Tag Archives: Stuart Waldman

In Response to the Calitics Endorsement in AD-40

Yesterday, we endorsed Laurette Healey in the 40th AD. Quite a few readers disagree with the choice of Republican-turned Democrat, Healey. This is an email I received today from Damian Carroll, republished with permission. All three of the candidates we did not endorse have good cases of their own.

[Y]our endorsement of Laurette Healey in the 40th was, shall we say, eye-raising.  Are you aware that Laurette is only recently a Democrat, who ran several years back for LA City Controller as a fiscal conservative?  Even giving Laurette the benefit of the doubt that she is, now, a real progressive, I think it’s quite a stretch to say that she is “the progressive” in a race where all the leading candidates – Stuart Waldman, Dan McCrory, and Bob Blumenfield – have solid progressive credentials.

Briefly, Stuart Waldman was endorsed by the Democratic Party of the San Fernando Valley, which represents 27 Democratic clubs in the region, the San Fernando Valley Young Democrats, Sherman Oaks Democratic Club, Democrats for Change, AFSCME 3299, and dozens of progressive activists throughout the Valley.

Dan McCrory is a longtime union organizer endorsed by Jo Olson, co-chair of the CDP Progressive Caucus, San Fernando Valley NOW, United Food & Commercial Workers Local 1442, United Steelworkers Local 675, etc.

Bob Blumenfield shared the CLCV endorsement with Laurette, and was also endorsed by UTLA, Barney Frank, The Sierra Club, SEIU, and so on.

My point being that as progressives who demand high standards of our elected officials, I think your endorsement process should also hold candidates to high standards.  It doesn’t cut it to call a couple of progressive friends in Los Angeles, glance at some endorsements, and then declare that only one candidate in the race is “the progressive.”

I’m very disappointed with this endorsement and I don’t think it speaks highly of Calitics.  If this is the best process you can muster, maybe it’s not worth endorsing.

Ethically Challenged??? The So-Called “Independent Expenditures” …

(This hit the LA Times today.  San Fernando Valley politics are weird and dynastic.  Blumenfield is getting money from his dad and his former boss Howard Berman; his campaign manager is Larry Levine, whose son Lloyd is running for state Senate; Lloyd’s former chief of staff is Stuart Waldman.  This doesn’t mean they’re bad people at all.  But there’s a dynastic feel to Valley politics that is unsettling.  Also this shows that the IE laws in this state are ridiculous. – promoted by David Dayen)

…for Bob Blumenfield,

With Love from His Dad and Current Employer, Congressman Howard Berman

Ignored by the mainstream media this Wednesday, the Fair Political Practices Commission complaint filed against “Valley Democrats for Change” by attorney, Nicole Kuklok-Waldman, is heating up the race in the 40th Assembly District. It entered cyberspace Thursday through the subscription-only website, Capital Morning Report.

What it appears to be, said an employee at the Secretary of State’s office, is another committee set up to circumvent California’s legal contribution limits.

Background. California law sets a contribution limit for state candidates for the legislature at $3600 per person. A candidate can use an unlimited amount of his or her PERSONAL funds. But, a relative cannot. Which brings us to the present situation. What’s a father to do???

Michael Blumenfield, the retired psychiatrist from Scarsdale, N.Y., who moved out to California to live across the street from his son, had already given the $3600 limit last year. So, legally, he could give no more.

Loophole. California has this nifty little device to get around those pesky “limits.” It’s called the “independent expenditure committee” with the operative word being INDEPENDENT. The deal is that someone can form this sort of committee and spend ALL they want. They just can’t coordinate with anyone in the campaign.

It seems that father Michael got together with his son’s present employer, Congressman Howard Berman, and opened up shop with this type of committee. The $50K seed money from him landed in the account on March 25th, just before the California Democratic State Convention, where son, Bob, would lose the party endorsement and make this committee all the more important.

Then a $5K chunk from Michael MacLeod, the Chairman of Public Interest Data in Washington DC rolled in on April 1st. This Michael chipped in another $5K May 8th. Is he a relative? From his website, we find he has a history as a fundraiser. From Newsmeat, we learn that he’s a contributor to the DCCC, Harry Reid, Howard Dean, Joe Lieberman and Hillary Clinton. But what IS his connection to this far away California Assembly candidate? Inquiring minds want to know.

Then more money from dad…another $50K…another $20K. That would be $116,400 OVER what is allowed by law. But, oh yes, this is an “independent” expenditure!!!  So, it gets to slip by the pathetically weak campaign finance rules.

The most surprising entry, however, has to be that MEGA contribution from Bob’s employer, Congressman Howard Berman. It could be said that Howard has raised a ton of money this year for his non-campaign….no opponents in the primary…not even one Republican willing to run against him in the general. All alone with his $914,233 and no campaign of his own.  Don’t you just WONDER why he’s collecting all that?

Well, wonder no more. There is the “independent expenditure” committee to funnel in a cool $100K. Bob is, after all, his own chief-of-staff. Well, officially “on leave” for now. But, what if Bob could get a seat in the Assembly and BE THERE when the reapportionment comes up after the next census? Wouldn’t that just be peachy keen!!!

Of course, we have to really IMAGINE that there is no coordination between the campaign and the father across the street and the employer of 18 years. This IS a stretch, but, hey, can we really IMAGINE THIS???

I guess the real test is when you see a television ad with footage of the family…the little daughter…the lovely wife…the CAMPAIGN LOGO…and three endorsements. And then there is the e-mail from the campaign:

Voters are calling us about a fun, new ad that began airing recently. Since

the ad wasn’t produced by us, we do not know when it airs.  Supporters found

it on YouTube.

Does this strain credibility or what? Get real.

I guess the FPPC may have to take a look at this now that the complaint was filed. And who was it that filed it??? Nicole Kuklok-Waldman, wife of Stuart Waldman, one of the opponents in this mid-San Fernando Valley race. Handy to have an attorney in the family.

But, do we have the pot calling the kettle black???

Seems Stuart has his own little “Independent Expenditure” committee cranking out the bucks for him too. This one is called the “CA Alliance for Progress and Education” (one wonders what KIND of education they had in mind when naming this as well as what KIND of progress). It’s been around a lot longer and has more candidates in the stable. One funder for this committee is Blue Shield of California to the tune of $25K—which goes to show you where SOME of the huge profits from health insurance go. Others have included the California Dental Association and the Californians for Civil Justice Reform. Total going to Stuart??? A cool $306,979.81 which he, of course, knows nothing about either. Money does make the political world go round. And this race is certainly starting to spin. Too bad the mainstream press isn’t covering local politics this year.

So, fellow Californians, are we ready to get off of this squirrel cage and demand some serious reform in this system? As it’s now arranged, the ethically challenged dive through these loopholes that were arranged there on purpose to fool the people into thinking that there really is some level of accountability, and there is NOT. Consider how often you have taken the time to really research where the money is coming from to buy the campaign propaganda that sells you your candidate each election. And next time the issue of public financing comes up, and it will, please make sure you aren’t fooled again by the corporate interests who fund the anti- campaign.

ETHICS IN OUR CANDIDATES–EITHER THEY HAVE THEM NOW OR NOT. THEY DON’T GROW THEM ONCE IN OFFICE.

For those of you who just HAVE to check this out yourself:

Through the Secretary of State’s website enter these in the cal-access search link:

Valley Democrats for Change, filer ID# 1305598

CA Alliance for Progress and Education ID#1283921

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/P…

shows the money flowing in from Bob’s employer and dad

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C… .aspx?id=1305598&view=late3

shows it flowing out to the various tv commercials/media buys/envelopes and the 410 form listing the treasurers

http://www.strumwooch.com/prof…

This is the website for the treasurer, initially Beverly Palmer, and now Aimee Dudovitz. Both of them are associates. The main partner in the firm, Fredrich Woocher, is listed as the assistant treasurer.

http://www.stuartwaldman.com/C…

This is the complaint filed with the FPPC. The complete filing is linked under this page.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pol…

Howard’s current $ tally

http://www.youtube.com/user/va…

the Bob and family ads from youtube

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/C…

Stuart’s special friend committee

‘Tis the Season of Membership Stacking for Endorsements: Stonewall Next in the Headlights

Most Californians are sure that their election is over. All the media coverage is blaring babble from the most recent presidential debate in distant states as well as other inane minutia that denigrates the process.  

Yet, if you look closely, really closely, you may find evidence that there is yet another election coming up here in June. Yes, June 3rd to be exact.

This season, in spite of the state being billions of dollars in debt, and the cries of horror about budget cuts, our state legislators gave us the special treat of spending double on TWO elections!!!.

And the citizens who ARE paying attention to the obscure references to the June 3rd primary are again faced with figuring out who is worth voting for, if anyone.

With little information in the mainstream media, many turn to their local Democratic Clubs and special interest groups for guidance. Or, they look to their Democratic party. This guidance most often comes in the form of the last minute slate mailers, the topic of this conversation.  

But IS the endorsement of the club or party truly well thought out? And DOES it actually represent the opinion of the regular club membership? And how many members are actually involved in any of these clubs? Or, has the endorsement been manipulated by the last minute sign-ups that dump cash into the club the day before the membership cut-off date for eligibility to vote? Then, a busload of “new members” appears for this one event.

From my vantage point in the San Fernando Valley, I can assure you that the custom of stacking-new-members-just-in-time-for-the-endorsement-vote is alive and well in the 40th Assembly District race. The four Democratic candidates are Laurette Healey, Dan McCrory, Stewart Waldman and Bob Blumenfeld.

The season opened with the Young Democrats of the SFV and a ground war between two guys who both think they are entitled to the Assembly seat in the 40th AD (that’s mid-SFV from Van Nuys out to West Hills). These “Young Dems,” by the way, are heavily sprinkled with incumbent politicians’ staffers. Stewart Waldman, the former staffer for the incumbent in the 40th AD, snatched this one away, having been the founder of the group. He’s too old to be a member now, but says strong ties to many board members got him the endorsement.

Then came the bruiser at the Valley Grassroots for Democracy (yea, right…democracy). Not to be outdone here, the Bob Blumenfeld team, led by the incumbent’s dad, thought they had this one knocked. They’d spent a lot of time gathering together new members who drove in to vote, but low and behold, there was an uproar from the regular membership when they were handed the letter Blumenfeld had sent to stack the club:

“I’m writing to see if you’d be willing to help me stack the room for some upcoming Democratic Club Endorsement meetings…

I’m compiling a list of different clubs that endorse that also have open memberships.  However, one of the larger of such clubs is the Valley Grassroots for Democracy.  And, as it works out their deadline for signing up for membership is this Tuesday.  Would you and possibly (name deleted) be willing to sign up to become members.  You would only have to come to one meeting — the one in March where they will be voting on making an endorsement for the 40th AD.  Details are below.  Also, if you know anyone else who you might be able to recruit for this, that’d be great too.

Talk to you soon.  Take care.

    – Bob”  (openly admitted he sent this, saying that Stewart had “done it first” at Young Dems)

As it turned out, the leadership, that seemed to be totally on board with this stacking ploy, ultimately chose to cave in to the demands of core members and issued a “no endorsement” for this race.  Grassroots indeed!

Losing that one, the “Berman machine” (and it includes more than Howard, the Democratic congressman who votes with the Republicans on Iraq war issues) turned up the steam to steamroll the insiders of the Democratic party into “choosing” HIS STAFFER at the pre-endorsement caucus.

That’s the official party endorsement, not to be confused by any others that use “Democratic Party” in their name (e.g., DPSFV). The party chooses one Democrat in the field of many Democrats and puts the official seal of approval on that one…which he/she then uses in their slate mailings that arrive just before election day.

To understand this convoluted process is an exercise in near futility. It seems that elected officials anywhere in the state can send in delegates to vote for a candidate.  Huh???  Running that by again, elected politicians from OUTSIDE the district can send delegates in to vote. So, in spite of it being a Democratic primary, these elected Democrats are unwilling to allow the democratic process to take place. They step in with their pre-selected favorite based on…..what???

And send in they did. The twenty-seven “chosen” joined with a measly four from the district activist pool to vote for Bob. At the caucus, the vote was one short of sending it to the convention for the endorsement. After all ballots left and went to Sacramento, wonder of wonders, Blumenfeld was now having his name put in for endorsement. This was stopped in its tracks by the concerted efforts of Waldman and Dan McCrory (another in the race) and the 468 delegates who signed their petitions to send the carefully engineered endorsement of Bob to the floor for a vote. It lost. No Democratic Party endorsement for anyone in the 40th AD. Add one strike for “nobody” and chalk one up for grassroots democracy. The plea was to allow the voters of the district to decide. What a unique idea!

Which brings us to the latest travesty of this election, the last minute delivery of 80 (or 83, depending on source) applications of new members to the Stonewall Democratic Club hours before the closing of membership for voting purposes. The daddy mentioned before (dad of incumbent who is running the campaign for his son as well as the anointed replacement for son, the Berman staffer) has his operative from the club rush in his credit card to PAY for these new members he’s collected to stack the endorsement meeting. Yes, at $25 a pop, that’s $2000. The county chair, who’s also a Stonewall member, says “there is absolutely no prohibition whatsoever about this in any bylaws.”

So, voters who want to use a “trusted” club endorsement, what do you think? Is it okay for a political operative to gather up a busload of people to drive in and vote in the club meeting on endorsements and then disappear??? And for this particular race, the 40th Assembly District, this highly unethical (if legal) stacking of new members will result in an endorsement bought and paid for by a political campaign consultant if existing members to not step in and say, “Enough!”

D-Day to see the fireworks over this one is Monday, April 28. For those in the L.A. region who want to come observe the drama it’s at 7:00 PM at the West Hollywood Park Auditorium, 647 N. San Vicente Blvd., West Hollywood (between Santa Monica Blvd. and Melrose Ave.)

Lest you think that this is an isolated incident, we have the latest breaking story from Randy Bayne’s blog up north (http://bayneweb.com/blog/?p=1005) on an even worse example. The West Sacramento Dems had 700 (yes, seven hundred) new “members” brought to them by their local endorsement buyer. Now they cannot conduct business since they are unable to reach a quorum with the new higher membership that is in NUMBERS only. They can’t even meet to try to change their bylaws!

So we are left with this. Manipulation of the clubs by politicians or their hired hacks.  Not real residents who care about the club. Not real activists who are working within the club on issues of common concern. Not real citizens concerned about the community.  Just people who are “hired” to go to a club ONE TIME solely for the purpose of delivering the club endorsement to the ethically-challenged buyer.

And the clubs who allow this are obviously complicit. New members, even if only there once, mean more money. Of course, there MUST be some within each club who disagree with this state of affairs, but certainly not enough, or this would not continue year after year.

Our so-called democracy has taken an incredible beating these last years. Many look to the Democratic party as their only hope. And many of those many will be disappointed. While it would be nice to think that one could look to someone else to do the heavy lifting involved in maintaining the democracy, the reality is that it’s you who must step up to the plate and make time to participate and do in-depth research on these people we entrust with our future.

Time to start tossing all those last minute endorsement slates as the pieces of trash they are. Certainly not worth the paper they’re on. And certainly nothing to base a vote on.

And for those who continue to think that they are too busy in their own little worlds, or that they can’t make a difference, or that their vote doesn’t count, we are left with the words of George Bernard Shaw:

Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

###

SD-03: Going to the floor

I do some web work for Mark Leno.


It’s not often that the 300 signatures are gathered to actually pull something off of the consent calendar, but it happens. What doesn’t happen is getting twice the number of required signatures. A few signatures over 600, in fact.

Tomorrow, Bill Clinton will be speaking to the convention, and Kamala Harris, SF’s DA, will be speaking on behalf of Obama. While I have great respect for the 42nd president of the United States, he is not known for being a timely gentleman. What time the platform, the SD-03 race, and the consent calendar will come up are pretty much all dependent upon when President Clinton shows up.

Tomorrow should be an exciting day for the San Francisco folks and the Clinton delegates. Should be fun.

UPDATE: From the comments, AD-40, Lloyd Levine’s (termed out, running for state senate) district, was also pulled from the consent calendar. Bob Blumenfield got the 60% required, but it will be going to the floor. Also competitive in that race are Laurette Healey & Stuart Waldman.

Lloyd Levine enters race for Senate in the 23rd

Assemblymember Lloyd Levine, who currently represents the 40th Assembly district in the western San Fernando Valley, has made it official: he’ll be running for Senate in the 23rd (West L.A., Santa Monica, West San Fernando Valley, southwest Ventura County).  This is the seat currently held by Senator Sheila Keuhl, who will be termed out in ’08.

Levine’s Chief of Staff, Stuart Waldman, has already announced his candidacy for his boss’ vacated seat in the 40th.