All posts by Robert Cruickshank

CA-33: Will Karen Bass Go To Congress?

That’s the report coming out of a meeting yesterday in Southern California with Diane Watson, who currently represents the 33rd District in Congress. A Swing State Project user diary from someone who attended the meeting, augmented by our own BruinKid who also was at the meeting and wrote about it in the comments to yesterday’s open thread, explains the story:

Just left a CA delegation meeting with Cong. Diane Watson was quietly telling Members that she will not be running for re-election.

Word is that Former CA Assembly Speaker Karen Bass will immediately enter the race following Watson’s announcement.  Further proof of this plan — Bass is scheduled to be in DC next week for a series of meet and greet events with potential financial supporters.

This would be a welcome development. Karen Bass brought a lot of progressive potential to the Speaker’s office in 2008, but ran immediately into the brick wall of the state budget crisis, the 2/3rds rule, and the breakdown of California’s system of government, all of which frustrated her agenda.

Term limits mean we’ll never know how Bass would have taken those lessons and applied them to state government. But if the reports are true, she would be able to bring the experience of trying to revive an economy and protect the most vulnerable people in a truly broken political system to another institution, the US Congress, that is quickly going the way of the California Legislature in terms of Republican obstruction and inability to properly function.

Bass would certainly be both more progressive and more activist than Watson, who has not been very visible in her district in recent years. Bass would be a strong advocate for federal aid to state budgets, as she’s seen the impact of budget cuts on core services.

The filing deadline is February 16th, just over two weeks from now, so we will soon learn whether these reports are indeed accurate. If so, the California Congressional delegation and the people of the 33rd District will be getting a good progressive leader to represent them in Congress.

The only downside, and this isn’t Bass’s fault, is that it shows California government, once regarded as the nation’s best, is experiencing a worsening brain drain. Bass would join former Lt. Governor John Garamendi in going to Congress, and many other legislators are looking for more stable positions in local government. Term limits in particular have eviscerated our government, making it almost impossible for anyone to get the kind of experience and knowledge that is needed to help fix our ever-worsening economic and political crisis.

In some ways, the Legislature is becoming a kind of political graduate school, where those interested in public service go to learn the craft of representative government and then scramble to find a position in a tight job market that has a glut of folks competing for positions. That’s not the kind of governance that the nation’s largest state and one of the world’s largest and most important economies needs.

Conservatives would claim that term limits are doing their job and making it difficult for “career politicians” to hog elected offices, and enables citizen representation. Not only has that not been the actual outcome of term limits, the notion that it produces citizen government is particularly absurd given the fact that huge sums of money are still needed to win a state legislative race. The same conservatives who claim term limits are needed to produce citizen government also support the Citizens United decision that allows almost unlimited corporate spending to influence our elections.

In short, while community organizers like Karen Bass are pushed out of the legislature just as they’ve come to understand the nature of our problems and have started to envision lasting solutions, the only “citizens” who actually have lasting power and influence in this state are the large corporations. Once again it becomes clear that to the right-wing, feudalism is the ultimate goal, not democracy. Power and representation should only go to the wealthy, and the rest of us should be grateful for the privilege of serving them.

Anyhow, rant over. I wish Karen Bass well should she decide to run for Congress. The House will be a better place with her in it.

When Did Ron Nehring Stop Beating His “Romantic Partner”?

An interesting scandal is unfolding over in the California Republican Party, involving its chair, Ron Nehring. As the SacBee reports, a San Diego Republican official is the target of a removal effort for asking questions about charges Nehring was “brutalizing a former romantic partner”:

This week the San Diego Republican Party executive committee, led by Tony Krvaric, chair of the San Diego party, called a meeting for Feb. 8 to discuss the removal of Michael Crimmins, an ex-officio member of its central committee. The executive committee recommended Crimmins’ expulsion, in part for sending an e-mail to state party leaders that raised concerns about behavior by Nehring and Krvaric.

Crimmins, a retired Marine Corps officer and congressional candidate in the 53rd District in San Diego County, referenced allegations, initiated in an anonymous e-mail broadly disseminated to the party and media last fall, that Nehring brutalized a former romantic partner.

Keeping it classy, Nehring is also accused of trying to intimidate the woman in question into staying silent:

A separate, anonymous counterpunch was distributed via e-mail Thursday among party activists announcing a news conference after the Feb. 8 meeting that purportedly would call for the removal of Krvaric and Nehring from their posts. One justification, the e-mail stated, was that the two men allegedly harassed Nehring’s former partner for considering bringing her story to legal authorities.

This isn’t exactly a “pass the popcorn” moment since we are dealing with allegations of undefined brutality against a woman, but it is revealing that Republicans are trying to keep this as quiet as possible. Instead of ensuring Nehring answers all questions, they’re trying to shut down any discussion of the matter.

Typical, really.  

One Step Closer to a 2/3 Majority

The Senate Rules Committee just voted 4-0 to send Abel Maldonado’s nomination as Lt. Governor to the floor of the Senate. Democrats Darrell Steinberg, Gil Cedillo and Jenny Oropeza joined Republican Bob Dutton in voting for the confirmation. The other Republican on the committee, Sam Aanestad, abstained since he is challenging Maldonado for Lt. Gov. in the GOP primary.

But before the vote, there were some interesting moments for those of us watching on the Cal Channel, where Steinberg pushed Maldonado to answer some very well-framed questions on budget cuts, leading Maldonado to express regret for some of the reckless and damaging budget cuts he voted for Some of the key things Maldonado said, as tweeted by KQED’s John Myers:

• Maldonado’s view on offshore drilling: “Every day I make myself a promise to do everything I can do to bring those platforms down.” But when it comes to Tranquillon Ridge, “If I had an assurance (feds would OK removal of oil rigs in future) it’s something I would look at.”

• Agrees that there is connection between education budget cuts and California’s unemployment rate, in response to a brilliantly framed question from Steinberg. Hopefully Senate Dems are planning to make budget cuts a jobs issue.

• Maldonado “doesn’t see how anyone can afford another fee hike at the UC/CSU campuses” and is open to a 3% withholding for independent contractors – but he opposes repealing the 2/3rds rule, which makes sense since he’s by far its biggest beneficiary.

Nobody spoke against his confirmation at the committee hearing, which of course doesn’t guarantee anything when the nomination comes to the Senate floor. But it does mean California Democrats are one step closer to a 2/3rds majority – and I’m one step closer to being able to replace Abel Maldonado with John Laird as my State Senator. (You all have no idea how much it drives me nuts to go past his office in downtown Monterey and read “Senator Abel Maldonado” on the sign.)

As I explained in the SacBee today:

“The lieutenant governor’s office is a low priority compared to the two-thirds majority,” said Robert Cruickshank, Monterey County Democratic Party vice chairman.

Cruickshank said he’s confident Democrats would put a lot of energy into winning Maldonado’s seat. He’s also confident, he said, that a Democrat could beat any Republican running later for the lieutenant governor’s office.

Democrats need to be taking the offensive here in California. Republicans and their policies remain very unpopular here. We Democrats should have nothing to fear with an open seat in SD-15, which voted for Obama by 20 points and has a 7 point Democratic registration advantage.

And with John Laird as our candidate, we’re poised to take back the Central Coast.

Carlyfailorina

Today the California Democratic Party launched its new website “introducing Carly Fiorina to California voters” – Carlyfailorina.com. It’s got some good stuff up there about her record of failure at HP and on the McCain campaign.

But nobody explains Carlyfailorina like the candidate herself. Today the Carly Fiorina campaign released a video so stunningly awful that it makes one wonder if they are trying for the “so awful it’s good” approach to getting it to go viral:

The ad is an attack on Tom Campbell for not actually being a fiscal conservative. The attack could be potent in theory, but the execution is laughably bad. It resembles a cross between a bad church recruitment video, a Monty Python sketch, and a Pink Floyd album cover.

It’s just nuts. I don’t know who on the Carlyfailorina campaign thought this would be a good use of money, but it’s another sign that Fiorina isn’t ready for prime time.

CA-AG: Jackie Speier To Stay In Congress

That sound you hear is Kamala Harris breathing a sigh of relief, as Capitol Alert reports Jackie Speier will not run for Attorney General and will stay in Congress instead:

“She’s going to remain in Congress where she can focus on issues that she cares about,” said Nathan Ballard, Speier’s campaign spokesman.

Speier had huddled during the weekend with friends, supporters, political acquaintances and members of the attorney general’s office who urged her to seek the position expected to be vacated by incumbent Jerry Brown’s expected run for governor, Ballard said.

But Speier met with her family Sunday night, and they decided together that she will remain in Washington, Ballard said.

“They had a family discussion and arrived at a mutual decision that the timing isn’t right for her to run for statewide office at this point,” Ballard said.

This is the right move for Speier. She could have won the Democratic primary for AG, but she’d have merely been seen as marking time until Jerry Brown leaves office (if he wins) or until 2014 to take on Meg Whitman if she won the governor’s race.

Now Speier can stay in Congress, which would be a good launching pad if she wanted to take on Dianne Feinstein in 2012. I should note I have ZERO evidence that she’s actually considering doing so – I just think it would make all kinds of sense. Speier racked up a long and progressive record of legislation while in Sacramento, and would be able to point to a progressive voting record from her era in the House of Representatives. We all want a primary challenger to Dianne Feinstein, and Speier would be a good one.

Maldonado Confirmation Hearings Begin This Week: Will Dems Make The Right Call?

Tomorrow the Senate Rules Committee will hold its first hearing on the confirmation of Abel Maldonado as Lieutenant Governor, and already some Democrats are trying to block it, making the rather strange claim that somehow the “lite gov” office is more important than a 2/3rds majority in the Senate. One of those arguments comes from CDP Vice-Chair Alex Gallardo-Rooker:

In a letter that invoked the memory of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy, Democratic Party Vice Chairwoman Alexandra Gallardo-Rooker sent a letter to Democrats in the Legislature urging them to vote against Maldonado’s confirmation.

“In no way should this seat be willfully ceded to the Republicans …” the letter states. “Should that happen, Democrats across the state have every reason to be demoralized and further disconnected from you, our elected Democratic leaders.”

This is precisely the opposite view from the one the Calitics Editorial Board took last November in our open letter to the California Senate Democratic Caucus regarding the Maldonado nomination:

Without a 2/3rds majority, California faces deeper budget cuts that will produce very real suffering for many of your constituents. In addition, the ongoing budget crisis continues to give Republicans an opportunity to reverse recent Democratic gains, which at some point may include the State Senate itself. Those factors should be enough to convince you that when you have an opportunity to win a 2/3rds majority, you should take it.

Especially when this year you have seen the fruits of not having a 2/3rds majority – and the fruit of cutting a bad, self-defeating political deal involving the same Abel Maldonado….

We need a party and a Senate Democratic caucus that is aggressive, assertive, bold, and confident in its ability to lead California out of the crisis. If you refuse to confirm Abel Maldonado, you would be showing Californians that you in fact lack that confidence.

This whole situation is analogous to the crisis facing Democrats at the national level. The US Senate Democrats have jeopardized Democratic control of Congress through their cutting of bad deals that undermined public confidence in their ability to deliver desired reforms. As a result, Democrats lost Kennedy’s senate seat, and now face losing control of one or both houses of Congress because they cannot get anything done thanks to a supermajority rule.

And instead of tackling the supermajority rule that led them to make the damaging deal with Ben Nelson and could cost them the Congress, Dems instead seem unlikely to repeal the filibuster rule, fearing what would happen if Republicans took control rather than using their majorities to forestall Republican control by taking action the people want them to take.

Democrats would be reckless to give up a chance to win 2/3rds in the State Senate just because they’re afraid of Maldonado in the November election. I have every reason to believe Janice Hahn can beat him. I’m not afraid of the fight. I know that Democrats win by taking to the offense and promoting their agenda and their values to an electorate that shares both. I hope the State Senate knows it too.

They don’t have to confirm Maldonado (though they had no problem confirming Republican Bruce MacPherson to replace Democrat Kevin Shelley as Secretary of State in 2005). But they should not throw away a golden opportunity to win 2/3rds and beat back the Republicans for good. Nothing would demoralize Democrats more than tossing away that opportunity out of fear.

UPDATE: Maldonado says he would vote NO on Tranquillon Ridge offshore oil drilling project. This is a very big deal, since Maldonado would be the 3rd and deciding vote on the State Lands Commission, which has the ability to approve or deny the plan.

CA-Gov: Whitman Tried To Push Poizner Out, Poizner Calls For Investigation

Major fireworks unfolding this morning over in the Zombie Death Cult gubernatorial primary, as Steve Poizner’s campaign is calling for a federal investigation into Meg Whitman’s efforts to push Poizner out of the race and clear the field for him to run for the US Senate nomination in 2012. From a Poizner campaign email blast:

Republican candidate for governor Steve Poizner today revealed intimidation tactics from Meg Whitman in which her top political advisor threatened to spend $40 million “tearing up” Commissioner Poizner.  Last week, Meg Whitman’s trusted advisor Mike Murphy contacted multiple people connected to the Poizner campaign and attempted to intimidate Poizner out of the race.  In return for dropping out, Meg Whitman offered to deliver to Commissioner Poizner the Republican nomination for the 2012 U.S. Senate race against Dianne Feinstein.

Poizner’s people sent a letter to AG Jerry Brown, the US Attorney for the Eastern District of CA, and the local FBI asking for an investigation into “threats and intimidation” in violation of at least the California Election Code. The link includes an email from Whitman campaign strategist Mike Murphy that Poizner’s people are claiming shows the “threats and intimidation.”

My take: Poizner is absolutely not going down without a fight. His polling numbers in the GOP primary aren’t great, but he seems to believe he has the chance to take this from Whitman. Given public dislike of CEOs and large corporations, Poizner definitely has an opening to make it a competitive primary. While Jerry Brown needs to get to work on his own campaign, it certainly helps if Poizner and Whitman are locked in a vicious battle.

Pass the popcorn!

How Jerry Brown Can Win

Over the last few months I’ve been making some persistent criticisms of the way Jerry Brown is approaching the budget mess and his campaign for governor. As a progressive Democrat, these criticisms aren’t intended to tear Brown down, but instead to rattle the cage of a sleepy candidate and campaign, pointing out that their present course will likely only lead to Governor Meg Whitman. Which none of us wants.

So in the spirit of not being a critic sniping from the sidelines, I thought I’d lay out what Brown should do – and in fact must do – in order to get elected to a third term as governor of California. He cannot win unless these things are done.

Run a thoroughly populist campaign. This should not be particularly difficult for Brown, who has run these types of campaigns before, most notably in his 1992 run for president. We need to be seeing more of the 1992 Brown and less of the 1978 Brown – he needs to capture the spirit of frustration and anger at the wealthy elites who broke our economy and are now hogging even more riches and power while everyone else’s suffering continues. Anti-wealthy populism isn’t just good campaign rhetoric – it also happens to be the only way to solve California’s budget crisis and revive economic growth. Of course, it also comes in handy when your opponent is a very wealthy CEO who thinks she can buy the governor’s office.

Back up that populism with policy proposals that match. Brown can’t just use populist rhetoric on the campaign trail. He has to back it up with clear proposals that match the rhetoric. Barack Obama’s “say one thing, do another” approach to governance has pretty much ruled out any other Democrat doing the same thing on the campaign trail in 2010. Obama’s failures mean that Democratic rhetoric is going to be questioned by a skeptical electorate unless it’s backed up by an agenda that fits the rhetoric. The next item is where Brown needs to start:

Embrace progressive taxes to fix the budget and grow the economy. If Brown and his campaign team do not draw the proper lessons from the Oregon election then they do not deserve to win this race. What Oregon voters told us is that taxing the wealthy and large corporations is a winner at the ballot box. Voters resoundingly rejected right-wing claims that such taxes would hurt the economy. That’s one of Meg Whitman’s core arguments. That means Brown has an opening to hit eMeg on this issue. And when she predictably argues against taxing the wealthy and corporations, Brown then has the chance to really hit her hard by showing her views on taxes are due to the fact that she’s a wealthy CEO who never had to worry about the quality of her kids’ education or whether grandma will get the health care services she needs in old age. Brown also needs a credible set of solutions to the budget deficit – sitting people down and working out a solution won’t fly with voters. Progressive taxes will. And it works as well with independent voters as it does with the Democratic base.

Involve Latinos as key members of the campaign, and make outreach to them one of the top priorities. During Brown’s three statewide campaigns in the 1970s and 1980s, the Latino vote was not nearly as central to one’s electoral fortunes as it is now. Brown cannot hope to win without strong and enthusiastic support from Latino voters. Brown also needs to learn to address their issues. Sure, he helped farmworkers organize and has lots of photos with him and Cesar Chavez – but for many 21st century Latinos, the UFW alone doesn’t count as addressing their needs. Many urban Latinos aren’t farmworkers at all and don’t identify with their concerns. Instead they worry about jobs, quality of education, housing affordability, and health care. Brown needs to spend a lot of time in these communities addressing those issues. His past work with folks like Cesar Chavez can open the door, showing that he’s been a longtime ally of California Latinos. But he has to make his campaign relevant to what they need in 2010, and not assume what he did in 1975 is sufficient.

It’s especially important that Brown do so since Democrats’ edge with Latino voters is beginning to shrink. Those are nationwide numbers, not CA numbers. Last week’s PPIC poll showed Brown with a 53-22 lead among Latinos. But he has to work to maintain that, keep the undecideds, and get his Latino supporters to turn out this fall.

Reach out to younger voters. The Calbuzzers noted that most voters under 30 don’t know who Jerry Brown is (since none of us can remember his term as governor). They also argue that it may not make much difference since 59% of the November electorate will be 50 or older according to their estimates.

Don’t listen to it. Younger voters are essential to victory. Brown has to get more of us 30 and under to turn out and vote than the predictions suggest. If Brown and Whitman are slugging it out over the 50 and above crowd, Brown will increasingly be fighting on Whitman’s turf. Voters 50 and over tend to be the least willing to change the status quo, and tend to be more willing to embrace spending cuts as a solution to the state’s mess. Brown can’t ever match Whitman on that, because she will always be more willing to slash and burn than he can afford to be.

On the other hand, Whitman has nothing whatsoever to offer younger voters. Brown does. Younger voters are deeply populist ourselves, as we see our future being stolen from us by large corporations. Polls consistently show we want better public services and are willing to spend to make it happen, so a progressive tax message plays well with us. Our strong Democratic leanings indicate that we’re natural Brown voters. Brown has nothing to lose and everything to gain by targeting younger voters and making a concerted effort to win us over. It is more difficult to see how he can win without us.

More below, including education, marijuana, outreach to progressives, and the big picture that ties it all together.

Address the education crisis. The impact of recent school budget cuts are only now beginning to be felt. When the Monterey Peninsula Unified School District announced it was closing my neighborhood school, the outrage from my prosperous, middle-aged neighbors was enormous. Those are people Brown would love to have in his corner. The fee increases at California universities and colleges have mobilized an entire generation to care very deeply about what happens in the November election. Latino voters consistently rank education as one of their top issues.

Brown must address the education crisis. He needs to offer a way out that doesn’t follow the lunatic Arne Duncan path of more tests, merit pay, and charter schools. That isn’t going to capture the imagination of voters – plus, it’s going to be close to what Whitman plans to offer (and she is going to make education a key part of her campaign). Brown instead needs to find a way to address the funding crisis, to shrink class sizes again and reopen the schools.

An oil severance tax to fund higher education is one place to begin. A tax on incomes over $250,000 to fund K-12 schooling is another. That matches the progressive tax policy argument to specific, popular outcomes, exactly as was done in Oregon.

Support legalizing marijuana. Brown has not been a supporter of sentencing reform, opposing Prop 5 in 2008. Yet he also speaks out regularly about how much money we spend on prisons. This is not consistent or credible. Brown can resolve this by endorsing the marijuana legalization initiative. It would immediately paint him as a candidate of change, willing to endorse bold ideas, as someone who will stand up for his beliefs even if there is some (vastly overstated) political risk. It also is one of the only ways to get at the prisons crisis.

Start a field operation now. I hear rumors that Brown might finally announce his candidacy and launch his campaign on February 15. That would be about the latest he could do so and still win. Because while he cannot hope to match Whitman’s money, he has the opportunity to build a much better field operation than she possibly could. Brown needs to replicate what Obama was able to do in 2008. Obama motivated activists to organize for him, for free. People set up phonebanks, organized precinct walks, even cut turf on their own, without pay, because they believed in Obama. That saved the campaign untold millions of dollars. Brown needs to try and do the same – even if he cannot match the level of intensity, he can at least have a field operation that does some of the same things. Whitman can’t have that, because her tea party base doesn’t see her as one of their own, and besides why would anyone volunteer for a candidate who has $100 million of their own money to spend?

Reach out to progressive activists. That field operation has progressive activists as its base. The thing is, they don’t just show up out of obligation. Like any other human being, they need to be motivated to do so. Brown has already waited too long to reach out to progressive activists. But he still has time to do so. He has to show those activists that he takes their ideas seriously, that he has genuinely progressive things to offer them, or else they’re not going to be motivated to help – especially when OFA will want them to help win Democratic seats across the country, when Barbara Boxer will be organizing in California to get re-elected and will have a lot of progressive support to do so.

Run smart TV ads and fix the online operation. Brown is likely to spend no small amount of money on TV ads. Which is fine, and necessary. But they need to be smart, clever, nontraditional ads. That ought to appeal to Brown because he sees himself as being all three. He needs to run ads in the style of, if not produced by, Bill Hillsman. His ads need to include him speaking in his own voice – he’s a celebrity politician, so having a narrator in his positive and name ID ads makes no sense at all. The ads need to be natural, look unscripted and genuine.

The online operation needs a ton of work. I know Joe Trippi is part of the campaign team, which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence. So far Brown’s Twitter feed, @JerryBrown2010, includes too many photos from the family album, and the Facebook page includes too many pointless, pleading “become our 8,000th follower” asks. This is wasteful and just poor online organizing. The campaign needs to bring on board someone who knows what they’re doing online.

Make California Great Again. Finally, and maybe most importantly, Brown has to offer voters a clear and compelling vision of what the next 30 years will look like for California. The status quo is a total failure and voters want change. Whitman is already going around calling for “A New California” – but Brown has a trump card.

He is a last link to California’s glory days of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. His father, Governor Pat Brown, built California’s 20th century prosperity through big government and infrastructure. Jerry presided over the beginning of the end of that system and its prosperity. He helped keep it alive by creating a kind of Rube Goldberg funding system that kept the Pat Brown California alive for a little while, but also ensured that it would collapse sooner or later. Jerry never addressed the 1978 tax revolt in any meaningful sense, except to try and stay out of its way. Now that the revolt is dead, it’s time he moved beyond framing his politics in 1978 terms.

Jerry Brown can make a credible pitch to revive the failed California Dream. He was there when it was still working, and knows that urban density, solar panels, and high speed rail are part of a 21st century vision for the state just as freeways and aqueducts were part of his father’s vision for 20th century California.

If Brown can weave the above into a narrative of “Making California Great Again,” tapping into the latent beliefs of Californians that their state’s dream is one of ensuring basic economic security and providing for basic needs so that its residents can follow their dreams, then he has a real shot at winning this. Such a narrative would need to be progressive to be credible, but can be sold in a way that gets at the core values and beliefs of most California voters, even those who consider themselves as independents and moderates.

I hope Brown does it. I want to see him win his third term as governor, clean up the mess he left 30 years ago, and lead California back to greatness. We’ll see soon enough whether he will do so.

June Ballot Initiative Numbers Assigned

Secretary of State Debra Bowen announced the ballot numbers for the 5 initiatives on the June primary ballot. They’re listed below, along with my own initial take (and those are my own – neither Calitics nor the Courage Campaign has taken a position on these yet):

Prop 13: Exempts seismic retrofits from property taxes. Unsure about this one – might be a good incentive to get older buildings reinforced.

Prop 14: The top-two primary. Definitely voting no on this one.

Prop 15: The California Fair Elections Act, creating public financing for Secretary of State elections in 2014 and 2018. A big ol’ hell yes to this one.

Prop 16: PG&E’s effort to make it harder to create public power districts by requiring a 2/3rds vote. Definitely voting no on this one.

Prop 17: Mercury Insurance’s effort to gut the Prop 103 consumer protections. Definitely voting no on this one as well. See Naomi Seligman’s post for more on this initiative.

You’ll be hearing a LOT more about these initiatives over the next four months. And it’s still not clear what will be on the much longer November ballot – but we can expect those initiatives to be some of the most important decisions voters have made at the ballot in some time.

Did Andy Pugno Break State Law In Support Of Marriage Ban?

Note: I am the Public Policy Director for the Courage Campaign

The Courage Campaign’s Rick Jacobs today filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission today against Andy Pugno, one of the key figures behind the effort to ban same-sex marriage in California.

The complaint alleges that Pugno misused public funds while on the staff of State Senator Pete Knight in the late 1990s to help the campaign to pass the so-called “Knight Initiative” – a California version of the Defense of Marriage Act banning same-sex marriage. This went to voters in November 2000 as Proposition 22 and was approved with 61% of the vote. This was struck down by the California Supreme Court in May 2008, and in turn Pugno and his allies in the leadership of the LDS and Catholic Churches put Prop 8 on the ballot to change the state constitution to ban marriage. The evidence suggests that not only was Pugno involved with those institutions involved in the planning and management of Prop 8 as we learned at the trial, but that their collaboration goes back into the late 1990s and may have violated state law.

Pugno is of course the general counsel to ProtectMarriage.com, and a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 5th District State Assembly seat. He is a key figure in the campaign strategy used for both Prop 22 and Prop 8, and for the legal defense of Prop 8 in both the California Supreme Court and in Judge Vaughn Walker’s federal courtroom. As longtime Trial Trackers know, Pugno also played a key role in trying get the Courage Campaign Prop 8 Trial Tracker shut down by suing Courage Campaign over the logo we use at the site.

Here’s what led to the filing of the complaint. On Wednesday investigative reporter Robert Salladay published an article on Pugno’s involvement in the Prop 22 campaign while on the payroll of the California State Senate. Specifically, it was alleged that Pugno used public resources of the State Senate – phones, faxes, stationery – to vet the proposed initiative with Mormon leaders. Salladay included a letter Pugno wrote on February 26, 1998 to BYU law professor Lynn Wardle. The letter was on California State Senate letterhead and asked Wardle to review proposed ballot language with an eye toward ensuring it could pass at the ballot box. It was also reported that Pugno may have used public funds to travel to Arizona for a “strategic consultation” meeting with LDS leaders that same year.

That appears to be in violation of the Political Reform Act, which governs issues such as this. In fact, Salladay’s article quoted FPPC staff on this very point:

As for Pugno using Senate letterhead for a political issue – and asking Wardle to use the government fax machine and phone lines – the law is fairly strict. One regulation does allow for “incidental” campaign use, but Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, said about cases like this in general: “The use of public funds for campaign purposes is unlawful.”

Based on the letter and the other evidence reported, Rick Jacobs filed the official complaint against Pugno with the FPPC. He also wrote to Attorney General Jerry Brown seeking an investigation (see that letter here) and to the Secretary of the Senate, Greg Schmidt, seeking public disclosure of various documents related to Pugno’s campaign work while on the staff of Senator Knight (see that letter here).

Here’s what Rick Jacobs had to say about the filing:

The new and troubling disclosures appear to demonstrate willful disrespect for the laws and rules governing the conduct of public servants. If he broke California law, how can he expect to be elected to office to make California law? Andy Pugno needs to be investigated and any appropriate consequences levied for his actions.

We will keep everyone posted on what happens with the FPPC complaint and other requests for investigation and public disclosure we have filed.