Yesterday, the 4th circuit appeals court, representing Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia, affirmed a lower court ruling that upheld an FEC ruling that required “Real Truth About Obama” reveal the names of their donors.

The FEC has required the registration and donor disclosure of PAC that are “expressly advocating” in campaign activity.  This “expressly advocating” is defined in 11 C.F.R. § 100.22 as including groups that “could only be interpreted by a reasonable person as containing advocacy of the election or defeat of one or more clearly identified candidate(s)”

As noted by electionlawblog, Crossroads GPS, Karl Rove’s superPAC registered as a 501c4, can be found to be expressly advocating and therefore the FEC can compel donor disclosure.

No word if RTAO will appeal.

If you were spending a few bucks in California politics, where would you put it?

by Brian Leubitz

I was recently asked by a Democratic donor where I would recommend giving money in state politics. Well, that is certainly a challenging question.  Like the national Dems, the state dems have quite the bit of dysfunction.

I think there are a few different priorities, which occasionally come into conflict. First, in order to really break the deadlock in Sac, you need to get to 2/3 in each house. The absolute hard and fast anti-tax pledges from the Republicans mean that you can’t really accomplish any larger goals w/o 2/3. And that goal is very doable, at least in the Senate, this year. The Assembly is less likely, but not impossible. So, if that’s the goal, then there are a few races where you would want to contribute: Cathleen Galgiani in SD-05, Russ Warner in AD-40 and a number of other.  You can  find more swing seats at AroundTheCapitol.

The other question is about better Democrats.  As you get to the end of each session, you always see good bills die because some “moderate” Democrat came up with some reason to walk out on the vote or just plain voted against it. There are more than a few examples of a Democrat that runs as somebody who won’t raise your taxes, or will cut regulations, or something similarly anti-progressive that feeds into Republican talking points. That is more than a single campaign issue, more than just one race, whether that be in Santa Barbara or the Central Valley, we need to work on developing candidates that will work to get the state on the right track through progressive economic growth.

In that we are fortunate to have the party lead by a strong progressive like John Burton, and they can do some of that work. However, ultimately that has to come through training and cultivation that may or may not be the right place for the party. It is somewhat conflicted in this matter, as they represent both sides of the intraparty fight. Term limits make it all that much more difficult as you have to keep looking for new candidates.

This June there will be a measure on the ballot to at least fix that one small part, moving term limits to 12 years total. And in November there will be a number of Dem-on-Dem races where we need to ensure that a progressive wins, while also picking up those swing districts? These are somewhat competing interests, and as a donor, you have to choose your priorities?

So, any thoughts?

The New York Times had an op-ed this morning arguing for a larger House of Representatives, something several of us here have argued for doing, with many of the same arguments.  

This disparity increases the influence of lobbyists and special interests: the more constituents one has, the easier it is for money to outshine individual voices. And it means that representatives have a harder time connecting with the people back in their districts.

The California legislature can also be improved with smaller districts.  How can a state senator honestly expect to represent 900,000 constituents?

True, more members means more agendas, legislation and debates.

I actually disagree with this.  In an earlier discussion I came up with what I felt was a viable solution:  The House is responsible for its own rules, so it can create a system where there is something like a House Steering Committee, which is a selection of representatives from the house, that functions similarly to how the house functions at present.  The difference is that this HSC handles all the debate, amendment, etc, (post responsible committee) and when settled, recommends the bill to a full house vote, up or down, with no amendment or debate.  

Your thoughts?

(I’ve been meaning to get this up, but it’s been a busy day. Welcome, Mayor Reilly. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

My name is Emily Reilly, mayor of Santa Cruz.  I am running for the Assembly in the 27^th district.  As a member of the Assembly I will draw on the progressive values of equality, fairness and opportunity to address the challenges faced by residents of Santa Cruz, Monterey and Santa Clara counties: protecting the environment, improving transportation and fighting for universal health care.

It is important that I communicate directly with the voters in my district – that I participate in a two-way discussion about the issues that are important to all of us.  As a center of netroots activism in our state, Calitics is one avenue I hope to utilize in this discussion.  Santa Cruz, Monterey and Santa Clara counties are home to strong grassroots communities, and the emergence of online political participation is a natural fit in my district. 

Already, I have raised $7,333 for my campaign on Act Blue.  In all, I my campaign raised $63,000 in the in the first half of the year, far outpacing the other two declared candidates in the race in the most recent reporting period.  Nearly 200 people have contributed to my campaign.

While money is important gauge of support in any race, I hope to go above and beyond success in fundraising.  It is your belief in my campaign and in the progressive values it represents that will drive my campaign to victory. 

During my time as Mayor and on the Santa Cruz City Council I have built a strong record of bringing people together to address critical issues, such as environmental protection, transportation, and affordable housing.  As an Assemblywoman, I intend to bring that same emphasis on progressive issues to Sacramento.

I look forward to starting a dialogue with everyone here at Calitics. 

As a side note, people often ask me about term limits.  Currently, it is expected that this seat will be open when John Laird is termed out in 2009.  If the term limits initiative passes in February 2008 allowing Assembly member Laird to stay in office, I will not run. 

I started this blog because someone over at kos said they needed one, and literally the day afterward, I read a story in the MSM and started writing an entry for this blog. Before I  published, I had lunch, went back to my desk and, just browsing around I found  3 blogs that said what I would have said, written better and published first. Ooops.

The folks at Ellen Tauscher Weekly keep track of the great work that https://calitics.com/tag.do?tag=Ellen+Tauscher and Kos post on Dear Ellen every week,  there are regular posts on MyDD, by Chris Bowers, and other places.

The day I started this blog, I emailed Act Blue on what to do about primary elections, and I didn’t even have a candidate to name. Haven’t had an answer yet, and I can see why. Why would people give money to an unknown quantity? I wasn’t going to choose who people were givig their money to, and having Act Blue hold the money in trust for a nameless stranger was not a good idea.

So here’s the deal. I understand the pre-Lieberman campaign took pledges for a candidate to be named later. That’s what I propose now. You email this site, $20, $30, $50 whatever ($1 accepted, as a placeholder) Include your email address, and when we have a candidate or candidates, you look over their positions, weigh their chances, and send in your $ or not. We will help with research on all potential candidates, who are willing to toss their hat in the ring. We post their postions, interviews, YouTube posts, we’ll help everyone. (Not indescriminately, this is my site, but I’ll let any legitimate candidate’s advocates become poster on this site. NO REPUBLICANS AND NO TAUSCHER)

What I’m after, is showing the potential candidate that there is support out their for him/her to make a SERIOUS run against a candidate that can raise $1M for a primary, and doesn’t have to spend bupkus against a Republican. (the Republicans don’t eat their own, they know Dear Ellen is a fellow traveler. Lord, I wish the Dem’s would learn that. (HEY! PROGRESSIVES ARE DEMOCRATS! HELLOO….) There are good potential folks on the back bench who are looking at state offices, city offices, dog cacher because money is the deal killer and they don’t know any millionaires.

You pledge your $, as little or as big as you can afford. Anyone who steps up to mount a primary challenge, we post what they say and what we find. We’ll have help in the later, because Dear Ellen will have $1M to spend on oppo research, and you can just open up the Contra Costa Times to see all tha bad stuff about anyone who dares speak out agianst Dear Ellen. You’ll get email from all the declared primary challengers, and anytime between filling day and the primary, you can redeem your pledge. I would be surprised if, between now and the primary, there wasn’t a candidate not worth supporting. If you find more than one, feel free to redeem your pledge more than once. Or redeem your pledge more than once to the same candidate.

My point is to start building a war chest. The total will appear here, in 6 months, 3 months after that, and  more often if needed to convince the good candidates that they will have support for the primary, support for the general. Too many good legislators are kept out of office because the grind of raisng money is a daunting and dispiriting task. For an incumbent, who can provide that all valuted “access” if not a quid pro quo, money is much less of a problem.

If we can show a candidate who has a progresive record, that they have as little as $100k before they even file, and a fundraising op behind them, if they decide to take on a conservatve entrenched career politician, I think we can have our pick of a field of 2 or 3 prime candidates. (If we find three progressive candidates, there are state seats, commissions, county seats, city seats, we can start packing the back bench up BIG TIME)