Tag Archives: SD-03

FlashReport on SD-03: Completely Clueless

I don’t normally comment too much on the FalseReport. It’s just generally not worth my time to quibble with inanities. And my disagreeing with those folks would kind of be a little too expected. So, I generally focus on those who are supposed to be “balanced.”  But, I’ve been tempted by this little piece of so-called analysis on SD-03 by Yolo County Supe Matt Rexroad (hey, Yolo, WTF? Do you let just anybody become supervisor?):

In a one on one race with Migden and Leno — I like Leno’s chances.  He is every bit as liberal only he is much nicer.  That is not saying much.  Leno had done a great job of gathering up all of the anti-Migden forces until others started having the same idea.

“Another clinging on to glory days” Alioto jumped into the race.  He divides the anti-Migden forces once. Now Joe Nation has opened an account.  He is a former Assemblyman from Marin County that might make a play for the Marin County part of the district.  He would divide the anti-Migden forces again..and almost certainly hand her re-election.

The problem with this? Well, apparently Mr. Rexroad didn’t bother to talk to anybody who knows the district, knows the personalities involved, or  do any research whatsoever on this before he wrote this.  If he had, he would have seen a few statements like this from people who actually know the San Francisco-based district.  From Luke Thomas, a local photographer/journalist:

Conventional wisdom, however, suggests Nation, who lives in San Rafael, will likely draw votes away from incumbent Senator Carole Migden who is already facing stiff challenges from Assemblymember Mark Leno and San Francisco Police Commissioner Joe Alioto-Veronese. (FogCityJournal 11.28.07)

Or this analysis from one of the top pollsters in the City, probably the state, David Latterman of Fall Line Analytics :

David Latterman, president of Fall Line Analytics, a San Francisco-based polling company, said Nation’s potential entrance into the race “hurts Carole” Migden. That’s because while both Migden and Leno are well known in San Francisco, a Nation candidacy could take Marin votes away from Migden, which Leno has never represented, he said. (SacBee CapAlert 11.16.07)

Now, I’m not saying that Mr. Rexroad couldn’t be right, it’s just that he’s not even close to being right.  He frames this as a race between Senator Migden vs. Not-Senator-Migden.  And that’s just not the way this works. Assemblyman Leno and Fmr. Assemblyman Nation both have their own name IDs. Mr. Nation isn’t so popular up as he once was in the North Bay considering his primary challenge to Lynn Woolsey. (By the by, Rep. Woolsey doesn’t look like she’s set to let that incident go so quickly either.)

Oh, and apparently Mr. Rexroad also missed the latest self-injection of cash into Sen. Migden’s campaign. The funny thing is here that Mr. Rexroad actually seems to well, dislike Sen. Migden. Now, that’s probably a badge of honor for a progressive like the good Senator, but the article is an odd way of stating that distrust. Maybe next time Mr. Rexroad spills pixels, he’ll think of making sure that he has a solid grip on the facts.

SD-03: Migden, Leno Trade Barbs in Milk Club Debate

I wrote this for today’s Beyond Chron, San Francisco’s Alternative Online Daily.

It’s often hard to assess which candidate “won” a debate, but a few basic conclusions can be drawn from the November 17th State Senate forum, hosted by the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club: (1) State Assemblyman Mark Leno and Senator Carole Migden agree on most issues ideologically, (2) the third candidate, Joe Alioto Veronese, is more politically moderate, and (3) there is harsh acrimony between Leno and Migden – which has made the race far more divisive than it needs to be. Progressives have no one to blame but themselves if the race gets so nasty that Leno and Migden kill each other, though it is very unlikely that Veronese would eke out a victory under such circumstances. But Leno and Migden have a distinct difference in style, temperament and priorities – and that is where progressive voters deserve a clear choice in the June primary. As Veronese said at the debate, “we’re all here today because we have a contested race.”

A race between two prominent local gay politicians has already caused tension in the Milk Club.  At the Club’s last general meeting, Carole Migden’s campaign overwhelmed the room with East Bay attorneys, Sacramento staffers and Willie Brown hacks – in an attempt to ram through an early endorsement schedule that rigged the system in her favor.  Club President Brian Basinger alluded to this episode as he welcomed the crowd to the debate, and proudly rattled off the Club’s accomplishments in the past year.  “Even in the middle of controversy,” he said, “work can still get done.”

Moderated by TV news anchor Belva Davis, the State Senate debate revealed an obvious point – there is little ideological difference between Mark Leno and Carole Migden.  Both want to amend “Three Strikes” to avoid locking up non-violent offenders.  Both want single-payer health care, but are pushing for incremental steps this year that could pass politically.  Both want to raise revenue through split-roll property taxes, restoring the upper income tax bracket and allowing cities to reinstate the Vehicle License Fee.  Progressives want to see a clear distinction before making a choice, but it’s just not there.

Migden tried to position herself to Leno’s left by attacking him on several votes.  “I did not vote to expand prison systems like Mr. Leno did,” she said.  “He also wrote a bill about rental cars that the Consumer’s Union is now suing.”  But the prison bill in question (AB 900) was to add more beds and require rehabilitation services in existing facilities – a move Leno says the legislature had to take, or else the federal courts would have mandated building new prisons.  As for the rental car bill (AB 2592), Migden voted for it – and according to Leno, the Consumer’s Union is not suing.

At one point, the two front-runners had a basic disagreement about whether Leno voted to sell EdFund – a corporation owned (but not run) by the state to manage financial aid money for students.  Leno voted for SB 89 while Migden opposed it, but he disputes the notion that it was a vote to “sell” EdFund.  After an audit raised questions about EdFund’s fiscal management, the legislature passed SB 89 to allow the option of finding another contractor.  It certainly wasn’t to privatize education a la Don Fisher – which is what Migden’s accusation implied.

But while Leno and Migden nit-picked over who is more “progressive,” there was no doubt which candidate is the most “moderate” – Joe Alioto Veronese.  The San Francisco Police Commissioner acknowledged his support of Proposition 83, a measure requiring former sex offenders to wear a tracking device that California voters passed last year.  Prop 83 is currently tied up in court, but Veronese said he supports it “in concept.”  Veronese also said he had “problems” with the health care bill being pursued in the legislature (which is already a compromise from single payer), because the Democrats, he said, “need to work” more with the Governor.

In fact, Veronese’s theme throughout the debate was the need to compromise with Schwarzenegger.  “I’m not going to sit here and attack the Governor,” he said, as the other candidates eloquently criticized Arnold’s budget priorities.  Throughout the debate, Veronese stressed the need to work with Republicans and Central Valley Democrats.  Leno finally responded to him with a line that generated applause: “we have worked too much with the Governor.  He needs to work with us.”

Some observers may surmise that with Veronese in the race, Leno and Migden will split the liberal vote – leaving the 3rd District with a State Senator who is far less progressive than his constituents.  In 1998, when the 9th District in the East Bay had a State Senate election, Dion Aroner and Keith Carson split the progressive vote – which allowed moderate Don Perata to eke through.  But Veronese is no Perata, who at the time was a well-known State Assemblyman and former County Supervisor.  As a local Police Commissioner, Veronese will more likely play the “spoiler” role in this race – if even that.

Which brings us back to the two major candidates.  As I explained last April, the real difference between Leno and Migden is how they approach representing a safe Democratic district – which is a distinction in their priorities, style and temperament.  Migden is a hard-nosed pragmatist who spends time in Sacramento cutting deals and building political clout.  Leno is a big-picture idealist who engages the grassroots to pressure the state government.

When asked about passing a gay marriage bill next year that Schwarzenegger twice vetoed, Leno said, “our strategy was based on a false premise: that the Governor is an honorable human being.”  While this gave Leno the biggest applause line of the debate, Migden’s rebuttal showed her difference in tactics.  “I’ve worked with the Governor,” she said, “and he doesn’t like being called names.  I got him to get money for us to help transgenders.  You have to work with people no matter who they are.”

Sparks flew when Leno was asked why he was challenging an incumbent State Senator.  “This is an exercise in democracy,” said Leno, “not an assault on a 30-year career.  Carole says that she should be unopposed, but this Senate seat doesn’t belong to her.  It belongs to the voters.”  Alluding to the fact that Migden has not had a contested race in 17 years, Leno added “Carole’s had the good fortune of having the waters parted for all the seats she’s run for.  There’s never been accountability.”

This provoked a harsh response from Migden.  “I know why [running is] a good idea for him,” she said.  “He’s out of a job.”  Migden reminded the crowd that she got Leno his first job in politics – when her election to the State Assembly allowed him to get appointed to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.  She said that Leno has a “personal animus” against her, because in 2002 she endorsed his rival, Harry Britt, for the State Assembly.  Leno’s challenge, she implied, is about revenge.

Migden supporters have made this accusation ever since Leno first declared his candidacy – but even assuming that it’s true, will the average voter care?

Migden then brought up a point that, if persuasive, will have far more resonance in determining the outcome of this race: which candidate is a more effective legislator?  “[Leno’s] been a little light on accomplishments,” said Migden.  “Mr. Appropriations Chair has only had 3 bills signed into law this year.”  In contrast, she said, 12 of her bills this year have become law.

Unmentioned was the role that State Senate President Don Perata has played in derailing Leno’s legislation.  As Randy Shaw reported in September, six Leno bills that passed the Assembly in this session were stalled in the Senate – even if they enjoyed wide support.  It’s a deeply cynical move by Perata (and presumably Migden) to deprive Leno of any accomplishments that he can tout while campaigning for the Senate seat.

If Leno defeats Migden, all incumbent State Senators could be subject to similar challenges – which explains Perata’s move to undercut Leno’s accomplishments. “In my first four years in the State Assembly,” said Leno, “about 13 out of 15 bills I wrote every year became law.  Then, all of a sudden, my numbers went down.  Guess what?  Politics happens in Sacramento.; Then, all of a sudden, my numbers came down.  Guess what?  Politics happens in Sacramento.”

When it came time to make closing statements, the tension was so palpable that Leno and Migden both wanted to go last.  But the debate moderator made Leno go first, and he made the following veiled statements about Migden: “I will not sing Don Fisher’s praises, I will not hold fundraisers at Clear Channel, and I will not declare marriage equality ‘dead for the year.'”

In a classic game of “tit-for-tat,” Migden then replied by making her own comments about Leno during her closing statement.  “He says he won’t take money from Don Fisher,” she said, “but he’ll take money from strip clubs that exploit women.”  With two top legislators running against each other, expect this race to get far nastier in the next few months.  And with a statewide Proposition to abolish rent control on the same ballot, let’s hope the average voter won’t get so disgusted that they’ll just sit out the election.

Because in the end, a race between two talented elected officials with similar politics should be a good thing – not a bad thing.

EDITOR’S NOTE: As a private citizen, Paul Hogarth is a member of the Harvey Milk Club and has endorsed Mark Leno for the State Senate – but does not play an advisory role in the campaign.  A former Berkeley resident, he actively supported Dion Aroner’s 1998 run for the State Senate against Don Perata.  Send feedback to [email protected]

SD-03: Big D Democrats? Check. Little d democracy? Totally absent.

If you've read this blog long, you'll know I support Mark Leno in SD-03.  But you'll also know that I support the concept of primaries in the abstract. Primaries are a part of our system that is integral to a people-powered movement. It puts the voters, not the political machine, in charge of who gets the nomination. While it isn't perfect, it's as Churchill would say, the worst system except for all the others.

And that's why I'm disappointed by what I saw at the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco last night. Over…

What I saw was truly appalling. I mean besides the stifling heat in the building as the room was packed, both literally and figuratively. Literally, in that there was about 225 people in the auditorium. Figuratively in that many were fairly new members of the Harvey Milk Club, but I'll leave the discussions of the machinations to Paul Hogarth at Beyond Chron. To put it mildly, it was a disaster, from start to finish. Strong-arm tactics abound and the mood was anything but congenial. In the picture you see Sen. Carole Migden moving the affair along.

But what got my goat was a statement that received both cheers and jeers. It came after a discussion back and forth, and went something like this (paraphrased): “This is Mark's fault for challenging Carole. What is the difference on issues between these two? Why is he challenging her?”

But the difference is inherent in the question. It's that little d democracy again. It's the belief in machine politics over people powered politics. Look, Sen Migden became a Senator by general acclimation, same thing with the BOE, and the Assembly. Good for her, I suppose, but bad for little d democracy. Were there better candidates? Who knows? The machine picked her, and you better sit down and shut up. That's not democracy, that's Soviet-style Politburo. 

Of course, there's the sense of entitlement there, that she's earned 8 years by winning her non-competitive election. You know, by angling others away via the backrooms of SF politics. Is this what we want San Francisco politics to be about? Is this the Shining City on the Hill that we want others to emulate? Machine politics without representative democracy?

That's not what I signed up for. 

California’s standard is poisoning the whole nation, one sofa at a time.

(Wow, 3 electeds in one day. Cool! (bumped) – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

Soon the decision of whether California will continue to poison our kids and the rest of the nation will be made by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Thus far, state agencies have been directed from the top to oppose AB 706. The question for Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is, how loudly must our babies cry before toxic, cancer-causing, endocrine-disrupting chemicals are removed from our furniture?

If your sofa was purchased in California after 1975, chances are its interior foam and cushions contain either brominated or chlorinated fire retardants. These toxic chemicals have been shown to cause cancer, reproductive problems, learning disabilities, and thyroid disease in laboratory animals and house cats. At the same time, these chemicals are climbing the food chain in increasing concentrations and are found in fish, harbor seals in San Francisco Bay, polar bears, bird eggs, and the animal at the very top of the food chain – breast-fed human babies.

A little-known California regulation known as Technical Bulletin 117 requires that the polyurethane foam in furniture withstand an open flame for 12 seconds without catching fire. This 30-year-old regulation is well intended, and upholstered furniture fires are a serious concern. However, since 1975 no other jurisdiction in the world has followed California’s lead, and other states have achieved similar or greater reductions in fire-related deaths without this standard.

Because brominated and chlorinated fire retardants don’t react chemically with foam, their molecules have a tendency to attach to dust particles in furniture. Each time someone sits on a sofa cushion, the dust particles escape into the air and can be inhaled or settle on the floor, where toddlers and house cats live and play.

These fire-retardant molecules mimic thyroid hormone, which in pregnant women regulates the sex and brain development of the unborn child. This mimicking is called endocrine disruption, and brominated and chlorinated fire retardants in even infinitesimal amounts can cause harm to human and animal health through this process.

Many national furniture manufacturers distribute only California-compliant furniture, which means that up to 10 percent by weight of foam cushions are composed of toxic chemicals. California’s standard is poisoning the whole nation, one sofa at a time.

The good news is that there are safer chemical and construction-based alternatives already in the marketplace that can provide an equivalent level of fire safety without the use of brominated and chlorinated fire retardants. The institutional-furniture industry and the mattress industry already comply with tough fire standards and do so without the use of these toxic chemicals.

Residential-furniture manufacturers could do so as well, except that state law and TB 117 prevent it. That’s why I have authored Assembly Bill 706, which would modify our outdated foam test. A modern residential-furniture standard, such as the one developed in California for mattresses, should address how the various components of furniture can together achieve equal or better fire safety without using the most toxic fire retardants.

AB 706 would establish a comprehensive process for weighing the issues of fire safety and chemical exposures. It would rightly rest the responsibility for assessing toxicity with state toxicologists, require the fire-retardant industry to prove that its products are safe, and leave the final decision on whether to prohibit a particular chemical to the state’s fire-safety scientists.

Slightly More than 2/3 of a Good Time with Mark Leno

I’m sitting at lunch yesterday when I see a certain Mark Leno staffer call me. I ignore it because I’m in the middle of a meeting for SF Young Dems. Another call. I ignore it again. He calls a third time, and I finally pick it up.

So, he invites me up to the debate in Rohnert Park between Sen. Migden and Asm. Leno in the Leno campaign bus. Aka, Asm. Leno’s car. So, I run back home and grab my computer (gotta have that, you know). I then run back onto MUNI to meet the staffer  and the Assemblyman at a parking garage on Mission. All fun stuff, there.

On the way up, I take my conference call with the Speaker and half-listen. Now, I’m a pretty good multi-tasker, so I really had few problems actually getting both conversations. But one thing that I did miss was the line about this budget not being a Republican budget — referring to a line in a George Skelton story.  But when you get down to it, this budget seems pretty darn close to a Republican budget. It’s hard to imagine a less progressive budget coming out of a Dem Legislature.

But, we continue driving, and I learn some cool things about the Assemblyman. Did you know that Mark Leno used to work for Art Garfunkel? Yup, the lesser-know half of Simon and Garfunkel. It’s true. Mark Leno helped Art Garfunkel to break out of S&G and skyrocket to superstardom. Oh, um, right…just flip it… Oh, and for more 2/3 goodness, check out Assemblyman Leno’s op-ed in the Chronicle.

So, we’re driving through the streets of the Rohnert Park area, pretty place, that Rohnert Park, and we keep going. The GPS tells us to keep going and make a right, and then three more rights. And guess what? We’re back on the street that we were on before, now trying to make a left with no stop light. It turns out we really could have just made a left (with the light) a few blocks before where we originally turned right, but, um, I guess the GPS likes fun drives through subdivisions. I dunno, but I just hope nothing like that picture happens to the Assemblyman, you know getting your car stuck in a tree by listening to GPS. Anyway, beyond the detour, no poor driving decisions were made. In fact, I’d be happy for Mr. Leno to chauffeur me every day.

We eventually get to the forum location, an old business park that is going to be converted into a housing development using smart growth and green technologies. I think that’s cool, but apparently nobody bothered to tell them that there is no frickin’ way to get there without sitting in traffic for like 2 hours. The roads are narrow, so that’s one issue, and the people will likely be commuting back to at least Santa Rosa, possibly San Francisco. That’s far.  But, on the plus side, the development will be high-density, like 8 stories or something like that. You can get more info about Sonoma Mountain Village here. Ok, that’s all well and good…

When I got there, I was standing in the corner with my backpack when Senator Migden came up to me and asked if I was working for the enemy. I said no, I was a blogger who wrote about California politics and, um, unfortunately, nobody pays me. *sigh* It’s interesting, because I’ve kinda told her this like, I dunno, 10 times. I understand that she’s busy and meets a lot of people, but, um, can we cease the accusatory overtones?  However, I will cut her some slack, as I did come out of Asm. Leno’s car. How would she know that I was trailing the Asm. for the blog, not because, um, he’s paying me.

So, the debate, was um, the debate.  Senator Migden was peppy! She told the crowd to get some pep into you! Which, is always interesting, considering that this was, shall we say, a pretty mixed age crowd.  But, they asked some good questions. Answers were what you would expect, you know, nothing too crazy, nothing to rock the boat really. You know, they both support affordable housing and Debra Bowen. The moderator praised them both before the concluding remarks for their good behavior. So Asm. Leno concluded with remarks about the importance of ethics, and how politicians must work to ensure that they do everything to obey laws and to conduct themselves as role models.  Then, Sen. Migden kind of went, um, excited! Yes, she was very enthusiastic to talk about her car accident, and how it wasn’t her fault. To me, it seemed like someone doth protest too much.

The way home seemed a lot quicker. I’m guessing that’s because it was. Traffic clears out once you get past that magical 7 hour or whatever, and we cruised back home. The conversation was light and cheery. We talked about all the inside baseball stuff that so delights um, me, and like 3 other people. But, you know, I find it interesting. So there! Oh and he offered me a protein bar from his personal stash of protein bars. I declined, mostly because I had spent ten of the final twenty minutes stuffing my face with junk food. I tell you what, the No-name Woman’s Club really knows how to throw down a spread!

At the end of the evening, he dropped me off at my house. What service! Certainly, it was 2/3 of a blast.

SD-03 Debate in Sonoma County LiveBlog

I’m blogging live here from Sonoma County, Rohnert Park to be exact. Sen Carole Migden was, as always, very excited about making her presentation. She spoke for quite awhile about her various accomplishments. The speech was a bit rambling and disjointed, but was well received over-all.  Asm. Leno spoke in a practiced, well-rehearsed tone. He spoke of his efforts on foster care. Again, it was well-received by this very well behaved crowd of all ages.

Flip it for some questions.

First, a question was asked about Sen. Gil Cedillo’s driver’s license bill. Sen Migden says she supported the bill, and encourages immigrants to learn English to get the best jobs.  Asm. Leno spoke of his co-authoring of the bill, and how we need to approach the issue of immigration.
 

The next question was about paper ballots. Asm. Leno says that SoS Bowen has done a terrific job. Sen Migden seconded the support of Ms. Bowen.

The next question was about affordable housing. Sen Migden says she wants people to live near where they work, and should be able to live near where they grew up. Asm. Leno praised Habitat for Humanity, and pointed out Asm. Noreen Evans in the crowd for her support. He further discussed the 3-legged stool of housing, beginning with developers. We also need to invest in public support of housing, through bonds. Supply must meet demand. Finally, the federal government has ignored the community.

Mark Leno Leads Carole Midgen 18-1 in Cash on Hand

I figured that Mark Leno (D-SF) would be in the lead, but I never though that the disparity would be this great.  Carole Midgen (D-SF) has raised a decent amount of money, but a bunch of it is for the general election, which really does her no good.  When you take away the general election funds and her debts, she is left with only $13k.  Do the same thing for Leno and he has $234k.

Leno is reporting raising almost $444,000, while Migden brought in $304,00.  Only 4.4% of Leno’s funds are for the general election, but $163,750 of Midgen’s totals cannot be used in the primary.  She has debts of $180,186.  Do all the math and that leaves her with only $13,014.  It is a shockingly low number.  I will fully admit that these numbers are from the Leno folks.  If they are wrong please let me know.

Naturally the Leno campaign is bragging.  Here is their press release:

Leno spokesperson Charles Sheehan says “Migden’s campaign finances are in complete disarray, a fact that even her chief campaign consultant, Richie Ross, has openly admitted.” Moreover, says Sheehan, while she “has refused to disavow using these illegal surplus campaign funds to pad her depleted accounts, we are confident that a current FPPC investigation into her numerous violations will block her from using that money.”

UPDATE It was pointed out to me in the comments that this is a discussion about money raised in 2007.  Migden has a large amount in her account that she has raised previously.  Leno’s camp contends that a large portion of that should not have been transfered.  That will be up to the FPPC to decide.  Should that not be blocked then she will have the advantage.

Carole Migden’s Major Campaign Finance Problems

Carole Midgen already has paid the most fines of any sitting Senator to the FPPC (the state version of the FEC).  It looks like she will be significantly adding to that $100k fines total.  The FPPC is looking into what could end up being several hundred thousand dollars in fines and bar her from over a million in contributions she has that she has allegedly transferred illegally from other campaign accounts.  Her consultant Ritchie Ross has already confirmed that the complaints are “absolutely legitimate”.

There are two pieces to this puzzle

  1. Much like Joe Lieberman did a year ago, Midgen has $381k in unitemized expenditures.  By law, campaigns have to report what exactly they are spending their money on.  It is a basic piece of disclosure, so the public can be assured that it is not buying votes or engaging in other dirty campaign tactics.  Midgen has been charging a lot of things on to her campaign credit card and failing to disclose each of those individual payments.  The $381k adds up to 25% off all the money she spent.  This is not an isolated incident and this type of disclosure is a routine activity of campaigns.  There is no legitimate excuse for her not to itemize and the public deserve the right to know what these candidates are doing.  Under state law she could face fines up to $5,000 for every single individual expenditure over $100 and she could be sued up for up to three times the amount of the value of the undisclosed expenditures.  Right now we do not know how many different things they charged on the credit card, but it could easily add up to the tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.  And of course three times $381k is $1.143 million.  It is rare that the FPPC issues the maximum fine, but they could still be significant totals in the end.
  2. According to a complaint by the Leno campaign, Midgen has transfered over $1.3 million from her State Assembly Campaign Committee and Board of Equalization Campaign Committee accounts into her State Senate Election Committee account.  The Board of Equalization account should have been closed years ago, since it has been a long while since she has held that office.  Obviously if the FPPC blocks her access to that significant amount of money, it will make her re-election run all that more difficult, not to mention any fines she would receive on top of that.

Midgen’s books are notorious for being a mess.  It appears that it is her consultant’s tactic to do a poor job of reporting, then go back and pay the fines by fundraising more after the election.  That will not be able to work this time, since action is being taken now before her next campaign.  The FPPC responded to the Leno complaint in record time.  blog.sfweekly.com:

Jeffris’ employer, John Whitehurst (of the highly connected City consulting firm Barnes, Mosher Whitehurst Lauter & Partners), has said he’d never before seen a letter from the FPPC acknowledging an investigation was under way in more than 20 years in the state’s political trenches.

All of which begs the question: Did someone light a fire under the FPPC’s bottom?

Not exactly, according to Roman Porter, the FPPC’s Sacramento-based communications director. Since the Leno campaign’s filing was a “formal complaint” – complete with oaths sworn under penalty of perjury – Porter notes that the FPPC was under a statutory obligation to respond within 14 days.

But this wasn’t 14 days. It wasn’t even two.

“Well,” deadpanned Porter, “I guess we beat the statutory limitations.”

The response from the FPPC indicated that the complaint was already under investigation.  They will take their time digging through the Migden records before their staff comes up with a recommendation for a fine.  Then the Commission will vote on accepting that recommendation or not.  Only then would the lawsuit over the unitemized contributions be allowed to proceed. 

This is getting a decent amount of press in the district (see this Marin IJ article) and is hampering Midgen’s ability to talk about other issues, especially in the wake of her car accidents.  If the FPPC comes back with a strong ruling, then it has the potential to be a game changer in this election campaign.  The fines likely will not add up to anything really really major (relatively speaking), given the historical precedence in previous FPPC rulings, but the money transfers are a huge deal.  It just isn’t that easy to make up for a million dollars that you already have in your accounts.

Money is Floating in San Francisco

Or at least it seems to be hovering in strange places in Carole Migden’s campaign.  Today, an FPPC Complaint was filed against Senator Migden, based on four alleged violations (description over the flip and at Indybay. You should read a more detailed description of all the charges, but the one that troubled me the most is an issue of shabby accounting.  Senator Migden has failed to account for over $380,000 of expenditures in her various campaigns.  Yikes, that’s more floating petty cash than JoeMentum used to pay his “volunteers” in Connecticut.

And of course, there’s the other story floating around which is not accounted for in this filing.  I am, of course, talking about the billboards. Now that Matier and Ross have ditched the City for a few weeks, it appears that the matter will be left to Tim Redmond of the Bay Guardian. Of course, I’m pretty sure I’d take Tim over M&R pretty much any day. So, follow me over the flip for more from Tim over at the SFBG-Blog:

Lawyers hired by the state Senate campaign of Assembly member Mark Leno have concluded that those big, colorful billboards promoting Carole Migden all over town are in fact an illegal campaign contribution from Clear Channel Corp. That was based in part on my blog of a few days ago, quoting Migden as saying that Clear Channel paid for the billboards but that her campaign had paid for the printing. Check out the memo here (PDF).

But that’s not the most fishy thing that Tim uncovered, because when he asked Migden’s campaign manager, the answer changed. So, somebody, either the Senator or her staff, is missing something. Either way, there appears to be some sort of coordination that doesn’t smell right.

Here are those alleged FPPC violations:

Violation #1 (illegal transfer of $1 million in surplus campaign funds)

  • State Senator Carole Migden on June 25, 2003 illegally transferred almost $1 million in surplus funds from her RE-ELECT ASSEMBLY WOMAN CAROLE MIGDEN campaign account (I.D. #962662) into her 2004 Senate Friends of Carole Migden account (I.D. #1231831).
  • The California Political Reform Act prohibits an officeholder from transferring surplus campaign funds to a future election account.
  • The $977,340.28 in funds officially became surplus on December 2, 2002 when Senator Carole Migden left her Assembly seat after being elected to the state Board of Equalization.

Violation #2 (illegal spending of $250,000 in surplus campaign funds)

  • State Senator Carole Migden illegally spent $250,000 in surplus campaign funds from her 2004 Senate Friends of Carole Midgen campaign account (I.D. #1231831).

Violation #3 (failure to itemize $400,000 in credit card campaign expenses)

  • Senator Carole Migden violated California campaign finance law by failing to itemize almost $400,000 in political campaign expenses between the years 2000-2006.
  • The California Political Reform Act requires that all campaign disbursements over $100 must be itemized in reports with the name, address and purpose of the disbursement.
  • Four separate campaign committees controlled by Senator Carole Migden during the period from 2000-2006 failed to provide any itemization of credit card payments made by those committees.
  • The total amount of the un-itemized payments was $381,404.65, an amount representing 25% of all expenditures from the four candidate committees Senator Carole Migden controlled.

Violation #4 (illegal maintenance of political committee)

  • Senator Carole Migden illegally maintains a political committee — CAROLE MIGDEN LEADERSHIP COMMITTEE, (ID# 1231896) — from her 2001 campaign for a seat on the state Board of Equalization.
  • Fair Political Practices Commission regulations require that a candidate-controlled committee be terminated no later than 24 months after the candidate leaves office. Senator Carole Migden resigned her seat on the Board of Equalization in December 2004.