Jerry Brown Waxes Nostalgic with Maureen Dowd

Governor looks solid for next election, looks back and forward with Dowd

by Brian Leubitz

Neel Kashkari, despite being something of a modest frontrunner to make it to the general election with Gov. Brown, is now struggling with fundraising. Apparently Hank Paulson can only max out once, and Kashkari is having some issues getting contributions beyond the ranks of Goldman Sachs. Kashkari now has less than $1mil, compared to Brown’s nearly $20m.

That all leads up to Maureen Dowd’s puff piece with the Governor entitled “Palmy Days with the Governor.” There are no hard hitting revelations here, just a few rememberances, many of which have to do with the Clintons:

So how does he reconcile what he said in 1992 and now? Have the Clintons changed, or has Brown changed?

He crosses his arms and gives me a flinty look, finally observing: “In retrospect, after we see all the other presidents that came afterwards, certainly, Clinton handled his job with a level of skill that hasn’t been met since.”

Take that, President Obama. (Maureen Dowd / NYT)

It goes on to cite the heckling at the CDP convention, but Gov. Brown is a fighter at heart. Despite his discomfort at the heckling, he closed his speech with “keep protesting.” He has changed a lot since his first go-round, but maybe he is still much the same.

photo by Alan Light

The Race to Pass the Buck in CA-25

DFCon2012_0382Crowded Field and Top-2 could net interesting election

by Brian Leubitz

Buck McKeon announced his retirement in January, but the announcement produced little surprise. He was rumored to retire for a while now, including some rumors in the past few cycles. And Tony Strickland, after losing a run against Julia Brownley in 2012, has been pretty much campaigning in this district since.

But even with the Strickland campaign up and running for a long time, there have been no shortage of candidates. And over in the LA Daily News, Rick Orlov takes a look at the field:

The race has drawn two prominent Republicans – Sen. Steve Knight and former Sen. Tony Strickland – who have represented portions of the district in the state Legislature, as well as a physician who first ran against McKeon two years ago, a former test pilot, a pair of businessmen and one Libertarian. (Rick Orlov / LA Daily News)

Dr. Lee Rogers, the Democratic nominee in 2012, is running again, joining former Air Force pilot Evan Thomas. The crowded field of 4 Republicans, a Libretarian, and two Democrats kind of presents the question of Top-2. Last year, a strong chance at a Democratic pickup in CA-31 was foiled when a field of Democrats piled over each other and fell behind the two Republicans running. Of course, that could happen again there in 2014, with a huge field.

In order for that dynamic to really work, there has to be two recognizable members of one party and a field of less known candidates on the other side. However, 2014 seems more likely for the two Republican Senators to split most of the GOP vote, and the other two Republicans picking up only a smattering of votes. The fact that Thomas is starting a bit behind also makes him unlikely to creep into that top-2. However, with the small sample size we have seen so far, you never really know what is going to happen in the post Top-2 world.

While 2014 is likely to be a tough year for Democrats nationwide, one again California appears to be the breaking point of any momentum. The party stands a chance to pick up both CA-31 and CA-25, netting a few seats that may have to make up for other states across the country.

Nonprofit Disclosure Fails for Lack of Supermajority

Senator Lou CorreaMeasure to require donor disclosure for nonprofit political dies in Senate

by Brian Leubitz

Take a step into my TARDIS, way back to 2012, when a group of conservative nonprofit groups with connections to the Koch Brothers poured around $15 million into the efforts to defeat Prop 30 and pass Prop 32. Eventually, they settled for a record fine of over a million dollars, but hey, if you can get away with it, #AmIRight? What’s a million dollars between friends trying to monkey with democracy?

Well, a bill to fight just these sort of money laundering operations was working its way through the state Legislature. SB 27, introduced by Senator Correa would have required every ballot committee receiving more than $1 to disclose its top ten contributors.

I say was, because with the loss of the votes of Sens. Wright and Calderon and the current lack of Democratic supermajority, that measure seems to be on ice for a while. No Republicans would cross party lines and vote for public disclosure, so despite the passage in the Assembly, the measure goes nowhere. CORRECTION: A previous version of this post said a supermajority was required due to a requirement of constitutional amendments. However, SB 27 is not a constitutional amendment. Rather, the Political Reform Act of 1974 requires a 2/3 supermajority to make changes.

“Senate Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for voting to keep Californian’s in the dark about who is funding political campaigns,” said SoS candidate Derek Cressman.  “How anyone favoring fair and transparent elections could have no preference between the party of dark money and the party that voted unanimously for sunshine today is a mystery to me.”

Next10 Updates Budget Challenge

Interactive website lets you choose budget priorities

by Brian Leubitz

We’ve had a link to the Next10 Budget Challenge on the right sidebar for a while now, and mentioned it once or twice. And while it has a few flaws, after all it is hard to pack a $100B budget into a easily understood little game, it does offer an interesting way to look at the budget. It helps even those who haven’t really had a chance to take more than the briefest of looks into the system. Check out the intro text:

While California is no longer experiencing an immediate budget crisis, important decisions will be made balancing this year’s budget that will impact our shared future.  How quickly should the state pay off $28 billion in budget debt?  What should California do to plan for long-term pension and retiree health care costs?  How much should be invested in programs cut during the recession?  How much should the state have in reserve, and where should those funds come from?

The budget is a months long process, and you aren’t going to get answers in 10 minutes. But, if you know a few folks who would be interested in learning more about the budget, send them over to the Next10 Budget Challenge. Also, give them a chocolate bar to help ease the depression that knowledge of the budget may bring on.

California DMV’s Autonomous Vehicle Regulations Must Protect Users’ Privacy

Driverless CarI was up in Sacramento today to call on the Department of Motor Vehicles to ensure that the regulations that they are developing to govern the use of autonomous vehicles – popularly known as driverless cars -will protect the operators’ privacy.

The company that will be most directly affected by the new autonomous vehicle regulations is Google, which is pioneering development of the robot-driven cars. The Internet giant was the driving force behind SB 1298, which charged the DMV with the task of developing the regulations and also rebuffed attempts to require privacy protections in the law.

However, it is not too late to implement privacy safeguards in this rulemaking and Consumer Watchdog called on the DMV to do so. Failure to act will mean substantial privacy risks from the manufacturers’ driverless car technology if there are not protections from what Google is best known for: the collection and use of voluminous personal information about us and our movements.

The DMV regulations must give the user control over what data is gathered and how the information will be used.  Merely stating what data is gathered with no explanation of its use is woefully inadequate. The DMV’s autonomous vehicle regulations must provide that driverless cars gather only the data necessary to operate the vehicle and retain that data only as long as necessary for the vehicle’s operation.  The regulations should provide that the data must not be used for any additional purpose such as marketing or advertising without the consumer’s explicit opt-in consent.

Without appropriate regulations, autonomous vehicles will be able to gather unprecedented amounts of information about the use of those vehicles.  How will it be used?  Just as we are now tracked around the Internet, will Google and other purveyors of driverless car technology now be looking over our shoulders on every highway and byway? Will the data be provided to insurance companies for underwriting purposes or to third parties that develop some kind of a driving score related to where and when individuals travel?  Will it be used to serve in-car advertisements or advertisements through other venues in the Google suite of products? Will it be used to track our movements and those of surrounding cars and mobile devices so that Google’s advertisers can better locate us?

Google is the aforementioned leader in driverless car research and is attempting to steer regulatory efforts in various states, especially California.  That’s why our concerns are so focused on the company. So I ask:  Why won’t Google endorse simple privacy safeguards for its self-driving cars?  I think there are two reasons.

First, Google’s entire business model is based on building digital dossiers about our personal behavior and using them to sell the most personal advertising to us.  You’re not Google’s customer; you are its product – the one it sells to corporations willing to pay any price to reach you.  Will the driverless technology be just about getting us from point to point or more about tracking how we got there and what we did along the way?

Second, computer engineers, who believe that more data is always better, are in charge at Google.  They may not know what they would use data for today, but they think they may someday find a use for it and don’t want any restrictions on them now.

Google is first and foremost an advertising company; 98 percent of its $38 billion in revenue comes from advertising, and the more personalized the marketing the better.  Indeed, Executive Chairman Eric Schmidt has said, “We don’t need you to type at all. We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

John SimpsonWe all remember the last time Google deployed high tech vehicles around the world.  The result was Wi-Spy, the biggest wire-tapping scandal in history when the company’s Street View cars sucked up data from tens of millions of private Wi-Fi networks, including emails, health information, banking information, passwords and other data.  The company paid $7 million to settle the case brought by the state Attorneys General.  A class action suit is pending in federal district court.

Citing its “Don’t Be Evil” motto, Google claims it can be trusted with our information.  Facts show otherwise. The FCC released documents showing the Wi-Spy scandal was not a mistake or the work of one rogue engineer, as the company had claimed; but was part of the Street View design. The Commission fined Google $25,000 for obstructing its investigation.

The Federal Trade Commission imposed a $22.5 million penalty on Google for violating a consent agreement and hacking around privacy settings on Apple’s Safari browser, which is used on iPads and iPhones. Simply put, there is no reason to believe Google when it claims to be concerned about privacy.

Consumers enthusiastically adopted the new technology of the Internet.  What we were not told was that our use of the Information Superhighway would be monitored and tracked in order to personalize corporate marketing and make a fortune for companies like Google.  Consumer Watchdog supports driverless car technology and predicts it will be commonplace sooner than many of us expect.  However, it must not be allowed to become yet another way to track us in our daily lives.

Internet technology was implemented with little regard to protecting users’ privacy.  We are playing catch-up for our failure to consider the societal impact of a new technology.  The time to ensure that this new driverless car technology has the necessary privacy protections is while it is being designed and developed.   This is a concept known as “Privacy by Design.” It means privacy issues are considered from the very beginning and solutions are “baked in.” Trying to catch up after a new technology is developed and broadly implemented simply will not work.  The DMV should act to require that consumers must give opt-in consent before any data gathered through driverless car technology is used for any purpose other than driving the vehicle.

While we don’t propose to limit the ability of the cars to function by communicating as necessary with satellites and other devices, the collection and retention of data for marketing and other purposes should be banned. Unless strong protections are enacted in the new regulations, once again society will be forced to play catch-up in dealing with the impact of the privacy invading aspects of a new technology.


Posted by John M. Simpson, Director of Consumer Watchdog’s Privacy Project.  

Sen Bernardino Looks at Chemical Mining and Processing Facilities

Fracking and waterConsidering the recent growth of “salt mining”

by Brian Leubitz

Even with recent rains, California is continuing to suffer from a historic drought. This lack of water has opened up a new front of attack on fracking technology, which suddenly is coming under scrutiny for the massive consumption of water it requires in order to break apart shale to release oil.

Anti-fracking activists are beginning to connect the dots between the drought and fracking. In addition to my own writing on the subject, a opinion piece in the community newspaper Oakland Local  shows how grassroots opposition to the fracking due to its effect on water supplies is gaining traction.

And it’s not just at the local level. Just a  few weeks ago, the Los Angeles Times examined how fracking is creating water supply issues in Colorado, and predicted the same may happen in California. And in Sacramento, Senators Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) and Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles) have introduced legislation to put a moratorium on fracking in California in part because of its potential impact on water supplies.

“A moratorium on fracking is especially critical as California faces a severe drought with water resources at an all-time low,” Leno told Reuters News Agency, “We are currently allowing fracking operations to expand despite the potential consequences on our water supply, including availability and price of water, the potential for drinking water contamination and the generation of billions of barrels of polluted water.”

Meanwhile, Assemblyman Marc Levine (D-Marin) has unveiled a fracking moratorium bill that he ties directly to the drought.

“We have to decide what our most precious commodity is – water or oil?,” Levine told Reuters. “This is the year to make the case that it’s water.”

Nationwide, the impact of fracking on water supplies has been staggering. The Environment America Research and Policy Center estimated last fall that at least 250 billion gallons of water has been used in fracking operations for 80,000 wells in 17 states.

That’s why a Tetra Technologies project in Southern California is beginning to attract attention. The Texas-based company has filed paperwork for a project in San Bernardino County with hopes of adding five additional production wells in order to expand its sodium chloride (aka salt) and calcium chloride mining production by 20 percent. (Both sodium chloride and calcium chloride are widely known to be chemicals used in fracking.)

The company’s January 2013 Mining Plan Amendment would seem to fit in with Tetra Technologies’ recent growth in the fracking industry. Earlier this month, it bought WIT Water Transfer, a firm that provides water services for fracking. Last year, it purchased Patterson-UTI Energy Inc.’s fracking services unit for $42.5 million in 2012. Yet the company has said little, billing itself as a “salt mining operation” to anyone who asks.

These moves haven’t gone unnoticed on Wall Street. Analyst Travis Holom of the popular Motley Fool financial column focused on Tetra’s recent stock gains by noting:

“Investors clearly like the growth opportunity the larger company has ahead. Texas is the big growth market right now in fracking, and TETRA’s services will be a key piece of that growth. It’ll take a while to see the financial impact, but given the growth expected next year, I think shares have room to run higher, especially as natural gas drilling picks up nationwide.”

Tetra clearly has high hopes for expanding its operations in San Bernardino. That’s why the potential environmental impacts, both locally and globally, of the proposed expansion may be cause for alarm.

Yet San Bernardino County hasn’t seemed to be taking the necessary steps to ensure full Tetra Tech’s full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It’s unclear what, if any, mitigation be required. Hopefully, answers will emerge soon.

CADem14: No Endorsements in Controller, SoS

Competitive Endorsement Races Amounted to a Whole Lot of Nothing

by Brian Leubitz

If you happened to walk into the Westin Bonaventure over the weekend, you may be confused why the key cards said “Alex Padilla”. But the endorsement races for the Secretary of State and Controller races were the highlight of the weekend.

But when it came down to it, the races weren’t settled at the party convention and the party will remain silent, at least until after the general election.  In the controllers race, Speaker John A. Perez got a plurality, but wasn’t able to garner anywhere near the necessary 60% required to get the endorsement. Betty Yee was able to attract strong support as well, showing that we might have an interesting race here.

In the Secretary of State race, Alex Padilla was nearly able to pull off the 60% endorsement. However, when all of the votes were counted, Padilla fell a few votes short.

In the end, the voters will have to decide for themselves without the help of the party endorsement. One thing is clear, all of the five Democratic candidates in the two races are qualified for the position. Perhaps the endorsement is most useful to let voters know when there is a Democratic candidate who doesn’t honor the values of the Democratic party.

Students and Community in California Take on Big Oil to ReFund Education

California – With student debt reaching over $1 trillion nationally and college tuition continuing to skyrocket, dozens of major national organizations representing students, youth, labor, veterans and policy organizations have come together to unite their efforts to tackle what has become a student debt crisis in America. Higher Ed Not Debt, a new, multi-year campaign to address the twin issues of education debt and college affordability launched on Thursday, March 6, with dozens of events across the country.  

Higher Ed, Not Debt was formed with four key goals: addressing the existing $1.2 trillion of debt; increasing the affordability and quality of higher education; combating the privatization of higher education and the role of Wall Street in compounding the student debt crisis; and sparking civic engagement and political participation among young people.  

“If you’re not rich, in America, college costs more. It costs more because you have to borrow the money and pay and pay and pay. And not just pay the cost of the education, not just pay over time the cost to borrow, but pay to produce a profit,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren at the national launch in Washington, DC. “This thing is a monster that keeps getting and bigger and bigger every single day.”

Here in California, the ReFund California coalition kicked off this national campaign with events in San Francisco and Los Angeles calling for the passage of SB 1017 (Evans) the Oil & Gas Extraction Tax which will raise $2 Billion to fund education and vital services.

Additional revenue is urgently needed. As East LA Community College student Sonny Martinez said, “The biggest misconception about community colleges is that the students are to blame if they don’t graduate in two years when it’s actually the lack of funding that prevents them. It’s only fair that oil companies pay their fair share, so students like me can get an education without wasting years of their lives and falling deeper and deeper into debt.”

The UC, CSU and Community College systems are still far behind pre-crisis funding levels, despite some improvement in state funding since the passage of Prop 30. Faced with the need to borrow more and more, both students and the institutions themselves are burdened with sky-rocketing debt.  52% of California college seniors who graduated last year had student debt, and the average debt amount was $20,269!

ReFund California is bringing students, workers, and community together to address this revenue crisis by building public and political support for holding big corporations and the 1% accountable and making them pay their fair share towards a California that works for everyone.  

For photos of the actions, see: http://www.flickr.com/photos/c…