Laura Richardson is back in the news again for unpleasantness, with a vicious resignation letter from her district scheduler suggesting pretty clearly that there's an ethics investigation ongoing. In November, it was reported that Richardson staffers were interviewed around allegations that Richardson had improperly forced staffers to volunteer on her campaign. At the time, Richardson said "There is no ethics investigation. They just had somebody interviewing my staff." Richardson strongly pushed back elsewhere, denying that she was again the target of an ethics inquiry, but the letter suggests there may be more going on:
I am also hurt because on more than one occasion I was asked to do a task or coordinate an eventthat was on the ethical borderline and not in my job description; things that I was never properly trained on or warned about, and later caused me to be deposed by an ethics investigator with a lawyer present.
The letter also discusses "repeated emotional abuse and constant conflict" in a "toxic and hostile work environment," so it certainly seems like there's something unpleasant going on here. The initial, uncorroborated report cited extraordinarily high staff turnover in Richardson's office, and a range of concerns about management style.
As the Calitics team has chronicled in the past, Laura Richardson has a long history of ethically questionable behavior. Most notably, allegations of preferential treatment on foreclosures, allowing property to fall into dramatic disrepair, failing to disclose loans, and a particularly pricy car allowance.
Not to mention, as is often the case in safe districts, Richardson's initial election was not exactly a shining beacon of democratic idealism. She essentially won a seat in Congress for life by garnering less than 12,000 votes and under 38% in the special election primary for the open seat, and has kept up a steady stream of headlines for ethical problems ever since. The whole combination has already sparked speculation about a potential replacement, although that seems more than a few steps down the line. It is, however, probably a good occasion to re-consider why less than 12,000 people are able to install someone in Congress effectively for life -- especially given this illustration of what it can mean.
Taking into account some suggestions and comments, I made some changes to my previous attempt at redistricting California. I conceded an additional 2 seats to the GOP, which concomitantly makes a number of other seats more strongly Democratic. The additional 2 safe GOP seats are CA-4 and CA-48. Here's what version 2 looks like, overall:
I decided to try my hand at redistricting California's Congressional districts for 2010-2012, using Dave's Redistricting App. After playing around with it a bit, here's what the map I came up with looks like overall:
Here's the 2008 Obama/McCain vote in California, on the precinct level:
In 2007-08, I wrote a monthly series of House race roundups here in California, taking a look at the races with the highest potential to change members of Congress. This cycle, there are promises from the national Democrats that they will pay attention to a number of seats in California held by Republicans, and with the statewide races at the top of the ticket looking favorable for Democrats, and Republican registration collapsing throughout the state, in theory we should see some more movement. But many of these elements were true the past two cycles, amounting to little. Because it's a statewide officer election year, I will also do a statewide races roundup at a later time. But for now, let's take a look at the seats most likely to flip in 2010, starting with seats currently held by Democrats, few of which are in play. In addition to those "threatened" by Republicans, I'm including two seats where I've heard rumblings about primary challenges to incumbents.
A word on the notations. PVI refers to the Cook Political Report's Partisan Voting Index. I've also included the Presidential performance from last year and the particular Congressional performance, where applicable. That information is available for the whole nation at this link.
So the first quarter of fundraising for the 2010 cycle ended, and this week the reports were filed. Swing State Project has a good roundup. Here's what I found interesting:
• In CA-48, Beth Krom had an unusually strong quarter, considering she entered the race in the middle of it. She raised $63,000 for the quarter, actually beating the incumbent, John Campbell, who raised $55,000. Now, in 2008 candidates like Nick Leibham and Debbie Cook beat their incumbent counterparts in fundraising repeatedly, but had major disadvantages in cash on hand because the incumbents had assembled war chests from prior fundraising. And that's the case here too - Campbell has $300,000 CoH, while Krom has $61,000, a 5-to-1 advantage. But to beat Campbell so early in the cycle shows a lot of potential.
• Debbie Cook, Charlie Brown and Bill Durston basically raised no money in the quarter, dampening any expectation that they will run again in their respective districts. Durston raised $9,000, but that was probably all before he hinted at dropping out due to medical troubles.
• In CA-44, Bill Hedrick may be getting national attention, but he's not raising national numbers, and if he continues to put up $14,000 for a quarter, the D-Trip will either walk away or look for another challenger. I respect the hell out of Hedrick but he's got to do better than that.
• CA-37 is absolutely ripe for a primary challenge. Noted deadbeat Laura Richardson raised a paltry $28,500, as an incumbent, and her $39,000 cash on hand is dwarfed by $363,000 in debt. We deserve better than Laura Richardson in that very blue district.
• Jerry McNerney put up a $275,000 quarter in CA-11.
• His numbers weren't spectacular, but Palm Springs Mayor Steve Pougnet is drawing some attention for his challenge to Mary Bono Mack in CA-45. This is another "Obama Republican" district, and Pougnet, a gay father of two, has an interesting profile for the district and a proven record in the community. This one bears watching.
First Rep. Laura Richardson was having problems making house payments, defaulting six times over eight years.
Then after a bank foreclosed on her Sacramento house and sold it at auction in May, the Long Beach Democrat made such a stink that Washington Mutual, in an unusual move, grabbed it back and returned it to her.
This week, in the latest chapter in the housing saga, the Code Enforcement Department in Sacramento declared her home a "public nuisance."
The city has threatened to fine her as much as $5,000 a month if she doesn't fix it up.
Neighbors in the upper-middle-class neighborhood complain that the sprinklers are never turned on and the grass and plants are dead or dying. The gate is broken, and windows are covered with brown paper.
"I would call it an eyesore," said Peter Thomsen, a retired bank executive who lives nearby.
I think "embarrassing" is the best word for it. Laura Richardson has no need or use for a home in Sacramento anymore, and in her letter to supporters trying to give an alibi for her recent conduct, she says that she isn't rich and doesn't have a second income to afford her lifestyle. Then why the useless home in Sac'to that's become decrepit?
If this was the only thing wrong with Richardson, it'd be enough, frankly. But the fact that she voted to sink the Fourth Amendment and provide amnesty for lawbreaking to the telecoms in the FISA bill means that her votes are as embarrassing as her home upkeep. It's really unacceptable to have her as a representative of this state, honestly.
This Laura Richardson (CA-37) loan default story is growing. The Hill is reporting that she's had three homes in default and is currently renegotiating with her lender to save one of them. It seems like she's engaging in what amounts to a pyramid scheme - buying new homes with little money down, and at the same time loaning her campaigns for state Assembly and Congress tens of thousands of dollars. So the money that would be used to pay off the loan is paying for her political upward mobility.
A third home that Richardson borrowed heavily to move into in Sacramento was sold at auction earlier this month -- at a $150,000 loss to the bank that issued her the $535,000 loan. ...
Even as that was happening, ethics watchdogs were crying foul over Richardson's personal finances and questioning how she was able to lend her campaign to Congress $77,500 in the midst of multiple home loan defaults. ...
Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports show that Richardson loaned her campaign a total of $77,500 -- in three installments -- between June and July of 2007.
Richardson's year-end FEC filing showed that her campaign still had $331,000 worth of debt but $116,000 cash-on-hand. ...
Meredith McGehee, policy director for the Campaign Legal Center, said it would be reasonable for the FEC to look into the timing of the loan against the timeline of Richardson's home loan defaults.
"In situations like this it's very important for whoever loaned her the money to demonstrate that they treated her equitably, not favorably," McGehee said. "Otherwise, you're getting into a situation of a corporate underwriting of a campaign."
It was pretty clear last year, when Richardson ran a divisive, racially-toned campaign to win the Congressional seat against State Senator Jenny Oropeza, based in part on saying how this was "our" seat (referring to African-Americans), that she was potentially bad news. This confirms it. I won't defend her because these types of financial improprieties are unaceeptable. Getting behind on one loan because it's a fact of life that you need to practically go broke to win a political campaign is one thing. But this to me looks like a series of efforts to possibly use borrowed money and plow it into political activities. And that's wrong. I don't think she's in danger of losing her primary next week, but she should be.
When Laura Richardson won the CA-37 race last year, it gave her a real advantage to defend her seat this year. That makes Peter Matthews continued opposition interesting and, even more to the point, opens the question of what Brezenoff is talking about in the LB Post.
Woohoo! Jerry did it! Jerry McNerney has managed to become the most un-progressive Democrat of the entire California congressional delegation. For those keeping score at home, Jerry's 82.45 was about a half point lower than the next CA Dem, Jim Costa, that progressive stalwart, at 82.97. And for all the talk of Harman changing her ways, she's still worse than even Joe Baca, almost 7 points worse from a very safe Dem seat.
For all of you CA-45 fans, "moderate" Mary Bono came in with a stellar 4.42 Chips are Down score. So, for all the bluster of the SCHIP vote, she's still dancing the same jig as the rest of her party.
On thing must be said, the Speaker has done an excellent job at preserving unity amongst the caucus. Whether that means she's being too incremental and/or ineffective, or just laying down the law is the big question. The reason her approval rating, and the Congress in general, is down has a whole lot to do with the fact that little has changed on the Iraq front. So, would it be better to have a speaker who is more willing to take risks? Perhaps, but the impediment of the president always lingers over her head, veto pen in hand. So, whether the unity is really there, is an open question. Full data over the flip.
(I was working on a similar post, but I'll still post my own, with all CA data and some other miscellany. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The problem with most scorecards is that they are written by lobbyists concerned with always getting the votes of potential supporters. Thus, there is an equal weighting while in the real world not all votes are equal. In fact, regardless of everything else, some votes are dealbreakers and when they show up on scorecards as one of 12 votes or something, it looks silly. However, Progressive Punch has a new "when the chips are down" scorecard. After the flip is the ratings of CA's congressional delegation, in descending order.
I'm guessing that at tonight's Calitics' Actblue Celebrations there will be a lot of discussion about the votes to condemn MoveOn. The CA delegation split 50-50 in the senate and 16 yea and 17 nay in the house -- wedged successfully by the GOP in half. After the flip is the scorecard.
King-Harbor Medical Center in South Central Los Angeles is back in the news this week. As you may remember, King-Harbor's, formerly known as King Drew Medical Center, funding was pulled at the end of June, when the hospital failed it's final review.
King-Harbor had been under scrutiny for quite a long time for sub standard care, but it was the reporting of the death of Edith Isabel Rodriguez at the hospital that appeared to be the straw that broke the camel's back with regards to the survival of the Medical center. The Los Angeles Times documented the travails of King harbor in a Pulitzer winning series of articles.
Well, Laura Richardson won her race for Congress and will represent the Long Beach area for, I gather, the next 20 years, barrring a redistricting change (but considering this is an 80% Democratic district, how much of a change would that take?). There'll be a runoff, but that's just a formality; the Democrats in the race got close to 80% of the vote (not that there was much of a vote; turnout was about 11%, and Richardson will go to Congress with the support, in the primary at least, of 11,000 voters).
What this really shows is that you don't mess with labor. If Jenny Oropeza made a different vote in the State Senate with regard to the tribal gaming compacts, maybe she'd be headed to DC. But what dismays me is how nasty a campaign Richardson ran, and how in the end it didn't matter one bit. She continually claimed that the Congressional seat ought to go to "one of us," a not-so-subtle swipe at Oropeza's Hispanic roots (although both of them have Caucasian mothers, apparently). She also sent a sickening mailer attacking Oropeza for missing votes in the Assembly, at a time when Oropeza had liver cancer.
Ultimately, I don't think these negative attacks mattered; it was the boots on the ground from labor unions that did. But that's the problem; they DIDN'T matter. Richardson didn't pay the price for running an ugly and dishonest campaign. That, combined with the pathetic turnout, should give everyone pause. This is a low-income and low-information district. The progressive movement is nonexistent here. And the same identity politics drove the race, and labor turned a blind eye to it.
And people wonder why it's hard to take back America...
UPDATE II (by dday): 8% reporting
LAURA RICHARDSON DEM 4,534 34.95
JENNY OROPEZA DEM 3,842 29.61
VALERIE MC DONALD DEM 1,358 10.47
That's not a lot of VOTES separating Richardson and Oropeza, but so far the first Election Day voters have tracked with the absentee voters. There's really no substitute for boots on the ground in a race like this. Richardson is looking good, and she ran a uniformly ugly race.
UPDATE III (blogswarm back): At 10:06 PM we have Richardson pulling away with 18.86% of precincts reporting (63 of 334)
(It is Election Day! We'll have result coverage tonight! And please note that my promoting this should not be seen as an endorsement, I'm just a junkie for great diaries and Election Days.-blogswarm; Also, don't forget to check out Long Beach's local blogs, LB Post and LB Report, for the latest on the special election today. Oh yes, and thanks, Major, for visiting our humble blog! : ) - promoted by atdleft)
X-post to Daily Kos, with scant revision.
I have a horse in the CA-37 race today.
In 1980, I became the editor of Cal State Long Beach's alternative newspaper, then called the Union Daily. The University President was then Steve Horn, a moderate Republican who later represented Long Beach in Congress. The Student Body President was a young (though a little older than me) Latina woman named Jenny Oropeza. She was planning an unprecedented (at The Beach) run for re-election. A few weeks into my tenure, she sized me up, let me know her plans, and asked me if the paper would be endorsing and, if so, where she stood.
I was a new kid in town, but I'd done my homework on her. I knew that Jenny was considered bright, liberal, ambitious, organized, hardworking, and a real fighter. Given political power, she had done what one has to do in office to earn further trust. I /think/ I managed not to tip my hand that day, but I already had a good sense that I'd ultimately endorse her, even against what turned out to be an also-impressive opponent.
I do so today for the same reasons. I don't live in CA-37, but if I did I'd vote for Jenny. If you live there, I hope you'll support her. My take on the race follows.
Voters go to the polls tomorrow to elect the successor to Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald. The story line coming out of the election seems to be labor v. tribes. They are both spending more money than the candidates have raised themselves.
State Senator Jenny Oropeza, as dday detailed on Saturday, has been the beneficiary of over $270,000 in independent spending from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians. The tribe has dropped mailers, door hangers, newspaper ads and called voters in a push to repay Oropeza for voting for the massive gaming expansion. That vote was one factor for the LA County Labor Federation's support of Assemblywoman Laura Richardson. They are spending their money on member to member communication, urging the members of their local affiliated unions to vote for Richardson. No specific total in terms of spending, but it is not an insignificant sum.
I would put my money on the Fed being much more effective with their communication rather than the blanketing of the district done by the tribe. Turnout is going to be pretty small, less than 15% and those hard core voters are not easily swayed by mailers and door hangers. This campaign really is all about identifying likely voters and making sure they get to the polls. Who ever has a better turnout model and plan will win.
The amounts that the campaigns have raised are relatively modest. Oropeza reported $219,000 on June 6, while Richardson listed $105,000 in contributions. The tribes efforts have surpassed both of them easily.
If you are in the district make sure you vote and drag all of your friends and family around with you. The winner will likely be in office for a few decades.
In the last two weeks, a Riverside County Indian tribe has independently spent more than $270,000 on behalf of a Democratic candidate in Tuesday's special election to fill a Long Beach area congressional seat.
The expenditures by the Morongo Band of Mission Indians greatly outweigh other donations in the relatively quiet race to replace Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, who died in April. Since June 14, Morongo has paid for door hangers, newspaper ads, mailers and phone calls to voters on behalf of Jenny Oropeza, a state senator from Long Beach.
The amount spent in the Morongo campaign — by law such expenditures cannot be made in consultation with the candidate — has exceeded the $219,000 Oropeza reported raising in direct donations for the entire campaign as of June 6. It is more than 2 1/2 times the $105,000 that Oropeza's chief competitor, Assemblywoman Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach), reported collecting by the same date.
Oropeza voted for the gaming compacts that would triple the number of slot machines at the Morongo casino, without allowing casino workers full ability to organize and collectively bargain. The compacts would also not offer much in the way of oversight into casino finances, which in a way is the whole point, since the state is supposed to receive 15-25% of the proceeds from the new slot machines, but may not be able to determine what those proceeds are.
But none of this kept Oropeza from breaking a state Senate campaign promise by voting in support of the compacts. And her reward is a quarter of a million dollars in advertising.
Incidentally, Morongo might want to double-check their voter lists.
(her opponent Laura) Richardson said she got two pieces of Morongo-paid mail at her home.
She called the Morongo expenditures "off the charts" but predicted that voters "are going to see through exactly what's going on."
Maybe, maybe not. And my sense is that voters aren't all that interested in the mass of mailers and robocalls, especially in the middle of June in a special election that will likely not garner 15% turnout. Still, it's interesting to see the lengths to which Morongo will go to pay back their supporters. If they really wanted to help Oropeza, however, they would spend money for GOTV machinery instead of ads and calls, to counter the network of labor groups that will be helping Richardson turn out her voters, mainly because of the very Morongo compacts Oropeza signed.
The primary election to replace Juanita Millender-McDonald is next Tuesday, June 26. Both main campaigns, State Sen. Jenny Oropeza and Assemblywoman Laura Richardson, have released internal polls showing them in the lead; however, both polls are tight enough to make this a very close race. Oropeza has about twice as much money for the final days.
There's not much of an air war going on, but the mailers are fast and furious. And Richardson continues to engage in not-so-subtle identity politics.
