Some big news has been breaking on the anti-AB 32 front in recent days. After Valero got hit by the combined efforts of the Courage Campaign and CREDO Action with our Boycott Valero campaign (note: I work as Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign), as well as the No on Valero effort, they appear to have called for reinforcements.

As noted in the LA Times story on our Boycott Valero campaign, Los Angeles-based Occidental Petroleum is now part of the coalition trying to undermine AB 32, having donated $300,000 last week to the repeal effort. Oxy was joined by a Missouri think tank, the Adam Smith Foundation, which gave $498,000 to the repeal last week despite having just $30,000 in annual revenues the last two years.

The Courage Campaign has already been fighting Valero and Tesoro, the original oil company backers of the anti-AB 32 initiative. The entry of Oxy and the Adam Smith Foundation (and whoever their real backers are) into the fight shows that our Boycott Valero action is having a powerful impact. Now, on the eve of Earth Day, is precisely the moment to step up our efforts and show these oil companies we won’t let them destroy California’s environment or our economic future.

That’s why the Courage Campaign is launching a fundraising drive to help us build out our campaign to defend AB 32 from the oil companies. We’ve sunk a lot of time and energy into this campaign in the last 3 weeks, and it’s becoming clear that we need additional resources to sustain our efforts in the face of the oil company onslaught. Can you donate $25 or more to help us keep up the pressure?

Launching the fundraiser is Rick Jacobs, chair of the Courage Campaign, who knows a little something about Occidental. He was an executive there in the 1980s, working as chief of staff to the CEO and eventually becoming the youngest vice-president in the history of the company. He later left Oxy because he felt they were not being responsible to their shareholders, and today devotes his time to the Courage Campaign as an unpaid Chair, holding corporations and politicians accountable to the progressive values most Californians share.

Jacobs slammed Oxy’s participation in the anti-AB 32 effort, in an email to Courage Campaign members across California:

After the first “oil shocks” of the 1970s, I remember being heartened that Oxy was focusing on finding alternatives to oil. Eventually, however, oil became so cheap Oxy stopped that research.

So when I saw that Oxy was joining Valero to kill AB 32, I was disappointed but not really surprised. While the market now craves the green energy alternatives being fueled by AB 32, Oxy and its executives are prioritizing their obscene profits — and dirty energy — over our prosperity and environment….

This is David vs. Goliath. That’s why it will take meaningful action this Earth Day to stop Oxy and Valero from killing AB 32.

Occidental, Valero, Tesoro, and the other backers of the initiative clearly believe that California’s economy and environmental laws should give way to their relentless desire for unlimited profit. Yet oil companies are part of the past, represent a failed 20th century economic model that California has to shed if we are to rebuild prosperity in the 21st century.

AB 32 helps spur a green economy and clean energy jobs by incentivizing more efficient operations of oil companies. It doesn’t shut down Oxy, Valero, or Tesoro. It just means they have to make some investments in reducing their carbon emissions. That’s not so onerous.

Unfortunately, these folks have spent nearly $2 million to get the anti-AB 32 initiative on the ballot. We can’t let them overwhelm grassroots progressive response. Please help us sustain and expand our campaign to stop the oil companies from destroying California’s future.

Below is the full email Rick Jacobs sent to Courage Campaign members this morning.

Dear Robert —

I have a confession to make: I’m a recovering oil company executive.

When I was 24, the CEO of Occidental Petroleum offered me the job of a lifetime. I became his chief of staff and eventually the youngest vice president in the history of the company.

One of the reasons I left Occidental — or “Oxy,” as a lot of folks call them — 20 years ago was because they were not being responsible to their shareholders or community. Today, I devote my time to the Courage Campaign as an unpaid Chair, holding corporations and politicians accountable to the progressive values most Californians share.

That’s why the news that the Los Angeles Times is reporting is so personal: Oxy just donated $300,000 to help kill AB 32 — California’s landmark Global Warming Solutions Act. They want to pass a dirty energy proposition that would increase pollution in California and destroy America’s opportunity to build a green jobs economy.

With Valero Oil’s signature-gathering campaign stalled and nearly 30,000 Courage Campaign and CREDO Action members pledging to boycott Valero, Oxy is riding to their rescue. But we can stop them — maybe even before they can get this initiative on the ballot.

With Earth Day fast approaching, we need to turbo-charge our campaign to defeat Valero and Oxy. If 48 people in your county contribute $25 or more, we can hit the ground running. The more we raise, the more we can do. DEADLINE: Earth Day, April 22:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

After the first “oil shocks” of the 1970s, I remember being heartened that Oxy was focusing on finding alternatives to oil. Eventually, however, oil became so cheap Oxy stopped that research.

So when I saw that Oxy was joining Valero to kill AB 32, I was disappointed but not really surprised. While the market now craves the green energy alternatives being fueled by AB 32, Oxy and its executives are prioritizing their obscene profits — and dirty energy — over our prosperity and environment.

I take no money for my work at Courage. That’s just one reason why we can rely on small-dollar donations to make our campaigns possible. But relying on small-dollar donations is also why we don’t have billions of dollars like Oxy and Valero.

This is David vs. Goliath. That’s why it will take meaningful action this Earth Day to stop Oxy and Valero from killing AB 32. We just need 48 people from your county to contribute $25 or more and build our campaign from the ground up. Join us today:

http://www.couragecampaign.org…

Thanks to you, we’re going to show oil companies like Oxy and Valero that we won’t let them mess with California.

Rick Jacobs

Chair, Courage Campaign

Later today the Assembly Rules Committee will take up the renomination of Abel Maldonado to be Lieutenant Governor.

By now you know where we at Calitics stand: Democrats have a duty to this state to confirm him. That’s not because we like Maldonado, far from it. He is a reprehensible politician who has gotten where he is only by disreputable scheming at the expense of his constituents (I’m one of them) and at the expense of California’s ability to fund its core services.

Maldonado will have a few months as Lieutenant Governor, but it isn’t likely to help him much for the fall. Either Gavin Newsom or Janice Hahn can paint him as an out-of-touch incumbent Sacramento hack, which is exactly what he is. I certainly hope he doesn’t cast any stupid votes on the State Lands Commission or on the UC Board of Regents or CSU Board of Directors, but if he does it’ll boost the candidacy of either Newsom or Hahn.

And in any case, there are bigger fish to fry: namely, Republican obstruction in the State Senate. Just as there is widespread agreement at the need to eliminate the filibuster in the US Senate at the earliest possible opportunity, we have to seize this chance to win a 2/3rds majority in the State Senate. At the CDP convention in LA last weekend most delegates and most Democrats who addressed the convention agreed that majority rule was essential to the state’s future.

Well, here’s their opportunity to provide it. Confirming Maldonado anytime after today means we can consolidate the runoff round of the special election here in SD-15 with the November general election. Democrats in this district are chomping at the bit to start working to put John Laird in the seat, especially us here in Monterey County. In fact, Monterey County will be ground zero in the fight for 2/3rds, since our other senate district, SD-12, can be flipped from red to blue by Anna Caballero.

This is an opportunity that cannot be missed. Maldonado is already on the Republican ballot for the LtG office, so we’re going to face him in November no matter what is decided about his confirmation. We might as well get something out of it – and 2/3rds is the holy grail, the achievement that makes all other achievements possible. Yes, we still need to win 2/3rds in the Assembly, and there are some good candidates running across the state that can make it happen too.

But there’s no sense in waiting to 2012 to elect a 2/3rds majority to the State Senate, especially with the unpredictable outcomes of Prop 14 and the redistricting commission looming. The Assembly should vote to confirm Maldonado – but not until tomorrow at the earliest.

Speaker John A. Perez voted against Maldonado (the second time – remember there were two votes that day in February, and he did not vote the first time), but since then has said there is a “pathway” for Maldonado to be confirmed. Let’s hope they’ve found it.

It was an ambitious idea that doesn’t quite seem to be working out. Prop 11 was based on the concept that informed citizens, representing the state’s diversity, would draw better maps for state legislative districts than the legislators themselves. Prop 11 narrowly passed in 2008, and is already the subject of both a repeal initiative and a initiative to create this kind of commission for the Congressional seats.

Whatever you think of the concept, it’s not functioning as planned, as Torey Van Oot reports for the SacBee:

But with the supplemental application deadline closed, about 90 percent of initial applicants failed to submit completed paperwork. And a statistical breakdown of remaining candidates shows the group is proportionately less ethnically diverse than the initial pool of applicants….

But white males submitted nearly 60 percent of the completed supplemental applications.

The smaller pool of applications means far fewer voters from each group. The pool of African American applicants decreased from 2,563 to 162. The number of applicants who identified themselves as Latino dropped from 3,526 to 163.

None of the 34 women who identified themselves as Pacific Islanders in the first applications have submitted complete applications this round.

The second round of applications required applicants to submit letters of recommendation, submit essay responses, and talk about their political and work backgrounds. It resembled an application for the University of California – which is significant, since UC has found in recent years that a lot of outreach is needed to ensure that people of color are able to complete these applications.

While many activists from communities of color did a lot of outreach work for this, both the application requirements and service requirements appear to have been so onerous that it is producing a pool that does not really reflect California.

The State Auditor’s office, which oversees the process, believes they still have enough diverse applicants to fill out the panel. But it will be too close for comfort, as a smaller pool means there’s much less room for error in case there are future problems with an application or if an applicant can’t continue as part of the process.

I’ve never believed that this kind of commission is either necessary or beneficial to reforming California’s politics. And it seems that it is not quite working out as intended.

Other states use a panel of judges (Washington) or some other independent commission, or they just leave in the hands of legislators. Given the fact that Californians have sorted themselves according to political affinity, it’s difficult to draw many “balanced” districts anyway, even if you thought doing so was useful, and I’m not convinced it is.

If either the Prop 11 repeal or the Prop 11 extension initiatives do make it to the ballot, the problems of this commission will make a powerful argument for the former and against the latter.

Last week SF Weekly published a cover story titled The Muni Death Spiral, charting the decline of the city’s mass transit system. While the article did provide good reporting on the relationship between Muni and Mayor Gavin Newsom, getting into the details of how Newsom’s policies have weakened Muni, the bulk of the article was given over to a sustained attack on Muni workers. The article’s primary effect is apparently to attack transit operators as being to blame for the system’s problems by getting paid too much and having favorable work rules.

There’s just one problem with the above thesis: it ignores the actual root problem with Muni, which is that it has never had the funding necessary to significantly improve its situation.

There are three words you won’t find in the SF Weekly article, and they are “Sacramento” and “Arnold Schwarzenegger.” State budget cuts to public transit funding means Muni is being starved of resources at precisely the moment it needs more funding to boost service levels, which is the key to fixing the system. Arnold Schwarzenegger has been waging a sustained war on mass transit for the last 3 years, but you wouldn’t know it from the SF Weekly article.

Instead of talking about the state’s elimination of public transit assistance funds (a supposedly temporary measure) and its role in producing Muni’s $129 million deficit, writers Joe Eskenazi and Greg Dewar instead create a narrative that suggests any increased funding would be wasted on mismanagement and public workers. That repeats a similar process seen across the state, where anti-tax sentiment is fueled by public belief that their current tax dollars are wasted, so why vote for new revenues?

I don’t know if that was their intention. In fact, Greg Dewar has been a strong supporter of new revenues for Muni and has consistently slammed Sacramento politicians of both parties for their public transit cuts, including in numerous comments here at Calitics.

Which makes it all the more unusual that the article didn’t include any mention of the state budget cuts. If anything is causing Muni’s “death spiral” it is the state budget cuts, which leave SF politicians with few options to even avoid major cutbacks in service, not to mention improve service and fix ongoing problems.

Breaking the Muni operators’ union, as SF Supervisor Sean Elsbernd is attempting to do with a city ballot initiative this year, will do precisely nothing to accomplish the above tasks. What Muni needs is a massive infusion of funding to achieve the following fixes:

• Maintain and increase levels of service on its routes, including more buses on heavily used routes

• Implement more robust bus priority policies on SF streets, and pay for the enforcement of these policies, including aggressive ticketing and towing of drivers who block buses

• Build out the long-planned and desperately needed mass transit plans for some of the key corridors, including 19th Street, Geary, and so on

• The above investments will themselves reduce common problems of overcrowding and delays that create tensions between operators and passengers.

That will likely require a combination of restored state funding and local funding to pay for the investments and operations. But it’s going to be much less likely to build public support for those solutions if all the public hears is that Mayor Newsom hates Muni and the transit operators are greedy.

To be clear, that’s not to say that the article shouldn’t have been written. Eskenazi and Dewar have told an important story about the internal operations of Muni and pointed out things that can and should be improved with system management. Public support for a new revenue measure will be bolstered when those issues are addressed.

But the failure to contextualize those problems by showing the devastating impact on Muni of state budget cuts and an overall inability of funding to keep pace with system needs and ridership growth means that readers haven’t really been given the whole story about the causes of Muni’s death spiral. And that will make it harder to rally public support for the new investments we all seem to agree Muni needs to survive.

The California Democratic Party convention may be lacking a clear statewide vision for the state’s future. But one thing that’s not lacking is local leadership to expand the Democratic ranks. While there’s a lot of attention being paid to the major statewide races in the media, it’s in the races for state legislature and Congress where the future of this party and this state is being made.

There are two places in California that stand out to me as the locations of expanded and renewed Democratic power: the Central Coast and Orange County.

Yesterday, before the Taco Truck Throwdown got under way, a group of Democrats from the five counties that comprise the 15th State Senate district – Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and Santa Barbara – gathered by the pool to hear John Laird rally the troops for his likely campaign to win back SD-15 from the Republicans.

Laird is one of the most important Democrats in the state, a solid progressive who can provide some of the leadership California needs. When – and it does seem it’s a question of when, not if – the legislature confirms Abel Maldonado as Lieutenant Governor, Laird will have the chance to help get Democrats to 2/3rds in the State Senate (along with neighboring SD-12, where Anna Caballero is running to replace Jeff Denham).

His campaign will not only show how Sam Blakeslee, the likely Republican, is a rubber stamp for the right wing, but will also make a clear case for why Democrats are the party to bring economic recovery to the Central Coast and protect our core services, from schools to parks.

Given the importance of winning 2/3rds, and the fact that Laird is simply a great candidate, this race will have to be one of the top priorities for Democrats in addition to the key statewide races.

In addition to the fight for 2/3rds, Orange County is where a potentially transformative fight for the future of this state is unfolding. While usual group of wingnut Republicans have been ignoring the needs of their OC constituents, grandstanding to please the Grover Norquists of the world, their constituents and their districts have undergone dramatic change. Irvine, the largest city in AD-70 and CA-48, has become a diverse city that regularly elects Democrats to city offices, including mayor. Other cities in Orange County have followed similar trajectories, and find their basic needs are being neglected by a Republican establishment that takes their power for granted.

We’ve already seen signs this is changing. In 2008, Debbie Cook won 46% of the vote in CA-46, challenging Dana Rohrabacher. That same year, Bill Hedrick won 48% of the vote against Ken Calvert in CA-44, and Barack Obama actually carried CA-48. Here in 2010, candidates in Orange County are bucking the conventional wisdom that OC is red – and that 2010 is a year for Democrats to play defense.

Beth Krom is running for Congress in CA-48, challenging incumbent Republican John Campbell, a birther who has done hardly anything to help his constituents and has in fact actually undermined them through his votes against funding local projects and health care. Krom has a strong base in Irvine, where she served as mayor. Krom has been working the local communities hard, and addressing their health care, education and economic concerns, while Campbell continues to ignore all of these. Krom’s successful local background gives her the credibility to make the case to local voters; she is the right kind of candidate to win here.

Similarly, Melissa Fox is running a very strong campaign to succeed wingnut hero Chuck DeVore in AD-70, which covers much of the same ground as CA-48. Fox drew a large crowd to her event Saturday morning at Starbucks and is getting more attention from Democrats around the state as another strong candidate who understands the district’s needs that the wingnuts have so long neglected. Fox has a particular focus on education, which resonates in a district that prides itself on good schools but face deep budget cuts that jeopardize educational quality – and in turn, jeopardize home values.

Krom and Fox aren’t getting the kind of institutional support from the state and national parties they deserve, which is unfortunate. Democrats need to aggressively expand the field going into 2010 not only for the short-term tactical benefits of tying down Republican resources, but also to help achieve the longer-term goals of turning places like Orange County blue.

That should not be read to imply that Krom and Fox can’t win. They can, but it won’t happen unless Democrats across the state mobilize to help them out. And in case you’re still not convinced, consider the case of Bill Hedrick.

Hedrick was written off as a longshot candidate in 2008 against Calvert, but running without much national funding, outspent 5-1, Hedrick got 48% of the vote, nearly knocking off Calvert. Hedrick is back to build on that success, and is doing so by espousing a progressive populism. Hedrick understands that his district, straddling the Orange/Riverside county line, includes many voters who are drawn to populism – but it could be populism from the right or the left. Hedrick is embracing it from the left, calling for no more troops to be sent to Afghanistan and taking a strong anti-Wall Street position. Hedrick isn’t getting financial backing from the DCCC here in 2010, but is positioned well to give Calvert all he can handle.

I would be remiss if I didn’t mention two other key red-to-blue efforts this year. In suburban Sacramento, Dr. Ami Bera is running a strong campaign against Dan Lungren, raising more money than Lungren and continuing recent Democratic efforts in the Sierra foothills to score further gains at Republican expense.

And in Riverside County, Palm Springs mayor Steve Pougnet is running a great campaign against Mary Bono Mack, who spends more time representing south Florida than the Inland Empire. Pougnet knows what it takes to win here too, having studied his district as well as the others I mentioned and similarly identifying a massive disconnect between Republican members of Congress and their constituents.

These are the races that will allow California Democrats to do more than just tread water and play defense. California has generally not caught up to the national waves of 2006 and 2008, as we’ve had some success in taking Republican districts but not nearly as much success as the changing nature of these places in California suggests to be possible.

There’s a lot here for Democrats to get excited about. A party committed to building a more progressive California should be a party that gives these candidates their full and strong support between now and November.

In Carla Marinucci and Joe Garofoli’s story on the California Democratic Party Convention they emphasize that the key question facing delegates is how to counter the “passion” of the Tea Party movement:

The question that Democrats will answer over the next few months: Did the 72-year-old Brown and 69-year-old Boxer infuse the faithful with a Tea Party-like energy?

“Democrats weren’t going to dress up in silly costumes like Tea Party members,” said Auros Harman, a 32-year-old delegate from Mountain View. “But Democrats in Silicon Valley will be doing the groundwork. People will show up.”

With respect to Marinucci and Garofoli – two of the best writers left in the shrinking field of California political analysts – they have misinterpreted what Auros Harman said, and what most delegates are feeling at this convention.

Democrats are committed to working to elect their candidates and beat the Republicans. We’re in it for the long haul. But we are looking not just for new inspiration, but new leadership.

This is not a passionate convention. David Dayen called the mood somnabulant. A significant portion of the Northern California delegates did not make the trip down here, and of those who did, we’ve often discussed how this convention lacks the energy and life of recent gatherings.

That should not – and must not – be read as a lack of enthusiasm or a worrisome sign that Democrats are going to be bested this fall by a resurgent right.

Instead, what is happening at this convention is as I predicted: the California progressive movement is entering a very new phase. We have already demonstrated we have passion, and that passion is already being reconstructed as a deep reservoir of energy for future campaign fights. What we are now seeking is a plan for the next 10 years. The leadership and the agenda that will seize the opportunity we have in this state to beat back the corporate assault on what remains of the California Dream, and to revive and restore that dream for everyone living in the Golden State.

In previous conventions, starting from the transformative moment in 2003 when Howard Dean kicked off the progressive battle for the future of the party, California Democratic Party conventions have generally revolved around a single theme: the battle between progressives and moderates for control of the party.

But no longer. At this convention there will be no Art Torres to call a quorum to prevent an “out of Iraq” resolution as in 2007; our current party chair John Burton spoke from the E-Board dais in San Diego last November calling for withdrawal from Afghanistan. Nor are there battles over preventing anti-progressive stances from being taken on ballot initiatives as in 2009 – the party’s June 2010 endorsements are the progressive endorsements.

Even what seems like the classic moderate vs. progressive battle, Jane Harman versus Marcy Winograd, isn’t much of a battle. Each time Harman wins the local delegates, the more progressive statewide delegate body says “no” and pulls the endorsement from the consent calendar. It doesn’t matter whether Winograd can actually get the party’s nomination; Harman will be denied it, and here again, progressives prevail.

The war is over. Progressives won. Now what?

Read on to find out…

This convention is characterized by a search for new leadership. The delegates are going to work hard for the top of the ticket, but do not see that ticket as showing leadership. Everyone likes Barbara Boxer, but she isn’t a visionary leader. Gavin Newsom and Janice Hahn have essentially the same left-of-center politics, so that contest became one of personalities (a contest neither won). Dave Jones and Hector De La Torre also share the same politics, and Jones won the party endorsement only by having worked the delegates more effectively, for a longer period of time.

Folks don’t really know what to make of Jerry Brown either. It’s not that there’s concern he isn’t progressive (though such concerns do exist), it’s that he doesn’t fit the old paradigms. He’s not a moderate looking to screw over progressives, and he’s not an insurgent progressive. He’s an almost legendary figure, but who adamantly refuses to provide the clear-sighted leadership progressives seek. He might be a good populist, he might be moderate-friendly on certain issues, and nobody knows whether his “hoard resources until the fall barrage” strategy will succeed.

In short, the 2010 ticket is going to offer defense against the right, but isn’t offering what most California Democrats really want: leadership.

As California enters its third year of the worst, most profound political and economic crisis in the 240 years since Europeans arrived, there remains a lack of hope and optimism that the crisis will be resolved favorably. Efforts to explore solutions to that crisis in 2009 revealed just how deep the problems are and how hard it is to produce the fixes.

Progressives are positioned to provide both the leadership and the agenda to get California out of the crisis. But so far, we haven’t been willing to step into that spotlight. 2008 and 2009 were consumed with the battle to elect Obama and then implement his agenda. The passage of the health care bill marks the end of that first phase.

Importantly, that bill was hailed by most California progressives not because it achieved a great progressive policy victory (it did no such thing) but instead because it confirmed that the concept of using government to guarantee provision of human services is a popular, politically possible goal.

California is at a tipping point. The old ways of the last 30 years – extracting wealth from the middle and working classes to fuel the wealthy, destroying our public institutions and services to achieve the same, justified as a necessity to protect the late 20th century suburban model of the California Dream – those old ways are over. Done. Dead.

But what replaces it? Progressives instinctively know the answer – an urban, sustainable model that is backed by a strong public sector that serves the basic needs of its people. But we do not yet know to get there, and do not have any leadership, whether top-down or bottom-up, that is producing the answer.

So far, at this convention, that animating vision and agenda is lacking. Not out of a lack of faith that we can implement it, but because we’re at a transition point. Progressives no longer have any villains within the Democratic Party, and in any case using villains as a way to motivate action has run its course.

We’ve reached the end of one phase of growth and activity in the California Democratic Party and the progressive movement. We’re about to enter another, one where we have the opportunity to start talking about and implementing our vision, now that many of the obstacles to it have been pushed aside. That vision isn’t on display at this convention. But it is percolating, coalescing, and requires progressives to learn how to deal with a new environment, where we’re no longer fighting against a venal, corrupt Republican president and the Democrats that enable them.

Instead we are in a place where Democrats govern the nation, and though many of us are ambivalent about that governance, it means we have to consider new frames and new ways to achieve our goals. We need not just individual leaders, but a leadership agenda, one no longer focused on tearing down our perceived enemies but on building up new institutions, new ideas, and ultimately, new campaign victories.

More on that last piece later today – because there are indeed candidates here offering something new and exciting, and they deserve our attention and support.

Democrats from across the state are gathering in LA this weekend for the 2010 CDP Convention, and I too have made the schlep down from Monterey, as I’m a delegate. Steve Maviglio has already offered his take on the upcoming convention, but I thought I’d offer a slightly different perspective. Here are the stories I’m expecting to dominate the convention:

Whither Progressive Democrats? The passage of the federal health care bill has marked the end of an era. From 2005 to 2010, progressive Democrats were organized around winning over party positions, articulating core values against the Bush Administration, and providing backbone to elected Democrats who far too often caved to Bush’s demands. With a Democratic president and a Democratic Congress presiding over a severe recession and with the right-wing threatening to reverse 5 straight years of gains, it seems time for the progressive movement to adapt to a new reality, without sacrificing its core values and goals. Progressives are starting to sketch out the lines of the next 5 years of political activism, and it will be interesting to see and hear what other progressives within the CDP – a party where progressives are now a dominant force – are thinking about how to manage the transition.

Will Jerry Brown Lead? Maviglio says Brown needs to “dazzle” but I think the need is different. Most delegates are going to back Brown anyway, though enthusiasm levels may differ. What Brown needs to do is more than excite, but show Democrats how he will lead the party to victory in November. As the top of the ticket, the party’s fortunes this fall will in large part (Senator Boxer probably excepted) depend on whether Brown can articulate a clear vision for how he’ll solve the state’s crisis and lead us to prosperity over the next 30 years. Two years ago at the 2008 CDP Convention in San José, Brown delivered plenty of red meat to the delegates and did indeed show he has a vision for our future, characterized by “elegant density.” Let’s hope we see more of this, delivered somewhat coherently, this weekend.

Will Anyone Care Whether Newsom Or Hahn Win An Endorsement? This is perhaps the biggest waste of a race anywhere in the state. Delegates are getting robocalled by both Newsom and Hahn as the two camps seek to lock up an endorsement (which Hahn currently needs more than Newsom). But these calls come in lieu of either candidate offering any sort of clear, coherent, and compelling vision for California’s future. Since it’s the Lieutenant Governor’s office, which is basically useless, it would be the perfect place for a candidate to position themselves as a future political leader with little downside. This should be a place for visionaries. Each candidate would make a fine Lieutenant Governor, and both bring good ideas to the table. But neither campaign is standing out – perhaps why the robocall war is leaving most delegates cold.

Will Winograd Supporters Deny Harman the CDP’s Endorsement? Whereas the Newsom-Hahn battle doesn’t really revolve around any deeper political issues or principles, the battle over the CA-36 endorsement certainly does. Marcy Winograd, who won a significant number of votes in her 2006 challenge against incumbent Congresswoman Jane Harman, is back and calling for a progressive to replace a Blue Dog Democrat. Winograd is running a deeply progressive campaign, and Harman is trying to convince the base that she’s become a better vote since the dark days of 2005 and 2006 when Harman was a key figure in the construction of the Bush war and surveillance state. Winograd demonstrated considerable strength and support among delegates when she got 300 signatures to pull the Harman endorsement from the consent calendar (disclosure: one of this signatures was mine). It remains to be seen whether Winograd’s support is broader.

Which Downticket Candidates Will Stand Out? There are a number of interesting and compelling Democrats seeking to turn red seats blue, and the CDP Convention is their moment to shine. In Congress, Ami Bera (CA-3), Bill Hedrick (CA-44), Steve Pougnet (CA-45) and Beth Krom (CA-46) are all running competitive races and could have a breakout weekend.

In the Legislature, one of my favorite candidates, Melissa Fox is running to replace termed-out Chuck DeVore in AD-70, which includes my hometown of Tustin – and could generate a lot of buzz and attention at the convention. Other candidates looking to raise their statewide profile include Luis Alejo (AD-28) and Phu Nguyen (AD-68). Of particular interest should be the candidates who could deliver a 2/3rds majority in the State Senate: Anna Caballero (SD-12) and, possibly, John Laird in SD-15, assuming Abel Maldonado is finally confirmed as Lieutenant Governor after April 22.

Finally, it will be interesting to see if any of the Attorney General candidates can separate themselves from the pack. Kamala Harris does seem to be the frontrunner, but Alberto Torrico and Ted Lieu have strong support among a number of delegates, as does Pedro Nava to a somewhat lesser extent. Rocky Delgadillo and Chris Kelly are essentially also-rans at this point, far behind the other four.

How Will Delegates Endorse On the Initiatives? There’s been heavy organizing to ensure an endorsement for Prop 15 and against Prop 16. In addition, supporters of the cannabis initiative on the November ballot will be canvassing delegates to begin preparations for the summer E-Board vote on that initiative.

What About Majority Vote? At CDP events in 2009, support for eliminating the 2/3rds rule was one of the most widely shared, and sometimes contested, sentiments among delegates. Here in 2010, there are two efforts to get initiatives on the ballot – the Lakoff Initiative and the budget-only initiative supported by a coalition of unions. Some supporters of the Lakoff effort blame the CDP leadership for not doing enough, or for blocking, the budget-and-taxes initiative. We’ll see what level of support this has at the convention.

Plus, there’ll be a LOT of excellent parties, headlined by tonight’s Changemakers event at the Hotel Figueroa, sponsored by Netroots Nation, Courage Campaign, Brave New Films, Daily Kos, Democracy for America and Drinking Liberally.

What are you excited about at this convention? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Russian and German authorities are investigating whether Hewlett-Packard executives used bribery to seal a deal for computer equipment in Russia at the beginning of the last decade – when Carly Fiorina, Republican candidate for the US Senate, was CEO of the company.

German prosecutors are looking into the possibility that H-P executives paid about €8 million ($10.9 million) in bribes to win a €35 million contract under which the U.S. company sold computer gear, through a German subsidiary, to the office of the prosecutor general of the Russian Federation. The office handles criminal prosecutions in Russia, including many corruption cases.

Russian investigators raided H-P’s Moscow offices Wednesday in connection with the probe, the people familiar with the matter said. The search was requested by German authorities, according to a statement posted on the Russian prosecutor’s Web site.

In December, German authorities arrested three suspects, including one current H-P executive and two former company officials, in connection with the case, according to court records. None of the three has been formally charged and all have since been released on bail.

All of this raises the obvious question: what did Carly Fiorina know about the Russian contract, and when did she know it? As CEO when the contract was won in 2000, Fiorina would plausibly have had knowledge of what was done under her tenure to win that contract. After all, the CEO of the company is ultimately responsible for what happens.

It’s not the first time Fiorina and H-P have been criticized over possible misdeeds in foreign countries. There have been persistent questions about H-P’s business associations with Iran during Fiorina’s tenure.

Bribery and subverting sanctions are serious allegations, and Fiorina needs to answer them openly and honestly.

As mentioned in yesterday’s open thread, the California Budget Project is out with answers to the question “Who pays taxes in California?” As their report makes clear, there’s another question that is equally important – “who doesn’t pay taxes in California?” What the CBP numbers reveal is a state where the tax burden is borne by the poorest, in order to let the richest escape their obligations.

Measured as a share of family income, California’s lowest-income families pay the most in taxes. The poorest fifth of the state’s non-elderly families, with an average income of $13,200, spent 11.1 percent of their income on state taxes. In comparison, the wealthiest 1 percent, with an average income of $2.2 million, spent 7.8 percent of their income on state taxes.

This is in spite of the fact that California’s income and corporate taxes are scaled progressively – the higher ends pay more than the lower ends. That isn’t the problem. The problem is instead that the upper ends of the scale, both for personal and corporate income taxes, simply aren’t paying enough. That’s compounded by the fact that over the last 30 years, there’s been a significant shift away from corporate taxes and toward personal income taxes, despite the fact that corporate profits have far outstripped personal income gains:

A number of recent research reports have documented the rise in corporate profits and decline in the share of national income accounted for by wages and salaries. While comparable data are not available for California, the data that are available show that the recent growth in corporate profits reported for California tax purposes far exceeds that of income reported by individual taxpayers. Between 2001 and 2008, the most recent year for which data are available, the total adjusted gross income of California’s personal income taxpayers increased by 27.8 percent. In contrast, the net profits reported by corporations for California tax purposes increased more than fivefold, rising by 411.6 percent.

That’s a huge amount of wealth that is going untaxed by the state of California, even though we’ve had a structural revenue shortfall for the last 30 years and are now faced with calls to destroy the public services that enable economic growth to occur in the first place.

The CBP report also again disproves the notion that California is a high tax state – our combined state and local taxes put California at 19th in the nation, pretty much in the middle of the pack as tax burdens go.

What does this all mean? It’s obvious – California’s tax policies are designed to let the rich and the large corporations off the hook. The CBP report showed that over 2,000 high-income Californians paid no state taxes whatsoever:

In 2007, the most recent year for which data are available, 647,547 taxpayers reported incomes of $200,000 or more. However, 2,044 of these taxpayers paid no California personal income tax. How did they do it? The tax breaks claimed most often by “no tax” taxpayers include enterprise zone tax credits, miscellaneous deductions, and mortgage deductions. The number of high-income “no tax” returns more than tripled between 1997 and 2007, rising from 579 to 2,044.

Despite this, Meg Whitman is determined to make matters worse by eliminating the capital gains tax while increasing the financial burden on working- and middle-class Californians by cutting the state programs they rely upon.

California clearly has the room to increase taxes on the higher end of the scale – we had 11% rates on upper income brackets during much of the 1990s and it didn’t stop economic recovery. We’ve had much higher corporate tax rates – around 9%, instead of the current rate of about 5% – in the 1970s when California still experienced economic growth.

The choice California faces is quite clear: either we restore the successful tax policies of the past, make the system more progressive and demand the wealthy and corporations pay their fair share, or we continue to destroy our schools, health services, and transportation systems in order to continue giving wealthy away to those that already have it.