15% Pombo? Pombo has admitted following 15% Doolittle’s lead.

She has done it both ways.  There have been times when she has been paid strictly a salary and there have been times when she has gotten a percentage of what she actually raised.”

My wife is working for my campaign.  She raises money for other campaigns and other non-profits.  I would be hiring another fundraiser to do the same job.

You think that quote is from 15% Doolittle?  Nope, that’s from Paid-For Pombo!  Yup, Pombo clearly states those exact words in this radio interview.  (Hat-tip to Say No to Pombo.)  He’s quite proud of how his family gets a nice cut of every campaign donation that comes in to his coffers.  Later in the interview he goes on to say that the GOP isn’t really corrupt, it’s just that the Dems are using the corruption angle.  “They’re trying to do it all over the country.” Uh, yeah, Congressman, that’s because the GOP is corrupt all over the country.

Busby 47%, Bilbray 40%–latest CA-50 poll

(I’m forming a Poll Page that will be featured on the FP. For now, enjoy this! – promoted by SFBrianCL)

The latest poll from Busby’s campaign shows that she now leads Republican Brian Bilbray by 7 percentage points! This is wonderful news coming from a congressional district with a R to D registration advantage of 50% to 32%.

From the Lake Research Partners:

“With three weeks to go before Election Day, Francine Busby has opened up a lead over Brian Bilbray, with 47% for Busby and 40% for Bilbray, with 1% for minor candidates Libertarian Paul King and Independent William Griffith and 12% undecided.”

This poll was conducted May 12-15 and is the most recent poll of CA-50.

More from the LRP poll, under the fold…

The latest poll from Busby’s campaign shows that she now leads Republican Brian Bilbray by 7 percentage points! This is wonderful news coming from a congressional district with a R to D registration advantage of 50% to 32%.

From the Lake Research Partners:

“With three weeks to go before Election Day, Francine Busby has opened up a lead over Brian Bilbray, with 47% for Busby and 40% for Bilbray, with 1% for minor candidates Libertarian Paul King and Independent William Griffith and 12% undecided.”

This poll was conducted May 12-15 and is the most recent poll of CA-50.

*

Findings from LRP’s poll, which show Busby’s strength in this race:

  1.  Busby’s favorability has increased to 53% while Bilbray’s has remained  stagnant at 48%. There are nearly twice as many voters with a strongly favorable opinion of Busby (33%) than Bilbray (18%). Both candidates are universally known.

  2.  Busby leads despite the significant Republican registration advantage reflected in our sample of 50% Republican to 32% Democrat. 

  3.  A clear and expanding majority of independent voters supports Busby over Bilbray, and Bilbray’s share of Republican votes has continued to deteriorate since our early polls.

  4.  Busby holds an even wider edge among those voters deemed most likely to vote based on their past voting record.

  5.  Attacks on the moderate Busby as being “too liberal” have failed and have limited credibility coming from a lobbyist.

  6.  Although Republicans will clearly outnumber Democrats in the 50th CD, Democrats could form a disproportionate share of the electorate in June, as the run-off election is scheduled to be on the same ballot as the heavily contested Democratic primary for Governor.

  The bottom line is that even in the face of attacks, Busby has continued to have strong support in this Republican-leaning district, and now leads Bilbray. Nonetheless, Busby has not yet reached the critical 50% mark, and we expect the race to narrow.  To hold her strength with voters other than Democrats, and to win her share of the undecideds over the remaining three weeks, Busby will need the financial resources to match the Republican expenditures.

This race is an excellent opportunity to begin retaking the House even earlier than expected.  If Busby wins on 6/6/06, we’ll only need to flip 14 seats in the House to regain Democratic control in November.

The NRCC has dumped $2.5 million into this race on the Republican’s behalf–they are obviously scared to death of Busby as that represents 10% of their total cash on hand!

Give now, or forever hold your peace!

http://actblue.com/list/netrootscandidates

and check out Busby’s site here:

http://www.busbyforcongress.org

SB 1437 Misconceptions: The LA Times & Bill O’Reilly

Last week the Senate approved SB 1437 and sent it on to the house in a party line vote.  The bill has upset many, many on the right and some in other postions on the political spectrum.  But this is mainly because they don’t really get it. 

The LA Times doesn’t really get it when they say:

Under her proposal, textbooks would have to “accurately portray in an age-appropriate manner the cultural, racial, gender and sexual orientation diversity of our society.” They also would have to include “the contributions of people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender to the total development of California and the United States.”
***
Instead, under Kuehl’s proposal, books would recount history in part through a gay and lesbian prism. This is as misguided in its way as the state Board of Education in Texas two years ago insisting that middle-school textbooks define marriage as the “lifelong union between a husband and wife,” which, aside from its anti-gay slant, chose to ignore the existence of divorce.
***
California already has among the strongest social studies curriculums in the nation and is considered a model for its balanced and comprehensive approach to history lessons….The commission should be allowed to do its job without interference from legislators. And Kuehl should return to the kind of worthwhile legislation, on such issues as family leave, for which she is justly known.(LA Times 5/9/06)

But this misses the greater point.  This bill only adds LGBT Californians to a long list of minorities.  Somehow the curriculum commission has managed to keep California a leader in curriculum despite the earlier meddling that requires similar inclusions of various races and national origins. Sen Kuehl responded in a letter to the Times:

You fail to mention that the bill would amend two sections of current law that protect many other categories of students. To this we add gay and lesbian people. The law prohibits the adoption of official teaching materials that reflect adversely on people because of their race, sex, disability, nationality and religion. To this we add sexual orientation and gender.

The invisibility of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in the history curriculum only exacerbates school climates in which homophobic bullying, harassment and violence are rampant. Studies show that a bias-free and inclusive curriculum fosters tolerance, resulting in greater feelings of student safety and less bullying. The idea behind SB 1437 is not a new or a radical one. SB 1437 simply would add our community into existing sections of the law.(LA Times 5/13/06)

This law merely adds LGBT Californians to the list.  If you think that the law in general should be done away with…well, I see the logic.  But merely to deny LGBT citizens, is there a reason other than homophobia for that?

But I can tolerate the Times’ position: I can see that they tried logic, but didn’t quite survey the whole backstory.  However, Bill O’Reilly and the wingnuts, well that’s a different story.  I included in my previous posts about SB 1437 some of the crazy things that Thomason and the gang are saying.  Stuff like (No link, as I don’t really like linking to homophobes and racists, but you can find the campaign for “children and families” if you really like hate-filled rhetoric):

As a result, several school activities will be deemed to “reflect adversely” on transsexuality, bisexuality, and homosexuality:

  * School proms (Prom “kings” and “queens” could not be gender-specific)
  * Gender-specific sports (“Boys Basketball” would be “discriminatory” against transsexuals)
  * Cheerleading (Can you say “transsexual cheerleaders”?)

Uh, well, it looks like they have a huge issue with transgendered students.  I mean that’s ok, because the trial of Gwen’s murderers has been over for what…7 months?  I mean nobody ever gets hurt by a little homophobia, right? (R.I.P. Gwen)  And would a school even have a right to stop transgendered cheerleaders even without this law? No, there are already male cheerleaders.  This law does NOT outlaw all recognition of gender in our schools.  It merely requires the curriculum to reflect the contribution of LGBT citizens and to ensure that the LGBT community is not disparaged.

Does this mean we have to rewrite history? Of course not, we are still teaching about the Nazis right?  Mussolini, Stalin, the Incquisition…they are all still in the curriculum, even though they may reflect adversely upon Californians with a national origins of their respective countries. 

But Bill O’Reilly thinks that students can’t learn about Jeffrey Dahmer (is he really a huge area of study for today’s students?) because that would reflect adversly upon gay men:

O’REILLY: Well — and also, if you are a teacher, what are you — you’re not going to be able to say bad things about Jeffrey Dahmer? He’s a cannibal, a gay cannibal, and you can’t say, “Well, that’s wrong.” I mean, if what you’re saying is true, teachers would not be able to cast aspersions on even villains if they were homosexual.

MALKIN: Yeah, that’s right. And in any case, I think school teachers in California and everywhere else ought to be paying more attention to whether or not third graders can find, oh, Sacramento or Washington, D.C., on a map than what the sexual orientation is of historical figures in America. (Media Matters 5/9/06)

Um, yeah, Dahmer reflects adversely on homicidal skizophrenics, not gay males.  Does Ted Bundy reflect adversely on straight males; do we think less of all straight men because of him?  Not so much, eh?  Perhaps Bill O and his crowd can figure out that people should be judged on their own merits, not on the basis of some homophobic opinion.  But, I guess that’s all part of why Sen. Kuehl is pushing this law.

And, yeah, that’s Michelle Malkin just buying into his crap.  Surprise, surprise.  Watch the Video over at Media Matters.

Ready Return: a Good Idea versus Business as Usual (and how you can help)

Making paying taxes easier for working people and improving government efficiency may not seem to be breathtaking issues in the grand scheme of things; in politics, however, sometimes it’s the “small” and “local” issues that stand in for the bigger battles.  In fact, I’d argue that it’s often with a program like the one I’m about to tell you about, that a party makes its reputation for standing up for the people and for what’s right.  

People remember the small things.

With Ready Return, California State Democrats have a chance to do the right thing and to help the little guy.  Read below to find out what stands in the way and how you can help.

The link you are about to click on below is to a page that lists the feedback of real California citizens regarding a State pilot program called Ready Return:

* The program is innovative.
* The program would increase California State Tax revenues.
* The program would increase government efficiency.
* The program puts into action the principle of citizen access to government information.
* The program makes the lives of everyday taxpaying citizens less complex.
* The program eases the burden of filing taxes for thousands of taxpayers who aren’t good at reading forms or doing math, some of whom actually don’t file tax returns for that very reason.
* Finally, this program is poised to become law.


Legislation written by a Stanford Law Professor and endorsed by a diverse range of Californians…from former GOP Congressman (and current Dean of the Haas School of Business) Tom Campbell to the Labor Union SEIU…would make this innovative program a part of our California State Law.

But, there’s one more thing you should know before you click on the link and read the citizen feedback below: unless something happens to change minds in Sacramento, this program has little chance of passing.

Read citizen feedback for Ready Return.

Have you ever read comments like that about any government program before?   Much less one that deals with TAXES?  Yes, there is honest feedback about minor difficulties, but, for the most part, people who’ve tried it love Ready Return.  Simply put, everyday citizens…taxpayers… found that Ready Return made filing their taxes easier.   They used this program and they liked it.

Now, there’s a reason for that.  For the majority of wage earners with basic taxes, people who receive standard paychecks from one employer, the State of California already has all the information needed for them to file an accurate return.  The principle behind Ready Return is straightforward:  instead of making these taxpayers come up with their tax information independently…ie. do the math and paperwork on their own…why not send them the accurate information the government already has?  Why not let them file their return right then and there on their home computer?  It’s a simple and elegant solution in a zone, taxation, where simple and elegant solutions are hard to come by.  More than that, it’s a government program that works for working people.

What on earth would stop the California State Legislature from passing the Ready Return bill into law?

If I told you that a consortium of business interests representing the Tax Preparation industry had made an alliance with both the GOP and a segment of the Democratic caucus in the California legislature, would it come as a surprise?

Be surprised, be very surprised.  As Lawrence Lessig wrote in Wired magazine:

Soon after Ready Return was launched, lobbyists from the tax-preparation industry began to pressure California lawmakers to abandon the innovation.  Their opposition was not surprising: if figuring our your taxes were easy, why would anyone bother to hire H&R Block?  If the government sends you a completed form, why buy TurboTax?

But what is surprising is that their “arguments” are having an effect.  In February, the California Republican caucus released a report highlighting its “concerns” about the program-for example, that an effort to make taxes more efficient “violates the proper role of government.”  Soon thereafter, a Republican state senator introduced a bill to stop the Ready Return program.

Inefficiency has become a virtue in government-and not just in California.  Last year, the US Senate passed a funding bill with an amendment prohibiting the IRS from developing its own “income tax electronic filling or preparation products or services.”

Ready Return is a great idea, but it lacks a natural constituency to fight for it in our State House.  Working people work, and, let’s be frank, when it comes to the powers that be in Sacramento, there aren’t many champions of the little guy.  

Ready Return’s author, Stanford Law Professor Joseph Bankman has made passing this bill a labor of love.  He’s even hired his own lobbyist in hopes of opening doors in Sacramento.  When I asked him what would be the most significant step everyday Californians could take to help pass this legislation, his answer was simple:  call or write your State Representatives and tell them you support Ready Return in your own words.

(Here’s a link that tells you how to locate the name and website of your California State Senator and Assemblyperson by entering your zip code.)

In the face of GOP opposition and powerful industry lobbyists working both sides of the aisle, Ready Return will need every Democratic vote it can get.  

Business as usual in Sacramento shouldn’t be allowed to block a great idea that works.

CA-Lt. Gov: More on the race & the hubub about Garamendi

Updated to fix minor omissions and errors.

I think both Lt. Governor candidates have aspects in their favor.  Jackie Speier has a tremendous air of potential around her.  She just might be the first female governor of California.  She is my state senator, and I have really appreciated her efforts, both on behalf of her constituents and for the state in general.  She is a friend of marriage equality and  has been a strong supporter of environmental protection.  Check out her issues page for more info.

However, Garamendi is no dummy politician either.  He has a tremendous amount of experience in California politics.  (At least in the post term limits era)  He wins elections and understands the issues.  He knows what’s going on here.  Recently, dave j of seeingtheforest  cross-posted a story about the attack ads by the insurance lobby against Garamendi.  It’s quite an interesting story.  Basically, Garamendi impliments some overdue regulations.  The insurance companies don’t dig on that, so they threaten him with a $2 million attack ad campaign if he does it.  Garamendi does, and oh, btw, he sends a letter to the FBI and Bill Lockyer accusing the insurance lobby of extortion.

It’s all an interesting and sordid tale.  The real meat and potatoes of the blogosphere.

Dr. Michelle Kraus, a poster at Huffington Post, sees it from Garamendi’s point of view:

California Voters – it’s time to say no – to election rigging and lobbying by big industry. It’s time to take back the democratic process and fight for a candidate that will not bend. We need to take back our power and raise our voices and help candidates that are honest like John Garamendi. Trust me when I tell you that this is not a ploy to gain attention. The reality is the money is being poured into “direct mail campaigns targeting 1.5 million people in 52 counties. The money will be provided by several major auto insurance companies, including the above listed State Farm, Farmers, Allstate, Safeco and 21st Century.” (Huffington Post  5/16/06)

But surely there is another way to take this: a well-connected and well-financed interest chose to spend some money to influence a decision.  This is good old fashioned special interests at work.  Or to flip it around, let’s consider this: Would Garamendi be screaming so loudly if the insurance companies just took back a positive ad campaign?  So, in a little hypothetical world, let’s say the insurance lobby had promised Garamendi a $2million independent expenditure.  They then take it back when Garamendi does something to hurt their interests.  Certainly, no politician would have the nerve to say anything about that.  That’s just how politics works.

And the SacBee uses this logic:

For the public watching all this, it’s hard to see the crime here. People in our democracy, even a powerful special interest, are free to denounce decisions government officials make that they don’t like. It’s done all the time. Ask Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Public employee unions spent millions to attack him during the last special election. That wasn’t a crime. It’s called politics, free speech, democracy in the raw.(SacBee 5/15/06)

In the raw indeed.  Very raw.  It’s not like Jackie Speier is any great friend of the insurance industry.  Heck, one of her top economic issues is going after the Workers Comp deform – Schwarzenegger’s big achievement (hah!). This is classic dirty (but legal) special interest politics.  Garamendi got abused by the special interest that he has the most power over during his tenure at the Insurance Commission.  We should support Garamendi for standing up to this big, bad special interest (Hey Arnold…you ever think of standing up to your special interests?  No…you just pick on those who you don’t think can hurt you.  Oops!).  But, let’s not let this one issue dominate the Lt. Governor’s campaign until June.

How do we get rid of these stories that make you just saw “ewwww!” and want to take a shower?  Well, Clean Money is a great place to start.  And, it looks like the Nurses plan will be on the ballot in November.

California Nurses Kick Off Clean Money Campaign at Cheney Protest

(Two in One: Support clean money AND protest Doolittle! Edited slightly for space – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Does the culture of corruption have a cure? California’s nurses think so. 

This week, nurses are in the process of turning in 600,000 signatures to registrars around the state to qualify an initiative for “Clean Money Elections,” also known as public financing of elections.  Think of it as the Jack Abramoff anti-dote, or as the comprehensive campaign finance reform that voters are desperately looking for.  You can read about it here and here. More in the extended…

Why nurses?  For years nurses have watched patients suffer while the deep-pocketed healthcare corporations convince the legislature to block reform of our broken healthcare system.  Nurses are patient advocates, from the bedside to the ballot box.

Why Clean Money Elections?  The system is working well already in Arizona, Maine, and Connecticut.  It enjoys bi-partisan support, has stood up to multiple court challenges, and has allowed everyday Americans—nurses, teachers, firefighters, women, ethnic minorities, healthcare activists—to run for office and win, instead of the parade of millionaires we’ve become used to. 

It’s a simple cure: if candidates don’t beg corporations for money, they can’t be bought.  Simple, but powerful, as we believe it has the potential to remake the political landscape in the Golden State, and reverberate across the nation.

Make no mistake, this will be a tough election.  Our Clean Money Elections initiative sharply reduces the influence of lobbyists and corporations on our political system, and they will fight back to protect what they view as theirs.

You can help two ways.  One, visit our online home and let us know what you think.  Sign up to help!

Or, if you’re in Sacramento, come to our first public protest of the campaign next Monday.  Dick Cheney will be in town to raise money for John Doolittle.  You may have heard of this Congressman?  He’s taken money from both Jack Abramoff, and from Brent Wilkes, the un-indicted co-conspirator in Duke Cunningham case.  Oh, and John’s fundraiser is his wife Julie, meaning that 15% of everything he raises goes straight into the family checking account.  Nice work if you can get it. 

Come join us at the Sacramento Hyatt (1209 L Street) at 10:30 am.  Questions, email [email protected]

Full disclosure: I am, clearly, a political organizer with the California Nurses Association…