I have a ton of things on the desk at the moment, and I don't have the time to really run out this story before Election Day, but I want to bring to your attention something very strange that I found on the 2008 "Christine O'Donnell for Senate" MySpace page.
What it basically comes down to is that the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army are "Christine O'Donnell for Senate" MySpace friends, or that there are persons who have created United States Army and USMC MySpace pages that purport to be official that have "befriended" her candidacy. There's also a Navy page that appears to emanate from a US Navy recruiting office in California on her '08 campaign's "friends" list.
At a minimum, all of this would seem to be a combination of inappropriate behavior and poor management of social media; at worst, you have activity that is "some kind of unlawful", either on an administrative or civil level.
I'll make this fast...but I'll also make it interesting.
Follow along, and you'll see what I mean.
UPDATE by Dave: And what we've learned from this so far is that the Mormon church spent more than 100 times than what they reported on Yes on 8. Among other things, they compensated church staffers who worked exclusively on the campaign to the tune of $100,000.
But you know, they had nothing to do with it and should be left alone.
U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. has ruled against the Prop 8 campaign in their attempt to hide their donors from public disclosure. I don't yet have a copy of the decision, but I'll hunt it down and get a more detailed analysis.
You can find a great rundown of the case at Melissa's place. She went to the hearing today, so I expect she'll be providing more information on the hearing soon. Basically, the campaign alleged that their donors' first amendment rights were being violated by the disclosure requirement. Their argument was that the potential harassment and boycotts chilled the donors expression via money to the campaign.
The court finds that the state is not facilitating retaliation by compelling disclosure.
Of course, all of this was quite funny, and massively hypocritical, given the context of the Prop 8 campaign's attempted blackmail of equality minded donors. Well, what's good for the goose must surely be good for the gander. We should be getting that full list of campaign donors any day now. I sort of doubt that we'll see anything too major on there.
One more note on Prop 8 disclosure. A Late Contribution document has already been filed, and the Mormon Church itself (not Mormon people, but the actual Church) gave over $30,000 ($30,354.85 to be exact) in the last few days of the campaign. (Downloadable PDF here) Not the huge mega-donation they have used in some other states, but people should know just how instrumental one religious movement was to the passage of this discriminatory measure.
California State Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-SF) made the trip to DC to attend the inauguration. Below are her thoughts on what she's experienced over the past few days:
Excitement for this trip had been slowly building since Election Day last November, and now it was finally here. My trip started last Friday night when Governor Schweitzer of Montana enlightened the packed house at the Orange County Democratic Dinner. He recounted the journey of his own family and his grandmother, who immigrated by herself, starving and penniless from Ireland, and went to Montana because she was offered free train tickets to homestead the frontier. He also shared real-life stories about how progressive Montana has been under his leadership, especially in education where they're working towards the goal of mandatory daylong kindergarten and free preschool.
The next day, I left sunny California bound for the complete opposite side of the US, where temperatures hit a chilling 19 degrees. (I definitely felt safe as Leon Panetta, our CIA Director nominee, and his wife boarded the plane before me.) From the moment I landed, there was definitely a thrill of excitement in the air. The streets were filled with vendors selling all sorts of Obama paraphernalia, and a buzz was about as nearly everyone was proudly wearing their Obama pins, hats, and scarves.
I'm here in Washington, DC, for meetings and was privileged yestreday to attend the inauguration of our 44th president, Barack Obama. As you can imagine, it's been impossible to walk the streets of the capital and not feel the overwhelming sense of anticipation and optimism radiating from the crowds. Like you, I have awaited this inauguration with tremendous anticipation because of my great hope for real change after the damaging Bush policies of the last eight years. As Americans, we suddenly are overflowing with optimism because the presidency is to be assumed by a man whose experiences bring a unique understanding of our nation's history, diversity, and challenges.
Our challenges, though serious, are by no means insurmountable. During the next four years, I believe we will see genuine progress in the fight to guarantee health care for all Americans, as well as a renewed urgency to address the degradation of our environment during the Bush presidency. President Obama has assembled an excellent team to tackle the economic quagmire left behind by the Bush Administration and we expect major investment in our
country's infrastructure. Moreover, unlike its predecessor, we fully expect an Administration that respects the rule of law.
A third of all Americans call this inauguration the nation's most historic. I join that third in their sentiment. As the Obama Administration assumes the nation's helm, I very much regret that I will not be able to fight for the residents of the 44th Congressional District from within the halls of Congress in this next session. However, we will continue our fight to bring effective representation to our district-representation that reflects the real values of our residents!
All over DC the signs say, "Yes, we did!" As we look toward 2010 in the 44th Congressional District, we say proudly, "Yes, we will!"
OK, America, so I pulled a tiny prank tonight-and it was so classic that I have to tell you all about it.
It involves freedom of speech, a friendly message to one of those crazy Republicans we all know-and it forced that crazy Republican to get up at three in the morning because he could not handle the threat to his world view.
Wanna hear all about it?
Then come along and follow the story...because it's worth it.
We can now actually see the signs that the end has come.
There are bleachers being built, there are rehearsals under way, and Senators are gathering to consider whether they'll offer advice and give consent.
There will be millions of words written about the past eight years and what has been wrought upon the world, but for today I have a simple thought to put upon the table:
I am re-posting this diary for Bruce Hahne (a NO ON 8 "super-volunteer") who posted it on Daily Kos earlier today. It deserves to get much wider attention. I like the fact that it not only includes criticisms of the NO ON PROP 8 campaign from an insider but also recommendations on what to do in the next anti-gay ballot measure campaign. I asked Bruce for permission to re-post it to Calitics and he gave it freely.
The post is (VERY LONG) and divided in two parts:
PART I: Problems with the no-on-8 campaign
and
PART II: Recommendations
He asked me to take back the Democratic Party. And I agreed to try. I told myself that, if it became clear there was no chance, I would stop.
It has now become clear. John Burton may have a fine legislative record. I don't honestly know. But I only had to meet the man for 2 minutes to know he has nothing to do with change we can believe in. And the whole process of crowning him chair smacks of smoke-filled back rooms and the old-boys network.
I no longer feel there is any opportunity for me to help take back the Democratic Party in California. Rather, I believe Burton is poised to take the party back at least several decades. It appears nobody has noticed the grassroots revolution that put Obama in the White House. Or they don't care. Or, as seems more likely, they are once again saying, "That's nice kids. Thanks for all the money and help. Now go away and let the adults handle things properly."
To put it as delicately as I'm able, they can stick that attitude where the sun don't shine. I was a registered independent before Dean, and I can be one again.
So I have notified the e-board rep for my AD that, despite the fact that I can't find a way to take myself off the cadem.org site, I am no longer running for a delegate slot. I will not ask for re-appointment to another standing committee.
In a stunning but not too surprising revelation, Josh Richman of the Oakland Tribune is reporting that Don Perata transferred $1.5 million from his PAC to his legal defense fund - one day after the election. Instead of using that money to help defeat Prop 11, which narrowly won, or to help elect more Democrats to the state senate - such as Hannah-Beth Jackson, who lost by 1,200 votes - he took it for himself, leaving California Democrats and the state itself worse off.
Contributors to Don Perata's political action committee this year might have thought their money would bankroll the attempted recall of state Sen. Jeff Denham or opposition to a legislative redistricting reform measure.
But one day after Election Day and with only a few weeks left as state Senate President Pro Tem, the Oakland Democrat moved $1.5 million from Leadership California into his own legal defense fund, formed to counter a years-long FBI corruption probe.
This sum dwarfs the California Democratic Party's $450,000 contribution to Perata's legal fund over the past year, which had caused an outcry from some party activists. It also dwarfs the $555,000 Perata had moved from his Taxpayers for Perata committee - ostensibly created for a 2010 Board of Equalization run - into his legal defense fund in several chunks since 2005.
The transferred amount is more than the entire $1.4 million the committee had raised in this year's first nine months, and more than half of the $2.7 million it had on hand as of Sept. 30.
Jason Kinney, Perata's spokesman, is quoted as saying there was nothing illegal here. Even if that is true, it's beside the point - $1.5 million is a huge sum of money that should have been spent on winning the 2008 election, not pocketed by a termed-out legislator.
Our own David Dayen is quoted in the article making that very point with forceful eloquence:
David Dayen, an elected Democratic State Central Committee member from Santa Monica, blogged angrily this summer about his party's contribution to Perata's legal defense fund, contending the money would've been better spent on legislative races. The same goes for Leadership California's money, he said Wednesday; despite a Democratic presidential candidate carrying California by the largest margin since 1936, Democrats netted only three more Assembly seats and none in the state Senate.
"Every time I asked the California Democratic Party about getting more active and involved in local elections, they said the state Senate and the Assembly control those races ... and we don't have a lot of flexibility. So Perata, at that time, and Nunez or Bass had the authority to run those elections," Dayen said. "Now we see what happens when you vest power in these closed loops - suddenly self-interest becomes more important than the good of the party."
He believes this is why Perata didn't step aside as Pro Tem earlier, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez relinquished his post to Karen Bass in May: "Darrell Steinberg was sitting there ready to go ... and we were all like, 'What the hell is going on?'
"We speculated it had to be that he still needed the leverage to make the calls to raise money for himself."
David makes a key point here - this is not just about how Perata screwed California Democrats. It's about what he called "closed loops" and a party leadership hostile to open accounting. This should become a rallying cry for all Democrats to demand more accountability from their leaders, and a greater commitment to winning elections as opposed to pocketing those funds for your own uses.
Many in the Democratic grassroots, including a large number of CDP delegates, want to build a better, more successful party, using the disappointing results on the state level as a motivating force to produce change. That is made easier by Perata's long overdue exit from the Legislature. But this should serve as a wake-up call for the CDP as a whole, which must take a strong stand against this kind of action and take whatever steps are within their power to prevent it from happening again.
We're only two days away from a gaining a 60-seat filibuster-proof US Senate majority.
On Tuesday, December 2nd, the good citizens of Georgia will go to the polls for the second time in less than a month to chose their next Senator in an unexpected run-off election. Currently Democractic challenger Jim Martin trails Republican incumbent Saxby Chambliss by only a few percentage points. But the polls mean nothing. Turnout means everything.
We need your help to get out the vote. Will you commit to taking 60 minutes out of your busy schedule between now and 3pm on Tuesday, Dec. 2nd?
Your energy, enthusiasm and willingness to continue on with the work past November 4th has both humbled and inspired us.
This past weekend, less than three weeks after Election Day, volunteers all over California made 15,000 phone calls on behalf of Democrat Jim Martin, who's running against Saxby Chambliss in the Georgia Senate race, which has a runoff election on December 2nd. .
In Venice, nearly a 100 of you gathered together to make 6,500 phone calls for the Georgia Senate race,
A lot of you asked if we were going to do it again. YES! WE! ARE!
Jim Martin's Georgia Senate campaign has reached out to former Obama phone bank groups all over the country, but has made a special effort to reach out to California.
I'm happy to report we're answering the call here in Southern California. Read on if you want to learn how you can help.
(As a young Dem myself, I like seeing other Young Dem organizations get active, involved, and doing things. - promoted by Dante Atkins (hekebolos))
As most people know on November 4th Saxby Chambliss was kept under 50% of the vote. The runoff will be on December 2nd and our ground game in the state will determine whether Jim Martin wins or not. Sean at 538 wrote an entry about just how important get out the vote is.
The California College Democrats are organizing a trip to Georgia to help with gotv. We will be there all day the 29th, 30th, 1st, and 2nd to help with gotv and to make sure Jim Martin wins. Round trip plane tickets cost around $300 and we have housing provided for us. A donation to help send every person we can to Georgia is greatly appreciated.
If you can please make a donation here http://www.actblue.com/page/ca... With your help we will be able to invade Georgia and help elect Jim Martin to the United States Senate. Thank you everyone that donates.
EDIT by Dante: if you can't make it out to Georgia, consider a CA-based phonebank for Martin. here's some info on a phonebank in Venice, CA, this weekend.
So, it's been one week since the election, we've hashed over Prop 8, but you can never really get enough. So for your open thread pleasure, here are some pretty smart people talking on the Laura Flanders Show about why Prop 8 was victorious. This is an open thread, anything else on your mind, Prop 8 or otherwise?
Earlier today Dan Walters repeated the canard that Obama brought new voters to the polls who voted for Prop 8, providing its margin of victory:
Last week, however, 10 percent of voters were African American while 18 percent were Latino, and applying exit poll data to that extra turnout reveals that the pro-Obama surge among those two groups gave Proposition 8 an extra 500,000-plus votes, slightly more than the measure's margin of victory.
To put it another way, had Obama not been so popular and had voter turnout been more traditional - meaning the proportion of white voters had been higher - chances are fairly strong that Proposition 8 would have failed.
That brought out Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight.com to bust this particular myth:
But the notion that Prop 8 passed because of the Obama turnout surge is silly. Exit polls suggest that first-time voters -- the vast majority of whom were driven to turn out by Obama (he won 83 percent [!] of their votes) -- voted against Prop 8 by a 62-38 margin. More experienced voters voted for the measure 56-44, however, providing for its passage.
Now, it's true that if new voters had voted against Prop 8 at the same rates that they voted for Obama, the measure probably would have failed. But that does not mean that the new voters were harmful on balance -- they were helpful on balance. If California's electorate had been the same as it was in 2004, Prop 8 would have passed by a wider margin.
That's the first point we all need to internalize and repeat often - Obama brought out a more progressive electorate that improved on the 2004 numbers and made Prop 8 a closer battle than it might otherwise have been. And while Prop 8's passage is a catastrophe no matter the margin of its victory, closer is better as we lay the groundwork for a repeal vote.
The second key point is Obama brought out a younger electorate, and that voters under 30 were strongly against Prop 8 - regardless of racial identification:
Furthermore, it would be premature to say that new Latino and black voters were responsible for Prop 8's passage. Latinos aged 18-29 (not strictly the same as 'new' voters, but the closest available proxy) voted against Prop 8 by a 59-41 margin. These figures are not available for young black voters, but it would surprise me if their votes weren't fairly close to the 50-50 mark.
At the end of the day, Prop 8's passage was more a generational matter than a racial one. If nobody over the age of 65 had voted, Prop 8 would have failed by a point or two. It appears that the generational splits may be larger within minority communities than among whites, although the data on this is sketchy.
Perhaps what's needed over the next few years is a California version of The Great Schlep - younger Californians, no matter the community in which they live or identify, ought to do all they can to convince their family members to not vote against marriage rights.
Even if that particular strategy isn't used, Nate Silver's analysis shows that the effort to turn Prop 8 into another opportunity to divide us on racial lines and to scapegoat African Americans is missing the point rather dramatically.
I have visited Temple Square in downtown Salt Lake City every winter to see the buildings and trees lit up for the holidays - and I promise it's the most beautiful sight you'll ever see. They won't turn on the lights for another 21 days, but I would have given anything to have been there tonight.
Don't get me wrong, these comments are the right ones that should be made by the Governor of California:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger today expressed hope that the California Supreme Court would overturn Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage. He also predicted that the 18,000 gay and lesbian couples who have already married would not be affected by the initiative.
"It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end," Schwarzenegger said in an interview on CNN this morning. "I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that, and then move forward from there and again lead in that area."...
Today, Schwarzenegger urged backers of gay marriage to follow the lesson he learned as a bodybuilder trying to lift weights that were too heavy for him at first. "I learned that you should never ever give up.... They should never give up. They should be on it and on it until they get it done."
This is precisely the message that needs to be delivered to California. Prop 8 was unfortunate, and it must be reversed, and we will not give up until it is.
If the repeal vote comes up in 2010, while Arnold is still governor, then he ought to repeat these comments and speak out for equal rights. Of course...he should have done that this year.
These comments do beg the question of where Arnold was these last few months on Prop 8. Even if the No on 8 campaign did not solicit him to cut an ad (and I don't know if they did nor not) Arnold ought to have spoken up himself and explained why it would be "unfortunate" to take away marriage rights. Arnold still has a lot of pull and credibility with swing voters in California, and in parts of red California. He should have spoken up sooner.
Still, this is the right framing, and helps build the narrative that Prop 8's passage is a Bad Thing for California and something that needs to be reversed.
(Bill Hedrick is on the Calitics ActBlue Page. You can give there to all four of our candidates in tight races, Bill, Charlie Brown, Alyson Huber, and Hannah-Beth Jackson. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
The Hedrick campaign still needs help paying legal costs to make sure every vote is counted. Can you help? The ActBlue page is at www.actblue.com/page/hedrickballotfund.
The energy and determination of the Hedrick for Congress campaign remains high as the tally of the final votes in the 44th Congressional District race began last week. Signature verification and sorting of ballots are continuing this weekend, with the actual count beginning on Monday, November 11th and resuming after the holiday on Wednesday.
The Hedrick Campaign has enlisted over 100 volunteers to observe the process, working in shifts to cover every available hour at the Riverside County Registrar of Voters in Moreno Valley.
Volunteers last week remarked repeatedly that they were impressed with the professionalism and efficiency of the Registrar's staff. The campaign has found the Riverside County Registrar of Voters, Barbara Dunmore, to be completely forthcoming in answering all questions and clearly explaining the process ahead.
The idea that if African-Americans (AA) voted like the white vote, then 8 would have failed is not true. I took a look at the CNN exit polls and the election numbers and here is what I have so far:
10,328,365 voted for the proposition
5,419,478 for
4,908,887 against
If going by the exit poll, 10% AA, then 1,032,837 AA voted
at 70% yes, 722,986
at 30% no, 309,851
without the AA from the final, it is
4,696,492 yes
4,599,036 no
so 8 would have won anyways and shows that the Latino 53% yes vote would have tipped the yes vote.
If AA voted at 49% yes like white voters
4,696,492 + 506,090 = 5,202,582 yes
4,599,036 + 526,747 = 5,125,783 no
Prop 8 would have still passed.
If AA voted at 2004 levels, 6%, and using the 2008 ratio,
433,791 yes
185,911 no
4,696,492 + 433,791 = 5,130,283
4,599,036 + 185,911 = 4,784,947
difference = 345,336
Prop 8 would have still passed even without the Obama bounce.
I just want to squelch the idea that AA was the main reason 8 passed. I am afraid when we run this again that all the focus will be put on AA community when there are better areas, e.g., single women, married women with and without children, etc. In fact, it would probably be better if the Gay community started an outreach program in the suburbs of just normal community building: Little League, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, tutoring...polls show familiarity increases acceptance.
