[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
Daily Email Summary


View All Calitics Tags Or Search with Google:
 
Web Calitics
Event Calendar
February 2010
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* 01 02 03 04 05 06
07 08 09 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Wire Services
Advertise Liberally

MBA Member

Blue CA Ad Network
Join Our eMail List
Email:

Photobucket

Moveon is Not Greenwashing Gavin Newsom's Corporate Party

by: Bob Brigham

Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:32:16 AM PDT


When San Francisco blogger Sasha McGee noticed that Gavin Newsom was being feted by PG&E and AT&T at the Denver convention, it wasn't much of a surprise to see a DLC candidate running for governor of the largest state. What was a surprise, was that Moveon was also listed as a sponsor.
Bob Brigham :: Moveon is Not Greenwashing Gavin Newsom's Corporate Party
But fear not, Moveon hasn't sold out, their logo showing up was a mistake.

In addition to the somewhat unseemly relationship between Newsom and PG&E, it seemed strange that MoveOn would cosponsor an event with one of the big drivers behind the move to preemptively absolve the nation's biggest telecommunications companies of any consequences from their spying on Americans. MoveOn was a strong champion of the idea that these companies broke the law, and should suffer the consequences. That much of AT&T's involvement took place in San Francisco only added particular irony to the situation.

Well, MoveOn now calls their being listed as a sponsor "a mistake" (they're apparently sponsoring an event at the same time), and swears they're going to get their name taken off the publicity for the event.

Indeed. And there is a huge gulf between the people-powered progressive side of the Democratic Party and the corporate-powered, DLC side represented by Gavin Newsom. For instance, compare how Moveon and Gavin Newsom responded to Al Gore's push to go to 100% clean energy. Moveon issued a challenge to sign on that they would deliver, "to elected leaders and candidates across the country." Gavin Newsom apparently didn't get the memo as he opposes San Francisco turning on 100% clean energy:

When I approached Newsom at Netroots Nation after he gave a well-received speech on climate change, I asked him if he supported the Clean Energy Act. His initial response was "yes," but he added that he didn't think it was all that substantive. Eric Jaye was standing next to us at the time - and as I started to walk away, Jaye said something to Newsom. The Mayor then called out to me and asked, "did you mean the one about PG&E?" I said "yes," and he then said: "oh, it's horrible. I don't support it." Newsom wouldn't explain why, and denied that Jaye working for PG&E had anything to do with his position.

And moveon plays well with other, while just last week Gavin Newsom's taxpayer funded press secretary used the term, "lunatic fringe" to refer to the Democratic Party. Moveon works in solidarity with progressive blogs, while Gavin Newsom crossed the local netroots picket line and hired former Lieberman-consultant Garry South, whose idea of listening to online feedback can best be summed up in his own words (directed at calitics publisher Brian Leubitz:

Here's my final word: When you have actually run and won a campaign electing a Democrat to any office at any level, instead of just sitting at your computer composing bile and bilge and hitting "send," come back and talk to me.  Until then, you can kiss my . . . baby.

If Gavin Newsom wants to publicize AT&T and PG&E buying his ass, that is his decision. But he can't hide behind moveon. And to have two of the worst corporations pay for him to have a party during the speech of the VP nominee is selfishly uncool. As for moveon, always cool. Please spread the word so people don't get the impression moveon has any association with the awful corporations trying to elect Newsom governor.

Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
seriously (7.57 / 7)
I don't think I could care less about this.

This is kinda sad (8.00 / 2)
I've accepted money from a wide range of people and organizations in my life and don't feel particularly beholden to any of them as a result.

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

I'm glad moveon is protecting their brand (0.00 / 0)
The reason we have campaign finance disclosure is so people can see who is giving how much to whom. If Newsom wants to throw a party to launch his campaign, I say more power to him. But his campaign isn't paying for this which means we may never find out how much PG&E and AT&T are spending.

If Blackwater threw a lavish party for a San Diego politician outside of campaign finance laws, it wouldn't both you?


[ Parent ]
Corporate sponsorship ... in politics!?!?!? (8.00 / 1)
For a sample of the "Official Providers" of the Democratic National Convention, see here... http://www.demconvention.com/o...

Which corporations should I renounce my party affiliation over?


My vote (0.00 / 0)
I vote for ShadowTv.  Aside from their scary name, they are listed as "The Official Video Monitoring Service Provider."  Sounds a little Dick-Cheney-secret-surveillance to me.

[ Parent ]
these aren't just two corporations (5.00 / 1)
PG&E has owned San Francisco politics and has already anted up 8 figures for ballot fights this year. And AT&T's ownership of Sacramento (cough, Pebble Beach Speaker's Cup, cough, $4 million refund) is disgusting.

This pay-to-play transactional politics is 100% opposed to moveon's people-powered politics. And Gavin chose transactional.  


[ Parent ]
dude (8.00 / 2)
if you're going to the convention, you're already owned by AT&T.  To suggest that you or any politician is exempt is ludicrous.  If Da Mayor didn't turn you down when you asked for a job we wouldn't have this 20-post litany.  It'd be nice for you to admit the bias.

[ Parent ]
Good to have some context (0.00 / 0)
Thanks...

[ Parent ]
huge difference in sponsorships (0.00 / 0)
The corporations sponsoring the convention do so because it gives them great exposure. The corporations sponsoring Gavin are doing so because it gives him great exposure. That they are two if the biggest pay-to-play corporations should is pretty key.

I'll oppose any candidate running such a corporate, DLC campaign. When Newsom quits selling out like he did with PG&E, and South, and triangulating against the party, and circumventing campaign finance I'll quit saying bad things. And as you know I gave him lots of props at NN08 for using actblue. But he has been such a disaster in the last month that it disgusts me. And he is clearly telegraphing more to come. Which is sad, because when I heard his first radio show I thought he might live up to the potential I know he has.  


[ Parent ]
Reasonable people can disagree (8.00 / 1)
Bob, people can support the general concept of clean energy and NOT support a specific ballot measure on the city ballot that some find problematic.

Likewise, many good people are opposing the statewide measure too. Are you going to crucify them the way you seem to want to crucify the mayor no matter what he does?

I have my disagreements with the Mayor but I don't feel the need to issue a fatwa because of it.

--
www.gregdewar.com


apples and oranges (0.00 / 0)
Prop 7 isn't a brightline issue, the environmental community is split. Prop H has a united environmental community in support and PG&E, Newsom, and DiFi opposed. There is no environmental opposition to Prop H. None.  

I have no fatwa, I just call it as I see it and Newsom has had an awful month.  


[ Parent ]
So what's the endgame (0.00 / 0)
let's say you're successful in your destroy-Gavin crusade. Who is it exactly that you envision stepping into the not-DiFi space as a champion of progressivism? And whoever that may be, why haven't we heard anything about them?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

[ Parent ]
my crusade is against DLC campaigning (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to see Gavin live up to his potential and see all gubernatorial campaigns focus on progress, not Garry South trademarked triangulating. Which is the same approach I took to the '06 gubernatorial primary and is the same approach I'll take in 2014.

I have written about DiFi a great deal for the same reasons (and I'm not yet handing out buttons against Newsom).

I'm not yet excited for a candidate, but Newsom and DiFi are going out of their way to get me to oppose them. I did write a diary on how I wish Van Jones would run (who was introduced by Newsom T Netropts Nation but supports clean energy instead of PG&E).

All I know for sure is I will write about DLC campaigns.  


[ Parent ]
bob, reasonable people can disagree (0.00 / 0)
I'm no fan of the DLC, but I also don't see them having nearly the influence they once did, so I don't worry about it too much.

And again, reasonable people can be against the public power initiative, and it doesn't mean they are Satan's angels or whatever.

--
www.gregdewar.com


[ Parent ]
Seriously? (0.00 / 0)
So Newsom, despite his avowed commitment to "greening" San Francisco, opposes a Clean Energy proposition favored by most environmental groups in the city, but opposed (to the tune of millions of dollars) by PG&E.

The fact that PG&E then sponsors the opening act of his Gav for Gov tour doesn't at least raise your eyebrows?

Really?

I am not saying there's a quid pro quo. There is, however, certainly the appearance of a potential conflict of interest.

Seems like the bar's being set a little low, here, if he gets a pass on this.


PG and E cosponsors Outside Lands, too. (0.00 / 0)
So does that mean somehow PG and E is corrupting Outside Lands, too? Just curious.

--
www.gregdewar.com


[ Parent ]
Who elected Outside Lands? (0.00 / 0)
Last I heard, Outside Lands was not elected to represent the people of San Francisco.

Maybe I am just naive, but I think we should hold our elected representatives to a higher standard than the organizers of some random concert.  


[ Parent ]
So then (0.00 / 0)
only elected officials can be corrupted by sponsorship?

I'm proud to work for Barbara Boxer

[ Parent ]
If you really hate 'em (0.00 / 0)
if you really don't like PG and E and condemn their sponsorship of Gavin's event, then you really can't stop and not condemn every other charity, organization, or school that takes money from them too.

Progressives have their ugly donors too, and I don't see anyone here complaining about that. Face facts - until campaigns are completely financed by the government (!), private donations will be with us, whether you and I like it or not.

Personally I'd rather see us switch to a system more like the UK or other countries where TV time is not a commodity to be purchased. Alas, we live in California, where that is not the case.

--
www.gregdewar.com


[ Parent ]
Newsom still claims MoveOn supports it ... (8.00 / 1)
I just got an invitation from Newsom's gubernatorial campaign for the event, which still names MoveOn as a sponsor: http://www.gavinnewsom.com/Join

not cool (0.00 / 0)
Have they no respect for moveon?

[ Parent ]
Calitics in the Media
Archives & Bookings
The Calitics Radio Show
Calitics Premium Ads
Photobucket


Support Calitics:

Shop on Amazon.com

Advertisers

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

Referrals
Technorati
Google Blogsearch
Powered by: SoapBlox