by RLMiller

One of the benefits of newly redrawn maps for me is the ability to vote for Fran Pavley, running for state Senate District 27. Recently, former speaker of the Assembly Bob Hertzberg has expressed interest in the race. His stated rationale: he’s a moderate, the district is moderate, he’s a Valley guy.

He might be looking at a different SD27.  

The one I’m living in covers some of the West Valley, but also includes east Ventura County, Malibu, and parts of Santa Clarita. Pavley was a mayor and councilmember of Agoura Hills, the geographic heart of the new district. Democrats at an East Ventura County women’s club who heard Pavley speak a couple of weeks ago are quite sure they don’t want to be represented by a Sherman Oaks resident – they moved to Ventura County to get away from the San Fernando Valley.

More important than carpetbagging issues is Hertzberg’s record. Hertzberg is a moderate, pro-business Democrat. Currently, he co-chairs California Forward, a Third Way/raging centrist group thinking that it has a monopoly on common sense. His wife sits on the board of Kaiser Permanente, so presumably he’s less than thrilled with healthcare reform. In 2005, he ran – and lost – for mayor of Los Angeles by espousing traditional GOP themes.

By contrast, Pavley is a champion of progressive values. In 2011, her bills signed by Governor Jerry Brown include laws banning toxic cadmium from jewelry and toxic BPA from children’s sippy cups, promoting energy conservation, and strengthening domestic violence laws. Despite Hertzberg’s being a Valley guy, it’s Pavley – not Hertzberg – who has received the unanimous endorsement of the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, an umbrella organization of 27 Democratic clubs.

Perhaps Pavley’s greatest contribution to the California economy is AB32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, bringing clean energy jobs to California. The law bothers oil companies so much that they mounted an entirely unsuccessful attack on it in 2010, Proposition 23. Thanks in part to her leadership, California is on target to meet its renewable energy standards early. One in four American solar jobs is in California. As a climate hawk, she’ll keep California on track to lead the fight against global warming.

Pavley was endorsed overwhelmingly, 105-1, by party insiders at pre-endorsement caucuses this weekend. She deserves to be the party’s nominee, and to win in November.

Last Wednesday, I baked a pie for my local Democratic club meeting. I named this one the Occu-Pie Apple Pie, because all good pies should have names.



A new face showed up at the meeting to tell us about a MoveOn rally on Friday afternoon. She liked my pie, the rally sounded interesting, and I decided to go.

But first, a little about Ventura County. It has the beach city of Ventura; the working-class Latino city of Oxnard; and the purple-to-red East County, home of the Reagan Library, and that’s all you really need to know about East County politics, isn’t it? While others howled about Occupy Wall Street police brutality arrests, I tweeted: “Videotape of police brutality does not, in and of itself, swing America to your side. Love, Rodney King country.”  

So I showed up to the MoveOn rally Friday afternoon with a simple sign (“I am the 99% – are you?”), figuring that I’d be there for half an hour and then move on. About 50 to 75 people joined the rally, all with signs.

And people honked approval at us.

And they honked, and honked, and honked.

A few people shouted at us to “get a job!” and “move to China!” but I could barely hear them over the honking.

About half the people waving signs at this rally were people I’ve seen at prior political events. Others were simply ordinary people who had stories to tell, stories that a casual observer wouldn’t associate with an upper-middle-class safe city.

I decided to attend the #OccupyVentura rally the following day after a local Democratic women’s club brunch meeting. I drove a friend, Karoli of Crooks & Liars. Here’s her story of big signs.

Before I arrived, the group marched to the local Bank of America to withdraw funds, but the branch shut down early to avoid a scene. Overall, the mood was as mellow as you’d expect from a sleepy beach town. The OccupyVentura rally was cleared with police in advance, and a couple of police officers hung out in a distant corner of the park. I saw one man with an Obama-as-the-Joker T-shirt, but no obvious LaRouchies, anti-Semites, or Ron Paul fans as have been reported at other OWS rallies.

The quintessential occupier of Ventura: a man with one tooth, a brilliant idea for renewable energy that would save the world, and an overwhelming desire to tell me everything about it except for the idea itself. I wanted to hear more, I wanted to take him to the dentist and buy him new clothes, I wanted to run away – all at once.

The event took place in a park along Main Street. A streetside view – you can’t hear the horns honking in this photo, but they were near-constant:

Away from the street, a handful of tents and a stage were set up. A band played for an hour, then people spoke at an open mic (with a real microphone). The stories they told were deeply personal, sometimes angry, sometimes confessional. A couple of speakers emphasized the need for action with specific demands such as reinstating Glass-Steagall. However, the emphasis was on sharing stories: anger, pain, bewilderment. Organizers had set up a command central tent, a media tent, a sign-making area, and my personal favorite – the Occuplay!

The one thing missing from the rally was an effort to engage people in traditional political action – no voter registration, no petition to sign, no collection of email addresses. If the movement grows, the people telling their deeply personal stories need to take that next step.

The following day, I was among the volunteers representing our local Democratic club at an annual street fair. A number of community groups set up booths among the sellers of kettle corn and Etsy-type crafts. We had steady traffic all morning – people who asked about the local clubs, people who wanted to register, people who wanted to buy buttons and bumper stickers, people who just wanted to flash a furtive thumbs up sign. Sometimes, in a purple-to-red county, we just need to let Democrats know that they’re not alone.

David Pollock, who’s running for Congress in the new CA-25 now held by useless backbencher Elton Gallegly, had a carnival barker’s cadence: “Register to vote! Are you registered to vote? You can’t vote unless you’re registered!”  Whether it was his voice or something else, we signed up 22 Democratic voters by 1 PM, including 2 Republicans switching parties.

This story began with an Occu-Pie, segued to a rally raising community visibility, then to a bigger rally raising consciousness, and then to direct action registering voters. It’ll end with another Occu-Pie. In this face-off between 1 Big Max and 99 sweet little pumpkins, who will win? The pie baker!

Proposition 23, known as the Dirty Energy Proposition for its financial backing from oil companies, has garnered national publicity for its effort to roll back California’s greenhouse gas law.  Virtually all of its funding has come from outside California, beginning with Texas-based Valero Energy Co., Texas-based Tesoro Energy Co., and the Kansas-based Koch brothers.  Californians who care about our state, and who remember Texas-based Enron and Utah-based LDS Church, resent the intrusion of out of state interests meddling in our politics.  

But what of in-state oil companies and businesses who might normally put their money into Proposition 23?  Chevron and the California Chamber of Commerce are staying neutral.  That’s good, right?

I investigated.  Short answer: no, that’s not good.

Proposition 23 is easy to understand — FAQs here.  Propositions 25 and 26, by comparison, are MEGO propositions — “my eyes glaze over” — addressing budget processes.  Proposition 25 will end budget gridlock by requiring a simple majority, rather than a 2/3 vote, to pass a state budget; both the California Democratic Party and the Los Angeles Times recommend a “yes” vote.  Proposition 26, a state constitutional amendment, seeks to require a 2/3 majority on certain business fees by declaring them “taxes”; both the California Democratic Party and Los Angeles Times recommend “no” votes.  

While officially remaining neutral on Proposition 23, California-based oil companies Chevron and Occidental, and the California Chamber of Commerce, have been quietly funnelling their cash into a No on 25/Yes on 26 political action committee.  I’ve reviewed donations made through the end of September 2010, reported 10/5/10.  All data from California Secretary of State.

First, the basic size of the PAC:

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $6,051,060.29

EXPENDITURES FROM THIS PERIOD $6,208,269.55

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $9,459,904.08

ENDING CASH $819,351.21

By contrast, here’s the same data for the dirty energy “Yes on 23” PAC:

TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $8,362,235.39

EXPENDITURES FROM THIS PERIOD $1,774,375.49

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1/1/2010 – 09/30/2010 $5,317,593.35

ENDING CASH $3,122,966.01

In other words, both groups have taken in about the same amount of money; Yes on 23 has more cash in reserve and No on 25/Yes on 26 has spent more.

Here are some contributions to No on 25/Yes on 26:

California Business Political Action Committee, Sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce:

$215,000.00  4/23/2010

$325,000.00  4/30/2010

$100,000.00  5/7/2010

$120,000.00  5/17/2010

$75,000.00  4/1/2010

$235,000.00  8/20/2010

 $2,322.65  7/1/2010 (non-monetary contribution)

$100,000.00  3/4/2010

$50,000.00  3/5/2010

$125,000.00  3/10/2010

$75,000.00  3/18/2010

Subtotal: $1,422.322.65

Chevron Corporation [based in San Ramon, CA]

$250,000.00  4/15/2010

$250,000.00  9/13/2010

$750,000.00  9/24/2010

Occidental Petroleum [based in Los Angeles, CA]

$250,000.00  9/24/2010

Subtotal from California-based oil companies: $1,500,000

Chevron has donated $1.25M to Prop 26, compared to Koch’s donation of $1M to Prop 23.  But why does Chevron care about California’s budget?  Proposition 26’s backers portray the initiative as necessary to stop “hidden taxes.”  Jean Ross of the California Budget Project explains otherwise:

the fees at issue are primarily those that regulate, mitigate and otherwise respond to environmental, health, and other social impacts of products and services. In other words, businesses seeking to avoid financial responsibility for the “externalities” of the products that they sell….

If the state can’t impose the fees on “pollution-causing industries” to recoup the cost of environmental monitoring and remediation, those costs will be shifted to taxpayers as a whole. Or, in an era where budget crises have become the status quo, programs that enforce environmental, food safety and other laws will be scaled back, if not eliminated. Which may be the true goal of the backers of Proposition 26.

Proposition 26 is a Polluters Protection Act.  Its goal is simple: whatever Proposition 23 can’t undo openly, Proposition 26 will undermine sneakily.  Californians are enthusiastically mobilizing against Proposition 23, but they need to be equally energized against Proposition 26 and for Proposition 25.

Call me shocked, just shocked to find that there’s gambling with California’s future in this election.  

The state legislator responsible for placing Proposition 23, the anti-climate measure, on the ballot is…a climate zombie.  And one of Proposition 23’s out of state dirty energy supporters, Koch Industries, Patient Zero of the climate zombie infection is holding a fundraiser Thursday night for climate zombie Senate wannabe Carly Fiorina.

WWMWD?  Will Meg Whitman endorse Proposition 23 and its oil-soaked supporters, or will she join the forward-thinking California businesses who urge a no vote?  

Proposition 23 seeks to “suspend” AB32, California’s landmark global warming law, until the Twelfth of Never unemployment reaches 5.5% for four quarters.  Proposition 23’s money is coming almost exclusively from out of state oil interests such as Valero Energy, Tesoro Energy, and Koch Industries.  As a proxy for a national climate fight, the initiative is drawing national attention. A Koch-funded astroturf group, Americans for Prosperity, calls Proposition 23 our highest priority.

Officially, Proposition 23 is the product of Dan Logue, a Republican member of the state assembly.  Logue thinks global warming could be a scam.  At a debate last week, he sidestepped questions whether global warming is caused by humans, then noted that he has a book where 31,000 scientists say climate change is not caused by humans.  (This is probably a reference to the infamous Oregon Petition allegedly signed by 31,000 trained monkeys climate scientists who deny science.) He doesn’t know of one person who died of carbon emissions — and who do you believe, him or the American Lung Association?

Stupid went viral and infected Logue.  He’s one of the climate zombies of the new GOP — Republicans who deny climate science.  He’s also a back-bencher who will have very little impact on California politics if Proposition 23 fails.  Far more high-profile is fellow climate zombie Carly Fiorina.

Not sure whether Fiorina is a climate zombie?  Listen:

As a true climate zombie, Fiorina flaunts her corporate ties.  Koch is one of two corporate sponsors of a fundraiser Thursday night.  (The other is a plastic surgeons’ PAC — no misogynistic/ageist jokes, please.)  All it takes to join her at an exclusive sponsor/host VIP reception is $5,000.  A certain amount of avarice-fueled stupid won’t hurt.

All eyes now turn to Meg Whitman, who would have signed AB32 in 2006, but would veto AB32 in 2010 — nothing like a little decisiveness in a chief executive, eh?  Will she join Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, George Shultz, and San Diego City Mayor Jerry Sanders, or Republicans like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell?  Will she side with Texas oil businesses or the big businesses defending California’s climate regulations?

Governors, Senators, and low-level state legislators may come and go, but the effects of Proposition 23 — whether it passes or fails — will echo in California and the nation for years.  Our choice is stark: build the clean technology future or burn the planet, leaving it fit for habitation only by the undead.

Full disclosure: as an unpaid volunteer, I wrote the No on Prop 23 for the California Democratic Party’s cool new website.  All opinions are my own.

This year, climate activists have been on the defensive.  The climate bill died in the Senate.  Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Baked Alaska) effort to roll back the Clean Air Act came close to passing the Senate.  Politicians both Blue Dog and red complained that jobs were more important than climate.  In this environment, California’s Proposition 23 — an initiative to suspend the state’s global warming law until unemployment reaches 5.5% for a year — seemed like a slam-dunk.

But a funny thing happened.  Californians are more bothered by the ideas that Proposition 23’s funding is 97% from oil companies and 89% out of state, and that it’ll destroy our clean air, than they are by the myth — and it is a myth — of Proposition 23 saving jobs to be killed by the global warming law.

In 2006, California passed the Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32), making the state a leader in fighting global warming by reducing greenhouse gases and serving as a catalyst to the state’s growing green jobs market.  This election, out of state dirty energy producers are funding Proposition 23 to undo all of that and turn back the clock on our state’s clean energy future.

Proposition 23 is opposed by the obvious groups: environmentalists, California’s wind and solar industries, and the American Lung Association.  It’s also strongly opposed by Silicon Valley: Google executives, San Francisco venture capitalists, and chambers of commerce in Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Francisco.  The San Jose Mercury News urged a “no” vote early.  The Oakland Tribune and Contra Costa Times have recently added their voices, and the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat recommends No: “a misguided attempt, largely backed by big oil companies,” to undermine clean air priorities.

California elections tend to be the blue coast vs the red inland.  Not this time.  Check out the Manteca Bulletin explaining the oil companies’ reasoning: Valero and Tesoro want to shut down their California refineries, the only ones in the country to meet California’s strict emissions standards, and bring in dirty fuel refined out of state by workers paid less.

The Woodland Daily Democrat urges a no vote: “The initiative would devastate efforts to create a vibrant clean-energy sector and have a disastrous impact on the state’s economy.”  For those who’ve never visited, Woodland is a farm town in Yolo County that UC Davis students perenially mock as “stuck in the 1950s.” Ventura County Star urges voters to reject Proposition 23 to clear the air.  Although Ventura County is a coastal county, it’s conservative.  And the Pasadena Chamber of Commerce opposes Proposition 23.  Reagan-era Republican George Shultz isn’t afraid to say that passing Proposition 23 will harm national security.

Fiscally conservative San Diego’s most conservative suburbs are in the East County.  The East County Magazine named five local mayors voicing their opposition, then did the math:

As of August 18, Yes on 23 lists not a single state or federal elected official endorsing their position. No on 23 lists 35 state and federal elected officials. Yes on 23 lists 58 businesses; No on 23 lists over 292 businesses and business organizations, including 182 renewable energy businesses as well as corporations including Google, Pacific Gas & Electric Co., and Blue Shield of California.  Yes on 23 lists 158 total businesses and organizations of all types, including the California Automotive Association and Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association; No on 23 lists 474 groups in its camp including the American Lung Association and Sierra Club. Yes on 23 lists zero individual business leaders; No on 23 lists 321.

The most curious incident with Proposition 23 may be the California-based big businesses who aren’t barking against it.  Both California-based Chevron and the California Chamber of Commerce are staying neutral.

So who, besides out-of-state oil companies, supports Prop 23?  The Chico Enterprise-Record.  After refusing to take a stand during a nationally televised debate, climate zombie Carly Fiorina.  Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity.  And, most recently, four Republican attorneys general from four faraway states — Alabama, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Texas — are preparing to sue California if Proposition 23 fails.  But, so far, not a lot of Californians.  We’re not going to be manipulated by out-of-state dirty energy interests into voting against our own interests.

Full disclosure: I’m honored to have written, as a volunteer, the “no on Proposition 23” piece at the terrific new website of the California Democratic Party.  Opinions expressed here are my own…but I hope you’ll share them.

A couple of weeks ago, a small story appeared in the Stockton Record: Ethanol Supports Approved:

Pacific Ethanol Inc. said Wednesday that its two California production plants, including a currently idle facility in Stockton, have been accepted by the state Energy Commission for a new price support program.

The California Ethanol Producer Incentive Program would provide payments to ethanol producers when market conditions are poor but would require the payments be reimbursed when economics improve….

The incentive program itself is stalled, however, by the ongoing state budget impasse….

Pacific Ethanol’s operating subsidiaries, including its California production plants in Stockton and Madera, emerged from Bankruptcy Court reorganization in late June. Both remain offline, waiting for market conditions to improve.

Below the fold, multiple layers of wrong.

1.  What’s wrong with ethanol?

Pacific Ethanol describes itself as “a leader in producing and marketing low-carbon ethanol”:

Ethanol is a critical part of the country’s energy future. As an alternative fuel or a fuel additive, it has many advantages. Ethanol is made from renewable resources, reducing air pollution and carbon dioxide emissions that contribute to global warming. Ethanol also helps consumers by increasing domestic fuel supplies and refining capacity. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 significantly increases the mandated use of renewable fuels to 9 billion gallons in 2008, with an incremental rise to 36 billion gallons by 2022.

However, corn ethanol has fallen out of favor (except, perhaps, in Iowa) as a reliable replacement for fossil fuels.  “A growing body of scientific opinion holds that clearing fields to grow corn, harvest it, distill it into ethanol and ship it to oil refineries consumes as much energy and causes as much environmental damage as burning oil,” and corn ethanol fared poorly in a California Air Resources Board ranking of environmentally friendly fuels, reports the Los Angeles Times.  A Natural Resources Defense Council report contends that the national corn ethanol subsidy “has not only concentrated the ethanol industry in just a handful of states, but siphoned scarce resources away from more competitive biofuel technologies that create far less pollution and would allow more than double the number of U.S. states to meaningfully participate in ethanol production,” and that corn ethanol creates more global warming pollution than the gasoline it’s supposed to replace.

That’s wrong no. 1: the idea that corn ethanol can ever be an environmentally friendly fossil fuel replacement.  But it gets worse.

2.  What’s wrong with Pacific Ethanol?

Pacific Ethanol was founded by Bill Jones, a Republican Party stalwart and former Secretary of State who’s given $70,000 to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaigns, reports the Los Angeles Times.  It’s the largest of four ethanol companies in line for $15 million in subsidies.  Bill Gates invested in Pacific Ethanol, then stopped investing, the price of corn rose while the price of ethanol didn’t, and bankruptcy was filed.  

Three years ago, a tax on car owners was passed, commonly known as AB118, that goes to an Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program.  When the fund was set up, its backers said it would not be used for corn ethanol, but instead other biofuels.  However, last summer Pacific Ethanol’s chief executive visited the office of Schwarzenegger’s environmental adviser to press the case for access to the fund.  Next thing, the Stockton Record is reporting that Pacific Ethanol’s plants have qualified for $15 million in subsidies from that $100 million fund.

That’s wrong no. 2: a politically well connected business siphoning millions of dollars that it wasn’t supposed to get from a well-intentioned funds.

3.   What’s wrong with free money?

Pacific Ethanol has operated plants in Stockton and Madera.  However, both have been idle since filing bankruptcy, which ended in June 2010.  They’ll start up if and when they get the state’s $15 million in price supports.  Again, the state will pay Pacific Ethanol when ethanol prices are low, as they have been, but require the company to reimburse the state when prices climb.  That is, if prices climb; corn ethanol appears to have stagnated as other biofuels experience scientific breakthroughs.

We’re now on wrong no. 3: a $15 million bailout, possibly in perpetuity, for a waning industry.  Just because it’s well-connected to Republicans in power.  Which makes wrong no. 4 slightly less wrong than it should be.

4.  What’s wrong with the California budget?

It’s 58 days overdue, and no one seems to care.  Pacific Ethanol won’t get its free money until a budget is passed.  Neither will a lot of people who need the money more than California’s small, but well connected, ethanol industry.  Legislators looking for waste, fraud, and abuse can start with a skeptical eye on Pacific Ethanol.  

Can sunshine and public pressure undo what lobbyists have done?  If the layers of wrong in this story bother you, contact:

Alternative and Renewable Fuel & Vehicle Technology Program

Fuels & Transportation Division

California Energy Commission

Phone: 916-654-4634

E-mail: AB118 at energy dot state dot ca dot us

My representative in Congress, Elton Gallegly (R-CA24), is a useless backbencher.  He works to oppose animal “crush” videos, which is a minor positive, while voting in lockstep with Republicans the rest of the time. And he’s been questioning the Fourteenth Amendment, trying to end automatic citizenship for children born in the United States, since 1991.  But this year, he’s considering joining the House Tea Party Caucus.

Enough is enough.  So when MoveOn asked me to host a rally outside Gallegly’s office tomorrow afternoon, I agreed.  What have I gotten myself into?  

Every two years, I vote against Gallegly, but every two years, I’m outnumbered.  In 2008, the normally red district turned purple, voting for Obama and Gallegly.  This year, Gallegly may have a serious threat in Tim Allison.  So he’s taken to local newspapers claiming he “fights for people.”

But does he really fight for people, or is he simply corrupt? Karoli, of Crooks & Liars, sums up his voting record:

Let’s have a look at Elton Gallegly’s voting record and see what he’s “fighting for” in Congress. He’s pretty consistent on Agriculture, voting 100% for appropriations bills when Republicans are in the majority and mixed when Democrats are in the majority.  Agribusiness has given $352,000 to his campaigns over the years.

How about the unemployed? He voted against the unemployment benefits extensions in July, April, and December 2009. He voted for the emergency unemployment benefits in November, 2009 which were packaged with Business and Homebuyer Tax Credits, but voted against the June 2008 emergency unemployment extension. He voted against mortgage restructuring in bankruptcy, against the federal stimulus bill (ARRA), against sCHIP expansion, among others.

On the other hand, he voted for the Bush tax cuts and for their extension in 2006, voted to appropriate the funds for both Afghanistan and Iraq, voted against limiting those funds or requiring a withdrawal date from either one. He also voted to extend the homebuyer’s tax credit which benefited the real estate developers who contributed handsomely to his campaign.

Really, I could go on, but the bottom line is that he votes against things more than he votes for them, and it’s more or less the Republican party line. Fight is something he doesn’t really do much of.

I doubt Rep. Gallegly will agree with me that obstructionism and corruption are among Washington’s biggest problems.  MoveOn has some no-nonsense, common sense ideas to fight Washington corruption:

Amend the Constitution to protect America from unlimited corporate spending on our elections by overturning the Supreme Court’s decision giving corporations the same First Amendment rights as people.

Pass the Fair Elections Now Act, providing public financing to candidates who are supported by small donors so they can compete with corporate-backed and self-funded candidates.

Pass legislation to end the overwhelming influence of corporate lobbyists by: prohibiting individuals from switching from corporate lobbying to government service, or vice-versa, within a 5-year period; stopping corporate lobbyists from giving gifts and providing free travel to government officials; and posting online the attendees and content of all meetings between lobbyists and government officials.

I have no problem signing that.  Somehow I doubt Rep. Gallegly will agree.  We’ll see tomorrow.  

If you’re in or near Rep. Gallegly’s district, stop by:

Rep. Elton Gallegly’s District Office, 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 315

Thousand Oaks, CA 91361

Tuesday, August 10th, 5:00 PM