John Burton has pulled something of a rabbit out of a hat with his request to the gubernatorial candidates to not seek the pre-primary endorsement.  He just sent an email trumpeting his early success:

Not long ago, I wrote you about next year’s governor’s race. The California Democratic Party’s Statewide Officers, Regional Directors and Caucus Chairs and I had concluded that our gubernatorial candidates should not seek the party’s pre-primary endorsement.

The Party sent letters to San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Jerry Brown urging them to avoid dividing the Party – and draining Party resources – during the primary season.

Attorney General Brown and Mayor Newsom have since responded. Both of them have agreed in writing that they will not pursue the Party’s pre-primary endorsement so long as other Democratic gubernatorial candidates play by the same rules.

Even if another candidate would enter the race, it would challenging to get the necessary votes on the floor of next year’s convention. That being said, neither of these two candidates are really grassroots champions. If the dark horse, competitive candidate were to emerge with significant support from the grassroots, perhaps all bets are off.  But neither Newsom nor Brown really loses anything by casting aside the CDP pre-primary.

Matier and Ross always love a good horse race story. Today’s column finds them back on their horse race du jour: the California Governor Sweepstakes.  A statewide poll by Moore Methods shows another big lead for the former (and future?) Governor Edmund Gerald Brown, Jr., this time it’s nearing 30 points at Brown 49, Newsom 20. Now, as you can tell there are still a large group of undecideds, and there is still a ton of time.  Heck, Brown still hasn’t announced which race he is going to get into, and that may be “a few months” away. But, he does have this spiffy new website up.  Suitably vague and everything.

And in San Francisco, Gavin  Newsom gets a little extra attention. Which, as it turns out, isn’t always a good thing.  In a Binder Poll recently released, Newsom is trailing Brown by 17 points, 51-34. The same dynamic of name ID as the biggest mover of opinion cannot be said to be the case. San Franciscans know Newsom, however, Brown is still something of an enigma here like he is elsewhere across the state.  While those across the Bay in Oakland know him quite well (especially the developers), San Franciscans have never been particularly good about looking outside of our own bubble to see what’s going on around us, even if it is just over the Bridge.

There is a lot of room for movement, a point that Garry South made in the M&R piece.  And that much I will give him.   I’m not sure about the rest of this quote:

And Newsom’s campaign suggested Brown’s appeal among Democrats wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be, saying his strength is based mostly on his “80 percent name ID” and little else.

“Dianne Feinstein started out nearly 20 points behind John Van de Kamp in the 1990 gubernatorial primary, and ended up beating him by 11 points,” said Newsom’s chief consultant, Garry South. (SF Chronicle 8/23/09)

Comparing the 2010 electorate to the 1990 electorate is like comparing the California electorate to that of Arizona. Sure, they are tangentially related, but not really the best indicator of future results as they say in the financial business. There is a ton of time left, and thirty points is a gap that can be made up. And DiFi rode the death penalty sword all the way to the nomination. I’m not sure if social issues, the ones that can really change the game in a primary, are really going to be much of an issue come June 2010. There just isn’t that much daylight between the two candidates.

But if we are to see a big change in the dynamics of this race, I think we’d have to see some big reason to move to Newsom or some other candidate that hasn’t entered the race yet.  Both Newsom and Brown have good reasons for moving up to the Gov gig, but both also have some weaknesses both to the grassroots and to the larger Democratic electorate. But as the race is now, with both candidates being fairly non-committal on the big issues, the status quo is just going to happen. And Brown will simply drift into the nomination.

However, I’m not sure a primary election governed by drift is really the best thing for the party or for the state.  Let’s see some real debate on the very serious issues facing the state: prisons, the budget, water, etc. And let’s see some reason to move one way or the other. But, until that happens…drift will reign supreme.

(Some thoughts from the current San Francisco Democratic Party Chair and former president of the Board of Supes on the role of a clean campaign in electing a Democratic Governor. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

In the past month, the political spin doctors behind Mayor Gavin Newsom have been boasting about their intent to run a negative campaign against their most likely Democratic opponent for Governor – California’s Attorney General and former Governor Jerry Brown.

In just the latest round of personal attacks, Newsom strategist Garry South attacked Brown in print for having taken “more positions than in the Karma Sutra.” I will leave it to Mayor Newsom to explain why his staff is making references to sex manuals, particularly given his own recent scandals. But this latest detour into political trash talk illustrates why Democrats across California need to be concerned with Newsom’s intent to launch a negative campaign.

As Chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party, my mission is to help make sure we elect a Democratic governor in November of 2010. The latest series of devastating state cuts to services for children and seniors is another reminder of just how important it is for our party to win back the governor’s office in Sacramento.

Edit By Brian for space, see the flip…

Achieving this most important goal is going to be difficult enough for Democrats, considering the challenging history of California gubernatorial elections and the hard reality that the Republicans are likely to nominate either Meg Whitman or Steve Poizner, either of whom can pour tens of millions of personal dollars into their own campaigns. Newsom’s own strategist acknowledges just how difficult it is for Democrats to win California Gubernatorial elections.

But if Newsom continues his negative campaign, we will almost certainly emerge in June with a divided party and a weakened nominee. The only beneficiary of such a strategy will be the Republicans.

After pledging to run a netroots-driven campaign that could “change California,” Newsom is now resorting the most traditional form of electioneering – raising money from special interests and using those funds to attack his opponent.

Democrats need to be concerned about this change of strategy because of the logical consequences of such a campaign. If Newsom continues to attack Brown, particularly in such a personal and juvenile fashion, he will both depress grassroots enthusiasm and ultimately draw a response.

Having served with Newsom on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, and having worked both with him and against him depending on the policy when I served as President of the Board during his mayoral administration, I know just how vulnerable Newsom is to the counter-attacks his negative strategy will draw.

Newsom’s personal and political vulnerabilities are legion, and well known to San Franciscans who have followed his career. Why he is throwing stones, considering the brittle consistency of his own political house, is mysterious.

But his constant attacks, and the counter-attacks that could shatter his own candidacy, will leave our party weak and dispirited going into one of the most important gubernatorial elections in recent history.

As Democrats, we need to make sure this does not happen. That’s why both the Democratic parties of San Francisco and Los Angeles Counties have passed Clean Campaign resolutions, urging Newsom, and any other candidate who enters the race, to agree to a positive campaign.

Newsom has so far refused to sign this pledge. But we hope that the netroots will hold him accountable and help us encourage him to stop the attacks and return to a clean campaign.

While perhaps not a sign of the better side of our politics, the money race in California politics is crucial. This is especially true for the Governor’s race, where the campaign has been mostly fought via air war in the last few elections.  Thus, it is time for a Calitics look at the money situation in some of the statewide races.  We’ll start with the Governor’s race, and within the next few days, I’ll post information on some of the other races of note.

So, let’s get right to it. First, the Republicans:

Meg Whitman

Ending Balance – $4,962,065.61

Debts – $295,175.64

What isn’t included in this report, however, is that Whitman donated a bit of money to her campaign.  You know nothing, major, just $15,000,000. Yes, you read that right. Whitman has now donated over $19 million to her campaign. Money will be no issue for the Whitman campaign. There is a litany of problems for Whitman, both with the Republican primary electorate as well as with the general election voters.  However, if she has an overwhelmingly large a lot of money, she might simply be able to drown out any message that isn’t exactly to her liking. It is a bit worrying, despite all the fun that you can have with Meg Whitman.

Steve Poizner

Ending Balance – $3,701,993.79

Debts – $176,186.66

Steve Poizner hasn’t dumped the kind of money that Whitman has into her campaign. He’s getting some decent level of grassroots support from the right-wing, as there has been no real hard-right McClintock-esque type of candidate. Poizner doesn’t have quite the wealth of Whitman, but he can afford to drop a few million into his campaign if he begins to get overrun by the Whitman machine.

Tom Campbell

Ending Balance – $317,381.69

Debts – $0

Poor Tom Campbell.  Not that Campbell is a poor man, but compared to the other two, he simply cannot donate to his campaign. He cannot get the right-wing grassroots support as he has consistently ticked off the right-wing with his positions on Prop 8 and taxes.  At some point unless his fundraising picks up steam rapidly, you begin to question whether this is a serious campaign and not some platform for him to talk about the budget. If that’s the case, well, it’s a fairly good tack, and would give him some power over the discussions in the campaign.  He’ll need to raise a lot more to actually be competitive in the Republican primary though.  

On the Democratic side, it’s starting to look like an un-fair fight.  Attorney General Jerry Brown (and supposed candidate for that race again) has a lot of money heading into the Democratic primary,  SF Mayor Gavin Newsom had a fairly disappointing first half of the year for fundraising, considering he was the only announced candidate. Running for Governor also allows a substantially higher maximum, so Brown can go back to a lot of his maxed out donors when (if?) he declares for the Governor’s race.

Brown

Ending Balance – $7,386,669.12

Debts – $0

Brown has been extremely thrifty, with his staff very limited. His wife, Anne Gust, is doing much of the day-to-day work, and Joe Trippi is doing a bit of consulting. But, there just hasn’t been much money flowing out of his campaign. If he goes back and double-dips to his other contributions, he’ll have even more money.  This is a train with a lot of steam now.

Newsom:

Ending Cash – $1,244,919.85

Debts – $334,482.67

In years past, these numbers wouldn’t have been terrible. But costs have gone up, and you simply need a lot of money. With the exodus of Eric Jaye and the now unquestioned authority of Garry South, it is a fairly safe assumption that there will be a big push on traditional fundraising methods over new media and grassroots fundraising. Whether Newsom will succeed with such methods is still an open question.

State Sen. Alex Padilla (D-LA) today endorsed SF Mayor Gavin Newsom for Governor and was also announced as the new campaign chairman.

Padilla immediately came out swinging against Newsom’s presumptive competitor, Attorney General Jerry Brown:

But “with all due respect,” he added, Californians know Brown “for his time in state leadership decades ago.”

“The world has changed, and the challenges before us are certainly more complex,” Padilla said. “The solutions need to be modern solutions, not old solutions.” … Padilla said that Newsom, 41, has “the passion and certainly the energy we need to lead the state in a better direction,” and that Brown does not. (LAT 7/15/09)

This is basically standard talking points on the experience vs. youth dispute. Padilla, while known from his time on the LA City Council, is hardly a household name. However, he does help Mayor Newsom make inroads on what could be a decisive voting bloc – SoCal Latinos.

Now, that takes care of our horse race coverage for the day…

Last Friday at 5:00 p.m. (which he’s apt to do when releasing bad news), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom vetoed three pro-tenant ordinances designed to help renters facing hard times.  He even nixed a relatively mild proposal to limit “banked” rent increases to 8% – despite this being consistent with existing policies at the Mayor’s Office of Housing.  Newsom’s record on tenant issues in San Francisco has always been bad, and his latest act does not bode well for next year’s statewide elections.  California’s 14 million renters need a champion in the Governor’s Mansion after six years of a hostile Republican Administration, but Newsom currently only has one opponent for the Democratic primary – California Attorney General Jerry Brown.  Based on his record as Mayor of Oakland, Brown can be counted on to be just as anti-tenant – if not worse – than Newsom.  There is no excuse why a deep blue state like California can’t have a pro-tenant Governor, and the current field of Democratic candidates creates an opening for a new person to jump into the fray.

Sacramento Politics Out of Step With Renters

When Schwarzenegger became Governor in 2003, the tenants’ rights agenda in the State Captiol – which had made some progress in the Gray Davis years – came to a grinding halt.  Arnold owns rental property in Santa Monica, and made it clear from the very start that he views California law as too “pro-tenant.”  Besides the legislative victory of 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions, renters have made virtually no progress in Sacramento ever since.

And it has been a nightmare.  The Governor has vetoed legislation to help tenants in foreclosed properties, and single-handedly killed the renters’ tax credit.  We can’t get the state legislature to pass desperately needed Ellis Act reform, because too many Democrats are afraid of angering realtors in their districts – if they know Schwarzenegger would not sign the bill into law anyway.  We are at a standstill.

For a state whose voters soundly defeated Proposition 98 last year, there is no excuse why we can’t have a pro-tenant Governor.  A wide coalition opposed Prop 98 (it was so extreme that even Pete Wilson and the Chamber of Commerce opposed it), but polling throughout the campaign repeatedly showed a majority of Californians support rent control – suggesting we should be making more progress.

Unfortunately, neither of the two Democratic candidates for Governor are pro-tenant.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom

San Francisco tenant activists know that throughout his career, Gavin Newsom has not been an ally.  Newsom was a landlord when he served on the Board of Supervisors, and the City’s conflict-of-interest rules prevented him from taking a stand on many pro-tenant ballot measures.  But his consultant, Eric Jaye, made his mark in June 1998 by running the unsuccessful campaign to pass Prop E – which would have repealed rent control and eviction protections for owner-occupied buildings with four units or less.

In 2001, Newsom was one of three Supervisors to vote “no” on Jake McGoldrick’s T.I.C. legislation – which was designed to curb Ellis Act evictions.  In 2002, he signed the main ballot argument for Prop R – the measure that would have resulted in mass condominium conversions.  The SF Tenants Union prioritized its defeat, and Prop R lost by 20 points.

As Mayor, Newsom has vetoed most pro-tenant measures.  In 2004, he vetoed the Housing Preservation Ordinance – which stopped the mass demolition of rent-controlled properties.  In 2006, he vetoed two measures designed to curb Ellis Act evictions: (a) one that would have allowed the Planning Commission to weigh in on such cases, and (b) one requiring real estate brokers to disclose a prior Ellis Act eviction to potential T.I.C. buyers at open houses.  The voters passed the latter ordinance in the next election, a “veto override” that remains law today.

But Newsom has been willing to do the right thing – if it serves his political purposes.  In 2006, he signed into law a measure that effectively halted condo conversions on buildings with a prior Ellis eviction.  He also let an ordinance preventing landlords from arbitrarily taking away services become law.   Newsom did this because: (a) tenant activists effectively publicized an eviction epidemic and (b) Supervisor Bevan Dufty – who had been the fourth vote to sustain the Mayor’s vetoes – was up for re-election, and he hoped to deter a serious challenger.

What does this prove?  Newsom may not be “pro-tenant” – but if renters organize to shift the political dynamics, they can occasionally push him to respond.  A Governor Newsom would probably not advance legislation to curtail the Ellis Act or strengthen rent control, but by working with friendly Democratic legislators tenants could score the rare victory.

It’s instructive to see what occurred in San Francisco after tenant issues died down in prominence.  Besides vetoing the “renters’ relief” package, Newsom is pushing a very dangerous idea to fast-track thousands of condo conversion applications.  Billed as a way to “raise revenue” for the City’s coffers, the measure would encourage more Ellis Act evictions down the road – and cannibalize our rental housing stock.  Newsom even ditched recent City budget talks to meet at Medjool’s with the pro-gentrification group Plan C to discuss this proposal.

Newsom opposed Proposition 98.  At the time, he said it would “effectively gut local land use planning and severely weaken environmental protections,” and a “disaster for cities and counties.”  But now, his gubernatorial campaign has taken $25,000 from Thomas Coates – a real estate investor who gave one million dollars to the Prop 98 effort.  Expect landlords and realtors to heavily fund Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign.

California Attorney General – and former Oakland Mayor – Jerry Brown:

Progressives who remember when Jerry Brown was Governor – from 1974 to 1982 – are inclined to believe he would be pro-tenant, and thus better than Gavin Newsom.  And it’s true that in 1976, he vetoed AB 3788 – which would have pre-empted rent control in California.  (Other states were not so lucky, where the legislatures have forbidden cities from doing so.)  But Brown waited until the very last minute to veto the legislation, and it was a very tough call what he’d do – he opposed blanket preemption of local governments, but was against rent control.

Brown is notorious for being quirky and unpredictable, and his politics have drastically changed over a very long career.  Therefore, it’s not very helpful to look at his career as Governor in the 1970’s and 80’s.  A more accurate prediction is to see where he’s been since 1998 – when he made a political comeback by getting elected Mayor of Oakland.

If Gavin Newsom has been a bad Mayor for tenants, Jerry Brown was a real nightmare.  Oakland had rent control, but no “just cause” protections – which meant a landlord could simply ask a tenant to leave in thirty days for no reason at all.  In the late 1990’s, as the dot-com boom gentrified Oakland (and Brown promoted massive downtown real estate development), tenants pushed for a “just cause” ordinance.  When the measure qualified for the 2002 ballot, Brown vehemently opposed it – but the voters passed it, after a tough campaign.  In 2004, Brown campaigned against pro-tenant Councilwoman Nancy Nadel.

During the mass real estate boom of the Brown years, Oakland had no inclusionary housing ordinance – which meant that private developers were not required to build any “below-market rate” units.  Brown resisted any efforts to impose modest requirements, and his final act as Mayor in 2006 was to veto an inclusionary ordinance.  In contrast, San Francisco passed an inclusionary ordinance in 2001 – which over the years has been strengthened to have higher affordability levels.  Supervisor Gavin Newsom voted for it.

As Oakland Mayor, Brown was an unapologetic cheerleader of condo conversions – even if it displaced tenants.  In November 2006, City Councilman Ignacio De La Fuente – who had been Brown’s endorsed candidate for Mayor to replace him that year – proposed such legislation, and attempted to pass it in a hurry while Brown was still in office.  This effort, however was thwarted by Mayor-elect Ron Dellums.  Brown’s position is disturbing, given that real estate speculators are taking the fight to Sacramento.  Would a Governor Brown sign state legislation that preempts cities from passing restrictions on condominium conversions?

As far as I can tell, Jerry Brown never took a stand on last year’s Proposition 98 to ban rent control – even though practically everyone else opposed it.  It cannot be because Brown was California Attorney General – since that didn’t stop him from opposing other propositions.  But Brown used his position as Attorney General to write the measure’s official ballot title, and opted not to mention that Prop 98 would abolish rent control in California.  A couple tenant groups sued him for an abuse of discretion, but a judge refused to require Brown to re-write it.

Can a “Pro-Tenant” Democrat Win the Governor’s Race?

Gray Davis was not exactly a “pro-tenant” Democrat, but as Governor he signed bills that the state legislature passed – such as (a) one-year Ellis eviction notices for seniors and the disabled, (b) strict habitability standards, (c) restrictions on re-renting property that had been Ellised, (d) exempting residential hotels (SRO’s) from the Ellis Act, and (e) 60-day notices for “no-fault” evictions.  The latter law expired in 2005, and it took two attempts by tenant advocates in the Schwarzenegger years to successfully have it re-instated as permanent.

It is questionable if Governors Gavin Newsom or Jerry Brown would sign such bills into law.  As for Brown, there is an added danger that he could even enact laws that would be a step backwards for tenants.  But there are “pro-tenant” Democrats in California who could get elected Governor – if they bothered to run.  Antonio Villaraigosa bowed out of the race, which is unfortunate – given his track record as Los Angeles Mayor at enacting some good legislation.  Time is running out on politicians to enter the Governor’s race.  Will anyone else jump in??

EDITOR’S NOTE: Paul Hogarth was an elected Commissioner on the Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board from 2000 to 2004, and has been a tenant activist for years.  He is now a tenants’ rights attorney living in San Francisco, and is the Managing Editor of Beyond Chron, where this piece was first published.

CalBuzz has got the horserace covered and the latest poll shows Attorney General Jerry Brown leading SF Mayor Gavin Newsom 46-26.  That leaves a lot of undecideds, and the mushiness is still unclear.  That being said, Brown’s enormous name recognition and familiarity to older voters make for an excellent position at this point.

But it is early. In 2005 at this point, June 29, 2005 to be exact, one Phil Angelides was leading the Democratic Primary, which of course he did go on to win.  On the other hand, that Field Poll (PDF) also had both Angelides and former State Controller Steve Westly defeating Arnold Schwarzenegger. We know how that went for Angelides, don’t we?

So while polls at this point do provide for interesting speculation, it is hard to put too much stock in them. They tell us what most of us would have known already: Brown has huge positive name ID and familiarity with older voters, and Newsom is connecting with younger voters while trying to make up the ID gap.