Hot on the heels of the record $350,000 fine levied against Sen. Migden, the Fair Political Practices Commission is now suing her for $9 million “for her consistent and deliberate failure to follow California’s campaign laws.”

The commission’s filings indicated that Migden’s actions hid the true nature of her campaign accounts from state regulators, potential opponents, the media and the public generally. She failed to report a number of large transactions entirely, while reporting other large transactions which simply never occurred.

“For years, Senator Migden has been deceiving the voters of California by filing inaccurate campaign statements, fabricating the elimination of committees and concealing campaign funds,” said FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson. “The sophisticated and pervasive pattern of deception by her various controlled committees has been ongoing for more than five years.”

Earlier this month, Migden was fined $350,000 by the commission and admitted to 89 violations of the Political Reform Act. During the months-long investigation that resulted in that record fine, the enforcement division also uncovered multiple illegal transfers of approximately $1 million of surplus campaign funds that occurred over several years and were funneled through multiple committee accounts controlled by the senator. Additionally, the investigation found the filing of untrue campaign statements and a pattern of concealment through consistent misreporting of campaign information.

The commission maintains that nearly $1 million in Migden’s 2000 Assembly re-election committee became surplus by operation of law when she left the lower house in December of 2002 and are not legally available for her to use in her current Senate re-election campaign. The surplus funds law has been on the books for nearly 30 years; however, Migden sued the FPPC arguing she should be allowed to use $647,000 of those funds that remain.

This is a countersuit to the Migden lawsuit noted in the last paragraph. Obviously this isn’t good news for her, coming on the heels of that already-substantial fine. And this is going to make what was an uphill campaign that much more difficult for her to win.  

As previously reported, Carole Migden was recently hit with the largest fine in the history of California's Fair Political Practices Commission (“FPPC”).  She was found guilty of 89 separate violations of California law and fined $350,000.

The record FPPC fine, however, is only the tip of the iceberg for Senator Migden.  She still has several unresolved violations of California law, which the FPPC chairman calls “serious and deceitful.”  Rather than letting the FPPC proceeding run its course, Senator Migden chose instead to join forces with radical right wing Republicans by filing a lawsuit in Federal Court to declare California's campaign finance laws unconstitutional.  Senator Migden is happy to undo years of valuable campaign finance reform just for a shot at saving herself from her clear violations of the law.

This is the long and sordid tale of Senator Migden's numerous violations of California law.  It is a tale not only about her recent lawsuit (Migden v. The Fair Political Practices Commission), but also a tale about Carole Migden's serious and deceitful assault on the notion of fair political practices in general (Carole Migden versus fair political practices).  It will take a while to unravel the mess that Carole Migden has created.  So grab a beverage, get a comfy chair, and hold on for the ride . . . 

Carole Migden – Leading in 'Serious and Deceitful Violations of California Law'

Ross Johnson, the Chairman of the FPPC said: that “Sen. Migden's track record has shown her complete disdain for the Political Reform Act.”  So, what is Carole Migden's track record?  How has she broken the law?  Let me count the ways. (Spoiler alert: the count is currently at 132 violations.  And we're still counting.)

In 2002, the FPPC fined Migden $16,000 for eight violations of Government Code 84203.  She failed to properly report eight contributions totaling over $125,000.

Four years later, in 2006, the FPPC fined Migden $47,500 for 21 violations of five sections of California law.   

That same year, in 2006, the FPPC fined Migden another $47,500 for an additional 22 violations of four sections of California law.

Most recently, last week, the FPPC fined Migden $350,000 for 89 violations of California law.   

Following the most recent fine, Mr. Johnson, the FPPC Chair said “We will now focus our attention on that lawsuit and Sen. Migden's numerous other serious and deceitful violations of California law.”  Yes, you heard him right, there are still more violations that were not included in the most recent charge of 89 separate violations.  More on that later.

Carole Migden – Leading 'With A Tube of Lipstick in One Hand and a Bayonet In the Other'

How did we get here?  Carole Migden's involvement in statewide politics dates back to 1996 when she was elected to the California Assembly and the money started rolling in from corporate donors and lobbyists.  When she was elected to Willie Brown's seat in the California Assembly, Carole Migden declared that the Legislature would be getting “a lesbian with a tube of lipstick in one hand and a bayonet in the other.”  Unless Migden has three hands, we can assume that she put the lipstick in her pocket so she would always have a free hand to accept huge campaign contributions.  She did not, we know, ever put down the bayonet.

Undoubtedly using her bayonet, Carole Migden managed to amass a fortune in campaign contributions.  Her list of contributors from 2000 alone is a Who's Who of corporate special interests.  In just that one cycle, she collected $10,000 from Philip Morris, $2,000 from Enron, $5,000 from PG&E, and the list goes on.  By the end of 2000, her campaign account ballooned to almost $1 million.

In a Declaration she filed in Federal Court, Carole Migden explains why pre-contribution limit funds are so much more valuable than post-contribution limit funds: “It can be harder to raise funds under a contribution limit or to amass left over funds from a prior election efforts.”  In other words, Migden wants to be able to use the money she collected from Philip Morris and friends when there was no contribution limit to compete against candidates that had to raise their funds with contribution limits in place.  And somehow, in Carole Migden's mind, this is fair.   

But Migden's current legal troubles relate not to how she raised her money, but what she did with the money.  The FPPC investigation and her lawsuit relates to $977,000 that she illegally transferred from her Assembly Committee for use in her Senate Re-Election campaign. 

Migden claims in her Declaration that “in early 2001, I directed my campaign treasurer, Roger Sanders, to set aside $900,000 of the Assembly Committee's funds and move them to a separate interest-bearing account that we could use for a future election.”  But then, inexplicably, she admits that “For purposes of public disclosure, we initially continued to report those funds on my Assembly Committee campaign reports, although I did not intend to use them in any way for that committee.”  Let me see if I have this right.  It seems to me that Migden is saying that she thought she had moved the funds from her Assembly Committee to some other account in early 2001, but that she filed false reports with the FPPC that pretended that the funds were still in her Assembly Committee account.  Indeed, the report that she filed with the FPPC for the period ending 12/31/2002 stated that the $900,000 still remained in her Assembly Committee account, even though Carole Migden has testifed under oath that she thought she had moved those funds in 2001 and that she had no intention to use the funds for that committee.  I guess Migden has a fluid definition of honesty.

It wasn't until June 25, 2003, two and a half years after Migden claims she transferred the $900,000 from her Assembly Committee that she actually transferred the funds ($977,340.28) from her “Committee to Re-Elect Assemblywoman Carole Migden” account to her “Friends of Carole Migden” account.  But because she had left the Assembly in 2002, as we will see in the next section, these funds were “Surplus Campaign Funds,” and it would be illegal for Migden to use the funds for a future campaign.

The Law

The law at issue here, California Government Code section 89519, is a pretty simple law.  It says that “Upon leaving any elected office . . . campaign funds raised after January 1, 1989, under the control of the former candidate or elected officer shall be considered surplus campaign funds  . . . .”  The law further provides that “surplus campaign funds” can be used for six – and only six – purposes: (1) paying outstanding campaign debts, (2) giving the money back to contributors, (3) donating it to a charity, (4) contributing it to a political party committee, (5) contributing it to a candidate for federal office, and (6) paying ongoing expenses of the committee such as litigation expenses. 

As campaign finance laws go, section 89519 is one of the most straight-forward and simple to follow.  Every elected official – including Senator Migden – knows: if you're going to run for another office, you need to transfer your campaign funds to a new account before you leave your current office.  If you do not, the funds are designated “surplus campaign funds” and you cannot use them for a future campaign.  Period.

Applying this law to Carole Migden's situation is also pretty simple.  In 2002, when she was about to leave the Assembly, she had two choices.  She could either transfer her Assembly Committee funds into a new campaign account for use in the future, or she could leave the funds in her Assembly Account and use them for one of the six uses allowed by law.  She chose the second choice.  She left the funds in her Assembly Committee account, and on the day she left the Assembly, these funds became “Surplus Campaign Funds.”  From that date forward, she was no longer allowed to use the funds for her future campaigns.

Although it may seem arbitrary and technical at first glance, Section 89519 is actually both necessary and valuable.  Here's why – it helps stop corruption.  Imagine a world in which elected officials are allowed to use their left-over campaign funds any way they want after they leave office.  They could, say, pocket the funds.  In other words, every dollar that Don Fisher gave to Carole Migden could end up furnishing a home in Berkeley.  Now, if Carole Migden is allowed to pocket her campaign contributions, that would seriously call into question the decisions she made (such as personally and enthusiastically sponsoring Don Fisher to be appointed to the State Board of Education.)  So I think we can all agree that that a world in which candidates can use left-over campaign contributions in any way they want is not a good thing.  So now imagine a world where elected officials could keep large balances in their campaign accounts long after they leave office.  Being out of the media spotlight and without an opponent to watch over the former politician, there are few safeguards to prevent the individual from pocketing the money.  Now we're right back in that first world.  To prevent this result, California – as well as 30 other states – have laws that significantly restrict the use of funds when a candidate leaves office.  Because of their incredible value in preventing corruption, none of these laws ever has been found unconstitutional.

Carole Migden – Leading the Republican's Effort to Declare Prop 34 Unconstitutional

Carole Migden has joined a group of radical Republicans whose goal is to have overturned every campaign finance law in this country.  In her lawsuit against the FPPC, Senator Migden asks the Federal Court to declare that California Government Code section 89519 is unconstitutional.  Some of the only support for her specious argument comes from her apparent new BFF – Republican Dan Lungren.  When he was Attorney General in 1995, Lungren wrote an opinion claiming that section 89519 is unconstitutional.  Lungren, not surprisingly, doesn't think much of campaign finance laws.  (He also doesn't think much of a woman's right to choose and he cosponsored a bill to deport children born in the United States to non-citizen mothers.  Great company you're keeping, Carole.)   

Section 89519 is part of a broad campaign finance reform package known as Proposition 34.  Before it was submitted to the voters, during the 2000 Regular Session of the Legislature, Proposition 34 was known as Senate Bill 1223.  SB 1223 was authored by Senator John L. Burton, Migden's predecessor to her seat in Senate District Three.  In the Assembly, Carole Migden voted in favor of SB 1223 which included what would become Government Code section 89519.  In fact, the Assembly Analysis of the bill, which Migden presumably read before voting on the bill, clearly describes section 89519 and its impact on “surplus funds.”  The bill was signed by Governor Gray Davis and later approved by the voters.

Nevermind that Carole Migden supported this law when she was in the Assembly, back before she allied herself with Dan Lungren.  Since she took an oath to uphold the Constitution, one must assume that this law was not unconstitutional when she voted for it.  And as far as I know, neither section 89519 nor the First Amendment have been modified in the eight years since Migden voted for the law.  So it seems that Senator Migden has a very fluid and self-serving definition of what is “constitutional.”  A law that doesn't work out well for her personally, it seems, is unconstitutional in the mind of Migden.  How convenient.

Although it is an invaluable law necessary to protect against corruption, Carole Migden wants to have section 89519 declared unconstitutional.  Her reason is simple: she violated the law and she does not want to suffer the consequences. 

Carole Migden – Leading in Finger-Pointing 

In Carole Migden's mind, there's lots of blame to go around for her violations of the law.  She blames John Burton for writing and the Legislature (of which she was a Member) for passing an unconstitutional law (for which she voted.)  She blames Governor Gray Davis and the citizens of California for passing an unconstitutional law.  She blames her campaign volunteers for filing erroneous reports. Everyone, it seems, is responsible except Carole Migden.

Migden also has blamed her violations on her inability to understand the law and on her leukemia.  As the Santa Rosa Press Democrat reports:

Migden's attorney, James Harrison, attributed the errors to a failure to understand the law. He also said that Migden's battle with leukemia — which she cited as a cause of her wild ride on Highway 80 last year — distracted her from properly reporting campaign activity.

Does Migden not realize that one of the basic job requirements to serve as a State Senator is the ability to understand laws?  Senators, after all, write the laws. One would hope they have the ability to understand them.  Senator Migden's claim of ignorance of the law is no defense.  If anything, it is a stark admission that she is not qualified to be a lawmaker.  What's more – Carole Migden voted for this law that she now claims not to understand.  Is Carole Migden really saying that she does not comprehend the effect of the laws for which she votes? 

Likewise, Migden's leukemia excuse also does not help her case.  We all, of course, sympathize with Senator Migden's health problems.  However, if her disease impairs her cognitive ability so much that it causes her to violate California's campaign finance laws 89 times and blackout while driving, then she probably does not have the ability to effectively represent the Third District of California in the State Senate. 

Migden's incompetent volunteer defense also lacks merit.  Senator Migden had $1 million in funds.  A responsible leader, and particularly one who honestly felt she was impaired due to ill health, would use a small portion of those funds to hire a competent bookkeeper who could ensure that she did not violate the law.  That's just the simple and responsible thing to do.  Blaming the help is no excuse for Senator Migden's illegal activity.

Carole Migden – Leading?

I believe that Carole Migden filed this lawsuit for no reason other than to delay the inevitable.  She must realize that she will never be allowed to use the $647,000 in “Surplus Campaign Funds” for her re-election campaign.  She also must realize that she will be levied a hefty fine for already spending the $330,000 in “Surplus Campaign Funds” for an illegal purpose.  Her lawsuit, then, seems to be simply a delay tactic.  If she can keep the FPPC tied up in court for a few months, she won't have to face the consequences of her actions until after the June primary.

In a comic twist of irony, the Court will hear Migden's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on April Fools Day.  In this Motion, Migden is asking the Court to prohibit the FPPC from enforcing section 89519 to prohibit Carole Migden from using the funds designated as “Surplus Campaign Funds.”  Both Carole Migden and the FPPC agreed to have this case heard by a Magistrate Judge rather than a District Court Judge.  Migden's Motion is set to be heard by Magistrate Edmund F. Brennan.  Magistrate Brennan served in the U.S. Attorney's Office from 1988 to 2006 when he was chosen to serve as a Magistrate Judge.  Most recently, Brennan served as the Chief of the Civil Division.  

Before continuing to burn this path, Carole Migden really should step back and take a very serious look at what is the right thing to do in this situation. Is it right for her to ally herself with and enlist as a fighter for the right wing corporatists who are intent on dismantling California's campaign finance reforms?  Is it right for her to refuse to accept responsibility for violating California law and instead blame others for her violations?  Is it right for her to ask that she be allowed to compete using more favorable rules than everyone else in the campaign?  The answer to all of these questions, of course, is “no.”

In the only poll which has been released in this race (February 2008), Carole Migden is in last place among the three current contenders.  Only Joe Alioto Veronese performed more poorly than the incumbent Senator.  And he dropped out of the race a week later.  In short, this is devastating news for Migden.  There are now rumors that she is about to drop out of the race.

Regardless of whether or not she drops out of the Senate race, I call on Senator Migden to drop her lawsuit and allow the FPPC proceeding to run its course.  She should defend herself vigorously in the proceeding, but pay any fines that are assessed against her.  She should then use any left over “Surplus Campaign Funds” for a good cause, as allowed by the law. That is what a true Leader would do.

Bad boys, bad boys.  What'ca gonna do?  What'ca gonna do when they come for you . . .

The Fair Political Practices Commission today fined Senator Carole Migden $350,000 for 89 separate violations of California law. This is the largest fine levied by the FPPC.  Ever.  The fine included 89 violations between 2003 and 2007, and included allegations that she used campaign funds for her personal use.

In a separate dispute that has not yet been resolved, Carol Migden is accused of illegally using $1 million in funds for her Senate re-election campaign. After spending almost half of the funds, Migden filed a lawsuit against the FPPC in Federal Court alleging that the California law for which she voted (Prop 34) is unconstitutional. I'm planning to write much, much more about Carole's lawsuit over the weekend as we prepare for the hearing next week of Carol's Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

[I tried to find a picture of Migden in a black and white striped jumpsuit.  Pinstripes will have to do.  For now.) 

UPDATE: I tracked down that video report on the SD-03 race from NBC 11. I moved some stuff over the flip to make room.

Last week, Senator Carole Migden sued the FPPC, alleging that Proposition 34 was unconstitutional. Interestingly, in 2000, when in the Assembly, Migden voted in favor of placing the proposition on the ballot.

Why the dramatic shift in positions? Well, as Randy Shaw pointed out last week, Migden has over $1 million that is in question in this case. Unless Prop 34 is somehow struck down, she cannot use that money.  And that’s the bulk of her cash on hand. SmartVoter has more information about Prop 34 here. But, here’s a quick recap of what it did: (Over the flip)

   * Limits individual campaign contributions per election: state legislature, $3,000; statewide elective office, $5,000 (small contributor committees may double these limits); governor, $20,000. Limits contributions to political parties/political committees for purpose of making contributions for support or defeat of candidates.

   * Establishes voluntary spending limits, requires ballot pamphlet to list candidates who agree to limit campaign spending.

   * Expands public disclosure requirements, increases penalties for violations.

   * Prohibits lobbyists’ contributions to officials they lobby.

   * Limits campaign fund transfers between candidates, regulates use of surplus campaign funds.

   * Effective 1/1/01, except statewide elective office effective 11/6/02.

But there’s one more thing about this case. Senator Migden has already spent $400,000 of this money while the case was pending. If this money was spent illegally, Senator Migden is subject to a fine of up to 3 times the amount of the inappropriately spent money, or about $1.2 million. That’s more than she’s got, by the way.

Thus, the lawsuit against the FPPC was not all that optional for Senator Migden. Given the recent poll results showing Asms. Nation and Leno well out in front, she needs that money to run an effective campaign.  But apparently she’s not so proud of the lawsuit. On Saturday, at the re-opening of the Noe Valley Public Library (see the picture), Senator Migden was asked about the case by NBC-11. Her response? She turned around and walked away from the news cameras.

Prop 34 isn’t perfect. It certainly isn’t as good as Prop 89, which itself had substantial flaws. But we need tough campaign finance legislation, and hopefully a real clean money package.  We certainly don’t need progressive legislators suing the state to declare that our not-so-strict legislation is unconstitutional.

In a rather unsurprising move, Joe A. Veronese dropped out of the primary race for Senate District 3.  Joe Alioto Veronese was lagging behind  Asm. Mark Leno, former Asm. Joe Nation, and incumbent Carole Midgen.  With Nation’s entry into the race, it gave the SF police commissioner a tough time trying to argue that he was the candidate for Marin. Nevertheless, we’ll be seeing Joe Alioto Veronese again, of that I can assure you.

In terms of the SD-03 race, well, I have to imagine that this favors Mark Leno.  In Leno’s recent David Binder poll, JAV was pulling about 7%. Given the  demographics, Leno will be in the best position to pick up those votes. Specifically, Leno is stronger in the Marina and North Beach neighborhoods where JAV was strong than Senator Migden has been in the past. This might even help him become the front-runner. I’m not sure the endorsement would make a huge difference, but it might help Nation to grab a few SF votes if he gets the JAV nod.

Press release over the flip.

SAN FRANCISCO – After much consideration, Police Commissioner Joseph Alioto Veronese made the difficult decision today that he will not seek to include his name on the June 3 primary ballot for the 3rd Senate seat held by incumbent Senator Carol Migden.

Joe entered the race over nine months ago by announcing his candidacy in San Francisco, San Rafael and Petaluma.  He was proud to engage thousands of new people in the process throughout the entire district, including hundreds of donors and volunteers participating in a campaign for the first time.

“I have been campaigning to change the debate in Sacramento and focus on issues of true importance to the people of the 3rd district,” said Alioto Veronese.  “Over the last several months I have met with the hard working people from every corner of this District and have been humbled by all the support I have received.  Yet, after much deliberation with my wife and key supporters I have decided to withdraw my candidacy for the State Senate”.

Veronese continued, “While this will be the end of my bid for the State Senate, this is only the beginning of my work to fight for social justice, public safety and protecting our environment.  I will continue to be vigilant to fight on behalf of the people of this district”.

After personally communicating with many of his supporters, Joe will hold a press conference within the next 7 days to announce who he believes his supporters should follow in this race.  

(I’ve written lots about SD-03, but Randy Shaw is quite knowledgeable about the race and has some interesting news about this poll. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

My boss, Randy Shaw, wrote the following for today’s BeyondChron.

A poll taken last week by David Binder found State Senate District 3 a two-way contest between challengers Joe Nation and Mark Leno, with incumbent Carole Migden trailing badly. Binder, who is San Francisco’s leading pollster and has been busy surveying for Barack Obama, found that Nation led Leno 27-24% on the initial ask, with Migden trailing at 17%. When pro and con statements about the candidates were read, the Leno-Nation numbers reversed, with Migden remaining at 17%. Joe Alioto Veronese was at 7 and 10%, and nearly a quarter of the electorate remains undecided. The poll spells deep trouble for Migden, who is having fundraising problems and still faces possible legal action by the Fair Political Practices Commission for alleged campaign financing violations. The poll raises the question whether Migden should pull out of the race in order for the seat to remain in the hands of a San Francisco progressive from the queer community – an analysis recently advanced by one of the incumbent’s most prominent supporters.

Although David Binder performed the poll for the Leno campaign, his company has a long track record of being San Francisco’s most accurate pollster. His results are quite similar to those that Joe Nation used to justify his recent entry into the race, an action that confirmed Migden’s vulnerability.

The poll numbers are great news for Mark Leno.

First, he will have a significant fundraising edge over Nation, so has a greater capacity to win undecided votes.

Second, he is the least known candidate among the leading three, giving him a greater opportunity to broaden his base.

Third, the numbers have to increase pressure on Migden to leave the race to avoid playing the role of spoiler. As it now stands, Migden could potentially divert enough votes from Leno to hand a San Francisco Senate seat held by a member of the city’s queer community to a more conservative straight white man from Marin.

Ironically, Migden supporter Rafael Mandelman lent credence to the need for Migden to leave the race in his letter in the current Bay Area Reporter titled “Leno jeopardizes queer seat.” Relying on Joe Nation’s poll that found Migden leading Leno by 5%, Mandelman, who signed the letter as President of the Harvey Milk LGBT Democratic Club, accused Leno of putting “a queer seat in jeopardy.”

Mandelman concluded his letter by calling Leno’s action a “serious sin,” and urging him to “give the attacks a rest.”

While Mandelman does not expressly urge Leno to leave the race, the implication is clear. And it is a conclusion that many members of the LGBT community as well as San Francisco voters will draw about this race – only the analysis instead applies to the badly trailing Migden.

Here we have the incumbent in the race unable to secure either money or political support, and this is before all the district’s voters learn the details of her May 2007 reckless driving incident (you can link to the audio of the 911 calls made by fellow drivers here down Interstate 80, and before the FPPC files charges against her for collecting funds for one purpose and spending them for another.

The campaign violation occurred when Migden transferred $100,000 from “Friends of Carole Migden” (the campaign account for her first Senate bid) to her “Re-Elect Senator Carole Migden” account.  The funds in that account were illegally placed there by Migden from her previous Assembly campaign account.  Acknowledging the violation, Migden sought to remedy the situation by moving $120,000 back to the “Friends” account on November 5, 2007.  However, the act of transferring funds from an illegal source is a violation of the law – even if you later return the funds.

Anyone familiar with political trends knows that at this stage of the race, an incumbent with Migden’s poll numbers is in dire political straits. Incumbents do not pick up undecided voters with two other strong candidates in the field, and it seems that, like Rudy Giuliani in Florida, the more voters get to know Migden the less they support her.

Obviously, Migden is not going to leave this race in March. But if she remains far behind in April, those who care about San Francisco and the queer community keeping this Senate seat need to start speaking up. Leno is already trouncing Migden in San Francisco and, with her out of the race, he easily defeats Nation.

(Have you seen any other candidates come out against Prop 98? Let us know! – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

I wrote this for today’s BeyondChron.

With no presidential primary on the statewide ballot, voter turnout in June is expected to be abysmal.  Which means that Proposition 98 – the extreme right-wing measure to abolish rent control, basic tenant protections, environmental regulations and water laws – could actually pass.  But with term limits forcing many state legislators out of office, there will also be a number of competitive June primaries – creating the potential to drive up voter turnout in the state’s more progressive pockets.  If Democratic candidates for Assembly and State Senate make the defeat of Prop 98 a central part of their campaign, they could help it go down in flames.  Candidates who mobilize to defeat it would also benefit – as it will help them connect more strongly with the Democratic voters in their district.

“Prop 98 is a terrible initiative, and I will campaign against it loudly,” said Barbara Sprenger, who is running in the 27th State Assembly District (Santa Cruz and Monterey.)  By re-defining “private use” to include when a public agency takes over natural resources, Prop 98 threatens to undermine any public water project in the state.  “I’ve helped organize my community in opposing higher water rates from private water companies,” said Sprenger.  “Prop 98’s effect would be devastating.”

“I expect to have ‘No on 98’ on all my campaign literature,” said Kriss Worthington, who is running in the 14th State Assembly District.  “It seriously questions our environmental policies, and is a very blatant attack on affordable housing and rent control.”  As a current member of the Berkeley City Council, Worthington sponsored a resolution to have the City oppose it – and organized a press rally in November to draw some media attention.  He also will encourage voters to support Prop 99 – a competing measure that deals with eminent domain – as a “far more reasonable alternative.”

Sprenger and Worthington are both running in competitive races – in heavily Democratic districts where constituents are likely to oppose Prop 98.  But unless voters in these areas turn out, Prop 98 could pass statewide – so the burden is on local candidates to make its defeat a rallying cry.  “Prop 98 is horrible,” said Nancy Skinner – who’s running against Worthington in the 14th A.D. – “and it’s a worse poison pill than the last initiative [i.e., Prop 90] that we defeated.  I will have it in my campaign materials, and I will speak out against it at every opportunity.”  If competing candidates make a point of it when they boost their own campaign, they can ensure a healthy progressive turnout.

In San Francisco – where Mark Leno and Carole Migden are locked in a bitter race for the State Senate – the two candidates jointly appeared at a rally last November to defeat Prop 98.  I had previously written that having Leno and Migden run against each other could help progressive measures pass in San Francisco.  To defeat Prop 98, we’ll need similar efforts elsewhere.

Gina Papan and Richard Holober are running against each other in the 19th Assembly District (San Mateo County.)  Both oppose Prop 98, because it hamstrings the ability of local government to advance solutions.  “I believe that it goes way too far,” said Papan, who currently serves as Mayor of Millbrae.  “I will be working to help defeat it in my campaign.”  Holober’s campaign manager said that the candidate “doesn’t think that the state should dictate and tell localities what to do – and he opposes Prop 98.”

I spent much of last week calling many Democratic candidates throughout the state to see who would go on the record opposing Prop 98 – and whether they plan to make it a big part of their campaign.  Many were vague about how they expect to do so (most are just kicking off their campaign right now), but a few were happy to talk about how their background made it important to defeat Prop 98.

“I’m a renter myself,” said Anna Song, who’s running in a competitive race for the 22nd Assembly District in Santa Clara.  “It’s really important for renters to have a certain level of stability, and Prop 98 would take that away.”  Before running for public office, Song worked for Project Sentinel – a non-profit in the South Bay that assists tenants and low-income homeowners – so has encountered this issue first-hand.

A spokesman for Mariko Yamada – who’s running in the 8th Assembly District in West Sacramento – talked about the candidate’s firm commitment to rent control.  “She’s a social worker by training,” he said, “and is very sensitive to the needs of mobile home park residents in the district.  Gentrification has been pushing a lot of people out, and we’ve been working closely with grassroots organizers on these issues.”

Many of these candidates didn’t even know they were running until February 5th – when the defeat of Prop 93 termed out a lot of state legislators, opening up the chance for Democrats to run in the June primary.  As a result, a lot of them have been late in writing their campaign strategy – and some were even unsure about Prop 98 when I first brought it up.  “I need to get more educated first,” was a common response I got from a lot of them.

But now is the time to put them on record – while they’re still introducing themselves to their district – and ask them to campaign against Prop 98.  Because only with competitive races that generate a high Democratic turnout – and an emphasis on the devastating impacts of Prop 98 – will we ensure that affordable housing, environmental protection, rent control and water rights are protected in California.

And who knows?  Maybe we’ll get a more pro-tenant state legislature when it’s all over.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Before joining BeyondChron, Paul Hogarth lived in Berkeley for many years and worked for City Councilman Kriss Worthington.  He has endorsed Worthington’s run for the State Assembly, and donated $400 to his campaign.  He also supports Mark Leno’s run for the State Senate.

Well, I must say, the timing of this is a bit surprising.  Former Assembly member Joe Nation has decided to run for State Senate in the 3rd district. From Mr. Nation on his candidacy:

“It’s late to be getting in in some respects,” Nation said after his announcement in a patch of wetlands near the Petaluma Marina on Saturday. Migden and Leno have been campaigning for more than a year already, while Veronese began only slight later, he said.

But Nation said he was “thrilled” by poll results showing a dead heat between him, Migden and Leno if he entered the race, with lesser known Veronese trailing.

“I know it will be a sprint,” he said, but plans to take a leave from his consulting work, allowing more time to campaign. “I more or less have 16 hours a day, seven days a week to work, and I think I can get it done,” he said. (Santa Rosa Press-Democrat 2/9/08)

The polls he references are internals, of course, but I’d expect that to be fairly reasonable. Nation has decent, but not great, name ID in the district from his days in the Assembly and from his ill-fated run against progressive Democrat Lynn Woolsey. However, I would imagine that there are a lot of people who remember the guy well. He’s a pretty smart guy when it comes to policy, that has never been the question.

The question of how this affects the race are quite numerous. It substantially diminishes Joe Veronese’s chances, given that the son of Angela Alioto was trying quite hard to lure those North Bay constituents. Nation’s entrance into the race puts that much more incentive for SF to either rally around one candidate, or face the possibility of being represented in the Senate from outside of the County.

Either way, it is even more clear that SD-03 will be the most interesting legislative primary this year.