(Great analysis on the voter pool. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

So one of the arguments I’ve been seeing against gay marriage is that the 2000 ballot initiative Prop. 22 showed what the “will of the people” is.  Except… a closer look at what happened back then makes it more ambiguous as to what will actually happen this November.

First, yes, Prop. 22 passed, 61.4%-38.6%.  But it wasn’t on the ballot in November 2000, but rather in March 2000, in the primary election.  Now, here’s the thing.  By then, Al Gore had already clinched the nomination against Bill Bradley, so there wasn’t really an impetus for Democrats to go vote (much like you’re seeing the GOP say now for McCain).  Meanwhile, the race between Bush and McCain was still going on, though winding down.

And so, you had this situation where, in a blue state like California, Republican turnout well exceeding Democratic turnout.  3.2 million people voted for Democratic candidates (almost all for Al Gore), while over 4.1 million voted in the Republican primary, which Bush won by less than 400,000 votes over McCain.  (And WTF, Lyndon LaRouche listed as a Democrat??  Ewwwwww.)

Now, as to how each party voted, the best we have is the exit poll (.pdf) from the L.A. Times.  And the results may surprise you.

Blacks were actually MORE in favor of banning gay marriage than whites were.  58% of whites voted in favor of Prop. 22, while 62% of blacks did so, and 65% of Latinos did so.

Among Republicans, as you would expect, 80% voted in favor of it.  But among Democrats, it wasn’t anywhere near 80% voting against it.  In fact, only 57% of Democrats voted against it, with 43% voting in favor of it.  And Independents went for the proposition too, 58%-42%.  While 74% of liberal Democrats voted against it, among moderate Democrats, it was a blowout in the other direction, with 61% of them voting in favor of banning gay marriage.  Moderate Republicans were actually less inclined to support it, with Prop. 22 only getting 56% of them.

And since people are bringing up religion, it was the Protestants, and not the Catholics, that broke heavily in favor of banning gay marriage.  75% of Protestants voted for the ban, while only 59% of Catholics voted for it.  Conversely, 76% of Jews voted against the ban.

Regionally, the Bay Area was the only part of California where there was more opposition to the ban than support, if only barely.  51% voted against it in the Bay Area.  Even in Los Angeles County, it easily passed with 58% voting for it.  And the rest of California voted for it at an even higher clip.

So there’s your baselines from 2000.  Had it been a “normal” primary that March, where both parties still had actual primaries to compete in, the numbers would’ve been closer, but Prop. 22 still likely would’ve passed, given how many moderate Democrats were voting in favor of it, and given how it also easily won among Independents.

So, what does that portend for 2008?  We’ll see.  Certainly young people now are much more open to gay marriage than older folk, so if they turn out in record numbers for the general election too, that’ll be a big swing in shooting down the proposed constitutional amendment.  Also, Arnold Schwarzenegger coming out against the ban now is going to play a role, though it remains to be seen just how big of an impact his voice will have in this.

The recent SurveyUSA polling shows promise, with it tied as to whether they supported the court’s decision.  But something’s odd… while young people agreed with the court’s ruling 50%-38%, you have 51% supporting amending the state constitution to keep marriage between a man and a woman.  Those numbers seem to be flipped.  Perhaps the wording of the question was confusing, and people thought you had to amend the constitution to allow gays to get married?

Anyway, these numbers show in what areas the pro-gay marriage groups are going to need to work on to stop the amendment this November.

A few months ago, observers were shocked when no Democrat filed to run in the 15th Senate District against Abel Maldonado, despite the fact that the district is plurality Democratic.  One such observer was Dennis Morris, a local resident who got his ballot in the mail and saw that he had no Democrat for which to vote.  Instead of shaking his head and moving on, Morris decided to do something about it.  And so today he is mounting a last-minute write-in campaign to get his name on the November Ballot.  From the SLO County Dems:

The San Luis Obispo County Democratic Party endorsed Dennis Morris on May 14th in his write-in bid to run against Republican Abel Maldonado for the 15th Senatorial District which includes all of San Luis Obispo County as well as parts of several neighboring counties. The Party is urging all Democrats in San Luis Obispo County and elsewhere in the 15th Senatorial District to WRITE-IN “Dennis Morris” for that office on their JUNE 3rd BALLOT.

There are TWO steps to the process. First, the bubble to the left of the write-in line MUST be darkened. Second, the name “Dennis Morris” without quotes, must be written in on the write-in line provided on the ballot.

If enough Democrats write-in on their June 3rd ballot, Dennis Morris will be able to appear on the November ballot as the Democratic Party candidate for the 15th District Senatorial Seat.

This is crucially important.  With the possible demise of the Denham recall and an unopposed Maldonado seat, Democrats were missing out on two of their best opportunities to achieve a 2/3 majority in the State Senate.  Morris’ bid at least provides the opportunity for a real race in one of them.  Don Perata allegedly prevented top local Dems from running in this race.  But this is a people-powered action that could actually be more impactful.

My spies tell me that Morris would make a good candidate.  He’s a non-politician, a former legal scholar who retired to grow grapes on his vineyard.  There are parallels to Jerry McNerney’s first candidacy, accomplished through a write-in ballot in 2004.  That ended well.  Maybe this will too.

I’m scrambling to get more information from Morris and hopefully set up an interview.

(This hit the LA Times today.  San Fernando Valley politics are weird and dynastic.  Blumenfield is getting money from his dad and his former boss Howard Berman; his campaign manager is Larry Levine, whose son Lloyd is running for state Senate; Lloyd’s former chief of staff is Stuart Waldman.  This doesn’t mean they’re bad people at all.  But there’s a dynastic feel to Valley politics that is unsettling.  Also this shows that the IE laws in this state are ridiculous. – promoted by David Dayen)

…for Bob Blumenfield,

With Love from His Dad and Current Employer, Congressman Howard Berman

Ignored by the mainstream media this Wednesday, the Fair Political Practices Commission complaint filed against “Valley Democrats for Change” by attorney, Nicole Kuklok-Waldman, is heating up the race in the 40th Assembly District. It entered cyberspace Thursday through the subscription-only website, Capital Morning Report.

What it appears to be, said an employee at the Secretary of State’s office, is another committee set up to circumvent California’s legal contribution limits.

Background. California law sets a contribution limit for state candidates for the legislature at $3600 per person. A candidate can use an unlimited amount of his or her PERSONAL funds. But, a relative cannot. Which brings us to the present situation. What’s a father to do???

Michael Blumenfield, the retired psychiatrist from Scarsdale, N.Y., who moved out to California to live across the street from his son, had already given the $3600 limit last year. So, legally, he could give no more.

Loophole. California has this nifty little device to get around those pesky “limits.” It’s called the “independent expenditure committee” with the operative word being INDEPENDENT. The deal is that someone can form this sort of committee and spend ALL they want. They just can’t coordinate with anyone in the campaign.

It seems that father Michael got together with his son’s present employer, Congressman Howard Berman, and opened up shop with this type of committee. The $50K seed money from him landed in the account on March 25th, just before the California Democratic State Convention, where son, Bob, would lose the party endorsement and make this committee all the more important.

Then a $5K chunk from Michael MacLeod, the Chairman of Public Interest Data in Washington DC rolled in on April 1st. This Michael chipped in another $5K May 8th. Is he a relative? From his website, we find he has a history as a fundraiser. From Newsmeat, we learn that he’s a contributor to the DCCC, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. But what IS his connection to this far away California Assembly candidate? Inquiring minds want to know.

Then more money from dad…another $50K…another $20K. That would be $116,400 OVER what is allowed by law. But, oh yes, this is an “independent” expenditure!!!  So, it gets to slip by the pathetically weak campaign finance rules.

The most surprising entry, however, has to be that MEGA contribution from Bob’s employer, Congressman Howard Berman. It could be said that Howard has raised a ton of money this year for his non-campaign….no opponents in the primary…not even one Republican willing to run against him in the general. All alone with his $914,233 and no campaign of his own.  Don’t you just WONDER why he’s collecting all that?

Well, wonder no more. There is the “independent expenditure” committee to funnel in a cool $100K. Bob is, after all, his own chief-of-staff. Well, officially “on leave” for now. But, what if Bob could get a seat in the Assembly and BE THERE when the reapportionment comes up after the next census? Wouldn’t that just be peachy keen!!!

Of course, we have to really IMAGINE that there is no coordination between the campaign and the father across the street and the employer of 18 years. This IS a stretch, but, hey, can we really IMAGINE THIS???

I guess the real test is when you see a television ad with footage of the family…the little daughter…the lovely wife…the CAMPAIGN LOGO…and three endorsements. And then there is the e-mail from the campaign:

Voters are calling us about a fun, new ad that began airing recently. Since

the ad wasn’t produced by us, we do not know when it airs.  Supporters found

it on YouTube.

Does this strain credibility or what? Get real.

I guess the FPPC may have to take a look at this now that the complaint was filed. And who was it that filed it??? Nicole Kuklok-Waldman, wife of Stuart Waldman, one of the opponents in this mid-San Fernando Valley race. Handy to have an attorney in the family.

But, do we have the pot calling the kettle black???

Seems Stuart has his own little “Independent Expenditure” committee cranking out the bucks for him too. This one is called the “CA Alliance for Progress and Education” (one wonders what KIND of education they had in mind when naming this as well as what KIND of progress). It’s been around a lot longer and has more candidates in the stable. One funder for this committee is Blue Shield of California to the tune of $25K—which goes to show you where SOME of the huge profits from health insurance go. Others have included the California Dental Association and the Californians for Civil Justice Reform. Total going to Stuart??? A cool $306,979.81 which he, of course, knows nothing about either. Money does make the political world go round. And this race is certainly starting to spin. Too bad the mainstream press isn’t covering local politics this year.

So, fellow Californians, are we ready to get off of this squirrel cage and demand some serious reform in this system? As it’s now arranged, the ethically challenged dive through these loopholes that were arranged there on purpose to fool the people into thinking that there really is some level of accountability, and there is NOT. Consider how often you have taken the time to really research where the money is coming from to buy the campaign propaganda that sells you your candidate each election. And next time the issue of public financing comes up, and it will, please make sure you aren’t fooled again by the corporate interests who fund the anti- campaign.

ETHICS IN OUR CANDIDATES–EITHER THEY HAVE THEM NOW OR NOT. THEY DON’T GROW THEM ONCE IN OFFICE.

For those of you who just HAVE to check this out yourself:

Through the Secretary of State’s website enter these in the cal-access search link:

Valley Democrats for Change, filer ID# 1305598

CA Alliance for Progress and Education ID#1283921

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/P…

shows the money flowing in from Bob’s employer and dad

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C… .aspx?id=1305598&view=late3

shows it flowing out to the various tv commercials/media buys/envelopes and the 410 form listing the treasurers

http://www.strumwooch.com/prof…

This is the website for the treasurer, initially Beverly Palmer, and now Aimee Dudovitz. Both of them are associates. The main partner in the firm, Fredrich Woocher, is listed as the assistant treasurer.

http://www.stuartwaldman.com/C…

This is the complaint filed with the FPPC. The complete filing is linked under this page.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pol…

Howard’s current $ tally

http://www.youtube.com/user/va…

the Bob and family ads from youtube

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C…

Stuart’s special friend committee

(reposted from a Daily Kos entry at the suggestion of a commenter there, modified by the author a bit.)

In the “non partisan” race for Monterey County’s District 4 Supervisor — a key swing vote between slow-growth and pro-development agendas — you’d almost think we had two Democrats running. Because one of them, Jane Parker, is a Democrat. And the other, Ila Mettee-McCutchon, appointed by Gov. Schwarzenegger in February to fill the term of the deceased incumbent for all of three months before the election, Republican, is pretending to be a Democrat and making misleading phone calls and distributing misleading campaign literature. Because of the way “non-partisan” offices appear on primary ballots, she’s abetted in this by a ballot that seems to be a primary run-off between two Democrats.

More on the flip side with a link to a picture of the flier.

First off, let’s make it clear: Ila Mettee-McCutchon is a Republican. You won’t find that fact on her website. She was appointed to her post by Arnold (Republican) Schwarzenegger to fill out a term left open by the decease of the incumbent – just three months before the election. More on this in a bit.

We have seven County Supervisors here, selected in “non-partisan” elections. However, there’s a big Democratic registration advantage in the countydistrict. Somehow, the elections for these Supervisors get piggybacked into our primary ballots under the theory they’re non-partisan, and maybe it doesn’t matter. But if you get a Republican primary ballot, it lists both candidates, and you get a Democratic primary ballot, it lists both candidates. If you didn’t know any better, you might think you were voting in a primary election for two candidates of the same party. Despite the fact there are real serious differences in party affiliations for these ‘non partisan’ positions, voters see the candidates for these jobs as if they were both members of their own party.

County Supervisor matters a lot here. Our County budget is almost a billion dollars. The board is split right now evenly between pro-developer and slow-growth advocates.This particular Supervisor position will be the tie-breaker. County Supervisors in the past have tried to do end-arounds on the voters who clearly voted for the slow-growth approach on multiple voter initiatives through a combination of trickery (illegally competing ballot initiatives) and outright rejection of the voters’ will (by voting for pro-developer county plans right after the voters had rejected them). Whoever wins this election is going to be the decision-maker about the land use pattern for our county, home to both important agricultural areas and some of the most spectacular coastal wilderness in the country, for decades.

The voters in this area are seriously pro-environment. Some may be objecting to growth as NIMBYs, some for environmental reasons, some because they see controlled growth as a philosophy for sustainability. If the voters’ will were adequately represented in the County Supervisors, the debate would be on which slow growth plan to take, not whether we should be chewing up more farm land for subdivisions.

Ila Mettee-McCutchon, Republican, in a “non-partisan” election, is supported by the business and growth interests that favor unrestricted growth. As mentioned earlier, these include prominent vineyard owners, agribusiness interests, developers, and of course the usual banes of California politics, Taxpayers’ “Rights” associations (the same people trying to eliminate environmental regulations and rent control in the guise of eminent domain reform.)

I got a phone call the other day from a worker for the Mettee-McCutchon campaign. Her spiel said she was a “democratic” leader running for “re-election” and she needed my vote in the “primary”. I wasn’t sure I heard her right,so I asked her to repeat it. She said it again. I asked her how somebody appointed by the Governor a few months ago could be running for ‘re-” election when she had never been elected before. The caller repeated her spiel. I asked her whether she was a volunteer or was a paid caller and where she was calling from; the Caller ID said simply, “Monterey County Election”. She said she didn’t have to tell me that. I told her she sure did if she wanted to get a vote. She hung up on me.

Today I got a flier from the Mettee-McCutchon campaign.  It reads, “In the tradition of great leadership….Monterey County 4th district Democratic Leaders Endorse Ila Mettee-McCutchon for Supervisor.” It shows a picture of Col. Mettee-McCutchon shaking hands with Bill Clinton back when she was garrison commander of one of the local army institutions in the mid-90s. The “endorsements” inclue only three current elected officials, whose “Democratic” credentials are spotty.

Link to image is here:

http://i295.photobucket.com/al…

On the reverse, it reads “Join these fine Monterey County Democratic Leaders and Organizatiosn by voting for Ila Mettee-McCutchon for Supervisor, June 3, 2008.” The “Democratic” organizatios it lists aren’t democratic organizations: the best she can pull up are four law enforcement groups and one (only one) of the firefighters’ unions.

NOWHERE ON THIS FLIER DOES IT MENTION HER REPUBLICAN ENDORSEMENTS. Nor, for example, that she wanted to censor rap on the usual grounds (wouldn’t allow Snoop Doggy Dogg to appear due to the bad bad influence music has on our youth), or the $70 million in tax breaks she sought for a developer as soon as she was appointed to office. You can read more about the differences between the two candidates here.

I have no objections to politicians who want to run on a pro-growth platform. Make your case. Frankly I have some of my own objections to extremism in the slow-growth camp, and see developing new housing as a big issue in this county, so it’s not like I myself am immune to persuasion about a smart growth plan.

But I find a candidate who can’t put forth her actual views in campaign fliers, who makes it appear as if she’s a Democrat by mentioning “Democratic Leadership” three times on a campaign flier illustrated with a picture of President Clinton, and who employs misleading and apparently-paid phone workers to deliver inaccurate campaign messages, completely unqualified for office, however. I can’t trust an elected official to be honest in office if she’s not even honest about her political stripes and supporters.

Beware your own  wolves trying desperately to find wool coats. I just hope we have enough savvy voters here to ignore the old switcheroo they’re trying to pull here. Please help me spread the word by Rec’ing this diary, and forward it to any Monterey County voters you might happen to know.

I’ve written to the Monterey County Herald (which endorsed Mettee-McCutchon), we’ll see if they publish it.