LOW TURNOUT WILL BENEFIT DEEP POCKETS.

Byline: Jill Stewart 

Have you noticed how, the more money the union and corporate special interests spend to promote their candidate, bond measure or tax, the less interested and less aware of these issues we voters seem to be? Although record amounts are being spent in California to drag us out away from our plasma TVs and our favorite blogs, we, the electorate, are deeply uninvolved. We are stuck in our comfy chairs.

In struggles over ballot measures, governor and ``down ballot races,'' huge unions, multi-millionaire Indian tribes, oil companies and other fat cats will spend more than $400 million. Yet I expect turnout to be horrifically low.

Democrats are depressed by the Phil Angelides campaign, which was badly bungled. On the winning side, yes, Arnold raised record sums. But in victory he will probably fail to hit 50 percent, because, ala Davis and Bill Clinton, many voters plan to vote Green or other small parties.

Up and down the ballot, while spending records fall like rotten fruit, the 2006 effort has been to disinform. Badly needed infrastructure bond measures are on uncertain ground due to mass voter confusion.

And look at Proposition 87, to tax oil production. Foes and backers have made history, spending more than $100 million -- including $40 million from Steve Bing, the noted cad who publicly suggested in 2001 that he might not be the dad of the child carried by then-girlfriend, actress Elizabeth Hurley. (The child turned out to be Bing's, as the appalled and classy Hurley kept saying.) Bing, who inherited $600 million at age 18, is demonstrably out of touch with everyday life, yet pushes a tax that will probably lead to higher prices on small consumers.

My own fear is over the fact that roughly $500 million in extra oil taxes generated each year would be controlled by a ``California Energy Alternatives Program Authority,'' whose powerful board won't include one soul who has successfully produced alternative energy. It will include, however, an economist, a public health pro, a venture capitalist, an academic with a ``background'' in energy efficiency, a business school prof and a consumer advocate.

Translation? A bunch of political hacks appointed by whoever is governor.

Little wonder why voters will stay away Nov. 7, and why record monies spent will be inversely related to votes cast. I figure a cost of $52 per vote.

The sharp pollster Mark Baldassare, director of research at Public Policy Institute of California, tells me, ``What is going on is that a lot of money is spent on directing relatively few people to vote, and telling the rest of them to stay home.... And it works. This is no accident, that we are spending more money and getting less voters.''

Think of 2002's voter ``boycott,'' when 7.7 million of our 15 million voters participated, a new low. Seven million others didn't even register, including many Latinos, conservatives, renters and other subgroups that didn't see the point.

Of course, there's a huge point. Just 10 percent of California's 35.1 million residents chose winner Davis in 2002. In effect, he wasn't elected by the people, but by deep pockets. And boy did he know what side his bread was buttered on, leading to his ruin.

Low turnout also eased the way for an onslaught of ballot measures. Here's why: To qualify, an initiative must collect signatures of 5 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the previous election. The fewer people vote for governor this time, the fewer signatures needed, next time, to qualify initiatives.

Special interest groups want low turnouts for governor so they can qualify future ballot measures with ever-dwindling numbers of signatures. Pretty slick.

I don't mean to depress you -- merely to make you vote. But with voters now actively discouraged by the rich insiders who've hijacked California elections, I suggest that we copy Arizona.

As I've noted before, a delightful Nov. 7 Arizona ballot measure seeks to boost voter participation by awarding a random $1 million to a lucky voter from each primary and general election.

Think about it. The odds are better than winning Lotto.