Eight days before the special election, and the campaign activity is really heating up.  Today’s roundup includes the latest endorsements, media coverage, and, of course, your absolute favorite…more attack mailers!

This will be somewhat lengthy and slightly opinionated–so come beneath the flip.

All three candidates have some positive endorsements and media coverage to report.

Over the weekend, the Cedillo campaign announced a couple of media endorsements: the Senator received the endorsement of La Opinion, one of the L.A. area’s most prominent Spanish-language newspapers.  For those that can read Spanish, here’s the key graf:

Gil Cedillo es el candidato más adecuado para representar los intereses de un distrito con el perfil demográfico y socio económico como el 32. Tiene la experiencia demostrada y prioridades centradas en la reforma de salud, inmigración y en la sociedad privada-pública para el desarrollo. ¡Vote por Cedillo!

In addition to that, the Cedillo team also reports the endorsement of Eastern Group Publications, which, according to the campaign’s release, runs 11 bilingual community newspapers in the district.

Judy Chu has claimed some prominent endorsements of her own, including the endorsement of Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.  Given how the Cedillo campaign reacted to Chu’s endorsement by Villaraigosa, combined with the fact that Congresswoman Sanchez has had a longstanding public feud with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus over Congressman Baca, I am eagerly licking my chops in anticipation of any release that Cedillo’s team sends out to countervail the Sanchez endorsement.

Chu has also obtained the very wordy endorsement of the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.  Key graf:

We’ll lean toward the more policy-wonky candidacy of Chu, currently serving as an elected member of the state’s taxation body, the Board of Equalization. A math major and former professor of psychology, Chu isn’t as flashy as some. But she has garnered the endorsements of most area city council members because she served for 13 years on the Monterey Park City Council herself, and therefore knows our cities’ interests deeply, before her election to the Assembly. She’s close to Solis. Through her equalization position, she’s become an expert at getting revenues into government coffers – in these times, nothing could be more crucial.

The endorsement is very even-handed and worth reading.  It also takes a stab at the propositions, with some interesting and unique conclusions.  Editorial boards across the state are really all over the map on these things.

Pleitez also had a good media day–he and his campaign have received positive coverage on the front page of the Los Angeles Times.  The main gist of the piece is that Pleitez is running a spirited race who will be able to attract a number of votes significant enough to alter the complexion of a multi-candidate low-turnout election–though Cedillo’s campaign manager Derek Humphrey disagrees publicly with the assessments of the other political experts mentioned by saying that the only people who care about Pleitez are the “chattering class”–i.e. media.  Only the voters will get to determine who’s right.

Interestingly, the piece also takes note of the “party animal” negative mailer story that was first broken in a big way here on Calitics.  Here’s what the Times has to say:

Nonetheless, the Cedillo campaign sent out a mailer recently that featured photos of a partying Pleitez that it said it got from his Facebook page. “Should this man represent you in the House of Representatives?” the mailer asks, “Or in Animal House?”

Most saw the mailer as evidence that Cedillo is worried.

“If they didn’t feel he was a serious candidate, they wouldn’t be attacking him,” said John J. Pitney Jr., a political science professor at Claremont McKenna College who co-wrote “Epic Journey,” a book on the 2008 presidential election.

My take, of course, is the same take that I posted before in the first thread about this piece.  We in the “chattering class” may not consider a candidate who draws even 5% to be a serious candidate.  But in a special election like this where every vote matters, that 5% could be serious, especially if most of the votes that Pleitez gets are in the Latino areas of unincorporated East Los Angeles and El Sereno.

But now to the part you’ve all been waiting for…attack mailers!

Our first offering comes from Judy Chu, attacking Gil Cedillo not only on using campaign money for travel, but also for being absent on such travel–specifically, being in India–while the legislature was working on the budget situation.  You can see the images from these below.  Cedillo has defended himself on the matter of the campaign contributions–I happened to interview him on the day that the original L.A. Times story broke–but I am hoping for a response from the campaign regarding the accusation about the timing of the travel as well.  I have a call into the campaign, and am expecting a response tomorrow, since I have no way of knowing whether this was a legitimate fact-finding trip that other legislators went on or what the purpose was, both of which would be useful to know before providing any further commentary.

India mailer 1

India mailer 2

India mailer 3

Cedillo’s team has dropped more negative literature of its own.  This one, again, explicitly accuses Judy Chu of “pay-to-play” regarding the Chu’s votes to grant tax refunds to corporations that gave her contributions.  The language is pretty explicit, as you can see:

Whirlwind 1

Whirlwind 2

Whirlwind 3

Whirlwind 4

Whirlwind 5

I do have a problem with this.  And it’s not that it’s negative.  I’m expecting negative mailers as a prime campaign strategy.  The problem is that this seems to be the Cedillo campaign’s main attack against Chu–it’s not the first time that the campaign has attacked along these lines.  And, as the L.A. Times has documented, it’s patently false:

The “tax breaks” cited in Cedillo’s mailings are actually refunds of tax overpayments by corporations, according to Board of Equalization records and documentation the Cedillo campaign provided to The Times.

Most, if not all, were routine, noncontroversial matters approved by unanimous vote upon recommendation of the agency’s staff, according to Anita Gore, a spokeswoman for the Board of Equalization.

Gore said it is common practice for some corporations to pay more taxes than they owe — sometimes as a hedge against inadvertently paying too little and being penalized — then seek refunds for the overpayments. All refund requests are carefully vetted by the staff, Gore said.

The Cedillo team’s attacks, after all, aren’t just questioning the integrity of one public official–they’re questioning the entire reputation of the state’s tax collecting authority.  And even the refutation of the refutation leaves a little to be desired:

Abalos also said making a distinction between “tax breaks” and “tax refunds” was not as important as Chu’s voting on the matters.

If honesty is a value, it actually is.  If I file my return and I’ve overpaid taxes, I get a refund.  That’s not a tax break.  A tax break is a special favor.  A tax refund isn’t.  In the same article, another high-level person in the Cedillo campaign called the refunds “tax relief.”  Sorry, but no, they aren’t.  “Tax relief” is a Luntzian expression for a tax cut.  An overpayment refund isn’t a tax cut.  Now, I’m willing to listen to the argument that Chu should have excused herself in order to avoid even the appearance of conflict-of-interest.  But that’s not the case the campaign was originally making.  Of course, the voters of the district are going to read the mailer far more than they’re going to read Calitics or the political section of the L.A. Times, so…I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about what constitutes a good campaign strategy.

The Chu campaign has also submitted an official response, which I quote in part:

Despite the fact that Cedillo’s claim that Judy Chu has voted for tax breaks for corporate contributors have been thoroughly discredited, Cedillo devotes a panel of his latest hit mailer to recycling them.

Cedillo is however now calling the tax refunds “tax favors.”  (A tax refund is a favor?) Cedillo claims that Judy Chu should have abstained on the tax refunds (Apparently he thinks everyone should abstain on votes.)

And that’s what I’ve got for today, with the promise of more tomorrow.  If you’ve made it this far, I salute you.

Over the past couple of days, my email box has become a lightning rod for supporters of various candidates in in CA-32 special election, many of whom have been communicating alternately their approval or dismay at my post concerning the recent mailer from the Cedillo team.

I was also contacted by Gil Cedillo’s campaign manager Derek Humphrey, who provided me with this quote in defense of the mailer:

A number of people contacted our campaign about the Pleitez facebook page.  I think they were really shocked to see these pictures of him partying and drinking on what is essentially an extension of his campaign website.  These are recent photos that any internet user can easily access.    

I am sure it’s common place for a 26 year old recent college graduate to post photos to their facebook page that glamorize drinking, partying, and dancing on tables.  But, members of Congress and elected officials are role models for young men and women in their community and their behaviors reflect their character.

But you know what I really like to get in my inbox?  The ones that provide me PDF’s or images of the mailers that other campaigns are sending out–because those provide me not only more material to cover for the race, but in some cases an increasing amount of hilarity.

So without further ado, below the fold I present you…

CA-32 mail-a-palooza!  Images and mild commentary below the fold.

Now, the first thing I should mention is that many Cedillo supporters–even those who agreed that the mailer by the Senator’s campaign was excessive–have pointed out that Pleitez’ campaign was the first to go negative and sent out an attack mailer against Chu and Cedillo.  Here, then, is that mailer:

Pleitez attack mailer

Now, it does disappoint me to see Democrats go after other Democrats–and faulting Chu and Cedillo for everything that’s wrong with California’s budget is an exaggeration, to put it mildly.  First, because Cedillo has been progressive–to my knowledge, at least–on budget issues, and second, because Chu doesn’t really have much to do with that as a member of what is primarily a tax collecting agency.  Does this negative political attack on the experience and legislative activity of Chu and Cedillo justify the more personal attack that was made on Pleitez?  That is something I wait for other readers to decide.  The only thing I leave you with is, yes, Pleitez attacked first.

I’ve also received a few complaints about another mailer from Pleitez.  This one’s not a negative piece, but here it is nonetheless, or at least the first page:

Pleitez Democratic mailer

The objection here, as you might surmise, is that the mailer seems to claim an endorsement from Obama, Clinton and Villaraigosa, whereas Obama and Clinton certainly haven’t endorsed in this race, and Villaraigosa has endorsed Judy Chu–and that has rankled some members of other campaigns.  I wasn’t sent the other side or internal elements of the mailer (if there are any) to see if that effect is mitigated or enhanced by any other part of the piece.

But I like to save the best for last: the attack mailer sent out by Judy Chu’s namesake and distant affine, current Republican Monterey Park City Councilmember Betty Tom Chu.  Here is is, front and back.

front

back

Now, since this mailer comes from a Republican, I have no issues with excoriating it.  Let’s take the front.  First, the line “how to spot a loser” is hilarious on its face for its lack of professionalism.  “Loser”?  But what’s even worse is the fact that moles appear to have been photoshopped onto Judy Chu’s face–making the use of the word “spot” quite ironic.

Next up, of course, are the negative characterizations of Chu’s activities on the board of equalization.  Such as:

Wrote a law to forgive tax cheaters

This, of course, is referring to Chu’s lead role in the tax amnesty bill, which allowed for a window for forgiveness of penalties on belated tax returns.  According to the BoE website, this was a huge success that brought in billions in previously uncollected revenue.

FAIL.

Next one is just as good:

Granted refunds to corporations that gave her campaign donations

This one is notable because, to be completely honest, Cedillo used the same misleading attack.  Yes, Chu voted for routine tax refunds of overpayments.  Businesses like the one I run are required to pay estimated taxes for the year on a quarterly schedule ahead of time.  If we pay too much, we get the excess payments refunded.

It’s an easy negative attack against Chu because while the content of the statement is true, the moral implications are absolutely false.

The other side is equally entertaining–especially the…interesting…picture of Mayor Venti, as well as the line, “Judy, on the other hand, has none of these qualities.”  That reminds me of the now-infamous line from the DailyKos hatemail Saturdays: The Lord Rebuke you!  Classic.

And for that reason, Betty Tom Chu wins the award for…WORST MAILER IN THE WORLD!!!

P.S. if anyone has any other mailers by anyone, for anyone, or against anyone in the CA-32 race, please send them my way:

hekebolos at gmail dot com

If you’re going to announce a run for a Congressional seat, you might want to do it in the district you’re running for.  From the OC Register:

After years of will-he or won’t-he speculation, Assemblyman Van Tran officially launched his quest to unseat Rep. Loretta Sanchez at a press conference this afternoon at a Little Saigon office building in Westminster.

Just one thing: the office is in Congressman Dana Rohrbacher’s district, not Sanchez’s.

Ouch.

At about 10 a.m. this morning, Tran aide Dave Everett sent an email to Orange County politicos, inviting them to a 2 p.m. press conference at Tran’s Little Saigon headquarters at “9191 Bolsa Avenue, Suite #209 Westminster, California 92683.”…If you run that address through the Registrar of Voter’s online district finder, you’ll see that 9191 Bolsa Ave. in Westminster is located in the 46th.

So, did Assemblymember Tran just not know, or did he not care?  Neither is good, but the latter is worse.  And the latter it is:

Everett said Tran and his aides knew the location was outside the district, but went with it anyway because it’s only “like a block out of Garden Grove” and because it’s a good, central location for the Vietnamese press.

“What, are we going to quibble with a block?” he asked.

Are we? No. But Sanchez might.

Well played. Yes, it’s a cosmetic detail, but it’s not exactly the foot you want your campaign getting off on.

(This story has now been covered by The Hill. We have also posted a comment from the Pleitez campaign. Welcome to all the new readers! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

(full disclosure: I serve as the the Political Director of the Los Angeles County Young Democrats, which overwhelmingly endorsed Gil Cedillo for the CA-32 Congressional seat.  In what follows, as well as anything else I write or have ever written about this race or any other issue, the opinions written here are strictly my own personal views, and do not reflect the official views of any organization I am involved with in any official capacity.)

The CA-32 race is getting personal.  Gil Cedillo’s campaign has already gotten some criticism for the use of unrelated headlines in a mailer against Judy Chu, and now Cedillo has gone negative against the other candidate in the race with a shot at viability: Emanuel Pleitez, the 26-year-old former employee of the Obama-Biden Treasury Department transition team.

Now before I continue with the mailer itself, which is the heart of this story, I should first point out the initial implications that I perceive about Cedillo’s campaign going negative on Pleitez: by my view, it’s not a good sign for the campaign.  If the campaign is spending money, energy and political capital in attacking someone who was supposed to be a minor candidate and who has raised about a quarter of the money that Cedillo’s campaign has, it would indicate that Cedillo’s team is afraid that Pleitez is drawing a larger share than expected of the demographic that Cedillo would need to beat Judy Chu, and I don’t view it as a positive sign for Cedillo’s campaign that it’s having to use negative mailers to shore up its other flank.

But let’s get to the mailer itself, which you can see front and back at these links:

Edit by Brian for space…see the flip.

link one

link two

link three

link four

The basic point the campaign is trying to make, of course, is that Emanuel is too wild and immature to run for Congress.  And Cedillo has a strong case to make based on his maturity and his extensive experience as a legislator.  And yes, there are a few wild photos from the bunch that the campaign selected.  But I’ll bet a lot of those are innocuous photos that were taken out of context.  For instance, a lot of the pictures on there are shots of Pleitez with various women, often not even in a party setting–obviously designed to convey the impression that Pleitez is a womanizer.

Well, here’s the problem.  I’m one of the least rowdy 26-year-olds I know.  And yet, if someone wanted to troll through the photos of me on Facebook to portray me as an immature womanizer party animal, it would certainly be possible.  I’ve been in a committed relationship for a 2 1/2 years now.  But still, there’s a picture there of me with one of my blogger friends, who happens to be a female my age.  There’s also one of me with a friend whom I’ve known since my freshman year of college when we were in UCLA’s Regents Scholar Society–also an attractive woman my age.  And yet, if you wanted to take those and other pictures out of context and claim that you’re “missing a lot of women” if you haven’t seen my Facebook page…well, I guess nothing prevents you–outside of a sense of honesty or decency, both of which seem to be missing in this case.  I imagine that a lot of this site’s readers are my friends on Facebook.  Why not have a blast and put together an attack mailer against me?

The text of the mailer is also relatively amusing–“even nerdy guys want to look cool”?  The hilarity of that is only exceeded by the Spanish translation of “nerdy”: socialmente ineptos.

I don’t know what Gil Cedillo was doing for entertainment when he was in his mid-twenties.  But what I do know is that whatever it was, it wasn’t documented through the use of digital cameras and social networking.  At the risk of sounding like Thomas Friedman, I was just talking with one of my students a couple of days ago about what impact social media would have on future elections from the “scandal” perspective–i.e., what if there were photos of any presidential candidate’s youthful indiscretions on Facebook?  It’s one thing to hear tell of it–it’s quite another to see the actual physical evidence.  And I suppose that question has been answered just a few days later.  And if you’re a young person contemplating a run for office, it should send just a little bit of a shiver down your spine.  Your elder opponents’ actions at your age–even if they’re just five or ten years older–aren’t a matter of public record.  But in the age of Facebook and Myspace, yours are–and no matter how innocent you may think your photos are, you need to think about the worst possible way they could be used against you–because that’s probably what’s going to happen.

Bottom line: the fact that Gil Cedillo’s campaign feels the need to use social media to commit character assassination on a lesser-known opponent is disheartening.  Gil Cedillo is a strong progressive legislator with a long career track record.  His campaign team consists of people I know who are dedicated to progressive causes.  And the negative mailers sent on the campaign’s behalf are, in my view, not worthy of Senator Cedillo or his campaign leaders.  This is really a low blow, and smacks of desperation to have to resort to this.

[updated to include Cedillo’s endorsements by LIUNA and UFW per David Dayen’s comment below.]

Man, I just can’t get enough of this CA-32 race.  You’ve got two Democratic heavyweights duking it out for a federal position that offers job security with no term limits.  Plus a bright, charismatic former Obama transition official who I think is younger than I am and not inclined to wait his turn.

It’s fascinating to me!  And that was before my neighborhood got dragged into this.

See, Judy Chu has been racking up her fair share of endorsements–most notably the unanimous CDP endorsement, as well as the recent announcements of an endorsement by Antonio Villaraigosa and, most recently, an email sent on Judy’s behalf by Emily’s LIST (really, no surprise there).  Cedillo, meanwhile, has gotten a few notables of his own, most recently LIUNA and UFW, as well as a nearly unanimous endorsement by the Los Angeles County Young Democrats (n.b. I am the Political Director of the aforementioned LACYD).  Well, Senator Cedillo’s team has decided to take that endorsement by Mayor Villaraigosa and turn that around on its head, using Measure R, a sales tax increase that was passed by Los Angeles County voters with a 2/3rds majority.

Now, for our NorCal friends who aren’t aware of this issue, Measure R was a somewhat controversial and complicated measure that was put before the voters of California in November.  It became somewhat of a big deal because the flagship project of Measure R, which was allowed to be placed on the county ballot by AB1213, sponsored by Mike Feuer (AD-42), was an extension to the sea of the Purple line subway along Wilshire Blvd., which is an expensive but sorely needed project in the mid-city, Century City, and, yes, the infamous Westside (I live half a block from the next stop in line to be built, and it means I could get downtown in 15 minutes, rather than 15 hours).

Well, that fact spurred outraged cries of racism and bias toward the County elite on the wealthy Westside, because more money was being spent per capita in that region than in the San Fernando Valley, San Gabriel Valley or South L.A. (for some reason, population size, rather than availability of existing infrastructure or daily commuter population, were the only valid metrics).  And these communities were quite upset with Villaraigosa for being such an ardent supporter of AB1213 and Measure R, before a series of renegotiations about local reinvestment and a whole bunch of other issues.

With that background in mind, here is Cedillo’s camp responding to Villaraigosa’s endorsement of Chu:

“Voters, not endorsements, are going to decide the winner of California’s 32nd Congressional district.  And voters in this district know and respect Gil Cedillo’s record.

Los Angeles politicians like Antonio Villaraigosa actively tried to deny San Gabriel Valley residents their fair share of money from Proposition R – the transportation sales tax – to reduce traffic along the 10, 60 and 605 Freeways so they could build a subway on the Westside of L.A.

It was Gil Cedillo, Supervisor Gloria Molina and Senator Gloria Romero who stood up to Villaraigosa and the other L.A. politicians and said there would be no Proposition R unless the San Gabriel Valley got its fair share of the proceeds.  The efforts of Senator Cedillo and his allies were successful and thanks to them, there are 1.8 billion dollars allocated to local transportation projects that benefit San Gabriel Valley families.

Gil Cedillo is a proven leader who has taken on those big money special interests for years to help workers get better wages and benefits.  He took care of the people of the San Gabriel Valley when Antonio Villaraigosa and the L.A. powerbrokers wanted to take their tax dollars and literally send it down a hole under Wilshire Boulevard.

By standing beside Antonio Villaraigosa today, Judy Chu has shown that she will cozy up to the entrenched political interests, the C-E-Os and wealthy campaign contributors and take care of their interests in Congress instead of putting the hard working families of the San Gabriel Valley first.”

Fine.  I’m sure that message will play really well in the district.  And it’s a great release.  Hard-hitting.  Just the way I like it.  Except for the way it portrays…well…my neighborhood.

Honestly, I’m not a CEO and I, as well as everyone else who would use a subway extensively in this area, do my best to pay my rent every month.  I seriously think they could have played to the interests of the district while playing down the divisiveness just a tad.  That’s my hole down Wilshire Boulevard, thank you very much.

The frontpage at DailyKos, which has borne no love in the past for Iraq and domestic spying enabler Jane Harman, is your source for keeping track of the latest developments regarding the story swirling around–first reported by CQ Politics–that Congresswoman Harman offered to intervene on behalf of convicted Israeli agents in exchange for AIPAC lobbying for a prominent committee position for Congresswoman Harman.

But there are more important elements here.  As David Waldman (still and forever known to me as Kagro X) writes:

Putting aside the links to espionage. Putting aside the betrayal of Democratic political hopes by a Blue Dog who was personally compromised.

This is also a story about the hyper-politicization of the Bush “Justice Department” under Alberto Gonzales.

The attorneys in the intelligence and public integrity sections believed they had evidence of a “completed crime.” But does Alberto Gonzales take the case where the evidence leads? No!

Instead, he calls off the dogs for a political ally — if just a temporary ally of convenience — for the political benefit of the Bush “administration.”

Jane Harman is in a world of hurt.  If the allegations are true and Harman “committed a completed crime” by agreeing to this deal, then she should resign.  If the allegations are not true, then she has a severe black eye from supporting a domestic wiretapping program that may or may not have ended up being used against her.  And her muddled self-defense isn’t doing her any favors.

Either way, however, there’s one thing that shouldn’t be forgotten in this whole mess: The lawyers in the Bush Administration must be held accountable.  This applies to the Justice Department, where there still has been little fallout from the U.S. Attorneys scandal, and it applies to the Office of Legal Counsel as well, from which Judge Bybee still to this day holds a place on a federal bench in this state.  At what point will citizens stand up and proclaim that this kind of criminalization of our government for political ends should not simply be water under the bridge?

Following up on the post I just made about the CA-32 fundraising race, it seemed like Judy Chu saved the best for last:

The breadth and strength of Judy Chu’s campaign for Congress was demonstrated again today as candidates reported their first fundraising numbers for this May 19 special election.

In the first three months of 2009, Judy Chu collected an impressive $770,167, over $200,000 more than her nearest rival, State Senator Gil Cedillo.

Judy Chu, Vice-Chair of the California State Board of Equalization, reported a strong $577,609 cash-on-hand figure at the end of the period.

Chu’s consultant, Parke Skelton, stated, “Judy Chu is well on the way towards surpassing $1 million for this race.  Her fundraising reflects the enthusiastic and broad support she has attracted from throughout the 32nd District.  Just over 83% of her contributions have come from individuals, not PACS.  An impressive 1,567 individuals contributed to Dr. Chu’s campaign in this filing period.”

We’ll see how much of a difference that amount of money makes in a low-turnout special.  But those numbers were as of the end of the quarter, with over a month and a half to go in this election.  It’s entirely possible that we’ll have two million-dollar candidates in this race.

Impressive haul.  From the release:

El Monte, CA – State Senator Gil Cedillo today reported having raised $568,000 in the first quarter of 2009, with over $441,000 cash on hand.  Cedillo officially entered the race for the vacant 32nd Congressional District in late January, giving him just over two months to raise money prior to the first fundraising disclosure deadline.  The FEC quarter one deadline was on Tuesday, March 31st and the reports are made public today.

The Cedillo campaign has publicly stated an ambitious goal of raising $750,000 prior to the May 19th Special Primary Election.  The strong quarter one fundraising numbers mean the campaign has already raised 75% of the desired budget.

I’ll post Q1 numbers for other candidates as soon as I have them.

UPDATE with part of the release from Emmanuel Pleitez, who raised $152,777:

LOS ANGELES – Today the Emanuel Pleitez Campaign for Congress announced that it has raised $152,777 in campaign contributions through the first quarter of 2009. That surprisingly large figure, coupled with a ground force of 25 full-time volunteers engaged in technology, finance, communications and grassroots outreach efforts, places the 32nd District candidate squarely in the middle of a three-way race for the vacant Congressional seat.

“Our field and fundraising efforts have exceeded expectations, and we have proven that we are contenders in this race,” said Pleitez. “But the financial reports only tell part of the story of my campaign. We’ve got 25 full-time volunteers who are donating their time to this effort, and it’s impossible to calculate their value. Not only are they giving us their expertise, they’re also contributing their enthusiasm for the political process and their determination to bring new leadership to the 32nd District.

Not a bad haul for Emanuel, who is showing that he doesn’t consider himself an also-ran in this district and is in it to win.