We don't have clean money quite yet, but we could get a lot closer with the passage of an initiative next year to put the 2014 SoS race on a kind of clean money system. However, in the here and now of CFR, there's still plenty o' people breaking the law.
Steve Westly, who lost a Democratic primary for governor in 2006, admitted to 32 counts of campaign finance law violations and agreed to pay $104,500 in a settlement with the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Westly failed to report expenses and information on contractors who were paid for millions of dollars in television ads, according to settlement documents. The fine, like all those announced Monday, still must be approved by the ethics agency, which meets Dec. 10.
State Assemblyman Joel Anderson (R-San Diego) has agreed to pay $20,000 in fines for accepting campaign contributions that exceeded the $3,900 limit for individuals.
Anderson and his representatives solicited more than $45,000 in contributions from five people, in amounts of up to $10,000 each. The money was given to the Fresno County Republican Central Committee, which is not subject to any limits on how much it can accept or donate to candidates. The Fresno committee then gave the same amount to Anderson's election committee, the settlement said. (LA Times 12/1/09)
Of course, this isn't the only allegation regarding Asm. Anderson. The FPPC is also looking into how he funneled money from his assembly accounts to his senate accounts via a whole long list of Republican County Central Committees. Apparently Anderson and his crew thought that the central committees were some sort of free pass. Which, it turns out, is only partially true.
As for Westly, you have to wonder where he's heading with his career. I'm not sure this makes for any long lasting blow, but it certainly doesn't help. There are a litany of down ballot races coming up in 2014, and a possible Senate race in 2012. Perhaps he's looking at those?
Less than 48 hours after "King of Mean" Garry South was left calling the shots in the Gavin Newsom campaign for Governor, the SF Chronicle had a front-page piece attacking Jerry Brown. Apparently, Brown fundraising for his favorite charities carries all sorts of "conflict-of-interest" allegations that voters should be mindful about in next year's election. But this wasn't the first time reporter Carla Marinucci went on the attack to help Garry South's clients. In the last gubernatorial race, Marinucci used her perch at the Chronicle to repeatedly go after rival Phil Angelides - who was locked in a nasty primary fight against South client Steve Westly. On March 16, 2006, Marinucci wrote a story on Angelides that strangely resembled yesterday's piece on Brown - attacking the state Treasurer for raising corporate donations to a non-profit. South burned bridges in that race with his scorched-earth campaign against Angelides (and bad-mouthing the nominee after the primary was over), and it seems like he's back to his old tricks. But feeding stories to the Chronicle sounds like part of his modus operandi.
Gov. Schwarzenegger is giving a speech right now at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, the kickoff of his campaign for the state budget items in the May 19 special election. In some remarks released earlier, it's clear Arnold is highlighting - and is most concerned about - the spending cap.
"Our state capital is a town that feeds on dysfunction. The special interests, left and right, need the process to be dysfunctional. That is how they control Sacramento. That is how they prevent change."
[snip]
"But now we have an agreement, passed by two-thirds of the legislature, that puts on the ballot serious budget reform, including a spending limit and a rainy day fund.
"And the very interests, the far left and the far right, that prefer dysfunction over change have already launched a campaign to confuse people and defeat the reform. But this time they are not going to succeed."
Arnold probably sees this as a selling point, that if Democrats are against his plan, and Republicans are against his plan, then it must be just right. But this Goldilocks centrism masks the extremism of the spending cap plan, which would ratchet down revenues and cut vital services permanently. It also represents a serious miscalculation on the part of the Governor, who apparently still thinks his post-partisan message actually works in this state. That's the same political genius that has Schwarzenegger polling worse than Carly Fiorina in potential 2010 Senate matchups against Barbara Boxer. And even Schwarzenegger's own strategists seem to know that he cannot be the public face of the special election, lest he doom it to failure.
Opponents of the measures say their private polling has shown linking the initiatives to the governor drives down support of the measures. That has been echoed by some supporters of the ballot measures, who have also started testing potential campaign messages.
But (campaign strategist) Adam Mendelsohn said Schwarzenegger's star power and his ability to get news coverage is still a great asset for the campaign.
"There is no elected official in this state capable of dominating coverage like Arnold Schwarzenegger. The chattering class loves to look at his approval numbers and then cast dispersions, but communicating in a campaign is a lot more complex than just looking at approval numbers."
Uh, yeah, Mr. Mendelsohn, that's the PROBLEM. He's extremely unpopular with everyone but the Dan Weintraubs of the world. And there aren't 17 million Dan Weintraubs living here.
The spending cap, with something for everyone to hate, is particularly vulnerable in the special election. Republicans have been calling for a hard cap for years, if not decades, but they've become so blinded by the Heads on a Stick faction of their party that they cannot look past the short-term of two years of tax increases and realize what they would be getting. But the Yacht Party infantry clearly doesn't care: heck, they're trying to recall Roy Ashburn, who's termed out in 2010 anyway. So their entire side, or at least everyone who wants to be elected in a primary, is lining up against 1A. Meg Whitman has come out against it.
Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has already announced her opposition to Proposition 1A, and Whitman spokesman Mitch Zak did not rule out the possibility that Whitman would spend money against the measure.
"She's been very outspoken in her opposition to 1A," Zak said. "We've not made a decision how that opposition manifests at this point. We're keeping our options open."
The Flash Report is claiming that Steve Poizner will oppose the measure as well, and he is hinting at contributing funding.
After a long, closed-door meeting Tuesday, Assembly Democrats remain divided over the budget-balancing ballot measure at the heart of the May 19 special election, Proposition 1A, which would impose a cap and raise taxes.
"Our caucus had a very long discussion on this," Assembly Speaker Karen Bass told Capitol Weekly. "There are a number of members who are supportive of 1A, there are several members who are opposed to 1A, and there are many others who are trying to decide. We are working through this and we will have another caucus next week," she said Tuesday evening.
Looks like Bass will have a lot more colleagues to boot out of committee assignments. You'll remember that she punished the three Democrats who actually voted against the spending cap on the floor back in February. Now a good bit of the caucus is revolting.
The caucus did vote to support 1B through 1F, and that's probably because they know that there's going to be more cuts coming down the road, and voters opposing the revenue-enhancing items on the ballot will make their job harder.
But, she added, "I'm hearing that we are going to have a $4 billion dollar (revenue) hole, so if the ballot measures don't pass, then it becomes $9 billion or $10 billion hole."
As I said, the crisis continues.
So I'm seeing the anti-tax groups, progressive advocates, the big money in the GOP, half the Assembly Democratic caucus, all against 1A. On the pro side, Arnold, George Skelton, and Steve Westly, who says 1A will "instill much needed fiscal discipline". Yeah, poor people and the blind, get some fiscal discipline, you scumbags!
The wildcard remains the unions, who with even a little bit of financial backing could tip the scales on 1A. SEIU and AFSCME have delayed formal positions until later this month. But the Administration is trying to intimidate them into going along with it.
Here's why it matters to state workers: Last week, the Association of California State Supervisors asked administration officials if the governor would still lay off employees, or if he would abandon the plan since lawmakers have passed a budget.
(Remember, state workers' twice-monthly furlough is just part of how the governor wants to cut costs. Layoff warnings went to 20,000 of the state's least senior employees last month. Half could lose their jobs, officials have said.)
The administration's answer, from notes taken by an association representative: "We hope the five budget-related propositions pass ... . If the propositions do not pass, we will be in a worse situation, with more furloughs and layoffs."
This is despite the fact that 1A would have NO IMPACT whatsoever on the immediate bottom line; in fact, passing it would hurt the budget for state workers more than defeating it. "Vote like your job depends on it... because it does." That must be the working motto.
The question is, will the intimidation work? Obviously, the fact that the tax increase extensions in 1A are practically hidden on the ballot is going to arouse anger amongst the Heads on a Stick crowd. And progressive advocates are sticking to principle that an artificial spending cap has failed wherever it's been tried and is wrong for the state. In the mythical middle you have the vain Mr. Schwarzenegger, desperately trying to stay relevant. Ultimately, this is a referendum on him.
UPDATE: And here we go. The League of Women Voters just announced they're opposing 1A, along with 1C, 1D, and 1E (selling the lottery and moving money from voter-approved funds for children's programs and mental health). This is big if it's a harbinger of how other groups will line up.
Recently, I had the chance to sit down, errm, stand up, with former state controller (and former eBay exec, and former gubernatorial candidate, and current green venture capitalist) Steve Westly about proposition 93. Mr. Westly had an interesting take, which I think you'll see from these videos. You can play through all of them in a row, or watch just one by selecting a video from the playlist.
The Obama rally in San Francisco was your typical presidential rally. There were a bunch of people announcing they were endorsing him, including Reps. George Miller and Barbara Lee (who actually had already announced) and Supes Peskin, Daly, Dufty, and Maxwell. I imagine others will come on board the Obama train soon from what I hear.
Barbara Lee is always inspiring, but I'm always pleasantly surprised when I see George Miller in person. I don't know if it's just that he's not all that telegenic or something, but he's just one of those people who is better in person. Others attending included Asm. Wilma Chan, SF DA Kamala Harris and Steve Westly. You can check out more photos of the event at my Flickr set .
Steve Westly and Steve Poizner have a remarkably similar background. Both made their fortunes during the DotCom heyday and then used those fortunes to get into politics. Both have tended towards moderate for their respective parties. Well, the two are now squaring off over Prop 93. It's actually quite entertaining, even if I weren't working for Yes on 93 (Disclosure).
In the Merc today, the stage was set for what could reasonably be a potential matchup for the governorship:
The battle over Proposition 93, the proposal to loosen term limits, has suddenly become a potential preview of a matchup of two Silicon Valley multimillionaire entrepreneurs with gubernatorial aspirations. Steve Westly, the former state controller who lost in last year's Democratic primary for governor, said Monday that he will throw his name and money behind Prop. 93, six weeks after Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner took over the No on 93 campaign and contributed $1.5 million of his own money to defeat the proposition.
Westly played down any further political ambitions -- or a potential clash of Silicon Valley titans. "I'll make a decision next year about whether 2010 is the right time for me, and my family, to run again," said Westly, responding to an interview request by e-mail. "This initiative isn't about Steve Poizner or myself, it's about how we best prepare California to be successful in the future."(CoCo Times 12.18.07)
Now, it's reasonably clear to anybody who's ever observed Poizner that he's not a bottom of the ticket kind of guy. He's looking to be governor, and I think it's reasonable to say the same for Westly. What isn't so clear is whether Westly would be interested in running again. Either way, this little back and forth in LATimes.com's Dustup feature is quite entertaining. Yesterday the two Steves discussed whether Prop 93 would make a "good law" better. Poizner says that 93 would not be in the spirit of Prop 140 from way back when, while Westly disagrees. They also seem to be arguing about the meaning of some nonpartisan report. (By the by, this site is officially nonpartisan. So, I expect random politicians to quote Robert or Dave and argue over what they are saying. Oh, and Dan Walters. But I suppose we are generally pretty clear, huh? Maybe we should focus on ambiguity, and we'll appear in lots more newspapers and TV reports.)
They just posted today's "dustup" between the two, with the question being "Have they broken career politicians' power monopoly in Sacramento or just sped up the game of political musical chairs?" My comment, which I posted quite a while ago, but is still apparently waiting in the moderation queue, discusses the parable of Richard Alarcon. He went from Senator to Assemblyman to City Councilman in about 4 months. Oh, and I suppose I should also mention that he also ran for Mayor against Villaraigosa and Hahn in 2005. If the legislators constantly have their eyes on the next job, how are they learning and growing in the one they've got?
Just received this press release from the Greg Pettis for Assembly campaign. Pettis is Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City and is running for the CA 80th Assembly District. He announced endorsements from California's top elected financial leaders this week, including Former State Controller Steve Westly, State Controller John Chiang, Board of Equalization member Judy Chu, and Chair of the Assembly Appropriations Committee Mark Leno.
Re full disclosure, BlueBeaumontBoyz is a financial supporter to the Greg Pettis for Assembly campaign.
Today's Blog Roundup is on the flip. Let us know if I missed anything in comments.
Also, The California Majority Report seems to be experimenting with a daily news roundup. They're calling it "Fresh Meat", which is best thought of as a sort of a spun "Rough and Tumble". I hope they can keep it up -- I tried to do that for a month or two in 2005, and it was brutal. Of course, CA Majority Report should be able to, y'know, pay people.
Democratic strategist Garry South, who advised Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman during his bid for the party's 2004 nomination, said "there's always a danger when you're running for public office that a pattern of behavior starts to emerge. And it might be utterly unfair to draw conclusions when things add up to a pattern -- but that's what people do, and that's what the media does.''
If you want a pattern, let's talk about Garry South destroying the (all once-bright) futures of Gray Davis, Joe Lieberman, and Steve Westly. It is literally like he won't hire a client without potential to be on the top 10 list of the biggest losers in the Democratic Party this millennium. There are plenty of reasons for the Open Letter to Garry South.
And can we finally retire the term of him as a "Democratic strategist" after all the evidence the Democratic Party rejects him everywhere he goes? He's a "Connecticut for Lieberman" strategist and has the record to prove it.
The Liberal OC turns one year old today. Looking back in our archives, the most talked about topics back when we started this thing were Tan Nguyen and his racist run for congress, and Phil Angelides v.s. Steve Westly.
And the very first post on this page was an email that was sent to me by Benny Diaz regarding the May Day protests last year.
Here's to one more year of political blogging!
Yes, here's to another year of the best damn blogging behind the Orange Curtain! Our blogosphere wouldn't be the same wihout you. Horray for The Liberal OC! : )
Governing.com has some figures on the cost per vote in some of the governors' races across the nation. It turns out that Phil Angelides paid $11.50 per vote, more than Arnold Schwarzenegger's $9.50 per vote. Of course, that's because...umm...Arnold got a lot more votes. Oh well. These two figures put the two nominees solidly in the middle of the pack.
On the other hand, Steve Westly, well, he spent a lot didn't he? He paid $40.60 per vote. I suppose it goes to show that money doesn't buy everything, or that it's hard to win a primary challenging the entrenched horse from the center, or, umm, that Steve Westly is one rich dude.
(The comments are funny. - promoted by Brian Leubitz)
Dear Presidential Candidates,
In the extended text you will find the complete open letter to the presidential candidates. I wrote the letter in hopes of deterring candidates from making the kinds of mistakes that South has made throughout his career and to avoid the Democratic infighting that South is so happy to instigate. I warn candidates that by hiring Garry South, you will be wearing the Scarlet Letter "T" as in Triangulator or DLC or whatever. I think we all get the point.
I appreciate your attention to the letter. Of course, feedback is appreciated. Finally, please recommend this letter at MyDD and DailyKos
In a very insightful look at the (expected) 2008 primary campaign with Assemblymember Mark Leno challenging incumbent Senator Carole Migden, Randy Shaw writes:
Migden's inability to mount a serious challenge to Leno's slate of delegates for the California Democratic Party convention reflects her disconnection from the city's activist base. For a sitting Senator to field a slate, then abandon the slate, then deny she ever tried to run a slate, is not a good sign for her chances against Leno in the June 2008 primary.
There was a surreal feel to Leno owning the very same room where Migden once ran Democratic Party Central Committee meetings with an iron fist. But as Shaw notes, the upcoming primary race will be about far more than the traditional San Francisco fight over who is the most left.
Over at CA Majority Report, former gubernatorial wannabe Steve Westly looks at what he calls the, "three key lessons from this year's midterm election." Setting aside the fact that you should never take advice from anyone who hired Garry South, the biggest problem is what Westly failed to learn.
Garry South has appeared to be very bitter since his DLC candidate failed to buy the gubernatorial primary. In one of his recent whines, the first comment is from the Flash Report's Jon Fleischman:
Now, Garry, I think it might be more effective if you had told Phil NOT to do these things. Now in this morning's staff meeting, when the staff members (who all will have read your illuminating column) suggest your strategy, Phil will throw a temper-tantrum, and declare, "South doesn't run THIS campaign."
Setting aside the obvious -- that a Republican gave tips to try and get Democrats to listen to South -- I think this is the exact appropriate response. Garry South's DLC triangulation approach has looked badly out of place for years. Democrats have long since tired of Garry South's campaigns and the only recent candidates who hired him seemed to be planing on winning in-spite of a lack of Democratic support.
(originally wrote for dkos and mydd)
Let me set something straight here folks, here in California we will have a new Governor in November and his name will be Phil Angelides. Arnold Schwarzenegger will go back to making bad movies and California will be delivered from Wilson-ian nefariousness.
However, I am now going to use this post to both tell you why this will happen, and take a few well deserved potshots at naysayers, people still fighting the primary and a few other folks (including Arnold)...
Welcome to the Poll Headquarters. We'll be posting notable Polls and Endorsements here. The Governor related polls will be in the main, congress, down-ballot, and other polls will be in the extended.
California Governor Polls
Primary Polls: Angelides v Westly and Hypothetical Matchups
Field California Governor Polls
The dates are the date of release to the public, not the dates of survey. The Field Poll is the gold standard of California political polls. I always trust the Field Poll when it's in conflict with another. The margin of error for all voters is 3.8%. 4.5% for the Democrats only race.
The dates are the date of release to the public, not the dates of survey. The Rasmussen poll is a computer polling operation. Its results are a little more questionable and can sometimes be skewed towards the political right. Also, Rasmussen did head to heads for Angelides and Westly, but only releases that data to paying subscribers.
The LA Times poll and the PPIC poll also have polls on down ballot races. I didn't summarize them here, but click the links for the full PDFs. Please let me know if you know of any more.
I'm going through and consolidating election night parties around the state. If you have any information about other events, post a comment and i'll try to include it in the main post. I posted a list of a lot more parties on the flip. And for those of you staying at home, Frank of the California Progreess Report (http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/) will be on KPIX-5 digital channel covering the election returns.
Los Angeles (RSVP Requested): 8:00 pm (when the polls close!) The Westin Bonaventure Hotel California Room 404 South Figueroa Street Los Angeles 90071 San Francisco: Prime Time Restaraunt @ 8pm 1810 Clement Street S.F. 94121
Sacramento Election Night Party: 8:00pm Sacramento Sheraton 1230 J St Sacramento
Encinitas 8:30 P.M. D Street Bar & Grill 485 South Coast Hwy 101 Encinitas 92024
With an extremely close election predicted, it's worth considering when we will get the results.
Alameda County's return to low-tech voting Tuesday could make for a long evening for poll workers and leave the state's neck-and-neck Democratic gubernatorial primary undecided overnight.
The county's inability to quickly process paper ballots after shelving its electronic voting machines may make Alameda the determining factor because 5.7 percent of the state's registered Democrats live there.(AP (SJ M-N) 6/3/06)
Alameda County will likely break towards Angelides. It will be interesting to see if the early vote favors Westly and if it shifts later towards Angelides.
Of course, a disastrous result, as Dan Weitraub pointed out, a protracted ballot counting process combined with any legal fights afterward would dig the ultimate Dem nominee a hole that may be too deep to dig out of. The nasty primary battle will already give us a weakened candidate. We certainly don't need any more complications.
