In a multi-million dollar TV ad blitz that will air throughout the state next week, GOP candidate Meg Whitman will announce that she’s auctioning parts of her campaign platform on eBay to shape her priorities as Governor.  “I’ve been on a listening tour for months,” she explained – in a tightly controlled press conference where reporters were not allowed to ask questions.  “And one thing I have learned over and over again is how California has innovative people with good ideas – who are willing to put their money where their mouth is.  We must tap into that entrepreneurial spirit if we’re going to cut taxes, fix education and balance the budget.”  While her Republican primary opponent Steve Poizner insults East San Jose kids by saying they lack “Silicon Valley ambition and smarts,” Whitman is taking her case directly to the people – who can speak by putting down bids.  Observers also say it will present a good contrast with her Democratic opponent, Jerry Brown.

Whitman explained that she got the idea from Arnold Schwarzenegger – who last July announced that he would cut the deficit by autographing state-commissioned cars, and then auction them to the highest bidder.  “It started as a suggestion that the Governor got from Twitter,” said Whitman, “so it very nicely proves how we use the Internet to solicit good ideas.  But I want to take Arnold’s idea a step further.  When people use money, they get results.”

Citing the Citizens United case which re-affirmed the First Amendment principle that money is speech, Whitman’s handlers told the press that collective bids on particular platform items will shape how her Administration will govern California.  Users can put bids on her proposals they like the most – such as:

* eliminate the state capital gains tax

* reform workers compensation laws

* repeal AB 32 (the global warming bill)

* defend the two-thirds budget rule

* place a strict spending cap

* lay off 40,000 state employees

* deny prisoners health care

* tighten welfare rules

* more charter schools, and

* end Sanctuary cities.

“All these proposals are in my platform already – and can be viewed at my campaign website,” said Whitman.  “But I want to know what should be my priorities – and people who can put their money down can show which issues will matter the most.  I’m excited to see how high the bids will go, and how much money it will raise for my campaign.”

Executives at Chevron in San Ramon expressed great enthusiasm for repealing AB 32, and expect to donate several thousand dollars for that platform item.  Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association is excited about protecting the two-thirds budget requirement – and will be asking its members to submit their bids to target that priority.

BeyondChron sent an e-mail to the Jerry Brown campaign to ask for a reaction to Meg Whitman’s proposal.  As of our deadline we had not yet gotten a response, and there is no public statement about it on his website.

First published at BeyondChron.

I’m kind of divided on this. Do we kill the trees or do we have Meg Whitman waste some of her money? Ok, sorry, trees, but I’m going to humbly suggest that everybody order a copy of Meg Whitman’s policy “magazine” here.  It’s a glossy 48 page model of production values, and it can be yours at the low, low price of a bit of your sanity.

But, if you miss your chance to order one, Whitman’s hoping to get them into your local public library.  Yeah, you read that right. She sent them to 1600+ public libraries to be displayed along side other periodicals.

“I encourage the libraries to display my magazine in their periodicals section so voters can gain a clear understanding of how I will govern, if elected in November,” Whitman said in a statement. It was unclear if the magazines could be checked out or would have to be viewed in the reference section.(LA Times)

If this idea strikes you as sketchy, that’s because it is quite possibly illegal. Steve Poizner’s folks dug up a law about public funds going towards campaigns, and it is quite possibly in play here. (Over the flip.) While the placement of one magazine on the rack doesn’t cost the library a ton, it does displace other materials and does require the librarian’s attention. (Right, shayera?) That’s a non-zero amount of money.

Furthermore, the audacity of a campaign to try to get this clear campaign literature into the public libraries is incredible.   But hey, why not, rules aren’t meant for billionaires, right?

Anyway, order your Meg-o-zine today. And for 5,000 of your closest friends.

Cal Gov Code § 8314 (2010)

§ 8314.  Unlawful use of state resources; Penalties

(a) It is unlawful for any elected state or local officer, including any state or local appointee, employee, or consultant, to use or permit others to use public resources for a campaign activity, or personal or other purposes which are not authorized by law.

Cal Gov Code § 54964 (2009)

§ 54964.  Unlawful expenditure

  1. An officer, employee, or consultant of a local agency may not expend or authorize the expenditure of any of the funds of the local agency to support or oppose the approval or rejection of a ballot measure, or the election or defeat of a candidate, by the voters.

David Frum is riding high these days. What with calling his party to the mat for not working with the Democrats on health care, he’s a darling of the media these days.  So, today’s he’s got an op-ed on cnn.com that might interest a few Calitics readers.  Essentially, the thesis is that California can be the new birthplace of ReaganRevolution 2.0.

California Republicans are feeling an emotion they have not felt for years: hope. Not only may Republicans elect a governor, but also they have a credible chance of defeating incumbent Barbara Boxer and electing a U.S. senator for the first time since 1988.

Might the state of Ronald Reagan be returning to its old party loyalty? Even a little? If so, that return will have powerful consequences not just for California, but the country.

*** **** ***

But what if California returned to its former loyalties? California’s most recent Republican governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, was foreign-born and constitutionally ineligible to run for president. But if Meg Whitman wins the GOP nomination (as seems likely) and then the governorship, she’ll instantly become a leading candidate for vice president in 2012 and a likely presidential candidate for 2016. (CNN)

I lived in Texas back in 1994 when George W. Bush took down a very popular governor in Ann Richards. You could point to some similarities with Jerry Brown and his level of nameID and background support. But the parallels to Bush break down where so many other dreams come crashing down these days: on the shores of our dysfunctional government.

Let’s start from the beginning. Whitman has no smooth sailing to the Horseshoe, even with her $150 million. Jerry Brown, while admittedly sliding in the polls as Whitman pursues her all out media attack, is still a strong candidate.  

In 1994, George W Bush had a relative cakewalk to the primary and arrived in the general looking fairly benign.  He hewed to the middle (for Texas anyway) and governed a Texas government where the Democrats (who held legislative majorities) worked with the Governor. He was able to produce a few pieces of meaningful legislation by cooperating with legislative figures like the legendary Democratic Lt. Governor Bob Bullock.

Meg Whitman has announced that she will not work on a cooperative relationship with the legislature, rather, she will seek to bend them to her will. Not really the best starting point for building an effective government. Furthermore

Let’s be honest here, Governor Meg Whitman, at best, will be the third term of Governor Schwarzenegger. He’s done so well that he’s at Davis recall level approval ratings. And she’s committed to more brinskmanship, more posturing, and creating fights wherever possible.

And even if she were to work with the Democratic majorities, she’d soon discover that once you go down that road you have difficulties getting Republican votes.  And then you have difficulties getting Republican primary votes. Try asking some Republicans if they’d vote for Schwarzenegger in a primary these days.

And then, there’s the fact that any governor who inherits the gig from Schwarzenegger is coming into a morass that would have sucked in almost any politician. There are no easy answers to getting our government working again, and once you step in to that role, you will bear the political ramifications of our dysfunctional system.

So, Meg Whitman 2012/2016?  David, I wouldn’t print up the stickers just yet.

What else can we assume from the fact that she is now flip-flopping on releasing her income tax returns:

Meg Whitman is now saying she will release only a summary of her tax returns, falling short of her initial offer only two weeks ago of releasing her full returns over 25 years.

In comments to reporters after her appearance before a taxpayers’ group, Whitman, the former CEO of eBay who is running for governor, said she might release “a summary statement of the returns,” while conceding her campaign team hasn’t worked out details. (Political Blotter)

If Meg Whitman is constantly shifting her stance on disclosure and transparency already, how can Californians trust her in office?

I’m not sure what else to think of this. Apparently, she’s soooo over the traditional committee structure, and wants to get staff for the her “teams.”

GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, criticizing the Legislature  as a “bill factory,” said today that she would create legislative teams to focus on her top priorities as governor and veto most other legislation.

Whitman has said she will focus almost exclusively on three areas as governor: creating jobs, cutting government spending and improving the state’s K-12 education system.

“Let’s come together in teams,” Whitman told an audience at the California Taxpayers’ Association’s annual meeting in Sacramento. “Who wants to be on the jobs team? Who wants to be on the government efficiency team?”

The former eBay CEO later told reporters that lawmakers could “self-select” to be on the teams, and that those who didn’t want to participate wouldn’t have to. (SacBee)

So, you’d have these teams, which are really just a Whitman campaign structure. Why exactly would Democrats want to get on board with this? Apparently, Governor isn’t enough for Meg Whitman. She’s looking to become CEO with full authority over the state.

Too bad we have that pesky constitution in her way!

We all knew Whitman had been spending a lot of money, but this is absurd:

Republican Meg Whitman spent $27 million on her campaign for governor in the first 11 weeks of the year, setting a record-shattering pace with a prime-time television ad blitz to introduce herself to voters and attack her GOP opponent, according to a disclosure statement she filed Monday.

Whitman, the billionaire ex-chief of EBay, has spent $46 million since joining the race early last year, seven times more than either of her main rivals. (LA Times)

This is a truly shocking amount of money. She’s basically spent what it cost Gray Davis to get elected governor in 1998 already, and working towards his 2002 numbers very quickly. She will surely shatter Arnold’s spending records.  And an overwhelming majority of this money is coming straight from Meg Whitman’s pocket book. She truly is the “Buy it Now” candidate.

But the question remains, what is she trying to buy? And why?

A ton of financial details for the first 11 weeks of the year has now been released by the candidates.  The LA Times link also has some information about the money for the LG and AG races. And, as always, you can always check out Cal-Access for the full finance details.

George Skelton does Meg Whitman a semi-favor this morning.  He calls her conservative:

Sure, she’s a moderate — even veering liberal — on so-called social issues. But in today’s political climate, that doesn’t tilt her into being a centrist. The weighty issues for voters involve economic distress and dysfunctional governments.

Why do labels matter? Because they’re shorthand tools that politicians use to sway voters. In a Republican primary, “liberal” is an obscenity. Among Democrats, “conservative” is pejorative. In the November runoff, the winning strategy usually is to morph into a moderate with a minimum of flip-flops.

So where does Whitman stand exactly on some issues? Here’s where, based on an interview and a slick, magazine-size booklet the billionaire former EBay chief released last week:

First, the candidate emphasizes, she’ll focus on just three priorities: creating jobs, cutting state spending and fixing schools.

“In a turnaround,” Whitman says, “you can’t solve every single problem. You can’t come to Sacramento and boil the ocean. And I will tell you, having been in politics now for as long as I have” — maybe three years — “the gravitational pull to solve every problem is enormous.” (LA Times)

In other words, this is a woman who has no real plan to solve the state’s enormous fiscal problems. She’ll give you some pablum about “efficiency,” but when the rubber meets the road, she’s not willing to look at all solutions. If it involves getting the government the resources it needs, then it’s off the table.

Meanwhile, while the poll numbers may look good for Whitman right now, as she’s blasting her propaganda at an unprecedented rate, things aren’t always going to be as easy. Like, how is she going to explain to the Californian electorate her past “efficiency” record. Like spending $3 mil on private jets?

Whitman really does span the breadth of the Republican Party. She’s a far Right anti-government populist on some occasions, and a far right Corporate Elitist on other occasions.  Sounds like she fits right in with the rest of her party. Nothing new, nothing shiny, just plain ol’ Republican right-wing corporatism. With 150 million dollars.

Meg Whitman released her “policy book” the other day. One of these proposals was a “spending cap” of sorts. And she talked to the Bee about it.

As eMeg explains it, she’s going to go back to the 2004-2005 budget, and then account for inflation and population growth. And, then attempt to apply a “productivity factor” to reduce spending in each department by 1%.

It sounds really sensible.  One problem: It doesn’t come close to solving our budget problems.  In 2004-2005, our general fund expenditures were at approximately $80 billion. The 2010-2011 budget, as currently scheduled will spend $83 Billion. (2009-2010 was $86 bn.)  So, once you account for inflation and population growth, you are at well over our predicted expenditure for either year. $79.8 Billion in 2004 = $89.9 Bn. today.  Tack on population growth, and all of sudden you don’t so much have a spending cap as much as a huge shortfall that you’ve just expanded.

Even if you toss in her 1% productivity factor for a couple of years, that is reducing spending by 1% every year to achieve the same goals, you still don’t get anywhere close to where we need to be. Furthermore, the productivity factor just doesn’t really apply very well to government.  Sure, you could place that onus on state workers, but the percentage of the state budget that goes to state workers is less than a quarter of the budget. It’s really hard to apply a “productivity factor” to many, if not most, of the state services.

This is just one more example of a wannabe governor that just doesn’t understand the depth of our problems. Or the need for real revenue solutions.

Steve Poizner and Meg Whitman are scheduled to debate in about an hour and a half.  The debate is sponsored by California New Majority, so you are likely to see some full-on wingnuttery on display.  Watch it on CBS2, Ustream is down.

http://cbs2.com/

The folks at the California Accountability Project have even produced a Viewer’s guide (PDF) to all of the likely (mis)statements and half-truths.

Who’s making the popcorn?

UPDATE by Robert: I’ll be liveblogging here in this thread. Feel free to add your thoughts in the comments!

The debate is being held in Costa Mesa, down in my old stomping grounds of Orange County. Interestingly enough, Costa Mesa is where former mayor Allan Mansoor began bashing immigrants a few years back. Already we’re expecting this debate to have lots of immigrant and Latino bashing, as we saw at the CRP convention over the weekend.

…I’m trying to liveblog, but this ustream feed is really buggy.

…Relying on the Twitter feed, Poizner and Whitman are fighting with each other over tax cuts – not whether they’re a good idea or not given their massively negative impact on the budget deficit, but on whether theirs are big enough. Poizner says Whitman’s cuts aren’t big enough, Whitman says Poizner’s will cost too much. The fact is both offer cuts that cost too much and are merely going to benefit the rich.

…Nick Velasquez of the California Accountability Project Tweets: “Hope someone can fix this feed. It’s spottier than Meg Whitman’s voting record.”

…Still can’t follow the feed. I guess Republicans don’t want people to see what their candidates have to say! According to Twitter, Poizner is attacking NPR listeners, as well as saying he wants a part-time legislature, without mentioning that only the rich would be able to serve in such a legislature. Then again, Poizner and Whitman both seem to believe only the rich should serve as governor.

…Whitman says she plans to “pour money back into” UC and CSU, but doesn’t say how. She says she wants “more money to go into the classroom” for K-12 – but how? Giving local districts control of money isn’t enough – the fact is districts don’t get enough money period. Ah, here we go, she wants more charter schools, even though they haven’t been proven to work. Looks like she embraces merit pay as well.

…Poizner says flaws in K-12 is due to Legislature taking control from teachers and local districts. But he doesn’t say that Prop 13 took control from teachers and local districts. Will he support majority vote for school taxes?

…Now Comcast is acting up. Back again. Whitman is dishonest on regulations: they don’t cause job losses, they prevent them, as both climate crisis and financial crisis prove. She and Poizner both support suspending AB 32, despite its devastating negative impact on job creation.

…Whitman takes the immigration question. Says she opposes amnesty. Does she think those who benefited from 1986 amnesty should be kicked out? Does she think Reagan, who backed amnesty, was wrong?

…Poizner thinks immigrants come here for government incentives. Um, no. They come here for work because CEOs like you and Whitman want them to do so. What a clueless moron.

…NBC4’s Conan Nolan asking some good questions here about the inexperience of both Poizner and Whitman, and how they’ll work with a Democratic legislature they spend so much time bashing. Poizner says he’ll try to work with legislators, but will go to voters if legislature won’t play along. Yeah, because that worked SO well in 2005 for Arnold Schwarzenegger.

…Whitman says “imagine what this state will look like with Jerry Brown as governor.” Um, look around.

…Whitman now attacks Jerry Brown as some kind of tax and spend liberal. I wish he were! His record as governor was actually very fiscally conservative and he’s not proposing new taxes.

It really must be very hard to be as wealthy as Meg Whitman. You have to hire all these people to look after your money, and your life. And then you have to spend $150 million to become governor to shock doctrine the state. I mean, certainly, that’s part of the deal, right?

Well, for Meg Whitman, as the saying goes, mo’ money, mo’ problems:

Billionaire GOP gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman has invested her vast wealth in firms that sought to profit from the country’s credit crisis, in venture capital and hedge funds open only to the wealthy, and in oil, gas, healthcare and other concerns seeking to influence state policy.

The first public glimpse into the financial portfolio of the former EBay chief came Thursday, when she filed an economic-interest disclosure required of candidates.

The holdings present potential conflicts of interest for a governor. Whitman spokeswoman Sarah Pompei said the candidate would “likely” move her holdings into a blind trust if she is victorious “and will scrupulously avoid any conflicts of interest.”

Moving investments into such a trust has been standard practice for wealthy officeholders. Whitman’s opponent in the June primary election, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, has placed his investments in a blind trust. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger did the same. (LA Times)

Now, this isn’t really all that surprising. She’s really, really stinking rich. And anybody that rich is going to have wildly diversified holdings, some of them troublesome.  Just ask CalPERS how easy it is to end up with somebody bugging you about your investment holdings.

That being said, this will be troublesome for Whitman, and if I were her, I would have put my investments in a blind trust the day I announced my candidacy. Sure, it’s not required, but it’s just going to turn a lot of voters off.

But there is a benefit of being rich. You get to buy 30 minute infomercials months ahead of the primary. One has to wonder if Michelle Malkin will be live-blogging the “phoniness” of this one like she did with the Obama infomercial.  

Of course, with this infomercial, as we mentioned yesterday, phoniness comes in spades. She’s taking mulligans when she doesn’t answer questions to her liking and “goosing” the audience for applause.

Must be tough to be Meg Whitman.