The Fair Political Practices Commission has issued a ruling today against Arnold Schwarzenegger's California Recovery Team. The FPPC is finally holding CRT and the Governor accountable for violating campaign finance laws last year and has ordered that they pay a stiff penalty of $200,200.
The Alliance sued the CRT last fall for failing to disclose $25,600,000 of expenditures, as required by law. In March, the California Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, stating that either the FPPC could penalize the governor's CRT or the Alliance could file our own lawsuit to recover damages. It may have taken seven months, but our legal process has worked the way it is supposed to. This sends a message that the Governor has to play by the same rules as everyone else. It is a victory for all Californians and our justice system.
This $200,200 fine is one of the highest in FPPC history. The funds are payable to the General Fund of the State of California. It may be buried on the Friday afternoon of the July 4th weekend, but we couldn't be more pleased with the resolution.
[Originally Posted by LSchwark on Norcal Politics, October 21, 2005]
California's First Lady, Maria Shriver, will be hosting a women's conference next week, the "Governor and First Lady's Conference on Women". This was the conference where, last year, Governor Arnold made his famous remark calling nurses "special interests" and boasting "I kick their butts every day". A women's conference was an especially unfortunate venue for issuing a smackdown of a profession that is heavily populated by women. It was also the point at which people began resisting his agenda with a passion and his poll numbers started to sag.
So you might think he would make an effort not to ruin his wife's conference this year. Well, you'd be wrong.
[Originally posted at NorCal Politics on October 16, 2005]
I tried to write just one post about all of the reasons that Proposition 77 is such a bad idea. It got far too long, so I'll be serializing it this week. The first installment is below.
[Originally posted October 11, 2005 at NorCal Politics]
Bottom Line: A young woman in a good family situation who finds herself pregnant will tell her parents anyway. A young woman in a bad family situation who finds herself pregnant should not be forced to tell her parents. Even Dear Abby knows this (reprinted because it will disappear):
[Originally posted 11/05/2005 on NorCal Politics by LSchwark.]
Beyond the criticisms of the proposition as being detrimental to the health and safety of California teens, Proposition 73 is also a stealth initiative to criminalize abortion, amending the state constitution to define abortion as infanticide.
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8 of the California Constitution. This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto
...
(1) “Abortion” means the use of any means to terminate the pregnancy of an unemancipated minor female known to be pregnant with knowledge that the termination with those means will, with reasonable likelihood, cause the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.
I would have thought this was obvious to Californians by now. Unfortunately, the LA Times conducted a poll this week that indicates Prop 73 is running at 51% approval by likely voters.
These two charts are from SurveyUSA. I have not checked the math, but they purport to average the “error rate” by the six pollsters that surveyed the special election. The first chart looks at only the five props that SurveyUSA polled, and how all the pollsters did on those measures. The second chart looks at each outfit's rate for all the props they polled. Note that many pollsters would quibble at the use of the word “error” since they consider their surveys to be snapshots in time which, unless taken on election day, can never be said to be wrong. Also note that the much maligned Field Poll does pretty well using either measure. And see my added note below regarding the PPIC.
PROPS 73-77 ONLY
POLLSTER AVG. ERROR
Field 3.36
SurveyUSA 5.32
PPIC 5.76
Stanford/KN 5.96
Polimetrix 6.24
LA Times 7.44
BY ALL PROPS POLLED
NO. POLLSTER ERROR
5 SurveyUSA 5.32
8 Field 6.05
7 Polimetrix 7.20
8 LA Times 7.85
8 Stanford/KN 8.80
7 PPIC 9.57
NOTE: Mark Baldassare at PPIC notes in an email that the poll used in this comparison for the first chart came out of the field 16 days before the election, and some of the results in the second chart reflct a poll that was completed 50 days before the election. He is right that it's not fair to compare those results to polls that were done within days of the vote. But it's also true that the media and political players cite his polls as reflecting the state of mind of the voters right up until Election Day, so it's worth reminding folks that, in most cases, the data they are citing is quite old.
1) The Special election itself was a bad forum for any proposition. Normally, special elections get low turnout, but because of the way Arnold handled himself, there was high turnout. 6.6 million was way too high for any of the conservative props to pass. People were motivated to make sure props didn't pass. Heck, both 78 & 79 failed. You would figure that at least one of those would have pass. There was a presumption towards no on tuesday.
Conservatives are outnumbered in the state. If 73 was going to pass it needed to have people who came in to vote for just it. If that were the case, 73 would have at least slightly more votes. That was not the case:
2) Arnold was not going to help anybody. Arnold didn't appear on commercials for his own propositions. He had several other speakers arguing for his propositions, 1 by 1. But the only ad he did himself in the weeks leading up to the election was one timed to pull news away from a bad poll.
California is a pro-choice state. It would be near impossible for a true pro-life governor to be elected. Arnold isn't a social conservative himself, and one shouldn't expect there to be a social conservative gov in CA for a while.
But I have one larger problem with your post:
Contrast with Governor Schwarzenegger, who has more or less abandoned California conservatives wholesale. He is a leftist on the environment. He is a leftist on life issues. And he resolutely refuses to empower, appoint, or consistently consult with California conservatives in the course of his governance. The inevitable result is Tuesday's debacle.
Perhaps Arnold truely is a leftist(?) on those issues (note that Arnold did officialy endorse 73 though). Your statement that "moderation" is killing the GOP seems a bit harsh, to say the least. We have seen what happens when strict conservatives run in California:
Boxer (D) 6,955,728 57.8%
Jones (R) 4,555,922 37.8%
If parental notification is to pass, try just adding parental notification without all the strings that were in 73. Now, I am pro-choice, and a "liberal", but I actually think it would have had a chance if given better circumstances.
(A good roundup of press coverage - promoted by SFBrianCL)
This morning California's newspapers put photos of Governor Schwarzenegger on the front pages, even in abject defeat. They should have pictured the voters, or if they could have found the image for it, the process of a freewheeling election itself.
Because Schwarzenegger took on the public employee unions, he didn't have the usual advantage that bullying pols enjoy: there was a force with money and people power to contest him. And in a fairer than usual fight, Californians said no to a rightwing celebrity's power grab, yes to education and social services, yes to unions being able to contest corporate power and even, as a bonus, yes to young women's right to choose.
The morning's headlines were indeed sweet; self-indulgently, I'll round up some tidbits here:
I'll work on this more later today. But for right now, here's the data. Something is whack with the software, it doesn't like the table or something. Scroll down! - fixed by Soapy (The Software is great! )
From about 10:15, Kos is apparently able to get through to the Statewide resuls:
For comparison's sake, I'm putting in some poll numbers here with the current numbers. First the Field Poll, then the Stanford/Hoover Institute:
Precincts: 48.9% reporting
Proposition 73: Minor's pregnancy
Yes 49.4
No 50.5
Field: 41/49
Stanford: 54/46
Proposition 74: Teacher's tenure
Yes 47.6
No 52.4
Field:44/50
Stanford: 49/51
PPIC: 46/48
Proposition 75: Public union dues
Yes 50.5
No 49.5
Field: 40/50
Stanford: 70/30
PPIC: 46/46
Proposition 76: Spending limits
Yes 40.3
No 59.7
Field: 32/60
Stanford: 30/70
PPIC: 30/62
Proposition 77: Redistricting
Yes 43.3
No 56.7
Field: 35/51
Stanford: 50/50
PPIC: 36/50
Proposition 78: Drug discounts (Rx industry backed)
Yes 41.9
No 58.1
Field: 36/45
Stanford: 59/41
Proposition 79: Drug discounts (consumer groups backed)
Yes 38.9
No 61.1
Field: 37/43
Stanford: 58/42
I'll try to get some more info as soon as I can, but it appears that the California Secretary of State website is being overloaded.
UPDATEProp 74 and 75 are slightly towards yes, but without the liberal strongholds. 75 was at 55% yes. Willie Brown (he's on KRON4 in SF) says that we'll have to wait until LA and SF are in though to call anything.
An estimated 6.8 million Californians are expected to go to the polls today despite early concerns -- and Republican hopes -- that the all-initiative special election would be largely ignored by voters.
Voters will decide statewide measures on issues ranging from teacher tenure to the costs of prescription drugs in an election that already has generated spending of more than $300 million and is among the most expensive campaigns in California history.
You heard that right. $300 million for this stupid election. They could have just given every voter $25 and saved the change for education. Or not, I guess Arnold's priorities are different than ours. All the more reason to ensure that we defeat the props today and Arnold in 2006.
Also, I'm not sure what to make of the absentee turnout numbers, which may rise to as high as 40%. In theory absentee votes trend a little more on the conservative side, soo it does seem a little scary. However, in this election, I don't think you can apply the conventional wisdom. I will be disecting the numbers after the election. Hopefully, I'll be able to provide a full roundup of trends, turnout, voting patterns, etc.
Prop 73 - Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor’s Pregnancy: No
73 defines a fetus as a person and allows for the prosecution of an illegally preformed abortion. It sets a bad precedent in the battles to come. No on 73.
Prop 74: Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal. : NO
Teachers work very hard. Tenure provides only due process, not the guarantee of a job. We owe at least that much to teachers. Vote NO on 74.
Prop 75: Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement. NO
There are several reasons that I don't like 75. First, it weakens unions unnecssarily. Union members already have the easy option to opt-out of political spending. Also, 75 only addresses unions. If this was truly about transparency, corporate donations would also be addressed. You can't take the voice away from workers and leave corporate voices to scream in Sacramento. No on 75.
Prop 76: State Spending and School Funding Limits. NO
The Governor, especially this governor, does not need these additional powers. It makes the governor far more powerful than California's founding fathers envisioned, to the detriment of the seperation of powers between the legislature and the governor. No on 76.
Prop 77: Redistricting: NO
We need redistricting reform. However, 77 is not the way to do it. It is an unclear and bizarre means of redistricting. We need fair redistricting, with time for public input. No on 77.
Prop 78: Discounts on Prescription Drugs. NO
Big Pharma's response to what they say as the danger of Prop 79. 79 is a better plan. Vote No on 78.
Prop 79: Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.Yes.
79 gives real teeth to the prescription drug discounts by requiring the companies to deal with the State's large bargaining power. There are also good enforcement provisions to make sure the drug companies follow the law. Vote YES on 79.
Prop 80: Electric Service Providers. Regulation: No Recommendation
I know many progressives are in support of 80, but I cannot endorse it myself. It seems hastily assembled and too complicated for most voters. I think this is an issue that is best dealt with in the legislature.
San Francisco City Officials
San Francisco Treasurer: Jose Cisneros ~ A highly qualified treasurer with the added benefits of being an openly gay city official.
San Francisco Assessor:
1st Choice: Phil Ting ~ A good manager. Very supportive of LGBT rights.
2nd Choice: Ron Chun ~ A skilled tax attorney
San Francisco City Attorney: Dennis Herera: Has fought hard for the rights of the city and its citizens. He deserves re-election.
A - Community College District General Obligation Bonds Yes
CCSF needs additional funding to help train the city's workforce.
B - Street and Sidewalk Improvement Bond No. Reform the Department of Public Works and its funding first. Then, if we still need more money, we can talk.
C - Ethics Commission Budget and Outside Counsel. No, This is a decision for the Board of Supervisors. Stop bothering the voters with these issues.
D - Appointment of Municipal Transportation Agency Board of Directors No. This just shifts power to the Board of Supervisors. It is nothing more than a power grab by the Supes.
E - Election Date of the Assessor - Recorder and Public Defender Yes. Common sense adjustment to conform with ranked choice voting.
F - Neighborhood Firehouses. No. The Board and Mayor have already reviewed the issue. It should remain in their hands.
G - Access to Underground Parking at Golden Gate Park Yes, I would love to be able to park at the Park finally. This is a reasonable accomadation of all sides.
H - Firearm Ban No. Constitutionally questionable and ineffective. It will end up costing us money in legal bills.
I - No Military Recruiters in Public Schools, Scholarships for Education and Job Training.
No Recommendation: Military Recruiters shouldn't be in our schools, but this proposal risks No Child Left Behind Funding. How much is it worth to you?
Just a short note as I'm quite busy today, but I did want to stress how important tomorrow's election is. Please do what you can to help defeat Arnold's Propositions.
Don't let Arnold Proposition You!
Oh, and check out another animation which I somehow forgot to mention: http://www.electionwatchdog.org It's another funny one, Arnold tries to convince Minerva about the wisdom of his brilliant propositions. I'll leave the ending to the cartoon...
Arnold's redistricting proposition, Prop. 77, has brought together some very disparate groups and politicians. Redistricting NEEDS a reformation process, but 77 is the wrong way to go about it. It would lead to the possibility of voters using several different maps, with massive headaches ensuing if the first map doesn't pass. Now, the reasons aren't always consistent, but a wide range of politicians have come out against Prop 77. Notable names include Hillary Clinton, Dick Armey (yes, the former GOP Majority Leader), and Nancy Pelosi.
Ex-Maj. Leader Dick Armey (R) also sends a
letter, urging no votes on 77. Armey: "By voting for
Proposition 77, you may actually be voting to put
Congress back in the hands of liberal Democrats"
(Hotline sources, 11/3).
Now, unsuprisingly, Armey is only concerned about getting warm conservative butts in House seats. What Armey is likely insinuating is a reference to Ohio's Reform Ohio Now. While Prop 77 would likely mean a slight pickup of seats for the GOP, Ohio's redistricting would likely yield up to 5 new Democrat seats. Armey and many other GOP leaders are concerned about this. Who isn't? Arnold. He officialy supports Reform Ohio Now.
And as for Ms. Pelosi? Well, that boils down to the "No on 77" Committee's advertising on a GOP slate card. From Capitol Weekly:
A new slate mailer produced by the Citizens for
Good Government urges GOPers to vote yes on 3 of
Schwarzenegger's initiatives, but not Prop 77
(redistricting). The No on 77 cmte contributed which
has $610K to the mailer, with only $50K coming from
other groups. House Min. Leader Nancy Pelosi (D)
herself has donated $25K to the No on 77 cmte, "and
helped corral donations from" other Dem Reps. No on 77
spokesperson Stephanie Williamson: "We are a committee
for No on 77 and our main concern is defeating
Proposition 77. We are trying to exercise the most
effective means to doing that." Asked if that means a
Dem-funded cmte "is willing to subsidize a mailer"
urging GOP votes on other initiatives: "I wouldn't say
we paid for it. I would say we bought on to that
slate." From the mailer: "Governor Arnold
Schwarzenegger's Reform Agenda will bring a breath of
fresh air to Sacramento. ... Arnold deserves our
thanks and gratitude. But Republicans should fear 3
randomly selected volunteer retired judges (with
political prejudices) having all the power. No on
Proposition 77!!"
In the election post-mortem we need to look into the question of whether our resources were being used in the most efficient manner and that our efforts were integrated to a sufficient manner. Helping to support some of the propisitions while harming others seems a little counter to our best interests.
Unfortunately, Prop 79, which would actually give some real health care benefits to folks who could use them, is also now trailing:
Prop 79
No 43 (39)
Yes 37 (37)
With one week to go, things are looking good overall for California, although I would like to see 79 pass. Hopefully the GOTV efforts succeed, we win, and then shift attention to 2006 and the replacement of Arnold.
The USA Today published a story describing the Wal-mart connection to the Governator:
SAN FRANCISCO — Wal-Mart (WMT) and its founding Walton family have emerged as big backers of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, giving about $1 million in the past year
***
Wal-Mart and the Waltons now rank No. 15 on its list of the 100 biggest donors to Schwarzenegger-controlled campaign committees, says the Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, a non-partisan government watchdog group.
And why might the Waltons and Wal-Mart want to give so much money to Ahnold's campaign committee's? Oh, yeah, because they get a nice quid pro quo...
First, Ahnold vetoed a bill which would require release of statistics about forcing labor onto public assistance:
One union-backed bill, which Schwarzenegger vetoed early in October, would have forced the state to disclose names of companies whose workers get government health services meant for poor residents.
So, Wal-Mart doesn't want the citizens of California to know about the way they treat their workers and how many of them are being subsidized by the state. There have been several stories about that issue, including a story about Wal-mart contributing to the bankruptcy of Tenn-Care, Tennessee's Medicaid program. This practice allows Wal-mart to subsidize their business by raising costs for the state. Thus, their prices are not so cheap after all.
Ahnold then vetoed another anti-Walmart bill:
A second bill, vetoed last year, would have stopped employers from locking workers inside workplaces — a policy Wal-Mart has when employees stock shelves and clean floors after closing hours.
The bills reflect issues creating a public relations nightmare for the USA's biggest private employer, with 1.3 million workers, as it expands in California, the USA's biggest market. Critics including Wake-Up Wal-Mart accuse it of endangering workers by locking them in stores, and of reducing its health care costs at taxpayer expense.
In other words, Wal-Mart is putting the lives of their employees at risk in order to save a few bucks. Now, I know that's not a huge surprise, but this practice is an egregious violation of both personal dignity and decent working conditions. Apparently, Ahnold is really opposed to the idea of...uh...shoplifting? Well, maybe, or perhaps it could be this:
The Wal-Mart and Walton political gifts appear in new public campaign finance documents. They show that the same day Schwarzenegger vetoed the health care disclosure bill — Oct. 7 — his California Recovery Team logged a $250,000 gift from Christy Walton. She is the widow of John Walton, a Wal-Mart director who died four months ago. In the next three weeks, the Schwarzenegger-backed Proposition 77 campaign got $250,000 from Wal-Mart Chairman Rob Walton and $100,000 from Wal-Mart. Those gifts and others followed $200,000 to the Recovery Team last year from John Walton about two weeks after Schwarzenegger vetoed the lock-in bill.
This is just another example of Ahnold's devotion to the special interests.
Scooter Libby,not only directly connected to the Veep but also not well reported a special assistant to the President, is headed to the Slams. The Veep is under investigation. Rove is not only under investigation but is forming his own legal team and has retained a PR firm from Colorado that is expert in crisis management.
Tom Delay apparently has a hair stylist, makeup artist and smile coach for his arraignment mug-shot and acts as if he is still in charge of the House of Representatives.
Senator Bill Frist, a Doctor, makes diagnosis via video and now has a 'blind' trust whose Trustee's report directly to him at least once. And he's under investigation.
More than that, we hope it comes in handy as a way to share information about Prop 79 with folks you know before election day. There's plenty of information, and a quick link to the Prop 79 campaign's response to all the TV ads that Pharma has been buying over the last few weeks.
Thanks for taking a look!
Kathy Mitchell
Consumers Union
(Grover, and not the good one, is insidious... - promoted by SFBrianCL)
When I notice the Governor blaming Davis or the Democratic Legislature for the 'mess' or the 'broken system', I get really ticked off mostly because I think there's more to the dynamic than just the Dems. Just as bad: his idea of 'reform' as the solution to the 'broken system'. Yeah right.
One example too late: now we know 'taking it to the people of Cah-li-for-nia' means putting on a special election for corporate interests at taxpayer expense. Let's not fall for that one again.
A new poll to be released Friday by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California is expected to show that Schwarzenegger's ballot propositions have made no appreciable gains in recent weeks, despite heavy TV advertising by the governor.
None is drawing support from a majority of likely voters.
Well, here here to that! That is great news. PPIC is generally far more reliable than S-USA, and apparently, Stanford. But here's some specific good news.
Prop 75
And the fate of one measure, the anti-union Proposition 75, now seems a tossup after having been favored by a 25-point margin only two months ago.
The importance of defeating Prop 75 can not be underestimated. It's a vile wretch of a proposition that would require massive new efforts from labor organizers, essentially silencing most unions. And in return, what do we get for that? Well, "paycheck protection" of course. Not that employees already have the option of opting-out or anything. It essentially takes the voice away from workers while allowing the corporations to go on singing. Now, on Monday, Ahnold announced that he intended to support a bill which required express permission of stockholders for corporations to give money to political causes. I'll believe that when I see it.
It's coming down to the wire now. I'll follow up with the PPIC poll tomorrow.
