Daily Archives: October 22, 2008

Marriage Equality

Prop 8 Tidbits: An Update and a Lying Ad

7 Comments

• An update on a previous story I wrote about Knobbe Martens, the law firm for whom I used to work.  While I included the $25K+ worth of contributions to Yes on Prop 8, I neglected to mention that there were at least $2K of contributions to No on 8. So, to those attorneys at Knobbe who stand on the side of equality: Thank you.

• Here are some photos from a No on Prop 8 fundraiser in LA last night.  I think in one of those pictures you can see former Speaker of the Assembly Fabian Nunez dancing the Robot.  Get Funky!  The event raised about $3.9 million for No on 8, including some interesting fundraising techniques and performances from Melissa Etheridge and Mary J. Blige. From Karen Ocamb at Bilerico:

Bruce Cohen, the Oscar-winning producer who co-produced the event, brought her back onstage to announce that a gay couple was pledging $50,000 if Etheridge would sing at their wedding. She said yes and the crowd erupted in applause.

*  *  *  *  *

With heads bobbing, and couples clutching each other’s hands, Bruce Cohen dancing wildly, the scene looked and felt more like a secular revival than a political concert. Blige opened up about how she had survived being her own worse enemy, when on one would accept her – and “you say, ‘No more…no more pain, no more tears…” as tears started welling up in the eyes of those listening, identifying. “I chose to win!” she said, raising her fist in the air – to screams of glee and thunderous applause.

• And here we have another lying Prop 8 video. Despite the fact that California law allows parents to pull their students out of any class they deem objectionable, despite the BYU law professor who wrote that these claims were not true.  This isn’t subjective. This isn’t open to various opinions. This is the law.  And the Religious Right is lying to you, to me, and to 37 million Californians.

It’s up to all these Californians to see through the lies of the Religious Right. It’s up to us to say that they can’t come to California from Utah, from Colorado, from wherever and change our laws and to write discrimination into the constitution. It’s up to Californians to say No on Prop 8, we treat all Californians equally.

Economy

Retirees Are Facing a 401(k) Savings Crisis

1 Comment

(Welcome Rep. Miller to Calitics.   – promoted by David Dayen)

Today, I chaired a U.S. House Committee on Education and Labor hearing in San Francisco where we examined how the current financial crisis is affecting retirement savings.  Witnesses told us that after a lifetime of planning and saving, a growing number of retirees are facing shrinking 401(k)s and increasing insecurity as a result of the ongoing financial crisis.  While this crisis may have started on Wall Street, it's Main Street that stands to suffer the most. More than ever before, there is an urgent need to help Americans strengthen their retirement savings.

We also learned today that U.S. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation lost at least $3 billion in stock investments during the last fiscal year through August, and invested a significant portion of its funds in mortgage-backed securities. The head of the PBGC, Charles Millard, will testify before the committee on Friday in Washington regarding the agency's financial problems.

Taxpayers subsidize 401(k) plans by $80 billion dollars annually. For a taxpayer investment of this size, we must ensure that the structure of 401(k)s adequately protects the nest eggs of participating workers.

At a minimum, we know that much greater transparency and disclosures in 401(k) investment policies are needed, to protect workers from “hidden” fees that could be eating deeply into their retirement accounts.

And with seniors poised to suffer the most from the current economic turmoil, we must suspend an unfair tax penalty for seniors who don’t take a minimum withdrawal from their depleted retirement accounts, like 401(k)s.  We’ll push to enact legislation based on a bill Rep. Rob Andrews recently introduced, so that seniors who have seen their retirement savings evaporate don’t get penalized for trying to build those savings back up.

At the hearing today, we heard from Roberta Quan, a retired school teacher from San Pablo, CA, who is also caring for her husband who has Alzheimer’s:  “The recent unstable financial crisis is having a devastating effect on my life.  A lifetime of savings in catastrophic decline is demoralizing. The bottom line is that I am retired and unable to re-earn lost funds.”

Steve Carroll, a retired writer from Petaluma, CA, told us: “Our monthly budget has been severely depleted for life.  We still have our IRAs. But, as they are in mutual stock funds they are so far down in value that selling any of them right now, as the law requires of [my partner] Chuck, the loss would be an enormous percentage of the investment.”

Current regulations require account holders of 401(k)-type account to withdraw a minimum amount of money every year after they reach 70 ½ years old. If seniors do not take out a minimum amount based on an Internal Revenue Service formula, they are subject to a 50 percent penalty. For instance, if an individual fails to withdraw $4,000, they would be assessed a $2,000 tax the next year.

Registered investment advisor Mark Davis told us that a temporary repeal of minimum required distribution rules could help some retirees.  On October 10, Rep. Andrews and I called on U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson to suspend the tax penalty for retirees who are forced to make withdrawals but want to have additional time to rebuild their retirement savings.

Other witnesses spoke about problems with the current retirement security system where individually directed 401(k)-type plans have become a worker's main retirement savings vehicle. Where investment decisions were once made by professionals managing a traditional pension portfolio on behalf of workers, the responsibility of picking the right investments and implementing retirement savings strategies are left up to an individual account holder.

The Education and Labor Committee passed legislation earlier in the year that would help workers shop around for the best retirement investment options by providing complete information on the fees taken from their retirement accounts. According to the Government Accountability Office, a 1 percentage point difference in fees can reduce retirement benefits by nearly 20 percent.

We started this investigation last week, as part of a series of hearings the House is conducting to investigate the causes of the financial crisis, and what additional steps are needed to protect homeowners, workers, and families.

Last week, Peter Orszag, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, told us that American workers have lost more than $2 trillion in retirement savings over the last fifteen months – an astonishing loss that could lead workers to delay their retirement.

Several experts also told us that workers closest to retirement could suffer the most from this financial tsunami.  But while the housing and financial crises are intensifying retirement insecurity, we also know that workers’ retirement savings have been declining for quite some time.  Rising unemployment, stagnating wages and benefits, and a shift away from more traditional defined-benefit pension plans have been making it much harder for workers to save for retirement while juggling other expenses.

Now, the number of investors taking loans on their 401(k) accounts is increasing. And hardship withdrawals are also increasing. T. Rowe Price estimates a 14 percent increase in hardship withdrawals just in the first eight months of 2008. And, all the signs point to an increased frequency of 401(k) loans and hardship withdrawals in the coming year.

As other committees’ hearings have revealed, many of the Wall Street titans responsible for this crisis have still escaped with their plush perks, lavish spa trips and golden parachutes intact. This is an outrage. For too long, the Bush administration anything goes economic policy allowed Wall Street to go unchecked.

As we look at how we can rebuild workers’ retirement savings and our nation’s economy, the Democratic Congress will continue to conduct this much-needed oversight on behalf of the American people.

Being able to save for retirement after a lifetime of hard work has always been a core tenet of the American Dream. We can’t allow the promise of a secure retirement for workers to become a casualty of the financial crisis.

Cross-posted at the EdLabor Journal.

Uncategorized

CA-46: Debate Fireworks and Ratf*#!kers for Rohrabacher

1 Comment

So Debbie Cook and Dana Rohrabacher debated yesterday afternoon.  I could write 1000 words about it, but I could also just provide you with this picture, which says it all:

As in, “I can’t believe I actually have to run for my seat.”

But if you want to know about the substance, Todd Beeton, who was there, has a writeup.

But even though crazy Dana is always likely to say some crazy shit, and he did, what I took away from the debate most of all was how unabashedly progressive Debbie Cook is and how lucky we would be to have her in Congress. This is a fairly red (albeit getting bluer every day) district, one where you might expect the Democratic challenger to moderate her views for the electorate. Nope, not Debbie. I’ll write about the debate more later, hopefully with video, but here are just three of the issues where Debbie shined today:

• On global warming, Cook, who is an energy expert, in response to Rohrabacher’s global warming denier nonsense, asserted “The debate is over. I can’t get into a discussion over climate change, to me it’s just a fact, we need to move on to solving our oil depletion problems.”

• On Proposition 8: “I strongly oppose Proposition 8, I am in favor of full marriage equality.”

• And on healthcare reform, Cook advocated for a single-payer Medicare for all model. “Health care is a right every American should enjoy.”

Yes, Crazy Dana denied global warming.  Again.  Not sure if he attributed it to dinosaur flatulence this time.  But here’s the actual discussion:

Rohrabacher went on to accuse those “who claim that humankind is changing the climate,” including Cook and his other opponents, of fear mongering.

“[They are] trying to stampede us into policies that will take us towards technologies that just deal with carbon dioxide and have nothing to do with personal health,” Rohrabacher said.

Cook, who led Huntington Beach in joining the U.S. Mayor’s Agreement on Global Warming, dismissed Rohrabacher’s claims, stating that the scientific debate over climate change had ended.

“Debating climate change is just a distraction from the real work that we all need to do,” Cook said. “Humans are overtaking the ability of the planet to sustain itself. Now, we need to move toward a green future because that’s the only thing that can save us.”

Apparently, Rohrabacher’s plan was to relate everything back to illegal immigration and the Wall Street bailout package, which he would have replaced with capital gains tax cuts and more deregulation, so I’m not seeing Mr. Populism in there.

Cook stayed on message and did not take the bait.  Here was her explanation.

After the debate, Cook explained why she refused to go after the incumbent.

“It’s not my style,” she said. “You don’t want to make the same mistake that the Republicans have made with McCain in going negative, negative, negative. I think it’s quite apparent that he’s done nothing for this district in 20 years. And if people don’t understand that, me telling them isn’t going to change anything.”

“He’s an a**,” Cook continued. “I can’t respond to him. He’s a liar.”

Meanwhile, I noticed something very interesting in Rohrabacher’s latest fundraising report:

Donald Segretti

self

09/27/2008

250.00

attorney

Yes, that Donald Segretti.  The head of the “dirty tricks” division of the Nixon campaign, the guy who stole stationery from Ed Muskie and wrote all kinds of lies about possible Nixon opponents in 1972, alleging Scoop Jackson had an illegitimate child and Hubert Humphrey was guilty of sexual misconduct and Muskie had insulted Franch-Canadians.  By the way, Segretti was a co-chair of John McCain’s Presidential campaign in 2000.  And he was Karl Rove’s mentor in ratfucking.

Donald Segretti offered J. Timothy Gratz $100.00 per month, plus expenses, to co-ordinate these projects. Gratz agreed to work on the project and he was given an advance payment of $50.00. Gratz later told Anthony Ulasewicz that “although the whole incident seemed strange” he agreed to help “as most of the ideas he suggested seemed like they were worth doing anyway”. However, Gratz claimed he told Karl Rove, Chairman of the College Republican National Committee, about this dirty tricks campaign. We now know that Rove himself was part of Segretti’s campaign. In fact, he probably played a leading role in this dirty tricks operation. Rove had become friends with CIA asset, Robert F. Bennett in 1968. According to one report, Bennett became a “mentor of Rove’s”.

In 1970, Karl Rove used a false identity to enter the campaign office of Democrat Alan J. Dixon, who was running for Illinois State Treasurer, and stole 1000 sheets of paper with campaign letterhead. Rove then printed fake campaign rally fliers promising “free beer, free food, girls and a good time for nothing,” and distributed them at rock concerts and homeless shelters, with the effect of disrupting Dixon’s rally.

Nice company that Rohrabacher attracts.

Donate to Debbie Cook: Having the money to get her message out is all that stands between her and victory.

Uncategorized

Did Congressman Lungren Ignore Potential National Security Threat?

This is a local story that bleeds into the area of national security and the congressional races.  Dan Lungren was warned about the situation last year but apparently completely ignored it.  This involves the smuggling of foreign soils into the United States.  These soils contain biological matter and in particular micro fungi and other microbes.  This company then bio-engineered these organisms to create “organic pesticides.”  Unfortunately one worker at least is now gravely ill and company employees bragged of smuggling the soil past customs.

Lungren may be locked in a competitive race with Bill Durston, this is a seat we could take away from Republicans if this type of news gets out and catches the attention of local voters.  Lungren sits as a Ranking Member on Homeland Security Subcommittee in the House.  He brags of his SAFE ports act from 2006, but here is a case where he was less than enthusiastic about going to the mat for national security.

From the People’s Vanguard of Davis:

   Did Congressman Lungren Ignore Potential National Security Threat Posed by AgraQuest’s Importation of Foreign Soils?

   Last week, the Sacramento News and Review reported that an AgraQuest worker David Bell contracted a series of respiratory infections during his time working for the company in 1999. Now nearly nine years later, he continues to suffer from the debilitating illness.

   The Vanguard raised questions about the environmental impact at the Kennedy Place location for AgraQuest. Questions were most specifically brought forth from Mr. Bell himself who informed the Vanguard that as an employee of AgraQuest he was told to dispose of waste material on a concrete culvert. The Vanguard also showed photographic evidence taken from several years later that suggests the possibility of contamination of the outside worksite.

   In a follow up interview with David Bell, he warned us that the ventilation system at the 1105 Kennedy Place office building needs to be fully investigated as well due to the activities that took place in the building and the possibility that microbes ended up in the ventilation system.

   During the course of the investigation into both Mr. Bell’s health and the workplace conditions, the Vanguard has learned that AgraQuest may have been shipping soil and other biological samples into the United States on commercial flights without proper licenses. Moreover, David Bell reports that employees at AgraQuest at the time of his employment bragged about sneaking a green suitcase full of dirt past U.S. customs on a flight from Chile.

   Doug Haney, an advocate for human and patients’ rights, who specializes in mold and microbe exposure, reported this to Congressman Dan Lungren in November of 2007 during a meeting with Gold River Field Office Staffers Alexandria Snyder and Michelle Panos. Congressman Lungren (R-CA) is the ranking Republican member on the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Interestingly enough, in 2006 he co-authored the SAFE Act (Security and Freedom Enhancement Act) with Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA), a bill that was designed to improve security at U.S. ports.

   Despite warnings about the possible implications from such lax customs handling in our war on terrorism, it appears at least from Mr. Haney’s viewpoint that neither Congressman Lungren nor his staff followed through on these warnings.

FULL ARTICLE

Uncategorized

CA-46 Debate: Rohrabacher V. Cook On Gay Marriage

1 Comment

Rohrabacher:

“It’s a wonderful thing when you find the person you love, but that does not mean that you change the legal structure in this country,” Rohrabacher said. “I don’t think we should change the definition of marriage in our country to make a small number of people in our country feel comfortable.”

Cook:

“I support full marriage equality,” Cook said, noting the concerns of her gay friends. “You really have to walk in someone’s shoes who’s being discriminated against…Nobody wants to be civil unionized.”

Budget

The LA Times Admits It: More Democrats Means A Better Budget

2 Comments

It’s really refreshing to see an article like this in a California newspaper. From today’s LA Times comes a story with the headline California’s next budget battle could get easier:

Democratic gains of even a couple of seats on Nov. 4 could ease California’s annual struggle to match spending with revenue. Eight Republican votes are now needed to pass a budget by the required two-thirds majority of lawmakers. If voters reject Republican candidates in some districts, Democrats may have a smaller anti-tax bloc to battle and fewer arms to twist to pass a budget.

This is something we at Calitics have known for years, but the media typically resists speaking this particular truth to the public. Instead they prefer to blame “partisanship” or some unknown budget god for creating this crisis. Of course the budget problems are a direct cause of Republicans, whether it was Prop 13, or their reckless 1998 tax cuts, or Arnold’s VLF and budget balancing bonds, or recent Yacht Party-induced budget delays.

The solution has always been obvious: elect more Democrats and punish Republicans like Mimi Walters and Tom McClintock who don’t vote for budgets at all.

Yet another reason for California progressives to Stay for Change – don’t travel to swing states, travel instead to the key swing districts in the Assembly and the Senate, races that will be the difference between a sane and fair budget and another crippling Republican-induced delay.

UPDATE by Brian: This should be paired with the Dan Walters article I put into the Open Thread yesterday.  Walters points out that after November 4:

As a practical matter, then, it will be easier, perhaps much easier, to enact the new taxes that Schwarzenegger, Democrats and groups such as the Education Coalition want when a new Legislature begins its session in December.

The chattering class is slowly getting it…

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Budget

Tuesday Open Thread

• After he gets his way on redistricting, Arnold wants to go after open primaries. They have the system in Washington, and I’m not sure that it has produced the “desired” results.  I suppose the desire is more moderates, but call me unconvinced for the time being.

• This is big from Dan Walters:

Republicans insisted on a no-new-taxes budget this year and because their votes were needed to pass any budget, they got it. They’re maintaining their no-new-taxes stance even as the budget crisis deepens. But clearly, one reason for delaying any new budget action is that in another few weeks, Republicans will be less powerful.

This is shaping up as a strong election for Democrats, perhaps a real wave; they could come very close to two-thirds majorities in both legislative houses, and perhaps even go over the top.

As a practical matter, then, it will be easier, perhaps much easier, to enact the new taxes that Schwarzenegger, Democrats and groups such as the Education Coalition want when a new Legislature begins its session in December.

We’ve known that for a while now. This will be a Democratic Year, but now the High Broderists are taking notice. Look out Republicans, but more important than that is Walters point: Dems will have more power post-November 4.  We should use it.

• Yup, they are doing drive-thru voting in Orange County. Only in the OC.

• Julie Lee, the woman who helped bring down former SoS Kevin SHelley, got probation on her corruption charges.

Uncategorized

[Updated] Proposition 4: no, No, and NO again!

2 Comments

Proposition 4 is another bad anti-choice proposal:  parental notification, an automatic child abuse investigation if the young woman doesn’t want to notify her parents and can’t find a judge to approve.  And if she is able to find a judge, the judge then has to declare her mature enough, and the judges have to make annual reports, county-by-county, on how many abortions are approved for young women each year.  

Details over the flip.

Proposition 4 on the general election ballot is an initiative measure to amend the California State Constitution to impede a minor’s ability to obtain an abortion, even in the case of rape or incest.  This is all too familiar.  Twice in the past three years, Californians have narrowly defeated two similar measures — Propositions 73 in November, 2005 and 85 in November, 2006.  But this time, the measure is in danger of passing.  A poll (caution: .pdf file) conducted by the Field Research Corporation has it at Yes 49, No 41, with 10 percent undecided as of September 26th.  All of this in a state that is 71% pro-choice.  

Proposition 4 changes the California Constitution to prohibit abortion for minors caution — large .pdf file — until 48 hours after physician notifies the young woman’s parent or legal guardian.  To make matters worse, it mandates reporting requirements, including reports from physicians regarding abortions on minors, and it authorizes civil damage awards against physicians for violations.  

It gets worse for young women in potentially abusive situations.  In this case, the physician would be allowed to skip the notification only if an equivalent notice has been delivered

… to an adult family member designated by the unemancipated minor and has made a written report of known or suspected child abuse concerning to unemancipated minor to to the appropriate law enforcement or public child protective agency.  Such report shall be based on a minor’s written statement that she fears physical, sexual, or severe emotional abuse from a parent who would otherwise be notified and that her fear is based on a pattern of physical, sexual, or emotional abuse of her exhibited by a parent.  The physician shall also include the minor’s statement with his or her report and shall also retain a copy of the statement and the report in the minor’s medical records.  The physician shall also include with the notice a letter informing the adult family member that a report of known or suspected child abuse has been made concerning the minor and identifying the agency to which the report was made.  The minor shall be informed that the notice and the letter will be delivered to the adult family member she has designated.

(proposed section 32(e))

A young woman facing the choice of an abortion is likely going through enough turmoil without having to ensnare her family into a child abuse investigation, especially if that family is dysfunctional.  

The initiative-backers attempt to throw a few bones by providing notification exceptions for medical emergency or parental waiver, and permitting courts to waive notice based on clear and convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.  But court proceedings are intimidating and a young woman

must appear personally in the proceedings in juvenile court

 

It gets worse:

Each court shall provide annually to the Judicial Council, in a manner to be prescribed by the Judicial Council to ensure confidentiality of the unemancipated minors filing petitions, a report of the number of petitions filed, the number of petitions granted … deemed granted, .. or denied … said reports to be publicly available …

(emphasis added)

Why publicly available?  So the wingnuts can try to intimidate and remove judges siding with from young women who are seeking refuge in the courts.

There is also a provision for civil lawsuits of medical personnel and their assistants!  It includes awarding of statutory damages of $10,000  by a parent “wrongfully denied notification” even if actual damages are much less.  The proposed statue of limitation is four years after the young woman becomes an adult OR four years after a parent discovers a failure to comply whichever is later.  

Who is behind Proposition Four?

Proposition 4’s major supporters are winemaker Don Sebastiani and publisher James Holman of the alternative San Diego Reader.  From ballotpedia:

As of September 27, 2008, the six largest donors to Prop. 4 are:

James Holman, $1,375,590. (Of this, $1.35 million is listed as a loan)

Don Sebastiani, $530,000

Knights of Columbus, $200,000

Life Legal Defense Foundation, $50,000 (who are these people?)

The Lenawee Trust, $100,000 (again, who are these people?)

The Caster Family Trust, $100,000 (who is Caster?)

(Bold print added)

Ben Stein is also mentioned as a supporter on the pro Prop 4 web site (No, I will not link to it).

Here are some ideas to help defeat Proposition 4.  Please add more in the comments:  

– Contact Planned Parenthood or The Campaign For Teen Safety (No on Prop 4)

– Contact Assembly and State Senate candidates and request their support.  Request their campaigns to distribute No On Prop 4 literature along with their own.  (I spoke with mine today and she has already begun to include the No On Prop 4 message.)

– Contact our statewide Democratic elected officials.  Request they get help the word out:

Senator Dianne Feinstein – (202) 224-3553

Senator Barbara Boxer – (202) 224-3841

Lt Gov John Garamendi – (916) 445-8994

Jerry Brown – Attorney General (916) 445-9555

Debra Bowen – Secretary of State (916) 653-7244

John Chiang – Comptroller (916) 445-2636

Bill Lockyer – Treasurer (916) 653-2995

Jack O’Connell – Superintendent of Public Instruction (916) 319-0800

Betty Yee – Board of Equalization District 1 (916) 445-4081

Judy Chu – Board of Equalization District 4 (916) 445-4154

– Attend Obama-Biden rallies/meetings and inform the people you meet there of this measure.  Enlist their support.  Ask them to help spread the word.

– Boycott Sebasitani wines.

   — If anyone has Sebastiani brand wine, get together with friends who have some, videotape the wine being poured down the toilet and the bottles being smashed, then post the video on YouTube.  

   — Contact stores carrying Sebastiani wines and request them to remove the products.  

   — Contact everyone you know, in California and out, and have them join the boycott

– Write Letters to the Editor.  They still get read.

– Call sympathetic radio talk shows and get the word out.

– Bring this issue up at local club/central committee meetings.

If you are in the San Diego area, contact businesses that advertise in the San Diego Reader and request they pull their ads.  Support those businesses that do.  Boycott those that refuse.  Also, look at starting another paper to compete with the San Diego Reader and siphon off their ad revenue.  

We need to move out on this quickly.  Early voting has begun.  The good news is a little bit of effort will go a long way to defeat this ugly measure.  

Update

Sebastiani Wines Brand Names and Contact Information

This news story mentions some brand names under which Sebastiani Wines are marketed.  (Hat Tip to FoundingFatherDAR on DailyKos).

 B Side Cabernet Sauvignons will be offered in very small lots at price points from $20 to $30 a bottle. The wine will be marketed through the Three Loose Screws division of Don & Sons. B Side distribution will be focused on upscale urban restaurants and key independent retailers.

Don Sebastiani & Sons is a family-owned wine negociant firm specializing in the marketing of upscale varietal wines. Principals Don Sebastiani and sons, Donny and August, are third and fourth generation California vintners and merchants. The company is headquartered in Sonoma Valley and has a winery in the Napa Valley.  Don Sebastiani & Sons’ fast-growing The Other Guys portfolio is currently expanding at an annual growth rate of 200%: the more established Three Loose Screws portfolio includes Impact Hot Brands Smoking Loon and Pepperwood Grove.

(Bold type added)

Contact Sebastiani Wines.  Let them know you are no longer buying their product … and tell them why.

Don Sebastiani & Sons

Three Loose Screws Wine Co.

P.O. Box 1248

Sonoma, CA 95476

(707) 933-1704

The Other Guys

485 First Street West

Sonoma, CA 95476

(877) 996-8463

[email protected]

Also, contact local restaurants and request they quit serving Sebastiani Wines (or we will boycott them, too).

Uncategorized

Live in a Safe Democratic District? Adopt-a-Candidate today!

3 Comments

Do you live in a safe Democratic Congressional district? If so, please join me and “Adopt-A-Candidate” for the final two week stretch of campaign season.

How do you “adopt-a-candidate”? It’s easy.

* Find a worthy Democratic congressional candidate in your state, or in a region you care about, who has potential to beat their opponent.

* Contribute to the candidate’s campaign, as though they were representing you.

* Promote your adopted candidate to anyone you know in that district, and write diaries and posts about them on blogs encouraging others to contribute to the candidate too.

What are the benefits of adopting a candidate?

* You’ll help get another Democrat elected to Congress, which will provide your own congressmember with an ally in Washington, and make it easier to get important legislation passed in the Obama administration.

* You’ll learn about the demographics and voting habits of another Congressional District. (And knowing the demographics makes watching election returns so much more exciting!)

* You’ll feel like you made a difference. (Even if your adoptee doesn’t win, you’ll have raised their public profile  so they’ll have an easier time raising funds and getting support next time they run for office.)

* When your adopted candidate wins, you’ll feel like you have two members of Congress representing you.

I adopted Debbie Cook in CA-46 through the encouragement of some fine folks I met on political blogs, and she’s been the best candidate I could ever ask for. I encourage any of you living in safe districts to go out there and “Adopt-a-Candidate” now!!! It’s only a 2-week commitment, but the benefits may last a lifetime.

Uncategorized

CA-04: I Think McClintock’s Out Of Money

3 Comments

Politico picks up the story of Tom McClintock’s fundraising woes, and the fact that he was in the red as of October 1.  I didn’t know this:

But according to his campaign finance reports, he heads into the home stretch without much campaign cash left. McClintock spent more money than he raised, ending September with just $94,000 in his campaign account.

He is not currently airing airing any television ads, and hasn’t been for the last two weeks.

If he’s off the air right now, it’s going to be next to impossible for him to get back on.  The NRCC doesn’t have a whole lot of money to play with, especially considering all the incumbents they have to defend.  And the GOTV efforts, radio, phone calls, mailers, etc., cost plenty of money.  If McClintock’s living from hand to mouth right now, he’s not going to get back on TV.  And needless to say, Charlie Brown has plenty of money to blanket TV in the final two weeks.  It’s incredible.

And what’s amazing is that this is how McClintock handled the primary as well.  He overspent early and wound up running on fumes the last couple weeks.  It wasn’t a big deal against Doug Ose, but against a formidable opponent like Brown it’ll matter.  The supposed fiscal conservative can’t even manage his own campaign stash.