Tag Archives: Legislature

Uncategorized

Is Your Legislator Taking Money From Big Tobacco?

1 Comment

Over 40,000 Californians die every year from tobacco smoking, nearly one-fifth of all of the deaths that occur in the state.  That’s 17 times the 2,500 California homicides.  That’s ten times the 4,100 Californians who will die of breast cancer this year.  Despite decreases in smoking rates, tobacco use remains the state’s leading public health emergency.

What, therefore, can you say about an elected official who takes campaign contributions from the industry that needs, for its survival, that that public health emergency continue unabated and thus needs a favorable regulatory climate in Sacramento?

A new report from the American Lung Association of California details the bribes donations that Big Tobacco gave to legislators and candidates during 2005-6.

Big Tobacco gave $130,700 to 2005-6 Senators, $24,900 (19.1%) to Democrats and 105,800 (81.9%) to Republicans.

Big Tobacco gave $366,823 to 2005-6 Assemblymembers, $75,200 (20.5%) to Democrats, and $291,623 (79.5%) to Republicans.

Big Tobacco gave $98,500 to incoming 07-08 freshmen legislators, $50,100 (50.9%) to Democrats and $48,400 (49.1%) to Republicans.

Big Tobacco spent $2,160,864 on lobbying during the 2005-6 Term.  Philip Morris spent $884,694, RJ Reynolds spent $598,507, US Smokeless Tobacco spent $391,137, Lorillard spent $187,202, and the California Distributors Association spent $99,324. 

You can look at the report for the details, but I have compiled the data into lists sorted by party and whether the legislator or candidate took Big Tobacco money during 2005-6.  Please contact your legislator to let them know that you either appreciate that they did not take Big Tobacco’s money or to urge them to cease doing so.

Senate Democrats who took no Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

Alarcon, Richard (no longer in Senate)
Alquist, Elaine
Bowen, Debra (no longer in Senate)
Cedillo, Gilbert
Chesbro, Wesley (no longer in Senate)
Corbett, Ellen (new in 07-08)
Dunn, Joseph (no longer in Senate)
Escutia, Martha (no longer in Senate)
Figueroa, Liz (no longer in Senate)
Kehoe, Christine
Kuehl, Sheila
Lowenthal, Alan
Ortiz, Deborah (no longer in Senate)
Padilla, Alex (new in 07-08)
Perata, Don
Romero, Gloria
Scott, Jack
Simitian, Joe
Soto, Nell (no longer in Senate)
Speier, Jackie (no longer in Senate)
Steinberg, Darrell (new in 07-08)
Torlakson, Tom
Wiggins, Patricia (new in 07-08)

Senate Republicans who took no Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

NONE

Senate Democrats who took Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

Correa, Lou ($4,300) – new in 07-08
Ducheny, Denise Moreno ($4,300)
Florez, Dean ($8,600)
Machado, Michael ($1,000)
Migden, Carole ($4,300)
Murray, Kevin ($3,400) (no longer in senate)
Vincent, Edward ($3,300)

Senate Republicans who took Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

Aanestad, Sam ($6,600)
Ackerman, Richard ($9,300)
Ashburn, Roy ($7,050)
Battin, Jim ($8,300)
Cox, Dave ($8,600)
Denham, Jeffrey ($4,300)
Dutton, Robert ($9,100)
Harman, Tom ($9,600)
Hollingsworth, Dennis ($5,300)
Maldonado, Abel ($3,300)
Margett, Bob ($3,300)
McClintock, Tom ($11,550)
Morrow, Bill ($2,600) (no longer in Senate)
Poochigian, Charles ($8,100) (no longer in Senate)
Runner, George ($8,800)

Assembly Democrats who took no Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

Arambula, Juan
Bass, Karen
Beall Jr., Jim (new in 07-08)
Berg, Patty
Bermúdez, Rudy (no longer in Assembly)
Brownley, Julia (new in 07-08)
Chan, Wilma (no longer in Assembly)
Chavez, Ed (no longer in Assembly)
Chu, Judy (no longer in Assembly)
De La Torre, Hector
de Leon, Kevin (new in 07-08)
DeSaulnier, Mark (new in 07-08)
Dymally, Mervyn
Eng, Mike (new in 07-08)
Evans, Noreen
Feuer, Mike (new in 07-08)
Frommer, Dario (no longer in Assembly)
Goldberg, Jackie (no longer in Assembly)
Hancock, Loni
Hayashi, Mary (new in 07-08)
Hernandez, Edward (new in 07-08)
Huffman, Jared (new in 07-08)
Jones, Dave
Karnette, Betty
Klehs, Johan (no longer in Assembly)
Koretz, Paul (no longer in Assembly)
Krekorian, Paul (new in 07-08)
Laird, John
Leno, Mark
Levine, Lloyd
Lieber, Sally
Lieu, Ted
Liu, Carol (no longer in Assembly)
Matthews, Barbara (no longer in Assembly)
Montañez, Cindy (no longer in Assembly)
Mullin, Gene
Nation, Joe (no longer in Assembly)
Nava, Pedro
Oropeza, Jenny (no longer in Assembly)
Pavley, Fran (no longer in Assembly)
Portantino, Anthony (new in 07-08)
Ridley-Thomas, Mark (no longer in Assembly)
Ruskin, Ira
Saldaña, Lori
Salinas, Simon
Salas, Mary (new in 07-08)
Solorio, Jose (new in 07-08)
Vargas, Juan
Wolk, Lois

Assembly Republicans who took no Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

Nakanishi, Alan
Richman, Keith (no longer in Assembly)

Assembly Democrats who took Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

Baca Jr., Joe ($8,700) (no longer in Assembly)
Caballero, Anna ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Calderon, Charles ($14,400) – new in 07-08
Calderon, Ronald ($15,100) (no longer in Assembly)
Canciamilla, Joseph ($3,300) (no longer in Assembly)
Carter, Wilmer ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Cohn, Rebecca ($500) (no longer in Assembly)
Coto, Joe ($6,600)
Davis, Mike ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Galgiani, Cathleen ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Horton, Jerome ($10,900) (no longer in Assembly)
Karnette, Betty ($1,000)
Ma, Fiona ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Mendoza, Tony ($1,000) – new in 07-08
Negrete McLeod, Gloria ($8,600)
Núñez, Fabian ($3,300)
Parra, Nicole ($7,600)
Price, Curren ($6,300) – new in 07-08
Richardson, Laura ($3,300) – new in 07-08 (on her way to Congress)
Swanson, Sandre ($4,300) – new in 07-08
Torrico, Alberto ($2,000)
Umberg, Tom ($3,300) (no longer in Assembly)
Yee, Leland ($4,300) (no longer in Assembly)

Assembly Republicans who took Big Tobacco money during 2005-6:

Adams, Anthony ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Anderson, Joel ($5,300) – new in 07-08
Aghazarian, Greg ($9,100)
Benoit, John ($11,600)
Berryhill, Tom ($6,600) – new in 07-08
Blakeslee, Sam ($6,600)
Bogh, Russ ($13,118) (no longer in Assembly)
Cogdill, David ($14,800) (no longer in Assembly)
Cook, Paul ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Daucher, Lynn ($7,700) (no longer in Assembly)
DeVore, Chuck ($8,900)
Duvall, Michael ($4,300) – new in 07-08
Emmerson, Bill ($8,100)
Fuller, Jean ($4,300) – new in 07-08
Garcia, Bonnie ($17,028)
Gaines, Ted ($4,800) – new in 07-08
Garrick, Martin ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Haynes, Ray ($5,300) (no longer in Assembly)
Horton, Shirley ($11,350)
Houston, Guy ($12,600)
Huff, Bob ($7,600)
Jeffries, Kevin ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Keene, Rick ($12,850)
La Malfa, Doug ($13,350)
La Suer, Jay ($3,300) (no longer in Assembly)
Leslie, Tim ($1,500) (no longer in Assembly)
Maze, Bill ($8,100)
McCarthy, Kevin ($9,778) (no longer in Assembly)
Mountjoy, Dennis ($5,800) (no longer in Assembly)
Niello, Roger ($5,300)
Plescia, George ($20,699)
Runner, Sharon ($9,800)
Silva, Jim ($3,300) – new in 07-08
Smyth, Cameron ($6,600) – new in 07-08
Spitzer, Todd ($10,100)
Strickland, Audra ($14,350)
Tran, Van ($7,600)
Villines, Mike ($13,600)
Walters, Mimi ($8,600)
Wyland, Mark ($13,100) (no longer in Assembly)

Central Valley

Get Yer Scorecard

1 Comment

The Capitol Weekly did their first annual legislative scorecard of members of the State Assembly and Senate.  They go into detail about their methodology and recognize that devising these types of scores is more art than science.  In addition the voting sample size is fairly small.  But I still believe there’s some value to them.

The full list (PDF) is here.  Some interesting tidbits on the flip:

You can pretty obviously see that we have an ideologically rigid legislature.  8 Republican Assemblymen have a “perfect” 0 score on legislation (fully conservative), and 13 Democrats have a 100 (fully liberal).  In the Senate, there are 2 Republicans with a 0 score and 5 Democrats with a score of 100.

The Republicans, however, are FAR more unified.  There are no Assembly Republicans with a score above 20, and no Senate Republicans above 30.  Put it this way, the 2nd-most “moderate” Republican in the legislature is right-wing loon Tom McClintock, I guess because he is occasionally libertarian.

By contrast, a handful of Democrats dip into the other side of the ocean.  Here are the Democrats with scores under 50.

Assembly:
Cathleen Galgiani 20
Nicole Parra 20
Juan Arambula 50

Senate:
Lou Correa 40
Mike Machado 45

All 3 Assembly Democrats live in the Central Valley (Galgiani’s from Stockton, Parra’s from Bakersfield and Arambula’s from Fresno).  Mike Machado is also from this area (Stockton, Tracy).  Correa is the only exception to this rule.

Galgiani’s election site features the line “I’ll never raise your taxes.”  Machado endorsed Steve Filson in last year’s Congressional primary against Jerry McNerney.

I’m not making value judgments, this is all just somewhat interesting stuff and I’m trying to make sense of it, particularly in the context of yesterday’s discussion about the Central Valley.  The spotlight is not usually shined on this area; is that how we end up with Democrats like this?

Budget

The Politics of the Budget Fight

5 Comments

Brian has a post on the latest budget news below.  I have coverage of this move over at Working Californians, but want to delve more into the politics of what is going on here.

I admit it, the factors at play in the budget battle are fascinating to me.  They tell the story of the state of the California legislature so well and it’s relationship with the governor.  Plus, the dysfunctional rules that the legislature operates under.

There are three sides in this fight. First you have the governor, who is more wrapped up in his public image and travels than actually governing.  However, it’s not like he is that relevant.  His working relationship with the Republicans has so soured that he cannot, through the sheer force of personality, peel enough of them off to pass a budget.

Last year it was different.  The governor managed to convince the Republicans (the second side) to play ball, in part because he needed a well oiled legislature and the appearance of bi-partisanship to smooth his path to election.  So, while many principled Republicans objected to the budget, the Republican leadership cleared the way for the budget’s passage, bringing along the right number of votes.  This lead directly to the installation of new Republican leaders, ones who vowed that they would not cow to Arnold’s demands.  They were elected to their positions with the express purpose to ensure that the Republicans in the legislature were not irrelevant.  They practically promised that the budget would be much more difficult to pass this year. 

It has been, but that is due in part to slightly weakened finances.  There just is not as much money as there was last year.  Thus the fight.  The actual places where the government can make cuts is severely limited, because of predetermined funding paths for many programs.  These formulas guarantee funding, but it also increases the pressure on the programs not subject to these rules in a time of budgetary pressure.

Now, Arnold is fairly absent, in part because his presence really would not do much good.  He has little leverage over the Republicans.  Arnold does not want to relive the 2005 Special election.  He avoided cutting funds for education and public safety, because he knew that that old battle would get waged again.  He already lost it once and probably would end up with the same result.  Plus, he is trying to work with those groups in a consensus manner, not a big public dispute.  Instead of cutting their funding, he decided to go after the poor, elderly and children.  That is a new fight, if an unpopular one.

The Democrats (in the third and final side) have the upper-hand here, but the limitations of the state constitution mean that they cannot dictate the entire budget.  They need two Republican Senators and six Assemblymembers to vote for the budget.  Unlike just about every other state in the nation, our budget must be passed with a 2/3rds majority.  This is one of the few times when they do need to strike a deal with the Republicans. 

However, they do have the advantage of having the public support for funding schools, the poor, those on welfare, children and public service.  The scope of the problem is simply not big enough to be able to justify the cuts.  The two sides are only about $2 billion apart.  It is very hard for the Republicans to credibly argue to the public that our state’s finances are so bad that they need to cut these beloved programs.

This dynamic set up the current Democratic strategy.  The leadership is continuing to negotiate in private, but they are taking very public actions to try and increase the pressure on the Republicans to cave.  They started a fairly low level push to try and get the Republicans to actually submit programs to cut.  The blogs were used to push that message and get the reporters to start asking questions.  At the same time Nunez scheduled a vote on the budget to show the public that it was not the Democrats who were holding up the process.  Even if it never occurred, it got the message out there.  Meanwhile, the Republicans finally laid out their cuts, but in secret.  That was then mocked, creating the impression that they were scared to expose them in public.  This started a narrative about them, before we knew what they actually were. 

Then came today’s news about education cuts.  The Democratic leaders went to what is arguably the most powerful coalition of issue based groups to inform them about the Republican’s plans.  They could have exposed other proposed cuts to a different set of groups, but I suspect the cuts were not as large, nor those groups as effective at mobilization than the education community.  They can now continue this tact with every single interest group community effected by the proposed cuts.  The groups put outside pressure on the negotiations and drive news coverage of the stalemate.  The effectiveness of this strategy rests on the knowledge that the public supports the Democrats on the issues.  Absent that and there is no point in raising the profile of the fight and driving down the legislature’s approval ratings due to the acrimony.  The lessons of 2005 are still out there.

Uncategorized

Kill Phil: Safe-Seat Legislators Virtually Ensure Arnold Win

4 Comments

NOTE: I will be voting for Angelides. I do NOT support Arnold and never have.

California Democrats were faced with the choice of two Pyrrhic victories this year.  Play partisan hardball (a la Republican Congress) with the Governor after his 2005 special election defeat and nudge people towards Angelides, or deal with Arnold and destroy motivation for independents to head to the polls in November.

They chose the later, and it’s done a lot of good, but it will Kill Phil.

More on the flip…

It started with the deal on the infrastructure bonds. Sure, there was some wrangling, but that’s just high stakes negotiation for you.

The budget was on time. More money for schools.

All of that was wonderful and needed.  Then came the two killers.

My theory of California politics is that it’s much more linear than national politics.  The labor/corporate axis is dominant, at least much more so than on the national stage.  So when Arnold made a deal on the minimum wage, it mollified, to some extent, a large part of the Democrats’ support.  In essence, it sent a signal that Arnold was someone that could be dealt with, so ridding us of him was not an emergency.

He did the same thing to environmentalists with the global warming bill, playing into his supposed reputation as an environmentalist, Hummers notwithstanding.

So, who’s left? Social liberals? Arnold has been very quiet on the social front. Check.

That leaves us partisan Democrats.  Even asuming 100% turnout among us, we don’t win an election without a jolt from independents, and Arnold now owns them. (See the PPIC poll.)

I’ve been a big Phil naysayer on this site.  So, you can take what I say in that context. I believe that given these dynamics, unless he was going to run a campaign for real change in our state he was going to lose. Now it’s almost certain.

Blame whoever you want, but unless lightning strikes, it’s the Democratic legislature that did it.

I’m glad they acted this way. They were responsible to the people first.  If only the other side would act that way.

I’ll make a deal with readers of this site.  If there’s not a trend in the next few polls showing independents continuing to break for Arnold, I’ll shut up about this whole thing.

Uncategorized

Female legislators might be an endangered species in next legislature

Dan Walters writes a completely factual article in the SacBee today about the decline in female legislators for the next term:

All of that notwithstanding, the 1991 redistricting deal that aced at least three women out of Senate seats could have a telling effect this year. The California Elected Women’s Association has calculated that with six of the Senate’s 12 women being forced out of the Legislature by term limits and 13 women running in primaries for the 20 Senate seats up this year, a best-case scenario is that the ranks of female senators will remain unchanged while at worst, the 12 female-held seats could drop to seven.

There are 25 women in the 80-member Assembly, and 11 are being forced out by term limits. There are 78 women running for the Assembly in the primary, 31 percent of the 250 Assembly candidates, and the Elected Women’s Association calculates that its optimum outcome would be a gain of four women, two Democrats and two Republicans, while the downside potential ranges to a loss of four female-held seats. (SacBee 6/6/06)

It is a cause for concern. Female legislators bring a different set of skills and better represent the issues of women.  That isn’t to say that  men can’t very competently represent those issues, but having women in the legislature in a substantial number brings a different perspective.  Of course, in a representative democracy determined by geographical districts, it’s hard to get that good balance.  It is often determined by sheer ambition of the politicians.  A parlimentary slate has advantages of offering a slate of officials that suit each other’s strengths.  That is not possible with our government.  However, it would be a shame if we truly reverse course on the progress that we have made in the past.  A more fair balance benefits the entire state, not just women.