I’ve been mulling this around in my head for a few days.  Three powerful members of the House Judiciary committee have have sent a letter to the Justice Department calling for an investigation into leaks surrounding the inquiry into State Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata.

No article since November 2004 has explicitly said that any information came from a federal government source. But in a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Michael B. Mukasey obtained by The Times on Monday, U.S. Reps. John Conyers Jr., Linda Sanchez and Zoe Lofgren wrote, “We are disturbed and concerned that news story after news story . . . has cited federal law enforcement sources as the basis of information.”

The only article specifically mentioned in the July 31 letter was a story in the San Francisco Chronicle. The article cited “sources familiar with the probe,” a broad term that could encompass federal agents, defense attorneys and people who have been questioned […]

On Friday, the day after the congressional letter was sent, a Wall Street Journal article said the investigation into Perata “gained momentum over the past year.” The article’s details were attributed to anonymous people “close to the defense,” who said Perata’s longtime political consultant, Sandi Polka, was granted immunity to compel her to answer questions.

(Here’s that SF Chron article mentioned in the letter.)

The Perata investigation certainly has dragged on for years, leading to him needing more and more funds to raise in his defense.  In particular, the dumping of $250,000 from the California Democratic Party into his legal defense fund raised a lot of eyebrows around these parts.  After the initial explanation of “We’re the CDP and we can do what we want,” a secondary explanation was that the investigation had been politicized and that this was part of the DoJ’s efforts to prosecute and delegitimize Democrats.  A couple weeks later, out comes this letter, signed by two members of the California delegation.  But it’s Conyers’ participation that makes me believe that this is a real concern.  I trust Conyers enough to think that he wouldn’t simply badger the DoJ to help out a political problem in California.

Of course, let’s look at what the letter is actually alleging.  It’s not suggesting that the investigation itself is unnecessarily political, but that someone inside the investigation is using the media to disparage Perata.  That may well be true, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the whole investigation is a farce.

Let’s now look at what this does NOT suggest:

• It in no way excuses the CDP for paying off Perata with $250,000 in the middle of an election year, whether that money was simply laundered through them and earmarked for Perata or not.  Based on this SacBee report, it appears Perata is perfectly capable of raising money for himself:

Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata has solicited at least $200,000 this year from political interest groups for a nonprofit foundation that promotes and rallies support for one of his bills.

The arrangement, apparently legal, allows the Senate leader to solicit unlimited funds for his own political agenda without having to detail how the money is spent.

“He may have found a loophole in the Political Reform Act that needs to be closed,” said attorney Bob Stern, a co-author of the state’s Political Reform Act who now runs the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

Which leads me to point 2:

• There is no way that Perata should still be Senate President Pro Tem at this point.  While he has done a good job of hammering Republicans for their intransigence on the budget, this image hit, as well as the constant distraction of having to find new ways to raise money for his legal bills, are not what we need at this sensitive time, ESPECIALLY when Darrell Steinberg is waiting in the wings and perfectly capable of performing the same duties without the black cloud of indictment hanging over the head of the Democratic leadership.  They haven’t even taken a caucus vote on this yet, to my knowledge – it’s currently scheduled for August 21, but during these budget negotiations that’s doubtful to come off.

It is perfectly consistent to be skeptical of the Justice Department’s case against Perata and to ALSO demand that he step down from his leadership position, and to excoriate the CDP for their conduct in either shoveling Perata money or acting as a conduit for that fund transfer.

For a variety of reasons, this is a depressing day.  In California terms, it’s because, for all the progress we think has been made over the last few cycles, the situation is very familiar – the big money special interests rule Sacramento, and the “lawmakers” do nothing but chase money.

Yesterday, the bill which would phase out plastic bags in California by placing a $0.25 fee for their use in shops which failed to recycle them stalled in the State Senate (must have been that Bag Tax blogad).  Cost was raised as a concern – it would have cost a whopping $1.5 million dollars (on a $100 billion dollar budget) to implement!

Also yesterday, the proposal to make California the very first state in the nation with guaranteed paid sick days for every worker, a right held in most industrialized nations, failed in the Senate, also due to cost (this would have been a robust $900,000 a year to implement!).  The bill was at the top of CalChamber’s annual “job killer” list. (I should also mention that a recent Field Poll showed it having 75% support among Californians, which of course doesn’t matter).

So bills that would have a major impact on health, the environment and quality of life are quietly yet consistently killed.  Meanwhile, the “lawmakers” shuttle from one fundraiser to the next, sucking up to the people who really control the Capitol.

In just four days next week, at least 40 politicians and candidates are scheduled to hold fundraisers, soliciting donations over cappuccino, carnitas and cocktails, at cafes, art galleries and restaurants. Most events are within a few blocks of the Capitol and require a minimum donation of $1,000 to attend.

Lobbyists — whose clients’ interests are on the line in the Legislature — face so many opportunities to give to legislators’ campaigns that some are plotting a schedule and mapping a route.

“You run from one to the other,” said Craig Brown, a lobbyist who represents several law enforcement unions.

The result of all these payments is a lobbyist class which is free to designate what bills would or would not be too “costly” to implement.  They’ll pay top dollar to the lawmakers to make sure they don’t spend a lot of money.  There’s quite a disconnect there.

It’s no wonder that “lawmakers” don’t care about Arnold Schwarzenegger’s vow to veto every bill until the budget is resolved.  The more bills have the potential of returning, the more money flows into candidate coffers from the lobbyists who want to stop the bills.  It’s a vicious, disgusting cycle which restricts progressive change at virtually every level.  Sure, they’ll let something like SB 840 slide through because they know Governor Backstop will veto it. But anything that might actually become a law – forget it.  Not unless the Big Money Boys wrinkle their noses in assent.

The big challenge for progressives and activists is to show a model that would break the cycle of lobbyist cash for access in Sacramento.  The low-dollar revolution has been nonexistent here, and without it you cannot credibly campaign in the state without help from special interests.  Until that time, we’ll continue to see consumer-friendly bills die in committee, lobbyists writing the laws, and the rest of us scratching our heads why we can’t make progress.

UPDATE: I should note that AB583, the California Clean Money and Fair Elections bill which would establish a public financing system for the Secretary of State race as a pilot program, passed the Senate Appropriations Committee on a party-line 9-6 vote and will now hit the full Senate floor.  Truly public financing is one of the only ways to break the vice grip that special interests in Sacramento hold on the government.

I really don’t know where this came from other than the shrinking class of California political pundits just understanding common sense, but they are all gradually coming on board with the notion that what’s killing the state is the 2/3 requirement, and that until it’s fixed, nothing in the Capitol will materially change.

Most of George Skelton’s column today concerns the “dance of death” – a ritual slaughtering of budget proposals through the normal legislative process until one survivor comes out on top.  There is too much of a top-down approach in the legislature, with the Big 5 making the determination on the budget instead of the relevant committees having a crack at it.  But near the end, Skelton reveals the truth:

My nomination for additional budget reform: Eliminate the ludicrous requirement of a two-thirds legislative vote for passage of a budget. Only two other states suffer the same straitjacket. California would have had a budget weeks ago if it could have been passed by a simple majority vote. The governor still would have the final say with his paring knife.

This mirrors exactly what conservative Dan Walters said in his column the day before.  Walters wants to keep the requirement for tax votes, but he does seem to understand that without the accountability that a majority budget vote provides, there’s no way to peg the fortunes or failures of the state on any one political party.  Not only does it hinder legislators from doing their jobs, it impedes the opportunity for voters to determine the cause and effect.  It’s the “killer app” for governmental reform, and must be the first, last and only step in the short term to end the perpetual crisis at the heart of a broken system.

Now, this reform will not come easy.  Republicans will caterwaul at losing the only leverage they currently own.  The only path to this solution comes with actually getting a 2/3 majority in both chambers, and then offering the solution up for a vote in time for the next governor to reap the rewards.  The Drive for 2/3 is monumentally important (and it’s likely to be a two-cycle process) to restore functionality to Sacramento and allow legislators to do the work their constituents sent them to the Capitol to do.

As many have noticed, the Leadership has moved on the offense in the budget fight.  They’re not negotiating with themselves, instead staking out a fairly strong position for changing the revenue model and rejecting a stop-gap, borrow-and-spend, cuts-only approach.  Media wags, who normally act like two year-olds and talk about “working together” as if this would solve the problems in Sacramento, are responding to the aggressive approach.  George Skelton writes today about how California voters “can’t handle the truth,” how they want unlimited services without paying for them, and how they need to face reality.  He also specifically cited the 2/3 requirement as crippling the state.  Dan Walters says it’s about time for a “budget cage-match,” the ideological battle to once and for all address the structural deficit and budgeting-by-catastrophe that has become commonplace.  

Yet at the same time, the California Democratic Party hands $250,000 to the Senate President Pro Tem to pay for his legal bills, causing oodles of outrage.  Over the last two days I’ve been given a lot of reasons for this.  “The money was earmarked for Perata,” they say.  Perata has his own campaign account already and he’s perfectly capable of raising his own cash.  If people want to hide their donations by legally laundering them through the CDP, that’s nothing the state party should involve itself with.  There ought to be transparency.  “He’s being railroaded,” they say.  That’s certainly possible in an era of Bush league justice, but nobody is making that case credibly, just talking about how long the investigation has dragged on.  

And then there’s this excuse.  “If the Senate leader is indicted, that will hurt downticket races.”  But the appearance of impropriety in the CDP legally laundering contributions and paying for Perata’s legal defense fund is doing the EXACT same thing, and at a crucial time.  The LAT op-ed that Bob mentioned is just the beginning.

Furthermore, I have no idea why Sen. Perata is still the leader.  Sen. Steinberg, who did a $10 fundraiser in Sacramento a couple days ago and who I feel represents a breath of fresh air, is perfectly capable of carrying out the duties, and having someone this tainted as the face of the budget fight is incredibly damaging.  It won’t be long before the press connects this story and the budget story, and then all the mostly laudable efforts to cast a stark difference between Democrats and Republicans on the budget will be compromised.  For the life of me, I can’t figure out why the caucus has not demanded immediate leadership elections.  I believe Steinberg is scheduled to take over on August 11, when we’ll already be down the road in budget negotiations.  It is the height of stupidity to thrust someone into the leadership at that late date.  He should have been in there a month ago.

At the least, Perata can return the money and throw himself fully into this budget fight as a means of preserving what’s left of his legacy.  The CDP can return to its core mission of electing Democrats, and if it has to give back this $250K to donors, so be it.  But at a time when the momentum is on Democrats’ side and the budget fight is going to consume all the oxygen for the next couple months, allowing a distraction like this is a huge mistake.

There actually are some things going on outside the primaries, here’s what’s piqued my interest the past few days:

• Matt Stoller has more on the Barbara Boxer/climate change bill debacle.  What hurts the most is that she shut down any debate on the left flank, called progressive groups like Friends of the Earth “defeatists,” and pressed forward with a muddled bill that rewards polluting industries without doing the work necessary to provide pushback from the inevitable corporate-funded conservative narratives.  I wish she’d just pull it before she causes lasting damage; we’d be in a much better position next year to get something legitimate passed.

• Here’s a very good profile in The Nation of almost-a-Congressional candidate Lawrence Lessig and his “Change Congress” movement.  I’m kind of waiting for the innovative steps to get this done, but Lessig is a sharp guy.  He’s giving the keynote address at Netroots Nation next month.

• There’s an LA Times exploration of the various health care-related bills moving through the legislature.  They’re all fairly small-bore but I think they will improve the situation out here, by eliminating rescission, mandating that insurers spend 85% of premium revenue on treatment, and including more procedures in baseline coverage, like maternity.  As long as we have the insurance system, we need to do what we can to make sure it’s not as thieving as possible.

• There’s a new Field Poll on Arnold and the legislature out today that is a cavalcade of bad news – the right track/wrong track numbers are 22/68, the Governor’s approval rating is down to 41%, and the legislature is at 30%.  Californians don’t like their government right now.  Some leadership might solve the problem.

• The salmon are dying in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta because of ammonia runoff from sewage treatment plants, and purifying the Delta could cost up to $1 billion.

• Here’s another personal story of how the foreclosure crisis is hurting individuals, this one in the Central Valley town of Merced.  It’s impacting practically the entire economy of the town.  Just another example of the mess we’re in from over-speculation and lax oversight of the financial industry.  

(I’ll be posting some pictures at this flickr set. I also started a Flickr group if you want to add any photos. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

Well, primary day is here.  If you’re reading this and have an interest in California politics, GO VOTE if you haven’t already.  Then, here’s a handy list of what to expect tonight and what signs to look for that would portend positive results for Democrats in November:

• What will turnout be like?: In the key districts where we have the opportunity to flip seats, I’m going to be looking at how energized the Democratic electorate is.  Most of the Republican incumbents are running unopposed or with token competition, so it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison.  But if Congressional challengers like Bill Durston or Russ Warner or Charlie Brown or Debbie Cook can run up a big percentage of registered voters today, it’ll show their strength among their base of supporters.  In addition, check the turnout in AD-80, AD-78, AD-10, AD-15, and SD-19.  Those races have no incumbent running on either side, and all are currently in Republican hands.  If more Democrats turn out, it’s a pretty good sign.

• The write-in and the recall: I don’t think anyone expects the recall of Jeff Denham to succeed, but given that there’s been virtually no spending on the “Yes” side since Don Perata short-circuited the process and “Yacht Dog” Democrats Cathleen Gagliani and Nicole Parra rushed to Denham’s side, it’ll be interesting to see just how much support the recall gets in this plurality-Democratic district.  As for SD-15, Dennis Morris has made a furious rush to gather enough support to get the roughly 3,600 write-in votes needed to reach the November ballot.  And we know that Abel Maldonado cross-filed with his own write-in campaign, so his dear Democratic mother had a chance to vote for him.  Riiiight.  If you’re in SD-15, PLEASE VOTE FOR DENNIS MORRIS.

• PDA’s strength: There are a lot of PDA (Progressive Democrats of America)-endorsed candidates throughout the state, but there’s little success expected from them.  This needs to be a moment where the activist fervor needs to be channeled into electoral victory.  I think the test case is CA-24, where Mary Pallant, a founding member of the LA chapter of PDA, is running for Congress against 2 rivals in the primary.  Jill Martinez was the 2006 nominee and has some name recognition, but people in the Ventura County-area district I talked to cannot recall one mailer or robocall or piece of material sent by Martinez all year.  Pallant has been doing a lot of voter contact, and in a low-turnout primary, she should be able to win the nomination if PDA really has any electoral muscle whatsoever.  We’ll see.

• The primary is the general: There are plenty of seats in the legislature where this is the case.  Obviously, Calitics has been focused on SD-03 in San Francisco, SD-23 in Santa Monica and points north, AD-40 in the San Fernando Valley, and AD-27 in the Santa Cruz region.  But there are actually a dozen or so more as well, and many have gotten fairly nasty, some to general-election levels of nastiness.  The Senate race between Rod Wright and Mervyn Dymally is one big example.  Look at this ad:

• The kahuna primaries: For Congress, there’s the race in CA-04 between Tom McClintock and Doug Ose, which actually made The New York Times.  What I’m hearing is that, despite Ose’s efforts to buy the seat, McClintock’s going to take this.  There is also the AD-80 race with Greg Pettis, Manuel Perez, Rick Gonzales and Richard Gutierrez, which will be competitive between Perez and Pettis.  And the LA County Board of Supervisors race between Bernard Parks and Mark Ridley-Thomas (I saw several Parks commercials last night).  For many of these primaries, there isn’t any polling and it’s hard to know just where things will go.

We’ll have all of this for you tonight, so come on back.

The Secretary of State has come out with her revised registration numbers, broken down by county, Congressional district, Senate district and Assembly district.  I’m sure our resident numerologists will break down the numbers more closely, but here are some quick thoughts:

• There are 16,123,787 registered voters in the state, about 70% of those eligible.  Democrats have a 1.8 million-vote advantage, and by percentages that translates into 43.75%-32.53%, with 19.4% decline to state.  Those are significant increases in Democrats and more significant losses in Republicans from 2004.

• The room to run for Democrats is in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.  They have among the lowest registration rates in the state (only Tulare and Yuba counties have lower percentages than Riverside), and they are among the fastest-growing populations.  We’re actually within 5,000 votes of having a plurality of Democrats in San Bernardino County.

• CA-03 is now less than 4% difference between Republicans and Democrats.  Republicans have a mere 15,000-vote lead.  This is a huge opportunity.  Republicans still hold an 8,000-vote advantage in CA-11, but that’s dropping.  We’re within 19,000 votes in CA-45 and with a big voter registration drive I think that’s reachable.  

• SD-12 is Democratic by a 47%-35% count, and SD-15 is Democratic by a 40.5%-36% number.  SD-19, the district Hannah-Beth Jackson is trying to flip, is within 10,000 votes.

• AD-80 looks to be in real good shape (46.5%-35.6%), though the participation there could be better.  AD-78 is a 10-point advantage for Democrats, and AD-15 is now plurality Democratic by 3,000 votes.  AD-10 is within less than 5,000 votes.