Looking past for a moment the hilariousness of the family values Republican bragging about his multiple mistresses, and the very serious allegations of sex-for-favors with lobbyists, which should be investigated by the Ethics Committee and state prosecutors, there's a point to be made about the 2/3 requirement here.
Duvall's resignation reduces the number of lawmakers in the Assembly by one. Democrats now hold 50 seats, Republicans 28, with Juan Arambula as a Dem-leaning independent. However, because you need 2/3 voting affirmatively to pass a budget or tax increases, not 1/3 voting negatively to block it, this changes nothing in Sacramento. Duvall's seat being empty is pretty much the same as him voting no on everything. So unless Democrats can capitalize and win the seat (and I highly doubt it in that district), it's not useful from a voting perspective.
Just thought you should know, being a Yacht Party member is literally the same as not existing.
UPDATE by Robert: See the Courage Campaign's press release, calling for the Attorney General to investigate this, in the comments.
(These things are fairly ridiculous. Populist anger simply doesn't emerge from high-falutin' conservative think tanks. If you have any pictures from any of these events, post them in the comments or shoot them to my email (brian at calitics dt com). - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
A number of people I have spoken with are planning to attend a "tea party" tomorrow, so I thought it might be a good idea to write about this. They are not what they claim to be. They are not "spontaneous" or "grassroots." They are another corporate-funded campaign to trick people into supporting more cut taxes for the rich.
Everything that is corrosive and broken about California politics can be seen in this incredible article by Kevin Yamamura. In it, he explains that negotiations on the budget are being held by the Assembly and Senate leadership in secret, so as not to upset the critical balance needed to pass it.
Five Californians are trying to solve the state's budget crisis, in part by keeping the other 38 million residents in the dark.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the four legislative leaders have continued their negotiations behind closed doors for weeks, bypassing open legislative committees and offering the outside world few details as a precondition of their talks.
See, what happens is that the population of 38 million elects 120 representatives to go to Sacramento, and they vest all their power in the hands of four leaders, and they go off to run the state by themselves. It's such a brilliant program, not subject to personal ambitions or petty jealousies. Not at all.
Among the people the Big Five are hiding from are their own fellow legislators, and lobbyists:
They fear special interests will mobilize on every proposal they hear about, ramp up pressure on lawmakers and prevent any possibility of reaching a deal that could secure enough votes.
"Whether it's education or labor or any of the other groups, when we get wind of something that has significant jeopardy for us, we fight against it," said Kevin Gordon, a lobbyist for hundreds of California school districts. "It's a (lobbying) system set up to defeat the latest idea that's been hatched, which makes it that much harder to get a solution."
When they do reach a deal, legislative leaders intend to hide it as long as they can until a floor vote, for fear that lobbyists may undermine the agreement by persuading key legislators to vote against it.
Wow, there's an honest lobbyist.
So let's get this straight: budget negotiations are happening in secret, because if they were even remotely public, special interests would scuttle the deal. And when an agreement is reached, they're going to SNEAK IT ONTO THE FLOOR so no wayward lawmaker gets in his silly little head that he wants to read it.
The increased secrecy behind this year's "Big Five" leadership negotiations has made interest groups nervous and has alarmed open-government proponents.
"The thought that to be able to solve this you have to ram it down members' throats just to lock something up before a constituency finds it outrageous is evidence of how bad the process has gotten," said Terry Francke of Californians Aware, an open-government advocacy group.
Yep. Keep in mind that there has not been one Budget Committee hearing this year. When a deal is reached, that committee will probably meet in the middle of the night and rubber-stamp the deal, moving to the floor as fast as possible to outflank the special interests who clearly run the state.
The Big Five process is absurd. There are ways to decrease the influence of special interests, the biggest being full public financing of all elections. The best practice is NOT to hide from them so that the legislative process is like a team of burglars trying to rob a jewelry store without being detected. And the less people involved in any negotiation, the more possibility for eventual corruption through backroom dealing.
The entire brief for a Constitutional convention can now be "Read A-1 of the Sac Bee on February 4, 2009."
The current plan to give $700 billion away to Wall Street - the same ones who got us into this mess - is a sign we need Clean Money public financing of campaigns more than ever. Finance, insurance, and real estate firms have poured over $5 billion in contributions into politicians' hands since 1990. They've already been paid back by special interest giveaways many times over, and now they're asking for over $2,000 from every man, woman, and child in the country.
Clean Money is the Only Way to Stop this Madness From Happening Again and Again!
Urge Governor Schwarzenegger to sign AB 583, the California Fair Elections Act, to start ending special interest dominance of politics by sending him a fax right now:
AB 583, the California Fair Elections Act, is likely to have its floor vote in the State Senate today and definitely by Sunday - two steps from the Governor's desk! But the vote is going to be a nail-biter.
Lobbyists and the California Chamber of Commerce are trying to kill the bill because it partially pays for the system by raising registration fees on lobbyists to the same level as they are in Illinois ($350 a year), though they're really worried about not having as much access to elected officials because the $143 million they spend every six months lobbying won't mean as much if candidates can get elected with public funds.
Let's not let them stop Fair Elections! Please send a free fax to your State Senator and to Senate leaders asking them to vote yes on the bill. Over a thousand people have faxed already, but the more faxes they get today, the better:
Then call up your Senator and ask them to vote Yes! The fax tool will show you're their number.
This is the closest a Clean Money bill has ever made it to getting through both houses of the legislature in California, and AB 583 makes the perfect pilot project by funding Secretary of State races to make sure they never have to take money from the likes of Diebold or other private contributors. So let's make it happen!
The story of Sacramento lobbyists killing two bills to eliminate PFC chemicals from packaging is short, so you can go read it yourself. It's the same old story - legislation that is overwhelmingly popular and easily implementable is killed off by lobbyists for business and industry. Regardless of the budget fight, that's life in Sacramento. And at the same time, legislators scurry to one fundraiser after another where the same lobbyists pat them on the head and hand them a check. It's nauseating, and anyone outside of a political consultant who thinks that the next governor race matters even a whit absent fundamental change of this aspect of Sacramento politics is dreaming.
And people power is the only thing that'll kill it dead, not a kinder and gentler version of the same old politics that can't change the state.
UPDATE by Brian: I've added the vote information for both bills in the comments.
I think these open threads are working out. Hope you enjoy them. Here are a few thoughts.
• This is a week old, but Nick Kristof's column about Prop. 2 (the farm animal safety measure) is well worth your time.
• It's still up in the air whether or not we're going to have Alan Keyes on the California Presidential ballot in November. There's a lawsuit between two members of the American Independent Party over who should be their nominee. It seems to me the very definition of "frivolous," but as someone who deeply enjoys mocking Alan Keyes I have a dog in this fight, so do the right thing, Sacramento Superior Court!
• The Log Cabin Republicans, who I also like to call "gluttons for punishment," rolled out their No on 8 campaign last week. The website is Republicans Against 8. It's the libertarian thing to do to get government out of the bedroom, so hopefully they'll sway some folks.
For hundreds of homeless people, posing as phony hospital patients provided them a clean bed and cash. For the hospitals that processed them, it meant a full patient-load and a paycheck from the government.
Now some of those allegedly involved in what authorities say was a massive scheme have been charged with billing government programs for millions of dollars in unnecessary health services.
A hospital CEO was arrested Wednesday after federal agents raided three medical centers. City attorney Rocky Delgadillo's office has also sued the hospitals, saying they used homeless people as "human pawns."
It's kind of the flip side of homeless dumping, or who knows, it was run in concert. Either way, sickening.
• Jerry Lewis is trying to get a bunch of lobbyists to fund his Congressional portrait. The worst part about this deal is that Jerry Lewis will have a Congressional portrait hanging in our nation's capital.
For a variety of reasons, this is a depressing day. In California terms, it's because, for all the progress we think has been made over the last few cycles, the situation is very familiar - the big money special interests rule Sacramento, and the "lawmakers" do nothing but chase money.
Yesterday, the bill which would phase out plastic bags in California by placing a $0.25 fee for their use in shops which failed to recycle them stalled in the State Senate (must have been that Bag Tax blogad). Cost was raised as a concern - it would have cost a whopping $1.5 million dollars (on a $100 billion dollar budget) to implement!
Also yesterday, the proposal to make California the very first state in the nation with guaranteed paid sick days for every worker, a right held in most industrialized nations, failed in the Senate, also due to cost (this would have been a robust $900,000 a year to implement!). The bill was at the top of CalChamber's annual "job killer" list. (I should also mention that a recent Field Poll showed it having 75% support among Californians, which of course doesn't matter).
So bills that would have a major impact on health, the environment and quality of life are quietly yet consistently killed. Meanwhile, the "lawmakers" shuttle from one fundraiser to the next, sucking up to the people who really control the Capitol.
In just four days next week, at least 40 politicians and candidates are scheduled to hold fundraisers, soliciting donations over cappuccino, carnitas and cocktails, at cafes, art galleries and restaurants. Most events are within a few blocks of the Capitol and require a minimum donation of $1,000 to attend.
Lobbyists -- whose clients' interests are on the line in the Legislature -- face so many opportunities to give to legislators' campaigns that some are plotting a schedule and mapping a route.
"You run from one to the other," said Craig Brown, a lobbyist who represents several law enforcement unions.
The result of all these payments is a lobbyist class which is free to designate what bills would or would not be too "costly" to implement. They'll pay top dollar to the lawmakers to make sure they don't spend a lot of money. There's quite a disconnect there.
It's no wonder that "lawmakers" don't care about Arnold Schwarzenegger's vow to veto every bill until the budget is resolved. The more bills have the potential of returning, the more money flows into candidate coffers from the lobbyists who want to stop the bills. It's a vicious, disgusting cycle which restricts progressive change at virtually every level. Sure, they'll let something like SB 840 slide through because they know Governor Backstop will veto it. But anything that might actually become a law - forget it. Not unless the Big Money Boys wrinkle their noses in assent.
The big challenge for progressives and activists is to show a model that would break the cycle of lobbyist cash for access in Sacramento. The low-dollar revolution has been nonexistent here, and without it you cannot credibly campaign in the state without help from special interests. Until that time, we'll continue to see consumer-friendly bills die in committee, lobbyists writing the laws, and the rest of us scratching our heads why we can't make progress.
UPDATE: I should note that AB583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections bill which would establish a public financing system for the Secretary of State race as a pilot program, passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a party-line 9-6 vote and will now hit the full Senate floor. Truly public financing is one of the only ways to break the vice grip that special interests in Sacramento hold on the government.
(A first step. Should be interesting. - promoted by David Dayen)
AB 583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections Act, has a new funding source to pay for full public financing for Secretary of State campaigns - a $350 annual registration fee on lobbyists, lobbying firms, and lobbyist employers. As you might suppose, the lobbyists are up in arms at the idea of having to pay the same fee they pay in Illinois - not to mention losing access to elected officials they can't donate to because they're using Clean Money instead of private money - and are coming out to fight it.
Let's not let them stop Clean Money! The Senate Appropriations Committee hearing is in room 4203 in the state capitol building on Monday morning at 10:00am, and it's huge. We've got to pack the hearing room with people power to stop the lobbyists from killing it. Carpools of Clean Money supporters from all parts of the Bay Area all the way down to Orange County are driving up, but we need even more.
If there's any chance you can come, please join us! Send an email to info@caclean.org to tell us you're coming or to be hooked up with a carpool.
Can't make it? Send a fax!
If you can't make it, use the California Clean Money Campaign's online letter-writing tool to send a free fax to Appropriations Chair Tom Torlakson, Senate President pro Tem Don Perata, and other targets. The more faxes they get this week, the better!
This is the closest a Clean Money bill has ever made it to getting through both houses of the legislature in California, and AB 583 makes the perfect pilot project by funding Secretary of State races to make sure they never have to take money from the likes of Diebold or other private contributors. So let's make it happen!
This article by Frank Russo got me pretty depressed about the state of California politics.
There's something amiss in the state of Sacramento-and it has something to do with the state's banking and lending institutions and the stacking of committees that deal with them with legislators that are either weak kneed or just a bit overfriendly with the industry that they should be protecting us from.
What else is new?
Well, this afternoon, the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance, and Insurance, Chaired by Senator Michael Machado of Stockton, will be hearing two bills that have been gutted down behind a closed door process such that today's public proceedings on them may amount to little more than a sham [...]
It's difficult enough to get bills passed through the Assembly Banking Committee and the Assembly floor when going up against the behemoth banking industry which has a lot of spare change to throw around in legislative races and many high paid lobbyists scurrying about the Capitol.
It looks like AB 69 by Assemblymember Ted Lieu, originally a great bill, has been amended since it left the Assembly-and before today's hearing-such that the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices, initially listed in support, has withdrawn that position.
Read the whole thing. The bottom line is that in this recent primary election special interest groups spent nearly $10 million, and a good bulk of them were business interests who are now playing inside Democratic primaries in traditionally liberal areas to sell low-information voters a bill of goods. This doesn't always work, but it works just enough to frustrate progress in Sacramento.
Lesson 3: The business lobby can influence Democratic politics, even in a largely minority district.
Former Assemblyman Rod Wright, a moderate, defeated liberal Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally -- reversing the pattern of leftist victories -- in a South Los Angeles Senate district after business donors invested roughly $1 million in Wright's campaign.
"Business has tended to stay out of black politics," says Sragow, who advises the business lobby. "But some black politicians ask, 'Why? We're always out looking for economic development in our districts.'
"The business community has decided it can't get a Republican Legislature, so it will play in districts where there's a Democratic candidate it can work with."
A major Democratic strategist has all but said that Don Perata shepherded along the candidacy of Rod Wright, and actually put it in terms that come very close to illegal coordination (note "a flurry of record spending by closely-aligned IE groups focusing all of their attention and ammo in one, concerted direction.")
This is the game. IE's are increasingly the only way to reach the electorate, as the low-dollar revolution has pretty much not reached the Golden State. So the Chamber of Commerce and industry groups fill the pockets of the politicians who, once elected, feel obligated to repay them. The US Constitution allows the right for anyone to petition their government for redress of grievances; outlawing lobbyists or the ability of merchants to consult their politicians is not tenable. What is tenable is to either create a parallel public financing system by employing the residents of the state to pay attention to local politics enough to fund progressive-minded candidates, or to bring clean money to California, where it's arguably needed more than anywhere else, and end the pernicious influence of special interests in state elections. Otherwise, you get a steady parade of mortgage relief bills that offer no relief.
The real question here is whether these military contractors think they're contributing to the same Duncan Hunter or not.
Records show connections between companies Rep. Hunter has worked with and some individuals who are contributing to his son's campaign.
Rep. Hunter added language to the 2008 Defense Appropriations bill awarding $19 million to L-3 Communications, which has an office in San Diego, for the development and testing of a missile system, according to data compiled by Taxpayers for Common Sense. Executives from that company contributed $2,750 to Duncan D. Hunter's campaign.
Rep. Hunter also earmarked San Diego-based Trex Enterprises Corp. $1.5 million for the development of a device that will help helicopter pilots navigate with limited visibility. Campaign finance records show Trex employees, including a scientist, donated $4,800 to Duncan D. Hunter's campaign.
Lobbyists working for the companies have also supported Hunter's campaign. Patrick McSwain and Frank Collins, who were listed as principals at the lobbying firm Northpoint Strategies, collectively donated $2,500. Northpoint worked on behalf of L-3. McSwain and Collins were both former [Rep. Duke] Cunningham chiefs of staff.
You know, why wouldn't they? Hunter was a reliable champion for whatever boondoggle weapons system these contractors thought up, even planes that can't fly. There's no reason to believe that his son won't act the same way.
Calitics has endorsed Democrat Mike Lumpkin in this seat.
With the nation's economy increasingly becoming a volatile issue in the presidential campaign, the president of the United States Chamber of Commerce is about to issue one very tough promise to spend millions of dollars against candidates deemed to be anti-business. (Are you listening John Edwards?)
It seems if you dare to tell the Truth about the wholesale "sell off" of hopes and aspirations the American Middle Class -- well the "powers that be" just might get a little UPSET with you ...
But will that shut Edwards up about it? ... I hope not!
Sunlight afterall, is the best disinfectant! (not capitulation and compromise)
This isn't about petty politics or good intentions.
Corporate greed and influence in Washington are stealing our children's future.
The moral test of our generation is whether we're going to allow this broken system to go on without a fight or take on corporate greed and stand up for the middle class and American jobs before it's too late.
They aren't going to just give their power away.
Saving the middle class is going to be an epic battle, and that's a fight I was born for.
John Edwards has gotten many laughs with the cutting line about Industry Lobbyists: "If you give them a seat at the Table -- they'll eat all the food!"
Lobbyists are the "Bogey Man" that's everyone loves to hate -- but are they really that big of a Deal?
It's just Business right? Corporations are People too. They deserve to have their Voices heard in DC, too, Right? I thought I read that somewhere in the Constitution, Didn't I? .... Hmmmm ....
Yesterday, the UN held a major conference on climate change (Bush was a no-show) and the Secretary-General called for immediate action to preserve the future of the planet. In a separate event, the President will call for a consensus about the world's highest-emitting nations that would allow each to set their own voluntary limits on greenhouse gas emissions instead of it being ordered by an international treaty.
Not a good idea, I know. But let's accept Bush's logic for a moment (and only a moment, before you slip into dementia). He believes that governing entities should be given latitude to make the climate change policies that they see fit, rather than having them signaled from on high. Unless, of course, that refers to states in this country and the one on high is him:
The Bush administration has conducted a concerted, behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to try to generate opposition to California's request to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks, according to documents obtained by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform [...]
A flurry of e-mails among Transportation Department (DOT) officials and between its staffers and the White House, released yesterday, highlights efforts that administration officials have made to stir up public opposition to the waiver. Rather than attacking California's request outright, Bush officials quietly reached out to two dozen congressional offices and a handful of governors to try to undermine it.
One May 22 e-mail written by Jeff Shane, undersecretary of transportation for policy, outlined how Transportation Secretary Mary Peters orchestrated the campaign. Peters "asked that we develop some ideas asap about facilitating a pushback from governors (esp. D's) and others opposed to piecemeal regulation of emissions, as per CA's waiver petition," Shane wrote. "She has heard that such objections could have an important effect on the way Congress looks at the issue."
Lobbyists continue to extend influence
Posted 9/20/2007 11:41 AM
Okay be honest, you expect this to be about you know who. Well, not today sweet heart. No this is not about the darling of MSM pundits, Ms. HRC (don't be too disappointed after all she is getting a lot of ink, air-time and blog time about her embracing lobbyists as a useful partner in a democracy). In, dare I say it, another local paper, I found this quote: "Those who have the ears of decision makers have an advantage over those who don't."
This bit of wisdom comes from Moreno Valley City Councilwoman, Bonnie Flickinger. She was quoted in a story titled, More cities turning to lobbyists by Dan Lee in today's The Press-Enterprise. Other inland cities identified as employing Wash. DC registered lobbyist, include Hemet, Moreno Valley, San Jacinto and Temecula. I wonder about Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells and other Coachella Valley cities.
I guess this is defended in the same way we did as children when our parents caught us doing something we should not be doing. The old canard, "Well, geez, everybody else is doing it." Remember our parent's end of conversation response? "That doesn't make it right and that doesn't make it okay."
Just because HRC and desert cities use registered lobbyists doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it okay.
