CapWeekly broke the news that the California Labor Federation passed a resolution demanding that Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez give back the $4 millions the CDP transfered to his account back in November 2006. Those funds have been the source of my derision by myself and other front pagers here at Calitics. It was a symbol of what was wrong with the current political structure in the Democratic party, giving large chunks of money to one politician, rather than investing in campaigns and or building up the party infrastructure itself. The Speaker currently has $5.1 million in his personal campaign account.
The question is now, what will Nunez do with all of that cash? The Labor Fed is concerned that it will be used to Nunez's own benefit, perhaps a future political race, rather than benefiting the Assembly Democratic Caucus, which was the stated goal when the CDP transfered the funds in the first place.
"When the speaker asked for the money, it was for one purpose -- to help elect Assembly Democratic candidates. It was not for a slush fund for the speaker. If he does the moral thing, he will return the money," said Robert Balgenorth, president of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and a member of the Federation's executive committee.
But haggling over the details of the resolution continued Tuesday. A Nunez spokesman said the language of the resolution directed the speaker to spend the money on behalf of Democratic candidates, and not necessarily return the funds to the party. But sources at the labor convention said Nunez, subect to campaign restrictions, could not spend the $4 milion as originally promised because of the $3,600 limit per candidate.
This is something that Nunez should have known at the time, same goes for the CDP. However, these campaign finance restrictions should not have prevented him from making independent expenditures. That did not happen and the Speaker has only spent $1.4 million out of his account since 2005. He has been hoarding it, but for for what.
Joe Matthews, formerly of the LAT, now at the New America Foundation has a post defending Nunez. Matthews' defense is fatally flawed. The reasons he lists for Nunez retaining the cash are no longer an issue and in one way or another have been resolved. (check the flip)
Last post on this today I promise. This is new information and California specific. Courtesy of Jane Hamsher of Fire Dog Lake I have this quote from Anastasia Ordonez at the California Labor Federation. Jane called them to inquire about the status of Chris Lehane's contract with the Fed on health care and passed it off to me, given the California angle.
He's been a close labor ally for many years, so we're looking into this but I'm not going to comment on what our relationship will be in the future.
Ordonez stated that their contract with Chris Lehane was terminated around Thanksgiving, because they were not sure what they were going to do with regards to health care. That makes sense, since the health care negotiations were ongoing, rather than completely falling apart and there was not a huge need to have a guy like Lehane around.
The California Labor Federation maintains a blacklist of contractors for situations like this one, where someone goes to work directly against the labor movement. They can only add someone to that blacklist if a Local requests it. WGA is not a member, therefore they cannot make that request.
SEIU has been much closer to the WGA than the members of the Labor Fed and AFL-CIO, thus it is not that surprising to see them moving more slowly than Change to Win and SEIU.
The California Labor Federation is the state AFL-CIO, with more than 1,200 affiliated local unions, representing 2.1 million union members in diverse communities and sectors of the state's economy. Manufacturing, service, retail, construction, public sector and private industry unions join together in the Federation to protect and advance the rights and interests of all California workers.
Having the Fed put Lehane on the blacklist would obviously be a pretty big deal. If they do, I will be sure to blog it up.
Art Pulaski, the Executive Secretary-Treasurer of the California Labor Federation, posted a statement featured on the California Progress Report outlining the labor organization's "support if amended" stance on ABx1 1, the recently released healthcare proposal from Democratic leadership in the State Legislature.
In the statement, Pulaski voiced strong support for creating a baseline on employer contributions towards healthcare for all employees and the creation of a statewide purchasing pool which he says "allows millions of Californians to pool their risk and resources in order to negotiate for more affordable healthcare." Pulaski also noted support for the expansion of public programs and accompanying tax credits under ABx1 1.
However, Pulaski writes that "[d]espite these important advances, ABx1 1 still falls short." Find out where and his recommendations on how to fix it below the fold.
The California Labor Federation, which had been neutral on Prop 73 during the special election, is officially now opposing the redux.
California's leading union organization, bucking organized labor's long-standing neutrality on the issue of abortion, is for the first time taking a strong stand in favor of abortion rights.
Meeting behind closed doors last month, the California Labor Federation — which represents more than 2.1 million workers belonging to more than 1,100 affiliated unions — voted to oppose Proposition 85, a November ballot initiative that would require doctors to notify parents before performing abortions on minors. In a policy statement, the labor federation also urged the national AFL-CIO "to reconsider its position of neutrality on the issue." (LA Times 8/7/06)
It's great to hear that the CLF is standing up for the safety of teenagers. The transperancy of the motives of the far Right combined with their tenacity on this issue mean that we will need to focus a lot of energy on the issue.
