Apparently, Julie Doolittle really, really wanted to work for Jack Abramoff. I guess she knew where the real power was.  According to the SacBee (h/t to DumpDoolittle), an Abramoff aide sent an email to Jack the Gambler that Julie was psyched!!:

The e-mail released Thursday was written by Kevin Ring, an Abramoff associate and former Doolittle staffer, to his boss. In it, Ring relates that Doolittle is “very very excited and appreciative” about the possibility of his wife, Julie, going to work for an Abramoff nonprofit group called Toward Tradition.

“JTD knows of the group and would like to talk to you about it,” the e-mail says.

The e-mail suggests Doolittle was trying to get a job for his wife two years before she ultimately took a position working for Abramoff at his law firm, Greenberg Traurig.(SacBee 10/13/06)

During his debate with Charlie Brown, John Doolittle got righteously indignant that his political opponent would dare, DARE, to bring his wife into the election.  Doolittle’s exact quote:

One woman asked Doolittle if he would support a law to ban an “unethical” practice: hiring his own wife, Julie Doolittle, to raise campaign funds for a 15 percent commission.

The company of Doolittle’s wife, Sierra Dominion Financial Services, also was paid $66,000 by Abramoff for projects including a Washington, D.C., fundraiser that was canceled.

“This is typical of the slanderous personal attacks,” Doolittle said, responding to the caller. “They want to drag my poor wife into this.” (SacBee 10/12/06)

His poor wife! Aww, poor wife who was paid $66,000 by Jack Abramoff.  Julie Doolittle took an active role in Doolittle’s political career, she can not now hide from public scrutiny.  Can anybody seriously argue that Julie’s connection has nothing to do with John?

Both Doolittles are corrupt.  However, only one is accountable to the voters.  It’s time to actually hold him accountable.

Two more upgrades for Jerry McNerney.  First, the National Journal’s Chuck Todd, who has a ranking of the top 65 races moved CA-11 up to #37 from #45, a move of eight slots.  I would also like to point out that all of the top 30 races are Republican-held.

Also, Chris Bowers of MyDD has raised his ranking of the race from Leans Rep to Toss-up/Leans Rep in his latest House Forecast, citing he apparent worry of the NRCC.

This comes from a friend of a friend.  He is an attorney who has far more knowledge of this area of law than I have. As of right now, I’m not sure what attribution I can give him, so I present it anonymously.

Decades ago, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., warned that “government hardly could go on” if the public had to pay compensation for every change in the law that “diminished” the value of private property. Unfortunately, government paralysis is what California may get if Proposition 90 passes this fall.

While Proposition 90’s proponents sell it as a simple measure to prevent governments from abusing the power of eminent domain (also known as condemnation), in reality it could stymie public plans to reduce pollution, protect neighborhoods, preserve open space and guarantee coastal access. Buried deep in the measure’s text (in subdivision (b)(8) of the proposed amendment) is a radical change to the California Constitution.

Proposition 90 would newly provide that governments “damage” private property, and have to pay compensation, whenever their rules and regulations “result in substantial economic loss” to the property owners. Constitutional law already recognizes that a regulation can require compensation if it “goes too far,” in Justice Holmes’s words. Currently, though, compensation is typically required only if the regulation makes the property economically valueless or defeats the owner’s vested development rights. Proposition 90 would go much further, making the public pay even if a regulated property retains most of its value and even if the owner’s hopes for more lucrative development were purely speculative.

Continued over the flip…

We’ve seen how Dick Cheney’s neoconservatives used September 11 as cover for their long~planned invasion of Iraq. With comparable cynicism about the public’s perspicacity, conservatives in the “property rights” movement have seized on the Supreme Court’s highly unpopular decision in Kelo v. New London (holding that eminent domain could be used for redevelopment projects that transfer the property to new private owners) to advance a cherished agenda of making governments pay for every decrease in the market value of private property.

In Oregon, where a similar measure passed in 2004, counties have reportedly been forced to approve large, unplanned developments on farm and forest land, and industrial operations in residential areas, because they cannot afford to pay the landowners the large gains that could be made with unrestricted development. Property owners have already filed at least 3 billion dollars worth of claims against Oregon governments. Proposition 90, which grandfathers in existing government regulations, probably would not be as bad as the Oregon law, but it would be bad enough To see how Proposition 90 might work, consider these examples:

• A coastal community passes an ordinance requiring beachfront property owners, when their buildings cut off existing public access, to provide an easement for public passage to the beach. Owners could claim a “substantial” decrease in value because of the easement.
• Seeing that a groundwater basin is becoming dangerously overdrawn, the local water authority puts a moratorium on new wells until a way can be found to recharge the aquifer. The agency has substantially reduced the value of developable land in the basin, and will have to pay up or revoke the moratorium.
• A county decides to finally take action against the suburban sprawl that is choking its traffic arteries, polluting its air and overrunning its remaining green areas. It amends the county general plan to draw an urban growth boundary, beyond which new urban developments ordinarily won’t be approved. Though the county has not yet actually denied a development permit to anyone, any landowner who might have proposed a development could claim his or her property had lost some of its value, creating an “economic loss” for which the public would have to pay.
• As large downtown office buildings start to encroach on an adjacent historic district, the city places a height limit on new buildings in the area. A speculator holding property in the historic district sues because she cannot make quite the huge profit for which she had hoped.

Air and water pollution laws, also, could fall to Proposition 90. Under the landmark global warming law the Legislature just passed, the Air Resources Board is required to issue new regulations on emission of greenhouse gases. Will California taxpayers have to pay every power plant operator and factory owner compensation for the billions of dollars in profit they could have made by polluting the air?

Reasonable people can disagree about whether California needs additional protection against eminent domain abuse. But Proposition 90 is not the simple reform measure it purports to be. It is a Trojan horse designed to give developers the power to veto planning rules and raid your local government treasury. Let’s keep the gates closed on this one.

Constituent Dynamics has released a poll showing 15% Doolittle up by 8 points over Charlie Brown (52-44). You can get full cross-tabs here.  Constituent Dynamics polled 65 top races.  Note that CA-11 was not polled, so we are still left with no independent poll there.

Obviously, we’d all like this to be a bit closer, but this is not discouraging.  In 2002 and 2004, Doolittle won by about 25 points.  Brown has over 3 weeks to convince 6% of the voters to switch to him.  Hey folks, it’s possible. You can give him a few bucks at the Calitics ActBlue page or go help him out at Charile Brown for Congress.

Today’s little wrap from my scouring of the Internets

• Charlie Brown performed VERY admirably in the CA-04 debate last night.  Doolittle looked like a petulant baby, using tired “liberal” attack lines, and doing nothing to counter the charges that he and his wife are corrupt. You can watch clips from the debate on KCRA here.  You’ll need to search for Doolittle.  I have not been able to find a stored copy of the entire debate.
• Claude Parrish doesn’t like paying his bills (Political Muscle).  Apparently Parrish decided that he didn’t want to pay for the Mercedes he bought in the 80s.  When the repo man came to take it away, Parrish hid the car, removed the license plate, used walkie-talkies with his neighbors to rat on the repo man, and drove the car at high speed to avoid reposession.  Hmm, seems like a great man to have responsible for the state’s money.  Well, I guess that ends Parrish’s “comeback” attempt.
• Arnold Schwarzenegger went on the Tonight Show last night, and there are still no plans to grant equal time to Phil Angelides.  Leno said it was going to be a straight news interview. Hmm…well, a lot of jokes there.  It’s amazing that NBC is claiming that the Tonight Show was a news program.  Whaaaat?  Well, you can still [send NBC a letter about it here]. Or you can sign up for Angelides text messages here, and unlike the good folks at JoinArnold, they won’t charge you $2.50 for the privilige.  Also, if you’ve already sent NBC a letter, consider forwarding the request on here.
• Mary Bono must be realizing that this won’t all be so easy this year in the election against David Roth.  She’s bringing in the big guns.  No, not Shrub…he’s hardly a big gun these days is he.  No, John McCain was in the district yesterday to raise some cash for Bono.  Maybe she’ll keep a few bucks for herself, so, you know, she won’t starve on that Congressional salary that she’s forced to subsist on.