The current dilemma with the California state budget demonstrates how broken Sacramento has become.

Humorist P.J. O’Rourke could have been describing California politics when he said “giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.”

One side argues the only way out of the current impasse is to raise taxes and the other side argues we need to cut services. Neither side is arguing the system itself has to be fixed, and regardless of the outcome of the budget crisis, we are sure to be in the same position next year.

Over the last two generations California budget went from an easily manageable $4 billion to more than $140 billion. According to the California Department of Finance, the California consumer price index grew from $31 to over $200 while population has more than doubled during the last 40 years.

History has shown the raise of taxes option will not result in better or more services for the taxpayer or even a reduction in future budget impasses. Budget cuts have traditionally meant cuts in services the average taxpayer will miss the most. Our politicians in California have figured out if they cut services, they need to ensure the taxpayer feels maximum pain so they will be less willing to make future cuts.

The issue in Sacramento is the average taxpayer is no longer the constituent of our elected representatives. They serve the money interests who do much more to ensure they stay in power than simply voting. The money interests donate a few thousand dollars to politicians and receive millions of dollars in benefits for their investment.

For mere pennies on the dollar, campaign contributors have discovered they can divvy up the bountiful spoils of California government. The campaign finance reform to date has resulted in not changing that our political leaders can be bought, but ensuring they can be bought for cheap.

This isn’t necessarily saying that politicians are crooks and don’t care about the future of the state. The problem is the system that gives incredible power to money in order to ensure they stay in power. Remove the power of the purse, and our elected officials will not have the incentive to cater to the money interests.

Justice Brandeis dissented in 1923 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann wrote, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory – and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.”

In California we have tried being a laboratory for term limits, hoping that would reduce the power of the incumbent. Reality is, it has increased the power of the political party and the lobbyist. We need to try other experiments.

In Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina and Vermont they are experimenting with Clean Elections Campaign. The reforms allow politicians to collect five-dollar donations from small donors, and when they receive enough of these small donations they are eligible for public financing of their campaign. They voluntarily accept the Clean Election Campaign restrictions and in return they get a Clean label on the ballot by their name.

In Arizona’s most recent statewide election, seven out of nine statewide offices were Clean candidates, with only two candidates winning through the more traditional money-intense method.

We need to look into the Clean Election Campaign alternative. The two big political parties are sure to oppose reform. They like money being the dominating factor in elections, keeping out any alternatives other than the two parties.

Dan King can be reached at [email protected]