According to documents filed with the Internal Revenue Service, in 2007 Meg Whitman’s charitable foundation invested $4 million offshore, in Hedge Funds based in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
Is Meg Whitman still shifting her millions into offshore tax havens to avoid having to pay her fair share?
And how can we know for sure that she’s put a stop to the practice – if, in fact, she HAS put a stop to the practice - without a look at her tax returns?
California’s voters expect and deserve to know if Whitman is continuing to engage in tax avoidance schemes.
Childhood risk of Type 2 diabetes, obesity soaring with soda overconsumption
SACRAMENTO -- Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez (D-Shafter), who last week introduced legislation aimed at curbing the rampant overconsumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, is calling on our Governor and an esteemed former President to confront the issue head-on tomorrow at the 2010 Summit on Health, Nutrition and Obesity.
President Bill Clinton and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger are scheduled to join together tomorrow for a conference at The California Endowment in Los Angeles to promote "Action for Healthy Living."
Florez is urging them to use the occasion to raise public awareness of the role the overconsumption of sugar plays in exacerbating America's obesity and diabetes epidemics.
This first draft of Meg's new ad (which ran just a bit after the Super Bowl last night, it hurts my brain to think about how much that costs) was slipped under my office door in a plain brown paper envelope over the weekend. Looks like they made a few changes to the tone but they had the core message already stapled down in this draft...
"I'm Meg Whitman, and even though I've lived in this state since 1789, I've only voted twice, because voting is for little people. I want to be Governor and I have more money than God, so out of my way. I want to bring a business perspective to government, because those pooh widdow buhsinessey intwests, nowuhn evur wisstens to twhem. And that whole business perspective thing sure has worked out great for George Bush, Arnold and Goldman Sachs.
My plan for California couldn't be more simpleminded. I will:
1) Create jobs, mainly by giving myself and Larry Ellison ginormous tax cuts, so I can afford to buy this seat and he can afford another formerly-august sporting event ruining $40M yacht or three.
2) Cuts, cuts, cuts. Greedy community college students, working people and the elderly have had it too good for too long in this state.
3) Fix education. By "fix," I mean as in "...a horserace," not as in "...by dealing with the fact that our schools are more segregated than Alabama's in 1958."
I'm Meg Whitman and I approved this message. [cut to Larry Ellison here] Avast, California, and prepare to be boarded!"
Just as Tom Campbell announced he was dropping out of the California governor's race to run for the United States Senate, one of the two remaining Republican candidates in the race ramped up his attack on California's Global Warming Solutions Act (AB32).
Steve Poizner-not to be outdone by fellow candidate Meg Whitman's announcement in fall 2009 that she would suspend AB 32 on her first day in office as governor-put out a press release this week announcing his support for the so-called "jobs" initiative" (actually an outright attack on AB 32) that will appear on the California ballot in November 2010 if anti-environmental forces can gather enough signatures for it to qualify.
Poizner's and Whitman's attacks on California's landmark global warming law have earned them unflattering nicknames from Calbuzz: "Smokestack Steve" and "Monoxide Meg."
It is increasingly clear that Californians who care about our state's natural beauty and the health of our communities must mobilize to "Build a Greener Governor" (http://www.greengov2010.org/) before the candidates, including the undeclared Democratic candidate Jerry Brown, take this race to the bottom on the environment any further.
This anti-AB 32 initiative is just the latest chapter in a sustained and coordinated effort to roll back the progress the Golden State has made against global warming and greenhouse gas emissions that threaten our health, our economy and our planet.
California may soon experience a deja vu all over again of sorts. The 2010 election cycle may take us back to more than just bellbottoms, platform shoes, and disco. Jerry Brown, former governor of California (1975-1983), has established a 2010 Exploratory Committee for a run for governor.
For those living underneath a rock for the last 40 years, it is worth underscoring that Brown has developed a lengthy political resume. He's served terms on the Los Angeles Community College Board of Trustees (1969-1971), as California Secretary of State (1971-1975), as Governor of California (1975-1983), as chair of the California Democratic Party (1989-1991), the Mayor of Oakland (1998-2006), and the Attorney General of California (2007-present). He unsuccessfully sought the Democratic nominations for president in 1976, 1980, and 1992, and was an unsuccessful Democratic nominee for the United States Senate in 1982. Since Brown's terms in office are not covered by the term limits that came into effect in 1990, he is not barred from running for Governor again, and has indicated that he plans to run for the office again in 2010.
What was 1970s Governor Brown about? He was opposed to the Vietnam War, supported environmental protection (repealed a tax break for the state's big oil companies while passing tax-breaks for homeowner installation of solar panels), and appointed more women and minorities to office than any other previous California governor. As Governor, he passed landmark legislation to force full disclosure of finance and interest charges by credit card companies, allowed consumers to purchase generic drugs and created the nation's first affordable "life-line" utility rates for seniors and needy residential customers. Brown signed landmark legislation adding public members to regulatory boards that previously had been controlled by industry representatives.
What might the Governor Brown of today be about?
Brown may be a supporter of marriage equality: The State Attorney General normally argues in support of laws that have been passed by the electorate. Brown took an unusual step by declining to defend Proposition 8, a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage.
He will continue to protect the environment: As Attorney General, Brown has led the fight against George Bush's EPA, defended California's landmark tailpipe emission laws and actively promoted local land use policies that reduce oil dependency and global warming.
Brown will fight mortgage fraud and real estate scams: As Attorney General, Brown has pursued companies and individuals who perpetrated massive mortgage fraud, including an $8.6 Billion settlement with Countrywide, and claims that he will also go after those who would further exploit the mortgage crisis by offering fraudulent "rescue" services.
He will support labor: As Attorney General, Brown has sued unscrupulous employers for denying workers wages and benefits required by state law, shut down companies that have jeopardized worker safety and prosecuted businesses that have bilked California's workers' compensation system or otherwise circumvented state tax and employment laws.
Brown will continue protecting consumers: As Attorney General, Brown has made consumer fraud prevention a top priority. In addition to vigorous pursuit of the mortgage scam artists, he has gone after price gouging, false advertising, and contaminated and unsafe products.
He will fight fraud and abuse in California's health care system: As Attorney General, Brown has sued medical laboratories for massive overcharges, stopped rip-offs in the Medi-Cal Program, cracked down on unlawful abuse of prescription drugs, fought misleading ad campaigns by major drug companies and arrested nursing home operators for forcibly drugging elderly patients.
Brown refused to endorse any changes to Prop 13, saying he did not think it was "needed" and that "we've got to downsize government to the maximum degree." He also voiced support for the three-strikes law, and would not take a stance on a "public option" for health care. He did support scrapping the "two-thirds" rule for passing a state budget (but not taxes), and endorsed a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants - but with no candidate running to his left, this was the best that progressives can hope from Jerry Brown. Given California's mammoth problems that need immediate attention, that's depressing.
It will be interesting to see what the new year brings as Brown faces formidable Republican candidates Meg Whitman, Steve Poizner, and Tom Campbell.
A year from now, California will have elected its next governor. And as of today, we don't have a single Democratic candidate officially in the running.
For the 7 million declared Democrats in California, the only plausible option (if he decides to formally announce his candidacy) is California Attorney General Jerry Brown, who served as Governor of the state 30 years ago.
And with women making up 53% of California voters , 2 female U.S. Senators, a female Secretary of State, and more women elected to the U.S. House of Representatives than any other state in the country, I can't help but wonder: 1) why is it that California still has yet to elect a female as Governor? And 2) why haven't any of these Democratic women decided to run in 2010?
It is no surprise that people--men and women--are reluctant to throw their hats in the ring for the position. The budget disaster, the economy, and the stalemate in Sacramento are not encouraging signs for a career politician. If ever there was a time to sit one out, this is it.
But the lives and livelihoods of millions of people hang in the balance. If California doesn't get its act together, there will be dire consequences, and many if not all of the gains we have made toward building a just and equal society will be torn away.
Additionally, Brown running un-opposed in the Democratic primaries for one of the most liberal states in the nation deprives us of fundamental components of the democratic and election process: debate, having a choice to vote between a difference in vision and approach to leadership, and the battle-testing of candidates for the general election.
So female career politicians aren't up to the challenge? Fine. California needs to elect Rosie the Riveter for governor.
We need someone who plainly sees what is at stake, and in the face of the fear and the pressure, will roll up her sleeves and get to work. And there is no better time than now to break new ground by electing a woman Governor of California. We need leadership that is not only representative of our population, but is responsive on all fronts--politically, socially, culturally, and economically-- and research has shown that women, for whatever reason, consistently model this in public office (Check out publications from The White House Project and Rutgers' Center for American Women and Politics for a range of information on the impact of women leaders in our nation and in our world).
This is a call to all business women, mothers, teachers, social service workers, and engineers--all of you. Throw your hat in the ring. And if not in this race, think about another. And if not now, consider it in the future.
California is the most populous, most diverse , and the greenest state in the nation.
We have always paved the way for advancement and innovation (think: Google searches, iPhones, freeways, blue jeans, the pill, and medical marijuana).
We are a state that has taken chances, pioneered for change, and consistently disrupted the status quo.
Let's stay true to our track record.
If there is a time to bring a herstory of change into the 2010 Gubernatorial election, it is now.
My answering machine picked up a very interesting variation on the robo-call last night, from Republican Tom Campbell - currently running for governor.
It was a "live telephone town hall meeting". It began with a brief recorded introduction by Campbell and an invitation to "stay on the line and be transferred to the live call". Then it switched to a conversation in progress between Campbell and "people like me".
(Some thoughts from the current San Francisco Democratic Party Chair and former president of the Board of Supes on the role of a clean campaign in electing a Democratic Governor. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
In the past month, the political spin doctors behind Mayor Gavin Newsom have been boasting about their intent to run a negative campaign against their most likely Democratic opponent for Governor - California's Attorney General and former Governor Jerry Brown.
In just the latest round of personal attacks, Newsom strategist Garry South attacked Brown in print for having taken "more positions than in the Karma Sutra." I will leave it to Mayor Newsom to explain why his staff is making references to sex manuals, particularly given his own recent scandals. But this latest detour into political trash talk illustrates why Democrats across California need to be concerned with Newsom's intent to launch a negative campaign.
As Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, my mission is to help make sure we elect a Democratic governor in November of 2010. The latest series of devastating state cuts to services for children and seniors is another reminder of just how important it is for our party to win back the governor's office in Sacramento.
It is time to recall Arnold. The only reason he feels free to do what he is doing is because he doesn't face another election. So let's recall him. I do not care that he has only another year and a half. The budget situation is intolerable.
(Truly an amazing reversal by Governor Hoover on this. - promoted by David Dayen)
What can $100 million buy you? Apparently California's coastline if Big Oil has its way.
In late January, as chair of the California State Lands Commission, I joined State Controller John Chiang in a two-to-one vote to deny the first offshore oil lease off the coast of California in more than four decades. To permit more oil production off the coast of California, a state seen the world over as a leader in environmental stewardship, would have sent a terrible signal that California isn't yet prepared to embrace a green economy. The risk of a major oil spill killing marine life, soiling the coast, and decimating marine-based industries and tourism is simply too high for a quick buck.
Sadly, as part of yesterday's drastic state budget May Revision, California once again faces a renewed push to allow oil drilling off the coast of California. Big Oil has essentially offered to California $100 million dollars to seduce the state into granting the first new oil drilling lease in California since the Santa Barbara oil spill 41 years ago, a spill that covered hundreds of miles of ocean and over 30 miles of sandy beaches with more than three million gallons of crude oil. Learning from history means not blindly repeating the mistakes of the past.
As budget “deal” rumors continue to fly, members of the Stop the Cuts! Coalition and California Partnership took to the streets and asked community members to “Grade the Governor” on his proposals to slash vital and much needed services and programs, including health care, education, and social services for the elderly, disabled and the poor.
Members of the group -- including people from Health Access, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, 9 to 5 Working Women, Hunger Action LA, Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, Children’s Defense Fund, ACLU of Southern California and other concerned community organizations -- gathered at lunchtime at the intersection of Vermont and Wilshire on Thursday. Participants crossed the streets carrying oversized report cards showing the governor’s failing marks, and asked passersby to fill out the cards and grade the governor.
Many passersby agreed that especially at this most uncertain time in the country’s financial state, it’s unacceptable to make deep cuts that target the state’s most vulnerable residents.
Here are a few of the comments that community members made on the report cards. Overall, they indicate the governor’s grades on the budget need to improve:
“I would like to see him work harder to help the workers of Calif., as well as the corporations. With special attention to Californians with special needs – disabled, seniors – and create good paying jobs.”
“[The Governor] needs to listen to our people.”
“He needs to prioritize what is important to the people of California before he starts laying people off. That won’t fix the situation; it’ll only make it worse.”
“The Governor is not in touch with the people, only with his pockets.”
“I think that he should not cut school programs and help the community to get more education.”
“Governor: You really need to help your people.”
“This Governor is a very uncompassionate person and seems to be very out of touch with the people of California.”
“I voted for him and have regretted it ever since. He should take some of his millions from movies and give back to the state.”
“I’m without work and need those services. He needs to stop cutting jobs and education!”
“He’s making life hard for all America’s folks.”
Join the dialogue. Negotiations are moving fast in Sacramento. Call the Governor and California legislators now! Tell them they cannot fail California’s most vulnerable by balancing the budget with program cuts alone.
Call the Governor now at 916-445-2841 (Sacramento office) or 213-897-0322 (Los Angeles office).
Right now, the number one job of every public official, including state legislators and the governor, our representatives in Congress and our new President, is to revitalize our economy and put our people to work. Here in California, that means promptly passing a budget that solves our state's budget crisis, stimulates the economy and creates jobs. We're facing a $40 billion budget shortfall and the real possibility of insolvency within a month or two if we don't get a budget in place. With 9.3% of Californians unemployed and many more struggling, nothing should get in the way of helping get California's economy back on track. Any distraction from solving our budget crisis is a dereliction of duty.
Unfortunately, the Governor Schwarzenegger is stalling a solution to the budget crisis by pushing legislative leaders to accept unrelated and potentially dangerous measures to privatize vital infrastructure projects. For instance, California, like most states, funds infrastructure through the low-cost, tax-exempt municipal bond market, where private investors' money helps build schools, roads, flood-control and other necessary projects while paying those investors a fair rate of return.
Now the governor wants to force the Legislature to experiment with a dangerous scheme for private firms to raise the money for transportation projects, only to be paid back later by Californians, undoubtedly with quite a bit of profit. So instead of a low-cost, tax-exempt way of raising the money, the governor is pushing to spend more of your money to profit of private investors. Doesn't make sense, does it? The U.S. Government Accountability office recently reviewed the deceptively-named public-private partnerships and concluded: "While private investors can make billions of dollars available for critical infrastructure, these funds are largely a new source of borrowed funds, repaid by road users over what potentially could be a period of several generations. There is no "free" money in highway public-private partnerships."
I do not know what is on Gavin's mind this year, but I see a plausible scenario and justifications he could use for dropping out of office before finishing his term in 2011 and even before the 2010 election. Word is spreading that with her assignment as chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein will NOT run for governor, leaving the Democratic field wide open at this point. The Board of Supervisors is firmly entrenched in the progressive camp for the foreseeable future, especially with Mar, Chiu and Avalos coming aboard and Mirkarimi could be a more activist President than Peskin was. The recession and state budget mess will prevent him form rolling out any new grand schemes and he seems to have given up on fighting the violence in the City. Time is running short when you take into account the money he needs to raise to compete with Brown and Garmendi and raising the cash is a full time endeavor in itself. By the end of 2009, he is either out of Room 200 or out of the race for governor.
Two days ago I made a case for current CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen to be Governor of CA.
Much interesting discussion came out of that, and a fair bit of support for Bowen. However, I noticed that many folks assumed that Bowen planned on running for the US Senate (to replace Feinstein, perhaps) and not for Governor.
If you're like me, you've been thinking about the problems many states are facing; few are worse off than CA. Huge budget shortfalls and political stagnation are crippling the state. Arnold seems content to block reforms passed by the legislature and take money out of the University of California system budget any time he gets a chance (even though the UC is one of the most important vehicles for growth in the state).
With these sort of problems, a Governor with a 42% approval rating and 2 years to run out the clock, we need to start looking ahead soon, maybe within the next 6 months or so. We need a smart, non-ideological, fact-oriented leader to take charge and get CA on track.
We need CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen as Governor.
She has an impeccable record on voting rights protection, consumer protections, and environmental protections. And she knows where to turn for counsel when she needs it. She gets things done.
None of the other potential Democratic contenders have what we need right now.
California's answer to David Broder, George Skelton, practically falls all over himself in today's LA Times in excitement over a possible Dianne Feinstein candidacy. But in doing so he misses two crucial points - her poll numbers among Democrats aren't that strong, and her "leadership" on major California issues has been weak to nonexistent. There's just not much here to indicate that DiFi is the unstoppable force in 2010 that Skelton would have us believe.
Skelton writes:
You can almost feel the shudders and shock among the other Democrats gearing up to compete for governor when Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger is termed out in two years. Feinstein's candidacy would be an earthquake on the California political landscape -- likely burying the current front-runner, former governor and current state Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown.
A private poll taken in mid-July shows Feinstein trouncing Brown 50% to 24% in a hypothetical Democratic primary. A third candidate, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi, gets only 10%.
But if you add Feinstein to the mix - and take out Newsom, Villaraigosa and O'Connell, figuring they might bow out if she jumps in - Brown drops to 24 percent, and the state's senior senator grabs 50 percent.
That's a weak number, not a strong number. Feinstein, one of the state's most identifiable Democrats and a leading US Senator, only gets 50%? Among Democrats? Polling wisdom suggests that any incumbent polling at or below 50% is in trouble. These numbers suggest that Democrats aren't nearly as enthused about a Feinstein for governor campaign as Skelton would have us believe.
In contrast to the rah-rah column Skelton wrote, Feinstein is in serious trouble with the California Democratic rank and file. Her weak polling numbers as described above suggest an inability to consolidate the base around her.
The reasons for this weakness are that, in contrast to what Skelton argues, Feinstein isn't actually a good leader on California political issues. He quotes DiFi:
And she went on about California's problems: "Think back, there's been no major water infrastructure built since Pat Brown was governor. Everything's drying up. . . . California sort of rests on its laurels. . . . You've got to move people, you've got to move goods. . . . I'd love to be the governor who builds the high-speed rail."
It's big talk, but it hasn't been backed up with action. The US Senate is in a very strong position to help California address these problems, especially with money. But California remains a donor state, giving more to the federal government in taxes than it receives in spending. Feinstein is one of the leading Senators and has good relations with Republicans - more on that in a moment - but hasn't used those relationships to help California address its problems.
To take one example, high speed rail. Feinstein doesn't have to wait to be governor to help build it. One of the persistent criticisms of the HSR project is that federal funding isn't guaranteed, so we're taking a risk by passing the Prop 1 bond. Feinstein could have helped deliver federal money to the HSR project, even a small amount as a sign of future commitments, to defuse that argument. Harry Reid got $45 million to study a maglev train that will probably never be built - surely Feinstein could have done the same. Feinstein could also exercise leadership right now in resolving disputes between some environmentalists and the HSR project.
Over the last few years Feinstein has been piling up bad feelings among Democrats. To date Dems haven't had a contested primary to vent that anger, but if she runs in 2010, they will.
Given the above it seems likely that a DiFi candidacy, rather than being a shoo-in, will more closely resemble the Hillary Clinton for president campaign, where the presumed front-runner ran into a deep well of discontent among Democratic voters that a smart opponent successfully exploited. Skelton thinks that DiFi's possible rivals are worrying about her supposedly strong poll numbers. What's just as likely is that they see what Hillary's Democratic rivals saw earlier this year - a flawed candidate who is resented by lots of Democrats, providing an opportunity for a good challenger to deal her a bitter defeat.
Skelton's love of bipartisanship seems to be blinding him to the very real struggles she will face if she runs in 2010. No wonder she refused to tell him she would run.
[UPDATE by Robert] The issue of DiFi's favorables is worth a bit of exploration. In an email to me Skelton quoted the Moore poll as giving DiFi a 75% favorability rating among Democrats compared to Jerry Brown's 58%. But the latest Field Poll shows her support only at 64%.
And even if you stick with the Moore numbers, she polls 75% favorable among Dems but only 50% would vote for her for governor. That's soft support, folks. A strong campaign from several Democratic candidates, all focused on tearing down the frontrunner DiFi, would create a much closer race than Skelton suggests.
CALIFORNIA TAKES ANOTHER GIANT LEAP ON GLOBAL WARMING POLICY AIR BOARD RELEASES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CUT POLLUTION
SACRAMENTO (June 26, 2008) - The California Air Resources Board (CARB) released the nation's most comprehensive plan to date for reducing the pollution that causes global warming. While the plan is still a proposal, it represents the furthest step forward any state has taken in the fight against global warming, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS).
Patricia Monahan, the director of UCS's California office, said CARB's plan would add more momentum to the fight against global warming. "California is showing the rest of the country how we can build a clean energy economy," she said. "There's no drilling our way out of energy problems. As energy prices skyrocket, consumers need real alternatives that sip rather than guzzle, and that are homegrown instead of imported."
The 75+ page plan includes a range of policy recommendations. Chief among them is increasing the state's renewable electricity standard. The plan also contains provisions for a regional cap-and-trade program that could work in harmony with other more specific policies to reduce pollution economywide. The plan also says CARB will consider a vehicle "feebate" program that would provide incentives to consumers to buy cleaner cars.
In addition, the proposal includes plans to reduce emissions from heavy-duty trucks with hybrid engine technology and better fuel economy. Like many of CARB's proposals, the heavy-duty truck provisions would improve public health by also reducing smog-forming pollution. The plan also advocates for a high-speed train system in California.
Christopher Busch, a UCS climate economist, pointed out that many of the draft plan's policies would save consumers money and yield economic benefits, while the overall cost of implementing the plan would likely be negligible. "Fundamentally, we're talking about making our economy more efficient, which will give us energy savings," he said. "And investing in clean, renewable energy will make our electricity and fuel supplies more diverse, and insulate us from price swings in the fossil fuel market."
Busch added that global warming pollution reduction strategies also would provide public health benefits by cleaning up the air as well as support the state's growing clean technology industries. "California has proven time and again that we can clean our air and grow our economy," he said. "Now the state is going to prove the same thing with global warming."
The renewable electricity standard in the plan would require utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from clean, renewable sources, such as wind and solar power, by 2020. Such a standard would reduce global warming pollution by an amount equivalent to avoiding the construction of 10 new large fossil fuel power plants or removing nearly 3 million cars from the road. And such a standard could save residents money on their electricity bills by displacing natural gas. Additionally, it would reduce smog-forming pollution, create new green-collar jobs in the state, and bolster California's growing clean technology sector.
"California has a wealth of renewable electricity potential we aren't tapping into yet," said Dan Kalb, UCS's California policy coordinator. "Shifting to clean, safe sources of carbon-free electricity in a smart and well-planned manner is a win for the environment, the economy and consumers."
This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah Beth Jackson of Speak Out California
A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento
For the week ending November 3, 2007
Key bills and issues we've been following during the
Past week and beyond
This is usually a pretty quiet time in Sacramento. While this situation remains pretty much the case, the slowly dying Special Session still remains. With the big battle over water ending in a stalemate, the debate over health care reform showed a glimmer of activity this week as the Assembly Health Committee held a full-blown hearing on the Governor's health care proposal. There wasn't any progress to speak of, although the Speaker, Fabian Nunez pledged to keep working to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, few in Sacramento believe either side will make necessary concessions to make that happen.
When times are slow, polls become more interesting-at least to those political wonks who are otherwise suffering withdrawal from relative inactivity. This week was no different as the well-respected Public Policy Institute of California came out this week with the latest on several fronts. Among these are whether the people feel California is moving in the right direction or not (which is just another way of asking whether people are optimistic and hopeful about their future) and how the Governor would fare should he decide to take on Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010 for the U.S. Senate. As you can see, a lot of inside baseball here, especially since even the baseball season is finally over.
The ballot measures for 2008 are again coming to life, especially since right-wing Congressman Darrell Issa, who brought us the Davis Recall in 2003, has announced he will bankroll the return of the Electoral College measure. For those who thought this blatant right-wing power grab was dead, this measure will split California's electoral votes from a winner-takes-all to a split of electoral votes by Congressional District. Translated, this would likely give the Republican candidate 20 electoral votes---or the size of Ohio or Florida. Since the Republicans haven't won California in years, this is as good as giving them a 40 vote turnaround in the Electoral College, enough so the conventional wisdom holds, to steal the election for the Republicans. And since it is felt that Rudy Guliani is the one most likely to benefit from this ploy, and there are many dirty footprints leading to his door on this measure, the Dems are howling. All this makes for good copy, of course, and keeps the political junkies busy during an otherwise slow period before the election cycle kicks in. Of course, this year, the election cycle seems to have started months ago and seems to be in overdrive already.
With so much bad press recently for Speaker Fabian Nunez's spending habits, the Term-Limits/Extension measure Prop. 93 appears to be sliding out of favor dramatically with California's likely voters. Added to the woes of current members hoping to extend their terms in office is the announcement by billionaire State Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, that he will help bankroll the opposition to the measure. Even though the supporters of the measure have a substantial war chest, this measure looks like it may go down with a big thud.
Key bills and issues we've been following during the
Past week and beyond
With traveling solons returning home from various parts of the world next week, both Healthcare and Water Policy are two special session topics that are heating up. There are various views on both matters and some new Special Session legislation has been introduced this week.
And, in breaking news, the so-called "Dirty Tricks" initiative to change how California allocates its Electoral College votes appears to be dead, at least for now.
Governor "green" speaks at the United Nations, upstaging the absent President Bush (who held his "own" global warming conference to upstage the U.N.) and gets a chance to sign three major environmental bills. Let's see if he puts his pen where his mouth is.
Public Safety bills on the Governor's desk get support from the former Attorney General.
California may soon experience a deja vu all over again of sorts. The 2010 election cycle may take us back to more than just bellbottoms, platform shoes, and disco. Jerry Brown, former governor of California (1975-1983), has established a 2010 Exploratory Committee for a run for governor.
Brown may be a supporter of marriage equality: The State Attorney General normally argues in support of laws that have been passed by the electorate. Brown took an unusual step by declining to defend Proposition 8, a voter-approved amendment to the state constitution that banned same-sex marriage.