(UPDATE: Just let me add that you can sign here to endorse the censure of DiFi by the CDP at their executive board meeting this weekend.  As I said yesterday, and as quoted in the Goldmacher piece, the chances for success are remote.  But the more people on board, the more attention it gets, and it symbolizes the frustration from the rank and file.)

Shane Goldmacher got someone at Dianne Lieberman Feinstein’s office on the record about the anger in the Democratic grassroots over her continued efforts to undermine Democratic values in the Senate.  The leadership of the CA Democratic Party chimed in, as well.  See if you can spot the difference between the two statements.

Roger Salazar at the CDP:

“This party supports our Democratic senator and will continue to do so,” said party communications director Roger Salazar. “Period.”

Here’s Scott Gerber for the Senator:

Scott Gerber, a Feinstein aide, defended the senator, saying she “has been an independent voice for California.”

So one side says she’s a Democratic senator and the CDP supports Democrats (no matter the policy or the principle, they just support Democrats, so shut up, grassroots!), while the other says she’s an “independent voice for California.”

Somebody better talk to somebody.

Then there’s this howler:

“What people may not know is she was a strong leader in the fight against (now Supreme Court Justice Samuel) Alito and (Chief Justice John) Roberts,” Gerber said, noting she opposed “more than a dozen” circuit court nominees from the Bush administration.

Hmm, I didn’t know that!  I guess that’s why Alito and Roberts were never confirmed to the Supreme Court, in the face of all that “leadership.”  It must have been withering attacks like this that did the trick:

“Many of us are struggling with . . . what kind of a justice would you be, John Roberts,” implored Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

She voted against Roberts in committee, but made no loud effort to filibuster.  And on Alito, she had this expression of leadership when it counted:

A Democrat who plans to vote against Samuel Alito sided on Sunday with a Republican colleague on the Senate Judiciary Committee in cautioning against a filibuster of the Supreme Court nominee.

“I do not see a likelihood of a filibuster,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “This might be a man I disagree with, but it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be on the court.”

She said she will not vote to confirm the appeals court judge, based on his conservative record. But she acknowledged that nothing emerged during last week’s hearings to justify any organized action by Democrats to stall the nomination.

Fight, Dianne, Fight!

She actually ended up voting against cloture, but only after it was apparent that the filibuster wouldn’t hold and after she undermined it with prior comments.

Unfortunately, Mr. Gerber, the Great Gazoogle is my friend, and your claim that she was a “strong leader” against Roberts and Alito rings hollow.

If anything positive comes out of this, it’s that DiFi recognizes that a whole lot of Californians are upset with her, and she can no longer run and hide from them.  It may not change a lot, but it’s a first step.

(Basic Blocking and Tackling – promoted by jsw)

Cross posted on The Progressive Connection

On Highway 99, near Chowchilla, stands a vacant metal building with a canopy that shelters a large orange sphere.

In the land before time, before there was McDonald’s or Burger King, there was Mammoth Orange, and its smaller relative, Giant Orange. These quintessential fast food joints, shaped like a citrus fruit and painted a violent shade of orange, served hamburgers and orange juice all up and down California’s Central Valley.

There were hundreds of them, landmarks of popular culture — and now there is just one left, the Mammoth Orange, on the east side of Highway 99 near the turnoff for Highway 152. Its days are numbered.

Progress is coming to this stretch of 99, one of the last bits of old four-lane highway with local access roads.

The old highway is being turned into a full-scale freeway. The crucial difference is that a freeway has limited access — drivers can’t enter or exit except on special on- and off-ramps. That means there’s no room on a freeway for roadside joints, like the Mammoth Orange.

The Mammoth Orange lost its battle earlier this year. Cut off from customers because of its poor access, the last-of-its-kind business weakened and then finally failed.

But the Mammoth Orange struck me as an apt, if peculiar, metaphor for California Democratic Party politics. You see, I have this image of the CDP as the new Highway 99 freeway. The Mammoth Orange is, of course, the grassroots…

Much like Hwy. 99 has what the Mammoth Orange needs (customers), the CDP has much of what the grassroots is desperately seeking. As promised in its 58-County Strategy, the CDP has the ability to offer both financial and logistical support in registering voters; it has materials and technological tools that it can make available; it has finance expertise it can share; it has liability insurance it can provide; and it has communications and research capability that it can deploy on behalf of Democrats.

But for the grassroots, much like the Mammoth Orange, the access provided by key connectors is critical to their success. With its 58-County Strategy, the CDP made the decision, for better or worse, to rely on the county Central Committees to deliver its services to the grassroots. In some counties with high-functioning Central Committees, this is a good plan. But in many, many other counties with dysfunctional Central Committees, it’s a lot like having a Mammoth Orange with no off-ramps.

So what’s to be done?

Well, the CDP unveiled some of its new plans at last weekend’s Central California Democratic Convention in Fresno. It’s my understanding that more details will be fleshed out at this weekend’s E-Board meeting in the OC (check out the Rural Caucus). In an attempt to strengthen the connectors that link the CDP to the grassroots, the Party will be meeting with every Central Committee to develop unique strategic plans for each county. Individualized goals will be fixed, timetables will be set, and benchmarks will be established which each Central Committee will be expected to meet.

Here are the guidelines set out by the CDP for the Central Committees:

Party Business:

• Regular monthly meetings, Executive Board meetings, and Standing Committee Meetings
• Full membership (either through election or appointment), alternate selection and associate memberships encouraged.  Alternate and associate memberships to be aimed at diversifying the membership to reflect county demographics to the greatest extent possible
• Regular communications to members, Regional Directors and the CDP
• Formalized endorsement process
• Chartering and re-chartering process for clubs and encouraging club participation in the formal local party structure

Finance/Budget:

• Year round budget for all activities
• Establish fundraising goals with diverse methods of sustaining funding

Electoral Strategies/Voter Contact:

• Short and long term field plans: voter registration goals and targets, walk programs, key races, coordinated campaign development (coalition building with stakeholders)
• Using the CDP’s Online Campaign Center voter file to maintain and build data from cycle-to-cycle

Volunteer Recruitment and Management:

• Use of the Volunteer Management Database — to track, monitor and manage volunteers from within their county or those from outside who have indicated an interest in working in their county
• Trainings — Campaign Skills, Treasurer’s and others, as needed

Visibility and Outreach:

• Advertising events
• Sponsoring and speaking at affiliated events
• Earned media/Rapid Response team development
• Current and viable websites for each central committee
• Commitment to notify the CDP in a timely manner of changes in local party officers, chartered clubs — as well as upcoming events, so that the CDP website contains the most current information

Candidate Recruitment:

• Candidate training for Congressional, Senate and Assembly races
• Candidate training for down-ticket, non-partisan races
• Working with labor and other allied groups for non-partisan seats
• Elected official outreach; incumbent relations

Now, of all these guidelines, apparently only two will be optional: the use of the CDP’s Online Campaign Center voter file and the use of the Volunteer Management Database. Our Central Committees will be expected to fulfill all of the other duties listed above. Maybe, just maybe, these new and improved connectors will be just the shot-in-the-arm the grassroots has been hoping for.

At the upcoming CDP e-board meeting, e-board members will be asked whether we want to endorse/oppose any of the 3 propositions that will be on the February ballot —

Prop 91 (Transportation Funding)

Prop 92 (Community Colleges Funding, Governance, and Fees)

Prop 93 (Limits on Legislators’ Terms in Office)

Four other props will also be on the ballot if signature verification goes as expected, and we’re going to be asked to endorse/oppose them as well. These four props each concern Native American Gambling.

I’m not one of those people who decides how to vote while I’m standing in the polling place, but I’m also not accustomed to making my voting decisions 3 months in advance. What do the rest of you, e-board members and others, think about these 7 measures? I have an idea how the e-board will vote on most of these, and I do have a few thoughts of my own, but I’m interested in hearing from others. Hit me.

This is almost a placeholder diary so I can get to it later in my monthly roundup, but this diary at Open Left shows the very real opportunity available in California this time around.  Six Congressional Rpublicans who are running for re-election have less than $250,000 in cash on hand.  The NRCC, the campaign arm for the House GOP, is spread thin by retirements and challenges.  So many incumbents are going to be on their own in 2008.  And saying “Hello, I’m a Republican member of Congress” just doesn’t rake in the money like it used to.  Here’s the list:

John Doolittle, CA-04
George Radanovich, CA-19
Ken Calvert, CA-44
Mary Bono, CA-45
John Campbell, CA-48
Darrell Issa, CA-49

I can add to this the fact that Gary Miller only raised a paltry $40,000 last quarter.  And Doolittle’s problems are well-documented.

Unfortunately, our Democrats statewide haven’t fully stepped up.  Two of these incumbents (Radanovich, Issa) don’t have challengers yet, and Mary Bono just got one in Paul Clay.  But I would hope that Art Torres and the team would wake up to the fact that there are opportunities all over the map, in places that would significantly help down-ballot races as well.

It really pisses me off that the Speaker has put himself and the Party in this position.  $4 million dollars out of that “Friends of Fabian Nuñez” jet-setting travel fund came directly from the party.  And now, the allegations in the LA Times have led to a formal complaint with the state’s Fair Political Practices Comission for using campaign funds for personal expenses.  I’m putting the complaint on the flip side.

This is playing out in the context of February’s term limits initiative, and indeed the complaint was filed by the executive director of the “CA Term Limits Defense Fund.”  But again, that doesn’t make it false.  Nuñez’ reticence to provide some more disclosure in this case is DIRECTLY hurting party-building efforts.  This is the Democratic poster child, now?  A party that consolidates political power to the degree that Democrats have in this state always runs the risk of dragging themselves into a morass of corruption.  This is an outgrowth of insiderism and a centralized target for special interests.  Maybe it’s good that this is happening, as it gives Democrats a chance to demand accountability and new leadership.  But for the moment, it sucks.

UPDATE: The LA Times nails it.  This is a full-fledged scandal now.

Nuñez still has no legitimate reason to keep from Californians just why, and on whom, he spent all that money. The fact that his staggering travel bills weren’t paid by taxpayers does not end the discussion. He was on public time, even if not the public dime, and is living a tycoon’s lifestyle only because his position as speaker makes him valuable to contributors who want to sway him. It’s troubling enough that special interests are paying his bills. It’s worse when he wants the public to simply trust, without explanation, that his $3,199 stay at the Hotel Parco in Rome had some nexus to his official duties.

The speaker asserted that he wouldn’t have to rely on his $5.3-million “Friends of Fabian Nuñez” campaign account if he were independently wealthy. That’s a non sequitur. If his expenditures were in fact related to legislative purposes, he wouldn’t pay them out of his own pocket anyway, so it would make no difference if he were as rich as, say, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger […]

By providing details on his expenditures, the speaker can put an end to speculation that his actions were anything other than in the best interests of California. Failure to do that simply enhances the perception that the Legislature is working for shadowy special interests who can afford to gather in France around an expensive bottle of Bordeaux.

Re: Formal Complaint and Demand for Investigation

Dear Commission Chair Johnson and Ms. Saxton:

  1.  Grounds for Complaint

  This letter is a formal complaint by the undersigned against California State Assemblyman Fabian Nunez (AD 46) regarding his failed compliance with the California Political Reform Act (“PRA”).  The Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”) is required to inform me in writing of the action the FPPC has taken or will take on the sworn complaint within 14 days.  (Gov. Code, § 83115.)

  This complaint is made under Government Code sections 91003 and 83115.  Specifically, the undersigned requests the FPPC to investigate and commence civil or administrative action against Assembly Speaker Nunez for his illegal use of campaign funds for personal expenses.  In the interim, the undersigned requests the FPPC to initiate action for an injunction compelling Assembly Speaker Nunez to cease and desist violating the PRA.

  2.  Background Facts

  In 2002, Fabian Nunez was first elected to the State Legislature as an Assemblyman for the 46th Assembly District.  In 2004, Assemblyman Nunez was elected the State’s 66th Speaker.  As a state candidate and officeholder, Assembly Speaker Nunez has raised millions of dollars in contributions since 2002.  However, as recently reported on October 5th in the Los Angeles Times, tens of thousand of dollars in campaign funds have been spent on personal expenses for international trips rather than political expenses.

  Attached to this letter as Attachment “A,” is a list of expenditures reported by Assembly Speaker Nunez’s candidate committee, “Friends of Fabian Nunez 2006,” having occurred from 1/1/2005 through 12/31/2006, which appear to present personal rather than political expenses.  These expenditures appear in the Schedule E’s of the respective Form 460 reports filed by the candidate committee covering this period.

  A quick review of Attachment A reveals 1) nearly $13,000 in florist purchases (Fresh Cut Florist & Gifts, Inc. and Posh Shoppe, Inc.); 2) nearly $3,000 in limousine services (Abe’s Sedan and Limo Service); 3) nearly $1,000 in rare collectibles purchases (Old Sacramento Stamp Company); 4) over $1,100 in personal reading purchases (Capitol Books & Gifts); 5) over $1,250 in high-end cookie purchases (Goodie Tuchews); 6) over $1,100 in fine and rare wine purchases (Marcato Italia, Inc., and Capitol Cellars); 7) over $13,500 in payments to Janine Schwartz described as everything from “petty cash” to “civic donations;” and 8) more than $10,000 in various travel expenses)

  Additionally attached to this letter as Attachment “B,” is a list of expenditures reported by Assembly Speaker Nunez’s candidate committee, “Friends of Fabian Nunez 2006,” having occurred since 1/1/2007 through the 6/30/2007, which appear to present personal rather than political expenses.  These expenditures appear in the Schedule E of the Form 460 report filed by the candidate committee covering this period.

  A quick review of Attachment B reveals 1) over $5,000 in florist purchases (Fresh Cut Florist & Gifts, Inc. and Posh Shoppe Inc.); 2) nearly $600 in DVD theatrical movie purchases (Paramount Home Entertainment); 3) over $150 in personal reading purchases (Capitol Books & Gifts); 4) nearly $800 in high-end cookie purchases (Goodie Tuchews); 5) over $4,000 in payments to Janine Schwartz for “petty cash” and other purposes; and 6) more than $8,000 spent at the Silverado Resort and Spa in Napa, California.

  Finally, attached to this letter as Attachment “C,” is a list of expenditures reported by Assembly Speaker Nunez’s candidate committee, “Friends of Fabian Nunez 2006,” having occurred since 10/22/2006 through 6/30/2007, which appear to present personal rather than political expenses.  These expenditures appear in the Schedule G’s of the respective Form 460 reports filed by the candidate committee covering this period.

  A quick review of Attachment C reveals 1) over $8,750 in furniture, decorations and appliance expenditures (Nordstorm Inc., Pottery Barn, Macy’s, Arden Fair Mall, Williams Sonoma, Haggin Oaks Golf Course); 2) over $3,100 on clothing and accessories buys (Patrick James, Pavilion Salon Shoes, Roger Stuart Clothes Inc., Julius Clothing, Louis Vuitton, Coach); 3) nearly $1,500 in florist purchases (Twiggs Floral Design Gallery, Chula Vista Florist, Resort Florist, Weigum’s Nursery, IXIA Florist, Posh Shoppe Inc.); 4) nearly $700 in high-end strawberries purchases (Shari’s Berries); 5) $250 spent on bicycle purchases (Mike’s Bikes of Sacramento); and 6) nearly $70,000 in travel and food expenses.

  3.  Committee Funds May Not Be Used For Personal Expenses

  Government Code section 89513 limits how committee funds may be spent.  In particular, Section 89513, subdivision (d) provides: “Campaign funds shall not be used for campaign, business, or casual clothing except specialty clothing that is not suitable for everyday use… and is directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.”  As set forth above, the several clothing expenditures listed in Attachment C suggest Assembly Speaker Nunez has violated this subdivision.

  Additionally, Section 89513, subdivision (f)(1) provides: “Campaign funds shall not be used to make personal gifts unless the gift is directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.”  Again, as set forth above, the several apparent gift expenditures listed in Attachments A, B, and C suggest Assembly Speaker Nunez has violated this subdivision.

  Finally, Section 89510, subdivision (b) provides, “All contributions deposited into the campaign account shall be deemed to be held in trust for expenses associated with the election of the candidate or for expenses associated with holding office.”  In turn, Section 89512.5 states, “An expenditure to seek office is within the lawful execution of the trust imposed by Section 89510 if it is reasonably related to a political purpose. An expenditure associated with holding office is within the lawful execution of the trust imposed by Section 89510 if it is reasonably related to a political, legislative or governmental purpose, and under Section 89512.5 if it confers a personal benefit is directly related to a legislative, political or governmental purpose.  Expenditures which confer a substantial personal benefit shall be directly related to a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.”  As set forth above, the expenditures listed in Attachments A, B, and C do not appear to be reasonably or directly related to a legitimate political, legislative or governmental purpose.  As such the expenditures listed in Attachments A, B, and C suggest Assembly Speaker Nuenz has violated these two sections.

  4.  The PRA Expressly Authorizes the Commission to Seek Injunctive Relief
  as a Remedy for Violations of the Act

  Government Code section 91003(a) state in pertinent part:

Any person residing in the jurisdiction may sue for injunctive relief to enjoin violations or to compel compliance with the provisions of this title.  The court may in its discretion require any plaintiff other than the commission to file a complaint with the commission prior to seeking injunctive relief.

  “The Commission has primary responsibility for the impartial, effective administration and implementation of [the PRA].”  (Gov. Code § 83111.)  Accordingly, Government Code § 91001 states in pertinent part:

The civil prosecutor is primarily responsible for enforcement of the civil penalties and remedies of ths title.  The civil prosecutor is the commission with respect to the state of any state agency, except itself…. The civil prosecutor may bring any civil action under this title which could be brought by a voter or resident of the jurisdiction.

In the exercise of its authority as the civil prosecutor for the state, the Commission must bring a civil injunctive action to enforce the PRA’s campaign disclosure provision against Assembly Speaker Nunez.

  5.  Public Policy Supports Pursuing Injunctive Relief in this Circumstance

  In the wake of the Watergate scandal, the People of the State of California enacted the Political Reform Act by initiative in 1974.  The PRA seeks to ensure that State and local government officials and candidates “serve the needs and respond to the wishes of all citizens equally, without regard to their wealth.”  (Gov. Code § 81001(a).)

  The PRA finds, among other things, that “existing laws for disclosure of campaign receipts and expenditures have proved to be inadequate” (Gov. Code § 81001(d)), and that “previous laws regulating political practices have suffered from inadequate enforcement” (Gov. Code § 81001.)  Purposes of the PRA include fully informing voters and inhibiting improper practices (§ 81002(a)) and providing adequate enforcement mechanisms to public officials and private citizens so that the PRA will be “vigorously enforced.” (Gov. Code § 81002.)

  Californians have voted on numerous occasions to strengthen the PRA by establishing contribution limits.  Proposition 34, adopted by the voters in the November 2000 general election, established those limits after their previous efforts succumbed to judicial challenges.  (Gov. Code §§ 85300 et seq.)  Notably, Proposition 34 also increased the administrative penalties in conjunction with these new limits.  (Gov. Code § 83116(c).)

  Additional indicia of the voters’ determination to protect the integrity of their governmental processes from the corrupting influence of money include the PRA’s provision for “vigorous enforcement” (Gov. Code § 81002(f)), the requirement that the PRA be liberally construed in favor of the purposes of the Act (§ 81003), and the severe restrictions on the Legislature’s power to amend the Act (Gov. Code § 81012(a)).  Any amendment to the statute must “further its purposes” and must be passed in each house of the Legislature by a two-thirds vote of the membership.  (Gov. Code § 81012(a).)  Alternatively, the PRA may only be amended or repealed by a statute that “becomes effective only when approved by the electors.”  (Gov. Code § 81012(b).)

  6.  The PRA Expressly Authorizes the Commission to Also Seek Civil Penalties as a Remedy for Violations of the Act

  As discussed above, Government Code § 91001 states that “The [Commission] is primarily responsible for enforcement of the civil penalties and remedies of [the PRA].”  Correspondingly, Government Code § 91005.5 provides that any person who violates any provision of the PRA, for which no specific civil liability is provided, shall be liable in a civil action brought pursuant to Government Code § 91001(b) for an amount up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation.

  The foregoing is true and correct or if stated on information and belief, that I believe it to be true and correct.  Executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California this 9th day of October, 2007 at Sacramento, California. 

Bob Adney
California Term Limits Defense Fund, Executive Director

(This video can’t be good. It’s overly sensationalist, and more than a bit trashy. But still, the underlying question remains at a time when such questions could be disastrous for the term limits initiative. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Steve Lopez takes his whacks today.

“There’s not too big a difference,” Nuñez told Vogel, “between how I live and how most middle-class people live.”

Hands down, it’s the quote of the year.

I’m not sure what middle-class people Nuñez is talking about, but I’m worried that he’s spending entirely too much time with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Could the speaker be talking about Brentwood’s middle-class?

That’s the kind of quote that haunts people throughout their political career.  And Lopez connects it to fears of buying access that should worry all of us, especially in light of the special session.

It’s the democracy we’ve all been waiting for in Sacramento. Gulfstreams, Louis Vuitton office supplies and nose-thumbing responses to inquiring constituents.

Given Nuñez’s refusal to explain the specific purpose of his travels, Carmen Balber of the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is biting her nails, hoping Nuñez wasn’t sampling fine wine with players who have pumped $5.3 million into the “Friends of Fabian Nuñez” campaign kitty.

“The first question that comes to mind is whether the health insurance industry was sponsoring the speaker’s lavish trips, as he’s now debating the future of the health market in California,” Balber said.

She notes that Nuñez’s travel fund has received $136,000 from health insurers and their lobbyists. And Nuñez is working with Schwarzenegger ($719,000 and counting from health insurers and their lobbies) on a health insurance reform bill that would require every Californian to buy coverage, but wouldn’t require insurers to cap the cost.

Certainly the insurers would love to raise a fine bottle of red to the passage of such a bill, and Nuñez has been known to pop the cork on crushed grapes that run as high as $224 a bottle.

I think we have to look at the root causes of something like this. I believe it directly comes out of a static Democratic Party, with its extreme gerrymandering and zealous antipathy to primaries.  Matt Stoller has an incredible post today about the broken market for Democratic primaries, and I think it’s directly relatable to what we’re seeing in California.  On the flip…

Let’s go through why primaries are essential vehicles.

One, primaries create tremendous efficiencies for activists, concerned citizens, and outside groups.  Spending inordinate amounts of time calling and writing Democratic members of Congress or advertising to get their attention, all to get them to do what they should be doing anyway is incredibly costly, and is a direct result of a lack of real political costs to bad faith actions that would be imposed by a healthy series of primary challenges.  The lack of primaries is in effect a tremendous negative feedback loop for activism, dampening all of our focused energy as a piece of insulation does summer heat.

Two, democracy is a core Democratic value.  The right to vote, and have that vote counted, is meaningful because it allows citizens to generate buy-in to their civic structures.  This is as true within a party as it is within a country (and as true within a union, club, corporation, or church).  It’s no accident that the Democratic Party gained tens of thousands of new registrants in 2006 in Connecticut.  Democratic structures make our party and our country stronger, whether that’s by generating Democratic volunteer or donor lists in a hot primary that can be moved over to a general election or letting a festering intraparty fight get resolved by putting it to the voters.

Three, a lack of primaries disenfranchises Democratic voters.  John Tanner, who has not faced a real race in years, or Lynn Woolsey, simply do not have to represent their constituents.  They may choose to do so, but they do not have to.  And their constituents have no recourse.  Their constituents are cut out.  In that case, why be a Democrat?  Why volunteer for Democrats, or donate if the party itself isn’t democratic?

Four, primaries are a check on calcification and corruption within the party.  The only way to keep Congressional representatives responsive to party activists and voters and not corrupted by their control of the party is to have regular mechanisms for feedback by activists and voters.  Joe Biden obviously should be challenged for his Senate seat in 2008, but it’s not likely to happen, and this was true for Tom Carper and Dianne Feinstein in 2006.

All of these are key elements of the situation we’re seeing in California.  It’s hard to keep activism high when the legislature in Sacramento seems like such a closed system, even to rank-and-file legislators.  We have a Big Five and a Little One Hundred And Sixteen, and this is a discouraging development.  There is also no excitement generated by Democrats throughout the state, no opportunities for registering new voters and bringing new ideas to the process.  The legislators have little belief that they can be beaten once they first get elected, so they don’t feel any need to respect the wishes of their constituents.  And the end result is a calcified Democratic Party with a shrinking base, which has ceded much of the inland areas in the state and is concerned primarily with holding on to their fiefdoms.  Plus, the opportunities for corruption and ethical lapses, as we see in this case, are amplified.

This is obviously a drastic reading of what goes on in the state.  We have decent majorities and have passed some praiseworthy policies in recent years.  But the ability to go further and do more is always suppressed, and political power is centralized among a select few.  Just as there is a narrow establishment class in Washington that discourages inter-party debate and primary efforts, the same class exists in California, as the establishment appears to abhor the idea of even growing the majority by competing in “red” areas, let alone taking a hard look at the seats under Democratic control to judge whether there is an effective legislator working to advance our interests and values.  This is not about purging the party and shrinking the tent, this is about saving the party from itself, as they are shrinking their own tent and dampening activism.  The demographics are working for the party in many ways, but also against the party, as job growth moves inland into fast-growing areas like Riverside and Ontario in the south, and districts like CA-11 up north.

We are squandering an opportunity to build a strong legislative majority that can move forward real change by investing power in the hands of an unaccountable few and watching idly as they are tempted by powerful interests to use that power to do little more than protect the status quo.  One of the few ways to change this paradigm is to support any efforts to make strong challenges in the primaries to hold these power brokers accountable.  Another is to take a long look at the effort to entrench power further by changing the term limit law in a way to keep the leadership in charge for another 6-8 years.  Regardless of whether or not you agree with term limits as an abstract concept, you have to ask yourself if it’s advisable to create a situation that would again centralize power, calcify the party leadership and reduce efforts for real change.

(Obviously, meaningful campaign finance reform, which would remove the money barrier to contested primaries, is a great vehicle to kick-start this process.)

(Righting a bit of a wrong here. This should have been frontpaged when it first appeared; not everything is or should be about the day-to-day slugfest. – promoted by jsw)

For lack of a nail, the shoe was lost;
for lack of a shoe, the horse was lost;
for lack of a horse, the rider was lost;
for lack of a rider, the message was lost;
for lack of a message, the battle was lost;
for lack of a battle, the war was lost;
for lack of a war, the kingdom was lost.

Northern California Democrats have been hearing a lot lately about how the CDP is targeting two of our most important races, CA-11 and AD-15. Both of these districts have historically elected Republicans, with CA-11 holding a 5.5% Republican registration advantage and AD-15 recently dwindling to a 2% Republican advantage. Now that the AD-15 seat is turning over due to term limits, the CDP is hoping to pick up a new Democratic Assembly seat while protecting the sole Congressional gain that California Democrats made in 2006.

Unfortunately, the Democratic definition of “targeting” seems to bear an uncanny resemblance to catnapping. Take, for example, the City of San Ramon elections for mayor and City Council that were scheduled for this November.

As is true in most locales, San Ramon’s city offices are considered non-partisan. Yet in San Ramon, the mayor and the entire City Council are all Republicans, despite the fact that city-wide Democratic registration  stands at 9,988 compared to 10,589 Republicans, with a pool of 6,033 DTS voters.

So exactly what happened to San Ramon’s November 2007 election? Well, there’s not going to be an election. That’s because when the August 10 filing deadline rolled around, nobody had filed to run for mayor against the Republican incumbent; nobody had filed to run for City Council against the Republican incumbents. With nobody challenging them at the polls, the three incumbents were appointed to new terms on August 20.

So how does the lack of a nail lose the war?

Well, for starters, San Ramon’s incumbent mayor, H. Abram Wilson, is also running for the Republican nomination for AD-15. As the highest-ranking elected in the race, he has excellent name recognition and a sizable network of supporters, all of which led to him being considered by many as the early favorite in the Republican field. But his pesky mayoral race was widely viewed as a big negative, siphoning his time, money and energy away from the AD race. Would he be able to spend the bulk of 2007 running for mayor and then immediately jump into a heated AD race?

He addressed those questions head-on earlier this summer:

San Ramon Mayor Abram Wilson has loaned his campaign $95,000. He has received $18,474 from other contributors.

Wilson described his loan as a pragmatic jump-start to his Assembly campaign, which he’s running concurrently with his re-election bid for mayor. San Ramon city elections will be held in November; the Assembly primary election is June 2008.

“People have asked me if I’m committed to the Assembly race because I am running for mayor and how could I do both,” Wilson said. “But when people see that you are willing to put your own funds in, they will see that you believe in yourself and you believe you can win.”

As of August 10, all of Wilson’s troubles vanished. Freed up from any work or expense in that mayoral race, he’s been able to focus exclusively on the AD-15 seat. That means that, three months ahead of schedule, all of his fundraising activities, along with all of his time and energy, are able to be fully deployed into the Assembly race, and the doubt that plagued his candidacy has been cast aside. Wilson’s position as the frontrunner seems stronger than ever.

And if Wilson wins the primary, he is clearly the most difficult of the Republican candidates for a Democrat to defeat. Genial, experienced, and very careful to present himself as a “moderate” Republican, Wilson’s presence on the November 2008 ballot would make the AD-15 seat that much more challenging for a Democrat to win.

But it’s not just AD-15 that’s impacted by the San Ramon race. As one of my readers pointed out, Jerry McNerney also has a dog in this hunt:

Why should building a farm team should be the responsibility of McNerney’s team?

He is the sole beneficiary. The farm team helps by eliminating officeholders down ballot that could be hostile and sling arrows at every opportunity they get. […]

Now I envision [Republican Congressional candidate Dean] Andal’s people using those GOP officeholders to close ranks and rally their base to take down McNerney, probably in direct mail to San Ramon and Danville voters, maybe not even use party affiliation, but just the fact that they are local office holders and they support Andal. It will be something like, “The entire City Council of San Ramon supports Dean Andal. Join us, as he shares our commitment to low taxes and economic growth” — or something like that.

So the Democrats’ inability to field a single candidate in San Ramon has serious consequences for a whole host of other races. And exactly who is to blame? Well, the list is long. As another of my readers pointed out, there was a fundamental failure at the local Democratic club and Central Committee level to get involved in the race and recruit candidates.

Likewise, with the CDP bragging loudly all year about how they were targeting AD-15 and CD-11, one might have imagined that, in addition to money, they would provide a little planning and a little effort on the ground. And, frankly, it just wasn’t that hard to look at the AD candidates, see Wilson as the strongest contender, and think, “Gee, maybe it would be good to throw up a few roadblocks to his campaign — like, you know, a competitor in his mayoral race.”

Then there’s Jerry McNerney, the Congressman who represents San Ramon. As the regional party leader, he had both the opportunity and the responsibility to recruit good candidates for the San Ramon races. And let’s face it, McNerney’s involvement in the race wouldn’t just have been an altruistic party-building mechanism; it would have come back to help him immeasurably — a classic win-win.

But instead, all of these Democrats complacently snoozed through the San Ramon city elections. So here we have, in this one race, a ripple that has the potential to be felt over a very large area. A contested race in San Ramon might have resulted in a Democratic counter-balance to the all-Republican San Ramon city government, might have helped build the Democratic base locally, might have helped develop a bench of Democratic officeholders, might have hampered the strongest Republican in his AD-15 primary race, and might even have shored up Jerry McNerney’s Congressional base. We’ll never know, though, because it didn’t happen.

This post is an amalgam of posts found here and here and here at The Progressive Connection.