This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah- Beth Jackson of Speak Out California

A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento

For the week ending September 15, 2007

Key bills and issues we’ve been following during the

past week and beyond

The final days of this year’s regular session ended in the wee-hours of the morning, September 13 around 3:30am. At that moment, the Speaker banged the gavel, announced that the session had ended and likely declared victory of some kind for the work that had been done. The drama was somewhat undercut, however, by the fact that the Governor had already called a “Special Session” to consider the healthcare and water issues that were not resolved during the regular legislative year, thus extending the legislative year for some additional period of time.

A variety of bills were sent to the Governor’s desk for signature and veto, a few of which have already been acted upon. With the Term Limits/Extension initiative taking front-and-center in the decisions being made on the floor and behind the scenes, the session produced lots of buzz and intrigue during its final days. Purely political decisions always do play in the equation (various interest groups try to jam bills through at the final hour when few are watching or awake enough to notice). This year the dance was made even more delicate by this all-consuming focus on pleasing the public, enough to justify their vote to extend the terms of current term-out members (particularly the leadership of both houses and both parties) in the February primary.

Ballot initiatives continue to grab headlines as the California Democratic Party has announced an aggressive and pro-active effort to keep the electoral vote-splitting initiative off the June, 2008 ballot. But a redistricting initiative will not be showing up in time for the February ballot, putting the Term Limits/Extension measure at risk. Nor will the Iraq War initiative, since the Governor made short shrift of it by veto earlier in the week. While perhaps restoring some of his lost credibility with his own party, the Gov. dropped the hammer on one of his appointees at the behest of 34 NRA-beholden legislators, further dampening the ability of those given certain responsibilities from carrying them out appropriately—in the Alberto Gonzales/ George Bush mold. But there is so much more, so we’ll get to the details, but first:

If you like the work we’ve been doing at Speak Out California, with our regular weekly updates which provide inside commentary and analysis on what is going on in our state capital, we hope you’ll support our work by making a contribution to Speak Out California.

At Speak Out California we provide the facts and the commentary that keep you informed on what is really happening in our state. We don’t take any advertising or corporate sponsorships, so you know that we are not beholden to any group or special interest. Our commitment is simply to provide uncompromising reporting and analysis of what is happening in our state from the progressive perspective. If you can pledge $10, $25, $50 a month, we can continue to keep you in-the-know and keep the progressive voice alive in California. Just click here to support our work in keeping California’s progressive voice alive.

And now for the week’s goings-on :

SB840/Universal Health Care and AB8 and the Governor’s Special Session

The watered down compromise healthcare bill, AB 8, continued front-and-center until the very end of the session and beyond. With too many loose ends, last minute amendments and objections thereto, the Governor promised a veto and AB 8 won’t become law. Nor will Senator Kuehl’s true reform healthcare measure, calling for a Medicare type system to cover all Californians and still have us choose our own doctors. Kuehl has held the bill for the year and didn’t choose to move it to the Governor where he indicated he would veto it for a second time. The best explanation of the real crux of the debate between a universal health care system and the “compromise” in AB 8, is Senator Kuehl’s speech on the Senate floor explaining her “no” vote on that measure. For her remarks click here .

Now the Governor has moved the healthcare reform issue into a special session, which theoretically allows the debate to continue. This way the time period in which the legislature and Governor can try to reach a satisfactory agreement and get a bill signed into law this year continues, even though the final bell has been rung for the 2007 legislative year. In practice, though, it is considered unlikely that anything substantive will come from this extension of time, at least in this special session. While Speaker Nunez is anxious to get something out, so the public will think much has been accomplished by this group of legislators, the Senate doesn’t seem quite so interested in ramming through a bill that isn’t fully cooked, or frankly, viable.

Although we’ve discussed this issue with numerous articles and links to them over the past several months, click here for an excellent update by Adam Thompson. 

Of course there are many commentaries on this hot and very important subject, so if you’re so inclined, click here for another by Steve Wiegand at the Sac Bee that might be of interest as well. 

The Governor also wants the special session to include a discussion on the state’s perennial water problems. Of particular concern is what we can and must do to protect against a Katrina-like disaster with the precarious condition of the state’s levees-particularly in the important Sacramento Delta region. The Governor’s plans for spending $5.9 billion on water projects have stalled almost completely, in part because he is proposing antiquated approaches (damming rivers and building reservoirs) as solutions and because these issues have little connection to dealing with the immediate concerns the state is facing. For more information on this complex and often mind-numbing discussion, click here for the SacBee’s editorial.

Other Bills and Legislative offerings

With more than 2,800 bills offered and about 960 reaching the governor’s desk, the conclusion of whether the session was a success or failure is the question of the day. The answer, though, really depends on who you ask. Did the year end with a bang? Yes, if you’re a legislator hoping to extend your political life by getting the public behind the term-limits/extension initiative in February, 2008. No if you’re a political “expert” or “analyst”.  It’s really the old half-full/half-empty debate. Those who see the glass half-empty have referred to the year as one of “missed opportunities.”

Of course, if you are among those who benefited from a piece of legislation, it was a fine year. And among them would be those wanting to see young people drive without the distraction of cell phones, text messaging and other electronic devices. While this may sound comforting, unfortunately, this behavior alone will not engender a ticket. Rather, a ticket can be written for violating this new law only if there is some other violation that occurs which attracts an officer’s attention.

The Gov signed Senator Joe Simitian’s SB 33, no driving with cell-phone if you’re under 18 law, this past week. While many of us would like to see this no cell phone edict on ALL drivers, the cell phone industry is one tough special interest, and getting this sanity into law has proven a long-term and arduous task for Simitian. I’m sure the Senator’s response would be that this is a good start.

The Governor also took out his veto pencil and cut Senate Leader Don Perata’s bill that would send the question of the Iraqi War to the voters in February. We predicted this veto (not really rocket science, I confess), but the Governor doesn’t disappoint when it comes to hypocrisy. Here’s the Governor “of the people”, who believes the people should decide important issues, which is the reason he spent $40million of public money on a series of misguided ballot measures designed to stifle his opponents back in November, 2005. In this case, though, he vetoed this measure explaining (with a straight face, I’m sure) that to allow this measure on the ballot would be “divisive and shift attention away from other critical issues that must be addressed”. So much for consistency.  Check out the article here.

There are several hundred bills that he’ll be looking to sign or veto over the next 30 days or so. Among the more contentious are bills to require manufacturers of semi-automatic pistols to etch the make, model and serial number on each cartridge fired of each new gun produced after 2010 (AB 1471, by Mike Feuer); Gay-marriage  (Mark Leno’s second go round on this—Schwarzenegger having vetoed it last year); and just about any environmental bill that made its way off the floors of both houses—and very few did. The big exception here is that several key flood control measures did pass, although not the entire package that is required (hence the Gov’s call for a special session to address some of those unresolved issues). But on the whole, opportunities to advance important consumer and environmental protections were defeated by the influx of money and corporate influences. These bills either outright lost or were deferred until next year’s session, even though they should have been passed this year. To see what did get through the legislative process, check out one article from the LA Times and another from the Mercury News .

Shenanigans and other goings-on

Two particularly unsettling events occurred this week that are worthy of note here. The first was the hiring and firing of Erwin Chemerinsky who was to head the newly created UC Irvine Law School, the second was the firing of Fish and Game commissioner, R. Judd Hanna. What marks these two events is the lack of respect or appreciation for differences of opinion and the intimidation effect when experts express opinions that are considered too controversial or don’t follow a party line.

With Erwin Chemerinsky, it seems that this highly respected expert and constitutional scholar was hired by the Chancellor of UC Irvine to be the first dean of its newly created law school. Although well-acknowledged as a liberal, Chemerinsky is nonetheless highly respected by all points of view within the legal community and beyond. This was quite a coup for UC Irvine at the time. However, within a week of the announcement of his hiring, Irvine Chancellor Michael V. Drake withdrew the offer. Although refusing to provide any explanation for the sudden turn-around, it is believed that right-wing pressure was exerted so heavily on the University that it reneged. So much for academic freedom and excellence, it seems. For more on this story, check out our weblog.

This highly publicized and criticized fiasco has created an enormous backlash and there are now sounds that the rescission will be rescinded and if Chemerinsky is so inclined, the offer will be extended again. Who’s on first here?

The other mischief involves the Governor’s own February, 2007 appointment of R. Judd Hanna to the California Fish and Game Commission. What was Hanna’s offense warranting his firing? He performed the duties he was obligated to perform as a member of this commission in sharing information with other commissioners that showed conclusively, in his opinion, that lead ammunition did, indeed put condors and other wildlife at risk of death and illness. This, of course, infuriated the NRA, which was actively opposing a measure that would outlaw lead shots. Doing their bidding, 34 Republican legislators sent a letter to the governor early this week demanding Hanna’s removal from the Commission.

Interestingly, Hanna is a Republican, a retired Navy pilot and Vietnam War veteran. He is also a hunter, fisherman, farmer, former real estate developer and campaign contributor to the Gov. Not exactly your wild-eyed, tree-hugging type. But the truth is apparently short-lived when the NRA and 34 Republican legislators go after you.

In this era when dissent is rewarded by firings and humiliation, we can only hope that our Founding Fathers are far too busy in the after-life to pay any attention to what has happened to the brilliant system of government they envisioned and created back in the days when we valued, indeed encouraged respectful debate and disagreement. What has happened to us that we can no longer tolerate healthy and respectful opposition?

Initiatives on the move and not moving at all

As mentioned earlier, the Legislature adjourned without giving the Gov. the initiative he most badly wanted—redistricting. This outcome is just political reality in today’s world. To expect those in power to give it up willingly just defies history and probably human nature as well. Few, if any groups in history, have willingly or voluntarily given up power once they acquire it. The last time redistricting was taken out of the hands of the legislature in California, it was put in that of a court that ordered redistricting to be done by a body of retired jurists back in the late 80’s. Short of litigation and another court order, it will take an extraordinary act, if not miracle, to accomplish this goal. Of course, if it were to be done uniformly across the country, then we might be talking. But the chances of that happening in the foreseeable future is extremely slim.

Although the current legislature is desperate to get the term limits/extension initiative passed, it is clear that the price for the Governor’s support would be an accompanying measure to take redistricting out of the hands of the legislature and into the hands of some kind of impartial commission. Other than human nature, the problem with crafting this measure really focuses on the details: Who appoints them? Who are they? How many of them will there be? Will Congressional districts be included (an absolute no-no for Speaker Pelosi and the Congressional Dems ) and lastly but by no means least, “Why California and not other states like Texas and  Ohio—where the Republican controlled legislatures have padded the lines to protect themselves in as much an embarrassing, gerrymandering way (if not worse) as here in California?” Too many questions and too little shared political will tanked this one again, even with the enticement of support from the Gov. for the term-limits/extension initiative.

The real explosive measure that we’ve been talking about continues to gain reverse momentum. The California Democratic Party has come out swinging to beat back a Republican party ploy to recast how California electoral votes will be counted in the upcoming presidential election. The CDP is going all-out to confront the paid signature gatherers at the shopping centers and grocery stores where they go to often deceive or mislead registered voters into signing the petitions to qualify initiatives for the ballot. The CD Party’s announced goal is to defeat the measure at the signature gathering stage and ward off what will otherwise be an enormously expensive battle. For the Reps, it would be a win-win. If they qualify the Electoral College vote splitting initiative, and lose, they will still have forced the Dems to siphon off millions of dollars they would otherwise spend on candidates and issues. If the Reps win, they take the whole enchilada—and we’ll have another Republican disaster to contend with in the White House. Of course, the way the Reps are going these days, who knows? But the national Dems don’t want to risk that, no matter how well things may be looking at the moment for a Democratic sweep in ’08.  Here is the Mercury News article covering this.

The Rest of the Story

Our blogging offerings for the week:

How I got through 700 Bills in 7 days —a look into the hectic end-of-session process

Cowardice and fear of honest debate at UC Irvine–the Chemerinsky debacle

To read and comment on these entries, just go to: www.speakoutca.org/weblog/

We hope you are enjoying these weekly update. We need your help to keep reporting these stories and insights on a regular basis. To keep you informed and California moving toward a progressive future, will you become a supporter? Just click here and help us continue our weekly updates.

As always, we welcome your comments and suggestions and hope you will send this newsletter to your friends and other like-minded progressives. Urge them to sign up to Speak Out California and keep the progressive voice alive!

Remember, you can help support the work of Speak Out California by making a contribution here  

Until next week,

Hannah-Beth Jackson and the Speak Out California Team

As I mentioned, the CDP affirmed their support for net neutrality this weekend with a strong resolution that reflected the concerns of both labor interests and the progressive movement.  Brad Parker of PDA (Progressive Democrats of America) commended the process in the Sunday session as proof that the Progressive Caucus and the more institutional elements of the CDP can work together.  On that score alone, it’s a win. 

The best part, by the way, was that Speed Matters (the CWA’s astroturf campaign) spent major dollars creating a glossy brochure that they put on everybody’s seat this morning, and it included what they thought would be the resolution.  Biggest waste of money I’ve ever seen.  Ha!

As for how to translate this into policy, since after all it is merely a nonbinding resolution, that’s what I’d like to address.  These resolutions sit on some corner of the CDP website and collect e-dust.  They have no meaning unless they are publicized.  So here’s what I propose.

Every Democratic member of Congress and the state legislature should be getting calls this week.  You should say, “Hello, I’m a constituent, the California Democratic Party just passed a resolution supporting the preservation of a free and open Internet.  I would like (the congresscritter) to abide by the wishes of his/her party and support any legislation codifying the principle of net neutrality.  If you would like to look at the text I can fax it to you.”  Let’s hold our representatives to the demands of the Party they represent, as well as their constituents. 

The preservation of a free and open Internet is critical to the continued innovation and entrepreneurship of this country, as well as the free flow of information needed for a well-informed citizenry and the rights to free speech and freedom of assembly.  We can move this forward in California.  We know that, at the state level, Mark Leno sought to introduce net neutrality legislation back in February.  That needs to return next year and we need to organize around it right now.

This can also work for other resolutions, especially the one on parole and sentencing reform that passed this weekend.  Really they are completely useless unless publicized in this manner.  Let’s allow them to have some impact, otherwise the hard work crafting them and managing them on the Resolutions Committee goes to naught, and nobody wants that.

On the flip, I’ve added the resolution text if you want to fax it to your legislators.  Please call Congress and the State Legislature today.

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

I would say that the mood of participants coming out of the executive board meeting of the CDP in Sacramento was a 180 from the mood coming out of the Convention.  Clearly there was a lot of upset over the way the final session of the Convention ended, and many felt that the small-d democratic process was not being respected.  That was most certainly not the case this weekend, which shows to me that the message was received by the leadership in the party.  There were debates and issues raised and passionate sentiments about various matters, but in the end everyone had their say, votes were held, and the system worked.  That’s about the most you can ask for.

Progressives hold far slimmer numbers at an executive board meeting than they do at a convention.  Yet the work that came out of this meeting, in particular on resolutions, was far more progressive, because they are the most organized group in the party and they take the process seriously, and in addition are prepared to work within it to arrive at the desired results.  A very strong antiwar resolution, an impressive resolution supporting parole and sentencing reform, and finally the breakthrough on net neutrality are all successes to be lauded.  They were diligent, tireless and skillful at understanding the system, and that bore fruit.  Ultimately, those resolutions have little more than symbolic value.  The attempt to restore pre-primary delegate caucuses failed, but there was a concession on opening the filing process, and most important, small-d democratic processes were respected and seen through.  That the Party Chair felt the need to make several statements regarding a 58-county strategy and financial matters shows that there is an understanding that members have some serious concerns about resource allocation.  This is a major victory for those who would like to see their spot on the map receive the care and attention they feel it needs.  The Finance Chair, Erik Bradley, made every effort to welcome new voices into the process.  He is seeking people in every county for low-donor events and input on spending money in those counties, and everyone should take him up on it instead of privately grumbling.

I think everyone should be pleased with the way in which the CDP is better reflecting the views and concerns of its constituents, and how Democrats of all stripes are getting involved from inside the tent to make the party more effective and responsive.  Aside from one ill-timed comment from the Chairman about “the blogs,” I’m pleased with how things went.

The merged resolution that came out of negotiations between the Progressive Caucus and the Labor Caucus (specifically Brad Parker of PDA and Jim Gordon of CWA) yielded a very favorable document that was passed through the Resolutions Committee.  In addition, a resolution in support of parole and sentencing reform passed the committee and is on its way to passage.  There’s definitely a different feeling at this meeting; because it’s not as high-profile as a convention, the hard work of progressive activists is being rewarded.  I think that the whole resolutions process is a SYMBOLIC exercise that gives you a sense of where the rank and file of the party is going ideologically, and certainly it’s becoming more progressive.  There’s still a lot of work to be done to turn that symbolism into some real action; it involves making in-roads in county committees and building a progressive bench.  But I think some of the old guard are worried (more on that later).

The new net neutrality language, which I think offers some excellent framing devices, on the flip:

Support of Affordable High Speed Internet for America and Internet Neutrality (it’s actually Network Neutrality –ed.)

WHEREAS to secure the rights of assembly, and free speech online, which are guaranteed by the Constitution and encourage new innovative American businesses to flourish , Americans are entitled to and require open, equal and impartial Internet access; we need high speed internet for our homes, schools, hospitals and workplaces to grow jobs and our economy; enable innovations in telemedicine, education, public safety and government services; foster independence for people with disabilities and strengthen democratic discourse and civic participation and;

WHEREAS the United States – the country that invented the Internet – has fallen from first to sixteenth in internet adoption; US consumers pay more for slower speeds than people in other advanced nations; millions of Americans, especially in rural and low income areas do not have access to affordable, high speed broadband; then United States alone among the advanced nations has no national, Internet policy; the US definition of “high speed” at 200 kilobytes per second (kbps) is too slow and has not changed in nine years: the US and California collections of broadband data does not tell us what we need to know about broadband deployment, adoption, speeds and prices and consumer and worker protections must be safeguarded on high speed networks and;

WHEREAS the growth of a free and open Internet has provided historic advances in the realms of democracy, free speech, communications, research and economic development; California and US consumers are entitled to and require open, unfettered access to the lawful Internet content of their choice without interference by any entity, public or private; build out of universal, high speed, high capacity networks will promote an open Internet by eliminating bandwidth scarcity;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party endorses national,  state and local policies to promote affordable, high speed broadband for all with strong protections for consumers and the workers who build, maintain and service those networks; and a national goal for universal access and deployment of network capable of delivering 10 megabytes per second downstream and 1 megabyte per second upstream by the year 2010 and the California Democratic Party supports federal and state initiatives to improve data collection on high speed broadband deployment, adoption, speed and prices as a necessary first step; upgrading the current definition of high speed to 2 megabytes per second downstream, 1 megabyte per second upstream and policies that promote public programs to stimulate build out of high speed networks to all home and businesses in the nation and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the California Democratic Party in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, supports policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet; protect against any degradation or blocking of access to any websites for content on the Internet and insure consumers have the right to free email; encourages build out of high speed networks to all homes and businesses so that everyone can go where they want and upload or download what they want on the Internet as a public utility maintained by union workers.

Submitted by the
Labor Caucus of the California Democratic Party
Progressive Caucus of the California Democratic Party

So I typed up a long transcript of the debate in the Labor Caucus on the two competing net neutrality resolutions, but the computer ate it.  So let me summarize.

When we last left our story at the CDP convention, the various net neutrality resolutions were referred to the Labor Caucus.  The caucus officers got together and put together a resolution that merged some of the elements of the other ones.  The chair of the Caucus is Jim Gordon, a member of CWA (Communications Workers of America).  Now, CWA has been pushing an astroturf campaign called “Speed Matters,” which advocates for building out high-speed networks by reserving a piece of the bandwidth for proprietary video services for the telecoms.  That is ludicrous, and a wormhole into overturning the principle of net neutrality and a completely open Internet for everyone. 

So Brad Parker, of Progressive Democrats of America, submitted a different resolution, one that demands equal access and no two-tiered structure on the Internet, where telecoms can extract payment in return for speedy content delivery.  And in the Labor Caucus this morning, both proposals were heard and a compromise position is in the process of being reached.  This is good news.  The caucus rank-and-file was clearly in support of equal access and net neutrality, and not for reserving any special services for telecoms.  Jim Gordon’s defense was that “if we don’t build out the Internet, it’ll tumble.”  Right, because they’re standing in bread lines at AT&T.  We all believe that it’s pathetic that the United States is 16th in connectivity in the world, but we do not believe that telecoms need another revenue stream to incentivize them to build it.  Indeed, the calcification of our connectivity is a DIRECT result of the laws being written for the benefit of telecoms who have no reason to innovate.  The Internet is the lifeblood of communication in America, and it cannot be controlled in any part by private interests, it should be like a public utility.

At the meeting, a compromise was reached, and the two competing resolutions (both endorsed by the Labor Caucus) is being merged into one.  Brad Parker is writing the new resolution and is confident that the bit about “reserving a portion of the bandwidth” will be struck out.  The people of the CDP have spoken, and I believe we will come out with a resolution we can all get behind.  I found that when you explain this issue in clear terms, people understand it.  It’s a free speech and free press.

Back at our hotel in Sacramento with hekebolos after the first day of the executive board meeting of the CDP.  I spent most of my time in the Progressive Caucus, and since Donald Lathbury of the California Majority Report had his laptop with him and I didn’t, I’ll outsource the running commentary to him.

I will say that the caucus was once again the most well-attended, most organized group in the CDP, and I sense that people there are growing more confident in their ability to make real change happen within the party.  There have been setbacks, no doubt, but they continue on.

I will say something about the net neutrality debate tomorrow.  Brad Parker from PDA (Progressive Democrats of America), as I mentioned, will be debating Jim Gordon, chair of the Labor Caucus and a member of CWA (Communications Workers of America), tomorrow morning.  I’ll be liveblogging.  But the outcome of that debate, while entertaining, is irrelevant to what will happen tomorrow.  There will be two resolutions in the Resolutions Committee – one by Brad Parker, and one by Jim Gordon.  I haven’t seen the text of either, but I can safely assume that Parker’s supports the principle of a free and open Internet without discriminating against any content provider, no matter how big or small, while Gordon’s talks about “building out broadband access” and implicitly endorses the telecoms getting additional revenue streams by forcing content providers to pay them for high-speed access.  As Parker put it today, “broadband for the haves, and dial-up for the never-wills” is what the telecoms want.

So this will play out tomorow in resolutions, and Brian will have the inside scoop, I assume.  Meanwhile, Elizabeth Edwards will address the general session at 9:30 am tomorrow.

And on an unrelated note, our hotel is hosting the largest anime convention in Sacramento.  I’m the only one here without an oversized sword and a lion costume.  Hekebolos has his on right now.

UPDATE: I should mention that there was an informal and highly unscientific Presidential straw poll at the Progressive Caucus, and Edwards won overwhelmingly.

The results: Gravel 0, Dodd 0, Biden 1, Clinton 2, Undecided 6, Richardson 10, Obama 12, Kucinich 17, Gore 27, and Edwards 47.

Just a quick note: I will be attending this weekend’s California Democratic Party Executive Board meeting at the Radisson Hotel in Sacramento and posting occasional updates on the proceedings on Calitics.  The main issue that everyone seems to be talking about is the process for picking delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention in the state, whether those delegate caucuses will be held before the California primary (as is typically the case) or afterwards.  Frankly, I think it’s an inside baseball kind of deal, and while both sides have passionate arguments in favor of or against it, I’m a bit unmoved by them (Pre-primary advocates want a more diverse slate of delegates going to the convention to impact the platform, I believe, to which I say, how many people actually read and ingest and make decisions based on the party platform, and is that number in triple digits or not?).  But I’ll be up there to let you know about them.

The two things I want to see, and will report back about, are the Progressive Caucus on Friday night at 8pm, and a debate on Saturday morning at 8:30am about net neutrality, between Brad Parker of Progressive Democrats of America, and Jim Gordon, the chair of the Labor Caucus (and a member of Communications Workers of America, who are resistant to the principle of net neutrality, to put it mildly).  That should be very fun.  I’ll post the agenda of the meeting on the flip, in case anyone is in Sacramento and would like to attend (apparently observer passes will be available on-site for a nominal fee, I think $15).

EXECUTIVE BOARD AGENDA
July 13-15, 2007
Radisson Hotel, Sacramento
6/29/07 Tentative

Friday, July 13, 2007

5:00-6:00PM
Credentials Committee
6:00-9:00PM
Registration
6:30-8:00PM
Executive Board Social
8:00-9:30PM
Caucus Meetings
  African-American
  Computer & Internet
  Disabilities (election counting)
  LGBT
  Progressive
  Senior’s
  Veteran’s
  California Young Dems.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

8:00AM-12:30PM
Registration
8:30-10:00AM
Labor Caucus
10:00-12:00 noon
General Session
12:00PM-1:15PM
Luncheon
1:30-3:00 PM
Delegate Selection & Affirmative Action Committee

Workshop: Get Organized: Voter Tactics for 2007
3:00-5:00PM
Standing Committees
  Finance
  Legislative Action & Equal Opportunity
  Voter Services
  Organizational Development
  Platform

3:00-6:30PM
Standing Committees
  Resolutions
  Rules

5:00-6:30PM
Caucus Meetings
  Arab-American
  Asian/Pacific Islander
  Chicano/Latino
  Environmental
  Native-American
  Rural & Irish-American

California Democratic Council
6:30-8:00PM
Caucus Meetings
  Business & Professional
  Children’s
  Disabilities (business meeting)
  Filipino American

Federation of County DSCC Members
8:00-9:30PM
Caucus Meeting
  Women’s Caucus

Sunday July 15, 2007

8-9:30AM
Registration
9:30AM-12 Noon
General Session

You can look at the proposed bylaw changes for the CDP here.

There’s a resolution to support parole and sentencing reform that I’m a co-signatory to, that I’m particularly interested in as well.