• Do you know how many houses you own? Well, John McCain doesn’t. Check the ad to the right. Also, Check out this site from the Montana Dems.

• Are you as impressed with the hard work and dedication that Dr. Bill Durston has put into his campaign for the 3rd Congressional district against the social-security despising, cake-eating, swimsuit-cavorting, lobbyist-junketing Dan Lungren. Do you live in the Bay Area? Well, great! You can come to a fundraiser for Durston on the Stanford campus.

• AD-15: Joan Buchanan has a spiffy new website and will be having a fundraiser with Assembly Speaker Karen Bass on September 10.

• Debbie Cook will be having house-parties to watch Barack Obama’s acceptance speech on 8/28. More information on her house party ActBlue Page.

Fiona Ma is doing a “Citizen Co-sponsor” thing for AB 1778, a bill that would require people selling over 2,000 cans ($100) to provide their name. It’s an interesting idea aimed at stopping people from rummaging through garbage cans in the middle of the night. However, there’s some risk to homeless and low-income folks in this as well. Many of them will sort public trash cans looking for recyclables, and that’s tough work.

Greetings and welcome to the latest installment of the California House races roundup.  We’re just around 100 days to go until the election, and things are starting to take focus.  There are about a half-dozen seats where Democratic challengers have an outside shot at dumping the incumbent, and another six on the watch list in case something spectacular occurs.  One thing to note is that the Cook numbers are tied to the 2004 election, and given the demographic changes and cratering of the Republican brand I think they mean significantly less now – it’ll be interesting to see how all these districts change in November.

We have plenty of new information to judge these races, including 2nd quarter fundraising reports, national ratings from Charlie Cook and Swing State Project, additional DCCC targets, and the appearance of many challengers at Netroots Nation.  So this list is really about who I think has the best chance to retain or take over a seat, not necessarily who should (though that may come through in the writing).  Here are some helpful bits of information that I used to help judge.

FEC disclosures (you can search by candidate name)

Voter registration by Congressional district.

Swing State Project fundraising roundup

On to the report…

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  This remains the only opportunity for Republicans in the state, and it is starting to slip away.  Dean Andal is proving to be incredibly weak at fundraising, having raised under $200,000 for FOUR STRAIGHT QUARTERS.  He’s not going to be able to get up on TV, and his opponent has not only outraised him but will get about a million dollars in ad help from the DCCC.  Freedom’s Watch threw in a few anti-McNerney robocalls, but that’s really no match for the political muscle of the D-Trip.  Plus, there’s a brewing Andal scandal over his participation in passing privileged information and securing developer contracts for a San Joaquin Delta College contractor.  As for McNerney, his vote for the FISA bill has caused outcry in the district, and national groups like Blue America won’t be lending a hand.  He has changed his position on medical marijuana in response to constituents, a symbolic piece of support with activists.  But I think he’s largely on his own in this race.

McNerney: raised $416K in the second quarter, $1.37m cash on hand

Andal: raised $174K Q2, $663K CoH

REPUBLICAN SEATS

I’m going to do four tiers in setting apart the top seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04.  Last month: 1.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown.  Repub. challenger: Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in Feb. primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  Tom McClintock actually raised quite a bit of money in the second quarter, but it all got plowed into the divisive primary with Doug Ose.  Plus, he was able to go above individual spending caps because of the “Millionaire’s Amendment,” which was recently ruled unconstitutional, putting constitutional literalist McClintock in a bind over what to do with that money.  We’ve seen real awkwardness from McClintock over how to handle disgraced incumbent John Doolittle, with shows of support and rejections happening on alternate days.  Meanwhile, Charlie Brown is humming along.  He has a 6-1 cash on hand advantage, and he’ll also be the recipient of some ad love from the DCCC.  His courageous stand against the FISA bill, outreach to parts of the district harmed by wildfires, and the release of a good energy plan which stresses tax credits for alternative energy and government fleets going renewable (and opposing opening up new lands for offshore drilling, in line with the “Use It Or Lose It” plan from Speaker Pelosi).  Brown was beloved at Netroots Nation and looks good in polling.  This is obviously our biggest-priority pickup.

Brown: raised $355K, $675K CoH

McClintock: raised $1.27m, $117 CoH

Second Tier

2. CA-46.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  I’m still concerned that the numbers aren’t quite there in the district, but I’m upping Cook this high because I have to acknowledge her achievements.  First, she’s outraised Rohrabacher two quarters in a row, and from what I’m being told, this has a lot to do with Dana and his wife (also his fundraiser) calling Republican backers and getting the phone slammed in their ears.  The Cook Political Report moved the race to Likely Republican, the only such move among competitive California races.  And there are indications that the D-Trip is at least taking a look at this race.  Most of this is happening because Cook is a compelling candidate.  Read her interview with Open Left or watch her interview with Talking Points Memo and you can see why.  Her environmental activism, competent fiscal management in Huntington Beach, and the fact that she’s not a ridiculously corrupt nutjob like Dana Rohrabacher makes for a fantastic profile.  This is probably too high, but there are some great signs here.

Cook: raised $110K, $97K CoH

Rohrabacher: raised $86K, $388 CoH

3. CA-50.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challenger: Nick Leibham.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  Nick Leibham outraised Brian Bilbray in the second quarter, and took in a nice haul of $245K in his own right.  He’s been gaining some attack points for criticizing Bilbray on wanting to debate on the radio and not in the district, and calling on other states to drill offshore but not California, an incoherent position.  The D-Trip put Leibham on their Red to Blue emerging races list, and dropped radio ads in the district tying him to Bush (MP3 here).  Leibham needs to articulate an agenda rather than just slam Bilbray forever, and that agenda needs to be a true contrast, but there is some movement here.

Leibham: raised $245K, $267K CoH

Bilbrary: raised $210K, $528K CoH

4. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  Warner was very focused on fundraising in June and yet came up short of beating David Dreier in the second quarter.  The problem is that Dreier has nearly two million dollars in the bank, so there’s a nearly 40-1 cash disadvantage, including campaign debts.  And despite the positive signs in the district, that’s tough to overcome.  Warner is going to need outside help, and the Bush Rubber Stamp project is a step in the right direction, but I don’t know if they’ll have the kind of money needed to meet the challenge.  There’s not much here to get me excited at this point.

Warner: raised $161K, $125K CoH

Dreier: raised $247K, $1.9m CoH

5. CA-45.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challenger: Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  The district is ready for a Democrat, and the symbiosis between Manuel Perez’ hotly contested Assembly campaign and Bornstein’s is going to help her in ways that aren’t being respected by the experts.  I still think this race is being undervalued.  However, Bornstein has been fairly invisible, from what I can tell, since the June primary.  And Bornstein got significantly outraised in Q2 as Mary Bono recognized the challenge she is facing can only be overcome with money.  In cash on hand she’s not far out of sight, however, and if Bornstein proves to be a solid and aggressive campaigner and benefits from increased Latino turnout in the Eastern Coachella Valley, there’s still a shot here.

Bornstein: raised $125K, $121K CoH

Bono: raised $336K, $421K CoH

Third Tier

6. CA-03.  Last month: 6.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  This remains my sleeper pick in California.  The fundraising numbers were close, with Dan Lungren raising $173K to Durston’s $125K.  Lungren is trying to pivot to the center, coming out for nuclear warhead reduction with Russia, and the “X Prize” for battery technology promoted by John McCain.  But he’s firmly in the drill now, do nothing camp (despite voting against the “Use It Or Lose It” plan), and he’s lying about Democratic plans for tax increases.  Then there’s this bit of hilarity:

At a town hall meeting a few months ago Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Gold River) was adamant about denying citizenship to babies born in the United States to non-citizens. He lumped the infants into the same category as immigrants who cross the border illegally. He went so far as to sponsor a bill to deny citizenship to babies born to non-citizens.

In a classic flip-flop, Congo Dan “is backing the bill giving the Department of Homeland Security 30 days to process visas for entertainers,” says the Los Angeles Times.

Durston has publicly challenged Lungren to debates, and has a nifty comparison chart on his website that shows he’s truly running a campaign of contrast.  Keep an eye on this one.

Durston raised $125K, $189K CoH

Lungren raised $173K, $615K CoH

7. CA-52.  Last month: 7.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Mike Lumpkin.  Repub. challenger: Duncan D. Hunter.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  Calitics got to chat with Mike Lumpkin at Netroots Nation, and we were fairly impressed.  He talked up all the “Conservative Republicans for Lumpkin” signs he’s seeing in the district.  One thing he mentioned worried me, however: well over half of the voters in the primary thought they were voting for Duncan Hunter’s father, the incumbent.  That makes this almost not an open seat, and with Hunter’s fundraising advantage, it’s going to be an uphill battle.

Lumpkin raised $129K, $54K CoH

Hunter raised $338K, $198K CoH

Also Noted

8. CA-44.  Last month: 8.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick tried to hit Ken Calvert over earmarks, and certainly there’s still a lot of smoke surrounding Calvert’s dirty dealings.  But in a low information district, Hedrick needs a lot of money for name ID, moeny he doesn’t have.

9. CA-42.  Last month: 11.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challenger: Ed Chau.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0. Ed Chau has only $12,000 in the bank compared to Gary Miller’s $950,000.  That’s game, set and match, but questions have been raised once again about Miller’s potentially criminal actions (like his financial stake in getting an OC tollway built), so indictment is still on the fringes of possibility here.

10. CA-48.  Last month: 12.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  Young is touting a poll (and I like that he’s touting it on ActBlue) showing that he’s up six points after biographical and issue information is distributed.  The problem is he has no money and lots of campaign debt, so how will that information get out there?  

11. CA-24.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challenger: Marta Jorgensen.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6. Marta Jorgensen has a fairly nice website, but the money isn’t there to make this all that competitive, and she’ll need an Elton Gallegly slip-up. (Of course, she spent $1,375 on the primary and won, so ya never know…)

12. CA-41.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challenger: Tim Prince.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3.  Tim Prince is also challenging Jerry Lewis on earmark requests, but Lewis has been pretty adept at escaping scrutiny in the district.

(originally posted at Daily Kos)

In the last couple days, there have been several posts across the blogosphere citing what various candidates running for Congress have said on FISA and retroactive immunity for the telecoms.  But so far, it’s been all over the map.  I’ve tried to corral all their statements into my diary on Daily Kos, so you can see who the “good guys” are.

First, let’s start off with the current House and Senate members who voted against this bill.  They do deserve credit, as it’s their jobs on the line.

Below the fold, I’ve modified the original diary to list just the California Democratic challengers running who are standing up for the Constitution, and are against this FISA bill and retroactive immunity.

Update: Found a relevant passage from Bill Hedrick’s website.

Update II: Bill Durston responds!  (see comments)

Now, not all of these statements were made this past week.  Some came from 2007, and others came around February when this issue was last up in the air.  But hey, they’re on record.  So here goes, alphabetically by district.  If you know of a candidate who HAS spoken out against retroactive immunity and the FISA bill, please let me know in the comments, and please include the link where we can read their statement, and I’ll update the diary accordingly.

House candidates

CA-04: Charlie Brown (seriously, read his entire diary, it’s excellent)

I flew missions that monitored electronic communications around the world-often with Soviet MIGs flying off my wing and hoping I’d make a wrong turn.  Our standing order was “if you even suspect you are collecting data on an American citizen, you are to cease immediately, flag the tape, and bring it to a supervisor.”  We knew failure to comply would yield serious consequences-the kind that can end your career, or worse, land you in jail.

In short, professional, accurate intelligence collection guidelines were used to protect America “from all enemies, foreign and domestic,” without also undermining the very freedoms we were protecting.

….

But this debate isn’t just about security; it’s about accountability. As an officer who was both involved in these programs and held personally accountable for my actions in the name of defending America, I have a problem with giving a few well-connected, well-healed companies who knowingly usurp the law a free pass.

….

And when I see companies acting “in the interest of national security” held to a lower standard of accountability than the dedicated professionals charged with our nation’s defense, silence is not an option.

And to those few companies seeking immunity for breaking the law despite the best of intentions—might I offer a few comforting words on behalf of all who serve, and all who have borne the responsibilities of safeguarding our great nation…freedom isn’t free.

CA-26: Russ Warner

Going back to FISA, we need to protect our Constitutional rights while keeping the American people safe. These are not mutually exclusive.

Russ Warner: FISA expansion of power so Bush can spy on Americans without warrants (with acquiescence of Congress): Yay or nay?

Nay.

CA-44: Bill Hedrick

Members of Congress take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  So do members of the Executive and Judiciary Branches. Unlike the Bush Administration, however, I will do all in my power to uphold and defend the Constitution, particularly regarding the protections and inalienable rights of all humanity it guarantees to the American people.

We live in an unsafe world. We need to ensure we take all necessary and legal steps to safeguard our country and its citizens. Our Constitution provides for checks and balances against government intrusiveness infringing upon fundamental rights of speech, religion, privacy, unlawful search and seizure, etc. It is ironic that the most efficient way to ensure perfect safety is by discarding these fundamental rights. In fact, some of the most repressive governments today (North Korea, anyone?) rule over some of the safest countries – at least when it comes to walking the streets at night.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration has ignored the Constitutions checks and balances. Instead it has created its own Rule of Law. The Bush Administration has suspended habeas corpus, sanctioned torture and illegal spying on Americans and created an extralegal detention center in Guantanamo. This arrogance continues even though the American people and many of our leading jurists and representatives have stated they want our Constitution followed in the manner envisioned by our Founding Fathers and confirmed by all subsequent administrations except the current one.

In the past the United States has ensured that those persons on its soil or under its jurisdiction or power are treated with the same dignity and respect as American citizens. This is based on that marvelous statement in the Declaration of Independence, [w]e hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights.  These inalienable rights are not limited to one gender, one party or one nationality. While we cannot always influence other governments to respect these rights we can guarantee them whenever they involve those on our soil or under our jurisdiction or power.

Therefore, it is ironic that the Bush Administration, which denounces the human rights record of the Cuban government, echoes that record by claiming the Guantanamo detainees are not subject to American due process in legal proceedings precisely because they are housed in Cuba even though they are under American jurisdiction and power. How long will it be before the current infringement of inalienable rights on our own soil, which now consists of illegal spying on Americans, escalates to suspension of Habeas Corpus or even torture against Americans?

No one not the President, not the Vice President, not members of the Cabinet is above the law, nor should any governmental branch be allowed to discard Constitutional guarantees. When I become your congressional representative I will do more than merely recite my constitutional oath of office as a rite of passage. I will act upon that oath and support and defend the Constitution. I will act to restore the constitutional balance between inalienable rights and safety. As Americans we will be free . . . we will be safe . . . and we will not participate in violations of those inalienable rights guaranteed to all by our Constitution.

CA-46: Debbie Cook

Our nation was founded on a system of checks and balances. Unfortunately, the checks and balances in the Constitution and the freedoms Americans hold dear have been slowly eroding. Finally, last week the Supreme Court drew a line in the sand and restored habeas corpus, one of the Constitution’s most basic and essential protections against government abuse.

Some in Congress wish to eliminate another essential freedom by allowing the government to spy on its citizens without a warrant and giving lawbreakers who do so immunity from prosecution. Our founding fathers would be outraged at the bargaining away of the Bill of Rights.

You don’t fight terrorism abroad by taking away at our freedoms at home.

CA-48: Steve Young

We now know George Bush’s wiretapping program is not a narrow examination of calls made to and from suspected terrorist suspects —  unless you believe that you and I are terrorists.  I am worried and angry that the National Security Agency (NSA) has secretly purchased from the three largest telecommunications companies in the country, telephone records on tens of millions of Americans.   On December 17, 2005, President Bush said he authorized the program, “to intercept the international communication of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations.  Then on January 23, 2006, after concerns were expressed that the NSA tapped into telecommunications arteries, Gen. Michael Hayden, then NSA chief, now CIA nominee, asserted his organization engages in surveillance if there is a “reasonable” basis for eavesdropping.

George Bush asks us to believe the NSA is not listening to phone conversations.  Does that comfort you?  Anyone with experience in data management knows the government now has the information necessary to cross-reference phone numbers, with available databases that link names and numbers to compile a substantial dossier on every American.  Evidently, Bush now sees the enemy, and it is us.

I will insist on national security — we all must — but we must also insist that America is a land of laws.  No one is above the law.  If the law is a circumstantial inconvenience for President Bush, the law will soon be irrelevant to the ordinary American.   Bush repeatedly asserts that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — which established a special court to confidentially review and authorize sensitive surveillance requests — does not apply to his surveillance program, so George Bush bypasses the court.

When you elect me to Congress, I will sponsor and pass legislation to remove any doubt that warrantless spying on ordinary Americans is illegal.  We must do what is right, let the consequences follow.

CA-50: Nick Leibham

What’s much MUCH more disconcerting to me is the entire FISA bill…As somebody who has been a prosecutor and dealt with the 4th Amendment, I can tell you that this happened to have been the one amendment in the Bill of Rights that all the Founding Fathers could agree upon; that in order for the government intrusion there had to be probable cause signed off on by an independent magistrate that says you may have committed a crime. I find the entire FISA process to be constitutionally dubious. That doesn’t mean that it couldn’t be made constitutionally valid but I think that anytime you have wiretaps involved…that deals with an American citizen, you’ve gotta have a court sign off on it.  The only question in my mind is whether or not that has to be done prior to there warrant being executed or whether or not there is some grace period.  There is no doubt in my mind that the executive branch itself cannot act as both overseer and executioner (of warrants or wiretaps). That, I think, is constitutionally impermissible; I think it’s a violation of the judiciary’s proper role of interpreting laws.

As a former prosecutor [and] law clerk in the US Attorney’s office in the Major Frauds and Economic Crimes section…I’ve never heard of anybody being given immunity when you don’t know what they’ve done. It’s not how the immunity process works.  You don’t say to somebody ‘Whatever you’ve done, don’t worry about it.’…It’s unthinkable to me as a lawyer and as somebody who will have…sworn to uphold the Constitution that I could ever support that.

CA-52: Mike Lumpkin

FISA should never have been expanded. The government’s ability to spy was extensive enough already. The government is failing us in so many ways right now, this can just be added to the list. I want a safe, secure country. I have lived my life trying to secure exactly that. Frankly, the reason I joined the service was to defend my country’s beautiful liberties and secure them for future generations of Americans. Some attribute the following quote to Benjamin Franklin “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” No one can express the ideology of our democracy better than one of the founders.

As far as telecommunications immunity, my understanding is that legal culpability is determined in context. It is quite a thing to have the power of the executive branch of the government pointed in your direction making demands. Lack of courage to say “no” under such circumstances is no surprise. I think courts are well equipped to unravel this type of legal factual minutia and get to a just result. Immunity from the law is something to be dolled out sparingly.

Then there’s those whose names have been bandied about the blogosphere that we’d like to think they’d be opposed to Bush taking away the Fourth Amendment, but where I cannot find a single statement from them about this specific issue.  Much help would be appreciated in figuring out exactly where they stand on FISA.

CA-03: Bill Durston (see update)

CA-24: Marta Jorgensen

CA-41: Tim Prince

CA-42: Ed Chau

CA-45: Julie Borenstein

Did I forget anyone?

Some thoughts as we head to Tuesday:

• I thought I’d have time to put together a monthly roundup for May, but it never came together, and the primary is going to change those analyses a bit, so I’ll put something out after the primaries.

• I have to correct an error.  On Saturday I wrote that Marta Jorgensen had dropped out of the race in CA-24.  She had, but she recently got back into the race and is focusing on turning out new voters in Northern Santa Barbara County around Lompoc.  This is a crucial effort to activate Hispanic voters who traditionally have not turned out, and I both salute Ms. Jorgensen for her efforts and apologize for the error.  Hopefully she can visit Calitics and fill us in on that effort up in Lompoc.

• Doug Ose has loaned his campaign another $600,000 in the waning days before the GOP primary against Tom McClintock in CA-04.  This primary now exceeds $4 million dollars, and it’s hard to spend that much in that district.  McClintock pulled out of a debate earlier this week, and there was the Pete Wilson savaging as well.  Reading the tea leaves, I don’t think Ose would make that extra investment if he wasn’t close to nailing this down, but I could be wrong.

• In CA-03, Bill Durston offered comment on Dan Lungren’s Hawaiian pool party revealed this week by ABC News:

“Lungren’s behavior is disgusting. He claims to be a leader in ethics reform, then he turns around and subverts House ethics rules. This is just one of many examples of Lungren’s hypocrisy […] The people of the 3rd Congressional District deserve better representation than a career politician like Dan Lungren who sells out to special interests. I’ve been caring for the people of our district for over 25 years as an emergency physician. I believe we have an emergency in our government. I’m running for Congress to help restore government of, by, and for the people.”

I like it.  Durston is trying to put up a big number in the June 3 primary, despite running unopposed, to show his strength in this challenge.

• And it’s not primary-related, but I think we have the first ever Calitics mention in the LA Times in this story about Laura Richardson.  Hey guys, you could have used my name, it’s right above the title….

UPDATE (by Brian): I have said before that some of the IEs have really angered me. It seems that at least a couple of these annoying IEs have something in common: EdVoice. Chris Cabaldon’s former lobbying organization employer has been quite busy this year. In SD-23, they have the cheezy “Carbon-neutral voting” mailers.  In AD-8, EdVoice has gone all in for their former CEO, Cabaldon.  Randy Bayne has the story on a negative mailer on Mariko Yamada for supporting vocational education for mentally retarded Californians. Not cool.

But you know where he would go? Hawaii. To an event hosted by the American Association of Airport Executives.  Dan Lungren, a longtime hack always looking for his next gig, currently represents the 3rd Congressional District north of Sacramento.  Lungren also thinks himself a wily fox who can avoid ethics rules that bar lobbyists from going on vacation-themed junkets. And ABC News caught on to his little scheme (h/t CapNotes). Video here

So, here’s how it works. Lungren and his wife fly first class to the beautiful Kona coast of Hawaii.  The Congressman gives a half-hour speech at the Hapuna Beach Prince Resort (a lovely resort that has recently been restored after some earthquake damage). He bills his Congressional campaign for the expenses, but, conveniently, then does a fundraiser at the conference. So, it’s even better than the old rules! He can get a free trip AND some campaign cash as a party favor! W00t!

Lungren says he would have gone to the conference were it LA, but hesitated when asked if he would have attended the conference if it were in Pittsburgh. Lungren couldn’t even ditch the arrogance long enough to defend himself when he said:”Do I look like I go to Pittsburgh in January?”

The worst part of all this? Quite possibly it comes from the video of Dan Lungren parading around in a swimsuit, lathering himself in suntan lotion. For the record, I support proper skincare: Always wear sunscreen when taking bribes contributions in Hawaii. You can throw some love to Bill Durston on the Calitics ActBlue Page.

• CA-03: Bill Durston may be unopposed in the June 3 primary, but he’s running very hard and trying to pick up as many decline-to-state voters as possible.  He’s actually running a GOTV operation.  The gambit here is to prove to donors and the political establishment that CA-03 is competitive.  I also think it makes sense just as practice for the general and for name recognition.

• CA-04: The Club for Growth, whose record this year in primaries is actually a little mixed, has released an ad attacking Doug Ose in his race against Tom McClintock.  There’s plenty of outside money on both sides in this one.

• CA-42: Communications Workers of America, Southern California Council has endorsed Ron Shepston.  It’s somewhat notable considering that Ed Chau got the Cal Labor Fed endorsement.

Anything else you’re hearing, please put it in the comments.  This is an open-source elections thread.

Getting this one in under the wire.  On the last day of April, with just over a month to go until the June primaries, and six months to go until Election Day, there’s a lot going on all over the state in the Congressional races.  Of the 19 seats in California currently held by Republicans, 17 will be contested in the fall, and some strongly so.  And we now have a full 34 Democrats with the election of Jackie Speier early in the month, and only one of them is a serious challenge.  We also have the first quarter of 2008 fundraising numbers, which will raise some eyebrows.  You can track these races yourself with the 2008 Race Tracker wiki.

A note: I’m mainly getting my numbers on cash-on-hand competitiveness from the Swing State Project.  Fundraising information comes from the FEC.

Here we go…

DEMOCRATIC SEATS

1. CA-11. Incumbent: Jerry McNerney.  Main challenger: Dean Andal.  Cook number: R+3.  % Dem turnout in the Presidential primary: 53.7%.  DCCC defended.  Well, we’re seeing today the San Jose Mercury News reporting that this race is a “pure tossup.”  I don’t know where they’re getting that from.  There’s no question it’ll be competitive, but I look at the metric of fundraising in the first quarter, and I see that Andal, who is supposed to be the number one challenger for Republicans this cycle, couldn’t manage to raise more than $90,000.  That’s not really the numbers of a formidable opponent.  He trails McNerney in cash-on-hand by a 2-1 margin and will need significant outside expenditure support to win.  He’s getting some of that, but the DCCC isn’t abandoning McNerney either, already putting together their Radical Andal site, designed to paint the challenger as an extremist in the pocket of corporate lobbyists.  I’m sure they’ll bring up these ties to Don Young’s PAC, arguably the most corrupt member of Congress there is.  Both sides are headed door to door in the district, and McNerney is picking up a nice issue with the “Helping Our Veterans Keep Their Homes Act of 2008.”  The district is turning quite blue, and I like McNerney’s chances to hold the seat.

REPUBLICAN SEATS

I’m going to do three tiers in setting apart the top seats where we have challenges to Republican incumbents.

First Tier

1. CA-04.  Last month: 1.  Open seat.  Dem. challenger: Charlie Brown.  Repub. challengers: Doug Ose, Tom McClintock.  PVI #: R+11.  % Dem turnout in primary: 44.7.  DCCC targeted.  Charlie Brown is the John McCain of this Congressional cycle.  He’s sitting back and reaching voters while his opponents bruise and batter each other.  The differences are that Brown is a better candidate and he has a bigger money advantage.  But he must be sitting back and laughing right now.  Doug Ose has gone after Tom McClintock drawing welfare from the state of California in the form of per diem payments.  McClintock called Ose a liberal Democrat.  Most of the headlines in the race have headlines like McClintock, Ose Attack Each Other.  Neither of them are from the district – McClintock won’t even be able to vote for himself in the primary – and in the meantime, lifelong resident Charlie Brown is making things happen.  He’s mobilizing volunteers in district offices.  He’s continuing to donate campaign funds to groups that provide support from veterans.  And he’s drawing on important support, like this message from area veterans.

Last week, something unprecedented in our country’s history happened here in Roseville. While politicians in both parties used the Iraq War Anniversary for pontificating and armchair quarterbacking, a local candidate for office (himself a 26-year vet with a son going back for his fifth rotation in Iraq) made good on a pledge to donate 5% of money raised in his congressional campaign to non profit organizations helping veterans and families in need. He gave away $17,500 last Thursday – just a down payment […]

As veterans, we would hope that the voters of District Four understand that tough talk by career politicians usually masks the coward within. Ose and McClintock are birds of a feather, flocking together.

We are soldiers. We believe in keeping promises. We believe in leading by example. We believe that patriotism trumps partisanship, action speaks louder than words, and we know, first hand what it takes to defend America. And for all of these reasons and more, we are proudly supporting Retired Lt. Col. Charlie Brown for Congress.

Powerful stuff.  And another reason you shouldn’t believe the hype that this district is hopeless – Charlie Brown is ready to win.

2. CA-26.  Last month: 2.  Incumbent: David Dreier.  Challenger: Russ Warner.  PVI #: R+4.  % Dem. turnout: 50.2.  DCCC targeted.  On the financial front, Warner came close to raising as much as Dreier in the 1st quarter ($136,000 to $110,000), but Dreier still has a big well of cash to draw from.  So the key for Warner is to find and exploit areas of weakness.  One of them is health care.  Warner vowed to forego the Congressional health care package until his constituents are fully covered – a very smart tactic that forces Dreier to confront the issue.  He also used the anxiety around the housing crisis to note that Dreier took $12,000 in contributions from members of Countrywide Financial while voting against aid for homeowners.  This is particularly salient given that Countrywide was basically looking past lying on applications in order to drive people who couldn’t afford it into risky loans.  For his part, Dreier is trying to pin high gas prices on Democrats, when he’s voted time and again against reining in record oil company profits and removing their subsidies.  Warner is running a pretty smart campaign thus far, and clearly Dreier knows he’s in for a fight.

3. CA-50.  Last month: 3.  Incumbent: Brian Bilbray.  Challengers: Nick Leibham, Cheryl Ede.  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.8.  DCCC targeted.  I like Nick Leibham’s motto at the top of his website: “I am running for Congress because I want to be proud of my government again.”  Local op-ed columnists think he might indeed have reason to be proud come November – Logan Jenkins think the race isn’t separated by more than a few points.  Leibham had decent fundraising in Q1 and is only a couple hundred thousand dollars behind Brian Bilbray in cash-on-hand.  We know that Bilbray will try to make this a single-issue race on immigration and I say let him.  It’s getting him headlines in the district like Bilbray strikes out on the Constitution.  Cheryl Ede is running a strong grassroots campaign and endorsed the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq.  If there’s one beef I have with Leibham it’s an unwillingness to be bold and run his campaign on contrasting policies.  Hopefully he’ll learn this lesson.

Second Tier

4. CA-45.  Last month: 4.  Incumbent: Mary Bono Mack.  Challengers: Paul Clay, David Hunsicker, Julie Bornstein.  PVI #: R+3.  % Dem. turnout: 51.3.  Julie Bornstein, former Assemblywoman and affordable housing expert, got into this campaign late but she was still able to raise around $30,000 in a matter of weeks.  Add to that some money from prior election accounts and she’s already within a couple hundred thousand dollars in cash on hand of Mary Bono Mack, whose fundraising has been anemic this year.  I don’t think she’s taking this race seriously, but Bornstein is rounding up all the key endorsements, from the Senators Boxer and Feinstein, the CDP, labor, et al., and she’s going to run a strong race.  She does need a website – if she has one, I can’t find it (UPDATE: via soyinkafan in comments, here it is!).  Paul Clay and David Hunsicker are also running.

5. CA-03.  Last month: 6.  Incumbent: Dan Lungren.  Challenger: Bill Durston. PVI #: R+7. % Dem turnout: 51.8.  It should have raised eyebrows throughout the country when Fourthbranch Dick Cheney came out from his undisclosed location to appear at a fundraiser for Dan Lungren.  Cheney doesn’t visit districts where the Democrat doesn’t have a shot, and this was WAY early for someone in Washington to be sounding the alarm button.  Maybe they noticed that Lungren only raised around $100,000 in the first quarter, nearly matched by Bill Durston’s $75,000.  Durston was quick to respond to the Cheney fundraiser, too.

Dr. Bill Durston, Lungren’s Democratic opponent for House of Representatives in California’s 3rd Congressional District, states, “The fact that Dan Lungren would have Dick Cheney as his special honored guest at a fundraiser is one more demonstration of the fact that Lungren is in virtual lock step with the Bush/Cheney Administration.”

It’s the old Cheney/Bush double bind; they help raise money, but most voters don’t want to see you and Darth Cheney or W. in the same room.  With more favorable numbers headed Durston’s way, this race continues to get more and more competitive.

6. CA-46.  Last month: 5.  Incumbent: Dana Rohrabacher.  Challenger: Debbie Cook (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  This is amazing.  Debbie Cook outraised Dana Rohrabacher in the first quarter of 2008.  Cook didn’t even enter the race until mid-January, and yet she won the fundraising battle.  Either Rohrabacher isn’t paying attention or people are tired of his act.  And the cash-poor NRCC isn’t going to be able to pull these candidates out of the fire anymore.  Debbie Cook is opening her first campaign office in Huntington Beach this coming weekend, and she’s going to run a strong race about energy, global warming and the environment.  We’ll see if Rohrabacher can keep up.  It was notable that Rohrabacher attacked the cost of the war in Iraq during the Petraeus/Crocker hearings.  He knows he’s vulnerable.

Third Tier

7. CA-42.  Last month: 8.  Incumbent: Gary Miller.  Challengers: Ron Shepston (Responsible Plan Endorser), Ed Chau, Michael Williamson.  PVI #: R+10.  % Dem. turnout: 44.0.  Disclosure: I do some netroots work for Ron Shepston.  Another amazing number – Ed Chau outraised Gary Miller in Q1.  The numbers are paltry – $39,000 to $36,000 – but it suggests that Miller doesn’t care, isn’t paying attention, or can’t find anyone to give his corrupt ass a buck.  Add all the Democratic challengers up together and Democrats outraised Republicans significantly out here.  And the primary should be interesting.  Ed Chau got labor endorsements but most of his work has been fairly under-the-radar.  Ron Shepston’s grassroots efforts may be able to pull the primary out, and he is starting to raise money.  Shepston has Ambassador Joe Wilson coming out for a fundraiser next month.  Michael Williamson has been quiet other than this attack Web ad hitting Ed Chau for not living in the district.    Gary Miller actually backed Barney Frank’s housing bill, which suggests that the mortgage mess is a REAL problem in the district.  Jonathan Weil at Bloomberg attacked Miller for trying to hide the extent of the mess from the public.

8. CA-52.  Last month: 7.  Open seat.  Repub. challengers: several, including Duncan D. Hunter.  Dem. challengers: Mike Lumpkin, Vicki Butcher.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 47.2.  Mike Lumpkin has Max Cleland coming in for a fundraiser with him this week, and he raised a decent amount of money last quarter.  Here’s an overview of the race; Lumpkin apparently endorsed removing “half the troops” from Iraq, which seems to me to be a silly idea, but his background as a Navy SEAL and liaison between Congress and the Special Ops Command gives him at least some facility with the region.  This is a tough seat, especially going against what amounts to a legacy candidate.  And Hunter has a lot more money.  Vicki Butcher is a grassroots-oriented candidate who will get her share of votes in the primary.  There was actually a candidate forum in this race yesterday.  Any reports out there?

9. CA-24.  Last month: 9.  Incumbent: Elton Gallegly.  Challengers: Jill Martinez, Mary Pallant (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+5.  % Dem. turnout: 50.6.  Marta Jorgensen has quit the race and backed Jill Martinez.  Unfortunately, the primary fight here has turned a little nasty, with Jill Martinez stretching the truth about Mary Pallant’s positions and her own finances.  Neither candidate raised a lot of money last quarter but Martinez claimed she had, despite her bank account being in the red.  Pallant is working the progressive grassroots to win the nomination, winning the endorsements of Democrats.com’s David Swanson and author Norman Solomon.  I’d love to see a true progressive take on Elton Gallegly.  He wants to drill in ANWR.  He’s not that bright.

10. CA-41.  Last month: 11.  Incumbent: Jerry Lewis.  Challengers: Tim Prince, Dr. Rita Ramirez-Dean.  PVI #: R+9.  % Dem. turnout: 46.3.  Jerry Lewis has become the point man on forcing retroactive immunity for the telecom companies back into the House for a vote.  In his speech he assailed trial lawyers for wanting to sue the phone companies, which is funny because at a million dollars his legal defense fund has put several trial lawyers’ kids through college.  Of bigger note here is that Republicans in San Bernardino County now number under 40% and Democrats are within 8,000 voters of retaining the majority.  The district is changing, and we’ll see if Tim Prince or Rita Ramirez-Dean can capitalize.  I do like Rita’s website and use of Web video.

11. CA-44.  Last month: 10.  Incumbent: Ken Calvert.  Challenger: Bill Hedrick (Responsible Plan endorser).  PVI #: R+6.  % Dem. turnout: 49.3.  Bill Hedrick endorsed the Repsonsible Plan this month, which certainly helps raise his profile a bit.  He’s holding fundraisers and trying to make voters aware of his presence headed into the general election.  Ken Calvert is gearing up for re-election by requesting all kinds of porkbarrel projects.

12. CA-25.  Last month: 12.  Incumbent: Buck McKeon.  Challenger: Jacquese Conaway.  PVI #: R+7.  % Dem. turnout: 50.9%.  I threw this in because this is yet another seat where Democratic turnout outpaced Republican turnout in February.  This seat also includes a portion of San Bernardino County (see CA-41).  McKeon has a substantial money advantage.  He, by the way, “wants the victory” in Iraq.  That must be nice, thinking about foreign policy like it’s an NBA playoff game.

13. CA-48.  Last month: 13.  Incumbent: John Campbell.  Challenger: Steve Young.  PVI #: R+8.  % Dem. turnout: 45.1.  I’ll keep including this race because I really like Steve Young.