuals to include a ceiling for the contribution amount with a linkage to - say - Social Security adjustments to account for inflation.

And the Amendment should address the "revolving door" between elected officials and industries they legislate on.

[ibsteve2u]

Actually, link the adjustment to the ceiling of the contribution to the income growth rate of the bottom four income quintiles of the U.S. population.

Might finally make the Republicans care about the economic conditions that affect the vast majority of us.

[LeftRight]

How about instead of that we make Corporations not be "people" anymore, AND eliminate ALL campaign contributions by making public financing of elections the ONLY way to run?!?!?!?!?

[adgilbert81]

Maybe California will finally start the learning process of not voting very bad actors into very important public offices...

[meisha]

Common sense? Look at the state of the country. People who "know better" are the ones who got us here. Common sense is what made us great. Lack of it is what's bringing us down.

[cheapslut]

The primary reason for these lifetime criminals, uh, polititions to oppose Prop 5 is to keep raking off more $$$ for their own pockets and their cronies coffers.

[BeefJerky]

The Proposition System is a terrible way to make laws. Most of these initiatives are badly written and backed by individuals or special interest groups who could care less about the average voter. It's not unusual to see a passed proposition end up in court battles and declared unconstitutional, as was California's Proposition 187, the Republican supported "screw the illegals" law.

Unfortunately, our representatives only care about their next elected office and the power and influence it brings to them.

[daddysboy]

The proposition system has flaws that need to be addressed, but it is actually one of the most powerful democratic tools that the public has and can be and has been a force for great good. The major problem is that the entrenched politicians can't keep their hands off of what is supposed to be the people's power. There are propositions that have been voted on by the people that the legislators then turned around and immediately nullified not because the rule was unconstitutional or unfunded or impossible to implement, but simply out of a shared disagreement such as the stance they have taken on California's proposition 5. That is NOT how representative government is supposed to work but many politicians don't get that because no one votes them OUT.

[TheSarge]

You said the magic word Illegal. If something is against the law then by gosh it IS against the law. Im a republican and have no issues with Immigration and neither does McCain. Some far right folks have called Juan McCain due to this. But there is a process that has to be followed. Everyone that comes into the country should be healthy(no communicable diseases) and we should make sure we are not allowing criminals in. Would you want a child molester or rapist here that no one knows about. Its just common sense.

[Zofomofo]

Who says it is illegal? God?
Think for yourself, the people who make up what is and isn't legal do.
Just because its a LAW doesn't in itself justify anything.
'Why' can never be "because it's a law." You need reasons.
What are yours?
Common sense = ?

[Paul Armentano - Huffpost Blogger]

Who’s Getting Rich Off Prohibition? Just Look Who Opposes Prop. 5

http://blog.norml.org/2008/10/30/whos-getting-rich-off-prohibition-just-look-who-opposes-prop-5/

You can learn a lot about the merits of a proposal by taking a good, hard look at who’s lobbying against it.

California’s powerful prison guards union has spent close to $2 million dollars to lobby against the passage of Prop. 5. After all, overcrowded prisons and more prison construction are a financial windfall for prison guards, even if they spell disaster for everyone else.

Prop. 5 would also reduce minor marijuana possession penalties from a misdemeanor (punishable by a $100 criminal fine with a criminal record) to a non-criminal infractio. Now who would be against that?

If you answered: the folks who make their living by possessing a monopoly on the sale of legal intoxicants, you’d be correct! The California Beer and Beverage Distributors have donated $100,000 to the ‘No on 5′ campaign.

So now that you know who’s against Prop. 5, why not examine who is lobbying for it. That list would include the California Nurses Association, California Society of Addiction Medicine, the California League of Women Voters, and the California Academy of Family Physicians.

In short, those who have dedicated their lives to helping others in need are backing Prop. 5, while those who have dedicated their careers to destroying people’s lives (or who promote a product that does) vehemently oppose it. You do the math.

[zizyphus]

Thank you, Paul. Will you please send a letter to the local paper in Hilo, Hawaii? We have Ballot Proposition 1 that would make cannabis the lowest enforcement priority.

California's Proposition 5 is a step in the right in direction. What putting people in jail for simple drug use does is maintain control of certain portion of the culture and classes. As you will note, the very wealthy do not do time for simple drug use, or lose their children as the poor do.

[Sassys]

Arnold should be backing this proposition not because it makes common sense (and it does) but because California is in deep financial trouble...at least that is what they claim, so this prop. would help their budget. Of course this prop wont help Arnolds personal budget but hey he needs the pay out to buy a new thong for next summer!!

[karebarron]

You should have been California's Governor Arianna. I almost always agree with your opinions.
Obama/Biden '08

[Puzes]

I am with you on that assessment! And did vote for her!

[leticia32]

HuffPost's Pick

I, too, agree with Arianna.. I am a California public school teacher with 5 grandkids in California schools. We are beyond "down to the bone". Unlike CA prison guards, teachers do not receive overtime. I average 50 hours a week, often more, and never get caught up and I am efficient. Put the money in early childhood education and the schools. Get those potential gangsters early, see that they get a good education and show them the possibilities to be positively successful. .By the time they are teens it is almost too late. It is heart breaking at my middle school to see where these kids are headed. Gangs in my community are run by men in prison. It is a badge of honor to have spent time in jail or prison. We've got to break this cycle and our present prison system is not going to do it, It perpetuates it and sucks up money needed in so money places. Thank you again, Arianna. Now there is one smart woman.

[daddysboy]

We can't afford to continue socialist experiments like the police-war on non-commercial drug users. We have more important and reasonable things to spend our tax money on than more prisons for working, contributing citizens. The original purpose of a prison was to temporarily remove persons from society that were in direct conflict with the general rights of others. The purpose of a mental institution was to house those persons that could never be returned to society due to a permanent anti-social condition. What we have is neither of these and more closely resembles something the former dictator of Iraq would have thought was a good idea. The basic problem in California and other places in America is far worse than this proposition (5) could ever hint at; the problem is that the official government has become fascist and is directly profiting from the oppression and suffering of the public.

[SOLERSO68]

california prison gaurd union biggest supporter. police and "big jail" colluding to keep the crime problem going for job security!!!. private jails lobby for minimum sentencing If you live in ca vote YES on prop 5

[sbvpav]

this is nothing new, since the original 3 strikes initiative passed, the prison guard union has, for all practical purposes, dictated the course of correctional matters, from length of sentences, taking decisions away from judges to continuing incarceration in the state of california. they have played their winning hand with fear tactics and a large revenue pool.

[Edtom]

Don't start whinning about the states budget deficet Arnold, you have the opportunity to save the taxpayers tons of cash with Prop 5; terminate the current system. "I'll be bock" to check the results; "Asta La Viesta Baby"!

[datone]

Do you want top notch health care? Go to jail.

The taxpayers of this state are up to here with all the budget busters that are related to the jailed population. Meals should be minimal; exercise equipment eliminated much the same as in all of the state's high schools and beds should be concrete slabs. The guards' union should have its wings clipped and salaries should be commensurate with experience. That Sheriff in Arizona has the right idea in running the prison system. Why not ship our inmates over there and pay him for their maintenance - it would save CA bundles of cash and may provide employment in an isolated area of Arizona.

[coastalcarla]

I work full time and pay through the nose for my medical insurance, and still end up paying a fortune when I actually need to use it. Meanwhile, I could be sitting in the emergency room on any given day and watch prisoners from the local prison get escorted in before everyone else, to get their medical treatment absolutely free to them - and charged to us. It's infuriating.

[daddysboy]

The Maricopa county sheriff you refer to has been and still is involved in multiple human-rights litigations costing the tax-payers millions of dollars already. What he has done is turned the idea of social reform (prisons are part of this social contract) into a farce and made himself the big super-star of backward, redneck values that can still get him elected as a county official for the time being. When you get popular by disrespecting others and using hate as a tool to focus attention, it is only a matter of time before that hate is no longer under your control. We have witnessed that in the mccain campaign; it is very appropriate that another long-term Arizona official's time is nearly up. We don't need even more tragic conditions inside prisons, what we need is to re-prioritize spending on what's necessary to increase the SAFETY of all Americans and lesson the need for prisons altogether.

[Malakkar]

datone:

Meals are minimal. Most exercise equipment is already gone. The cost per prisoner is mostly due to staff salaries, good luck reforming that, then medical costs, which if you're going to lock them up, you are constitutionally obligated to provide (since they cannot provide for themselves).

The idea that health care in prison is top notch is ludicrous. A prisoner dies every 7 days in a California prison due to inadequate care, that's why the federal government is considering taking over the California Prison system.

Perhaps a little fact checking would help you out a little bit - you send the geriatric prisoners to Arizona, your health care costs will skyrocket even more.

It looks like Yes on Prop 5 will save over 10.5 billion (8 fed, 2.5 in capital outlay)... why isn't this a landslide?

[oceanbreeze]

I know it is frustrating that prisons cost us a lot of money, but taking it out on the inmates is misplaced.

According to all statistics and studies ever conducted on the topic, the biggest lobbyists in the state are by far the prison guards union. Think about how misguided this is. One state, with so many different types of industries (high-tech, agricultural, manufacturing, insurance/finance, ...), public sector (transp., nursing, medicare, education/teachers, .. policing, firefighters, regulatory agencies of various kinds ...) ... I can go on and on for pages ... the representation and influence of just one of them is by far the biggest of all others. And it's no other than the prison guards union.

Also, I am not sure where you got the idea that healthcare in CA prisons is top notch. There have been really serious problems requiring intervention by judges and with serious mandates. If you followed the news a short while back, the head of corrections was fired, there was a restructuring at the state level (with not much to show for, yet), and there is a very real possibility that the whole system might be taken over by the feds.

I am not entirely sure, but shipping prisoners to another state is against the law, save for emergencies. And how long can this be done? What do you envision here -- that CA keeps generating prisoners and fills up the other states' jails?