When he first campaigned for governor, Schwarzenegger told voters that he would remain independent and not raise money from special interests. Within weeks, he narrowed his definition of special interests to only include labor unions and Indian tribes. Recently, when faced with throngs of teachers, nurses, and other unionized workers protesting his actions, the Governor dismissed them and said "when the special interests push me around, I will push back.''

The Democrats counter that it is the corporate world that is the real special interest. "For someone who promised voters he didn't need to raise money, the governor, in lockstep with the corporate backers of his initiatives, has gone to incredible lengths to eliminate the will of the people to limit campaign spending," charges Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez.

Both sides are right. Both businesses and labor unions represent specific interests. But, rather than chasing some utopian idea of eliminating these interests, we should focus on how to balance the debate in order to wind up with state policy that benefits the public interest.

Most of us have feet in both camps. Nonunion employees benefit when unions promote workers' interests within the halls of government. People who don't work at all, whether they are students or retirees have a stake in labor being successful too. If wages and benefits become too meager for people to make a living, then consumers don't have money to spend and the entire state's economy falters.

Likewise, some 56% of California households are invested in the stock market as part of their retirement planning, savings for a child's college education, or rainy day funds. Even those of us who aren't part owners of businesses have a stake in their success - if businesses fail it means slowdown in the economy, a decline in state revenues, and fewer jobs.

The key is to find the right balance between business and labor while also looking out for other interests like consumers, families, the environment, and overall quality of life. That's the job we place in the hands of our elected leaders. But in order for them to find the public interest among all the competing private interests, elected officials need information from all sides. More fundamentally, voters need balanced information from all interests when they walk into the voting both.

This balance is lacking in California politics right now. In the 2004 election cycle, labor interests gave just 5.73% of the total contributions given to California candidates. The financial, insurance, and real estate sector alone topped that, let alone all the other corporate interests. In terms of giving to political parties, over the course of three election cycles, business interests gave $29 million compared to labor's $8 million.

While we all have a stake in ensuring that business interests are heard in Sacramento, we all lose when their voice is so overwhelming. The best solution would be to do what the federal government did nearly 100 years ago - ban business interests from making political contributions to federal candidates from their corporate treasuries. No one would argue that corporate voices are muzzled in Washington, D.C.

Rather, business interests show their support for federal candidates through the individual contributions from their executives and shareholders. This expression of individual support for the corporate agenda more accurately represents the level of public support for business when weighed against other competing interests.

Labor unions are already funded by individual contributions from the worker to the union. Moreover, any worker who doesn't want to support a union's political agenda can ask for the political portion of their dues to be returned. That's something that consumers can't do when they buy a product or service from a corporation. Putting business interests on the same footing as other interests would be a good start toward restoring balance in California's democracy.