GOVERNOR PERFORMS A SPECIAL FAVOR.

Byline: THOMAS D. ELIAS

IF there's one thing the sponsors of most ballot initiatives don't want, it's for voters to know that's what they are. If there's one thing voters need to know more than anything else in today's politics, it is which moneyed interests are paying to place ballot items before them.

Yes, the corporations, labor unions and other forces whose big money has come to dominate the California initiative movement use misleading committee names in every election year to mask their involvement.

But there's a simple way around that: Print the names of the biggest contributors behind each putative measure in big letters on the initiative petitions voters are asked to sign in shopping malls and outside stores. Doing this would at least allow voters to know who is trying to shape public policy in this state.

That was the precise aim of a bill that easily passed both houses of the state Legislature this year - only to be vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger - the same man who loudly promised while campaigning in 2003 that he would make California government the most open in America.

Why did Schwarzenegger veto the bill, known as SB 469 and sponsored by Democratic state Sen. Debra Bowen of Redondo Beach?

``This bill attacks the initiative process and makes it more difficult for the people of California to gather signatures and qualify measures for the ballot,'' said Schwarzenegger in a veto message that had many readers scratching their heads in puzzlement.

The governor did not explain how the bill would make gathering signatures harder. The legislation would not close off any venues for signature gathering. It would not prevent anyone who wants to sign from doing so.

But it would let voters know who is paying the petition circulator that's harrying them on their way in or out of a store. It would often provide a clue about the real stakes of a proposed initiative.

The actual meaning of Schwarzenegger's veto message is not that the bill would make matters more difficult for voters, as he said, but that it might makes things harder for him and his corporate backers.

Had the petitions for this fall's Propositions 74, 75, 76 and 77 listed the oil companies, developers, pharmaceutical firms, big-box stores and other companies that provided the approximately $20 million Schwarzenegger used to fund the petitions campaigns for them, those measures might not have made the ballot.

Of course, all the information SB 469 sought to put at the public fingertips already is available to anyone who takes the trouble to look for it. All anyone needs to do is check out the secretary of state's Web site. So Bowen's bill would not have forced anyone to reveal anything new, merely to display public information more prominently.

And that's important. Since almost no voters realize the information is available or know how to find it, providing it for them in a relevant document makes sense.

Or, as Bowen said after her bill was vetoed, ``The governor's belief that somehow 'everyday Californians' are better off when they can't find out who's paying for an initiative campaign when they're being asked to sign a petition to put something on the ballot is both wrong and ridiculous.''

But Schwarzenegger's action is at least consistent.

When it comes to the TV commercials pushing both sides of this fall's propositions, other ads tell voters whose ideas they are hearing. ``Paid for by No on 75, educators, firefighters, school employees, healthcare givers and labor organizations,'' is the tagline on the anti-75 messages. ``Paid for by Californians Against the Wrong Prescription - No on 79, sponsored by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and major funding provided by Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Pfizer Inc., GlaxoSmithKline and other companies'' makes it pretty clear drug companies oppose 79.

But Schwarzenegger's ads for his propositions all say merely ``Paid for by Gov. Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team.'' This says nothing about the real-estate, chemical, insurance, entertainment, retail or big agriculture interests that really provided the money.

In short, Schwarzenegger's veto was an act purely designed to help special interests. Quite a move for a politician whose mantra is all about driving special interests out of Sacramento.