Answering charges of conspiracy, money laundering, defrauding the public of the honest services of a public official, and in Wilkes’ case, bribing a public official, both Brent Wilkes and Kyle “Dusty” Foggo entered pleas of not guilty today.

Both men were free on bond ($2 million for Wilkes, $200,000 for Foggo), and Wilkes’ attorney said

that after 18 months of an “unrelenting campaign of leaks,” that he and his client were looking forward to answering formal charges.

“We do welcome the opportunity now to be in the courtroom,” he said.

Wilkes is up against gifts to Duke Cunningham as well as Foggo and, one would assume, more folks as time goes on.  “The gifts included cash, vacations, computers, meals, tickets to a Super Bowl game and prostitutes” to Cunningham and “gifts, expensive dinners and trips” and the promise of a job to Foggo.

Both men face up to 20 years in prison.  The government is looking for more than $12 million in restitution.

With US Attorney Carol Lam leaving her post tomorrow, still more great news from an unfortunately short term rooting out white collar crime and political corruption.  Here’s hoping her legacy at the US Attorney’s office will carry on after her departure.

Update: Or at least more information.  From a complimentary article today:

Cunningham admitted accepting more than $2.4 million in bribes from defense contractors Brent Wilkes, the Poway businessman indicted yesterday, and Mitchell Wade.

When he pleaded guilty Nov. 28, 2005, Cunningham pledged to work with investigators looking into other aspects of the case, an investigation that led to this week’s court action.

The Save Our Heritage Organization on Friday filed suit in U.S. District Court “challenging the constitutionality of a federal waiver that cleared the way to build a controversial 3.5-mile border fence between San Diego and Tijuana.”  While the fence has been challenged on environmental grounds in the past, now it’s being challenged to protect the “natural, cultural, and historic resources” of the area.

As one of the plaintiffs explains, “We’re no longer challenging the environmental impact statement, because there isn’t one,” Briggs said. “Now we’re just saying you need to follow the law.”

The Department of Homeland Security has exercised waivers to avoid federally mandated environmental reports and other impact assessments in building border fences and other security measures.  In this case, what’s being challenged is the last link in the 14-mile fence between San Diego and Tijuana that’s been gradually coming online since 1994.  While arrests of illegal immigrants have dropped by more than 75% in the decade since the project began, experts and border patrol say that the immigrants have simply moved to Arizona.  Arizona, of course, is not California’s problem.

I’m pretty middle of the road when it comes to immigration policy, but one issue that I brought up with people last summer on this subject is that we never seem to have the real discussion.  This isn’t really about just enforcing laws.  This isn’t really about protecting American jobs.  This is about the depressingly pervasive idea that other cultures lack inherent value.

This can be seen all over the place if you look for it.  For example, some people want English as the official language.  Partly out of some misplaced patriotism, but also because they don’t want to deal with people speaking other languages.  It upsets the comfort zone.  People want their comfortable little bubble where things don’t get upset and everything is controllable.  And to some degree that’s perfectly reasonable.  But that’s no way to really live life.  Back in August, I wrote

I want a country that’s curious and excited about the myriad ways that people encounter life.  I don’t want a country that’s so arrogant about its culture that it gets complacent and watches its place in history end.  I want people to look forward to Spanish classes because it opens doors rather than fear complications to an overly-simplified world.

This border fence is an immigration issue, a security issue, an economic issue, a foreign policy issue.  But it’s also about how this country relates to the world.  We need open doors because without them, we lose touch with how the world works.  We become George Bush obliviously and/or stubbornly sitting in the White House waiting for his plan to work after the whole world knows it’s failed.  It’s not a road I want to go down, and hopefully this lawsuit can help slow things down for at least a couple months.

So I went through last night and loaded the Calitics Event Calendar with all sorts of San Diego goodies, and now it’s way overloaded with San Diego bias.  Hopefully that’ll entice people to start using it more (I’ve noticed it gradually gaining some steam), because I think it’s an excellent tool for one of our goals here of providing the mechanism to get people more involved locally.

I know that I personally had no idea how much was going on around my rather red town before really diving into this.  Now I’ve got Guantanamo, the Death Penalty, Iran, Election Fraud, African Poverty, Climate Change, Gloria Steinem, Richard Lederer and a bunch more coming up in the next month or so.  The majority of writers, commenters and readers here are involved in the process outside of blogging, and more specifically outside of direct electoral politics.  This is a simple way to bring politics into the day-to-day world and begin building bridges between the grassroots and the netroots.  We’ve gotta still attend these events, participate in what’s going on around us, and then write about it, but let’s not forget that we’ve gotta do our small part to turn people out in the first place too.

So I hope everyone will start using the event calendar, whether it’s posting events, learning about events, telling others about upcoming events.  It’s one way to build a cohesive community.

On Monday, the San Diego City Council voted 5-3 to require the mayor (at the moment, the increasingly autocratic Jerry Sanders) to get City Council approval before making cuts to the budget which would affect the level of service provided to residents.

Councilwoman (and two-time almost mayor) Donna Frye laid into Mayor Sanders, reminding people “‘It wasn’t because there was too much public process’ that the city got into its current financial problems, … ‘It was because there was too little public input.'”

Jerry Sanders, for his part, is a bit nonplussed about the whole sharing of power thing, and demonstrated that he isn’t above claiming to be the only useful elected official or throwing around allegations of impropriety as long as it never turns out that the recipient is rubber and he is, in fact, glue:

I will ask voters a relatively straightforward question: Which do you prefer, a mayor intent on implementing reforms and maximizing tax dollars, or a city government that fights reforms and is controlled by special interests?

For a bit of context, San Diego has Proposition F on the books, also known as the “strong mayor” prop.  This was passed in 2004 in response to the pension funding crisis, and mostly because Jerry Sanders came in promising to fix everyone’s problems if everyone would just stay out of his way.  With ethics scandals, the pension crisis, and the resignation of Mayor Dick Murphy, people were happy to give up 70 years of the mayor as more of a manager.  So Jerry Sanders got his way, and is, as a result, pretty used to getting his way since.

But now, even those who voted against this measure aren’t too pleased with how things are working out.  Two of the ‘no’ votes came from Council President Scott Peters and Councilman Kevin Faulconer, who like the idea but not the specific measure.  “‘One of the things Prop. F did create was a strong-mayor form of government, not an ‘only-mayor’ form of government,’ Peters said.”

Now, this is going to likely end up being a protracted and ugly fight.  Sanders won’t sign this legislation, and the 5-3 vote isn’t enough to override him.  If the City Council were to override, the mayor has already started talking about putting it on the ballot if he doesn’t get his way.  On the other hand, if Peters and Faulconer get language that they like, there would be seven votes in favor of dialing back mayoral power.

Sanders, for his part, is rolling out all sorts of straight-from-the-home-office scare tactics, admonishing those who would deign to have an actual public process that the fire department wouldn’t be able to respond to big fires without council approval, because service would be impacted too greatly.  Quite frankly, if that’s the best he’s got, I look forward to him talking about more.  Lots more.  In the meantime, at least the city council is starting to stand up for functional, participatory government.

Update: I almost forgot, hat tip to the Center on Policy Initiatives for reminding me in their email that I wanted to write about this.

A new proposal from Assembyman Joe Coto (D-San Jose) would require high school students to register to vote in order to receive their diplomas.  The Secretary of State says that roughly 30% of elgible voters in California aren’t registered, and the article relates speculation (without numbers, natch) that this gap is larger among younger voters.

Republicans, in their kneejerk, disenfranchising way, have already begun to blast the proposal, claiming that it’s politically motivated since young people tend to vote for Democrats.  They’ve also put forth the lame objection that just getting people registered doesn’t mean they’ll actually vote, so why bother, fretting that “Voting is a right, not a requirement” (Anthony Adams, R-Monrovia).

Anyone who’s ever gotten me wound up about voter registration and participation (oddly, not that many. weird…) knows that I’m a hardass about registering people.  If you can sign them up for a draft that doesn’t exist, you can sign them up to vote if they feel like it.  The whole idea that this in any slight way is a problem for the people being registered is absurd, and it’s the saddest level of transparency for Republicans to object to this obligatory invitation into the civic process.

And while we’re on the subject, how about a little bit more contradiction from the Right on this one? On the one hand, this doesn’t actually get anyone to vote, so why bother.  On the other hand, this will work to turn out new Democrats, so it’s a partisan power grab.  In other words, “Hey, you wanna hang out this weekend? No? Well I never liked you anyways. Jerk.”

This was covered briefly on NPR earlier, though I can’t find a link, and that report cited voter registration experts who said young voters often are discouraged from registering by missed deadlines and a complex process.  They also suggested that as major push towards registering young people would expand Latino participation by leaps and bounds.

A recent Gallup poll of the continental United States found that only 7 states had more Republicans than Democrats by self identification. SEVEN. It isn’t even a matter of convincing people we’re right at this point (maybe it will be again soon, but whatever, that’s another bridge), cause we’ve done that.  It’s a matter of convincing them that they can and should show up.

So I know, there are no whores, no sex scandals, no evil corporate Blue Dogs.  But while Republicans across the country continue to make it more and more difficult for people to vote, California has an opportunity to lead the way in removing a major roadblock.  Nobody has to vote, but shouldn’t we make sure everyone can?

Assemblyman Jim Beall is trying to get pre-paid tuition rolling in California, joining nearly 20 other states who have some sort of program to lock in tuition costs years before a child actually attends college.

Beall has packaged this as tuition relief, and with costs increasing nearly 400% in 20 years, it’s a pretty good way to package it.  It also is nicely timed with Governor Schwarzenegger raising statewide tuition levels in his new budget.

Here’s how AB 152 would work:

Each year of UC tuition would be broken up into 100 pieces, or “units,” which would be priced based on existing tuition plus an additional amount for fund administration and stability.

In Washington, each unit currently costs $70 — $11 more than if it were based solely on tuition.

Parents or grandparents would be the likeliest adults to register a child — of any age — for the California program by buying one unit. Subsequent contributions of any amount could be made by anyone.

Participants would be required to hold their units for at least two years, after which they could be used if the student were accepted into a public or private college in California or outside the state.

Students attending a campus charging less than UC could use any surplus funds for other college-related expenses, while students attending the nation’s highest-priced campuses must bankroll any difference.

Donors would not receive a tax write-off, but money invested could appreciate, and gains would not be subject to state or federal income taxes if used for college attendance.

Tuition invested for one sibling could be transferred to another, but units could not be bartered or sold as property.

Families opting to close their child’s account prematurely would be subject to tax and program penalties — unless the student had died, become disabled or earned a scholarship.

I’ve had a bit of experience with this in Virginia, where my parents prepaid my brother’s tuition.  Sure, he promptly attended a private school and then went out of state, making it kindof a moot point, but it was pretty clear talking with my parents over the years that it was a huge load off of their minds to have it taken care of to such a degree.

Granted, there are important details to sort through- whether you have to be a resident, whether there’s a time limit to redeem it, and so forth.  There’s the question of how the state will invest the money brought in, both from moral and financial perspectives.

But ultimately, I’d imagine, the biggest concern is undermining either the education system or the state’s budget at some point down the line.  There was a guest spot on NPR the other day in defense of college costs, essentially saying that you get more for your money than if you sent your kid to stay at an Embassy Suites for 9 months, which I suppose is technically accurate if not much else.  Beall insists that, if instituted properly, this is self-sustaining financially, and it certainly seems like it could be.  But fit it into the larger picture.  If the government offers (but doesn’t force upon anyone) programs for education through a BA and health insurance, and if a living wage can be hammered through, and if we can take a stand against Super WalMarts and myriad other things we’re after, all of a sudden we’ve got a generation that’s pretty well taken care of by the time they’re 22 and hitting the world.  And that ain’t so bad.

p.s. I have a silly little blog of my own now, and it’s cross-posted.

In the interest of following Juls’ lead and getting everything on this subject pulled together in one place, I’ve started going through and adding the AD Elections tag to all diaries related to running for AD positions this cycle.

I’m sure I missed at least a few, so please go back through any that you wrote or recall and make sure they’re tagged appropriately, and use the tag going forward.  And while we’re on the subject, everybody who’s running but hasn’t written a diary about it may want to consider making a pass at it before the election.  It will likely give some publicity, but at the very least will keep everyone else salivating over the issue for a few days and help with the post-game analysis.

On Sunday, The Union-Tribune reported on the simmering issue in San Diego of sex offenders concentrating in the downtown area.  Now that Jessica’s Law (Proposition 83) has been overwhelmingly approved by Californians, local officials have been given the greenlight to run sex offenders out of downtown.  But has anyone given any thought to where they’re supposed to go?

To recap, Proposition 83 prohibits sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of parks and schools (among other things).  It also happens to be the pet issue of Republican Assemblywoman Shirley Horton who represents many of my neighbors and who just rode it to a very expensive reelection to the State Assembly.  The constitutional applicability of Jessica’s Law is already being considered in U.S. District Court, but in the meantime, that would restrict all but a few blocks of the entire San Diego downtown area.  The reasoning from City Councilman Kevin Faulconer is that “downtown is a neighborhood now” which leads me to wonder what residential non-neighborhoods he’s imagining sex offenders moving into.  The NIMBYism that goes on in debates like this is perfectly understandable of course, but regardless of what ruling eventually comes from the courts, shouldn’t we be focusing on the bigger issues?  Like, for starters, how to prevent sex offenders who are potentially dangerous from being released in the first place?

Southern Californians for Jessica’s Law, right on the front page, presumably as the crux of their argument since they went to all the trouble of bolding it, announces the horrible reality that “many [sex offenders] are living in our communities and neighborhoods, near our schools and parks…”  Well geez, prisoners are being released and trying to integrate themselves back into communities and neighborhoods?  It would be much better if we could keep them all together somewhere, isolated from the rest of us.  Maybe we could call it jail or something.

Obviously, this is a complex issue with a lot of wrinkles that’s too much for any politician to take on with one bite.  It involves reconsidering penalties for non-violent and drug offenders, it involves the rate of prison construction, it involves reviewing and probably reforming the parole evaluation and tracking system.  And probably it involves treading a very careful course that many will see as soft on child predators.  You can’t get everything into a soundbite though, so we get crap laws like this that are wildly popular in San Diego and elsewhere because they glamorously treat symptoms but never dive into the root causes of the problems we face.

Which steers us to the essence of the issue.  In San Diego, in California, in DC, we’ve spent the past several (or more than several) years suffering through reactive legislation dressed up as proactive and visionary.  Sex offenders are being let out of prison while still potentially a threat?  Don’t keep them in jail or innovate treatment procedures, just don’t let them live anywhere except prison.  Corporations are outsourcing jobs overseas?  Don’t make American workers more desirable via advanced training and education, create tax penalties.  There are people who so hate the way in which the United States has conducted itself internationally that they’ll kill themselves and murder innocent people?  Don’t consider treating people who hold different beliefs with respect or consider dialing back the hegemonic drum-beating, just do your best to kill them.  While the stated goals of these policies will always be presented as exceedingly admirable, problems just don’t get solved.  At the local, state and federal level, we’ve spent years watching the whack-a-mole school of policy in action.

The application of Proposition 83 is in the hands of the courts now, and we’ll see what happens in the next couple of months.  In the meantime, is there such a thing as comprehensive politics anymore?  Are there politicians willing to take a swing at legitimate, large-scale reform?  And if they’re out there, is it even possible to accomplish something like this in the age of soundbites?

If there’s hope for comprehensive reform, it won’t come from the top down.  While it’s a bit much to expect actual legislation to be written and pushed from the grassroots, it’s increasingly clear that a comprehensive platform that reflects the rank and file of the Democratic Party at the local, state, and national level would be best driven by the grassroots, in particular a progressive version thereof.

So when you get a DFA invitation to participate in party elections, or when people talk about Taking Back The CA Democratic Party, it’s exactly this issue.  It’s giving the grassroots an opportunity to ensure that the party’s platform and the laws pursued and enacted make more sense from a functional level.  Ultimately, that our party and our government is working on sustainable progress with the minimum of wasted effort.

So if your district needs a good progressive to run, do it.  If your district already has one, vote for them.  It doesn’t save the world, but it’s a start.

Identifying existing bases of support and changing their minds.  That’s how any campaign manages to defeat an incumbent.  In a Democratic Primary, perhaps it’s a bit more difficult, or perhaps it’s just that the tactics have to be reinvented.  Many institutional groups (NARAL, Sierra Club, etc.) are just blindly endorsing Democratic incumbents whenever and wherever they can.  It requires changing the fundamental mindsets of people and groups who want a united Democratic front and are opposed to a system of regular primary challenges.  It requires taking on the conventional wisdom of every single Democrat in this country that’s terrified of risking a single inch and, particularly in California, it requires cracking the California Democratic Party’s iron insistence on picking the nominee before the primary (except of course, for governor, or for cases in which we beat them).  So who endorsed Ellen Tauscher in 2006?  This is the list we’re starting from.  These are the minds we’ll need to change, or at least be able to contend with.  What can we gather and how can we attack this?

The full endorsement page for Ellen Tauscher’s 2006 congressional campaign is still up and running on her website here.  Looking through it quickly, several things jump out.  One, that certainly is an impressive looking list, both in volume and content, to a casual eye.  Lots of Democrats, lots of organizations representing good sorts of people and ideas, lots of well-meaning folks.

A more careful look reveals a few other things.  For one, they’re ALL institutional.  No community leaders, no local party officials, no organizers, nobody without clout related to fundraising and ballot boxes.  Who cares what goes on in the community.  Also, some notable names missing.  Senator Barbara Boxer doesn’t make the list. Nancy Pelosi or the 32 other Congressional California Democrats aren’t mentioned either.  For that matter, not a single member of the House of Representatives or national figure outside of Senator Dianne Feinstein. Then there are other nice little maneuvers, like listing the Vice Mayor of Fairfield ahead of the Mayor of Fairfield.  Not sure how that one played in Fairfield City Hall, but I’d imagine better in some parts than others.  So here’s the full list, I would venture that it probably isn’t too early to think about how to come at this, whether in any primary that CA-10 may see or anywhere else.

Elected Officials

Dianne Feinstein,Senator, United States Senate
Phil Angelides, State Treasurer, State of California
Cruz Bustamante, Lt. Governor, State of California
John Garamendi, State Insurance Commissioner, CA Department of Insurance
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, California Department of Justice
Steve Westley, State Controller, State of California
Tom Torlakson, Senator- 7th District, California State Senate
Loni Hancock, Assembly Member- 14th District, California State Assembly
Lois Wolk, Assembly Member- 8th District, California State Assembly
Federal Glover, Supervisor, District 5, Cotra Costa County Board of Supervisors
John Vasquez, County Supervisor, Solano County
Gary Stanton, Sheriff/Coroner, Solano County
Jim Davis, City Council Member, City of Antioch
Donald Freitas, Mayor, City of Antioch
Michael Smith, Councilmember, City of Dixon
Janet Abelson, Mayor, City of El Cerrito
Jan Bridges, Councilmember, City of El Cerrito
Jack Batson, Vice Mayor, City of Fairfield
Harry Price, Mayor, City of Fairfield
Christopher Stokes, Mayor, City of Isleton
Carl Anduri, Councilmember, City of Lagayette
Lorraine Dietrich, Councilmember, City of Livermore
Marjorie Leider, Vice Mayor, City of Livermore
Laura Abrams, Councilmember, City of Orinda
Bill Judge, Mayor, City of Orinda
Victoria Smith, City Council Member, City of Orinda
Amy Worth, Councilmember, City of Orinda
John Hanecak, City Council Member, City of Pleasant Hill
Michael Harris, Councilmember, City of Pleasant Hill
Pete Sanchez, Vice Mayor, City of Suisun
Kathy Hicks, Mayor, City of Walnut Creek

Vanessa Crews, President, Acalanes Union High School District Governing Board
Dennis Goetsch, Superintedent of Schools, Antioch Unified School District
Joyce Seelinger, School Board Member, Antioch Unified School District
Shana Levine, School Board Member, Dixon Unified School District
Kim Poole, School Board Member, Dixon Unified School District
Amy Swanson, School Board Member, Dixon Unified School District
Anne Griffin, Vice President, Fairfield Suisun Unified School District
Kathy Marianno, School Board Member, Fairfield Suisun Unified School District
Gary Ebrhart, School Board Member, Mt. Diablo Unified School District
Dennis Fay, School Board Member, Orinda Unified School District
Pat Rudebusch, School Board Member, Orinda Unified School District
Paul Gardner, Governing Board Member, San Ramon Valley Unified School District
Rob Kessler, Superintedent of Schools, San Ramon Valley Unified School District
Ray Silva, School Board Member, Solano County Office of Education
Dave Brown, School Board Member, West Contra Costa Unified School District

Beverly Lane, Director, East Bay Regional Park District
Ted Radke, Director, East Bay Regional Park District
Christine Monsen, Executive Director, ACTIA

Organizations

AFSCME California
Alliance For Retired Americans
California Federation of Teachers
California Labor Federation
California Organization of Police and Sheriffs
California School Employees Association
California State Employees Association
California Teachers Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Citizens for Global Solutions
Contra Costa Central Labor Council
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 302
National Association of Social Workers
National Organization for Women Political Action Committee
National Women’s Political Caucus
NARAL Pro-Choice America PAC
Planned Parenthood Action Fund
Public Employees Union, Local One
Service Employees International Union
Sierra Club
The Vacaville Reporter

(One of the ways redistricting would be good for us is to increase turnout. higher turnout=more Dem victories. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

The AP reported Monday that 2006 turnout in California was the second lowest in state history, just falling short of the record low of 2002.  This is especially distressing since it comes in a year that saw some states match or exceed presidential-year turnout and since 2006 should have been a year which provided California Democrats a great reason to show up- knocking off Arnold Schwarzenegger.  So I have several problems with this state of affairs on the flip, and I’m sure everyone else has their favorite gripes as well.

One- Democrats had, at most, three big races that might turn people out in a big way.  Governor, CA-04, and CA-11.  Not much else got a ton of traction, despite efforts by many to make the sub-gubernatorial state races more exciting.  An LA Times editorial on Sunday touched briefly on this issue in the context of redistricting, noting that seats simply don’t change hands in California at this point.  Since redistricting in 2001, there just haven’t been very many compelling races.  If every district is predetermined, why do people bother showing up?

Two- The recently released Democratic Party Agenda for 2007 lists nine major points, three of which are directly focused on voter registration or mobilization.  Obviously an important issue if done properly.  But with inspiring and ambitious goals like “Expand the Party’s new citizen voter registration programs”, I’ll have to be forgiven if I’m wary about the underlying detailed infrastructure and institutional commitment to this plan.  Particularly in a political climate in which Democrats are scared to death of the immigration issue thus don’t want to court the Latino vote too hard, I’ll wait for some concrete plans.  In the meantime- how about a full push for the Democratic Party in Spanish?  Anyways, that’s another day.

Third- Perhaps most distressing, this turnout means that, for all the Democrats who tripped over each other trying to line up behind a supposed moderate, reformist winner in Schwarzenneger, he was elected with the votes of less than 19% of potentially eligible California voters.  19 percent!  Let’s start rolling that into his “mandate” shall we?  This great force of political dynamism could only clock in just short of 19-friggin-percent.  The flipside of course, even more painful, is that it leaves Angelides with an even more sad 15.3% of Californians.

If we want to reform the state party, and we do, getting people to vote is going to be the biggest way to make a difference.  I haven’t seen registration or turnout data that would serve as a targeting model, but I have no doubt that it’s out there.  But if this state party is only good for 15% in a gubernatorial race, I’d say we have a pretty good case for its being entirely impotent.

Blogging has provided incredible innovation when it comes to how messages and issues are framed, packaged and delivered.  But getting people turned out hasn’t seen much of the action.  We phone bank, we knock on doors, but we don’t innovate.  MoveOn has made great strides towards nationalizing and simplifying phonebanking by allowing people to do it from home, but the fundamental methods of outreach have remained the same.  Maybe they need to be, but the netroots is packed with creativity and ingenuity, there should be more ways to shake up this process.

So consider this a first sounding board.  I’ve got a few ideas percolating already, but until I get those fully formed, what else is out there?