Early this morning, there was a fire in West Oakland that spread to the West Oakland BART station.  The fire was reported to be hot enough to melt streetlights and signs.  As a result, the West Oakland BART station was closed this morning, effectively closing the Transbay tube connecting Oakland and San Francisco — stranding East Bay BART commuters.

This resulted in an increased demand for AC Transit and carpooling.  The busses were packed during rush hour, and  auto traffic across the Bay Bridge increased.  When there was an accident on the upper (westbound) span, traffic delays increased to over two hours.

One canceled rush hour on one leg of public transportation resulted in massive gridlock and tremendous costs to business (not to mention the stress on the commuters themselves.)  As we continue to make cuts in the subsidies to public transport, we’re going to shift traffic to overburdened bridges and roads.  

Today’s fire should be taken as a warning of an ominous future if we keep shifting people away from public transit.  

Yesterday, the 4th circuit appeals court, representing Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, affirmed a lower court ruling that upheld an FEC ruling that required “Real Truth About Obama” reveal the names of their donors.

The FEC has required the registration and donor disclosure of PAC that are “expressly advocating” in campaign activity.  This “expressly advocating” is defined in 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 as including groups that “could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s)”

As noted by electionlawblog, Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove’s superPAC registered as a 501c4, can be found to be expressly advocating and therefore the FEC can compel donor disclosure.

No word if RTAO will appeal.

We’re in a real fight for November, but big Netroots news

by Brian Leubitz

You probably noticed that I’ve been a little quiet around here. Okay, a lot quiet.  I’ve been working on a rather time consuming local election, the Vote No on A campaign, and that severely restricted how much time I’ve had.  So, while it has been slow on the blog, it has been anything but slow for me, California politics, or many other related issues.

Before I get back into the regular blogging saddle with some commentary about the election, I want to make a pitch for Netroots Nation 2013. For the first time, it is going to be held here in California.  From June 20-23, 2013, thousands of netroots activists will descend upon San Jose to discuss how to improve our nation. And where better than the Bay Area to discuss that?

But before we get to next year’s Netroots Nation, we have a pretty big election coming up in November. Sure there’s that Barack guy, but between the labor-busting Special Exemptions Act and the revenue measure, there is a lot to work for right here in California.  And as we saw with the elections last week, there will be a few Dem-on-Dem elections worth watching.

I’m going to try to be more active as we gear up for November, so stay tuned. And if you know of anybody that would like to write for Calitics, shoot me an email. The more the merrier.

By John M. Simpson

If you fly you’ve probably encountered the Transportation Security Administration’s highly intrusive and probably ineffective backscatter body scanners. Some security experts describe the technology that produces detailed, three-dimensional images of you as the equivalent of “a physically invasive strip-search.”

Privacy considerations aside, there is the strong possibility that the backscatter x-ray machines may subject us to unnecessary radiation.  That might be particularly threatening to frequent air travelers, flight crews, and individuals with greater sensitivity to radiation, such as children, pregnant women, the elderly, and cancer patients.

Our friends at EPIC are really on top of this issue having filed suit to block further deployment of the machines and are tracking the latest developments. But, what can you to do?

Just say, “no!”  



The TSA doesn’t advertise the fact prominently, but you can opt of the invasive electronic strip-search.  That’s what I always do. If everybody did, the TSA would stop deploying the gadgets and go back to simply using metal detectors all the time.

I’m writing this post at 36,000 feet, flying back to Los Angeles from Washington, DC where I was representing Consumer Watchdog at the Trans Atlantic Consumer Dialog. (More about TACD in another post).

I’ve just been through the TSA’s checkpoint at Dulles International airport.  The backscatter machine was being used. A metal detector with a TSA employee blocking it was right beside the backscatter machine. I dutifully removed everything from pockets, took off my shoes (no holes in socks) and belt (pants didn’t fall down). I put my laptop in a separate bin and made my way toward the machines.
   
Everyone ahead of me that I observed went through the backscatter machine.  Then a woman two people ahead of me took a little longer for whatever reason than the norm.

The woman directly in front of me was sent through the metal detector.  I stepped up for my turn, hoping to keep things simple and also be sent through the metal detector. It was not to be.  I was motioned toward the electronic strip-search.

Now I’m not particularly squeamish about nakedness. When I was a college kid I used to go skinny dipping all the time.  But the thing is, I did it when I decided to do it.  I didn’t strip when the government told me to do it and I don’t intend to do so now.

So, I pointed at the backscatter machine and politely said to the TSA lady, “I’m sorry, but I don’t do that.  I’ll need a male assist.”

I’ve been through this a lot of times and know the drill.

A male TSA agent came over and escorted me past the baggage scanner and had me point to my luggage. He asked me not to touch it and carried it to the area where they perform pat-downs.  He professionally and courteously explained what he was going to do, that he would use the back of his hands when he touched “sensitive areas.” He was wearing blue latex gloves. He then asked if I wanted the screening in a private area.

I told him no, as I always do, because the more people see that the pat-down alternative to an electronic strip-search is no big deal, then the more of us will eschew the  strip search.

The whole thing slowed my clearance by about five minutes which is trivial.  Next time I might have a little fun and ask if I can have a female assist.

Just kidding.  The important thing is you can just say “no” to the electronic strip-search and you should.

With state budgets in bad shape, many legislatures are turning to cutting state programs in desperate attempt to stem the tide of deficits. Among these plans is the move to shift Medicaid patients to a managed care program, which is happening in states such as Texas and Florida. Many see this as a way to save millions of dollars for state budgets, but this plan will only cost more in the long run.

According to a report from Bloomberg (emphasis ours):

Bloomberg Government health-care policy analyst Christopher Flavelle looked at managed-care plans in the five most populous states, including New York and California. His Bloomberg Government Study found large managed-care plans provided health care that was significantly and consistently worse than the national median.

For patients, the outcome may mean poorer health care. For states, the outcome may be higher costs when patients return to the system with more serious conditions.

Some states are starting to penalize the private managed-care providers because they perform poorly. The managed-care providers face the choice of doing a better job, or betting that states will continue to tolerate poor results.

This is not the first evidence that managed care systems are not a good solution for Medicaid, nor will it be the last. The only question remaining is whether states will listen, and take steps to course correct.

Managed care is bad for patients, and is also bad news for health care providers such as hospitals, doctors, and pharmacies. Many pharmacies under managed care will be forced to make the choice between remaining open and barely turning a profit, turning away longtime Medicaid patients they can no longer afford to service, or shutting their doors altogether. This is unacceptable.

Join Pharmacy Choice and Access Now, and fight back against managed care for Medicaid!

As expected some of the primaries last night have resulted in same-party runoffs for the general election.  Roughly 3.8mm people voted yesterday.  This contrasts with 13.7mm who voted int he last presidential general election; one wonders about the likely 10mm voters in November who will realize they’ve been denied options.  

Top two voting disenfranchises all but the major parties.  There will be no Green, Libertarian, Peace & Freedom, etc candidates for voters in November.  And, in some places, there will be no Democrats or Republicans.  (In some districts, the major party out of office did not have a challenger against an incumbent, these are not counted in my list of disenfranchised.)

The disenfranchised are (based on counts at 4:43AM today):

The Democrats of the 8th Congressional District:  They get to choose between Republican Paul Cook (10,682 votes) and Gregg Imus (10,353 votes).  Highest Democrat was Jackie Conaway (10,163).

Republicans of the 30th:  Brad Sherman (Dem, 31,866) vs Howard Berman (Dem, 24,320).  Highest Republican was Mark Reed (9,506)

Democrats of the 31st:  This is perhaps the worst:  GOP candidates combined for 27,145 votes and Democrats combined for 25,501:  51.6% to 48.4%.  Yet the general is two Republicans.  Greg Miller (14,057) vs Bob Dutton (13,088).  Top Democrat:  Pete Aguilar (12,016).

Republicans of the 33rd:  Henry Waxman (40,383) vs Bill Bloomfield (No preference, 21,831).  Top Republican:  Christopher David (13,564)

None of the State Senate primaries contested by both parties ended up with an intra-party general election, although four (out of 20 up for vote) went uncontested by the Republicans.

State Assembly districts with intra-primary general elections after both parties contested the primary are the 1st (Democrats disenfranchised), 5th (Democrats), 10th (Republicans), 18th (Republicans), 19th (Republicans), 20th (Republicans), 23rd (Democrats), 39th (Republicans), 46th (Republicans), 47th (Republicans), 50th (Republicans), and 72nd (Democrats).

With 100% of precincts reporting, the race for the 50th Assembly District ended with an upset, with community organizer Torie Osborn ending up in third place, and the Democratic Mayor of Santa Monica, Richard Bloom and Democratic Assemblywoman Betsy Butler surviving the June primary – only to face each other again in November.

Butler squeaked into first place by only 102 votes.

Her boss, Assembly Speaker John Perez, spent over a million dollars to get Butler those votes. But while he was busy waging a war against Torie Osborn in AD50, he lost the war for AD66, and ultimately the 2/3rds majority Democrats desperately needed to break Republican obstruction in Sacramento.

Let me explain.

The Democratic candidate in AD66, Al Muratsuchi, came in first against his Republican opponents and will face off against millionaire Republican Craig Huey in the fall. But while good news for Democrats in the short-run, the numbers look dismal for Muratsuchi in November.

With 100% of precincts reporting,Muratsuchi garnered 22,000 votes while his Republican opponents Huey and Nathan Mintz combined received nearly 33,000 votes. Mintz will certainly endorse Huey, so expect Republican voters to fall in line for the general election.

That’s a hell of an enthusiasm gap to overcome.

Muratsuchi received virturally no support from Sacramento even as Perez publicly  declared the Santa Monica/West Hollywood race his top priority, securing the California Democratic Party endorsement for Butler at the February convention, then directing or pressuring Assembly members, Sacramento unions, and PACS to dump over a million dollars into the safe blue seat.

What that means in real-world terms is that while Sacramento squandered it’s resources in AD50, there was nothing left over to help South Bay activists register voters or build any infrastructure to get out the vote. It’s a deficit that, even if corrected now, will haunt the district through the fall.

What remains to be seen is if Perez will bother to correct that deficit at all. In fact, it’s far more likely he will continue this destructive pattern into the general election.

Victory in November isn’t assured for Butler. By all accounts, she proved to be a terrible campaigner in the AD50 race, relying almost entirely on Sacramento’s largess to get her through the June primary. It’s anyone’s guess as to how she will do against Bloom, who has the advantage of real – not manufactured – incumbency in the district.

As Sacramento contemplates even more draconian cuts to education, healthcare, social services and environmental protection, the legacy of these two races will be a stunning indictment of Assembly Speaker John Perez’s lack of leadership.