About 1/3 of all the bridges and overpasses in our state are showing signs of deterioration (i.e. crumbling). Seventy percent of our urban roads and highways are congested. California has the second-highest share of roads in "poor condition" in the nation.
Given the amount of commuting and traveling Californians do, these are pretty alarming stats. But you get what you pay for. And, quite frankly, California's lack of infrastructure funding is embarrassing, and downright dangerous to all of us who spend so much time on the road every week.
Today California Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) announced a long-overdue proposal to rebuild our run-down roads and bridges, ease traffic congestion and create a lot of good, middle-class jobs doing it.
California cannot have a strong middle class or a thriving economy if our roadways are congested and people and goods cannot move efficiently throughout the state. The Assembly is stepping up and proposing $10 billion for transportation infrastructure-$2 billion per year over the next 5 years-starting in 2015-16.
Labor has long been sounding the alarm on the need to fix our eroding infrastructure. It's a no-brainer. We can create tens of thousands of jobs by upgrading our roads, bridges and transportation system. And fixing our infrastructure makes California more competitive, which creates even more jobs.
California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski:
Years of neglect have rendered many of our roads and bridges unsafe, leaving California families at risk. Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure would create good jobs that strengthen our middle class and spark our economy. It's time we invest in a transportation system that makes us safer while supporting workers, small businesses and all California families.
Robbie Hunter, President of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California:
California is paying a heavy price for having underfunded highway and bridge infrastructure for decades. Years of massive budget deficits resulted in billions of transportation dollars being diverted elsewhere. California's growing population and economy depends on the efficient movement of people and goods from our factories and ports throughout the state. Investment in repairing and re-building our roads is critical to our economy and quality of life and also creates tens of thousands of good new construction jobs.
The Assembly plan includes:
• $1 billion per year by returning truck Weight Fees to transportation instead of using them to repay general obligation debt.
• $200 million per year for transportation funding by accelerating repayment of transportation loans.
• $800 million per year in new net funds for transportation by establishing a new Road User Charge.
The Road User Charge is estimated to be only about $1 per week for most drivers. A pretty small price to pay for keeping our families safe on the roadways.
This is the right proposal at the right time. California has overcome a dangerous recession in our very recent past, the present is fiscally stable and looking stronger every day, so now we need to look ahead and help fix the future. And addressing transportation funding so we can have better, safer, and faster infrastructure is a key part of fixing the future.
The Speaker has shown real leadership in proposing this bold plan. If we're at all concerned about the future, we need to turn this proposal into reality.
DIANA CONTI FOR ASSEMBLY 2014
"Because California Deserves Better"
College of Marin Trustee Diana Conti is running for Assembly because she believes California and the 10th District needs someone who will stand up for a good affordable education for all, including higher education that will prepare our young people for the good well-paying jobs of the 21st century, that our coastline is a resource for all Californians and not something to be exploited by oil companies and large developers and that special interests have too much influence on who makes our laws in California. She would fight for a true single payer system in California.
"California is in a crisis," said Conti. "With a drought, the specter of fracking and loss of funding for essential services such as education and parks, and the true crisis in trust and confidence in our legislators felt by a majority of California.
"We need someone strong enough to stand up to special interests in the legislature, and experienced and practical enough to work for consensus," said Conti. "This means a government that is focused on the needs of the people of the state, not the needs of special interests and big contributors; all people deserve the right to live with dignity and know they can have a safe place to live, a good education for their children and jobs that are meaningful and pay a living wage," stated Conti, currently in her second term as a trustee for the College of Marin.
As a College trustee, Diana has seen the devastation that lack of funding and the loss of courses students need to succeed can have. She has worked to build consensus with her Board colleagues and the surrounding community in the expenditure of bond funding for new classrooms and infrastructure improvements.
Conti has been called a "pragmatic peacemaker," a description that has served her well in her career working with social service agencies in both Marin and Sonoma and the non-profits she has led, such as in her former position as Deputy Drug Program Administrator for the County of Sonoma, executive director of the Marin Institute, and Executive Director of the Novato Human Needs Center.
She currently is CEO of Parca, an organization that helps people with developmental disabilities and their families and serves on the Board of West Bay Housing Development Corporation (housing for people with special needs). She is a member of the Governing Council, and past Executive Board member, of the American Public Health Association.
Contact Diana at 415-990-8798 or email her at email@example.com
See her Facebook page at http://tinyurl.com/n3eqwhp
It's easy to be pessimistic about the future these days. Tea Party extremists are threatening to push our federal government into default. Federal immigration reform is on the back burner until the shutdown and debt ceiling messes are sorted out. In a host of states, anti-worker governors are hell-bent on gutting workers' rights while giving more power to corporate special interests.
But in California, a decidedly different story is playing out. The end of the legislative session here brought huge gains to workers and their families that boost our state's economy and bolster the middle class.
With the federal minimum wage stuck at $7.25, Gov. Brown signed AB 10, taking California's minimum wage to $10 per hour by January of 2016, a 25 percent wage increase for low-wage workers in the state. While immigration reform is stalled in DC, Gov. Brown signed a slew of bills to protect immigrants and ensure greater inclusion. We've tackled the underground economy. Promoted good jobs. Axed a boondoggle of a corporate tax break that wasted taxpayer dollars.
This all comes on the heels of the passage of Prop. 30 in 2012 (which funded our schools and stabilized our budget) and the election of Democratic super-majorities in both the State Assembly and State Senate, ensuring Tea Party extremists couldn't hold California hostage like they're doing with the shutdown and debt ceiling debacle in DC.
In short, California is accomplishing what few in Washington DC can even imagine these days: Progress for working people.
California Labor Federation Executive Secretary-Treasurer Art Pulaski:
Labor led the way this year in bringing real equality and progress to working people in California. We reformed tax breaks that cost jobs, we won rights for domestic workers and car wash workers, we brought greater equality to hard-working immigrants, and we began the essential work of rebuilding the state's middle class. With these new laws, there's no question that California is the national leader in supporting workers and their families.
Among the notable legislative victories this year were the following bills Gov. Brown signed into law:
• AB 10 (Alejo/Steinberg): Increased the minimum wage to $10 per hour by January of 2016.
• AB 60 (Alejo): Expanded drivers licenses to all Californians, with key protections for immigrant drivers.
• AB 93 (Assembly Budget Committee): Reformed the wasteful Enterprise Zone corporate tax breaks to reward employers who create good jobs.
• AB 241 (Ammiano): Granted daily and weekly overtime protection to domestic workers who have been excluded from most labor laws.
• AB 263 (Hernandez)/AB 524 (Mullin)/SB 666 (Steinberg): Enacted the strongest protections for immigrant workers in the country to stop retaliation when workers speak out about unfair wages or working conditions.
• AB 537 (Bonta): Improved process for public sector bargaining to resolve disputes more effectively.
• AB 1387 (Hernandez): Protected car wash workers by preserving the car wash registry and increasing the bond to crack down on the underground economy.
• SB 7 (Steinberg): Raised wages for construction workers by incentivizing compliance with prevailing wage laws.
• SB 168 (Monning): Helped protect workers working for farm labor contractors by providing successor liability to ensure wages are paid.
• SB 400 (Jackson): Helped domestic violence survivors keep their jobs and promotes a safer workplace by asking employers to work with survivors to identify and minimize the risk of workplace violence.
• SB 770 (Jackson): Expanded paid family leave to include time providing care for parents-in-law, siblings, grandparents and grandchildren.
Progressives push legislature to use supermajority for big change
by Brian Leubitz
When the Legislature hit the magical 2/3 mark after the November 2012 election, a lot of progressives started dreaming big. Prop 30 just passed, and a statement had been made for a progressive vision of California. A majority of Californians had just voted to raise their taxes. Whether thanks to the strong field campaign around Prop 32 or through changing demographics of a presidential election, the Democrats gained big on the Legislative front.
But muddying these waters was a lot of mixed messaging. Gov. Brown had at least signaled that he thought Prop 30 was the only tax revenue measure that we should pass for a while, and some of the Democratic legislators had more or less said the same thing.
On the other side, the dreams were building for those who focused less on the immediate political future and more on the long term progressive vision. Progressive leaders were looking at Prop 13 reform, oil severance taxes, minimum wage increases and more. A lot of powder has been kept dry over the past few years with the constant budget fight, and with that superminority concern out of the way, some looked to really mount the pressure. And to be clear, they have mounted a lot of pressure. I've seen enough of these discussions between progressive leaders and legislators to know that the pressure on them is real.
"The supermajority is something that you have to use it or lose it," said Rick Jacobs, head of the 750,000-member Courage Campaign, which has been at the liberal vanguard of several grassroots and online campaigns. "It is time to be bold. What is anybody afraid of?" (SF Chronicle)
To some extent, this is about two competing theories of politics. One says that you have a limited supply of "capital." Under this model, you can only expect to do so much progress on the legislative front. Gov. Brown is pushing for a gradual and slow movement that prioritizes consensus and getting buy in from as many as possible. On the other hand, progressives tend to favor an idea of politics that promotes efficiency. You get into it what you put in kind of thing. Voters will respect action, even if they don't get every component right away.
But for now, Speaker Perez and Sen. Steinberg seem to be of the same mind as the Governor. They're taking it slow for the time being. Steinberg has said that he doesn't plan on [touching Prop 13 this year, and Speaker Perez thinks this is just the beginning of a larger fight.
Even though Democrats could override Brown's veto with their two-thirds majority, "a lot of Democrats from more conservative areas don't want to vote to raise taxes because they know it would kill them in their districts," said Steve Maviglio, a spokesman for Assembly Speaker John Pérez.
Plus, say Democratic leaders, it is still relatively early in the legislative calendar. Budget negotiations are just beginning.
"C'mon, it's only the second inning. There's a lot of time left in the session," said Maviglio. "We're moving forward on a lot of bills that are friendly to labor and progressives.
"I would tell some of the people who are saying these things to just relax," Maviglio said.(SF Chronicle)
Now, perhaps that last sentence could be more eloquently phrased, but Mr. Maviglio speaks of building a long term progressive supermajority in the Legislature. It's a laudable goal by any Democratic perspective, but getting everybody on the same page isn't necessarily the easiest task, even within the same party.
Right-leaning groups took on traditional Democratic power base with the help of "top-two" voting
by Brian Leubitz
Both Michael Allen and Betsy Butler faced difficult reelections in 2012. Butler decided to run in what was basically a new district when she opted for the progressive AD-50 seat. She did represent a small portion (less than 10%), but she certainly didn't carry the same incumbent advantage you typically expect. She defeated Torie Osborn and Richard Bloom in the primary, but with top-two she had to come back again to face Democratic Santa Monica mayor Bloom.
Meanwhile in Marin County, Michael Allen had to move from his Santa Rosa base to a Marin district due to the new districts. Like Butler, Allen, while an incumbent, was new to these voters. San Rafael City Councilman Marc Levine was something of a grassroots champion. He was very involved with the state Democratic party, serving as eboard rep for the old AD-6, as well as the local party. However, he saw the writing on the wall after his second place finish, and started aggressively courting independent and Republican voters.
The CalBuzz team took a deep dive into how the two races went downhill for the two "incumbents," and the story is well worth a careful read and a tale on how typically conservative interest groups will look at influencing a new one-party Legislature.
We also know that we'll see lots more of this kind of thing in the future - in both Democratic and Republican races - as the top-two primary system encourages moderate candidates with guts and gumption to take on left- and right-wingers in hopes of getting into a run-off election where independent and other-party voters can provide the margin of victory.
What makes these two Assembly races particularly intriguing is the fact that both Republican and Democratic strategists were crucial in electing moderate-to-liberal Democrats who were perceived as less beholden to labor unions and thus more palatable to business interests.
There's also the fact that the California Chamber and Western Growers - after thumping Mr. Speaker Himself - appear to have tried to hide their involvement by working through shell vendors, sharing valuable data and personnel and failing to report their spending until they were exposed months later. (HT to Dan Morain for digging into this whole issue.)(CalBuzz)
I won't spend a long time going over their article, but rather implore you to read the whole thing, and maybe again a second time. While I won't rehash the viscous AD-50 race that was already well documented here, I happen to personally like Marc Levine. I've known him for several years through CDP and other events, and he ran a strong campaign. The IEs that supported him, however, were hardly paragons for progressive values. Maybe a bit more disclosure will blunt the impact of these IEs, but they are clearly here to stay.
Termed out Assemblyman looks to spread cash with treasurer "campaign account"
by Brian Leubitz
I love it when people are honest. I particularly love it when they say things that most people don't dare to actually mention. So, hats off to Asm. Dan Logue for admitting that his "campaign" for treasurer is actually a fundraising trick to allow big donors to double give money to Republican extremists:
Logue acknowledged that his setup could allow donors to essentially donate to GOP candidates twice -- once directly and once through a transfer of funds given to his campaign account -- circumventing campaign contribution limits. But he said he saw the move as necessary to protect the interests of businesses.
"I am absolutely terrified that the Democratic majority is going to dismantle the business formula in Sacramento and make it even worse than it is now," he said. "So I'm really committed to making sure small business has a voice in Sacramento, and this is how I'm doing it."(SacBee)
In case you forgot Logue, he's the guy that worked very diligently to get Prop 23 on the ballot. You know, the one that would have ditched our landmark climate change legislation. Logue likes to look at businesses and corporation as pure good in the world. Which is awesome for him, becuase that sounds like a great way to live.
However, in the real world, we need regulations to protect our environment, consumers, and our general safety. But, Logue is all-in on his worldview, so no surprise that he's looking to any and all techniques that can help him out.
For better or worse, our campaign finance system has more holes than a good Emmental cheese. This is just one of them, and elected officials from both parties use the trick. But, credit where credit is due, Logue told the truth about his plan to circumvent the finance restrictions with the loophole.
But, as the adage goes, don't hate the player, hate the game.
Well, this is interesting news: Steve Glazer, Gov. Brown's top campaign strategist and a long time local politician in Orinda, is looking to replace the termed out Joan Buchanan.
Gov. Jerry Brown's political adviser, Steve Glazer, will run for a state Assembly seat in 2014, Glazer announced this morning. The Orinda councilman will seek election in the Democratic-leaning Assembly District 16, the East Bay district from which Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, D-Alamo, will be termed out.
Glazer cast himself as a moderate in a prepared statement, criticizing a legislative process he said is captive to "the extremes of both political parties." (SacBee)
Glazer just started his third term on the Orinda council, so he has the local connections that are often the key to the endorsements that make races in the low turnout June off-year elections.
The district is a fairly moderate district, so it hardly shocks to see him to go moderate. Brown, for his part, has been called the "most powerful conservative in Sacramento." Glazer's campaign would fit right in on both levels.
The top-2 format will treat such a "moderate" campaign well, and his name ID and connections to money should put him as a favorite to at least get in that top 2. However, there are a long list of viable candidates for this district, so there is more to shake out before next June.
AD-65 - Northern Orange County: Fullerton, Buena Park, Anaheim
Pres 2008: Obama 50%-47%
Gov 2010: Whitman 50%-42%
Sen 2010: Fiorina 50%-41%
Incumbent: Chris Norby (R-Fullerton)
Candidates: Chris Norby (R), Sharon Quirk-Silva (D-Fullerton)
Rating: Likely Republican
This district vacillates between safe GOP and likely GOP, but Norby's performance in the primary (59%) raised eyebrows on his vulnerability. This area is turning blue quickly as Latino growth explodes, and this election might show exactly how much potential this district has for the Democrats in their quest for two-thirds...
But there's a rub, since this District only constitutes a third of his old District, Norby has a Challenge, he needs to get his name out there, just as Quirk-Silva does. People shouldn't write this one off, the Republicans aren't.
With Labor Day coming up, races shifting into gear
by Brian Leubitz
With the national political conventions starting up, the political season is here. And so, with that, how about a look at three races in the Assembly that could be good news for Speaker John Pérez and the Democratic caucus.
AD-8 (Dem Ken Cooley(pictured) v Rep. Peter Tateishi)
The Citizens Redistricting Commission rejiggered two suburban Sacramento district held by Democrats to create this new district. Those seats were held by retiring Assemblywoman Alyson Huber, who was elected in 2008, and Dr. Richard Pan, who upset Republican Andy Pugno in 2010 (Pugno is now running in another seat against fellow Republican Assemblywoman Beth Gaines, and Dr. Pan is in another Sacramento district). The new AD-8 has a 1.1% Dem. registration advantage.
This long-time competitive seat in the Central Valley now tilts Democratic. The Citizens Redistricting Commission removed Republican portions of Fresno and Tulare and added a larger portion of Democratic-leaning neighborhoods in Bakersfield. With these changes, Dems now command a big registration advantage. However, turnout will still be critical come election day.
Salas, the first Latino elected to the Bakersfield City Council in its 138 year history, has a big cash advantage over former Delano councilman Rios. In fact, Rios is in a cash hole that the GOP caucus doesn't seem to be interested in repairing. Rios was an insurgent that defeated the party favorite, and faces an uphill battle without significant institutional support.
I'll look at two more districts in the second part coming soon.
During campaign season, it's expected for politicians to set up their headquarters in the district. Not only does it make the campaign and the candidate accessible to his or her own constituents but also gives back to the district's business community.
So, while Butler may not have done anything illegal by setting up shop outside the district, she certainly hasn't done herself any favors.
The open house, which takes place this Saturday, also happens to fall on the first day of Passover, this even though AD50 is the center of Los Angeles' Jewish community.
SuperPACs. They've changed the political landscape, for better or worse. Mostly worse. Now, here in California, Independent Expenditures have pretty much had the same leeway as SuperPACs do on the federal level for years. But the stakes for the presidency are worth, apparently, far more for corporate special interests and billionaires than control of our Legislature. Apparently.
But, this week the Assembly joined several other states in calling for the overturning of Citizens United:
The California Assembly yesterday approved a resolution urging Congress to overturn the 2010 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The split decision helped give rise to super PACs by allowing unlimited contributions from corporations and unions to attack or support politicians, as long as the committees don't coordinate with candidates. The California bill, AJR 22, is part of a campaign to pass such resolutions around the country.(CalWatch)
This is a noble sentiment, and I applaud the Assembly Democrats for making it. However, let's be real here. The Supreme Court, with its conservative core, isn't particularly interested in seeing a return of regulated campaign finance. Since the 1976 Buckley v. Valeo case, it has all been a big race to deregulate campaigns. SUre, there have been fits and starts of trying to come up with some way to control spending. To find some way to equalize the voice of the people, so that the rich don't hold vastly more power than those who can't afford to buy nationwide TV spots.
But that hasn't happened. Overturning Citizens United is an important step. However, as the "Move to Amend" groups are pointing out, the key underlying distortion is that for some reason the Court thinks that money is speech, and that corporations are people. It isn't, and they aren't.
Democratic activists hoping for big gains in the California legislature this year were dealt a serious blow after campaign finance reports released last Thursday raised troubling questions about Assembly Speaker John Perez's strategic priorities and the California Democratic Party's ability to achieve a two-thirds majority in the State Senate and Assembly.
Democrats would have to pick up at least two more seats in each chamber to achieve the super-majority needed to pass revenue increases over the objections of a Republican minority.
Yet campaign finance reports reveal that Speaker Perez, Sacramento Democratic lawmakers and PACs donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to safe Democratic Assembly districts while virtually ignoring new "swing" districts or defending others against possible Republican pickups.
Records also show that most of these donations were given to Allen and Butler during a three-week period last December, and that many Democratic Assemblymembers who donated did not give money to any other Assembly campaigns. The timing suggests a coordinated and conscious effort from leadership to funnel money to these candidates at the expense of other candidates running in more competitive districts.
But as Butler and Allen enjoy the largess of their colleagues in Sacramento while running in districts so safe a Democratic corpse could win, two other candidates running in swing districts which could potentially lead to Democratic super-majorities enjoy no such protection.
Even Democratic State Senator Ted Lieu, whose district overlaps much of AD66, gave $1,000 to Butler, but nothing so far to Muratsuchi.
Additionally, while PACs - including the Professional Engineers in California Government, the State Building & Construction Trades Council and the California State Council of Laborers - gave over $300,000 to Butler and Allen, many of them presumably at Perez's direction, Muratsuchi received only $11,900 in PAC money, including $1,000 from the California League of Conservation Voters - $6,800less than they gave to Betsy Butler.
The clock ticking down on the last night in the California statehouse is always a lot like waiting for last call at a rowdy bar around 2 AM -- you wonder how much damage will done before the last shot.
Looking more closely at the current ma (of course this can change) it appears our new State Senator until 2014, will be Noreen Evans. How many people are aware of this change? It's not a bad thing for sure. Mark Leno will run n SF in 2012, and it looks like Noreen will run in NORCO (that's us, Marin and points north)n 2014.
Now, the interesting question is whether Michael Allen will stay in his new District WINE, which he shares with Assemblymember Wes Chesbro, or move south and run in MARIN (and Southern Sonoma) in 2012. Or will he work it out with Wes, as Wes will be termed out in 2014, but Allen will have another term. Oh, the intrigue.
The Assembly Budget Committee is going all bonkers today, reviewing various proposals from the Governor. Fortunately, for the time being, Brown's proposals seem to be more of a ceiling than a floor:
The Assembly Budget Committee plans to approve much of Gov. Jerry Brown's budget today, but it will reject some of his most controversial cuts to social service and health programs, according to a document released Thursday by the committee.
In particular, Assembly Democrats will not eliminate welfare aid for children after a four-year time limit, and they plan to cut grants by 5 percent rather than 13 percent. They will, however, impose a four-year time cap for adults proposed by Brown.
As Senate Democrats did Wednesday, Assembly Democrats will reject Brown's proposal to cap doctor visits and prescription drugs for Medi-Cal patients. They will also reject Brown's plan to eliminate Adult Day Health Care.(SacBee)
Right now, the 10-cap Medi-Cal maximum, a cruel cut if there ever was one, won't survive very long. I'll try to update this a little bit more throughout the day. If you see anything interesting, put it in the comments.
California's clean air and water, pristine coastline, wild open spaces and public health protections don't happen by accident. They happen because champions for the environment run for office, and once they're elected, they work to pass laws that protect our natural resources and improve our quality of life.
Today the California League of Conservation Voters released our annual California Environmental Scorecard. The Scorecard is the behind-the-scenes look at the battle to protect the Golden State's natural legacy and public health, and reveals how the governor and members of the state legislature voted on critical environmental proposals in the 2010 legislative session. Take action and let your legislators know what you think about their 2010 scores: Visit http://www.ecovote.org/
The story of the 2010 Scorecard is as much about how the environmental community stopped multiple attacks on the environment as it is about how we passed strong laws that protect our quality of life. But the story doesn't end there, because we expect more attacks in 2011 that falsely claim we need to sacrifice the environment in order to improve the economy.
Emboldened by the tough economic climate, anti-environmental legislators introduced dozens of so-called "regulatory reform" bills in 2010 in an attempt to weaken environmental protections. The good news is that, with the help of environmental champions in the state Senate and Assembly, CLCV and our allies successfully defeated the bills that posed the most serious threats to the environment and public health. At the same time, environmental advocates were able to deliver several important proposed laws to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's desk, including bills dealing with energy storage, recycling, water conservation, pesticides, clean energy jobs, and oil spill prevention.
Schwarzenegger's 2010 score of 56% factored into an average lifetime score of 53 percent over his seven years as governor. The governor received national recognition for leadership on environmental issues. However, he leaves office with a mixed legacy, having championed some issues-notably, bold solutions to climate change-and having proven less reliable on others, including protecting public health and state parks.
How did your legislator perform on the environmental community's priority legislation to protect the environment and public health? Learn your legislators' scores and then let them know what you think! (More after the jump).
Today let's look at one campaign there, home of the national and California DFA Grass Roots All Stars.
Melissa Fox is running in AD-70, an assembly district that Obama carried by almost 9,000 votes. The district includes the progressive bastion of Irvine as its largest city and UC Irvine as its largest employer. UCI is also a huge pool of voters, with 26,000 undergraduates and 15,000 graduate students, staff, and faculty.
On the Republican side, the candidate has become an invisible man. After winning a hotly contested primary against three more moderate Republicans, Don Wagner disappeared. He hasn't updated his website since May, when he announced his endorsement by Sheriff Joe Arpaio, his Facebook page is collecting "work at home" spam, and he failed to file a candidate statement for the pamphlet that goes to all voters. Wagner has been seen at only a few events - Tea Party rallies outside his district.
CHERRY VALLEY - 65th Assembly District Democratic challenger Carl Wood has invited Republican incumbent Paul Cook to a series of debates. In a personal letter Wood declared it "our duty" as candidates "to make every effort to inform voters about our candidacies." In an election year where voters are said to be hostile toward incumbents Wood's invitation includes his assurance that he will make "every accommodation" for Cook in order to make these debates happen.
Wood's campaign manager, Michael Kreizenbeck, hopes Cook will agree to the debates. "A debate that discusses issues like jobs, home foreclosures and the substantial needs of veterans is certain to hurt Cook's chances of reelection, but I don't see how Cook can run from this opportunity to explain himself directly to voters," Kreizenbeck said.