I just received a letter (presumably sent to all CDP delegates) signed by Asm. De La Torre, Eric Bradley, and Alex Rooker, directing me to LetsFixCDP.com. Enclosed was a resolution that they want to pass at the upcoming convention encouraging the CDP to use the funds it raises to actually elect Democrats to office, be more transparent/accountable, etc.

On the face of it this looks like a great idea. I assume that the line about termed-out officeholders refers to the money the CDP gave Nunez and Perata.

But I’m curious as to what effect such a resolution would actually have. It doesn’t seem like it would be binding in any way. Who actually decides how these funds are used? If this is a purely symbolic gesture, I’m not sure how effective it’s going to be…

Any thoughts?

Edit by Brian: For the most part, the discussion in this thread has been quite interesting. Thus I have decided to bump the post, but I thought one comment from Jay Hansen should be bumped to the front along with it.  Beyond his support for Alex Rooker and Eric Bradley, Jay is also on the rules committee.

Clarification:  This resolution has also been submitted as a by-law change and if passed by the Rules Committee will be submitted to the delegates most likley at the next meeting which would be the E-Board.  If this amendment is passed by the Party it would be binding on the Chair.  Nothing in our rules prevents the Chair from doling out money as they see fit, this by-law change would be a sea change.  Regretfully, the Vice-Chair and Controller do not have the power to stop the kind of egregious financial actions taken in the past, by sponsoring this with Asm. De La Torre they put the power back in the Party.  

If you are a Party delegate and want to see money raised be used for Party activities exclusively then you should support this Resolution and By-law change.  While I know and support Eric and Alex, their experience and effectiveness is showcased when they figured out a way to make a move on this burning issue.  Now is the time to support this move and take advantage of the electoral scrutiny the Party leadership face every four years.

Thanks for the update, Jay.  Now, continue conversation…

Below is the text of the letter and the resolution:

CDP Delegates:

The California Democratic Party is facing a critical challenge.

We have just seen an incredible national victory and a stronger party than ever, but we can’t rest. We need to continue our momentum to win back the Governor’s office in 2010, re-elect Barbara Boxer, defeat the open primary, protect our gains in the legislature, and fight for the tools to fix our state budget.

We have amazing grassroots talent and resources, but our financial system is broken. It sounds absurd, but our rules are so out of date that they can no longer ensure that every dollar raised is used to elect Democrats and support Democratic ballot measures.

Just this past week, a Sacramento newspaper took a jab, suggesting that our rules were so broken that the Democratic Party was just a “Laundromat for political cash… a P.O Box shy of a shell corporation in the Cayman Islands.”

Let’s fix what’s broken. At the coming Democratic State Convention we ask for you to help us rewrite the rules and make common sense reforms that will bring greater accountability and a real confidence in our ability to raise and spend funds for Democrats in competitive races.

Please join us in supporting this resolution at the upcoming state convention.

Sincerely,

Hector De La Torre

Assemblymember

Eric Bradley

CDP Controller

Alex Rooker

CDP First Vice-Chair

Resolution calling for Common Sense CDP Financial Reforms

WHEREAS, the California Democratic Party will be challenged in 2010 with helping to fund a Gubernatorial campaign, dozens of legislative campaigns, supporting and opposing many statewide propositions and helping to re-elect Barbara Boxer to the United States Senate; and

WHEREAS, the California Democratic Party will be building up its financial and campaign resources in order to maintain momentum gained in President Barack Obama’s 2008 election; and

WHEREAS, the California Democratic Party must ensure that every dollar raised is used to elect Democrats to federal, state and local office, and support or oppose ballot initiatives, not for other purposes;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party supports common sense reforms that will bring greater trust and confidence in its ability to raise funds for campaign activities; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party should approve reforms that prevent money transfers to termed-out officeholders or their affiliated political committees, and that Party monies and resources should be used only on party building activities and direct campaign support for candidates or ballot measures in each campaign cycle.

Sponsored by:

Hector De La Torre

Assemblymember, 50th District

D350000

Co-Sponsored by:

Eric Bradley

CDP Controller

D600005

ALEX GALLARDO-ROOKER

CDP 1st Vice Chair

D600003

Adopted unanimously by Region 17 on March 21, 2009

According to the Chronicle,  there's a new consulting firm in Sacramento whose principals include Steve Schmidt, Chris Lehane, Adam Mendelsohn, Ace Smith, Mark Fabiani and Brian Jones.

LFM Campaigns will be led by top GOP and Democratic consultants who have been murderously competitive on leading campaigns, but who now say they aim to concentrate on good government reform, ballot issues and initiatives.

(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/14/MNBA159LK5.DTL)

The article includes a quote from Mendelsohn (who worked on Prop 11) about how initiatives are “issue-based and not partisan-based”.

Isn’t this kind of a conflict of interest? While initiatives may not be explicitly partisan, it’s obvious that something like Proposition 11 was far more beneficial to one party than the other. And voters are obviously split along party lines to a significant extent on initiatives like Prop 4. How are these Democratic consultants going to reconcile their work on Democratic campaigns with the interests of their new business partners?

Poizner’s past political activity seem to have been defined by a)Him trying to convince both moderates and conservatives that he’s one of them, really he is and b)When in doubt, throwing as much money as possible at the problem. Having said that, he seems to have done a pretty good job with (a), so I can see him being someone of a threat if he makes it to the general, depending on who our candidate is.

I liked this line:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who earlier this year bought a home in the San Diego area, has been floated as a possible candidate.

Full article at the Chronicle:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/…