Former lobbyist and current Congressman Brian Bilbray still has a lot of connections in the immigration lobby world.  His biggest lobbying client, FAIR, was one of those immigration hawk groups, of which there are far too many to count. Of course, he still has lots of connections in the anti-immigration community.  So, here’s where we venture far afield from either Washington or Bilbray’s North County district and into the SF Bay area, where the Chronicle catches it.

A few years back, the city of Emeryville, a small town filled with shops (IKEA) and industrial stuff right at the East Bay foot of the Bay Bridge, passed a living wage law. 3 of the 4 hotels in the city are complying, but a fourth, Woodfin Suites has been vocal in its opposition to the law. In fact, Woodfin has gone so far as to pretty much ignore the law.  When labor backed East Bay Alliance for Sustainable Economy(EBASE) helped some of the employees make complaints to the city, the hotel stonewalled when asked for documents and has refused to pay assessed back wages to the employees.

But now with the city requiring Woodfin to pay the damages, the owner of the chain, a longtime GOP donor calls Brian Bilbray.  Follow me over the flip on another reason why Brian Bilbray should have made CREW’s list.

So, what does Brian Bilbray do with this information that the bad guys from labor are making the poor, poor hotel chain owner pay fair wages for fair labor? Well, Bilbray has federal immigration officials “audit” the Woodfin Suites employee roster. I don’t know what the phrase audit means, but to me it sounds like a good ol’ fashion “Show Me Your Papers!” straight out of Fascist Europe of the mid-20th Century.

And of course the funny part of this, is that the owner requested this. So, if any of the employees were actually undocumented, there’s a crime on behalf of the employer, right Mr. Owner guy? But Bilbray will work on your behalf (because you gave him money) to intimidate workers. It’s all in a day’s work for a corrupt Congressman!

And by the way, I’m assuming the fact that we should all avoid Woodfin Suites until this issue is handled properly goes without saying. Solidarity and all.

I knew we were close when the bus started crawling along at 5 miles per hour and candidate sign wars stretched out as far as my eyes could see. I was fortunate enough to have caught a ride from my Drinking Liberally friends so when the bus slowed to a crawl most of us decided to disembark and walk the rest of the mile down the road to the Indianola Balloon Field. The excitement was palatable as Fry attendees 15,000 of them according to the Des Moines Register, streamed through the parking lot at times dodging candidate volunteers as they tried to hand you stickers much like the perfume spritzers you have to dodge in department stores. As I walked along I was happy to see a piece of Bay Area art, the Topsy Turvy bus was there espousing budget priorities.

Once inside the main gates I decided to visit the candidate and issue tables that were set up along the perimeter. Every table had swag to give away, from buttons to bumper stickers to placards and cowbells. I remarked to my friend that it was like a Democratic Christmas. As I was inspecting the goods a ripple of excitement ran through the crowd, the first candidate had walked through the gates. There was Senator Barack Obama surrounded by his supporters as they were chanting “I-O-W-A, Barack Obama all the way!” This is what I had been waiting for, the opportunity to see Presidential candidates up close and in person practicing retail politics. Unlike in California, where candidate events have price tags starting from $250 and up here in Iowa, if you’ve caucused before and are undecided, getting a personal phone call from a candidate or their spouse is not unexpected. And for only $30 you can see and shake hands with all the candidates at Harkin’s Steak Fry. I came to Des Moines to see candidates engage with Middle America and hopefully come away with my own choice for President. Senator Obama did his part by working his way through the crowd with the help of his Secret Service agents and a few staff members. Throughout the process he was genial and would happily stop for a photo, and plenty of handshakes.

My next stop was over to the food tents to get a plate of Iowa steak, beans, potato salad and a bread roll. I was disappointed to see all the food being placed on thousands of Styrofoam plates. I hope next time around Senator Harkin will consider using a more environmentally friendly option. The steak itself was very well done and after a few tough bites I decided that I’d be better off sparing my digestive system. Luckily enough at the same time another ripple of excitement was coursing through the crowd and I looked up to see boom mikes, cameras and supporters surrounding Senator Hillary Clinton. I proceeded to hustle my way to the throng of folks to snap a photo. Her supporters were chanting “H-I, H-I-L, H-I-L-L-A-R-Y, Hillary our nominee!” They were brandishing Hillary for President placards and ringing their blue cowbells. Unfortunately for the attendees Sen. Clinton did not walk through the crowd because there was a 3-foot plastic fence separating her from everyone else. The fence had been erected earlier for the photo opportunity by the grills where the candidates had a chance to greet volunteers and flip a steak. I thought it was an odd choice for her to make and an unfortunate one that differentiated her from how the rest of the candidates were able to network with the Fry crowd. She spent about 20 minutes till she was escorted away by her staff and Secret Service agents.

Senator John Edwards came through the crowd next, his supporters were brandishing placards and more than a few handmade signs some of which read “Iowa Loves Edwards” “Labor for Edwards” and “Iowa is Edwards Country.” Much like the other candidates, he seemed happy to be there and would , sign autographs and of course shake plenty of offered hands. 

By this time it was around 2:30, the scheduled time for the candidates to start making their speeches so I cut through the field and made my way to the stage for a good view. Suddenly, cheers and chants from all the campaign supporters and staff rose up from the crowd of viewers. All of the candidates and Senator Harkin and his wife Ruth were making their way towards the stage. Edwards, Obama and Richardson were walking side-by-side behind them were Dodd and Biden and behind them were Clinton and the Harkins. An attendee told me that Mrs. Harkin was endorsing Senator Clinton while Senator Harkin had decided to remain non-committal. Once all the candidates made it to the stage, the National Anthem was sung and then the candidates took their seats on stage in the order that they would be speaking which had been decided earlier by a random draw. This meant that on stage right it was Obama, Richardson and Clinton and on stage left it was Dodd, Edwards and Biden. It was an inspiring visual to look at all the candidates on the right. It made me proud to be a Democrat to see an African American, a Latino and a Woman vying to be President. All of these candidates represent change in American politics just by virtue of their birth.

Each candidate was allotted 15 minutes of time to make their case for why Iowans should caucus for them. Ruth Harkin was the first speaker and she stepped to the mike to introduce her husband. After Senator Harkin said his piece he welcomed Senator Obama who took the mike and made his case. Some of his key quotes include, “Fundamental change, that’s why I’m running for President.” And most importantly, “We are going to bring an end to this war and I will fight hard in the United States Senate to make sure we don’t pass any funding bill that does not have a deadline.” This was his most important statement to me and it helped distinguish himself from Clinton who has remained silent on the issue. As far as I’m concerned if you are in a position to lead against the war you should. Obama also came out strong in the visibility wars, his staff turned out 2,000 people and a marching band. 

Governor Bill Richardson was next and made the most impressive and electric speech of the day. He crammed as much policy as he could in his 15 minutes as he outlined what he would do if he were President. Highlights include: no residual troops in Iraq, 50 mph fuel standards, a Hero’s Health Card for Veterans to use any medical facility if their VA hospital is too far, $40,000 minimum salary for all teachers and a 1-year community service requirement for graduating college students so that their loans would be offset. He also gave the best joke of the day when he said that he is the Presidential candidate who offers caucus goers both change and experience, a riff on Obama and Clinton’s tedious speeches that focus on “experience” versus “change”.

Senator Clinton went third and hinted at the health care policy that she would reveal the next day. She also spoke about the mothers and daughters that she saw on the campaign trail and how she was happy when the mothers would tell the daughters that they too could be President one day. Her best line that afternoon was when she said that if she was elected in November she would immediately send envoys with both party members “around the world with a very simple message: The era of cowboy diplomacy is over. America is back.” She was also the first candidate to reference the Field of Dreams movie, when she spoke about “What we’re doing today is building a new ‘Field of Dreams'”. Chills ran up my spine when she said that line because as I looked at all of the qualified candidates on stage, I realized that they do represent a ‘Field of Dreams.’ The dream that hard working American’s will take their country back in 2008.

Senator Chris Dodd was next and unfortunately I felt like he spent half his time talking about how great Senator Harkin was, he even mentioned as he was wrapping up “Now having successfully pandered to Tom Harkin..” It seemed like a waste of a good opportunity to distinguish himself from the top tier candidates. He did have a good line when he said, “Politics of fear is what destroys our country. And the other side engages in it every day, and we need to fight back.’

Senator Edwards took the mike next amid chants of “Go John Go!” After the crowd quieted down he gave a shout out to his wife Elizabeth who was in attendance and said, “I don’t know about you, but I kind of enjoyed it when she went after Ann Coulter.” This of course erupted into another loud cheer from the crowd. He continued on his populist message and came out strong for working families and union labor. Some of his best lines of the day started with “You can’t sit at a table with lobbyists, drug companies, ect., and come away with a good health care plan. If you give them a seat at the table, they’ll take all the food!” He also said that we couldn’t replace ‘corporate Republicans’ with ‘corporate Democrats’.  On healthcare he said he would “Outlaw pre-existing conditions,” and asked “What man, woman or child is not worthy of healthcare?” He mentioned unions explicitly and he also called organized labor “the single best anti-poverty movement in history.” He thanked Congress for raising the minimum wage but said it wasn’t enough and as President he would raise it to $9.50 an hour and have it  indexed to rising inflation. He closed with stating, “You can’t just declare yourself the change candidate,” and asked caucus goers to “trust your heart.”

Senator Joe Biden was on last and opened with a joke, “I’ve also seen Field of Dreams and if I’m not mistaken, this has taken longer than 9 innings.” He went on to say that this “election is as serious as a heart attack folks.” He stated that it is obvious to him that Bush is not going to end the war and that the “responsibility is going to fall on one of the candidates sitting on stage and that is deadly serious.” After listing his foreign policy goals he wrapped up his speech by calling for an end to “the obscene amounts of money that is being spent” and advocated for public funding for elections along with a “Supreme Court that recognizes individual and civil rights.”

As the day came to an end the PA system blasted out September by Earth, Wind and Fire. Each of the candidates clasped hands and raised them in celebration as the crowds cheered on their choice. I walked away from the field knowing who I would vote for in February and proud that each of the individuals that spent their Sunday afternoon in that balloon field did so because they

CREW just released their 3rd annual “Most Corrupt Members of Congress” report.  They list 22 members of Congress as the most corrupt.  And with 5 members, California wins for the most on the list!!!

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA)
Rep. John T. Doolittle (R-CA)
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-CA)
Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA)
Rep. Gary G. Miller (R-CA)

On behalf of all Golden Staters, I want to thank all of these Representatives for having the wisdom, foresight, and venality to give the state this honor.  Sure, the ENTIRE Alaska delegation is on the list, making them slightly mnore corrupt.  But 5 out of 22 is not bad.  Not bad indeed.  Especially when you consider that there are only 19 federal representatives who are Republican, and 5 of them made the list!  That’s called dedication!

These guys might want to worry about the fact that Brent Wilkes just subpoenad a bunch of them.

Former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and 11 other members of Congress have been subpoenaed to testify in the trial of a defense contractor charged with bribing jailed former Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham.

All of the lawmakers said they do not intend to comply with the subpoenas.

Those subpoenad include Hunter, Lewis, Doolittle, and as a bonus, Rep. Darrell Issa, who claimed “This subpoena is a mystery.”  House lawyers have said it would be against House rules to comply.

It looks like Wilkes’ team of lawyers is set to argue that the lawmakers asked for the bribes, rather than the other way around.  I think giving bribes is a crime, regardless of who asked for them, so I don’t know how this will fly.  But clearly, this could damage some Congressional reputations.  Or in the case of the CREW list, enhance them!  Let’s go for 6 in 2008!

From the Santa Cruz Sentinel, Sept 16, 2007:

Given the widespread anger at the record of the Bush administration, few people think it will be easy for a Republican to win a fair presidential election in 2008.

But the backers of a proposed California ballot initiative aim to make it easy – by getting around that inconvenient word “fair”.

Devised by Sacramento political attorney Thomas Hiltachk, the Presidential Election Reform Act is a clever confidence trick, disguised as reform of the Electoral College. The PERA’s true purpose is to guarantee about 20 additional electoral votes to the Republican Party, with the aim of setting up a GOP victory not just in the 2008 presidential election, but in many more to follow.

Here’s how it would work.

Currently, California, like most states, awards its 53 electoral votes as winner-take all. Many voters are unhappy with this system, and quite understandably, since it can serve to override the popular will. If voters in a congressional district elect a representative from Party A, most of them probably also support Party A’s presidential candidate. But the electoral vote from their district may very well end up going to the Party B’s candidate if Party B wins more of their state’s districts overall.

The PERA seeks to take advantage of voters’ frustration over outcomes like this. But it does so in the time-tested manner of the classic con game: distract the mark with bait, then make the switch.

The bait is the promise of reform. The switch is the unmentioned fact that the PERA would amount to a unilateral disarmament by California, a large blue state. Meanwhile, large red states, such as Texas, would continue under the old system.

The PERA’s backers call themselves Californians for Equal Representation. Since Equal Representation is part of their name, you might think they’d also throw their support behind a national reform effort, which could lead to equal representation everywhere – including red states. But that isn’t truly their aim, particularly since Californians for Equal Representation is actually a front for the California Republican Party.

The group’s address is initiative-writer Hiltachk’s law firm. Hiltachk is also Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s election lawyer. And, as the New Yorker’s Hendrik Hertzberg has pointed out, he is a specialist in “initiatives that are the opposite of what they sound like – the Fair Pay Workplace Flexibility Act of 2006, for example” That one was, in fact, designed to slash overtime pay and make it almost impossible to raise the minimum wage.

Unsurprisingly, California Republicans enthusiastically endorsed the PERA at their convention in Indian Wells this past weekend. Interestingly, though, the governor has expressed reservations. As one of the world’s best known self-made men, Schwarzenegger has said he was uncomfortable with the “loser’s mentality” represented by “changing the rules in the middle of the game … saying I cannot win with those rules, so let me change the rules”.

The governor’s fellow Republicans would have done well to heed his advice, because if they win this campaign, it will be at the cost of serious damage both to their party and to democracy itself.

Why, after all, is the public angry at the Republican record in the White House and the Congress? To answer that question is to recite a list of failures and scandals: the falsehoods that spawned the war; the “compassionate conservatism” that brought Guantanamo Bay and the abandoning of New Orleans; the widespread spying on American citizens; the schemes of Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, Randy “Duke” Cunningham, Mark Foley and others; the politicization of the Justice Department; and, sadly, so on.

In this context, do Republicans really want to trumpet their endorsement of another slick maneuver around the public interest?

If they do, they will likely pay even more heavily at the polls than they have so far. After all, as Idaho Sen. Larry Craig has shown so dramatically, most Americans are quite tolerant, but not if they conclude you’re a hypocrite.

Nevertheless, given events at its California convention, the Republican Party may well be bent on further self-destruction. But unfortunately, it is not only the party that will suffer. We all will. That’s because these repeated insults to trust erode voters’ basic belief in our laws and institutions. How many times can you play people for suckers before they conclude the whole thing is just a rigged game? Too many Americans have already come to just that conclusion.

We’ve learned this lesson before, in the Dust Bowl. You can exploit and exhaust the soil for so long, and you may even prosper while you do. And then, one day, the wind comes up and the soil blows away.

Well, it’s happening again. Only this time it’s happening to the soil of democracy – the public’s trust.

We call on all people of every party, including the many Republicans of good conscience – many of whom we have heard from who are deeply disturbed by the direction their party has taken – to repudiate the Presidential Election Reform Act.

By all means, let’s reform the Electoral College. But as we talk about how to do it, let’s use words with their original meanings, not new meanings we’ made up to mask selfish, ulterior motives. Just like fair pay doesn’t mean “slash my wages,” “reform” doesn’t mean “scam the system”.

“Reform” means make it better – for everyone.

That may seem quaint to the creative minds behind crafty tricks like the Presidential Election Reform Act, but it’s what democracy is supposed to be about.

By Zach Friend (chair, Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee), Vinz Koller (chair, Monterey County DCC) & Spencer Critchley (spokesman, Monterey County DCC).

This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah- Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento

For the week ending September 15, 2007

Key bills and issues we’ve been following during the

past week and beyond

The final days of this year’s regular session ended in the wee-hours of the morning, September 13 around 3:30am. At that moment, the Speaker banged the gavel, announced that the session had ended and likely declared victory of some kind for the work that had been done. The drama was somewhat undercut, however, by the fact that the Governor had already called a “Special Session” to consider the healthcare and water issues that were not resolved during the regular legislative year, thus extending the legislative year for some additional period of time.

A variety of bills were sent to the Governor’s desk for signature and veto, a few of which have already been acted upon. With the Term Limits/Extension initiative taking front-and-center in the decisions being made on the floor and behind the scenes, the session produced lots of buzz and intrigue during its final days. Purely political decisions always do play in the equation (various interest groups try to jam bills through at the final hour when few are watching or awake enough to notice). This year the dance was made even more delicate by this all-consuming focus on pleasing the public, enough to justify their vote to extend the terms of current term-out members (particularly the leadership of both houses and both parties) in the February primary.

Ballot initiatives continue to grab headlines as the California Democratic Party has announced an aggressive and pro-active effort to keep the electoral vote-splitting initiative off the June, 2008 ballot. But a redistricting initiative will not be showing up in time for the February ballot, putting the Term Limits/Extension measure at risk. Nor will the Iraq War initiative, since the Governor made short shrift of it by veto earlier in the week. While perhaps restoring some of his lost credibility with his own party, the Gov. dropped the hammer on one of his appointees at the behest of 34 NRA-beholden legislators, further dampening the ability of those given certain responsibilities from carrying them out appropriately—in the Alberto Gonzales/ George Bush mold. But there is so much more, so we’ll get to the details, but first:

If you like the work we’ve been doing at Speak Out California, with our regular weekly updates which provide inside commentary and analysis on what is going on in our state capital, we hope you’ll support our work by making a contribution to Speak Out California.

At Speak Out California we provide the facts and the commentary that keep you informed on what is really happening in our state. We don’t take any advertising or corporate sponsorships, so you know that we are not beholden to any group or special interest. Our commitment is simply to provide uncompromising reporting and analysis of what is happening in our state from the progressive perspective. If you can pledge $10, $25, $50 a month, we can continue to keep you in-the-know and keep the progressive voice alive in California. Just click here to support our work in keeping California’s progressive voice alive.

And now for the week’s goings-on :

SB840/Universal Health Care and AB8 and the Governor’s Special Session

The watered down compromise healthcare bill, AB 8, continued front-and-center until the very end of the session and beyond. With too many loose ends, last minute amendments and objections thereto, the Governor promised a veto and AB 8 won’t become law. Nor will Senator Kuehl’s true reform healthcare measure, calling for a Medicare type system to cover all Californians and still have us choose our own doctors. Kuehl has held the bill for the year and didn’t choose to move it to the Governor where he indicated he would veto it for a second time. The best explanation of the real crux of the debate between a universal health care system and the “compromise” in AB 8, is Senator Kuehl’s speech on the Senate floor explaining her “no” vote on that measure. For her remarks click here .

Now the Governor has moved the healthcare reform issue into a special session, which theoretically allows the debate to continue. This way the time period in which the legislature and Governor can try to reach a satisfactory agreement and get a bill signed into law this year continues, even though the final bell has been rung for the 2007 legislative year. In practice, though, it is considered unlikely that anything substantive will come from this extension of time, at least in this special session. While Speaker Nunez is anxious to get something out, so the public will think much has been accomplished by this group of legislators, the Senate doesn’t seem quite so interested in ramming through a bill that isn’t fully cooked, or frankly, viable.

Although we’ve discussed this issue with numerous articles and links to them over the past several months, click here for an excellent update by Adam Thompson. 

Of course there are many commentaries on this hot and very important subject, so if you’re so inclined, click here for another by Steve Wiegand at the Sac Bee that might be of interest as well. 

The Governor also wants the special session to include a discussion on the state’s perennial water problems. Of particular concern is what we can and must do to protect against a Katrina-like disaster with the precarious condition of the state’s levees-particularly in the important Sacramento Delta region. The Governor’s plans for spending $5.9 billion on water projects have stalled almost completely, in part because he is proposing antiquated approaches (damming rivers and building reservoirs) as solutions and because these issues have little connection to dealing with the immediate concerns the state is facing. For more information on this complex and often mind-numbing discussion, click here for the SacBee’s editorial.

Other Bills and Legislative offerings

With more than 2,800 bills offered and about 960 reaching the governor’s desk, the conclusion of whether the session was a success or failure is the question of the day. The answer, though, really depends on who you ask. Did the year end with a bang? Yes, if you’re a legislator hoping to extend your political life by getting the public behind the term-limits/extension initiative in February, 2008. No if you’re a political “expert” or “analyst”.  It’s really the old half-full/half-empty debate. Those who see the glass half-empty have referred to the year as one of “missed opportunities.”

Of course, if you are among those who benefited from a piece of legislation, it was a fine year. And among them would be those wanting to see young people drive without the distraction of cell phones, text messaging and other electronic devices. While this may sound comforting, unfortunately, this behavior alone will not engender a ticket. Rather, a ticket can be written for violating this new law only if there is some other violation that occurs which attracts an officer’s attention.

The Gov signed Senator Joe Simitian’s SB 33, no driving with cell-phone if you’re under 18 law, this past week. While many of us would like to see this no cell phone edict on ALL drivers, the cell phone industry is one tough special interest, and getting this sanity into law has proven a long-term and arduous task for Simitian. I’m sure the Senator’s response would be that this is a good start.

The Governor also took out his veto pencil and cut Senate Leader Don Perata’s bill that would send the question of the Iraqi War to the voters in February. We predicted this veto (not really rocket science, I confess), but the Governor doesn’t disappoint when it comes to hypocrisy. Here’s the Governor “of the people”, who believes the people should decide important issues, which is the reason he spent $40million of public money on a series of misguided ballot measures designed to stifle his opponents back in November, 2005. In this case, though, he vetoed this measure explaining (with a straight face, I’m sure) that to allow this measure on the ballot would be “divisive and shift attention away from other critical issues that must be addressed”. So much for consistency.  Check out the article here.

There are several hundred bills that he’ll be looking to sign or veto over the next 30 days or so. Among the more contentious are bills to require manufacturers of semi-automatic pistols to etch the make, model and serial number on each cartridge fired of each new gun produced after 2010 (AB 1471, by Mike Feuer); Gay-marriage  (Mark Leno’s second go round on this—Schwarzenegger having vetoed it last year); and just about any environmental bill that made its way off the floors of both houses—and very few did. The big exception here is that several key flood control measures did pass, although not the entire package that is required (hence the Gov’s call for a special session to address some of those unresolved issues). But on the whole, opportunities to advance important consumer and environmental protections were defeated by the influx of money and corporate influences. These bills either outright lost or were deferred until next year’s session, even though they should have been passed this year. To see what did get through the legislative process, check out one article from the LA Times and another from the Mercury News .

Shenanigans and other goings-on

Two particularly unsettling events occurred this week that are worthy of note here. The first was the hiring and firing of Erwin Chemerinsky who was to head the newly created UC Irvine Law School, the second was the firing of Fish and Game commissioner, R. Judd Hanna. What marks these two events is the lack of respect or appreciation for differences of opinion and the intimidation effect when experts express opinions that are considered too controversial or don’t follow a party line.

With Erwin Chemerinsky, it seems that this highly respected expert and constitutional scholar was hired by the Chancellor of UC Irvine to be the first dean of its newly created law school. Although well-acknowledged as a liberal, Chemerinsky is nonetheless highly respected by all points of view within the legal community and beyond. This was quite a coup for UC Irvine at the time. However, within a week of the announcement of his hiring, Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake withdrew the offer. Although refusing to provide any explanation for the sudden turn-around, it is believed that right-wing pressure was exerted so heavily on the University that it reneged. So much for academic freedom and excellence, it seems. For more on this story, check out our weblog.

This highly publicized and criticized fiasco has created an enormous backlash and there are now sounds that the rescission will be rescinded and if Chemerinsky is so inclined, the offer will be extended again. Who’s on first here?

The other mischief involves the Governor’s own February, 2007 appointment of R. Judd Hanna to the California Fish and Game Commission. What was Hanna’s offense warranting his firing? He performed the duties he was obligated to perform as a member of this commission in sharing information with other commissioners that showed conclusively, in his opinion, that lead ammunition did, indeed put condors and other wildlife at risk of death and illness. This, of course, infuriated the NRA, which was actively opposing a measure that would outlaw lead shots. Doing their bidding, 34 Republican legislators sent a letter to the governor early this week demanding Hanna’s removal from the Commission.

Interestingly, Hanna is a Republican, a retired Navy pilot and Vietnam War veteran. He is also a hunter, fisherman, farmer, former real estate developer and campaign contributor to the Gov. Not exactly your wild-eyed, tree-hugging type. But the truth is apparently short-lived when the NRA and 34 Republican legislators go after you.

In this era when dissent is rewarded by firings and humiliation, we can only hope that our Founding Fathers are far too busy in the after-life to pay any attention to what has happened to the brilliant system of government they envisioned and created back in the days when we valued, indeed encouraged respectful debate and disagreement. What has happened to us that we can no longer tolerate healthy and respectful opposition?

Initiatives on the move and not moving at all

As mentioned earlier, the Legislature adjourned without giving the Gov. the initiative he most badly wanted—redistricting. This outcome is just political reality in today’s world. To expect those in power to give it up willingly just defies history and probably human nature as well. Few, if any groups in history, have willingly or voluntarily given up power once they acquire it. The last time redistricting was taken out of the hands of the legislature in California, it was put in that of a court that ordered redistricting to be done by a body of retired jurists back in the late 80’s. Short of litigation and another court order, it will take an extraordinary act, if not miracle, to accomplish this goal. Of course, if it were to be done uniformly across the country, then we might be talking. But the chances of that happening in the foreseeable future is extremely slim.

Although the current legislature is desperate to get the term limits/extension initiative passed, it is clear that the price for the Governor’s support would be an accompanying measure to take redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and into the hands of some kind of impartial commission. Other than human nature, the problem with crafting this measure really focuses on the details: Who appoints them? Who are they? How many of them will there be? Will Congressional districts be included (an absolute no-no for Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional Dems ) and lastly but by no means least, “Why California and not other states like Texas and  Ohio—where the Republican controlled legislatures have padded the lines to protect themselves in as much an embarrassing, gerrymandering way (if not worse) as here in California?” Too many questions and too little shared political will tanked this one again, even with the enticement of support from the Gov. for the term-limits/extension initiative.

The real explosive measure that we’ve been talking about continues to gain reverse momentum. The California Democratic Party has come out swinging to beat back a Republican party ploy to recast how California electoral votes will be counted in the upcoming presidential election. The CDP is going all-out to confront the paid signature gatherers at the shopping centers and grocery stores where they go to often deceive or mislead registered voters into signing the petitions to qualify initiatives for the ballot. The CD Party’s announced goal is to defeat the measure at the signature gathering stage and ward off what will otherwise be an enormously expensive battle. For the Reps, it would be a win-win. If they qualify the Electoral College vote splitting initiative, and lose, they will still have forced the Dems to siphon off millions of dollars they would otherwise spend on candidates and issues. If the Reps win, they take the whole enchilada—and we’ll have another Republican disaster to contend with in the White House. Of course, the way the Reps are going these days, who knows? But the national Dems don’t want to risk that, no matter how well things may be looking at the moment for a Democratic sweep in ’08.  Here is the Mercury News article covering this.

The Rest of the Story

Our blogging offerings for the week:

How I got through 700 Bills in 7 days —a look into the hectic end-of-session process

Cowardice and fear of honest debate at UC Irvine–the Chemerinsky debacle

To read and comment on these entries, just go to: www.speakoutca.org/weblog/

We hope you are enjoying these weekly update. We need your help to keep reporting these stories and insights on a regular basis. To keep you informed and California moving toward a progressive future, will you become a supporter? Just click here and help us continue our weekly updates.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions and hope you will send this newsletter to your friends and other like-minded progressives. Urge them to sign up to Speak Out California and keep the progressive voice alive!

Remember, you can help support the work of Speak Out California by making a contribution here  

Until next week,

Hannah-Beth Jackson and the Speak Out California Team