Former Senate candidate and HP CEO shows some signs of presidential interest

by Brian Leubitz

If you ask a bunch of Republicans who they think will be their presidential nominee, you will get, well, a bunch of different answers. And without that seemingly strong candidate to scare away others, a lot of prominent Republicans are looking into it and starting to hang out in Iowa and New Hampshire.  Like, say, a former losing Senate candidate in California:

Fiorina slipped into the Granite State last week to promote her new political group, dubbed UP for “Unlocking Potential.” Its mission is to engage women with new messages and combat the gaping gender gap that’s hobbling Republicans in races up and down the ballot. In addition to headlining a breakfast last Thursday for more than 200 GOP activists in the business and political spheres, Fiorina attended a GOP gala the night before honoring Joe McQuaid, the conservative publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, the state’s largest and most influential newspaper.(US News)

Now, considering the current rumored field, it is hard to say that Fiorina is any less qualified than such notable statesmen as Rick Perry and Chris Christie. In fact, I think you could make a pretty strong case for her against most of the Republican field. But, in many ways that is damning with faint praise.

In 2010, Fiorina lost to Barbara Boxer by 10 points, 52-42. That was a 5 point swing from the drubbing that Bill Jones took in 2004, and she outperformed Meg Whitman who spent a lot more money. That being said, the campaign was never close to seriously threatening Sen. Boxer’s position. California is clearly not the nation, but from the demon sheep ad to the “weather” ad, it is clear that Fiorina would be far from a leader we can believe in.

The thing that ultimately do her in is the fact that her place in the field is not really known. Is she a secret moderate playing a right-winger, or a right-winger playing as a moderate? If you look hard enough, you can find evidence of both. And in a primary dominated by the Tea Party, can she make a place for herself?

At least one thing is clear, 2016 will be an interesting campaign cycle.

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

PAC received $11 million of anonymous money for Prop 30 and Prop 32.

by Brian Leubitz

It turns out that everything comes around in the end.

The political arm of the Small Business Action Committee (SBAC) filed official termination papers on Monday, six months after agreeing to hand over $300,000 in campaign cash to state officials for accepting what turned out to be the largest anonymous donation to a political effort in California history. (KQED / John Myers)

If you don’t remember exactly what happened, check the dark money tag. Long story short, a few payments, totaling over $10 million, were dropped into the SBAC accounts right before the November 2012 election to fight for Prop 32 (unions) and against Prop 30 (Brown’s tax measure). Common Cause filed a complaint, and the FPPC eventually came down with the biggest fine ever.

Now, the fine would have worked out just fine if those meddling good government types hadn’t gotten in the way of the profligate spending right before the election. That fine is just another cost of buying an election, if you have that kind of money. But, in the end, the problem was that the money played directly into the campaign message that the Prop 32 opponents (including me) had been stating for the past 6 months. While the SBAC was able to spend a lot of money right before the election, it could be argued that the earned media was just as valuable for the other side.

Closing down a PAC isn’t really that big of a deal, because it isn’t hard to open another one. If Joel Fox or his compatriots have any big plans, there is no doubt that a similar group will be up and running in a few days. Nonetheless, it does mark something of a turning of the page on the 2012 election.

Senator called for nationwide adoption of the failing electoral system

by Brian Leubitz

A few days ago, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) had something to say about

California, which probably mirrors the diversity of America more than any other state, was racked by polarization until voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2010 that adopted a “top-two” primary system.  … While there are no guarantees, it seems likely that a top-two primary system would encourage more participation in primaries and undo tendencies toward default extremism. It would remove the incentive that pushes our politicians to kowtow to the factions of their party that are most driven by fear and anger. For those of us who are in despair over partisanship and polarization in Congress, reform of the primary system is a start. (NYT Op-ed / Sen. Chuck Schumer)

Quickly I’ll say this: Chuck Schumer hasn’t actually looked at how Top-2 has worked here in California. If he had, he would know just how much of a disaster it was. Yes, our polarization decreased after 2010, but you know what else happened in 2010? We elected a Democratic Governor and huge majorities in the Legislature, culminating in supermajorities in both houses. Oh, and we got rid of the 2/3 requirement for our budget.

I was going to write a lot more about this subject, but then friend of Calitics Paul Hogarth wrote an in depth post that is now appearing on the front page of Daily Kos.

But the “top-two” primary also created a whole new host of problems that has led to abysmal voter turnout, Republican-vs-Republican general elections and the rise of corporate Democrats in the state legislature. Oh, and the Tea Party is still a relevant factor in the state.

So no thanks, Chuck. Please don’t export the Golden State’s dysfunction.(Dkos / Paul Hogarth)

Paul goes on to point out a number of good examples of just how badly Top 2 performs in real life. If you are a regular reader, you can probably recall most of them, but his post is a great primer whenever somebody speaks fondly of Top 2. Share it abundantly.

Former speaker concedes to allow election to move forward

by Brian Leubitz

The trouble with elections decided by less that 500 votes is that you are basically within the margin of error. It isn’t the same kind of error you get in a poll, but the point remains. There are just going to be mistakes somewhere along the line. That’s the nature of the process. But John Pérez has decided that in the interest of moving the election forward to concede.

While I strongly believe that completing this process would result in me advancing to the General Election, it is clear that there are significant deficiencies in the process itself which make continuing the recount problematic. Even in the effort so far, we have found uncounted ballots, but there is simply not enough time to see this process through to the end, given the fact that counties must begin printing ballots in the next few weeks in order to ensure that overseas and military voters can receive their ballots in a timely manner. (John Pérez release)

Yee thanked the former speaker and is looking forward to the general election:

“I want to thank Speaker Emeritus John A. Pérez for doing the right thing in recognizing that the recount was unlikely to reverse the outcome of the June primary election.  This allows us to move forward and to be united for the November general election.  John A. Perez is an outstanding leader who has played an important role in helping to put California back on sound fiscal footing.  He ran a strong and positive campaign and will have a long career of leadership and public service.”

Court ruling could mean big changes at San Quentin

by Brian Leubitz

The death penalty isn’t actually executed in California anymore. Oh, our courts sentence people to death, but it hasn’t actually been executed since 2006, when Clarence Ray Allen was put to death in January.

Bay Area Fox affiliate KTVU did a little slideshow that shows our death row looking more like the early bird special at the local buffet. For a variety of legal and pragmatic reasons, we just don’t perform executions anymore. And now that is increasingly likely to stay the case for the foreseeable future:

A conservative federal judge from Southern California may have done what progressives have been trying to do for years: end the death penalty in California.

The July 16th order by Judge Cormac J. Carney (PDF), in the case of Jones v. Chappell, is an astonishing document. It takes no position on the morality of the death penalty, or whether it’s inherently cruel for the state to take a life. But it repeatedly spanks the State of California for turning the process of executions into such an unpredictable fiasco that inmates – and the families of victims – have no idea whether, or when, a condemned man will die. (48Hills / Tim Redmond)

A few things before I continue. First, if you aren’t reading 48Hills, you should be. I don’t always agree with Tim on some of the local San Francisco issues, but he brings a great insight on local politics. Next, if you are interested in this issue, it might be worth the time to read the whole decision linked above and here.  Now, Judge Carney was appointed by Gray Davis before getting the George W Bush appointment to the federal bench, but he was still a Bush appointee FWIW. (Also, he was a former USFL player!)

As Tim points out in his story, the decision is about process. We have sentenced 900 people to death since 1978, and only 13 have been executed. Certainly the deterrent effect is not what we are going for here. And because we underfund public defender services, death penalty appeals take years upon years to complete. That’s not even to mention the questions of how we perform (or don’t) the executions.

In 2012, California voters very narrowly retained the death penalty, 52-48, by rejecting Prop 34. But how much longer before those numbers flip? And even if we are inclined to retain it, are we going to adequately fund it? Perhaps it won’t be too long until we get another crack at a similar measure on the ballot.

State Water Board issues mandatory conservation order

by Brian Leubitz

We all know that the state is in a pretty serious drought. But while most of the state has at least made some headway in conservation efforts, it just hasn’t been enough. I see you, SoCal, grinning sheepishly in the corner.

The new rules, approved by the State Water Resources Control Board on a 4-0 vote, impose new restrictions on outdoor water use starting Aug. 1 that could result in fines of up to $500 per violation.

Gov. Jerry Brown in January asked Californians to slash their water use by 20 percent. But a new state survey released Tuesday showed that water use in May rose by 1 percent this year, compared with a 2011-2013 May average. (Merc News / Paul Rogers)

Now, this isn’t all just household users. Perhaps it would be easier if that were the case, but water usage is a big mess of different parties and factions. Agricultural water use has been slightly decreased, mostly by force, but it still isn’t enough. Commercial use, like pressure washing, needs to be reduced as well. And, we all need to strive to take shorter showers and reduce water in every way that we can at home.

Because enforcement is up to local water authorities, many people won’t really notice any changes. But some are already up in arms. Like, say, the famously powerful lobbying group of BigPressureWashing. I kid, but this law directly impacts these users and their jobs. And here in SF, where local authorities are now taking a data-driven approach to poop on our sidewallks power-washing can be #KindOfABigDeal.

We can all do more to reduce water usage by using common sense, simple water-saving techniques. Maybe El Nino will save us next year, but we have to plan to be in a drought for a while. Better start saving now.