WINNERS BETTER BE WARY BIG-SPENDING UNIONS GAINED POWER, BUT HUBRIS WOULD BE DANGEROUS.

Byline: Harrison Sheppard Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger framed his special-election government-reform agenda partly as an attack against the power of special interests in Sacramento, especially the unions.

But after the unions successfully fought back and handed the governor a stinging defeat of all his ballot measures, political analysts say the governor's special election might simply have made special interests even more powerful.

And when state government gears up again in January - with the return of the legislative session, the release of the governor's proposed 2006-07 budget and his State of the State speech - those special interests are expected to leverage their increased influence.

``There's no question (the unions) solidified their power,'' said government watchdog Robert Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies.

``This is the first time the governor has lost a ballot-measure election. And he lost it big-time. I think they enhanced their muscle. They may have veto power over a lot of legislation.''

Spending exceeded $250 million in the campaign, with the biggest donations coming from unions, which spent at least $100 million - more than half from the California Teachers Association.

Schwarzenegger and his allies, relying on traditional Republican big- business donors, spent about $50 million. The pharmaceutical industry spent about $80 million to support Proposition 78 and defeat Proposition 79.

Successfully fighting off the governor's effort to make it harder for teachers to gain tenure, the teachers union now is expected to ratchet up efforts to push Schwarzenegger to restore education funding to the state budget.

The group has long argued that Schwarzenegger failed to restore full funding for education after striking an agreement with the teachers to let him borrow school funds to balance the budget.

Organized labor - which fought off a Schwarzenegger measure that would have made it harder for unions to use members' dues for political campaigns - also is expected to join together to block Schwarzenegger's effort to reform the state pension system, as well as potentially get a measure on the ballot to restrict corporations' ability to make political contributions without shareholder approval.

They could also try again to get a minimum wage increase after Schwarzenegger vetoed one this year.

The California Nurses Association - which emerged as a power player in the special election when it was one of the first groups to publicly criticize Schwarzenegger's efforts - will be pushing for a few reform proposals of its own.

The nurses, angry at Schwarzenegger for efforts to change the nurse-staffing ratio, were not big spenders during the campaign but were persistent and creative in their attacks on the governor, following him even to out-of-state events with picket signs and fly-over banners.

While administration officials said the move was not related to the governor's election loss - and the nurses' role in it - just a few days afterward, the administration dropped its court challenge aimed at overturning the nurse-patient ratio.

The nurses say they now are looking to go after their main political opposition - big health-care companies and hospitals - with proposals for campaign-finance reform, universal health care and closing corporate tax loopholes.

``We said pretty clearly since the election that California voters sent a very strong signal that they're not interested in bogus reforms,'' said CNA spokesman Chuck Idelson.

``What is needed now are genuine reforms that address the real problems that face Californians, including the corruption of our political system by wealthy corporations, the health-care crisis and the inequity of our budget, in which so much of the burden falls on low- and middle-income taxpayers.''

Other union groups are also looking at another strike against corporations - a proposed ballot measure that would require companies to obtain prior shareholder approval before spending money on political activities.

The initiative would be a retaliatory countermeasure to Proposition 75, which would have required unions to get prior consent from every member before spending money for political purposes.

For his part, Schwarzenegger now faces growing pressure to portray himself as more moderate and centrist to win back a disenchanted electorate and buoy his sagging approval ratings.

He also faces a delicate balancing act between the newly empowered unions and the business interests - particularly corporate chief executives and developers - that were big contributors to his ballot efforts.

The biggest contributors to Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team were William Robinson, retired founder of the DHL delivery services, who gave $2.25 million; Stockton developer Alex Spanos, $1.5 million; and Univision chief executive Jerold Perenchio, $1.5 million.

Schwarzenegger has been closely allied with the California Chamber of Commerce and big-business interests from the beginning of his administration.

The chamber led the $12 million signature-gathering effort to get Schwarzenegger's measures on the ballot, and chamber President Allan Zaremberg was among business leaders who traveled with the governor on his China trade mission last week.

The group, which has had limited success getting its bills through the Democratic Legislature, has not yet formalized its agenda for next year but is expected to continue pushing pro-job measures.

``As is always the case with the chamber, we'll be focused on policies and an agenda that helps create jobs and keep California's economy on the right track,'' chamber spokeswoman Sara Lee said.

But political analysts note that all special interests - even those that were successful in the special election - have to be careful in pushing too blatantly for an agenda that benefits only their group.

``I think they have to be very careful about it looking like a quid pro quo,'' said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at California State University, Sacramento.

``And all of the politicians know that, because you have a mighty angry electorate out there. Whatever is done needs to pass the smell test. I think they have to be very careful - and not gloat.''

Harrison Sheppard, [phone]

harrison.sheppard(at)dailynews.com

DEEP-POCKET DONORS

More than $250 million was spent in the special-election campaign. Here are some of the biggest donors:

Contributors to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team:

--Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger: $4.25 million

--William Robinson: $2.25 million

--Jerold Perenchio: $1.5 million

--Alex Spanos: $1.5 million

--Californians for Schwarzenegger 2006: $1 million

--Wayne Hughes: $1 million

--Boone Pickens: $500,000

--T. Gary Rogers: $500,000

Contributors to The Alliance for a Better California:

--California Teachers Association: $17 million (plus $33 million to other committees)

--California State Council of Service Employees Issues Committee: $5.4 million

--Service Employees International Union Local 1000: $1.6 million

--California Correctional Peace Officers Association: $4.7 million

--California Federation of Teachers: $700,000

--American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees: $500,000

Contributors to the pharmaceutical industry's Yes on 78 and No on 79 campaign:

--Abbott Laboratories: $4.5 million

--Amgen: $4.5 million

--AstraZeneca: $4.5 million

--Aventis: $4.5 million

--Bristol-Meyers Squibb: $4.5 million

--Eli Lilly: $4.5 million

--Novartis: $4.5 million

--Wyeth: $4.5 million

--GlaxoSmithKlein: $10 million

--Johnson & Johnson: $10 million

--Merck: $10 million

--Pfizer: $10 million

Source: Secretary of State's Office

CAPTION(S):

box

Box:

DEEP-POCKET DONORS (see text)