Online 49er Logo
Inside Opinion:

 

VOL. VIII,  NO. 5 CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH 

SEPTEMBER 5, 2000

 

Daily 49er 
e-shop


CALENDAR


Search




Headliners

NEWS

OPINION

DIVERSIONS

SPORTS


ARCHIVES

CLASSIFIEDS CLICK HERE

  • Jobs
  • Housing
  • Announcements

UNIVERSITY MAGAZINE




ONLINE 49ER
QUESTIONS?

ADVERTISING?

CONTACT?

DAILY 49ER ALUMNI?

SUBSCRIBE? 


GIVE FEEDBACK


Editorial Staff

Wes Woods II
Editor in Chief

Andres Cardenas
Managing Editor

Christine Finley
News Editor

Christina L. Esparza
City Editor

Chris Lew
Diversions Editor

Marten Lewerth
Sports Editor

Henrietta Charles
News-Editorial Director

Raul Reis
News Operations Director

[opinion]
[ourview]

State Assembly blew it

The state Assembly had the chance to do the right thing and impose contribution restrictions on the scandal-plagued Insurance Commissioner's office, but blew it.

Senate Bill 953, introduced by Jackie Speier, D-San Francisco, would have set a $250 contribution limit on insurance companies under regulatory review and imposed fines if the law was violated. It passed the Senate, but the Assembly defeated the bill 34 to 27.

State legislators jockeyed for opportunities to reform the office, tainted by allegations of former Insurance Commissioner Chuck Quackenbush using the post to shake down insurers for donations to selected charities instead of levying heavy fines.

Quackenbush resigned in disgrace in June, ending a promising political  career. Sundry proposals for reform came from politicians and consumer advocates.

Reverting the insurance commissioner to a position appointed by the  governor is unpopular with the state's electorate. Campaign contribution limits, however, are always popular.

If there is any office that needs limits, it is the insurance  commissioner's. Unlike the legislature, which can see support flowing from myriad business and ideological groups, the insurance commissioner sees virtually all of its money coming from the very industry it is supposed to regulate.

Without any restrictions -- which is the case right now in California -- we will see more Quackenbush's who will use the position to coddle the  multi-billion-dollar insurance industry at the expense of protecting.

So, just why did our legislators drop the ball?

Simple. If SB 953 were passed, it would set a dangerous precedent. Contribution limits may go over so well with voters that they may demand more, maybe even for the legislators themselves. Oh, the horror!

The bill's opposition came primarily from Republicans, possibly still
bitter over the humiliating loss of comrade Quackenbush. Seven Democrats also voted against the bill, despite support from current and former Assembly Speakers Bob Hertzberg and Antonio Villa-raigosa. But the 27 assemblymen who voted for SB 953 were all Democrats.

Like many other acts of legislation that would have had a profound benefit for the 30 million ordinary folks living in California, SB 953 never made it out of the Capitol.

Soon after the bill's defeat, Speier threatened to take the contribution reform package before the voters as an initiative if the legislature does not pass the bill next time around. Pundits are speculating that once Speier is termed out of the Senate, she plans to run for Insurance Commissioner herself, and her reform efforts are merely window dressing.

There is always the possibility, but the policyholders of California should not have a bureaucracy that flouts them for Big Insurance and the almighty dollar.

 

[news]

[Opinion]

[diversions]

[Sports]


©2000 Daily Forty-Niner. All rights reserved.