UPDATE: $34.4 (now) Million Can’t Seem To Buy Prop 37 Opponents Their Own Facts

Apparently $34.4 million in pesticide and junk food money can’t buy the opponents of Proposition 37 their own set of facts.

Case in point: A new L.A. Times poll shows Prop 37 winning by more than a 2-to-1 margin among registered California voters. And, according to the recent Pepperdine poll, the opposition’s support actually dropped four points over the past two weeks.

So while their treasure trove of special interest money can pay for an endless supply of tired, discredited talking points, it can’t seem to convince consumers we don’t deserve to know what’s in the food we eat.

It’s not hard to understand why. The companies bankrolling the opposition campaign – including pesticide giants Monsanto ($7.2 million) and Dupont ($4.9 million) – will say and spend anything to prevent the kind of transparency that labeling of genetically modified foods (GMO’s) would provide. And without transparency there can be no accountability.  

Here ARE a few facts: A growing body of research links GMO foods to potential health risks, increased pesticide use, the emergence of super bugs and super weeds, biodiversity loss, and the unintentional contamination of conventional crops.

What Prop 37 will do is add a line of ink to a label — as is currently required for 3,000 other ingredients — so consumers know which products have been altered in a laboratory.  That’s why the vast majority of Californians support this common-sense measure, and it’s why 50 other countries already require that GMOs be labeled.

But that’s not all: This summer, Monsanto began selling its first GMO sweet corn product at Walmart. The sweet corn is engineered to withstand the herbicide Roundup and also contains an insecticide (Bt toxin) within the cells of the corn.

Are your children eating Monsanto’s latest concoction? You won’t know because we don’t require labeling. In response to Walmart’s decision to undermine the will of its customers , the Yes on 37 campaign released a new ad highlighting the fact that California children are eating unlabeled GMO sweet corn without their parents knowing it.

And now, the recently published (in the highly regarded journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology), first long-term, peer-reviewed animal study involving GMO corn found massive tumors, organ failure and premature death in rats. The findings have prompted the French government to call for an investigation into GMOs, and Russia to suspend imports of GMO corn.

The study was roundly criticized by Monsanto’s band of scientists, who were out in force trying to discredit the study design – but what they failed to mention is that Monsanto’s own studies that supposedly indicate “safety” are based on the same study design: similar size study, same rats.  The only real differences is that the French study was free of industry influence and pressure, was more comprehensive and stringent, and was long-term rather than short.

The most shocking thing of all about the French study is that it is the first long-term feeding study on genetically engineered corn that has been on the American market for more than 15 years. So where’s the science? The reason we have been denied such critical information is that biotech companies like Monsanto have controlled and suppressed research.

We need, and deserve, more independent research in this area. In the meantime, we have a right to know and to decide for ourselves whether we want to eat Monsanto’s corn. Prop 37 will give us that right.

Help our David campaign take on their Goliath, by fueling our grassroots effort and Contribute here, or by following us on Facebook and Twitter.  

THREE DAYS LEFT For California’s Gov. Jerry Brown to Sign TRUST Act

California’s Governor, Jerry Brown, only has until THIS weekend to sign the bill, and we’re asking everyone to call (916) 445-2841 to ask Gov. Brown to sign the bill TODAY.

Lawrence Downes in the New York Times today explains the significance of the TRUST Act:

The bill requires state and local authorities to be more prudent when the federal government wants to use their jails as immigration holding cells.

Presently, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement runs inmates’ fingerprints through its databases and finds someone it believes is deportable, it often asks local authorities to hold that person to be picked up for deportation. Most police departments try to comply, though doing so is voluntary.

Under California’s bill, local police would agree to hold inmates for ICE only if they have been convicted or charged with a serious or violent felony. If the inmates are noncriminals or minor offenders who would otherwise be let go, they would not be turned over to ICE.

As the bill’s sponsor, Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, said: “We want police to distinguish between the woman selling tamales and the gang member who has a record.”

While current US immigration policies are supposed to focus on deporting criminal immigrants while de-prioritizing the removal of hardworking immigrant mothers and fathers, the reality is that 400,000 people are deported every year, many of whom have no criminal records whatsoever.

Extremist, anti-immigrant states like Arizona and Alabama want to exacerbate this problem, and have passed laws pushing for the mass deportation of immigrants.  California wants to take a different tack, and head in the opposite direction: it wants to direct limited resources toward removing criminals, while staying away from the persecution of neighbors, friends, and community members.

As Lawrence Downes finishes, “Mr. Brown should listen to the voices of the immigrants, civil-rights advocates, police chiefs and sheriffs, local elected officials, members of Congress, Catholic bishops and other religious leaders who have implored him to lead California out of that wilderness. He should sign the Trust Act.”

You can help turn this bill into law.  Call Gov. Brown at (916) 445-2841 and ask him to sign the TRUST Act today.

New survey: Americans don’t want insurance rates tied to prior insurance coverage

Doug Heller

The Consumer Federation of America released a new report earlier this week assessing consumer views on the factors insurance companies use to set premiums around the country.  Not surprisingly, Americans think that insurance rates should be based primarily on motorists’ driving safety record (87% and 85% of respondents believe rates should reflect a driver’s number of accidents and tickets, respectively).

More than a majority of Americans think it’s unfair to consider the ZIP-code in which you live or your occupation.  More than two-thirds (68%) call it unfair to charge drivers more if they did not have insurance because they did not previously have a car.  This data point should interest Californians, because there’s an initiative on the November ballot  – Proposition 33 – that would allow insurance companies to penalize people based on this precise factor that 68% of Americans consider unfair.

Proposition 33 was put on the ballot by Mercury Insurance’s billionaire Chairman, and his $8 million campaign conveniently ignores the fact that the initiative allows insurance companies to raise prices on drivers who didn’t previously have insurance because they didn’t have a car. No doubt, his pollsters are telling him the same thing that the national survey reports: Americans don’t think his scheme is fair.  (So if people think your initiative is unfair, your only option is to run a deceptive ad campaign filled with disingenuous patriotism and hope people can’t see the trick you’ve hidden behind that flag.)

But back to today’s report for a moment. Another interesting thing Consumer Federation did was look at rates around the country and show the effect of a variety of rating factors, including prior insurance coverage.  Two things stand out:

  1. Where most companies in most states dramatically jack up the rates on customers who do not have prior insurance when they want to buy a policy, Californians’ premiums are unaffected by that factor because it is illegal to apply it in California.  The whole point of Prop 33 is to make California more like these other states in a bad way.
  2. Generally speaking, rates in Los Angeles, California are both lower than the other big cities tested and more stable after testing for factors considered unfair, such as ZIP Code, occupation, prior insurance and credit scoring.  In other words, the insurance reforms Californians installed through Proposition 103 in 1988 not only apply standards of fairness to the marketplace, they have created a competitive and lower priced market as well.

________________________________________________________

Posted by Doug Heller, Executive Director of Consumer Watchdog, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics. Visit us on Facebook and Twitter.

Which is the Worst Oil Company of them All?

There are so many ways to assess which oil company is truly the worst of the worst. It also depends on the day. You’ve got ExxonMobil who not only caused the infamous oil spill at Alaska’s Prince William Sound but is also one of the world’s biggest funders of the global warming denial campaign. You’ve got BP –who not only caused the greatest man-made environmental disaster in history, but negotiated a settlement that does not properly compensate the victims of the spill. Still, in California, it’s hard to compete with Chevron.

If you watched the Republican National Convention and/or the Democratic National Convention, you probably saw endless Chevron greenwashing commercials. If you listen to the radio on your way to work, their advertisements run on every major station. Their "We Agree" campaign focuses on making them seem like a socially responsible business trying to do right for America. Yes, they care about profits, but their business is really all about helping everyday people meet their energy needs. Oh, and don’t worry about their fracking operations –they would never try to extract natural gas unless it was completely safe and foolproof. Um… right. In Chevron We Trust.

But what makes Chevron truly heinous is all of the campaigning they try to do outside of the public view. Unbeknownst to the public, Chevron (along with their pro-corporate allies) spend millions of dollars every election cycle to attack pro-environmental, progressive candidates. For the last decade, CLCV and our allies in the California Alliance have successfully defended our candidates and defeated theirs in no small part by revealing to voters who exactly is funding the opposition campaign. Guess what? Voters don’t like it when Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Insurance, and Wall Street Banksters try to buy an election. But while we’re successful about 75% of the time, Chevron and its allies still win 25% of their campaigns and have refined their tactics to be more deceptive and tough to beat.

Overtime, these large corporations have created PACs with innocuous sounding names mislead voters into thinking they’re something other than large corporate front groups. This includes groups like JobsPAC, the California Now Independent Expenditure PAC (which is often confused with the respected California National Organization of Women [NOW] PAC), California Alliance for Progress & Education (which sounds much like us and our partners’ California Alliance), Californians for Jobs and a Strong Economy, and the Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, which is primarily funded by health insurance companies.

For your convenience, I've linked all of their Secretary of State Campaign Disclosure pages, so you can see exactly who funds these groups. The first thing you may notice is that they're not funded by individuals and they tend to receive money from each other. Why? Because these groups allow a corporation like Chevron to contribute money to one PAC, and then have it transferred elsewhere from that PAC to another so that when voters receive mail from Alliance for California's Tomorrow and go to research who funded the PAC, all they see are contributors that have other innocuous sounding names completely unaware of what entities are behind it all.

The newest front group is called the California Senior Advocates League. You may be surprised to learn that it has nothing to do with seniors. The Ventura County Star’s Timm Herdt has been particularly focused on revealing just how deceptive a group this is:

If you think a group with a name like that is concerned about Medicare, think again. It's an outfit funded by the National Association of Realtors, Chevron, Philip Morris, Anthem Blue Cross, the California Chamber of Commerce and others. It focuses on state legislative races, and attempting to track its money is no easy task.

I sought to do so during the primary election campaign, and found myself doing a maneuver I called the "Chevron Four Step." It went like this: Chevron gives $375,000 to JobsPAC, which then gives $250,000 to the California Now Independent Expenditure Committee, which then gives $220,000 to the California Senior Advocates League, which then spends $400,000 on state Senate races.

As always, we have our work cut out for us to fight back and campaign for our candidates, but all of this stresses just how badly we need real campaign finance reform. Even Assemblymember Julia Brownley’s Disclose Act, which would have required improved campaign contribution disclosures met heavy opposition that lobbied hard to kill the bill in the legislature. Ten guesses who some of the bills biggest opponents were.

Prop 32 Panned Across the State

Newspapers editorialize, columnists argue against Prop 32

by Brian Leubitz

If you’ve been paying attention to the California ballot this year, you’ll see that many newspapers have editorialized on the initiatives already. And across the state, major newspapers are saying No on Prop 32, the Special Exemptions Act. There are a variety of reasons in the editorials and columns, but they all boil down to the fact that the measure is not really political reform.

Let’s start with the Sacramento Bee:

Proposition 32 would do nothing to curb independent expenditures.

Nor would Proposition 32 increase transparency of campaign money. It offers no additional tools to help the Fair Political Practices Commission and prosecutors investigate corruption. It makes no attempt to deal with ballot measure spending.(Sacbee)

You see, while the proponents argue that Prop 32 will reform the political system, the truth is that it not only exempts many businesses, but it also unfairly singles out labor. From the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial against Prop 32:

Meanwhile, organized labor has made defeat of Prop. 32 its highest priority in California because of what is unquestionably its most consequential element: A prohibition on the use of payroll deductions for political purposes. …  The measure does not attempt to put similar constraints on the ability of corporations and other interests to raise money. It does prevent corporations from using payroll deductions – but, in reality, that is rarely where they go for political money.(SF Chronicle)

And in the end, Prop 32 just isn’t what it seems. That’s why you see words like the following from the San Jose Mercury News:

If Proposition 32 did what supporters claim — limit all special interest money from corrupting the political system — we would heartily endorse it. It doesn’t. It is a deceptive sham that would magnify the influence of wealthy interests while shutting out many middle-class voters. Vote no on Proposition 32. (SJ Merc)

Note: Brian Leubitz, the editor of this blog, works for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter. You can also get your No on 32 T-shirt here.

Voter Fraud in California by Ethics Chair

Sometimes you just can’t make this shit up.  Here’s your Voter Fraud – involving false registration by an OC Republican elected official.

The Chair of the California State Senate Committee on Legislative Ethics is Orange County State Senator Mimi Walters.

After legislative redistricting, State Senator Walters chose to run in a neighboring district, and registered to vote at a 570 square foot studio apartment in Irvine.

One problem. Mimi, her husband and their four kids continue to live in their 14,000 square foot home in Laguna Niguel in a gated community that is not in her new district

And there’s a pesky law that you must actually live in the district. Mimi swore that she did, under penalty of perjury.

Today her opponent, Democrat Steve Young, filed suit with Secretary of State Deborah Bowen to have Mimi’s name removed from the ballot.

You can read about it at the local blog Orange Juice or at the right-wing OC Register.

The lawsuit asks that Walters’ name be removed from the ballot. Under the new jungle primary rules in California, there is no provision for replacing her by the local Republican party.

If the law is successful, it could prove pivotal in the effort to get a 2/3 vote in the State Senate, a move that could eliminate the ability for Republicans to obstruct certain votes where a super majority is required.

Below the squiggle, you can see the aerial shot of her home at 3 Inspiration Point in Laguna Niguel.

Masters Betting Odds

Diamond Sportsbook is one of the best in the business but always seem to be underrated. Headquartered in San Jose, Costa Rica, Diamond Sportsbook International (BetDSI) is the leader in providing safe, legal and secure online wagering on all of your favorite sporting events including, Golf, NFL & NCAA football, NBA and college basketball, MLB baseball, NHL hockey, horse racing, NASCAR, boxing, DSI Poker Room and Much Much more. Diamond Sportsbook (DSI) is owned and operated by BMX Entertainment, located in Nicosia, Cyprus. This is the premiere location for sportsbooks in the world. Diamond Sportsbook is also a part of the family and management team that brings you great books like Bookmaker.eu DSI is the leader in the industry when it comes to expedient deposit methods and fast payouts for the players.

Perhaps the best rated sportsbook online, BETdsi offers the best signup bonuses, odds, and player support in the entire industry. Diamond International not only has a stellar reputation, but is backed by years of industry experience and trust. You’ll find depositing with Diamond Sportsbook to be very easy, customer friendly, and fast. Basketball and masters betting action is second to none, featuring a full array of Golf games and other sports. BetDSI casino is also a great place to play a quick hand of blackjack, craps, or roulette while you wait for your winners to come in!

Rory McIlroy is the favorite to win the 2014 Masters that gets underway on Thursday, April 10th.  Tiger Woods was originally listed as the favorite but Tiger has not played well this year and he has had major issues with his back. There is a chance Tiger might not even play due to his balky back.  If he does go, Tiger would likely be the second or third choice in the betting.  McIlroy will likely go off as the favorite at about 7-1 in masters odds at Diamond sportsbook. BetDSI offers more ways to deposit than most sportsbooks in the gaming industry and they pick up fees on every deposit. Bank draft, bank wire, western union, ewallet express, click 2 pay, neteller, and moneybookers are all convenient ways to get up and playing in record time. They offer mobile betting and a reward program that gives frequent bettors points that can be used to redeem great prizes.

Gov. Brown Signs Same-Day Registration

Allows more flexibility for new and moved voters

by Brian Leubitz

This is very good news for democracy:

Gov. Jerry Brown today signed legislation allowing residents to register to vote up until and on Election Day, though the provision will not be implemented at least until 2014.

“Voting – the sacred right of every citizen – should be simple and convenient,” the Democratic governor said in a prepared statement. “While other states try to restrict voters with new laws that burden the process, California allows voters to register online – and even on Election Day.”(SacBee CapAlert)

Combined with online registration, this makes California one of the friendlies states for new voters. The Republicans cried about something they like to call “voter fraud” but haven’t shown any evidence of in any state with or without same-day registration.

With luck we will see this implemented for the 2014 election.

Gov. Brown should sign Leno’s multiple parent legislation

Legislation would give flexibility to determine best outcome for children.

By Brian Leubitz

Sen. Mark Leno’s SB1476 recently passed out of the legislature, and has some relatively simple changes to law that could go a long way to ensuring children get the best possible outcomes during times of instability in their family lives.

Before the end of the month, California could join the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maine, Louisiana and Pennsylvania allowing more than two legal parents.

Governor Jerry Brown has until September 30 to decide whether to sign Senate Bill 1476 by San Francisco state senator Mark Leno. It permits a previous custodial or biological parent to have parental rights and take care of a child if the two current legal parents are no longer capable, as long as doing so is required to protect the child’s best interests. (WashTimes)

This bill will help not only many LGBT families, but is a step in the right direction for the modern general blended family. We should be welcoming of people who are willing to step up to be in the life of a child.

Doug LaMalfa campaign: Romney’s right about freeloaders

Doug LaMalfa–the North State GOP Congressional candidate (CA-01) who made national headlines in mid-September when he claimed falsely that abortion causes breast cancer–is back with another good one.

Jenny Espino of the Redding Record-Searchlight has reported that LaMalfa’s campaign manager David Gilliard told her Mitt Romney was “right” to dismiss a vast swath of Americans as unworthy of GOP attention because they rely on government benefits.  He admitted that Romney may have painted with “too broad a brush.” How much too broad? Half, he said: half of the 47% haven’t “chosen” to receive benefits, but receive them “because of their circumstances.”  He went on, “Those are the people Republicans should be talking to for sure.”

In other words, LaMalfa’s campaign thinks 23% of the 1st District isn’t worth listening to, and is freeloading off the government just because they feel like it. (Disclosure: I work for the campaign of LaMalfa’s Democratic opponent, Jim Reed.)

Interstingly, LaMalfa is the recipient of nearly $5 million in federal farm subsidies. He’s evaded the $100-some thousand annual cap by splitting the farm into multiple holdings–held entirely by various members of his family.

Was that a choice? Or did circumstances force his hand?

The Record-Searchlight story is here (scroll down to the third item).