Another $400,000

Official Statement from Perata? (0.00 / 0)

Oops!...i did it again to your heart
Got lost in this game, oh baby
Oops!...you think that Im sent from above
I'm not that innocent

Twitter: @BobBrigham

---

by: Bob Brigham @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 20:36:20 PM UTC

The key grafs in that CapAlert piece: (0.00 / 0)

So Perata has transferred $1.9 million (out of the $2.7 million he had amassed) from the ballot committee to ease his legal debt load.
...
Perata donated $161,000 from his ballot fund to defeat Proposition 11, compared to the $1.9 million he saved for his own legal defense. He has roughly $600,000 left in the ballot account, according to a back-of-the-envelope estimation.

Everyone who thinks that this fund was actually intended to defeat Proposition 11, raise your hand.

---

by: jsw @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 20:44:46 PM UTC

Is this good news or bad news? (0.00 / 0)

The use of campaign funds for legal defense is a breach of faith between the campaign and the donor--clearly it was not the intent of CCPOA to contribute to Parata's defense but rather to the No on 11 campaign.  The breach is not a criminal matter, but an ethical matter.

The fact that it was CCPOA's money makes me feel a whole lot better about this.  I think that they have been the engine behind the 'tough on crime' agenda which has gotten totally out of control.  If their money gets wasted on Parata, all's the better.

Slightly off topic, can we have photographers at the ready for the California Republican Party when they come to realize that Prop 11 will result in more Democrats and fewer Republicans in the legislature?  

---

by: smoker1 @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 20:54:57 PM UTC

Yeah, I have a hard time feeling bad for CCPOA (0.00 / 0)

but still, to spend only $161K out of $2.7M, for the dedicated purpose, and to transfer 1.9M (and unless pressured by people other than the DFH crew, the remaining $600K as well, one suspects) to a legal defense fund -- well, it sure does have a stench of conversion about it.

---

by: jsw @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:12:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some truth to this (5.00 / 1)

Obviously CCPOA is kind of a cancer on the California body politic.  But of course it wasn't ONLY their money that was caught up in this.  They gave something like $600,000, far less than the $1.9 million Perata's already removed.  There are plenty of other donors who gave to Perata expecting him to use that money for its intended purpose.  And they got burned.  And whether Prop. 11 will result in more Democrats or Republicans (I personally don't feel it'll make any difference) is immaterial to the argument.

I've never said that this was illegal, it's a Kinsleyian situation in that the scandal is what is LEGAL.

---

by: David Dayen @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 21:49:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Dems will lose 2-6 Assembly seats under redistricting (0.00 / 0)

I attended a conference on the impacts of 11.  Dem, GOP and good government assholes (Common Fraud, League of Myopic Voters) all agree that the next map will result in GOP gains.  LA loses a seat as does the Bay Area and they get dropped in the Central Valley and Riverside.  The low projection was 2 losses by the Dem lawyers.  6 came from the GOPers and 3-5 was the Go-Go assholes.  

---

by: jackfolsum @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:26:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's based on (0.00 / 0)

population movements, and it's also based on an outdated model that every vote in the Central Valley and Riverside is somehow necessarily Republican.  I don't think that's true (esp. in Riverside); let's note that we FLIPPED an Assembly seat in Riverside and one in the Central Valley in November. But let's be clear that, even if that were true, Prop. 11 would have NO BEARING on that.  You have to put more seats in the areas where people have migrated, and population growth is simply increasing outside the coast.  That would be true no matter who was drawing the district lines.

However, the crashing of the housing market makes these expected population shifts very tenuous, and by 2010 I don't think that movement is a given, esp. in the Central Valley, which has the worst housing market in America and is going to lose a lot of population in the next two years.

---

by: David Dayen @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:31:57 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Redistricting (0.00 / 0)

  The real impact will come on minority seats.  What is not commonly known about minority seats is that the registration is much lower than in non-minority seats (this has been disparangly referred to as abysmal turnout in the AD30).
What will happen is that Democrats have protected these seats, but they won't be able to any longer, and the commission, with its "square boxes" mentality, won't either.

 So--the AD30 will be gone (Bakersfield won't be split, as it was starting in 1991, by a court-appointed special master) as a minority seat.  Correa's seat will be gone.
Bass's seat will be represented by a Latino--in fact, there won't be any African-American members of the state legislature.  It is likely that the Speaker of the Assembly will be traded among white males (just like the Senate), ending a string of minority Speakers dating back to Willie Brown (with the exception of Hertzberg and the Pringle interregnum).

 The witching year will be 2014.  Lower turnout (non-presidential), fatigue with Obama (inevitable, no matter how gifted the guy is), and the presumption that government is nothing but a parasite on the people's backs (unless it is giving trillion dollar bailouts to large financial institutions) will make that a tough election.

 I just find it amazing that the Democrats gave up this power in return for nothing.  But Democrats are increasingly going it alone--Perata with the money, the CTA wants a penny increase in the sales tax for schools (the most regressive tax--don't they care about the poor?), and Obama, with his "post-partisan" demeanor, all portend badly for that year.

---

by: MarkD @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:45:34 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Could well be (0.00 / 0)

While redistricting may create opportunities, it does seem likely to cost us seats as well. Dems will hold on to their majority as they have since 1970 (1994 being a brief hiccup) - but there's no chance of getting to 2/3rds now.

Which was of course the point. Prop 11 was in reality a "fewer Democrats in Sacramento" plan.

Although I have to say, the most regressive tax is a spending cut. Sales taxes are progressive compared to education cuts especially during a severe recession.

We need to take this and drill it into our brains:

progressive income tax > sales tax > spending cuts.

Anyone willing to take spending cuts over a sales tax is nuts, and totally ignorant of what the poor actually need.

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

---

by: Robert Cruickshank @ Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:57:29 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

How many votes did Hannah-Beth Jackson lose by? (0.00 / 0)

Prop 11, SD-19, there were many things that money could've been used for.

---

by: obscuresportsquarterly @ Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 22:51:29 PM UTC