Bad boys, bad boys.  What'ca gonna do?  What'ca gonna do when they come for you . . .

The Fair Political Practices Commission today fined Senator Carole Migden $350,000 for 89 separate violations of California law. This is the largest fine levied by the FPPC.  Ever.  The fine included 89 violations between 2003 and 2007, and included allegations that she used campaign funds for her personal use.

In a separate dispute that has not yet been resolved, Carol Migden is accused of illegally using $1 million in funds for her Senate re-election campaign. After spending almost half of the funds, Migden filed a lawsuit against the FPPC in Federal Court alleging that the California law for which she voted (Prop 34) is unconstitutional. I'm planning to write much, much more about Carole's lawsuit over the weekend as we prepare for the hearing next week of Carol's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

[I tried to find a picture of Migden in a black and white striped jumpsuit.  Pinstripes will have to do.  For now.) 

This afternoon, I had the chance to sit down with a Andy Stern, president of SEIU International, and a few other bloggers. We talked about a number of things, a couple of which directly affect the labor movement in California.  Before we get to those more controversial elements, I’ll address some of the great political work.

First of all, there’s the They Work for Us and similar efforts.  SEIU was critical in Donna Edwards‘ victory over Al Wynn in MD-04. They are doing a good job of pushing the issues, rather than the candidates.  As Stern put it, you don’t seal the deal by getting certified as the union after a long organization campaign, you have to get the contract.  Following up on our issues is the contract. If we don’t follow up, we have really gained nothing.  Follow me over the flip…

But there were other issues to be discussed. First, we spent quite a bit of time on an organization effort at Catholic health partners(CHP) in Ohio.  The California Nurses Association got involved right before a scheduled vote, and the election ended up being pulled because of biases developed during a two-week pre-election campaign-free period. Here’s CNA’s take on it.  At the meeting, an RN from CHP talked to us about the disappointment that many CHP workers felt when the election was called.  CNA is clearly losing the PR war on this one, and I must say, I don’t really get the tactics.  From what the RN said, CHP put up quite a substantial struggle, and through community and worker organizing, SEIU was able to get an election.  I hope that the CHP workers are eventually able to finish their organization.

To another issue: the concerns raised by UHW.  To be clear, these are real issues that cannot be explained away in five minutes. Rosselli argues that growth without standards doesn’t serve their members in the best way.  Stern, for his part, argues that strength comes through numbers.  He uses UAW as his example: they had the Big 3 automakers all organized with high standards. Yet with the rise of the Japanese automakers, unorganized plants offered the same pay rate without the accompanying benefits.  And eventually the big 3 slowly shift down to the un-organized levels. Stern makes the point that organizing all workers IS in the ultimate interest of SEIU’s members.  Ultimately, this is a very similar issue as the AFL-CIO and Change2Win dispute.

This long-running dispute is not the only issue. There’s still the issue of organizing internationally, locally, and the democratic decisions related to that.  All parties acknowledge that union members feel the strongest connection to their own locals. When members engage, they tend to engage with their locals.  Stern points out that these corporations are national or international, and thus must be dealt with nationally or internationally. In the age of globalization, this issue isn’t going away.

I’m hopeful that the conflict can be dealt with in a civilized and professional manner. The questions and disputes will almost certainly continue as they are issues of principle, but the labor movement will be better off if labor is united.

(Such lovely people – promoted by jsw)

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron.

To learn about Proposition 98’s agenda, look no further than Dan Faller, President and Founder of the American Owner’s Association (AOA) – the largest landlord group in California.  In a nine-page essay published in the association’s magazine, Faller complains heatedly about rent control, calls pro-tenant elected officials “terrorists” and “suicide bombers,” compares the effort to pass Prop 98 with World War II, says that renters “choose not to provide for themselves,” and – with rhetoric that channels George Bush – tells landlords: “you are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights.”  We cannot dismiss Faller as just another right-wing kook, for his organization has already contributed $325,000 to the “Yes on 98” cause – and the AOA has plans to raise even more money in the coming weeks.  And with voter turnout in June expected to be very low, Faller’s fringe beliefs might actually become public policy in California – if we don’t act now.

While proponents want voters to think it’s about eminent domain reform, Prop 98 is the most dangerous right-wing initiative to hit the California ballot in years.  It would abolish rent control, gut the most basic tenant protections, repeal sensible environmental laws and endanger public water projects.  Another measure, Proposition 99, would reform eminent domain – which Faller opposes because it would “only protect owner-occupied homes.”  In other words, the Prop 98 forces don’t really care about the middle-class homeowner who fears eminent domain.  They just want to repeal all regulations of private property.

In the post-9/11 world, calling someone a “terrorist” is a serious accusation – but Faller refers to pro-tenant elected officials who oppose Prop 98 as “terrorists” or “suicide bombers” at least seven times.  “The bombs and explosives they are throwing at us,” he writes, “are rent control, eminent domain, inspection laws, building codes, requiring 60-day notices so tenants can steal more time from you, eviction laws that allow tenants to live rent-free for several months, relocation fees, inclusionary zoning that drives up the price of housing so they have another excuse to justify even more laws.  These elected officials are dangerous.”

Urging his fellow landlords to fight this “war” on the “terrorists,” Faller says the solution is to hit them with the “big bomb”: Proposition 98, which would invalidate all these existing laws and then some.  “Help to permanently take away their weapons that allow unfair eminent domain and rent control,” he writes before asking for campaign contributions.  “This is certainly one war that we all believe in and can hold our heads high as we fight to win!  You are either for us or against us in this fight for your freedom and property rights.”

According to a Field Poll conducted in December, George Bush has a 28% approval rating in California – with 64% who disapprove.  Yet, one of the top supporters of Prop 98 is using exactly the same rhetoric as our Commander in Chief to deride his opponents.  If voters in June are educated about who’s behind this initiative, they will defeat it.

But it’s not just the “terrorist” politicians that Faller has a bone to pick with.  He demeans people who can’t afford to buy California real estate as lazy and ineffectual.  As he urges landlords to “join this war” to pass Prop 98, Faller says “you’ve worked hard providing housing for others who chose not to provide for themselves … You gave up a lot of weekends to make it possible – something others were not willing to do.”  Apparently, it’s okay to berate the state’s 14 million tenants because they “obviously” did not work hard enough to buy property themselves.  Hyperbole is one thing; personal insults are quite another.

Does the fight over Prop 98 match the battle against Nazis and fascists in World War II?  Dan Faller seems to think that it does.  Recalling his childhood memories in Los Angeles when he feared that “the enemy was going to land their troops in Long Beach and along our coast,” the AOA President puts the fight to pass Prop 98 on a similar plane.  “There were big signs and advertisements that read ‘Uncle Sam Needs You!’ during WWII,” he writes.  “There’s a big AOA sign today that says ‘Freedom Loving Americans Need You!’  We need your support to win this War to protect your property rights!”

It would be easy to laugh at these outlandish statements if Dan Faller was just your crazy uncle who makes offensive jokes that amuse only himself.  But he’s the President and Founder of the American Owners Association – a national trade association of landlords that boasts more members in California than any other group.  Faller is on the Board of Biopharma, the owner of a commercial brokerage firm, and used to be a Wall Street broker.  The AOA’s monthly newsletter – which printed his “Yes on 98” screed – is the most widely read landlord publication in the country.

Under Faller’s watch, the AOA has provided crucial seed money for Prop 98 to get on the ballot – and they’re now aggressively fundraising to get it passed.  The group has already put $325,000 towards the effort – and Faller has urged members to give even more.  “Donate at least $1,000 with an additional minimum of $50 for every unit if you own over twenty apartments,” he wrote.  “If you own less than 20 units, please donate the $1,000 minimum.  If you own more, step up and invest according to all the benefits you’ll enjoy as a result of winning this campaign.”

With such a fundraising appeal, the “Yes on 98” campaign should have plenty of funds to hoodwink voters into thinking that their extreme ballot measure is about eminent domain.  Opponents of Prop 98 must be vigilant, fundraise and get out the message to expose it as the Hidden Agendas Scheme that it really is.  Only by doing so can we truly save such essential programs in California that 14 million renters rely on to live here.  And with the June ballot garnering such low attention, there’s a serious chance that we could lose.

Was Faller joking when he called pro-tenant elected officials “suicide bombers,” accused tenants of being lazy, and compared the fight to pass Prop 98 with fighting the Axis powers in World War II?  Apparently not.  “Please take every word of this article more seriously,” he wrote in the preface, “than any other article you have ever read in this publication.”  That should give us all pause about how dangerous Prop 98 really is …

Having spoken out numerous times on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his Republican colleagues’ inability to deliver on their promises to solve California’s budget problems, I was further outraged by their recent opposition to closing a loophole that gives tax breaks to wealthy yacht owners. At a time when California is considering drastic cuts to education, health care, state parks and the poor, this unconscionable position only underscores the Administration’s inability to deal with our budget crisis in an honest manner and their willingness to balance the budget on the backs of our most vulnerable.

Currently, it’s possible for new yacht owners to avoid paying state sales tax by parking their new purchases out of California for 90 days.  In February, the legislature considered closing the loophole that gives the wealthiest in the state a tax exemption for their extravagant toys. The proposal was simply to adjust this loophole in the tax law and increase the waiting period to a year–an action that is estimated would have netted the state $26 million.  No-brainer, right?  Well, not to the Republicans in the legislature.

Because Republicans in both houses voted against the bill, it failed to garner the two-thirds majority needed for passage.  Republicans in the legislature have taken a pledge to never, under any circumstances, consider tax increases, even during budget deficits like the $16 billion one we currently face. This unwillingness to compromise to save California from possible insolvency is the latest example of the fiscal irresponsibility that has plagued Republicans in the State House and the Governor’s mansion.  

By way of review, during the 2003 recall election, Mr. Schwarzenegger promised to be the “Collectinator.”  He said that his friendship with President George W. Bush and the Republicans in Washington, DC would allow for him to bring home federal dollars that were missing from the state’s coffers.  Subsequently, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, identified tens of billions of federal dollars owed to California.  She and the California Democratic congressional delegation tried to get the Governor to live up to his pledge by working with him and the Republicans in a bi-partisan manner.  Unfortunately, his promises have continued to yield little results.

In his first “State of the State” address in 2004, the Governor said that he would bring great change to Sacramento by “blowing up the boxes” of government bureaucracy.  Unfortunately, this translated into dismantling essential local governmental services including police and fire safety and health programs.   One of his first actions in office was to spend over $4 billion in revenue the state did not have by rescinding the vehicle license fee.  The fee, which had been in place for 63 years, went to local governments throughout California.  Today it costs the state $6 billion a year in revenues according to Elizabeth Hill, the state’s nonpartisan Legislative Analyst.

In 2005, the Governor spent $80 million of the state’s money on his unnecessary ‘Special Election’ to benefit his corporate, special interest agenda instead of working with the Legislature in good faith to soundly address the complex issues facing California.  The measures he put forward on the ballot were soundly defeated and he succeeded in wasting a year of the taxpayers’ time and millions of state dollars.

In 2006, the Governor told the state he was working across both sides of the aisle and proclaimed a new era of ‘post-partisanship.’ Unfortunately, instead of offering real solutions to our structural budgetary deficit, the Governor pulled out the state’s credit card again and borrowed billions of dollars- essentially taxing our children’s future.

Last year, in 2007, fresh off the campaign trail, the Governor, unable to get his Republican colleagues to support the agreed-upon state budget priorities for the new fiscal year, led us once again into a budget stalemate.  The months-long stand off stymied critical state functions and stalled payments to millions of children, elderly, poor and disabled Californians.  Medi-Cal funds were frozen, hospitals and care providers had to function using IOUs, and our community college districts stretched their dollars to the breaking point until the state finally agreed on a budget.  

Now in 2008, we find ourselves straddled with a $16 billion shortfall.  Amazingly, just a few months ago the Governor proclaimed that the “budget deficit is zero.”  Fast forward a few months later and he told us that we must make draconian cuts to deal with this amazing turn of economic events. He is now proposing that we cut more than $4.5 billion from K-12 education; decimate our AIDS Drug Assistance Program; further reduce reimbursement rates for health care providers; put the children of mothers on state assistance at risk of homelessness; deny the blind, the elderly, and the disabled even a minimal cost-of-living adjustment; slash funding for our court system; virtually close down our state parks system; and continue to under-fund our higher education systems.  Part of the Governor’s plan is to make it harder for people on Medi-Cal to get reimbursed for their health care by simply creating more paperwork for them to fill out.

For nearly five years of the Schwarzenegger Administration in Sacramento, we’ve seen this movie over and over again.  It’s time to get real.  We must have an honest conversation with the people of California about the priorities we have for our families and how we’re going to pay for them with a balanced approach of spending cuts and revenue enhancements, like closing the yacht tax loophole. The Governor’s script always promises real budget solutions, but fails to deliver time and time again.