[mobile site, backup mobile]
[SoapBlox Help]
Menu & About Calitics

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?

- About Calitics
- The Rules (Legal Stuff)
- Event Calendar
- Calitics' ActBlue Page
- Calitics RSS Feed
- Additional Advertisers


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally Blue CA Ad Network

Art Torres to Embarrass Speaker Karen Bass Tonight

by: Bob Brigham

Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:19:54 AM PDT


Disgraced California Democratic Party Chair Art Torres apparently intends to attend a small dollar fundraiser with Speaker Karen Bass this evening and make our Speaker look ridiculous by asking for Democrats to give $50 on actblue while the CDP is wasting $450,000 not electing Democrats. Those attending Reggie Jones-Sawyer's home will be in the awkward situation of having wasted a contribution to the CDP while the latest scandal is being ripped on the editorial page of the LA Times:

Meanwhile, the Sacramento Bee reported that the California Democratic Party used $250,000 of its contributors' money to pay the legal expenses that Perata (D-Oakland) has racked up defending against a criminal probe by the FBI.

It's all perfectly legal, but it sure stinks. [...]

As for Perata, Democrats not just in his district but anywhere in the state must wonder what their party is doing. They have every right to expect that contributors' money will be pumped into districts where Democrats are locked in tough election fights with Republicans, or into struggles with the GOP over the budget. Instead, it's paying the legal bills for Perata, who simultaneously is leading the fight against a redistricting measure on the November ballot.

When politicians demonstrate contempt for Californians, Californians respond in kind. Term-limits reform, badly needed to fix the state's broken political system, lost at the ballot box in large part because voters mistrusted Perata, Nuñez and Schwarzenegger, and with some reason. The notion that elected officials are paid by the public to do the public's work has become distressingly quaint.

This is clearly indefensible, which is probably why Bob Mulholland chickened out on debating the issue with Rick Jacobs on KPFA this morning. According to the host, Perata's flacks also refused to go on the show. With today's editorial rightly blasting the CDP, the press is trying to get people on record and the word on the street is that the CDP and Perata's team are refusing to try and defend the indefensible. Props to any press organization that can get the CDP or Don Perata to debate this in public.

There isn't a debate because there is no excuse for this waste of money. Don Perata needs to immediately refund all $450,000 and Art Torres must resign in shame before tonight's fundraiser to avoid making a fool of Speaker Karen Bass. And then both should apologize to Hannah-Beth Jackson and every Democrat on the ballot this fall for having such contempt for the concept of trying to win elections.

[UPDATE by Dave]: The problem here is transparency, and it's not limited to funding.  Watch palace courtier Bob Mulholland respond to the fact that his boss essentially lied about Sen. Feinstein and the FISA bill:

So I contacted the party today to see if Torres would comment on today's votes. I got a callback from party political advisor Bob Mulholland, who noted Obama voted for immunity today too as a compromise. "Our attitude as a political party is, let's win the election and we can start cleaning up the constitutional mess Bush gave us," Mulholland said.

In other words, shut up and trust us, we know what we're doing.  I think it would be easier to win the election if they weren't laundering half a million dollars to the Senate leader's legal defense fund and embarrassing the entire party.  Speaking of which, why IS he still the Senate leader?  Why haven't there been immediate caucus leadership elections in the wake of this?  Nuñez at least had the sense to step aside.

Bob Brigham :: Art Torres to Embarrass Speaker Karen Bass Tonight
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
fundraiser starts in 9 1/2 hours (8.00 / 1)
Will Art Torres man-up and do the right thing by then or will he embarrass Speaker Bass?

Twitter: @BobBrigham

Torres NO SHOWED at the event last night (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Hear hear (8.00 / 2)
I was basically about to write this.

I was up early (0.00 / 0)
Rick Jacobs did a great job explaining this on KPFA this morning. I was looking forward to hearing him debating Mulholland but the tough guy was apparently too chickenshit to face Jacobs.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
Ugh (0.00 / 0)
Good Marching Witch Hunters!  Burn them all at the stake!

I've been so trying to just keep my mouth shut about this whole thing.  I don't like Senator Perata much, not his leadership and not his work as a State Senator.  Over the years he's done as much harm as good to potential Democratic candidates, quite a few of whom I've had a great deal of personal affection for and wanted to see elected.  Nor do I like the CDP bailing out his legal fund, although I understand how and why it was done.  

Personally I think there is some likely truth to the charges against Perata, but the legal fact is that he has yet to be indicted on any charges, much less convicted.  If we immediately abandon every Democratic leader in this country when an investigation was formed, all the Republicans would have to do to destroy our leadership is start investigating (which they do automatically anyway).  No matter my personal feelings about Senator Perata, he is still a Democrat, far better than his Republican colleagues in most respects, and has neither been indicted nor convicted, as many as the people here seem to be thinking after drinking the Republican Kool Aid.

You know the Republicans have to be laughing right now with us doing their work for them when they have no chance otherwise.  Here we are, with a late budget again, our state burning, the incompetencies of our Federal Government under Republican rule laid bare yet again, Afghanistan destabilizing further every day, Iran being put under the crosshairs of a mad Bush Adminsitration, and yet here we are screaming as if our hair was on fire over a finanical bail out of the Senate Democratic leadership by the California Democratic Party, using Democratic funds donated for the purposes of helping our Senate Democrats  .

No wonder every Independent and Republican in this country is laughing at us and waiting for us to eat our own before the 2008 election.  We're doing it already.  


Seriously? (0.00 / 0)
You see all Democratic funds as one indiscriminate slush fund to be used for anything as long as it's by a Democrat?

[ Parent ]
I want to win elections (8.00 / 1)
That is why Perata and the CDP are such disgraces.

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
By that logic (0.00 / 0)
Should the CDP then bail out Laura Richardson's multiple foreclosures?

It's striking that some Democrats want to defend a man who helped keep a Republican, Abel Maldonado, from facing a Democratic challenger this year. Perata screwed the Central Coast and ultimately the state - and yet he is deserving of CDP funds to deal with his own legal problems?!

You can check out any time you like but you can never leave


[ Parent ]
Ah, yes (0.00 / 0)
It's the "unity for the good of the party" argument, coupled with the "these are just Republican talking points" accusation.  How very Mavigliesque (and actually, surprising from dkirk).

At what point does the party leadership start being accountable, and what criticism  is legitimate from people who support the nominal goals* of the party?

Before an election:  "Shut up, we've got an election to run, don't cause divisions!"

After a winning election: "Shut up, we won and now we've got work to do, so don't cause divisions!"

After a losing election:  "Shut up, we lost, but you couldn't have done better and besides, you don't want to make it worse by causing divisions!  Get behind the people we still have in office!"

Right now, the answer is apparently "No criticism is legitimate, because the Republicans are crazy and we're the best you've got.  Now shut up, open your wallet, and vote Dem."



* I say "nominal goals" because the actual goals of the people who make a living being in positions of power are very different from the nominal goals of the party.  

[ Parent ]
One wonders what lifer Dem politicians like Eric Bauman would do (0.00 / 0)
Actually I don't wonder.  The answer is obvious.

accountability will be a litmus test for CDP Chair (0.00 / 0)
CDP delegates deserve to judge Chair hopefuls by how the are reacting to this scandal, by where the stood on the DiFi censure.

Without accountability there is no reform.  

Twitter: @BobBrigham


[ Parent ]
Same song, different year (0.00 / 0)
"Our attitude as a political party is, let's win the election and we can start cleaning up the constitutional mess Bush gave us," Mulholland said.

Been there, done that; the mess is now worse because the people, his buddies, who won the election can't or won't do the job.

I want better Democrats, not just more of them.


Any Caliticians going to this (0.00 / 0)
tonight?
I got an invitation, but I've got work commitments tonight.

I'll be there (0.00 / 0)
Unfortunately, I'm helping out with the event, so I don't think I'll be able to say anything.

My Blog, The Watchtower

[ Parent ]
hilarious (0.00 / 0)
A volunteer with a blog, I love it. Some sunshine could go a long way towards setting in motion reform.  

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
Mavigliesque? (0.00 / 0)
I'm honored by the comparison.  Maybe it wasn't intended that way, but that's how it is received, so thanks.  

Laura Richardson, how straw-man argument of you!  Laura Richardson's problems are vastly different than those being faced by Don Perata.  This fund is paying for the defense against a four-year long investigation that has yet to produce a single indictment.  It reminds me of shades of Christmas past, and maybe shades of Christmas future for the Republicans.

Who knows, maybe in six years when President Obama has been the focus of a four year long investigation into his Rezko dealings, no indictments have been produced, only legal bills in the millions, you will be able to complain about the DNC contributing money to his legal defense fund?

Until and unless he is indicted, it is perfectly reasonable for the CDP to use the specific funds it used in a contribution to his legal defense fund.  When, and again if, he is ever indicted I look forward to a strong discussion about further support for him (here's a hint: I'll be opposed to it at that point same as I was opposed to Jefferson of Lousiana being allowed ANY leadership position after being indicted).  Until then, yes he deserves appropriate support from our party.

What is amusing here is that everyone's first reactions was to condemn the party for using THEIR money for this donation without even bothering to check and see where the money came from in the first place (and then of course revealing that it really isn't their money at all because they've never contributed).  When it's pointed out to them that the money used did not come from general contributions but contributions specifically given into the State Senate fund, why the discussion switched back to the same tired debate about so-called accountability.  I say so-called because wasn't there this big brouhaha over it last year that ended up accounting for nothing?

It is also interesting to see the references to the upcoming election for a new CDP chair.  I am now starting to wonder how much of this is merely political posturing for that race.  If it is, shame on those so willing to eat our own for their own political advantage in seeking, or supporting someone seeking, that position.

At the last e-board I asked someone whose name has been mentioned a few times why they weren't interested in running for the position of chair.  If they were, they'd have my immediate and full support (right now I haven't chosen to support anyone) and I think they'd be a great choice even if it would be a step down for this person.  Stuff like this, well I can see why they want nothing to do with the position.  

No matter what decision the chair made, whether to support the State Senator's defense fund or not would have harmed the party.  I guess in the end the decision had to be made on what would cause the least harm and the most good.  Supporting a serving State Senator who has not been indicted despite four years of investigation and who has massive legal bills defending himself from the investigation being done at taxpayer expense seems like the logical, if bad-tasting choice.

Where's the outrage at the probable millions of OUR taxpayer dollars being spent for four years with NO indictments much less a conviction?


Duly noted that you're honored by the comparison (0.00 / 0)
And I'll adjust my opinions accordingly.

Honestly, it's like you're reading straight out of talking points -- no need to address what's actually being said, just get those talking points out there, almost word for word.  Every talking point you're cranking out here has been addressed elsewhere either in posts or comments.


[ Parent ]
Talking Points? (0.00 / 0)
Really, there are talking points?  Why didn't I get the memo?  Who's responsible for not giving me the talking points so I actually had to think things through and decide my position for myself?  You mean I could have just re-typed someone else's talking points, or better yet, lifted them off the internet like I was in the Bush Administration?  Oh, the horror of making me decide things on my own with my own brain cells!  

Heads are gonna roll!!!!!

/sarcasm off


[ Parent ]
Excellent (0.00 / 0)
So you arrived at the pay-to-play and "STFU Dirty Hippy the Republicans are the real enemy don't demand anything better from the Dems" positions on your own then?  Well, fair enough.

[ Parent ]
it is indefensible (0.00 / 0)
That is why Mulholland chickened out.  

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
Bob is no c.s. and its laughable that any one would call him that (0.00 / 0)
I suspect Bob just doens't want to give a platform to someone who starts from the Republican "talking point" position that the Democrats are  "keeping corrupt politicans out of jail." So much for the presumption of innocence.

The only cs Bob exhibited here under the circumstances was commonsense.
 


[ Parent ]
Straw man much? (0.00 / 0)
Really, every time there's a criticism of the CDP, it's like there's an immediate response from people defending the party:  

Hey, you're  siding with the Republicans!

Except I listened to the show on KPFA, and I don't recall that quote from Rick.  If the CDP is so sure that it's right here, why isn't it responding on the actual merits, and explaining why it was the RIGHT thing to do to give Perata's criminal defense fund that money.  Make the case that he's being Siegelman-ed.  Explain to the rank and file what's being done and why BEFORE it's done.

Don't just attack the people who are concerned about it with that BS "siding with the Republicans" when it's pretty clear that the concern is about the transparency of the party and the transactional politics in Sacramento -- both things that are even worse on the Republican side.

Shame on us for expecting better from the Dems.


[ Parent ]
Talk about a straw person...... (0.00 / 0)
it is absolutely untrue that "every time there is a criticism of the CDP" that they play the "your siding with the Republicans" card.

I use that when people use GOP talking points and/or make their point in a way that might draw a quote but does more harm than good to the Democrats. Rick might not have gone political postal on KPFA but he sure did in the Bee article. I'm not attacking Rick for questioning the decision or disagreeing with the decision. That's his right and I don't like the decision either. I am attacking his use of the language which is not accurate and is highly inflammatory and most likely will be used by the GOP in the November election. People attack the CDP, the DNC, and candidates all the time without being hit with the "GOP" card.

I didn't play that card against anyone else who holds that position, not even Bingham. I didn't like the decision either, I just don't think it merited a call on Art to resign. Heck, criticism and the Democratic party go hand in hand, which is both a strength and a weakness..

I agree with you that the defense of this decision should have been done beforehand and a better case made for it.
I don't know all the facts, maybe there was resistance by the CDP to this. I suspect there was.  But in any event, you're right, a better case should have been made. That might not change some people's minds on the issue but at least it would clear up misconceptions, mitigate some of the negative damage and get out in front of the story.
 


[ Parent ]
I'll walk that back a little (8.00 / 1)
I can't recall any time the CDP has been criticized HERE that the response hasn't been "stop siding with the Republicans" or at the very least "don't give the Republicans ammunition".   Which is basically "STFU you dirty hippies".  Much of Steve Maviglio's body of work in comments here consists of variations on that (some of the "be quiet, simple villagers, you know nothing" variety).  

[ Parent ]
Let me refresh your recollection.............. (0.00 / 0)
When the CDP(and I'll take the fall for this mess along wit)mishandled the resolutions process at the State Convention in San Diego I remember the attacks(and Bob's usual demand for someone's resignation or firing, in that case mine)I don't recall anyone cracking back playing the Republican card on this site.

I get that Steve has a flamethrower but nnot everyone who rises to the defense of Art practices Steve's methodology. As long as we're talking about flamethrowers and playing the "don't give the Republicans ammunition" card, take a look at Bob B's latest comment about Art and perata being a "gift to Republicans.". And when someone comes on to respond to the attacks we get told we're commenting off talking points and are apologists who just don't get it. Which is basically "STFU you disgraced lackeys."


[ Parent ]
And Bob B works for who? (8.00 / 2)
And represents who in the party?  Starts with "No", ends with "Body".  Bob is certainly a provocateur (I think he'd be the first to admit that), and has front page posting rights at Calitics, but that's where it ends.  He doesn't speak for the Editorial Board here (for that matter, neither do I, unless the Editorial Board reaches consensus and gives me permission to do so).

On the other hand, we get people who flak for the Speaker of the Assembly and sit on the CDP Executive Board not answering complaints on the merits, but basically telling people here to STFU, we just don't understand, it's all perfectly fine, any public criticism causes division and gives the Republicans ammunition, keep it quiet, work on the inside if you must, but don't publicize anything about which you have concerns.

But there are never any responses on the merits.  There still hasn't been ONE defense of the Perata defense fund on the merits in comments here (and I haven't seen any with respect to the Nuñez money transfer(s)), despite Bob's bomb throwing.  There have been now two slightly different explanations of why the money was OK to transfer, and some sorta-edifying explanations of the structure under which large donations are laundered through state party organizations (I assume both parties do that by the way).

I humbly submit that if the party is not prepared to respond to its critics on the actual merits, that's a real problem, and says a lot more about the party than the critics.  Bob could have been stopped dead had someone from the CDP written a diary saying:

1)  Perata is being persecuted, not prosecuted, and here's how we know that.

2)  The fiscal structure of the party is really complicated because of campaign finance law in California, but unlimited contributions are permitted in the following cases... and we segregate the funds this way... and we NEVER would have gotten this money for anything except the Perata defense fund, so we genuinely believe it's extra.

And that would have been the end of that.  But that's not what we get.  What we get is just complaints that we spoke up, and that speaking up is divisive, and there's the real enemy over there boys!


[ Parent ]
As a quick follow-up (0.00 / 0)
the reason that the "talking point" response comes up is BECAUSE the responses from people defending the party are so consistent, and are basically never on the merits of the relevant action.  They're always always focused on the incivility of the complaint (which incivility is often nothing more than the very existence of the complaint) and concerns that any public complaint politically harmful.

[ Parent ]
I don't think bagging on Perata is reading straight out of talking points.... (0.00 / 0)
and thats what Dkirk did. I agree with him--Perata is no prize. I wouldn't have made contribution but I'm not going to frag Art about it. This should be a challenge for the Senate caucus and these Senate contributors to replenish the account so that Hannah Beth-Jackson and others get the Party's attention and $$ for voter registration and VBM efforts. That should be the focus of people's efforts.

And one persons's talking points is anothers well reasoned argument. I didn't get any talking points either when I commented last night. Maybe you just didn't like the answers, some of which necessitated a  shift in the attack.
But then again, how about them bootstrapping yelling points, like  "  disgraced CDP Chair Art Torres"?


[ Parent ]
actually (0.00 / 0)
the challenge should be not having a lame-duck leader like Don Perata who asks his party to launder money from donors to his legal defense fund, as I've been saying consistently throughout this.  Senate caucus elections should begin tomorrow.  As well as full transparency and a sense of core mission from the top leadership of the CDP.  That's not "fragging Art," that's common sense and as a Party regular it's what I expect.



[ Parent ]
A change in Senate leadership is not mutually exclusive (0.00 / 0)
with getting the Senate Caucus and Senate donors to replace the funds that THEY gave. As I said previously, I'd have been happy if Daryl had taken over at the same time Karen did. And I agree with the term limits comments above.

Excuse me but calling on Art to resign and referring to him as disgraced is hardly common sense and I'll stick with the fraging characterization. I didn't say nor mean to suggest efforts for greater transparency or full and spirited discussions of Party actions was wrong, fragging or unDemocratic.  


[ Parent ]
love characterizing accountability as fragging (1.00 / 2)
Art Torres has disgraced himself. He blew a Butte County quantity of smoke up the asses of the E Board when it came to holding Feinstein accountable. He has now wasted $4,450,000 not electing Democrats. In California Democrats win in spite of the CDP because Torres never crossed the bridge to the 21st century. Clearly Torres should resign, he should have a long time ago. I actually think it would take a great deal of creativity to do a worse job.  

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
Over the top and still framing (0.00 / 0)
Here's some more reality for the discussion from a CDP Caucus thread;
I'm no fan of Don Perata but...

All monies raised by the CDP cannot legally be used for campaigns due to restrictions of campaign finance law-Federal or State. Donations raised are put into various accounts based on source and allowable uses. Donations raised for legal defense are not covered by limitations on sources and amounts that other political money is-- but the funds have to be used for legal defense and not commingled with other campaign funds. This distinction is the result of court decisions not campaign finance law. So CDP "owns" the money but it can only be used for legal defense- it cannot be used for other purposes. According to Aleita there is an account that is restricted solely for the legal defense of State Senators that is contributed to solely by State Senators and their donors and can only used by Senators.

So the questions that remain are 1) Are other Senators being ignored? and 2)Why would one contribute to this account?
I don't know the answer to 1 but I think I know the answer to 2.
If I give directly to Don Perata's defense then I become a subject of investigation possibly (would that happen in the Bush
Administration) while if I gave to the Party that would be overreaching.

Either way the money can't be used for electoral activity and no one made a donation to the fund without their knowledge. Also by making a contribution to a separate legal defense fund the contributor is still legally free to make their maximum contribution to campaign related activities. The contributions still have to be reported to the FPPC and the media can't be bothered to fully explain the whole story or else too lazy to investigate. Besides the story is so sexy the way they wrote it.

Now my contribution. Mssrs Kirk and Hanna are on target.Fragging Art Torres is the least productive method of dealing with this and the venom of the frame is a total gift to the Republicans.This is NOT the way to "Crash the Gate" folks. The road to party control is through election of delegates through County Committees and Delegate Selection Caucuses.Keep in mind, only 1/3 of the CDP
are the electeds and nominees. As Pogo says "We've met the enemy and they is us."

JHotchkiss2
"Be yourself, everyone else is taken."Oscar Wilde


Torres and Perata are gifts to Republicans (1.00 / 2)
The largest newspaper in the state is editorializing how we would need to be a fool to donate to the CDP and yet the CDP leaders coming here are whining about tone? No wonder Torres assumed he could do whatever he wanted.  

Twitter: @BobBrigham

[ Parent ]
There is a difference between 'criticism' and 'vicious attack' (8.00 / 1)
This diary is a vicious attack, as are the others that have appeared in the last few days.  They are not well-reasoned criticism, but rather vitriol being thrown out in the best imitation of Rush Limbaugh and his ilk that I have seen from the progressive movement.  I didn't want to get involved in this at first because it was so vitriolic rather than a good criticism of a decision that I happen to also disagree with from the leadership of the party.  

This also isn't the type of issue worth raising hell in a handbasket over either, at least not in my opinion.  I'd much rather be talking about what we're going to do regarding the capitulation of our electeds regarding the FISA immunity provisions.  I'm extremely upset about that and I'd like to see something drafted that is a direct criticism of not only Senator Feinstein but every California elected that supported it, as well as any other elected official for voting for the thing.  All of them are to blame for letting it happen, not just one elected official.  

What this diary and the others like it reminds me of is something that has been bugging me for a while now regarding the progressive movement in our state.  A vast majority of the time I am right there with the progressive movement on a wide variety of issues. I've opposed the War in Iraq from the time Bush was elected (it was one of my three predictions on what we could expect from his presidency).  Universal Healthcare is another issue I care about deeply and support along with many progressives.  There are differences as well, and in some of those debates the side I've been on has one, and in others we've lost.  Those losses don't mean that I am going to refuse to stand with progressives on those other issues where we are in absolute agreement.  

Yet, am I wanted by the progressives on those issues?  Words like 'litmus' are often used by people in the progressive movement, and just look at the comments in this thread for that one and a few others.  Are we going to start issuing litmus tests for every member of the CDP and if they don't pass they don't get to be a Democrat anymore?  Are we heading in the same direction the Republican party went with the religious idealogues in the 1990's?  Will we push anyone not meeting these credentials out the door and call them names like these diaries attacking Art Torres?

If you do, yeah you'll be pushing me right out the door with all the others.

You want to know just how thin the difference is between those who are so outraged at this money transfer and my own position?  

I see that actions like this fund transfer and the previous transfer to the Assembly accounts is a problem with many of our Democratic supporters, and needs to be addressed.  Unfortunately I'm not sure exactly how it can be changed in a way that doesn't also hamstring the Party.  Fortunately, I am quite confident that there are people within the ranks of the Party that might have an idea or two.  

Maybe instead of shouting and stomping our feet at how despicable Art Torres is, we can start asking around about what changes we can make to the Democratic Party to prevent embarrassing situations like this one.  What rules or bylaws would need to be changed?  How can we draft the changes and put them into place?  What exact changes need to be made?

I strongly suspect finding the answers to those questions will be a lot more productive for not only the Party but the people of our state and our nation if it helps us get better Democrats elected to office.  


Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads


Support Calitics:

Get discounted bestsellers at Barnes & Noble.com!

Advertisers


-->
California Friends
Shared Communities
Resources
California News
Progressive Organizations
The Big BlogRoll

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch

Daily Email Summary


Powered by: SoapBlox