Video seeks to look inside the mind of the big GMO companies

by Brian Leubitz

Quite entertaining:

Funny video reveals some very worrisome outcomes

This chap is pretty chatty for a SuperPac Billionaire, bue he does like to hide now and again. However, from his tweets and this new video, he’s spilling some serious beans. And guess what, we should trust him and his big business friends, they know what is best for us!

Note: Brian Leubitz, the editor of this blog, works for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter.

Sorry for the late notice!

by Brian Leubitz

First, I’d like to suggest the Courage Campaign’s Progressive Voter Guide. But, here’s how I’m voting:

Yes on 30, 34, 36, 37, 39, and 40

No on 31, 32, 33, 35, and 38

Now, that’s pretty close to the Courage Campaign’s progressive consensus. However, I differ on Prop 35, the “human trafficking” measure. Now, I think it is important to provide resources to fight human trafficking. However, the measure would have been better written and more thoroughly vetted by proceeding through the legislature. Legislation that can be passed through the legislature, like measures to fight human trafficking, should go through that vetting process.

Anybody else have any thoughts?

I’ll be on KPFK’s Uprising radio at 8AM to talk about the DOA redistricting measure. UPDATE: Stay tuned to KPFK for an interview with Matthew Fleischer about the money behind the Yes on 32 campaign.

by Brian Leubitz

Proposition 40, at this point, is not that exciting. But, once you understand what yes and no mean, I’m confident you’ll vote yes.

If you remember back earlier in the year (see our redistricting tag), the Republican Senate Caucus was not a big fan of the new Senate district maps. So, they went out and spent a bunch of money, with the CRP, to get a referendum. They figured (or rather hoped anyway) that the California Supreme Court would just use the old maps for this cycle.

That didn’t work out, as the Court let the Redistricting Commission’s maps stand until the referendum measure passed or failed.  Well, with the maps staying put in 2012, the Republicans just gave up on it.

A Yes vote means that we retain the maps. A No vote means that we have to go back to the drawing board on the Senate maps.

Vote Yes to retain the new, more fair maps.

Calls out Yes on 32/No on 30 “Small Business Action Committee” for hypocrisy

by Brian Leubitz

Tweet

 Share on Facebook
You may have already heard the news about the $11,000,000 donation from the “Americans for Responsible Leadership,” a group that refuses to discloses its contributors. In fact, last week we posted about the Sacramento Bee calling out both the group that gave and received the anonymous cash.

However, Joe Mathews, a noted California political journalist and analyst, points out how the secretive money puts the lie to the notion that Proposition 32 is about campaign finance reform.

Seriously, do you remember a more counterproductive donation than this one? In this case, the $11 million is being given in such a way that it destroys whatever chances Prop 32, the measure that anonymous donors are supposedly supporting, might have had of passing.

Prop 32 is being sold as campaign finance reform. An anonymous donation steps on that message; the huge, overwhelmingly negative publicity the donation has drawn to 32 has to be worth more than the $11 million. And in a larger sense, the donation exposes the core of what’s wrong with Prop 32 and other attempts at what is sometimes called “Paycheck Protection” as a way to blunt union power. … Instead, they are giving and accepting an anonymous donation, an act that will confirm the worst stereotypes about critics of public employee unions. If the backers of Prop 32 want true political reform, and less domination by public employee unions, they should give the $11 million back. Right away.(emphasis added, Fox and Hounds Daily)

As Mr. Mathews states, the secretive $11,000,000 tells a lot more about what Prop 32 really is. It is a measure to silence working Californians, while allowing for the proliferation of secretive SuperPACs like the “Americans for Responsible Leadership.”

Read the full column at  Fox and Hounds Daily.

Note: Brian Leubitz, the editor of this blog, works for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter.

Noted LA Times columnist calls out the phony political reform

by Brian Leubitz

George Skelton has seen most of the smarmier side of California politics. And when he calls something out for being phony, you should at least take notice. However, in the case of Prop 32, he’s gone further:

Even a cursory look at Prop. 32 shows that it’s about a covey of special interests from the right attacking a rival interest on the left, organized labor.

If backers had turned their initiative into an honest debate about curtailing labor muscle – specifically the influence of public employee unions – they would have deserved more serious consideration.

But by deciding to phony it up – crafting what they perceived to be the best marketing pitch based on public opinion surveys – they’ve created a laugher and an insult to the voters’ intelligence.(LA Times)

Of course, this is nothing all that new. What he is saying is the same thing that the League of Women Voters and Common Cause have been saying: this is not real political reform. It is a thin veneer with a whole other set of goals beneath. While Prop 32 would silence working Californians, like teachers, cops, nurses and firefighters, it would only empower the real special interests to spend unlimited and unregulated sums on their own favored politicians and measures.

As Mr. Skelton put it, “Prop. 32 is a self-serving sham.”

Note: Brian Leubitz, the editor of this blog, works for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter.

Campaign heats up

by Brian Leubitz

While the focus of the nation may be on the presidential debate tonight, the election is in full swing here in California. And today we see new commercials from both the Yes on 30 (revenue) and No on 32 (Special Exemptions) campaigns.

First, the Yes on 30 ad:



Here’s the No on 32 ad:

For California progressives, the choice is clear. Yes on 30 enables us to move forward without the further drastic cuts, and No on 32 protects the voice of working Californians.

Note: Brian Leubitz, the editor of this blog, works for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter. You can also get your No on 32 T-shirt here.

Former Univision Boss is big right-leaning force in California

by Brian Leubitz

The American Prospect takes a look at Jerry Perenchio and finds quite a story there. Perenchio, who was Univision’s chairman as it boomed, is a big funder of both Yes on 32 and No on 30, aka, the right-wing double.

But for the No on 30 campaign, which is getting relatively few contributions, his bucks mean a lot. And in a state where school funding now stands at 46th despite being a high-cost state, the possibility of a Prop 30 failure would be catastrophic for schools. (And the rest of our budget.)

Perenchio embodies the problems of dark money, particularly when it’s arrayed against the interests of the broader public. He’s given $50 million to a wide variety of political causes over the past couple of decades. In this cycle alone, he’s donated over $2 million dollars. The Sunlight Foundation reveals that Perenchio’s donations to national dark money groups like American Crossroads, Karl Rove’s operation, are matched by his donations to state and local issues.

*** **** ***

The elite in California, much like the rest of the country, have come to dominate the political process. Putting real children in the face of that elite crystallizes the decision awaiting California, and the country, come November.(American Prospect)

The need for additional revenue is painfully clear. We need to Pass Prop 30 and let Jerry Perenchio what Californians really think.

Note: Brian Leubitz, the editor of this blog, works for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter. You can also get your No on 32 T-shirt here.

Newspapers editorialize, columnists argue against Prop 32

by Brian Leubitz

If you’ve been paying attention to the California ballot this year, you’ll see that many newspapers have editorialized on the initiatives already. And across the state, major newspapers are saying No on Prop 32, the Special Exemptions Act. There are a variety of reasons in the editorials and columns, but they all boil down to the fact that the measure is not really political reform.

Let’s start with the Sacramento Bee:

Proposition 32 would do nothing to curb independent expenditures.

Nor would Proposition 32 increase transparency of campaign money. It offers no additional tools to help the Fair Political Practices Commission and prosecutors investigate corruption. It makes no attempt to deal with ballot measure spending.(Sacbee)

You see, while the proponents argue that Prop 32 will reform the political system, the truth is that it not only exempts many businesses, but it also unfairly singles out labor. From the San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial against Prop 32:

Meanwhile, organized labor has made defeat of Prop. 32 its highest priority in California because of what is unquestionably its most consequential element: A prohibition on the use of payroll deductions for political purposes. …  The measure does not attempt to put similar constraints on the ability of corporations and other interests to raise money. It does prevent corporations from using payroll deductions – but, in reality, that is rarely where they go for political money.(SF Chronicle)

And in the end, Prop 32 just isn’t what it seems. That’s why you see words like the following from the San Jose Mercury News:

If Proposition 32 did what supporters claim — limit all special interest money from corrupting the political system — we would heartily endorse it. It doesn’t. It is a deceptive sham that would magnify the influence of wealthy interests while shutting out many middle-class voters. Vote no on Proposition 32. (SJ Merc)

Note: Brian Leubitz, the editor of this blog, works for the No on 32 campaign. Please like the campaign on facebook or follow on twitter. You can also get your No on 32 T-shirt here.

Allows more flexibility for new and moved voters

by Brian Leubitz

This is very good news for democracy:

Gov. Jerry Brown today signed legislation allowing residents to register to vote up until and on Election Day, though the provision will not be implemented at least until 2014.

“Voting – the sacred right of every citizen – should be simple and convenient,” the Democratic governor said in a prepared statement. “While other states try to restrict voters with new laws that burden the process, California allows voters to register online – and even on Election Day.”(SacBee CapAlert)

Combined with online registration, this makes California one of the friendlies states for new voters. The Republicans cried about something they like to call “voter fraud” but haven’t shown any evidence of in any state with or without same-day registration.

With luck we will see this implemented for the 2014 election.