Calitics Ed. Board Says No on Special Election Initiatives

by: Calitics Editorial Board

Tue Apr 14, 2009 at 08:30:00 AM PDT

During the budget week from hell, we mildly cheered on the progress of the budget process. We were concerned about the short-term budget issues, but were also dismayed by the rapid rightward shift of the negotiations.  Unfortunately, as an Editorial Board we simply cannot support the measures as they have been brought to the May 19 Special Elections Ballot. We share the concerns of the League of Women Voters that this package was poorly designed and poorly executed, resulting in a plan that will ultimately create more harm than good. And since none of these measures address the structural revenue gap, adding another layer to an already suffocating fiscal straightjacket makes no sense whatsoever.

We do not appreciate the fearmongering message from supporters of the initiatives, who obviously can't find anything to recommend in these solutions and thusly must warn of impending doom in order to get them passed.  We remind voters the words of Bill Clinton: "If one candidate's trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think... if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you'd better vote for the one who wants you to think and hope."

Prop 1A - State Spending Cap. NO

Beginning with Prop 1A, the heart of this package, we cannot do better than the LWV in briefly describing the flaws:

[Prop 1A] would actually make it more difficult for future governors and legislatures to enact budgets that meet California's needs and address state priorities. It would amend the state Constitution to dictate restrictions on the use of funds put into the reserve and limit how "unanticipated" revenues can be used in good years. It could lock in a reduced level of public services by not taking proper account of the state's changing demographics and actual growth in costs. Prop 1A would also give future governors new power to make budget cuts without legislative oversight. Like the other propositions opposed by the League on this ballot, Prop 1A came from a deeply flawed process that resulted in measures written in haste and without public input or analysis. The League would support real budget reform, but we regretfully conclude that this measure would only make things worse. (League of Women Voters)

And there's actually much more.  We don't have to guess about the impact of spending caps.  In 1992, Colorado instituted a spending cap as part of TABOR, and within a few years spending on education, health care, and practically all other measures of government dropped from the middle of the pack relative to other states to almost dead last in every category.  Considering that California ALREADY ranks near the bottom in these categories, the result would be even more disastrous.  The California Budget Project estimates that the cap would force the state to reduce expenditures $16 billion dollars below the Governor's baseline spending projections by 2010, $17 billion by 2011 and $21 billion by 2012.  That's a FAR BIGGER gap than the two years of tax revenues that would be lost by voting down 1A.  These revenues are highly unlikely to ever be recovered, because of the faulty indexing of the cap and the fact that it's based on a level of revenues made during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.  And Democrats claiming that there's an ingenious "out" of the spending cap because it could be raised if taxes are raised neglect to mention that this doesn't apply to fees, which would essentially end any efforts to work around the conservative veto by raising revenues through fees to fill a budget gap.  In fact, the way the spending cap is structured, it would force contributions into the rainy day fund EVEN IN DOWN BUDGET YEARS.

Failure of Prop 1A would indeed reduce funding to our government in 2011-2013.  Yet this assumes that legislators could never deal with revenues in the intervening two years. Further, the increased revenues we would receive from Prop 1A are simply not worth the long-term damage to our government that this measure would create.  That's why the CTA and the Democratic establishment worked so hard to defeat a similar spending cap plan in 2005.

Prop 1B - Education Funding. Payment Plan. NO

Prop 1B isn't really inherently bad.  It is simply made irrelevant by our position on Prop 1A through a clause that takes 1B down if Prop 1A fails. It provides a workaround to a disputed technical question in Proposition 98 by setting up a one-time $9.3 Billion fund for education.  If this didn't come with the baggage of Prop 1A, it would be worth considering. But as it stands, we simply cannot accept the pair.  That being said, if Prop 1A passes, it is important that Prop 1B passes. If we were to vote strategically, we would vote No on 1A and Yes on 1B, but we leave that decision to you.

It is worth noting that Prop 1B would not provide a solution to the catastrophic financial crisis facing public education in this state, and would do little if anything to help the 26,000+ teachers who received a layoff notice last month keep their jobs in the fall. Since Prop 1B's effects are not permanent, it would not exempt public education from the likelihood of funding shortfalls that Prop 1A would produce. Education has already suffered enough from one-time short-term budget deals that produced long-term problems.

Proposition 1C - Securitization of the lottery. NO

Prop 1C would allow the Treasurer to sell bonds backed by the lottery revenues. The budget deal assumes that we will get $5 billion for this deal, but that number remains highly speculative. However, our opposition does not stem chiefly from any quibble with the amount of money it would bring in, but rather from our overall sense of failed governance that emanates from the entire package and this  proposition specifically.  George Skelton calls this proposition a "payday loan" and no better words could describe this.

The fact is that we have done this before and it failed. Back in 2004 after Arnold wiped out the dreaded "car tax" he came to the voters of this state complaining about how we are going to fix this budget. So, he told us that if we just passed props 57 and 58 to sell some bonds and tweak the budget process, he'd handle it from there.  Needless to say, the problem was exacerbated rather than ameliorated, in particular because the state NEVER SOLD THE BONDS.  If this package represented real reform that would allow the state to move forward with an honest and democratic budget process, this would be more palatable.  If we knew that we wouldn't just be back in the exact same situation 18 months from now, this might even be a reasonable idea to dig ourselves out of a very deep hole.

As it is, we'd prefer to wait for something real.

Prop 1D - Diverts $600 Million from Prop 10 First Five funds to other childhood programs. - NO

The First Five Program was created in 1998 by the passage of Proposition 10.  By raising the cigarette tax by 50 cents per pack, California was able to create a sustainable program with its own source of revenue.  But that has always been a thorn in the craw of the right-wing Republicans.  It is spending they cannot touch for programs they would rather not fund.  But the First 5 commission has been successful in providing funding for innovative and successful programs.  And the commission's own prudence has led it to the chopping block.  They planned for the inevitable decrease in cigarette taxes by building up a cash reserve, and that money has grown too tempting for the Legislature. It is a pot of money, and they cannot resist.

Rather than raiding First 5, we should have provided a sustainable revenue for the state. We should not abide by these budget gimmicks and ploys, and First 5 should not be their victim.

Prop 1E - Diverting Mental Health Services Funding - NO

This initiative would cut into the Prop 63 (2005) money for mental health services from the 1% surcharge on income over a million dollars.  Although this slash job wasn't as bad as what was suffered by First 5, as it has a prominent defender, it is still unacceptable.  Mental health services are financially prudent spending. It saves money that will end up being spent elsewhere, whether for homeless services or prisons.  Diverting this revenue is penny wise and pound foolish. Both Prop 1D and 1E come from the "rob Peter to pay Paul" school of budgeting, although in this case "Peter" is young children and Californians with mental health needs who have few defenders or other resources to fall back on.

Prop 1F - Wasting Your Time. An Initiative. - NO

Prop 1F would block any pay raise for legislators when the budget is showing a deficit.  It is an infinitesimally small amount of money in the grand scheme of things and accomplishes remarkably little for something on a statewide ballot.   First, not getting a raise in deficit years is not a sufficient incentive for anyone to actually do anything, nor is it really meaningful shared suffering.  The implicit assumption that the trivial penalty of Proposition 1F could be a meaningful incentive to not run a deficit treats elected officers as greedy sociopathic children who need petty personal financial incentives to deal with the state's budget.  Building this assumption into the California Constitution is unnecessary and further entrenches in the state constitution far-right market fundamentalism and contempt for the role of government.

Second, if we're going to constitutionally impose shared suffering or financial penalties on elected officials, why is it a balanced budget that's the trigger?  Why not base it on the number of California's children in poverty, the condition of our infrastructure, the state of our parks, the number of homeless, the funding levels of our schools?  Instead, Proposition 1F privileges a morally blind view of the world -- balanced budgets are the only measure of legislative accomplishment for which elected officers can be penalized financially.  Why this needs to be on the ballot can be answered only by Abel Maldonado, but it's a nothing more than an ill-conceived placebo designed to placate angry voters -- and so will no doubt pass. However, we don't need to countenance Abel's temper tantrums.

The Democratic Endorsement and the Grassroots

by: Brian Leubitz

Tue Jan 24, 2012 at 11:15:00 AM PST

by Brian Leubitz

The pre-convention caucuses are one of the most grassroots friendly processes in California politics, while at the same time, there is a potential to game them from above.  Last weekend, a number of competitive races, especially in Southern California where redistricting tossed a number of districts into chaos.

Around the Capitol has a great district by district listing of the competitive races and the CDP has a PDF of all the races, but the dynamic is worth focusing on.  As John Myers points out, in a Top-2 world, these could make a bigger difference than in the past:

For casual political watchers, it may be hard to believe that small gatherings of diehard Democrats in January will decide who wins races for the Legislature or Congress come November. And yet, in some cases, that's exactly what could happen after this weekend. Welcome to the world of intraparty competition under California's new primary election rules. (KQED Capitol Notes)

Typically, the value of the CDP's endorsement is limited.  You get to ask the party to work with you on mailers, and use their lower mail rate, which can save a few dollars.  (It's like a coupon!) And the party can spend money on your race. But, traditionally, the party itself will likely spend very little, if any, on the endorsed candidates in the primary.  But with Top-2, the word "primary" is something of a sketchy term, and candidates are labeled only as preferring one party or another.  So, the state party's imprimatur could mean something more this cycle. The biggest thing is that this year, the sample ballot will include a listing of the endorsed candidate.

Since John Myers referred to the IKEA-instruction-like voting eligibility, I figured I would explain that as a way of explaining how thinks like Torie Osborn winning every Dem club endorsement but losing the Dem party happens.  To that specific district, AD-50, it seems clear that Torie Osborn, a progressive grassroots rock star and organizer for the California Alliance, has the support of the grassroots Democrats.  But Butler is getting support from the Assembly Democratic caucus.  Why does that matter, you ask?

Well, here is how the voting eligibility works for the pre-convention caucus:

1. Democratic clubs get one vote for every 20 verified active members in the district.
2. Democratic County Central Committee members in the district get a vote.
3. Democratic State Central Committee members in the district get a vote.  But this is where it gets complicated, as there are a number of ways you can become a delegate to the state party.
   • 12 members per assembly district elected in January of every odd year.
   • Members appointed by the county central committee
   • Members appointed by legislators and executive office holders.

The last two is where it gets really dicey.  The County chair usually appoints all of the central committee members to be delegates and in a county with an abundance of Democrats like LA, will have some left over. Those that are left over can be moved around into a district of need for endorsement. I don't know if that happened with LA County chairman Eric Bauman or not.  (UPDATE: Most counties, including LA, elect their additional delegates, so it wouldn't really be possible to game the system this way.)

The bigger target of delegate movement is the legislators.  Legislators can appoint half of their delegation outside of their own district, and those appointees get to vote in their own districts. Speaker John Perez has been pretty vocal in encouraging Ms. Osborn to "wait her turn" until Ms. Butler is termed out.  The problem with that is that she had been waiting her turn for Asm. Mike Feuer to term out in 2012.  Butler's district barely touched this new AD-50, in fact she represents less than 10% (CORRECTION: Less than 2%) of the new AD-50 now.  However, as Butler decided not to run for the now more Republican friendly district that encompasses much of her new district, Osborn is now being told to wait again by the Assembly caucus.  Except she is not waiting, and has continued to run her campaign.

As a result, Speaker Perez has been organizing a dump of delegates into the new district, tilting the balance from Osborn to Butler.  At the convention, where the Democratic club members do not get to participate, this tilt of power towards legislators becomes more pronounced.  If Butler is able to get 2/3 of the delegates in her column, the only way to remove the endorsement from the consent calendar is to get 2 members from the Pre-primary endorsement review panel (PERC) to agree to pull it off the consent calender for PERC review.  If less than 2/3 support Butler, Osborn supporters will be able to gather 300 signatures to bring the endorsement to the floor.

(UPDATE: Note that the PERC consists of all DSCC executive board members in the district as well as the regional director, two e-board members appointed by the Chair and the state officers)

This process can happen in a few more districts around the state that are marked "caucus" on the PDF of all the races.  If you are coming to San Diego, keep an eye out on that 2/3 threshhold in the district level caucuses.

The CDP Endorsement Process Starts Tomorrow

by: Brian Leubitz

Fri Jan 20, 2012 at 08:10:19 AM PST

by Brian Leubitz

UPDATE: AroundTheCapitol.com is tracking the contested races.  Some of the big news already is that in SD-13 (San Mateo, Jerry Hill/Sally Lieber), there was no consensus, so there will be no official endorsement.  Also, no endorsement in AD-8.

The same is the Democrats across the state will meet at pre-convention caucuses across the state to begin the somewhat complicated process of endorsing for assembly, senate and congressional seats.  (Note: I have a part in this, as I am running the SF-based Region 4 endorsement process)  This might get confusing, but here's a quick run-down of the process. If you'd like all the details, the CDP has a handy endorsement process memo written for campaigns.

1) Pre-convention: The voting population is made up of all the democratic state central committee (DSCC) members (delegates to the state convention) as well as 1 representative for every 20 members for all chartered democratic clubs in the district. If one candidate gets 70% of the vote in the district, he or she receives the endorsement.  If no candidate receives 50%, there is no endorsement in the race. If a candidate receives between 50 and 70%, the process moves to the convention.

Voters can attend the pre-convention caucus for each of the 21 regions and vote there, or they can mail, email or fax in their ballots to their regional directors.

2) Convention:

The voting population is made up of the DSCC members in the district, club representatives are no longer involved. Incumbents need to receive only 50% of the vote, while non-incumbents need 60%. If the recommendation is less than 2/3 of the vote, the recommendation can be pulled to the convention floor by signatures of 300 members of the DSCC. If the recommendation is by more than 2/3 of the vote, it can only be pulled by the pre-primary endorsement review committee.

3) Floor

If it does get to the floor, the entire DSCC gets to vote on the endorsement. Endorsement requires the same threshold as the convention caucus in part 2.

So there you have it. Fun stuff, huh? Well, if you are at the convention in San Diego in Feburary, you are sure to here more about this process. Until then, if you are a voter, be sure you get your ballot in today!  

City Workers Endorse Yee for Mayor

by: Leland Yee

Mon Aug 15, 2011 at 12:05:23 PM PDT

CA-10: One Week To Go

by: David Dayen

Tue Aug 25, 2009 at 14:44:07 PM PDT

• Late last week, fundraising reports were due, showing that over $2 million dollars has been raised by the various candidates seeking Ellen Tauscher's old seat in Congress.  By any metric - total cash raised, cash raised in the last cycle, cash raised since June 30, cash on hand, and cash on hand less debts - John Garamendi has the lead, though much of his money comes from big donors.  Anthony Woods, and to a lesser extent Mark DeSaulnier, have found a smaller-donor base, though Woods' is mostly out of district.  Joan Buchanan has basically not raised money at all; she has given herself as much as $750,000 in loans and is generally self-funded (and what donations she has not given herself have come from such health industry interests as Wellpoint, one of the largest insurers in America).  I would say the top four candidates probably have enough money to get out the message within their budgets, however.

• The Contra Costa Times, the main newspaper in the main population center of the district, endorsed John Garamendi for the position.  However, their criticism of Mark DeSaulnier, that he "acced(es) to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions," gives you an indication of their orientation and whether or not you find them a trusted source.

• DeSaulnier continues to hammer on the largely irrelevant point that Garamendi doesn't live inside the district.  Here's a mailer to that effect.  And practically every missive from campaign staff re-emphasizes this point.  I would like their research department to find one instance of when a residency issue like this had any impact on a Congressional race.  I just really think DeSaulnier has missed his target here.  He's better off showing his progressive bona fides on issues like health care, transportation and the environment, IMO.  This is such a critical time, and residency issues do not appear to be at the top of the minds of people who want to see this country make good on the change agenda from 2008, particularly Democratic partisans who would vote in a special election primary.

• Anthony Woods held another live chat at AmericaBlog this week.  His position in local endorsements always comes at the end and reads something like "we were very impressed with him and think he has a bright future."

CA-10: SF Chronicle Endorsement Goes To Garamendi, Buchanan Ad

by: David Dayen

Wed Aug 19, 2009 at 12:49:54 PM PDT

Lt. Gov. John Garamendi stands out in this crowd because his vast portfolio of experience is so well aligned with the issues of the times and the big concerns of the district.

Garamendi said he withdrew from the governor's race when this seat became open because "these are the issues I've spent my life on." Others might suggest his decision was conveniently pragmatic - his bid for the Democratic nomination was going nowhere - but there is no doubt about his qualifications for Congress, especially in this district. He was an aggressive and effective insurance commissioner (think health care, consumer issues such as foreclosure), deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior (delta, climate change) and a state legislator from 1974 to 1991.

The 64-year-old Garamendi has the confidence and depth of knowledge that would allow him to hit the ground running in Congress - and his history suggests he would be unabashed in doing so.

The op-ed had good words for practically everyone running, particularly Anthony Woods, but went with Garamendi.  In a weird example of symmetry, Bruce Brugmann and the SF Bay Guardian wrote almost exactly the same editorial today.

Meanwhile, Joan Buchanan debuted a spot for the last two weeks of the campaign, which looks pretty much like a generic bio spot, although with her being the only prominent woman in the field, an ad just repeating "Joan Buchanan, Joan Buchanan" for 30 seconds would be somewhat effective (and basically that's what this spot does).  The three electeds are all up on cable TV now.  Will Anthony Woods use some of his money for TV?

CA-10: DeSaulnier's Endorsement Trouble

by: David Dayen

Mon Aug 03, 2009 at 11:00:00 AM PDT

However, one endorsement has caused DeSaulnier a bit of a headache - the support of the former holder of this seat, Ellen Tauscher.  DeSaulnier has made no secret of that endorsement, including it in mailers and on his TV advertisement.  One problem with all this: with Tauscher now at the State Department, some have raised concerns that her endorsement while working at a federal agency violates the Hatch Act, which prohibits executive branch employees from participating in partisan politics.  DeSaulnier's camp has countered that the endorsement, which was made before Tauscher was confirmed for the post at State, always says "Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher" and thus indicates that it was made prior to that appointment.  But the State Department has weighed in, asking DeSaulnier's campaign to remove the endorsement.

The U.S. State Department has asked 10th District Congressional candidate and state Sen. Mark DeSaulnier to remove all references in his campaign materials to his endorsement from former congresswoman Ellen Tauscher, who is now undersecretary for Arms Control and International Security at the U.S. State Department.

While a legal adviser to the U.S. State Department concludes that the endorsement broke no laws or policies, "Under Secretary Tauscher is committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, on behalf of Undersecretary Tauscher, I have asked Senator DeSaulnier to remove all references in his campaign material of any endorsement she may have made," wrote James Thessin, deputy legal adviser and designed agency ethics official.

The DeSaulnier campaign is fingering John Garamendi for complaining to the State Department about the use of Tauscher's name.  Actually, the complaint was made by Jason Bezis, an individual who claims not to be affiliated with any campaign, but who apparently enjoys filing complaints with the State Department and the FEC (he filed one there against DeSaulnier's campaign over a health care mailer).  It looks like the DeSaulnier campaign won't change current materials already printed, but will consult the State Department "about what qualifies and what doesn't under their request."

I actually question whether this means as much as the DeSaulnier team seems to think, but their strategy all along has been to gather up local endorsements.

Prop 1A: Boxer Endorses, No Side Releases TV Ad

by: David Dayen

Tue May 12, 2009 at 12:00:00 PM PDT

Barbara Boxer made it pretty clear in a news conference at the California Democratic Party convention that she and Dianne Feinstein would be studying the ballot measures and offering a joint statement on them in the near future.  As it turns out, with a week to go, she broke with DiFi, who has made no public pronouncement, and quietly endorsed Props. 1A and 1B yesterday.

"California's budget process is broken," Boxer announced. "It's time for California to join the vast majority of states and reform the two-thirds requirement for adopting the budget.

"However, until we make this crucial reform, I will be supporting Propositions 1A and 1B on the May 19 ballot. These two measures will help get California back on track, while protecting our investment in education."

I heard that Arnold Schwarzenegger misspelled "track" in the initial release for Boxer, and she had to re-release it.

The relative lack of fanfare around this announcement, and Boxer's unwillingness to make her opinion clear on any of the other measures, suggests that Boxer just wanted to fulfill her obligation to say something in the most silent way possible.  She doesn't want to back the whole loser of the ballot and doesn't want to impinge upon her Democratic colleagues in the legislature who put together the deal.  That's about it.

UPDATE: Now DiFi has come out in favor of 1A & 1B as well, while specifically rejecting Prop. 1C and calling for "a budgeting system that works effectively and efficiently in times of budget crisis."  If this was the case all along, and the endorsements came out within 24 hours of each other, why wouldn't they have put out the statement at the same time?  Good to know our Senators work so effectively together.

Meanwhile, No on 1A released a TV ad for the final week, and I'm a bit baffled by its middle-ground focus on "porkbarrel spending" that may result from the way the spending cap and reserve fund are structured.  It's true that money in the reserve fund could only be used for one-time spending like infrastructure and debt service, and that does significantly change the model for how the state gets funded, with ongoing services getting sucked dry.  I don't know if I would characterize that as "pork-barrel" spending, necessarily.  In addition, the loss of revenues in recurring services like health care and education, not the supposed pork barrel spending, concerns me far more.  The ad does hit the fact that 1A won't kick in on the revenue side for two years, so framing it as a response to the current crisis strains credulity.  The larger frame here is of Prop. 1A as a complex proposal full of loopholes that will not meet its intended goals.

Calitics Endorsement: CA-32

by: Calitics Editorial Board

Fri May 08, 2009 at 13:30:00 PM PDT

Therefore, we have been extremely disappointed in Gil Cedillo's divisive and often false attacks on his rivals.  He started his campaign talking about "our community" and "our people", clearly attempting to play upon a Latino/Asian divide inside the district, which has a larger Hispanic population (which is an odd tactic for someone like Cedillo, who has never represented anyone from the 32nd district, to take).  Cedillo's blatantly false mailers against Judy Chu during the race, attempting to blame her for the economic crisis by associating her with unrelated headlines and claiming that "Politicians like Judy Chu give tax breaks to their big corporate contributors," when as a BoE member she merely returned tax refunds owed corporations, were bad enough.  But the mailer against Emanuel Pleitez, using Facebook images to build a false narrative of Pleitez as a drunken womanizer who hangs around with non-Hispanic women (a deliberate effort - we wouldn't be surprised to learn that this mailer only went to Hispanic women) and throws "gang signs" (actually that's the sign for Voto Latino, an organization for which Pleitez was a past board member), goes beyond the pale.  This slandering, not only of Pleitez but of women in general, as if appearing in a picture at a bar connotes being a slut, goes well beyond what should be expected of a public official, and certainly beneath someone asking to be given a promotion and sent to Washington.

Calitics was generally comfortable with giving no official endorsement on this race until the events of the past couple weeks.  We find Dr. Chu to be a progressive leader and Pleitez to have a significant amount of knowledge and energy, and Cedillo has been a past champion on significant issues like immigration.  But the events of the past couple weeks have forced us to end our silence.  Our somewhat unusual endorsement for voters in CA-32 is to vote for ANY DEMOCRAT BUT GIL CEDILLO.  The behavior he has displayed in this campaign should be rejected, not rewarded.

Memo To The New York Times

by: David Dayen

Fri May 01, 2009 at 17:41:46 PM PDT

Please stop this.

Thanks.

What Democratic Vote Means for May Special Election

by: paulhogarth

Tue Apr 28, 2009 at 08:41:14 AM PDT

Aftermath Of The Proposition Battle: Listen To The Range Of Debate

by: David Dayen

Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 09:28:30 AM PDT

Efforts by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative leaders to win voter approval of six budget measures on the May 19 ballot grew more difficult Sunday when a sharply split state Democratic Party declined to back three of them.

The mixed verdict by more than 1,200 delegates to a state party convention came after a nasty floor fight over the grim menu of proposed solutions to California's severe budget crisis.

"We've got all kinds of divisions," Art Pulaski, leader of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said of the fractures among unions that drove the party's internal rift. "It's not unusual for us."

Republicans, too, are split on Propositions 1A through 1F. The state Republican Party has broken with Schwarzenegger, its standard-bearer, and begun fighting the measures.

Taken together, the muddled messages from California's two major parties threaten to fuel the sort of voter confusion that often spells doom for complicated ballot measures.

This is pretty on the money.  There's a split within both parties, one that Democratic leaders aren't coming to terms with.  Neither side has taken heed of its grassroots, at least in part.  With the propositions in trouble, we must take an eye to the message that will come out in the aftermath.  The truth is that Democrats have a principled policy difference here, and those legitimate concerns should not be discounted by the leadership in favor of a narrative that voters opposed the ballot because of 2 years' worth of certain tax increases.  In fact, the word "taxes" was not used once on the floor of the convention by those opposed to 1A or any other measure.  We oppose these measures because we find them deeply harmful to the future functioning of the state.  We believe there's a better way in the short term, with the majority-vote fee increase, and the long-term, with the end of the conservative veto and a more sustainable course, based on broader-based taxation to pay for the services all Californians desire.  We reject in whole the dumbed-down, simplistic framing that 1A would "reform the budget" and failure would court disaster.

As for the spin that delegates "supported" the measures on the "May 11 ballot" (Steve, you should probably get the date right if you're working for the Yes side), and a "supermajority quirk in party rules" was used by opponents, I really don't know what to even say to that.  First of all, the quirk has been on the books for a long time, and it was actually progressives like Dante Atkins who have been working to reform the endorsement process, so welcome to the party.  Next, with fully 1/3 of the delegates electeds and appointeds, most of whom negotiated and supported the deal, and another 1/3 elected by county committees, and another 1/3 grassroots delegates elected at caucuses, a 60% threshold, which again was never argued by these people when it worked for them, represents a fairly broad consensus of all three sectors.  Finally, if you went state by state, I would imagine you would find such a threshold in many if not most state Democratic parties, whereas the 2/3 rule for the budget, to which some are making a false equivalence, only finds parallel in Arkansas and Rhode Island.  I would be all too happy to completely reform the endorsement process and even question its use by the party outright, that would be a fine debate.  But whining about known rules sounds like Hillary Clinton's staff bemoaning the fact of caucuses in the 2008 primary when they knew the facts for years.  The grapes, they are sour.

Now that the endorsement battle is over and the election just weeks from being done, let's have a dialogue instead of a lecture, and let's take the concerns seriously of those who reject the false messiah of a spending cap and raiding important voter-approved initiatives and balancing the budget on the backs of gamblers.  Let's actually advocate for something rather than being forced to accept something.  Let's not worry about "what the Republicans will say" and let's not sniff that "pie in the sky solutions won't work."  Let's reform the state and come out with a government that works.

CA-04: Sac Bee Endorses Charlie Brown: UPDATED with new poll numbers showing Brown ahead

by: David Dayen

Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 18:56:35 PM PDT

Brown understands that the that the mortgage crisis, the collapse of the financial system, the credit crunch and the recession are real. He would have supported the rescue plan because doing nothing was worse than doing something, though he believes Congress has done a poor job of selling the package. And the final package assured taxpayers get any profits, required congressional oversight, banned golden parachutes.

This is telling. McClintock sticks to ideology; Brown pragmatically puts the nation first.

The nation and the 4th District need to find ways out of partisan and ideological gridlock. Elect Charlie Brown to Congress.

Now, if the final package wasn't such a dog with fleas that the feds have basically scrapped it, and if the banks weren't using it to collect free money instead of facilitating lending, this would be a stronger argument.  Whatever; the Bee's endorsements have been profoundly odd, and have seemed to value bipartisan seriousness over everything.  But I think there's a difference between rejecting partisanship and abandoning core principles.  I think that Charlie Brown will govern the way he has campaigned, by working through problems and using his best judgment based on his values and principles.  Tom McClintock is incapable of adapting to changing information whatsoever.

What he will do is try to play dirty to win the election, including sending nasty robocalls throughout the district because they're cheap for his cash-strapped campaign.  The problem is that they haven't done a good job of checking their call lists.  The Brown campaign, for example, got robocalled.

UPDATE: The latest poll shows Brown expanding his slim but measurable lead.

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 10/20-22. Likely voters. MoE 5% (9/23-25 results)

McClintock (R) 42 (41)
Brown (D) 48 (46)

Among early voters (13 percent of respondents)

McClintock (R) 38
Brown (D) 56

Brown takes independents 51-34.  McClintock's fav/unfav is at 44/42.  Brown is at 49/29.  And McClintock is out of the cash he'd need to push up Brown's unfavorables.  

This is very good news.  Let's get this seat.  Stay for Change.

No On 8 Using Obama In Web Advertising

by: David Dayen

Sun Oct 26, 2008 at 10:28:22 AM PDT

The Obama campaign would not let this happen on its own.  God for them for allowing the No on 8 campaign to associate with his remarks.  Obama has shown a willingness to lend himself to the efforts of downticket races - he's cut an ad for Oregon US Senate candidate Jeff Merkley - though I doubt we'll see much more than this Web advertising from him on Prop. 8.

Here are a couple other things I think need to happen to help the Prop. 8 cause.  First, Google needs to stop running ads that violate their own policies.  Google has a very specific standard for those groups that use their architecture to advertise, which includes banning ads that advocate against a "protected class" like the LGBT community.  Yet they allow Yes on 8 to use Google ads.  I know Google as a company is on the right side of this debate, but they can either stand behind their stated policy or not.

The other thing that the no side might want to consider is putting an actual face on who would be discriminated against with this measure.  I know this has been a source of controversy that's simmered under the surface, but today Jonathan Rauch brings it up in the LA Times.

The need to walk that tightrope helps explain why the actual subjects of next month's initiative, gay couples, were "inned" by the "No on 8" campaign's ads. (Full disclosure: I am a "No on 8" donor.) One ad, for example, features a gray-haired straight couple. "Our gay daughter and thousands of our fellow Californians will lose the right to marry," says mother Julia Thoron.

A subsequent ad, all text with voice-over narration, mentions marriage only once ("Regardless of how you feel about marriage, it's wrong to treat people differently under the law") and never uses the phrase "gay marriage" or even the word "gay." Just as oblique was a spot, released Wednesday, in which state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell reassures viewers that "Prop. 8 has nothing to do with schools or kids. Our schools aren't required to teach anything about marriage." A casual viewer could have come away from these ads puzzled as to exactly what right thousands of Californians might be about to lose.

Asked about the absence of gay couples, a senior "No on 8" official told KPIX-TV in San Francisco that "from all the knowledge that we have and research that we have, [those] are not the best images to move people." Children, also, were missing; showing kids with same-sex parents could too easily backfire [...]

Whatever the tactical considerations, the absence of gay couples and gay marriages from California's gay-marriage debate makes for an oddly hollow discussion. It leaves voters of good conscience to conjure in their own minds the ads that are not being aired: Ads that show how gay marriage directly affects the couples and communities that need it most.

You can show me all the data you want; "hollow" is the best word for what's happening.  Neither side is talking about the actual proposition in their messaging.  I expect that from the Yes side, to hide their serial homophobia and focus on made-up protections of imagined rights that would be encroached upon.  But when a self-described squish like Kevin Drum terms No on 8's ads "bland and generic," something is wrong.  Without a clear indication, as done in the Ellen DeGeneres PSA, of who would be harmed by this measure and why, there's this subconscious message of shame about the rights that this campaign is trying to defend.

On a completely unrelated note, this is a great post from a minister discussing what the Bible actually says about marriage.

State GOP Bugging Out Of Unwinnable Races

by: David Dayen

Thu Oct 16, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM PDT

Democratic and Republican sources have informed CMR that the GOP has pulled the plug on future ads for Assemblymember Greg Aghazarian's bid to replace termed out Democratic Senator Mike Machado in California's 5th Senate District. Aghazarian's Democratic opponent, Assemblymember Lois Wolk, is up around 20 points in internal polling, so Republicans have decided to cut their losses.

This means that there will be no more than 15 Republican Senators (and probably less) and no more than 32 Republican Assemblymembers (and probably a lot less).  They will not pick up a single seat at the state level.

Unless you think they can still win in AD-30, where an intra-party feud has left drama queen Yacht Dog Democrat Nicole Parra to endorse the Republican in the race between Danny Gilmore and Democrat Fran Florez.  Florez' response ad to Parra's endorsement is hilarious, check it out at the link.

The truth is that while AD-30 is competitive, it's not a likely pick-up.  And the CRP had better get in the habit of cutting losses; a couple assembly seats are lost causes for them, too.

Progressive Voter Guide - Including Calitics Endorsements

by: Robert Cruickshank

Wed Oct 15, 2008 at 15:15:00 PM PDT

The Courage Campaign Issues Committee (disclosure: I'm proud to work with them) has taken up the task, and put together the 2008 Progressive Voter Guide. It includes Courage Campaign's positions on the 12 propositions, and includes the ever-useful chart of how prominent California progressive organizations have endorsed on the 2008 propositions.

The chart, of course, includes prominently the Calitics ballot proposition recommendations including Yes on Prop 1A, No on Props 4 and 8, and No on Prop 11.

The guide can be downloaded as a PDF or you can get it for your mobile phone by texting VOTECA to 69866.

We are on the cusp of a major progressive breakthrough in California, and part of that involves the 12 ballot measures. This guide can help California progressive make the right choices.

Our Positions on the Statewide Propositions

by: Calitics Editorial Board

Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 15:01:50 PM PDT

The Growing Coalition Against Prop. 8

by: David Dayen

Tue Sep 30, 2008 at 08:07:43 AM PDT

The board - a collection of leaders from the Reconstructionist, Reform, Conservative and Orthodox movements - this week declared its opposition to the measure, which would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman. Leaders of the board said they wanted protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian couples.

"For many rabbis, it speaks on a personal level in terms of people they deal with whose lives have been impacted over the issue," said Rabbi Stewart Vogel of Temple Aliyah in Woodland Hills and the board's president.

The board has more than 290 members. Roughly 120 took part in Wednesday's vote, the largest number of rabbis to weigh in on such an issue in recent memory. Vogel said Friday that 93% of those who cast votes supported the resolution.

Good Yom Tov!

Calitics is a part of this coalition through our Counter-Fast For Equality.  We're giving thousands of supporters the opportunity to sign on to stop the elimination of marriage equality, and donate through the Fast4Equality ActBlue page.  We also have a Twitter feed set up.  If you send a tweet with the #fast4equality hashtag, it'll appear on our site.  So sign up today!

Campaign Update

by: David Dayen

Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 15:55:02 PM PDT

• CA-46: Debbie Cook has been endorsed by DFA (Democracy for America).  Jim Dean, the Chair of DFA, said in a statement, "Debbie Cook has been a grassroots champion for over 20 years and has a proven record of success in the private sector and as a public servant ... Debbie Cook is running because she's a committed advocate and activist who fights for her constituents and delivers results."

In the past, DFA has been able to move some resources into districts, so we'll see if they're going that route in this race.  DFA has also recently endorsed Bill Hedrick (CA-44).

• CA-26: Russ Warner's campaign is announcing via email that the DCCC named his race as "one to watch."  That doesn't mean they'll get any money, but it puts them in the queue if the race tightens.  Unfortunately, the DCCC has kind of a deliberate style, where they hoard their money for the races they know are toss-ups, and then wait until the very last minute for these emerging races, sometimes beyond the point at which that money can be effective.  I understand the strategy but it wouldn't be smart from Warner's perspective to bank on any help from Washington in his race against David Dreier.  He needs his own resources as well as money from California lawmaker's PACs.

Which reminds me, California Democrats, it's time to use it or lose it.  We have a number of races where the challenger can win if they have enough resources, and in the seats where an incumbent has token or no opposition and a huge war chest, that money should not be sitting in an account somewhere.  Help our own candidates!  Expect more pressure on this very soon.

• CA-03: It's kind of fun watching Dan Lungren try to humina-humina his way out of supporting Prop. 8.  He really has no idea what he's talking about.  It would be bad enough if a citizen of the state had this atrocious an understanding of basic civics, but this guy is not only a US Representative but a former state Attorney General!

• AD-80: The GOP tried to get Manuel Perez' occupational status as an "educator" thrown off the ballot, but they failed.  Now he has received the endorsement of the highest-ranking law enforcement official in Imperial County, D.A. Gilbert Otero.  Considering that his opponent, Gary Jeandron, is the former police chief of Palm Springs, I'd consider this endorsement to be significant... UPDATE re: CMR, seems that Gary Jeandron supports "traditional marriage."  In Palm Springs.  Now, so did Bonnie Garcia, but she was able to win enough in Imperial County to offset it.  Jeandron needs the Palm Springs vote to be huge to win.

I think he just lost, if he hadn't already.

CA-26: The Mystery of "Democrats For Dreier"

by: David Dayen

Mon Jul 28, 2008 at 13:53:02 PM PDT

The letter was signed by the following 9 Democrats:

Paul Eaton, Mayor of Montclair
Roberto Campos, small businessman, Glendora/Upland
Karen Davis, Mayor of Glendora
Mary Ann Lutz, Monrovia Councilmember
Kurt Zimmerman, Mayor of Sierra Madre
Joe Garcia, Monrovia Councilmember
Anthony Fellow, Director, Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District, Arcadia
Dorrie Bryan, HR Manager, Rancho Cucamonga
Eugene Sun, San Marino Councilmember

The questions arose almost as soon as the letter was sent.  On the flip...