This article by Frank Russo got me pretty depressed about the state of California politics.

There’s something amiss in the state of Sacramento-and it has something to do with the state’s banking and lending institutions and the stacking of committees that deal with them with legislators that are either weak kneed or just a bit overfriendly with the industry that they should be protecting us from.

What else is new?

Well, this afternoon, the Senate Committee on Banking, Finance, and Insurance, Chaired by Senator Michael Machado of Stockton, will be hearing two bills that have been gutted down behind a closed door process such that today’s public proceedings on them may amount to little more than a sham […]

It’s difficult enough to get bills passed through the Assembly Banking Committee and the Assembly floor when going up against the behemoth banking industry which has a lot of spare change to throw around in legislative races and many high paid lobbyists scurrying about the Capitol.

It looks like AB 69 by Assemblymember Ted Lieu, originally a great bill, has been amended since it left the Assembly-and before today’s hearing-such that the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research and policy organization dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices, initially listed in support, has withdrawn that position.

Read the whole thing.  The bottom line is that in this recent primary election special interest groups spent nearly $10 million, and a good bulk of them were business interests who are now playing inside Democratic primaries in traditionally liberal areas to sell low-information voters a bill of goods.  This doesn’t always work, but it works just enough to frustrate progress in Sacramento.

Lesson 3: The business lobby can influence Democratic politics, even in a largely minority district.

Former Assemblyman Rod Wright, a moderate, defeated liberal Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally — reversing the pattern of leftist victories — in a South Los Angeles Senate district after business donors invested roughly $1 million in Wright’s campaign.

“Business has tended to stay out of black politics,” says Sragow, who advises the business lobby. “But some black politicians ask, ‘Why? We’re always out looking for economic development in our districts.’

“The business community has decided it can’t get a Republican Legislature, so it will play in districts where there’s a Democratic candidate it can work with.”

A major Democratic strategist has all but said that Don Perata shepherded along the candidacy of Rod Wright, and actually put it in terms that come very close to illegal coordination (note “a flurry of record spending by closely-aligned IE groups focusing all of their attention and ammo in one, concerted direction.”)

This is the game.  IE’s are increasingly the only way to reach the electorate, as the low-dollar revolution has pretty much not reached the Golden State.  So the Chamber of Commerce and industry groups fill the pockets of the politicians who, once elected, feel obligated to repay them.  The US Constitution allows the right for anyone to petition their government for redress of grievances; outlawing lobbyists or the ability of merchants to consult their politicians is not tenable.  What is tenable is to either create a parallel public financing system by employing the residents of the state to pay attention to local politics enough to fund progressive-minded candidates, or to bring clean money to California, where it’s arguably needed more than anywhere else, and end the pernicious influence of special interests in state elections.  Otherwise, you get a steady parade of mortgage relief bills that offer no relief.

The Orange County Register is pretty despondent about Californians rejecting Prop 98, a deceptive little scheme using eminent domain as a stalking horse for the installation of a totally new system of property rights. A system where ownership is absolute and sacrosanct, the needs of the community be damned.  In the end, Californians rejected this ruse by about 61% of the vote.  So, the Register thinks you are an idiot, as they pretty much tell you with this headline:

“Editorial: Voters give away some of their rights”

Now, the Register isn’t your garden variety, James Dobsian, Right-wing paper. It’s “libertarian” in a Grover Norquist kind of way; they’d pretty much love to see the Orange County staff consist entirely of 3 cops and a security fence to keep the poor people away from the rich ones. They rarely editorialize in favor of propositions, as to the Register, all government action is bad. Every so often they get behind one, typically one that would gimp government some how.  Prop 98 was right up their alley.

And boy did you make a bad decision. The Gum-a-ment is going to take all of your stuff! Boogy, Boogy, Boogy.

Expect cities to become particularly aggressive in using these police powers in ways detailed in the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2005 Kelo decision. Don’t say we didn’t warn you.

The problem with this analysis? Kelo has been in effect since 2005, and the number of eminent domain proceedings hasn’t skyrocketed. We haven’t been just steamrolled with gentrification across the landscape and people wailing and gnashing their teeth.  The truth is that eminent domain is very rarely invoked. Statistics are a bit murky because typically these issues are resolved through settlements, but the number of eminent domain incidents is so low as to be statistically insignificant.

The Register will whine about now that they know they’ve won on 99, cities will run amok.  But they have no evidence or reason to suggest that, when boiled down, all you find is naked supposition.

Now, stoopit voters, would you please quit voting so we can get back to the business of plundering the state?

Today’s New York Times posted a misleading article that uses the relationship between SEIU President Andy Stern and Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott as evidence of a “slowing down” of the Wal-Mart campaigns.

While we cannot speak for Wal-Mart Watch, everyone should know WakeUpWalMart.com has NO intention of letting Wal-Mart off the hook.  None. Zero. Zilch.

This Times reporter may buy Wal-Mart’s PR stunts and others may think Wal-Mart is worth sitting down with, but we know Wal-Mart only responds to one thing: pressure from consumers and public officials.

Because of that, we’re going FULL-speed ahead with a 2008 plan that is about to kick into high gear.

We will soon begin very extensive television and field campaigns in six markets throughout the country. The campaigns represent the most intensive consumer education programs WakeUpWalMart.com has EVER done.  For the first time in our HISTORY, we’ll use poll-tested messages, months of hard-hitting TV and radio ads, as well as mail and phones, to share the truth about Wal-Mart.

It’s unfortunate that the Times chose to ignore what we have done together this year, and focus so much on Stern and Wal-Mart Watch instead.   By any measure, it’s been a good year. Here’s just a sampling of what we’ve done:

— Our work to force Wal-Mart to respect military moms: http://youtube.com/watch?v=yaVoPoGE7Qo

— Our work to expose Wal-Mart’s effort to help China, not America: http://youtube.com/watch?v=3lyhEMBGN-

— Our petition to get Wal-Mart workers to ask the company do the right thing: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/feature/debbie_shank/

— Our web video “Live Better”: http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/v…

— And our email list which has grown by over 100,000 individuals ust this year.

Wal-Mart is foolish if they think they can make a few window-dressing changes and then call it a day. They are also silly if they think one New York Times story is going to change anything.  

It’s going to be a very busy six months.  I hope everyone is ready.

The WakeUpWalMart Team

Crossposted from my high speed rail blog

According to an article the LA Times just put up on their website, Union Pacific Railroad is balking at sharing its right of way with high speed trains. For context, the CHSRA plan has always involved building HSR-specific tracks alongside existing rails currently owned by UP, to minimize environmental impacts and disruption to existing urban development. So this has the potential to be a serious problem:

Officials at Union Pacific railroad recently told the California High Speed Rail Authority that they have safety and operational concerns about running a bullet train close to lumbering freight trains.

“Just look at what happened in L.A. a few years ago,” said Scott Moore, a Union Pacific vice president, citing the 2005 crash of a Metrolink passenger train that killed 11 and hampered rail operations.

“Those accidents happen.”

This rationale is flatly ridiculous. As UP well knows, the accident referred to is the subject of an ongoing trial of Juan Manuel Alvarez who tried to commit suicide by parking his truck on the Metrolink tracks near Glendale. He did this on an at-grade crossing, which will be eliminated as part of the HSR project. And as is the case around the world, the HSR tracks will be fenced off from the public, making it difficult for a similar accident to occur. In fact, accidents of any kind are very rare on HSR systems, and it is very uncommon for HSR trains to hit passenger vehicles.

Further, I know of no specific problems where HSR trains have ever had an issue sharing tracks with any other trains – and I find it interesting that UP had to cite the 2005 Metrolink crash, since they couldn’t come up with any actual issues of HSR and freight running in close proximity. Trains commonly share multiple tracks next to each other without any problems.

So we have to ask what UP is really up to with this statement. I believe they are holding out for more money. They’ve done it before – several years ago Santa Cruz County resolved to purchase the branch line from Pajaro to Davenport, running through Santa Cruz and paralleling Highway 1, from UP. The negotiations dragged on for years as UP tried to overstate the value of the line and get the county to assume responsibility for all repairs of tracks and bridges – and when the county balked, UP threatened to refuse to sell the line. UP’s statement may well be a ploy for more money, some role in operations or profits from HSR, or other assurances from CHSRA and the state.

And of course, UP had no objection to – and has benefited greatly from – government-funded projects such as the Alameda Corridor.  For them to turn around and try and screw HSR is inconsistent at best. The state and federal governments should play hardball with UP over this – if they continue to drag their feet on negotiating with CHSRA, then perhaps UP doesn’t need the Alameda Corridor East, or the Colton flyover, or continued deregulation of the industry.

Some want to believe this is a crisis for HSR. If UP holds firm in its refusal to share ROW, there’s always eminent domain, but that would involve a long and drawn-out court process. If the CHSRA has to abandon the ROW-sharing plan, then they’ll need to completely redo the environmental impact reports, which could add 3-5 years to the construction time on the project.

That would be inconvenient, but it is long past time for us to get started on HSR. Gas prices and global warming have finally given urgency to HSR, and that should in turn give the public and their representatives the clarity of vision and sense of purpose to ensure that UP doesn’t hijack the project for their own concerns. State and federal political leaders need to ramp up the pressure on UP – and we need to do the same. High speed rail is too important for one company – even Union Pacific – to block. We can find ways to assuage their concerns while staying on track to get the high speed rail system approved and under construction by 2010.

Full disclosure: I work for the Courage Campaign

A day later than expected, a federal judge today ruled in Blackwater’s favor, ruling “that ‘the public interest weighs in favor’ of allowing the company to open its facility” in Otay Mesa. The ruling will allow Blackwater to occupy the facility, which they’re expected to do in the morning. Court hearings will continue on June 17th when the City of San Diego will again present its case that Blackwater misled city officials during the ministerial review of permits.  This doesn’t end the case, but it does rob the city of some of its thunder. The legal wrangling will continue, and in the meantime, Blackwater still has more permits pending that will hopefully receive quite a bit more scrutiny.

In related news, the political landscape shifted considerably in elections yesterday. Mayor Sanders avoided a runoff in his bid for a second term, which could either free him to do the right thing or lessen his concern for public opinion. Incumbent City Attorney Mike Aguirre will be heading for a runoff in November, coming in second to GOP candidate Jan Goldsmith. If activists locally are savvy and get the support they need, Blackwater can become a central issue in that campaign. That runoff also knocks termed-out City Council President Scott Peters out of the equation- it will be interesting to see what he does with the remainder of his time in office on this issue. He’s spoken out with us previously and his will be an important voice going forward.

As more develops, we’ll continue with the updates. The next date circled on my San Diego/Blackwater calendar is June 10, when Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army author Jeremy Scahill will be in town to speak on the depth and breadth of Blackwater in America (pdf).