I received this in my e-mail today and present it as a public service:
Friends,
I have great news! Over the weekend, Governor Jerry Brown, Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, Congressional Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, the California Democratic Party and a host of other Democratic Leaders have thrown their support behind my campaign for Congress. These great leaders share my commitment to ending the wars overseas, investing in our communities at home and creating sustainable, green jobs. They know what it will take to get it done, and they know I'm the right person to represent this district.
Did anyone notice how incoming freshman Representative Jeff Denham (CA-19) has just
hosted a huge $2,500 / plate dinner fundraiser to welcome the rest of his class to Washington.
40 days from today - on May 18 - we will see two HUGE primaries for U.S. Senate. Even though these races aren't in California, they impact Democrats across the country and, well, the entire country as a whole.
In Pennsylvania, Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak will try to upset Republican-for-decades Arlen Specter.
In Arkansas, Democratic Lieutenant Governor Bill Halter will try to upset corporate lackey Blanche Lincoln.
These two races are tremendously important to defining who and what the Democratic Party is and what we will be fighting for.
If you can volunteer for these candidates (or encourage friends and family in Pennsylvania and Arkansas to do so), that would be amazing.
Of course, if you can help with a contribution to either or both via the Expand the Map! ActBlue page as soon as possible, it will make a big impact.
Polling shows that both Specter and Lincoln are at risk of - if not likely to - hand these Senate seats over to far-right-wing Republicans. (And, even if these two retain the seats, that's not much better on many key issues.)
Congressman Sestak and Lieutenant Governor Halter winning these primaries are critical to keeping these seats in truly Democratic hands. Your support can help make that happen! Please hop over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page right away to make a contribution - an investment in the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party to pull out an old expression - and show your support.
Thanks SO much for any support you can provide. 40 Days.
As we await the historic vote on health care reform, it's important to remember that we're just ten days away from the end of the first fundraising quarter of 2010. The fundraising totals reported in this quarter will be pivotal to determining the tenor of many races for the rest of the year. If there is any time to contribute, now is the time!
Please head over to the Expand the Map! ActBlue page and contribute whatever you are able to these terrific Democratic candidates for Senate.
Democrat
Currently At
End-of-Quarter Goal
Distance to Goal
Kendrick Meek
$25
$300
$275
Bill Halter
$445
$750
$305
Joe Sestak
$1,320
$1,600
$280
Paul Hodes
$1,447
$1,700
$253
Robin Carnahan
$1,163
$1,400
$237
Remember, the contribution you can make isn't just a donation to a single candidate or political campaign. It's an investment against Republican obstruction (and conservaDem enabling) and an investment toward achieving that more perfect union.
Hi- my name is Spedwybabs. I'm a regular at Daily Kos and today I wanted to introduce myself and tout the Netroots Nation Auction and why I'm such a strong supporter of Netroots Nation.
Just a rundown of events in the CA-10 race with a week until primary day:
• Late last week, fundraising reports were due, showing that over $2 million dollars has been raised by the various candidates seeking Ellen Tauscher's old seat in Congress. By any metric - total cash raised, cash raised in the last cycle, cash raised since June 30, cash on hand, and cash on hand less debts - John Garamendi has the lead, though much of his money comes from big donors. Anthony Woods, and to a lesser extent Mark DeSaulnier, have found a smaller-donor base, though Woods' is mostly out of district. Joan Buchanan has basically not raised money at all; she has given herself as much as $750,000 in loans and is generally self-funded (and what donations she has not given herself have come from such health industry interests as Wellpoint, one of the largest insurers in America). I would say the top four candidates probably have enough money to get out the message within their budgets, however.
• The Contra Costa Times, the main newspaper in the main population center of the district, endorsed John Garamendi for the position. However, their criticism of Mark DeSaulnier, that he "acced(es) to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions," gives you an indication of their orientation and whether or not you find them a trusted source.
• DeSaulnier continues to hammer on the largely irrelevant point that Garamendi doesn't live inside the district. Here's a mailer to that effect. And practically every missive from campaign staff re-emphasizes this point. I would like their research department to find one instance of when a residency issue like this had any impact on a Congressional race. I just really think DeSaulnier has missed his target here. He's better off showing his progressive bona fides on issues like health care, transportation and the environment, IMO. This is such a critical time, and residency issues do not appear to be at the top of the minds of people who want to see this country make good on the change agenda from 2008, particularly Democratic partisans who would vote in a special election primary.
• Anthony Woods held another live chat at AmericaBlog this week. His position in local endorsements always comes at the end and reads something like "we were very impressed with him and think he has a bright future."
We are writing to inquire about the recent fundraising activities of EQCA. In early July, it was brought to our attention that EQCA had hired a professional fundraising corporation known as Grassroots Campaigns Inc (www.grassrootscampaigns.com). Since then, we have heard numerous reports that this money was being raised with a script promoting 2010 - Several people on this list, including Stacey Simmons and Robert Polzoni can attest to this. On August 5th, Melissa Staten, a director for Grassroots Campaigns, confirmed that her organization has raised $530,000 in the San Francisco Bay Area and over $ 1 million dollars statewide for EQCA's "repeal of Prop 8 in 2010." We have a few questions as it relates to the money for 2010 and EQCA's announcement later today:
A) Should EQCA announce that they are supporting and/ or in favor of 2010, will a portion of this money be used to pay for the additional research? The Courage Campaign, along with Winner & Mandabach, have stated that we need to raise nearly $200,000 to conduct additional polling, research, and focus groups to solidify ballot language and a campaign plan.
B) On August 11th, 2009 at 2:31pm, Becky - director of the San Francisco office of Grassroots Campaigns Inc. (415-447-9396) - confirmed that money being raised is for 2010. If EQCA announces 2012, we have two questions: 1) will the money that was raised using a script for 2010 be given to support the efforts of the grassroots moving forward or 2) will this money be refunded? At the very least, people should be able to request a refund, if they wish, as numerous individuals were assured that their money was being used for 2010.
C) In addition to the million-plus dollars EQCA has raised since May, the Courage Campaign has raised over a $100,000 in a week's time. Regardless of a particular campaign date, it has become evident that significant funds can be raised at the grassroots level, despite major donor's reluctance.
Our final question: what systems are in place to assure accountable and transparent use of funds being raised? Perhaps this is a question better suited for the August 22nd campaign structuring meeting - but it is a question that the community should ask nonetheless.
Brian is wrong, that does not take care of the horse race for the day! Today is the deadline for Congressional incumbents and challengers to declare their fundraising totals for the second quarter of 2009, and some numbers on the California candidates jump out. If I write "incomplete," that's because their FEC report hasn't popped up yet. I'll fill in when they become available:
We'll start with the special election in CA-10:
John Garamendi: $300,000 raised, $260,000 CoH, $54,000 debt
Mark DeSaulnier: incomplete $212,000 raised, $136,000 CoH, $77,000 debt
Joan Buchanan: incomplete $64,000 raised, $179,000 CoH, $308,000 debt
Anthony Woods: $105,000 raised, $65,000 CoH
Adriel Hampton: incomplete $22,500 raised, $269.77 CoH, $346.82 debt
Waiting on more info on this one. John Garamendi's number came from 350 people, almost $1,000 a head. That suggests no grassroots fundraising base. Anthony Woods had over twice as many donors, who could be tapped again. UPDATE: OK, this is interesting. Joan Buchanan raised a fairly paltry amount considering the primary is in six weeks, but she took out a $250,000 loan and has a significant amount of debt. She seems to be blowing through operating expenses too. Likewise, Mark DeSaulnier, who raised a decent amount, has over half of his cash on hand in debt. And I missed that John Garamendi has $50,000 in debt as well. Suddenly, Anthony Woods has more debt-free cash on hand than anyone in the field but Garamendi.
CA-03:
Gary Davis: $34,000 raised, $30,000 CoH
Dr. Amerish Bera: $288,000 raised, $286,000 CoH
Dan Lungren (inc.): incomplete $233,000 raised, $322,000 CoH
Bill Slaton: $113,000 raised, $224,000 CoH, $116,000 debt
That is an eye-popping number for Amerish Bera, and lest you see it as a doctor self-funding, only $4,800 came from the candidate. I was shocked by that total. We'll see what Dan Lungren ends up raising later today, but it's entirely possible that Bera will have MORE cash on hand than the incumbent (Lungren only had $121,000 on hand at the end of April, with $12,000 in debts). Wow. UPDATE So Bera outraised Lungren, but he ekes out a cash on hand lead. As an incumbent, however, that's a weak performance. UPDATE II: Bill Slaton claimed to some that he raised $227,000 in three weeks, but half of that comes in the form of a personal loan to the campaign. His actual cash on hand is much less than Bera. But $113,000 in three weeks isn't bad.
CA-45:
Steve Pougnet: $201,000 raised, $203,000 CoH
Mary Bono Mack (inc): $166,000 raised, $448,000 CoH
Steve Pougnet outraised the incumbent in Q2, which is quite impressive. Mary Bono Mack starts out with a bigger war chest, so he has some work to do, but this is an excellent start, and I think Pougnet has a natural fundraising base that will only expand once his story gets out.
CA-44:
Bill Hedrick: $65,000 raised, $66,000 CoH
Ken Calvert (inc.): incomplete $407,000 raised, $384,000 CoH
Certainly an improvement over the first quarter for Bill Hedrick, and all of the money came from Southern California, which means he has a solid fundraising and volunteer base locally. He needs to spread that out nationally to maximize his potential in this winnable race.
Believe it or not, Dreier actually had a much bigger war chest last cycle. Russ Warner needs to do better to be competitive, but he's actually in a slightly better position than two years ago.
This was a tough quarter for Krom, with the tragic death of her son taking up a lot of time in the final weeks. Campbell ramped up his fundraising a bit after Krom beat him in the last quarter.
A solid quarter of fundraising for Francine Busby, notwithstanding that police action at one of her fundraisers while guests were pepper sprayed. UPDATE: Brian Bilbray had a good quarter.
The field is still getting together in this race, but I wanted to see Elton Gallegly's fundraising output, which is somewhat pathetic. He does have enough of a war chest that he doesn't necessarily need to get moving on that yet, however.
UPDATE the last: Swing State Project has a full roundup with a number of other interesting tidbits.
• In CA-04, Tom McClintock raised a bundle - $341,000 - but he still has over $100,000 in outstanding debt and only $245,000 CoH. Some fiscal conservative.
• In CA-10, one Republican is showing financial viability, David Harmer, with a $175,000 haul (but that's based on the first six months, not just the quarter). He has $144,000 CoH and $17,000 in outstanding debt. And his ideological viability in that district is, shall we say, suspect, though he is likely to reach a runoff.
• In CA-11, which I think is safe, Jerry McNerney raised $288,000 and has $519,000 cash on hand. One of his potential opponents, Brad Goehring, would seem to have a good financial position with $259,000 CoH, but he only raised $14,000 for the quarter and has $250,000 in debt due to a massive loan. The same with Jon Del Arroz, who guaranteed a huge loan for himself and has as much in debt as he does in cash on hand. These guys are wasting money, in my opinion.
• I added Ken Calvert's numbers in CA-44. Clearly the NRCC is protecting him by bolstering his fundraising.
• CA-47 is on the fringe of being competitive, but Van Tran had a good quarter, beating Loretta Sanchez (barely) in fundraising:
While candidates for state and federal office have until July 15 to announce their fundraising totals to the FEC, we're starting to see some of the numbers trickle out. And this is a pretty good one. Steve Pougnet, the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs, husband and father of two, reportedly raised over $200,000 in the second quarter. He claimed to have outraised his opponent, incumbent Mary Bono Mack, although the Republican has not yet released her numbers.
$200,000 is a better quarter than almost all Democratic challengers achieved at any point in the last Congressional cycle until the final fundraising quarter. It's particularly impressive this far out of the race.
With Bono Mack facing heat from her right flank over her vote for the Waxman-Markey energy bill, she may not have the kind of national backing she could need. Bono Mack has performed impressively in this seat throughout her career and she remains heavily favored, but Pougnet will have a chance in a district that went 52-47 for Barack Obama in 2008.
An exceedingly strange story out of the San Diego area.
The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a fundraiser for Francine Busby, who previously ran for the deeply-Republican Fiftieth District (editor's note: it's not that deeply Republican, Obama won here 51-47) and came close to winning in the 2006 special election and subsequent regular election, was raided by sheriffs after an unnamed neighbor made a noise complaint. Busby now calls it a "phony" noise complaint, and the article says that multiple neighbors said there was no great noise at all.
Here's the twist: The fundraiser was hosted by a lesbian couple, and shortly before the sheriffs came a particular neighbor had shouted anti-gay slurs at the assembled crowd. "It was a quiet home reception, disrupted by a vulgar person shouting obscenities from behind the bushes," Busby says.
As one neighbor told the paper: "We didn't hear anything until the sheriff came, with eight patrol cars and a helicopter."
The sheriff's department claims that somebody kicked an officer. By the time it was over, multiple people were pepper-sprayed, one of the hostesses was arrested, and the whole neighborhood got to see quite a scene.
One of the officers defended the department's conduct -- turning the blame on the candidate: "The place got out of hand. If Francine Busby was there, why not take a leadership role, step up, and nip this thing in the bud?"
There's more detail at this Daily Kos diary from arodb, who was there. I like the part where the police department blames Francine Busby for their own failure to recognize that no noise violation was taking place inside the fundraiser.
I'm trying to get some more information from the campaign, will bring it when I have it.
UPDATE: TPMDC interviews Francine Busby about this incident, and basically, she singles out the homophobic heckler for creating the noise that brought the cops to the scene:
"You could hear his voice very clearly, it was loud. But as far as the actual words, I didn't hear them," Busby explained. "I heard my name, and obviously derogatory words. Other people heard profanity, and somebody heard something about gays, as well." It should be noted that the event was hosted by a lesbian couple.
"The deputies were telling people that they were taking statements from, that the call came in about noise from a Democratic rally, or Democratic demonstration," said Busby. In fact, she said, she had last spoken at about 8:30 p.m., and the police arrived an hour later when most of the attendees had left. "It was a nuisance-noise call, because there was no noise, and the fact that it was described as a Democratic rally or demonstration indicates to me that this person was calling for his own political motives."
The LA Times reports that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department will open an investigation into the incident, particularly the use of pepper spray.
Don Perata has been cleared of wrongdoing in an ongoing corruption probe that lasted throughout the Bush Administration and was seen by many as politically motivated.
We have had many problems with Perata, mostly that his terrible leadership contributed to scaring Democrats out of challenging Abel Maldonado and botching the Jeff Denham recall. If we had a real leader who actually sought to win elections instead of making friends or idle threats, and who was successful on both of those fronts, we would have a 2/3 majority in the State Senate today. I'm very glad to have him out of the state legislature. But by and large, corruption issues never made their way into our critique of Perata, and I for one am pleased he has been cleared. You can read the extremely brief letter from the Acting US Attorney here and Perata's statement here.
What we did have a problem with was Perata transferring $1.5 million dollars from a campaign account intended to help elect Democrats and push party issues to his own legal defense fund, one day after the election. The move was not illegal but certainly unethical - if he needed legal defense money he could have raised it for that purpose, and instead he raised money for one ostensible purpose and then used it for himself. (NOTE: Perata also took $450,000 from the California Democratic Party for his legal defense fund as well.) I was quoted at the time:
David Dayen, an elected Democratic State Central Committee member from Santa Monica, blogged angrily this summer about his party's contribution to Perata's legal defense fund, contending the money would've been better spent on legislative races. The same goes for Leadership California's money, he said Wednesday; despite a Democratic presidential candidate carrying California by the largest margin since 1936, Democrats netted only three more Assembly seats and none in the state Senate.
"Every time I asked the California Democratic Party about getting more active and involved in local elections, they said the state Senate and the Assembly control those races ... and we don't have a lot of flexibility. So Perata, at that time, and Nunez or Bass had the authority to run those elections," Dayen said. "Now we see what happens when you vest power in these closed loops - suddenly self-interest becomes more important than the good of the party."
He believes this is why Perata didn't step aside as Pro Tem earlier, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez relinquished his post to Karen Bass in May: "Darrell Steinberg was sitting there ready to go ... and we were all like, 'What the hell is going on?'
"We speculated it had to be that he still needed the leverage to make the calls to raise money for himself."
So, now that this legal case has wrapped up, let me pose the question - Will Don Perata return the money left in his legal defense fund to accounts intended to elect Democrats? Both the membership of the California Democratic Party and scores of anonymous donors to Leadership California unwittingly seeded his legal campaign. If Perata used all $1.5 million between November and today, I'd like to see the receipts; no court case was ever filed, no depositions taken in the intervening 7 months, no movement whatsoever. Either some lawyers got rich on having donuts or there's a lot of money left over. What's more likely, of course is that Perata will now siphon that money from the legal defense fund into his campaign account for his run to be Oakland's next mayor. In the end, it's all about Don Perata.
That would be a betrayal, and a disservice to those who donated, expecting to help Hannah-Beth Jackson win in SD-19, or to help defeat Proposition 11, the redistricting measure. There's not much of a way to contact Don Perata anymore, though I'm assuming his Oakland Mayor campaign will ramp up soon. He needs to be asked about this pot of money, and why it cannot now be used toward its intended purpose.
I can't believe he blew through all that money. Look out, City of Oakland Treasury! Clearly he was paying off years' worth of debts with that fund. Wow.
Randy Bayne reports that Gary Davis, a member of the Elk Grove City Council, has announced that he will run against Dan Lungren in CA-03. He's unveiled an official campaign website named Davis Beats Lungren, which certainly displays confidence.
Davis also works as the Political Director for EdVoice in addition to serving on the Elk Grove City Council, and was a legislative director for Darrell Steinberg when he served in the State Assembly. EdVoice has lined up on the "reformer" side of the divide inside the Democratic Party over education, supporting charter schools and vouchers, and often raising the ire of teacher's unions. CEOs like Reed Hastings of Netflix and Don Fisher of the Gap fund EdVoice, and they have played in many local races with independent expernditure money. See this very lame EdVoice attack on eventual winner Mariko Yamada used in AD-08 last cycle on behalf of Christopher Cabaldon for an example. Simply put, EdVoice has used deep pockets to try and become a special interest player in Sacramento, with mixed results.
I've been adamant that we need a real candidate in CA-03 to take advantage of this opportunity in that district. I still believe Phil Angelides, who has been unusually active in the special election battle (advocating a No vote, I might add), could make a good fit here. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to talk to Davis in the next couple weeks, but his association with EdVoice doesn't exactly make me leap to the phone to make a donation.
Last week, Robert Cruickshank offered the special election advocates some pretty good advice - focus on Prop. 1C, which covers 83% of the short-term budget hole that can be gained from the passage of the ballot measures, because the state party approved it, because it's the only measure that matters in the near term, and because they need to focus their energies, since very little good is likely to come of the election at this point. Of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger controls the Budget Reform Now Campaign. And he has shown himself to be completely indifferent to the short-term needs of the state in favor of writing a long-term, right-wing spending cap into the state Constitution. Because instead of abandoning all the other measures in favor of 1C, Budget Reform Now has jettisoned everything in favor of 1A & 1B. I saw this ad a couple days ago, out of nowhere, and Budget Reform Now dropped it without a press release. The ad tries to use the 2005 special election imagery which killed Arnold's Prop. 76 (substantially the same proposal) in favor of this spending cap, with the firefighter warning of "$16 billion in cuts" without bothering to mention that those "cuts," really lost revenues, would be two years off. And the new "Yes on 1A and 1B" logo makes an appearance.
I think we can finally figure out what Arnold Schwarzenegger wants from this election. He could care less about the $6 billion in short-term budget solutions - but his corporate partners want that spending cap, and his new pals in the CTA want their out-of-court settlement locked in (it would've cost them less just to take the Governor to court for falsely calculating Prop. 98 revenues, with more of a chance of winning). So all this talk about how we have to vote Yes or the budget hole will grow deeper was a ruse. The Governor clearly supports the deeper budget deficit, or at least he could give a crap with coming up with a solution. He and his Chamber of Commerce puppet masters want that cap. They have wanted it for four years. Anyone lining up with these interests should understand what they really support. Good job, Democratic leadership.
As a San Franciscan, I am thrilled that ActBlue has now entered the municipal races in San Francisco, along with Cleveland, Boston, and Cook County, IL. I've always been an ActBlue evangelizer, and everywhere I go in San Francisco I am asked how local candidates can work with ActBlue. And up until this point, I've always had to say, sorry, but no.
But, with today's announcement of a new pilot program, all that changes. I will personally be notifying several friends that are running for Board of Supervisors and other races in the City. Hopefully, this pilot will eventually be expanded across the state and nation.
If you are a local candidate in San Francisco, you can sign up your campaign at the ActBlue Setup Site. And since this is for San Francisco, if you are thinking of signing up, there is a good chance that I know you. Give me a shout if I can help.
If you haven't used ActBlue before, you will be pleasantly suprised at the power of the toolset. It allows you to not only simplify reporting, but also to empower your supporters to help raise money for the campaign. ActBlue has enabled netroots and grassroots activists to collectively donate over $50 million between 2004 and June 2008. The numbers have only climbed since.
With the constant pressure to nurture new leaders under our ridiculously short term limits law, it is critical to build a strong bench through local elections. This pilot is an exceptional opportunity to do just that.
The SEIU donated $500,000 to the No on 1A campaign, the first truly major expenditure by any group against the ballot measures on May 19. The No on 1A campaign now hold about $1 million in their bank account. While this is dwarfed by the money dumped into the Yes campaign by, among other groups, the CTA, billionaires like Jerry Perenchio, and Chevron, given the attitudes of the electorate even a little money on the No side could be enough to stop the onslaught and tip these measures. Politicos understand this fairly well:
"It just got a lot harder," said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and a former Republican strategist.
"The biggest advantage the proponents have had all along is the lack of a well-funded opposition," Schnur said. "Historically, you don't need to outspend ballot measures to beat them, and in a low-turnout election this is a decent amount of money." [...]
"Right now there's a tremendous tendency to reject anything out of Sacramento," said Republican strategist Dave Gilliard.
Good for the SacBee, by the way, for pointing out that Prop. 1A "has a long-term impact and would not directly alter the budget until 2011."
I've been speaking at a lot of grassroots Democratic groups against these measures, purely on the public policy merits, and the overriding sentiment I'm seeing out there lines up with what Dave Gilliard says there. The disconnect between the establishment and the grassroots is truly striking. People don't feel like their concerns have been met, either this year or for the last thirty, really. They see another layer of budget dysfunction forced upon the voters that fails to get at the structural problems. And now, they're starting to see their voices manifested with action, as well as the mother's milk of California politics, money.
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.
The establishment in both parties continue to close ranks around the May 19 special election, even as the grassroots continues to reject it. Today Antonio Villaraigosa endorsed all six ballot measures, asserting that they will "bring stability back to California's budget system," like any artificial spending cap that forces spending $16-$20 billion dollars below initial baseline estimates during an economic crisis where state spending is needed urgently tends to do. Without question, Villaraigosa, a potential candidate for Governor, sees that giant pot of CTA money being tossed around in support of the measures and figures one of the candidates could draft off of that nicely in the primaries.
At the local level, more and more Democratic clubs are opposing the ballot measures, because unlike the establishment, they have read them and calculated that they would put the state in an objectively worse situation, and they are unmoved by the idle threats of Armageddon casually tossed out by the Governor and his minions. The dichotomy is both interesting and revealing.
Meanwhile, in maybe the lamest online initiative effort since the invention of Compuserve, Abel Maldonado's tears have created "Reform For Change," a site dedicated to the petty, self-righteous, useless Prop. 1F measure that would eliminate raises for lawmakers and staff during an economic downturn. In the silly video accompanying the site, Maldonado's tears tell us that "we can fundamentally reform California and change it forever," through apparently passing a .0001% change in funding for state lawmakers that is dealt with through an independent commission and not "the legislators themselves" (one of many lies on this site).
Sigh.
UPDATE: Apparently Antonio said this today - "If we don't pass these initiatives CA will go into bankruptcy." That's just ignorant fearmongering. These people should be ashamed of themselves.
I think we're certainly close to finding out, with respect to the May 19 special election. While recent polling shows the electorate predisposed to opposing it, the money race is extremely lopsided in favor of the Yes side, and I suspect that will not change.
Led by Governor Schwarzenegger and a strange bedfellows coalition of big business and educators, the main campaign committee now reports donations of almost $3.7 million over the last six weeks.
Tops on the donor list is former Univision CEO Jerry Perenchio, a longtime Schwarzenegger campaign donor, who dropped $1.5 million into the campaign late last month. But more recent big players are also worth noting. Last Friday, official campaign finance reports showed a $500,000 check written by Chevron and a little more than $250,000 from political switch-hitter Reed Hastings. Hastings, the founder of online video rental giant Netflix, is a former member of the state Board of Education and has a track record of contributions to both the GOP governor's causes and to a bevy of California Democrats [...]
Meantime, there's pretty much zippo reported so far in the way of money in opposition to any of the six budget-related ballot measures. Tops in cash seems to be the campaign opposing Proposition 1E, the temporary transfer of mental health money to the state's general budget needs. That campaign reports a little more than $120,000 on hand.
The use of the Prop. 1B bribe (I really don't know what else to call it) to split the labor coalition, and the co-opting of the legislature through predictable fearmongering has made this a virtual clean sweep for the Governor in the fundraising battle.
Additional support for the Yes side will be provided by the bipartisan fetishists in the media, whose "not too hot, not too cold" approach to problem solving should be completely discredited by the absolute and total mess made of California in its name, but which somehow still has some cachet. Dan Weintraub, good little centrist that he is, decides that a spending cap will - by itself - save the state from boom-and-bust budget cycles, when the history of such measures clearly shows that they ratchet down state spending to an unsustainable level that ruins quality of life for the broad mass of citizens.
TABOR, a (Colorado) state constitutional amendment adopted in 1992, limits the growth of state and local revenues to a highly restrictive formula: inflation plus the annual change in population. This formula is insufficient to fund the ongoing cost of government. By creating a permanent revenue shortage, TABOR pits state programs and services against each other for survival each year and virtually rules out any new initiatives to address unmet or emerging needs.
Declining services since TABOR's enactment have become increasingly evident in most major areas of state spending: K-12 education, higher education, public health, and Medicaid.
""[Business leaders] have figured out that no business would survive if it were run like the TABOR faithful say Colorado should be run -- with withering tax support for college and universities, underfunded public schools and a future of crumbling roads and bridges."" Neil Westergaard, Editor of the Denver Business Journal
This fanciful notion that you can just sock money away for a rainy day and not then be restricted by the complete refusal to raise taxes, combined with tying long-term future growth to the worst three fiscal years (this year and the next two) in the state's history, and the fact that the rainy day fund would have to be replenished even in DOWN fiscal years, does not comport with the facts. We have verifiable data showing what happens when you artificially limit the size and scope of government and it's neither pretty nor desirable - before Colorado repealed TABOR, they were last or nearly last in spending in almost every major category across the board, with disastrous real-world effects on quality of life. The rainy day money never gets spent, it becomes another part of the budget out of the hands of lawmakers, and will only increase the deficit while crippling Californian's ability to cope with the downturn.
But one guy making that argument on a computer doesn't have the impact of a phalanx of glossy ads warning "Vote for this OR DIE!!!!" Given the paid media and earned media blitz on the Yes side, we really will see how much money can buy.
