Fabian Nunez $4 Million - What it Could Have Bought

cross-posted (0.00 / 0)

http://www.mydd.com/...

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 19:53:14 PM UTC

who voted for public art? (0.00 / 0)

come on, fess up.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 22:35:45 PM UTC

OK, give me a hint (0.00 / 0)

Does your first name have three letters, begin with an 'a' and end with a 't'?

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 00:22:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I put combo (0.00 / 0)

I'm torn between 58-county and congressional. you make good cases for both.

do we know what Fabian intends to actually use it for? can you say Mayoral race?

---

by: Todd Beeton @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 22:57:16 PM UTC

probably TV ads (0.00 / 0)

Think the last LA Parks Bond.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Thu Nov 30, 2006 at 23:47:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now, the real story ... (5.00 / 2)

The Speaker has raised more than $20 million over the past two election cycles.

Most of that money has been plowed back into the California Democratic Party and the very activities you list in your posting. So, in fact, the Speaker has raised money to do all those things -- more than any other elected official in the state.

It's also important to note that the Speaker raised more money than any other elected official for the Angelides campaign, and appeared at more events with him than anyone else on the ballot.

As you may know, Prop 34 prevents existing committees for termed-out members (such as the Speaker) for raising monies into their existing accounts. Many termed-out members then form new accounts for another office, and raise money into that account.

Rather than, say, set up an account for Nunez for the Board of Equalization, the party simply put the money into the Speaker's existing account.

P.S. -- It would be helpful, in the future, if you want clarification, to call the Speaker's office instead of attacking it for not providing information.

---

by: Steven Maviglio @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 00:03:38 AM UTC

call the Speaker's office (3.00 / 2)

I dealt with the main thrust of your comment at mydd, but what I want to know is why anyone would ever call the Speaker's office if they were trying to start a dialogue about reforming the CPD?

If Speaker Nunez wanted to help the grassroots reform the broken CDP, then he would have already returned the check. Why hasn't he done that? What rationalization is there for the money going to Nunez being the most effective use? Why did Nunez get more money than GOTV in a historic Democratic year?

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 00:10:43 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Huh? (0.00 / 0)

I can understand the remark "why anyone would ever call the Speaker's office if they were trying to start a dialogue about reforming the CPD," but why bash Fabian?

It's not his fault he's raised million for the Party. Wait, it is. Damn him! Fabian, stop rasing money for the party. You must stop for the sake of "reforming the CDP."

There, that ought to work. Now there will plenty of time to reform the party since we just discouraged this dude from raising so much cash to keep other Dens in office.

---

by: vladbierko @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 00:33:40 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

When did I bash Fabian? (0.00 / 0)

I bashed the CDP for wasting money on Nunez, but I didn't bash Nunez (if you want, I could, easy as 1, 2, and 3).

It is good for Fabian to raise money for our Party, it sucks that our Party is wasting money on Nunez and did so in a historic Democratic year.

But nice first comment, too bad you weren't here during the cycle, we could have used your wit against Republicans like Doolittle who won by a slim margin while the CDP was stockpiling money for the Speaker.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 01:38:13 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

My take on it... (8.00 / 1)

I don't blame Nunez for taking the money.  And maybe we should all call his office and give him our suggestions about how we think that money can best be spent.  In some sense, he is holding it in trust for all of us, since we are all interested in what is best for the Party.

As has been said, what frustrates me is the priorities of the CDP, especially when you look at these numbers.  Now maybe there is more to it than that, and there could be more context to those numbers, but here is my sad story:

I am a member of the Democratic Party of Contra Costa County.  They came to us barely a MONTH before the election wanting to help us set up a GOTV effort in Richmond, a very highly Democratic area with poor turnout.  They promised some resources: part time staffer and a computer and that sort of thing.  But they were up front about the fact that they were not going to be able to give us any money.  Fine.

For me to now see that they spent $3M and gave back $4M is really frustrating.  Especially since we never got the computer, the staffer, any volunteer lists (we had to try to get our own in the weeks before the elections).

All we got from them was the call lists of the Absentee and occasional voters.  The precinct map lists we got from them were all mis-labeled with the wrong precinct numbers.

Yikes!  I could have put 1/1000 of that $4M to fabulous use in Richmond.  And I am talking about building a starting an infrastructure that would be there for upcoming elections.

[hint hint] I still could!

---

by: marchmoon @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 19:43:23 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Fabian Bashing (8.00 / 1)

What part of this don't you understand?

Unlike Lockyer, Feinstein, and others, Fabian raised a boatload of money for the party so its candidates could win. Give him credit instead of crap.

The Party gave back a fraction of what he raised. Had other Dems raised that kind of dough and contributed to the Party like Nunez did, we'd have Congressman Brown and Congresswoman Busby and a few more elected Democrats.

The worst thing about your post is that it's this kind of infighting that lets Republicans win. Let's focus on beating them instead of stabbing our own folks in the back.

---

by: sacguy @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 05:23:05 AM UTC

how does this help Democrats? (0.00 / 0)

Can somebody please explain how this is a legitimate expenditure for the CDP to make. Please. No more spin.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 05:25:51 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Or, we could have spent that $4mil (0.00 / 0)

and had a Congressman Brown. I'd just like to see money that was raised used to

Oh, and we could have had several more congress members if we redistrict.

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 18:56:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

"Legitimate" is a dirty word (0.00 / 0)

I figured it out. I know why you're picking on Fabian. It's so  obvious.

What's the difference between Feinstien, Boxer, Lockyer, Brown, Perata, Garamendi, Chaing and Nunez?

They are all taller than him! By a foot-and-a-half in some cases!

You all ought to be ashamed of yourself.

P.S. I would have have come in sooner, but I just found out about your blog. Did you guys just start it as a reaction to the election?

---

by: vladbierko @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 17:31:36 PM UTC

It's over a year old (0.00 / 0)

And I'm a short guy myself -- I still can't figure out what legitimate purpose a 20% kickback has.

---

by: jsw @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 17:44:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

we've been up since September 05 (0.00 / 0)

so, we've been around for a while...

I think?

---

by: Brian Leubitz @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 18:17:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

This is not (0.00 / 0)

about Nunez.  This is about the decision to give him money.  The objection is strategic not personal.

Oh and I can testify to the fact that jsw is short, you might have a point about blogswarm being tall.

---

by: Julia Rosen @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 20:22:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Re Mr. Maviglio, vladbierko, and sacguy (8.00 / 1)

I think blogswarm is asking a legitimate question here, and all of these gentlemen are trying to stiff-arm the question with "stop infighting" and "you silly bloggers don't understand this stuff". 

Pointing to other people who weren't as busy as Nunez on the fundraising side isn't helpful.  First, if they knew they would get a 20% kickback for their own (as yet undefined) future efforts, maybe they would have been just as helpful.  Second, complaints about how much other people suck don't really answer the question of exactly what good the CDP gets out of kicking that money back to Nunez,  I mean, if I participated in a fundraiser for some good organization, I wouldn't really expect to get some percentage kicked back to me.  After all, isn't the point to raise funds for the larger institution, which is good for everyone?  Or is there some hidden commission deal for important insiders?

No amount of "Boy, isn't Fabian great!" will actually answer the question of why the CDP chose to kick back 20% of the money he raised to what is essentially a slush fund for whatever future campaign Mr. Nunez chooses to run *almost two years from now*.

---

by: jsw @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 17:40:54 PM UTC

RE: Re Mr. Maviglio, vladbierko, and sacguy (0.00 / 0)

If, as some of the posters here contend, the CDP doesn't know what it's doing, maybe it's better they are $4 million lighter in the loafers.

And, for the record, Fabian is alright, not great in my book.

Also, some of the choices offered in the poll are ri-effing-diculous. A 58-county strategy?! Why not just burn the stack of cash to keep the homeless warm?

Okay, there. I just had to vent.

It's always good to audit decisions. If a candidate, or party, can defend them, then they have no business in the business. Phil's campaign is a great example. He couldn't explain, or defend, his previous decisions during the primary, and then went on to fail to explain them in the general.

As long as there are rules, people will exploit them. Did the CDP or Fabian break any laws? I don't think so. It is right? Maybe. Maybe not. It's up for the voters to decide.

---

by: vladbierko @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 17:57:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

50 state strategy works (0.00 / 0)

Also, some of the choices offered in the poll are ri-effing-diculous. A 58-county strategy?! Why not just burn the stack of cash to keep the homeless warm?

That is what people said about Dean's 50 state strategy, right up until we won a bunch of seats that weren't targeted by the DCCC because they didn't like the numbers. But the fact that WY-AL, ID-01, NE-03, and CA-04 were competitive shows how critical competing everywhere is in a world where technology cheaply circumvents geographic distance.

I think there are four levels at which this should be evaluated:

Was it legal? I don't know.

Did it avoid the appearance of impropriety? No, not by a long shot. This looks very improper. While some Democrats could have rationalized the deregulation as simple incompetence before this, now this very clearly looks at least improper (if not corrupt). This looks like something Tom DeLay or John Doolittle would do.

Was this proper? I have yet have anyone explain to me how this is a legitimate expenditure for the CDP.

Was this strategic? No. In addition to being a major disincentive for small donors, this will do nothing to solve the systemic infrastructure problems that are the most pressing issue facing California Democrats.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Fri Dec 01, 2006 at 18:27:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

58 County Strategy (8.00 / 1)

When I saw the poll I figured you knew this, but maybe you don't.  Or maybe others don't know that a bunch of folks got together after the '04 election and drafted a plan for a 58 County Strategy with permanent storefront Democratic Party offices in each county.  They submitted it to the Chair, but it was deemed unfeasible. 

 

---

by: Matt Lockshin @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 03:08:39 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

didn't know that (8.00 / 1)

I would love to see your comment expanded into a full diary so that everyone can be on the same page as to the history.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Sun Dec 03, 2006 at 04:47:17 AM UTC

[ Parent ]