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.
The House Ethics Committee announced Thursday that it had voted unanimously to establish panels to investigate whether Southern California congresswomen Maxine Waters and Laura Richardson had violated the law or broken House rules.
In its statement, the committee said it was looking into whether Richardson had received a "gift" or "preferential treatment" from Washington Mutual after her Sacramento house was sold at a foreclosure auction, only to have the lender take it back and return the two-story house to her. It also said it was investigating whether the Long Beach Democrat failed to list real estate, liabilities and income on her financial disclosure forms.
*** *** ***
Massachusetts-based OneUnited Bank received $12 million in bailout funds three months after Waters (D-Los Angeles) helped arrange a meeting between the bank and other minority-owned financial institutions and the Treasury Department. Waters is a senior member of the congressional committee overseeing banking. Waters' husband, Sidney Williams, served on the bank board until early last year and held investments in the bank worth at least $350,000, according to the congresswoman's financial disclosure report.
Now whatever you can say about Rep. Waters, you cannot deny that her excuse on this one, that she has a long history of advocating for minority banks, was true. She's had her run-ins on ethics before, but she's no John Doolittle squirreling money away. Nearly every bank received bailout funds, and the $12 million hardly seems like a number that is out of proportion with the size of the bank. But, in the end, this inquiry is probably for the best for everybody. Best to just air it all out and move past this rather than just hiding it away.
As for Ms. Richardson, well, there is a lot of bad looking circumstantial evidence out there. At a time when foreclosures are an all too common story, she was able to get her house back in a somewhat mysterious fashion. I'll be very interested to see what happens with this story, and I'll certainly be following to see if there is a serious primary challenger.
A new initiative organized by Howie Klein, Jane Hamsher, fellow Calitician Dante Atkins and myself to verbally and financially reward Congressmembers who pledge to vote down any healthcare bill that does not include the public option is catching fire today. The objective is to use carrots as well as sticks to achieve progressive goals. As I said in the diary kicking off this intiative at DailyKos:
Human beings are psychologically predictable creatures, much like Pavlov's famous canine. We do respond well to punishment, but we respond just as well if not better to positive reinforcement. Do nothing but beat a dog with a stick, and the dog is likelier to be aggressive than lovingly loyal. Do nothing but scream at a child, and the child will eventually fail to respond to her abusive parent. Senators and Representatives, no matter how elevated, are still just people: the rules of psychological conditioning still apply. If all we can do is scream at people who don't do what we want, eventually no one will listen to us at all.
If you have the resources, please consider donations to our excellent California legislators. For those who can't chip in, DFA has a thank you action item to thank our healthcare heroes.
With an approach that uses more carrots and less sticks, hopefully we can encourage others in California and across the country to join these brave progressive leaders.
Laura Richardson isn't the most beloved Democratic Congresswoman around here, or really anywhere. Since she's been elected she's received a lot more attention for her foreclosure problems than for her actual work in Congress. Given that she's dangerously close to making the Most Corropt Members List you'd think she would try to do everything possible to avoid making news for this foreclosure issue.
But two years later, he doesn't feel so lucky. The congresswoman's house is abandoned and in disrepair, "a blight on the neighborhood," Bailey said. He thinks the way that Rep. Laura Richardson (D-Long Beach) has treated her Sacramento home tells far more about her than her voting record.
"I wouldn't want anyone that irresponsible to represent me," said Bailey, like Richardson a liberal Democrat. "What I don't get is how she has the time to visit with Fidel Castro but doesn't have time for her own house. If you can't manage your own household, you probably shouldn't get involved in international affairs."
Ouch! Perhaps if she weren't so busy leaning on big banks to get her homes back and voting in favor of telecom immunity, she would have time to hire somebody to take care of her houses.
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.
That's a motley crew now isn't it? It's the same crew that we've seen on that list for quite a few years. And, after Doolittle is replaced (hopefully by the always friendly Charlie Brown), we'll see one of the most corrupt, Doolittle, drop off the list. It's probably for the best, as he's getting a little too close to the indictments for comfort.
Unfortunately, a California Democrat joins the list, which I'm pretty sure is a first. (UPDATE: Apparently Maxine Waters has been on the list in the past) Rep. Laura Richardson has joined the list as a "dishonorable mention." CREW points to Ms. Richardson's very bizarre, and embarassing, real estate transactions:
Because it is unusual for someone with such a deplorable credit history to be repeatedly approved for mortgages, the House ethics committee should investigate whether: (1) Rep. Richardson received a preferential loan in violation of House rules; (2) whether she had received other favorable treatment from lenders in the past; and (3) what, if any, official actions she may have traded to acquire these preferential terms. The House ethics committee should also consider whether Rep. Richardson’s failure to include her mortgages on her financial disclosure forms violates House rules.
In addition, the committee should examine the timing of Rep. Richardson’s most recent default and the $77,500 she loaned her congressional campaign committee. By funneling money that should have gone to pay her mortgage and property taxes to her congressional campaign, Rep. Richardson engaged in conduct that does not reflect creditably on the House.
Well, here's hoping that this can be resolved in a way that lifts the cloud over the California Democratic delegation.
Sitting to my right is Elizabeth Badger, the Founder/Chair of the Minority Outreach Committee. This is her first convention and she is here as an Obama delegate. Oh and says that her kids better be behaving, even though she is away.
Rep. Laura Richardson just sat on my left and immediately said everything was off the record, but then Elizabeth, referring to herself as just a mere delegate said she wasnt relevant.
Congresswoman Richardson insisted I take this down and said "Everyone is relevant, absolutely. It is going to take every single one of us to win this thing.
This is my first convention, we are all in this together."
This too is my first convention. My uncle Jay was one of the original few bloggers in 2004 and I am doing my best to carry on the tradition.
The Pepsi Center is filling up. American flags have been passed out. The signs people are waving are all hand made pro-Obama ones, though "Change We Can Believe In" printed ones are making their way around. My toe is tapping to "Respect" while Rep. Richardson and Elizabeth dance on either side of me. Just about everyone here is grinning, snapping pictures and/or playing on their phones.
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.
I noticed that when she won election last year, it was surmised on this site that she would hold the seat for 20 years. Perhaps that prediction was premature.
It doesn't seem as if she has been doing anything much different from a lot of real estate speculators in California, and it looks as if she is about to suffer some of the same consequences. I do have to say that I am kind of curious as to how she was able to get all those loans, based on her explanation that she got into trouble after changing jobs four times.
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.
A few random pieces cobbled together by the magic of bullet points:
Charlie Brown is having a fundraiser in Pasadena tonight hosted by some of our favorite Blue Dogs including the ever-so-fab Jane Harman. If you've got $250 to spare, perhaps you can ask her about this bizarre editorial with Pete Hoekstra. Charlie Brown for Congress (4th CD), Reception, US Reps. Adam Schiff, Jane Harman and Brad Sherman "invite you," Charlie's Angel $2300, Sponsor $1000, Co-host $500, Guest $250, 7 p.m., Home of Dr. Michael Fortanasce, Glenoaks Blvd., Pasadena. Contact: 916 782 7696.
On the totally random front,Germany's largest employer and transportation company, Deutsche Bahn, is trying to privatize. They're hitting some snags now, and I'd say...good. See, management (and Merkel's CDU) wants to sell a stake to institutional investors, and the more liberal SPD party wants to sell to small investors. But, perhaps they could take a look over the pond and see how great our transportation system is. Because constantly bailing out our air transport companies post-regulation has been great. Hopefully somebody is paying attention at our CA High-Speed Rail Commission. Byt the by, the bond package for high-speed rail is still on the ballot for next November as far as I know. I'm sure Arnold will attempt to back it off again. Hopefully the Dems will support a vital piece of infrastructure for the 21st Century.
The Special Election to replace Laura Richardson in the Assembly is today. The competitors have been doing quite a battle, but I lean towards Furutani. And if I'm reading Paul Rosenberg's comment correctly, so does he.
The Governator is allowing hospitals to continue operating without completing seismic upgrades ordered after the Northridge 1994 quake. While I understand the need to ensure that our hospitals keep running, we also need to ensure that they are safe. Why can't they complete the upgrades? Well, under resourcing of course.
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.
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.
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.
