On May 13th, former South L.A. grassroots leader, Karen Bass will officially assumer her duties as Speaker of the California Assembly.  While she is only eligible to serve as Speaker for two years because of term limits, the budget woes in Sacramento should provide Bass a great audition for the governor’s office.  Her success as Speaker could shake up the governor’s race in 2010.

In Today’s Sacramento Bee Bass described her new job as the “biggest challenge I’ve had to face in my life.”

I think Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger feels the exact same way right now as our state has relives budget woes he was elected to fix.  

When Bass becomes Speaker, she’ll sit opposite of Schwarzenegger at the negotiating table, possibly deciding the fate of public education in California as we know it.  Other basic state services face certain spending cuts. She’ll also be faced with a looming redistricting battle headed towards the ballot box which may pit traditional allies against one another in a bitter expression of frustration with government’s performance.

As Speaker, she becomes the chief fundraiser for her members facing re-election as well as for the state Democratic Party.  I have no concerns or doubts about her ability to not get caught up in the lavish lifestyle which accompanies money and fame.  

Still, lets hope she prefers California vintage over French wine.

If Bass is successful over the next two years, she would help save California from going over the brink and would easily put herself in position to become the Democratic candidate for governor in 2010.  

Think about it, none of the current crop of potential candidates can put themselves in the position she can reach.  Mayors Gavin Newsom and Antonio Villaraigosa will be dealing with the impact of being short-changed by the state; Attorney General Jerry Brown can only offer maturation and enviro street credibility; former Controller Steve Westly will sadly have to remind us he lost the 2006 nomination to Phil Angelides; and current State Treasurer will have to prove he’s done something in that post since leaving the AG office.

I hope the audition goes well, for our state’s sake anyway.  Besides, Californians may very well be in the mood for that Barack Obama type of change.

cross-posted at Courage Campaign

(Crossposted from Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines, the blog of Americans for Safe Access. I work for Americans for Safe Acces.)

Yesterday, ASA’s chief counsel, Joe Elford, and I traveled to Sacramento to attend the Assembly Labor Committee hearing on AB 2279, ASA’s medical marijuana employment rights bill. AB2279, which protects the rights of hundreds of thousands of medical marijuana patients in California from employment discrimination, was introduced in February by Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and co-authored by Assemblymembers Patty Berg (D-Eureka), Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley) and Lori Saldaña (D-San Diego). The bill reverses a January California Supreme Court decision in Ross v. RagingWire. Joe argued argued the case before the court.

We met Gary Ross, the plaintiff in Ross v. RagingWire, outside the hearing room in the Capitol. We were all excited about the hearing and felt good about our chances of passage. Last week, we passed a major hurdle by clearing the Judiciary Committee on a 6-3 vote. We’ve also secured the support of several prominent groups, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the National Lawyers Guild, and several HIV/AIDS advocacy organizations.

After sitting through discussions of several other labor bills, Chairman Sandre Swanson called for AB 2279 to be heard. Assemblymember Leno stepped down from his committee seat to speak about the merits of the bill. He spoke about the intent of the voters when passing Proposition 215 and the intent of the legislature when passing SB 420 – clearly, they intended for patients to have the right to work. Mr. Leno also clarified that AB 2279 does not cause employers to violate federal law and preserves the rights of employers to take action against employees that come to work impaired or consume medical marijuana at the workplace.

Gary Ross spoke next, focusing on his injury sustained while serving our country in the military and how medical marijuana has helped him deal with continuing pain and spasms. He also explained that marijuana has made him a better employee – since it relieves his pain, he is absent from work less frequently. Gary urged the committee to vote yes to spare other California patients the ordeal he has gone through.

Joe Elford followed, explaining the decision in the Ross case and why he thought the Supreme Court had made the wrong decision. He also explained that hundreds of thousands of patients rely on medical marijuana and should be allowed to work, an opinion shared by SEIU and AFSCME, which represent nearly a million workers in the state. Lastly, Lanette Davies, who is an executive member of the California Chamber of Commerce and is involved with the League of Women Voters, voiced her support for the bill as an employer who has employed medical marijuana patients.

Our opposition followed, spouting the same misinformation we heard from them at the Judiciary Committee hearing. A representative from the Chamber of Commerce explained that while the Chamber was not opposed to medical marijuana, the medical use of marijuana is still illegal under federal law. She also said that employers currently are allowed to employee medical marijuana patients, but they should have the choice of whether they want to do so based on whether this fits with their “workplace culture”.

Next, a representative from the National Federation of Independent Business voiced his concerns about the bill. He stated that testing for impairment on the job would be difficult and employees could still come to work impaired. He argued that if a medical marijuana patient was impaired and caused an accident, the employer would be held liable and would have to provide worker’s compensation. After he spoke, a representative from the California Manufacturing and Technology Association briefly voiced his opposition to the bill.

After the testimony was heard, Chairman Swanson asked committee members if they had any questions. Ira Ruskin asked a brief question about the amended language from Judiciary Committee, and John Laird (who sits on both the Judiciary and Labor committees) responded that it was his proposed amendment and the new language satisfied his previous concerns.

Swanson then took his turn to grill the opponents. He asked the rep from the National Federation of Independent Business whether he had any statistics or examples of accidents medical marijuana patients had caused. Our opponents could not even come up with one example. (As a side note, this interchange made me proud that Swanson represents me and my district in the Assembly.)

In his closing testimony, Leno hammered this point home even further. He told the opponents that they needed to be more proactive if they were to continue opposing the bill (his staff has been open to meeting with them and negotiating language), and that the opponents’ reasoning had become circular. Proposition 215 was passed in 1996, and the opponents still couldn’t come up with even one example of a workplace accident caused by a medical marijuana patient. Leno concluded by asking the committee members to consider the intent of Prop 215 and urged them to vote for the bill because the alternative is that medical marijuana patients could become unemployed and wards of the state.

The committee passed the bill, on a 6-2 party line vote. The next stop is the Assembly Floor. We have a ways to go before securing employment rights for California medical marijuana patients, but at least now, we’re one step closer.

I noticed this before Swing State Project codified it, but there were some stunning numbers in the Q1 Congressional fundraising reports that augur well for Democratic upsets in November.

We know that Charlie Brown is raising tons of money and has close to $600,000 cash on hand, and his challengers are spending all their money in a bruising primary race (Doug Ose has a million dollars in debts on his books).  We know that three California challengers raised six figures in the first quarter (Brown, Russ Warner and Nick Leibham) and have been consistently doing so.  What’s notable is the lack of fundraising prowess among key Republicans.

Dean Andal is supposed to be one of the top GOP challengers in the whole country.  Yet he could only manage $90,000 in the first quarter, which considering how much effort the GOP is putting into his race is embarrassing.

More interesting to me are the incumbents.  David Dreier raised $136,000, not all that much more than Russ Warner’s $110,000.  Dan Lungren raised around $100,000, not much more than Bill Durston’s $75,000 (very respectable for his grassroots campaign).  And then there are two in Orange County that are shocking.  Dana Rohrabacher was OUTRAISED by Debbie Cook in CA-46: $47,000 to $39,000.  And Cook didn’t get a full quarter in because she didn’t announce until late January.  (On a similar note, Julie Bornstein was able to raise $29,000 in just a few weeks after her announcement).  And in CA-42, Gary Miller was outraised by Ed Chau, a carpetbagger from Montebello, and if you add in Ron Shepston’s total Miller was significantly outraised by his challengers.

That’s quite incredible.  Miller and Rohrabacher might be dismissing the effort against them, and they still have plenty of cash on hand.  But as a symbol of support in the district, clearly Democrats have the momentum all over the state.  We’re going to be very competitive this cycle, and if one of these districts hits, the cash-poor NRCC and the pathetic fundraising prowess of these Republicans isn’t going to save them.

Posted 4/17/2008 10:26 PM PDT on MyDesert.com

Earlier this week, The Desert Sun and its online edition, mydesert.com, detailed the California Fair Political Practices Commission complaint against the Perez campaign for the 80th Assembly District for unfair practices during the California Democratic Party convention in San Jose.  For the entire article, refer to FPPC Complaint Alleges Candidate Skirting Campaign Advertising Disclosure.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission confirmed that someone had filed a complaint against 80th Assembly District Democratic candidate Manuel Perez accusing him of failing to disclose who paid for his campaign advertising.

The complaint was filed by Greg Rodriguez, Democratic activist and candidate for the Palm Springs Unified School District, against the failed Coachella School Board trustee April 4, 2008.  Seems that Rodriguez has had enough of local failed school board officials and soiled campaigns.

“It’s obvious some people want to manipulate rules and don’t want to follow them,” said Greg Rodriguez, who filed the complaint. “I think everybody needs to be scrutinized by the rules they follow.”

More below the flip…

Rodriguez is a candidate for the Palm Springs Unified School District board and a Sen. Hillary Clinton delegate to the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this summer.  Pettis, a Cathedral City Councilman and former-Mayor Pro-tem, is the leading candidate and leading fundraiser of the four Democratic contenders for the 80th AD.

According to The Desert Sun,

Perez says he’s complied with the law.

“It’s one thing or another,” he said. “We’ve got more important things to do like walk the streets and talk to voters.”

Apparently one of the more important things that the Perez campaign has to do is voter intimidation in the Coachella Valley.  Perez’ Campaign Director, Amalia Deaztlan, was reported to intimidate one of Pettis’ Latino supporters and endorsers at the Democrats of the Desert Annual Banquet on Saturday, April 5, 2008, harshly pinching him in a manner usually applied by Latino adults to recalcitrant children, telling him after he refused to switch his allegiance from Pettis to Perez, “You are no longer one of us!”  In addition, Perez supporters have attempted to intimidate Pettis bloggers and diarists with threats and accusations.

Created with a ballot initiative in 1974, The Fair Political Practices Commission was created in a 1974 ballot initiative to investigate campaign violations of the Political Reform Act and imposes administrative penalties.

The FPPC will notify Rodriguez in writing by Friday whether the department will investigate or not, said Roman Porter, a department spokesman. Porter would not speculate on the merits of the complaint.

“One advantage of having a formal complaint signed under penalty of perjury is to reduce frivolous complaints,” he said.

State law requires disclosure on campaign advertising when advocating for or against a candidate or ballot measure.

Perez supporters created and distributed fliers advertising the Perez candidacy at the CDP convention in order to attempt to revoke the party endorsement of Pettis for the 80th AD which he obtained with over 70% of the Democratic Club votes at the Moreno Valley confab.  Perez supporters created the advertisements without any FPPC-required denotations as required for the mass production of campaign materials.  Perez supporters to date have not reported exactly how many fliers were created for distribution.  Under FPPC regulations, mass-produced advertisements are often regulated when created in numbers of 200 or greater.

Manuel Perez, Vice-President of the failed Coachella Valley Unified School District and Candidate for the 80th Assembly District, and his campaign, have allegedly fun afoul of campaign ethics with campaign violations in two campaign scandals, according to my mydesert.com blogger source at Palm Springs Village Fest.

First, someone who volunteers for the Perez for Assembly campaign, was allegedly using her office computer to mail out campaign materials for the Perez campaign.  My source is in possession of an original piece of email from the campaign worker.

Now, as anyone who has worked in an office environment in the past 15 years knows: “Do not use your office computer for personal use, otherwise your job is in jeapardy!”  Well, not only did this employee apparently use her office computer to produce mass emailings for the Perez campaign, but she worked for the County of Riverside!  Not only is her job in jeapardy, but she violated State of California campaign law in her endeavors.  The Perez campaign has not addressed to what extent it was involve in the production and distribution of the fliers.

My source eventuall contacted Roy Wilson, Supervisor in the County of Riverside and a newsreporter at The Desert Sun, Nicole Brambila.  According to my source, Wilson has conducted an investigation and found that two, count them, two Perez campaign workers and/or volunteers have been using County of Riverside computers to do campaign work for Perez.  When the Perez campaign found out that its skullduggery had been found out, it cried ‘Mudslinging!’ and ‘Republican talking points!’  Seems that the Perez mouthpieces went apoplectic.

Wilson instructed County supervisor(s) to conduct an investigation and to act accordingly.  In addition, thousands of County employees received emails from the County reminding them that it is against the law to use County computers, offices, etc. to conduct campaign work.

Second, the Perez campaign mass-produced and distributed campaign materials that omitted the required by law disclaimers that are required one each piece of campaign materials.  Bethcaskie, blogger shill for the Perez campaign was observed handing out hundreds of the illegal fliers at the California Democratic Party convention in San Jose.  Greg Rodriguez, local Democratic activist, filed a complaint with the FPPC on Monday, March 31, 2008.

Seems that the Perez campaign has in disarray without adequate leadership and direction, unable to direct and/or manage its volunteers and/or staff.  An organized and well-directed campaign would not make these kind of mistakes, first not instructing their workers to not use office computers, let alone County resources, to further the campaign, and second, not vetting the campaign materials for irregularities and illegalities.

The Perez campaign response to the allegations is to label Rodriguez and other Pettis supporters as ‘mudslingers’ and adherents to ‘Republican talking points.’  Seems that the Perez campaign loves to see itself as the victim.  Not a pretty sight that.

What is going on over at the Perez campaign?