Dan Walters at the Sac Bee wrote a great article about John Doolittle’s ties to the now infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

What’s evident is that [Doolittle] wrote letters in 2003 to federal officials that sided with Abramoff’s clients on disputes – a fact that was uncovered by the Associated Press. The letters appear to undercut Doolittle’s rote assertions that he’s opposed to gambling and has had no improper dealings with Abramoff, whose ties to politicians are being investigated by federal prosecutors after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud. Before the AP revealed the letters, Doolittle – who has ducked direct questioning by reporters – insisted on a radio talk show that he welcomes any investigation. Sac Bee 2/3/06

Check out the flip…

Now, Walters notes, and I agree that “Unless prosecutors turn up a smoking gun, it’s likely that Doolittle will remain a congressman for many years.” There is a lot of evidence against him, but not that one smoking gun.  It’s unfortunate.  However, his seat is a very safe GOP seat. 

But, it is definitely another example of another corrupt Republican.  While the evidence may not be perfect, there is plenty:

What’s evident is that he wrote letters in 2003 to federal officials that sided with Abramoff’s clients on disputes – a fact that was uncovered by the Associated Press. The letters appear to undercut Doolittle’s rote assertions that he’s opposed to gambling and has had no improper dealings with Abramoff, whose ties to politicians are being investigated by federal prosecutors after he pleaded guilty to conspiracy and fraud.

***

Were it just two letters, one could agree that there’s smoke but no fire. But one of Abramoff’s tribes helped by a Doolittle letter, based in Mississippi, later made a $5,000 campaign contribution to the congressman – part of the $130,000 Doolittle has received from gambling tribes with ties to Abramoff. Furthermore, Abramoff hired Doolittle’s wife as a consultant and placed a former Doolittle aide on his payroll. Those and other facts add up to a pretty cozy relationship between Doolittle and Abramoff – more than mere coincidence.

The GOP in California, especially the House delegation, is corrupt.  Perhaps if we keep repeating the mantra “culture of corruption” we can take back a few of the seats.  Plus, it can’t hurt with the Governor’s race.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

Wow! The Dems are in a better cash position than the GOP candidate for once:

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is entering his reelection campaign $410,000 in debt, while his Democratic rivals and union foes are armed with more than $50 million.

Schwarzenegger spent $8.2 million of his own money, and tens of millions more of his contributors’ money, on his ill-fated special election effort to change state government. Altogether, his campaign cost more than $45 million, depleting his accounts.
Controller Steve Westly and Treasurer Phil Angelides, who are competing in the Democratic primary to face the Republican governor next November, started the new year with $24 million and $17.1 million respectively, their reports show.(LA Times 2/1/06

Well, maybe that special election was good for something after all.  Oh and just to remind you, Ahnold’s staffers are still getting paid out of his campaign coffers:

He also continued supplementing his aides’ government salaries by paying them additional sums in campaign money, according to campaign reports filed with the state Tuesday.

(Wanted to bump this up…rather unfortunate. – promoted by SFBrianCL)

UPDATE: It turns out the law was actually a “shell” bill, with no force at all.  If it were passed by Senate, it would do absolutely nothing:

On Monday, the Assembly passed sweeping legislation in a historic vote to
reform campaign finance in California.

Only it didn’t.

Lost amid the media reports and the cheering from advocates was a small
provision, buried in the second-to-last paragraph of the 16-page bill. It
stated that, “The provisions of this act are set forth for display purposes
only and shall not be operative.”

That uncommon provision, inserted on Jan. 24, lowered the threshold for
passage of the bill, which was sponsored by Assemblywoman Loni Hancock,
D-Berkeley, from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority.

It also stripped the bill of the force of law.

If the bill, as passed by the Assembly, were to pass through the Senate
unchanged and be signed by the governor it would do nothing, as it is “for
display purposes only,” according to legislative analysts.

So while it was widely reported that legislation authorizing public
financing of political campaigns cleared the Assembly, the reality was
different: Hancock’s bill would actually have to return to the Assembly
without the “display purposes” provision–and pass with a two-thirds vote–to
go into effect. Those votes are unlikely to come.

Well, that’s unfortunate, but not entirely suprising.  As I said below, it’s an idea not totally ready for prime-time.  But, hopefully we’ll see a real vote on public  campaign financing sooner rather than later.  It’s an opportunity for California to be a national leader.

The original post is on the flip…

The Assembly passed a public campaign finance bill: (SF Chron 1/30/06)

California would consider switching to public financing of political campaigns under a bill approved by the Assembly on Monday. It was the first time assemblymembers have ever passed such a measure.

The bill would provide public money to candidates who voluntarily give up outside contributions — similar to systems in use in Arizona, Connecticut and Maine.

The voluntary system would require candidates to first raise a large number of small donations from within his or her legislative district before qualifying for public financing. The candidate would then have to agree not to spend additional money, including his or her own money. Candidates who don’t accept the limits would be subject to the same fundraising rules as are currently in effect.

San Francisco has a fairly similar plan.  In SF, the Board of Supes can run as publicly financed candidates already and there is a push to do the same with the Mayor. (Capitol Weekly)

With all the recent lobbying scandals, there is a slow shift towards public financing.  While the momentum may not be there yet, especially in a Shwarzenegger administration, it will happen eventually.  Public financing settles the issues of lobbying abuse, puts the people back in charge of the government, and eliminates special access for big donors.  In other words, with the exception of outright bribery, public campaign financing can solve ALL of the major campaign-related ethical issues.

The slow shift has seen matching for small donations in other states and a push for tax deductions for small donations.  While it may not be an idea ready for prime time yet, it will happen.  You watch… 😉

The Legislature is getting close to a redistricting amendment. Capitol Weekly: (good article, check it out) 

Legislative leaders, political reform groups and key elements of organized labor believe they are getting tantalizingly close to overhauling the way California politicians draw their own legislative and Congressional districts.

Sen Lowenthal has been working very diligently on this for several years now.  You have to give him credit.  And of courese, this gained a lot of traction from the special election.  Unlike Prop. 77, this redistricting proposal has support from BOTH parties.  It really is quite a heartening development.

Now, the distressing part of this deal.  Some legislators are attempting to include a softening of the term limits into this deal.  Now, I know redistricting makes the possibility of getting a softening of the term limits more likely.  However, that is no excuse to tie the two together.  I think we need  to address both issues, but separately.

More details on the flip…

The bill is a little bit complicated. A group of retired judges will pick a list of people from whom the commisioners can be selected…or something like that. However, this is all subject to change:

Currently, the commission would have five members. Four of those would be chosen from a list of 25 selected by retired appellate judges; the fifth member of the commission, the chairman, would be selected by the other four.

Keep an eye out for more news on redistricting soon.  Perhaps give your senator a call and suggest they get on board. (Minus the term limits IMHO)

(Good news from San Diego… – promoted by SFBrianCL)

I’ve been keen on Francine Busby for a while now.  After meeting her while down in San Diego, I’ve been quite optimistic about her chances to take CA-50, The Duke-Stir’s old Seat.  Well now, there are numbers to back up that growing suspicioun of mine. From DownWithTyranny via dKos:

DWT has come into possession of some brand new polling from the 50th CD– brand new and very exciting. The research was based on interviews with 401 likely April special election voters in December, 2005. The survey shows that voters in the district are ready for a change and are much more receptive to a Democratic message of change than to any Republican message of more of the same. Busby holds an advantage over all opponents tested in both a single-trial heat match-up as well as head-to-head match-ups. Busby has a shot to take the whole ballgame in the special (primary) election in April!

Despite a GOP voter registration advantage in the district, a majority of voters surveyed disapproved of Bush’s job performance– with a plurality of voters STRONGLY disapproving. Even among Republican voters a significant number disapprove of Bush’s job performance, while nearly all Democrats and two-thirds of independents disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president. This translates to Busby leading each of the Republican candidates. She is also better known than all the Republicans other than former Republican congressman Brian Bilbray.

A majority of voters (53%) say that things in the country are pretty seriously off on the wrong track, with just over one-third (37%) suggesting things in the country are on the right track. Many voters will be looking for change to get things back on track.

Once considered a strongly Republican district, the 50th has swerved away from the party of Bush, DeLay, Cunningham, Abramoff and Frist. Only 35% of the voters indicate they will probably or definitely vote for the Republican candidate for U.S. Congress. Moreover, voters are seeking checks and balances in Congress, with 43% saying they want a candidate who would provide a balance to Bush’s agenda, while only 34% prefer a candidate who will consistently support the Bush agenda.

You can give money to Busby via the Calitics ActBlue page.  More…

While it’s being talked about as a national bellwhether, I think we also have to consider the statewide ramifications.  CA-50 leans pretty strongly towards the GOP.  They have quite a strong registration advantage, as they do in much of Orange and SD counties.  While the governator has not really been scandal-ridden like Congressional GOP, he has suffered similarly moribund approval ratings.  The taint of the GOP in general will tend to run off towards all Republicans, even ones here at home. 

Ahnold deals on star power, and that has lost its shine.  He, more than ever, needs the support of his conservative GOP base, almost all independents, and to pick off some Dems.  I think a Busby win would indicate just how the people of at least one district feel about the GOP right now.

As promised, here is the first of the profiles, expect one covering Angelides within a week or so and Ahnold in another week:

Steve Westly

Westly with former 49ers star safety Ronnie Lott.

Westly (website), the current state controller, announced very early (June 8, 2005 ) that he was challenging the Governator.  While this is not suprising, Angelides did too, the suprising thing about Westly’s campaign is his former chumminess with Ahnold.  More on that in a bit.  First, a general introduction:

Westly, for a man in his forties, has a long history in politics.  At various times in his political career he has been: state controller (current), DNC member (current, I believe), Cal. Dem. Party Treasurer (at age 23), an employee at the San Jose Office of Economic Development, and an employee of the U.S. Dept. of Energy.  He has been a member of the DNC for around twenty years.  That’s a lot of experience.  Throw in his star turn at Ebay (where he netted lots of cash), and you have a formidable candidate.

Westly, in my own humble opinion, is a moderate through and through.  That’s probably a good thing for the general election as Arnold’s unpopularity would probably be enough to win the election.  Westly would probably admit to being a “social liberal and fiscal conservative.”  What that really means for the state is unclear, but in the end would probably be a good thing.  Davis’s fiscal priorities were unclear, and Ahnold is far too beholden to the GOP base.    While Westly’s exact plans to balance the budget aren’t totally clear, his record of fiscal good judgement should stand as a good omen.  But Westly cannot be portrayed as merely a fiscal conservative, he has lofty goals for the state of California.  Certainly his promises are big.  Some examples:

*  Health insurance for every child : “Steve supports legislation that would raise the income threshold for subsidized healthcare and ensure coverage for every child in the State.”
*  Environmental spending: “…Steve will invest in the next generation of pollution control technologies, strengthen the Cal-EPA and air boards, and demand that polluting factories be shut down.”
*  Education Funding: “Steve fully supports the voter-approved commitment to public education funding, Proposition 98. When cost-of-living is considered, California still ranks near the bottom in per-pupil spending. That needs to change. Although additional resources are not the only aspect of improving our schools, they are a crucial first step toward reform. Additionally, Steve believes we should fund a system of universal preschool, which is why he supports the preschool initiative headed for the June ballot.”

These are all laudable goals, and I couldn’t agree more.  The trying part, of course, is that the biggest problem involved in being a fiscal conservative and a social liberal is that occasionally money gets in the way of being liberal.  Some issues it doesn’t really matter that much (gay marriage, abortion, etc.), but for school funding, it’s hard to be a good liberal without wanting to spend more money.  As a self-described conservative and a social liberal, I have come upon these problems many times in the course of blogging, political discussions, etc.  However, in times of budget shortfalls a fiscally conservative governor would be a valuable asset to the state (IMHO). 

But Westly’s campaign, for better or worse, will be somewhat of a struggle to make the Democratic voters forget that he colloborated with Ahnold in 2004.  :

Twenty superstar tech execs met with California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Thursday as he and State Controller Steve Westly made a barnstorming junket to Silicon Valley to pump up support for his bond measure. 2/6/2004

He campaigned during the 2004 Primary Election for the Bond Measure that Ahnold propagated.  And, an old version of Westly’s website (from Marching Orders blog) highlights an article from San Jose Magazine highlighting his connections to the Governator:

You probably recognize Steve Westly from the company he keeps. As State Controller, he’s been featured on the news and at political gatherings, hobnobbing with pal Arnold Schwarzenegger—and you probably recognize his name as being instrumental in shaping ultrasuccessful auction Web site eBay. But there’s more to Steve Westly than meets the eye. The former Stanford instructor counts his wife as one of his greatest inspirations, makes a point of catching “For Better or for Worse” and “Doonesbury” in the paper whenever he can, and hopes someday to return to the academic life—when he’s finished helping California overcome its budget crises, of course.

Now the Governator is less popular, and to Westly’s credit, he can see the shifting political winds.  More recently, Westly said that:

Westly, who backed the governor after Schwarzenegger first took office, said “the governor came into this election promising real reform” but had “taken a hard turn to the right” and become a fundraising machine for special interests. (SF Chron September 17, 2005

Now, I don’t particularly hold it against Westly that he thought it would be a good idea to cozy up to popular governor.  Bipartisanship works sometimes.  However, the question is whether Westly can defeat Angelides, who has been a consistent force against the governor.  That being said, Westly would make an excellent general election candidate and a teriffic governor.