He was elected by voice vote with no opposition as the new President Pro Tem of the California State Senate. I’m not sure what this means for the current legislative leadership, though it seems that he wouldn’t start until December, so Perata is likely to continue through the budget slog.
I wish it was sooner, but I’m happy to get to the day when we have the leadership of Steinberg and Bass in the legislature.
Congratulations, Senator.
(Cross posted from the The Sunlight Foundation)
The Sunlight Foundation launched a new web site, Pass223.com, to harness the distributed power of the Internet to pressure the Senate into increasing disclosure of campaign contributions by passing a bill – S. 223, the Senate Campaign Disclosure Parity Act – requiring senators to file their contribution reports electronically.
We need your help to pass this bill. Please follow the link to Pass223.com and call your senators to find out where they stand on S. 223. The site has full instructions on who your senators are, how to call, what to say, and how to report back to us. For more detail on the bill, keep reading.
Currently, presidential candidates and candidates running for the House of Representatives file their campaign contributions in electronic form. Electronic filing speeds the process by which campaign contribution data reaches the public over the Internet, allowing citizens and journalists to more easily spot a conflict of interest or an inappropriate contribution. Filers in the Senate do not file electronically, delaying disclosure by weeks and possibly months.
Passage of S. 223 appears to be a “no-brainer,” and isn’t publicly opposed by any senator. However, at every step of the way over the past year and a half the bill has been interrupted and blocked for a variety of reasons.
Right now, Sen. John Ensign (pronounced en-sen) is blocking the bill by insisting on adding a poison pill amendment. This poison pill is meant to protect senators from legitimate ethics complaints filed by outside groups. The amendment would impose an unconstitutional burden on on charities, religious organizations and other nonprofits by forcing them to disclose their donors when they file ethics complaints against sitting senators. Ensign’s amendment is opposed by a group of non-profits, religious groups, and charities from the right and the left.
For S. 223 to pass, Ensign’s amendment must be defeated. And to do that, we need you help in identifying senators who OPPOSE Ensign and SUPPORT S. 223. This is a great chance to help pass a long overdue bill.
Go to Pass223.com and get started calling your senators (remember, you have two of them). Don’t forget to report back so that we know where these senators stand on increasing campaign finance disclosure.
Pass223.com is a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation, Public Citizen, Public Campaign, Center for Responsive Politics, Campaign Finance Institute, Change Congress, and Open the Government.
(Disclaimer: I am the Online Organizer and Outreach Coordinator for the Sunlight Foundation)
(Not totally a local issue, but it involves a lot of local players, and continues on a subject that gets a lot of attention around here, so I thought I’d share. Reprinted from my site.)
There’s something of a consensus that Netroots Nation didn’t offer enough adversarial panels and instead largely consisted of bloggers agreeing with one another. But that’s not true. I personally witnessed the most adversarial panel of the weekend, and it was spectacular, because finally, both factions of the debate about health care policy on the left were able to come together and understand the political contours of the brewing fight in the Congress.
over…
The panel was entitled “Time for Action: How the Netroots Can Lead on Healthcare Reform,” and was put together by Eve Gittleson, who blogs at Daily Kos under the moniker nyceve. There’s a good liveblog of the panel here, but what you need to know is that Gittleson stacked the deck. She had some great health care activists who are doing great work in different areas of the space: Giuseppe Del Priore, MD, MPH a New York cancer surgeon; Hilda Sarkisyan, whose daughter, Nataline, died after being denied a liver transplant by Cigna; Rocky Delgadillo, Los Angeles City Attorney, who is pursuing civil and criminal investigation into insurance practices; Geri Jenkins, RN a member of the Council of Presidents of the California Nurses Association/National Nurses Organizing Committee. And then Ezra Klein, associate editor for The American Prospect and a health care policy guru, appeared at the end of the panel. The aforementioned speakers were all powerful advocates. Sarkysian, whose family HAD health insurance and still couldn’t get their daughter what she needed, said bluntly “This is not a good country anymore.” Del Priore discussed the need for doctors and patients to handle questions of care and the need to arrest insurance executives for their crimes in denying coverage. Rocky Delgadillo outlined the schemes, like rescission (even based on spousal applications), that insurers are engaging in to maximize profit at the expense of patient care. He also mentioned how California regulators ignored a million-dollar fine to Blue Cross because they feared they would lose the case if it went to court, which is just unbelievable. And Jenkins argued that the insurance industry will play no role in reforming health care, and we need to move immediately to a not-for-profit system.
Good points all. And then Eve turned to Ezra:
Eve: Ezra, why does HCAN want to condemn Americans to this kind of system? I get confusing emails from Elizabeth Edwards and MoveOn talking about the atrocities of the insurance industry, then marginalizing the only viable solution. Can you explain this new Edwards HCAN initiative, the TV commercials, etc. . . What’s it all about? What are they trying to do? It seems there are three initiatives on the table–676, Wyden and HCAN. What’s wrong with Wyden and Edwards? And a follow-up…what can we realistically expect from President Obama?
I hope you don’t mind that I’m sand-bagging you. I love you, really, Ezra. I just don’t agree with you on this point.
This apparently startled Mr. Klein. But for him to not know the position of Eve and the CNA and an activist like Hilda Sarkysian speaks a lot to his cloistered state in Washington. Because I know all about this fight. I made one positive comment about HCAN upon their launch and took massive amounts of crap for it. I was called a defeatist and admonished for not being true to the cause. My only point was that having an organization with $40 million dollars to spend on calling out health insurers on their garbage is going to be tremendously helpful to whatever reform we get through the Congress, and furthermore I didn’t see them having much of a place at the table in the policy debate. In other words they were finally an organization concerned with moving public opinion and playing the health care debate out on political grounds rather than policy grounds. And on the panel, Klein echoed the importance of politics over policy:
You can take a lot of approaches to health reform. You can emphasize policy, politics, principles, or some mix thereof. Judging from the panel, Health Care for All, and the California Nurses, could use a bit more politics in their approach. It was a panel about “health reform” — not care or policy, but “reform” — at a conference of engaged politicos that never mentioned the Senate, or votes, or the conditions required for presidential signature.
There was a lot of talk about “fighting” insurers and other special interests, but not much about what that fight will look like, or where it will take place, or who decides the winner. My argument, was that, for reformers, insurers aren’t the real enemy. Setting them up as the opponent actually gives them too much credit. Insurers are stupid, profit seeking beasts — the enemy is American politics, and in particular, the structural feature of the US Senate that have repeatedly killed health reform in the past. No matter what your policy preference, that’s where your organizing has to be focused, because that’s where the actual fight happens: In Congress. Not on panels, or on blogs, or among the Left. In the US Senate, where you have to get to 60, or at least figure out how to get rough Democratic unity for using budget reconciliation and then convince Kennedy and Carper to vote “aye” on the same bill.
This is basically the same argument Ezra makes continuously on his site, but it appeared to hit the audience like they never heard it before. And considering that it’s largely the correct analysis, it was generally well-received, I thought. I spoke later with Eve, who told me that she had a conversation with someone from HCAN and “they are not the enemy.” What a concept – all elements of health care advocacy on the left working together, for a change, toward a common goal.
Now granted, this week they all had a big juicy target. AHIP, the health insurance lobby, put together a fake grassroots front group called The Campaign for an American Solution. Of course, that “solution” involves funneling more cash and customers to the same broken insurance system we have now. Now, who was the very first group to coordinate a counter-attack on this front group on the first stop of their listening tour in Columbus, OH? That’s right, HCAN
Well, that didn’t take long.
A day after Politico reported the health insurance industry is launching a health care reform campaign next week, the progressive reformers are firing back.
Health Care for America Now announced Friday that it plans a news conference and a rally next week to counter the insurance industry’s Campaign for an American Solution, which launches in Columbus, Ohio, on Tuesday with a roundtable discussion among uninsured locals.
“They’re pretending that the health industry represents the American public, and we need to make it really clear to them and the public that all they represent are their own profits,” said Richard Kirsch, national campaign manager for Health Care Now.
Indeed they did attend the launch, and got to ask some tough questions, confronting the head of AHIP and asking her how an insurance industry group could possibly be objective in pushing for lower rates and higher quality coverage when they are concerned solely with the profit motive. It got heated, and I’m glad they did. And all of a sudden, Daou’s Triangle started closing. Rep. Pete Stark came up with a great quote:
“America’s Health Insurance Plans’ new ‘Campaign for an American Solution’ rings as true as the tobacco industry’s efforts to end smoking. There is nothing grassroots about it. It is designed, financed, and coordinated through their Washington trade association with the singular goal of protecting their profits.
“I hope it is true that these companies intend to be a positive force in health reform efforts, but I tend to be cautious when the fox starts drawing up plans for a new henhouse.”
HCAN called up the hotline for the Campaign for an American Solution that they set up for the public to provide input… and they got an answering machine. They’ve trickled this out one by one and pretty much ruined the launch of AHIP’s front group. That’s REALLY important for the future of health care reform. Because on the policy the views are far closer on the left than most people imagine. Everyone knows that whatever system is ultimately put forward can be paid for in a far better manner than the current wasteful, inefficient system. So expense should never be a deterrent, meaning we can build whatever system we choose and it is extremely likely to go revenue-neutral very quickly once we eliminate the shoddy budgeting of the current broken system. We know that health insurers will not jeopardize their profit margins unless they’re forced to. Once you recognize these two realities, the policy goals become fairly clear. The political goals have to include attack dogs pushing back on the false memes of the right and the insurance industry, and pressuring the Senate to do the right thing.
Now Obama’s plan includes some better regulation toward insurers (including guaranteed issue and community rating) and a public option to compete with the private insurance market and take the step toward a sequential single-payer. (His latest addition to the plan, a tax credit for small businesses who offer quality health care, is borrowed directly from the Clinton plan, raising hopes that eventually he’ll just borrow all of it, as he should). Despite this being a fairly modest set of reforms, McCain and the right are going to denounce it as government-run “Hillarycare” anyway. So it’s vital to have a broad coalition to give as good as they’ll get from the right and give the lawmakers backbone to push the policy forward. Matt Stoller writes:
Coalitions are strange beasts, with multiple moving parts, but they are also the only way anything gets done. A coalition has a core of organizers behind it, and a variety of groups out in front who each take different roles. Some people can talk to Republicans, some people can talk to Democrats, some people threaten, some people cajole, some people talk to businesses, etc. HCAN is driven by labor in the form of SEIU, the NEA, AFSCME, and United Food and Commercial Workers, as well as groups primarily funded by labor such as Americans United for Change and the Campaign for America’s Future. It is also driven by direct mail and Foundation based organizations, such as La Raza, Planned Parenthood, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, and the National Women’s Law Center.
Stoller goes on to make the point that HCAN should broaden their mandate and make this a fight about general health, and I agree. Going after convenience stores that sell fatty, sugar-laden food to kids sounds like it could be a part of their mandate. The farm bill, the transportation bill (more mass transit and more livable, walkable cities means healthier lives), and others could be brought onto the field of battle. But the larger point is that coalitions of this nature are built because they work. And the benefit is that they give lawmakers breathing space to do their job and the spine to do it right. This moment in health care demands that everyone understands the political spade work necessary to reach the desired outcome. So out of the ashes of that contentious NN panel came something pretty special. Groups across the center-left ideological spectrum working together to end the health care crisis in America and restore treatment as a basic human right.
Here is the text of my latest letter to Senator Feinstein on FISA and telecom immunity. It appears that we have been corresponding for so long that I now have a pretty good record to go by to understand her position. To see where she was, and where she’s gone on this issue is not pretty.
Please note that I did take one last thing out of this letter before I faxed it, but I left it in for the readers here to understand just how I feel.
June 29, 2008
Senator Diane Feinstein
United States Senate
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510 Via Facsimile (202) 228-3954
Re: FISA Telecom Immunity
Dear Senator Feinstein:
For over two years, I have been writing to you about my outrage over the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping of American citizens. You have somehow found it possible, given your busy schedule selling out our civil rights, to respond to my communications from time to time, and I thank you for it. I would like to both review your positions on the issue, and respond to them, now that the Senate is considering a bill that would give the telecommunications companies that colluded with the administration immunity for their undisputed wrongdoing.
I first wrote to you about my concerns in early 2006. On April 12, 2006, you responded via email as follows:
I have carefully reviewed the Constitution and the laws relating to this domestic intelligence activity, along with the President’s statements and those of the Attorney General and other Administration officials. I believe that the electronic surveillance program was not conducted in accordance with U.S. law. The program, as described, violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires a court order for surveillance of Americans.Congress has updated FISA many times since 9/11 in order to provide our nation with all the necessary tools to fight terrorism. The Administration has never asked for the authority to conduct this program.
I believe the Administration also violated the National Security Act, which requires all members of the Intelligence Committee to be fully and currently informed of all significant intelligence activities other than covert actions. I am a member of the Intelligence Committee, and yet I was not told about this program until it was made public.
On October 20, 2007, I again wrote to you, via facsimile, when it became clear that you had backed away from your original position, as set forth above, because you were “undecided” as to whether to grant immunity to those telecommunications companies that had done what the administration wanted, in spite of the manifest illegality of doing so. I laid out a timeline of what I considered relevant events concerning warrantless wiretapping. I believe that timeline is as trenchant now as it was then, and I will again impart it to you:
1) On October 13, 2007, The Washington Post reported that based on documents released from the trial of Joseph Nacchio, former CEO of Qwest Communications, that the government had enlisted the telecommunications companies’ assistance with its warrantless wiretapping program (the program) on February 27, 2001, fully six months prior to the attack on the World Trade Center (9/11);
2) While Quest refused, maintaining the program was illegal, other companies did participate;
3) At least one telecommunications company, Verizon, not only participated, but also demanded and received payment of $1,000 each time it provided information pursuant to the program;
4) Verizon was paid for its participation over 700 times;
5) The program, and telecommunications companies’ illegal acts in support of it, failed to prevent 9/11;
6) According to fully corroborated testimony by James Comey before the Senate Judiciary Committee (upon which you sit), on March 11, 2004, although it had previously done so, the Department of Justice (DOJ) refused to affirm the legality of the program, but the President allowed the program to continue, despite DOJ’s refusal;
7) The President, on April 20, 2004, publicly denied such warrantless wiretapping was taking place;
8) In December 2005, the existence of the program was disclosed by The New York Times;
9) In response to the disclosure, the President admitted to the existence of the program, but claimed that it (a) began after 9/11, and (b) prevented an attack on the Library Tower in Los Angeles (which the President called the “Liberty Tower”);
10) Subsequent investigation revealed there was probably no imminent or even credible threat to the Library Tower;
11) In the ensuing months and years, the Administration has claimed that such warrantless wiretapping has been conducted very rarely, and only in extreme circumstances;
12) Subsequent investigation by the FBI’s Inspector General revealed that such a claim is patently false; the FBI has abused its ability to issue National Security Letters and obtain private communications without warrants on hundreds of occasions, and many if not most of those letters were issued in connection with investigations wholly unrelated to terrorism;
13) On August 3, 2007, 60 Senators, including you, voted for the Protect America Act (PAA), which gives the Administration increased ability to engage in warrantless wiretapping;
14) After the PAA became law, several members of Congress indicated the Administration had warned them of an imminent threat of a terrorist attack upon Congress, which bore upon their votes;
15) Subsequent investigation reveals there was no such imminent threat;
16) In the ensuing weeks since the passage of the PAA, the President has claimed that the members of the “Gang of Eight” in Congress had been fully briefed on the warrantless wiretapping program;
17) At least three members of the “Gang of Eight” have indicated that they were not so briefed;
18) The President continues to claim that the warrantless wiretapping program was undertaken in response to 9/11.
Your response from January 22, 2008, via email, was remarkable, not only for the time it took to reach me (a mere six months), but for the amazing turnaround in your position on the matter:
I introduced an amendment on the Senate floor that would limit this grant of immunity. Under my amendment, cases against the telecommunications companies would go to the FISA Court for judicial review. The Court would only provide immunity if it finds that the alleged assistance was not provided, that assistance met legal requirements, or that a company had a good faith, reasonable belief that assistance was legal.
I believe that this approach strikes the correct balance: it maintains court review and a judicial determination of whether companies provided assistance that they should have known violated the law.
I have also filed an amendment to restore FISA’s exclusivity, to ensure that no surveillance program can proceed outside the law in the way that the Terrorist Surveillance Program did for more than five years.
After reading your response, I responded the next day, with a facsimile that repeated the timeline, and included an additional point:
19) On January 10, 2008, it became publicly known that telecommunications companies had cut off FBI wiretaps because the bills had not been paid quickly enough to suit the companies.
I then received a letter via U.S. Mail that appeared to me to be a word-for-word repeat of your email. I am unsure whether you responded to my second facsimile at all, but suffice it to say that I was then clear about your position: you favored your judicial review that would grant immunity to telecommunications companies for a “good faith” belief in the legality something that they knew was illegal for over 30 years.
And so now the Senate is on the verge of voting on a bill that would go so much further than your pathetic “balanced” approach, in that the question of illegality of the wiretapping would never enter into the judicial review at all; rather, the review would be limited to deciding whether the companies were told they would somehow be protected by the Administration for breaking the law, and if they were, they become immune.
One has to wonder how we could have fallen so far into this Alice in Wonderland rabbit hole where “they told me I could” becomes the justification for excusing unlawful conduct. I think it is rather clear than when an important decision maker in the process moves from “I believe that the electronic surveillance program was not conducted in accordance with U.S. law” to “I introduced an amendment on the Senate floor that would limit this grant of immunity” that the responsibility lies, to a significant degree, with that decision maker, namely you.
From a negotiation standpoint, what you did makes no sense at all. Your amendment was a virtual capitulation from the beginning of the process that already gave the Administration more than it should have ever expected. There is no precedent in American law that would give intentional actors retroactive civil immunity for their acts, until you made such a notion possible. So, when Representative Hoyer began the negotiations that led to this bill, his side had already conceded a point that should not have been part of the calculus at all.
Further, I see no reason at all why the right of the American people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, was ever a negotiable point in the first place. That such a notion would have occurred to you makes me doubt your commitment to the Constitution and the People of the State of California, whom, I would like to remind you, you were elected to serve. We value our personal rights, as set forth in the very first provision of our State’s constitution:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
Finally, any notion that these companies acted in anything that would approach “good faith” is completely undermined by their eagerness to shut off the wiretaps for slow payment (and there has never been any suggestion that the government would not pay eventually) even if these taps were of great importance to ongoing investigations. The companies were not concerned with any notions of patriotism; they were only in it for the money. For you or anyone to maintain that telecom immunity must be passed in order to keep us from “being attacked by terrorists,” is simply an insult. As I noted above, the illegal program was instituted before September 11, 2001, and it did not protect us then. This was an illegal, ineffective program that has produced nothing good in the short term, and promises to produce nothing but bad for our civil liberties in the long term.
Fortunately for the People of California, we have at least one Senator who still respects us, the things that make us strong, and our Constitution. She and a dedicated group of her colleagues have managed to put the brakes on what has felt like a runaway train that would destroy our civil liberties. With what now seems like the luxury of time (a scant two weeks), perhaps you can reflect upon the fiasco that that you would create by supporting the FISA bill, and finally come to understand that it does no good and much harm.
Moreover, even if you were to decide that ultimately this compromise is somehow the right thing to do, there is simply no need to do it hastily. We still do not know exactly what the telecommunications companies did, upon whom it was done, and we have no idea whether it produced anything at all that would make anyone safer. I feel that as to the last point, it did not, or else this Administration, which has little or no regard for the protection of state secrets, except when it feels such secrecy is politically advantageous, would have already disclosed it publicly.
I know that there is a political calculation going on here, but I would like to suggest to you that what appears to be the conventional wisdom on national security is no longer reflective of how the American people (and certainly the people of California) truly feel. We are not ready to cower at the first sign of a threat on our soil, and we are ready to respond not in fear, but with the strength born of our principles of justice and liberty.
There is no doubt that a significant cadre of politicians will try to make an issue out of the failure to pass this bad bill, but their efforts will not succeed as they may have if this were 2003. This Administration is the most unpopular in history, and the political difficulties that would inure to you and those on the side of liberty is not worth avoiding when compared to the massive unearned benefit the Administration and its supporters in Congress would gain from the bill’s passage.
Finally, if this is indeed such an important decision to make, there is no reason why it cannot be made by the next Congress, and a new President. There is every reason to believe that the next President will be someone who understands and appreciates the U.S. Constitution, rather than referring to it as a “g*******d piece of paper,” and I would much prefer that he make the final decision before signing any bill of this importance. Any investigation that is in place has not been, and will not be affected by not enacting the bill, and if there is a need to collect new information, the Administration can do what it always could have done: GET A WARRANT.
You should be grateful to Senators Boxer, Feingold, Dodd, and the others who have held back this dangerous juggernaut of a bill that would help only a privileged few and cause irreparable harm to this country, its people, and its reason for existence. They have given you what you, for no good reason, have declined to get for yourself: time to come to the right decision, and the only decision you can make with a good conscience (assuming you have one). NOTE: I omitted the italicized parenthetical from the final letter, as I decided it might be a little “over the top.”
I urge you to take a cue from your constituents and act from strength and not from fear. Please oppose any FISA legislation that includes telecommunications company immunity, and please support the Constitution and an American system of justice that does not reward those who break the law.
Very Truly Yours,
greggp
After trying for so long to make the good Senator understand my position, and in that time seeing her position move further away from mine, I am left with the distinct impression that Senator Feinstein really does not care what people like me (that would be Californians and Democrats) think. I sincerely hope that within the limited time we have before this legislation gets back on the Senate floor, I, and others like me, can make an impression on her.
An interesting trend in the primary results is that the more progressive candidates tended to win the state legislative races – Yamada over Cabaldon in AD-08, Leno over Nation in SD-03, to give just a few examples – but the more moderate candidates had success in the Congressional races.
It’s hard to make a direct comparison, because many of the contested legislative races were usually not in the same places as the contested Congressional races. The legislative fights tended to be in safe Democratic districts (with AD-80 being a notable exception) whereas the Congressional fights were of necessity in those districts where Republicans currently hold the seat.
It may be that in those purplish districts moderates outnumber progressives among Democratic voters, and though candidates like Cheryl Ede and Vickie Butcher got a respectable 40% each, it suggests that progressives still have a lot of work to do in those red-to-blue districts. There may also be a presumption that a moderate Dem has a better shot at beating a Republican incumbent and even if that’s a true assessment, it suggests the continuing uphill climb progressives face on the frontiers of California congressional battles.
The progressive trend in state legislative races was clearer and more widespread. Industry-funded candidates like Gina Papan and Chris Cabaldon went down to a narrow defeat at the hands of more progressive challengers, while in other primary races, such as AD-14, AD-27, and SD-23, a field of progressive candidates fought to show voters who had the stronger left-of-center credentials. A similar dynamic even showed up in AD-80, where two different kinds of progressives – Greg Pettis and Manuel Perez – battled for the right to shift the seat from red to blue.
There does seem to be a very clear progressive trend happening within the California Democratic Party and its state legislative seats. It’s a welcome sign, especially as term limits provides new leadership in Sacramento. Democrats want a state government that addresses their needs – health care, education, transportation, the environment, and they now believe progressive Democrats are the most likely to deliver it.
It’s now on to the November elections, where we will aim for a 2/3 majority in both houses to consolidate progressive gains and finally start governing California effectively and sensibly.
Greg Pettis, in his 14th year as Cathedral City Councilman, former-Mayor Pro-Tem of Cathedral City, and Candidate for the CA 80th Assembly District, has now received the endorsements from every member of the California Legislative Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Caucus in Sacramento. Pettis has widespread support in the LGBT community Nationally, State-wide, and locally because of his progressive stands on issues important to the LGBT communities: Pettis fully supports the HIV/AIDS communities, universal healthcare, a strong local economy, good local schools and responsible academic oversight, a healthy environment, equality and justice for all Californians, and mentoring other members of the LGBT community.
More below the flip…
Pettis’ support in the National, State, and local LGBT communities includes but is not limited to:
National:
U.S. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA)
U.S. Representative Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
State:
Every LGBT Caucus Member in Sacramento:
CA State Senator Christine Kehoe
CA State Senator Sheila Kuehl
CA State Senator Carol Migden
CA State Assemblyman John Laird
CA State Assemblyman Mark Leno
Local:
Palm Springs City Councilmember Ginny Foat
Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson
Cathedral City City Councilmember Paul Marchand
Desert Hot Springs City Councilmember Karl Baker
LGBT Organizations and LGBT Community Leaders:
Desert Stonewall Democratic Club
Vice-President Desert Stonewall Democrats Roger Tansey
Treasurer Desert Stonewall Democrats Bob Silverman
Secretary Desert Stonewall Democrats James Reynolds
Membership Chair Desert Stonewall Democrats Lynn Worley
Public Relations Chair Desert Stonewall Democrats Donald W. Grimm, Ph.D.
Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Bob Mahlowitz
Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Richard Oberhaus
Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Greg Rodriguez
Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Robert Lee Thomas
Steering Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Lynn Worley
Political Action Committee Member Desert Stonewall Democrats Bond Shands
Desert Stonewall Democrats Member Bill Cain-Gonzales
Equality California
HRC Board Member Andy Linsky
Inland Stonewall Democratic Club
Co-Chair Palm Springs Democratic Club Sandy Eldridge
Co-Chair Palm Springs Democratic Club David Pye
Secretary Palm Springs Democratic Club Peter East
San Diego Democratic Club
Victory Fund
Pettis is the only Democratic candidate who has indicated publically and consistently that he fully supports issues important to the LGBT community, including Marriage Equality. In fact, two of his opponents, Rick Gonzales and Richard Gutierrez, have indicated publically that they will vote ‘nay’ on any Marriage Equality bill if elected as Assemblymember to represent the 80th AD. Victor Manuel Perez has stated publically that he supports equality for all, but consistently avoids stating whether he will or will not vote for Marriage Equality.
Thus, Pettis is not only most qualified to represent the Coachella and Imperial Valleys as per The Desert Sun, but is also the most committed and will most represent all of their interests in Sacramento as Assemblyman (forty percent of the population in Palm Springs are members of the LGBT community, sixty percent of the population is LGBT-identified during the ‘season’). Recently, most of the major electeds in the West Valley have been openly-gay or openly-lesbian, including former Mayor of Palm Springs Ron Oden, Mayor of Palm Springs and former-Palm Springs City Councilmember Steve Pougnet, Palm Springs City Councilmember Ginny Foat, Palm Springs City Councilmember Rick Hutcheson, Palm Springs Unified School District Trustee Justin Blake, Desert Hot Springs City Councilmember Karl Baker, Cathedral City Councilmember Greg Pettis, and Cathedral City Councilmember Paul Marchand. Other electeds in the West Valley have endorsed Pettis for the 80th AD, including Palm Springs Unified School District Trustee Meredy Schoenberger and Cathedral City Clerk Pat Hammers. The only ones of these mentioned not endorsing Pettis for 80th AD are Oden and Blake, the latter not endorsing anyone thus far.
Also, unlike other campaigns for the 80th AD, Pettis is reaching out to all communities in the Coachella and Imperial Valleys, not deigning to divide the communities along race, class, sexual orientation or other lines of distinction. In fact, Pettis has widespread support in the wealthier cities in the District including Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Rancho Mirage as well as in the less advantaged communities like Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Coachella, Brawley, and El Centro.
Members of the LGBT Caucus endorsing Pettis include Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), chair of the caucus,
According to a press release from LGBT Caucus chair Assemblyman John Laird (D-Santa Cruz):
Formed in June 2002, the role of the LGBT Caucus is to present a forum for the California Legislature to discuss issues that affect LGBT Californians and to further the goal of equality and justice for all Californians. Formation of the LGBT Caucus made California the first state in the country to recognize an official caucus of openly-LGBT state legislators.
Members of the LGBT Caucus endorsing Pettis include Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz), chair, Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego), Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Los Angeles), Senator Carole Migden, and Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco).
Accomplishments and activities of the LGBT Caucus that Pettis is committed to help to further and to accomplish as a State Assemblymember representing the Coachella and Imperial Valleys:
Champion and prioritize laws/legislation that promote equality for LGBT Californians:
Equal rights and responsibilities for same-sex couples and their families
Prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender in employment, housing, and business establishments / public accommodations
Prohibit discrimination in state government
Prohibit discrimination and harassment in public school
Promote fair policies and adequate funding for HIV/AIDS and LGBT-related health and human services
Promote prevention programs and policies against hate-crimes and bias-motivated violence
Sponsor annually the LGBT Pride Exhibit every June, celebrating Pride Month.
Present before the California State Legislature the LGBT Pride Recognition Awards, which are given to outstanding individuals in recognition of their extraordinary accomplishments and leadership in their respective fields of endeavors.
Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) was first elected to the California State Assembly in 2002, and re-elected in 2004, and in 2006, Laird represents the 27th Assembly District, which includes portions of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Santa Clara Counties. Prior to being elected to the State Assembly, Laird served two terms on the Santa Cruz City Council, two terms as Mayor of Santa Cruz, and eight years as a Cabrillo College Trustee.
In his role as Budget Committee Chair, Mr. Laird helped deliver the first on-time budget since 2000-a budget that reduced community college fees, restored funding for transportation and K-12 education, dramatically increased funding for deferred park maintenance and foster care, and increased the budget reserve while reducing the so-called “out year” deficit. Along with the Budget Committee, Mr. Laird also serves as a member the Labor and Employment, Judiciary, and Natural Resources Committees.
Raised in Vallejo and educated in Vallejo public schools, Mr. Laird’s parents were both educators. He graduated from UCSC’s Adlai Stevenson College. In 1981, Assemblymember Laird was elected to the Santa Cruz City Council. He was elected by the City Council to one-year mayor’s terms in 1983 and 1987, becoming one of the first openly gay mayors in the United States.
Assemblymember Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) was first elected to the Assembly in 2002, Assemblyman Leno represents the 13th District, which encompasses the eastern portion of San Francisco. He is one of the first two openly-gay men ever elected to the State Assembly. He currently chairs the Assembly Appropriations Committee, which oversees all bills with a fiscal impact on the state of California. Leno also serves on the Election & Redistricting and Labor Committees. Leno was also chair of the Public Safety Committee from 2003 to 2006. Prior to his election to the State Assembly, Leno served on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors from April 1998 to November 2002. Leno has also been in the forefront of Marriage Equality battle with the recacitrant Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in sending the Governor Marriage Equality bills each year which Schwarzenegger then terminates with a veto:
While in the Assembly, Leno has fought for better schools and access to higher education, a cleaner and sustainable environment, universal affordable and quality health care, improved transportation, renewable energy, safer streets and equal rights for all Californians. In 2007, Leno is continuing his pioneering battle for LGBT couples and their families by authoring AB 43, the Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act. This historic civil rights legislation would allow same sex couples to marry in California . In 2005, Leno’s nearly identical AB 849 was the first marriage equality bill in United States history to be approved by both houses of a state legislature.
A native of Wisconsin, Leno attended the University of Colorado at Boulder, then went on to become valedictorian of his graduating class at the American College of Jerusalem, where he earned his Bachelor of Arts Degree. Leno also spent two years in Rabbinical Studies at The Hebrew Union College in New York . He is the owner of Budget Signs, Inc., a small business he founded in 1978 and operated with his life partner, Douglas Jackson. Together the two entrepreneurs steadily grew their sign business until Jackson passed away from complications relating to HIV/AIDS in 1990. This deep loss would not deter Leno. Instead, he redoubled his efforts in community service.
Senator Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) was first elected to the State Senate in 2004, to represent the 39th Senate District, Senator Kehoe chairs the State Senate’s Energy, Utilities and Communications Committee. In 2006, Kehoe chaired the Senate’s Local Government Committee where she sponsored the most important redevelopment reform bill in more than a decade:
Senator Kehoe is a member of the Senate Committee on Budget & Fiscal Review; Natural Resources & Water; Transportation & Housing; Local Government, the Governor’s Broadband Task Force, the California Cultural and Historical Endowment; and the Sea Grant Advisory Panel.
She also serves on the Select Committees on Defense and Aerospace Industry; the Natural Resources and Water’s Subcommittee on Delta Resources; the Joint Committee on the Arts; and the Select Committee on Coastal Protection and Watershed Conservation.
Prior to being elected to the Senate, Kehoe served two terms as a California State Assemblymember representing the 76th District (2000-04).
During her first term in the State Assembly, Kehoe distinguished herself by becoming the second woman ever – and the first woman from San Diego, to be elected Assembly Speaker pro Tempore, the Assembly’s second highest-ranking position. In her first year in the State Assembly, she carried the largest energy conservation bill package in the state’s history.
Prior to being elected to serve California’s 76th Assembly District, Kehoe served seven years as City Council Member representing San Diego’s Third District. As a Council Member, Christine was at the forefront on environmental issues, serving as chair of the Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee. She led efforts to improve and beautify San Diego, reduce street crime, and improve recreational opportunities for families.
State Senator Sheila James Kuehl (D-Los Angeles) was first elected to the State Senate in 2000, and again in 2004, after serving for six years in the State Assembly. During the 1997-98 legislative session, Senator Kuehl was the first woman in California history to be named Speaker pro Tempore of the Assembly. Kuehl is also the first openly-gay or lesbian person to be elected to the California Legislature. A former civil rights attorney and law professor, Kuehl represents the 23rd Senate District in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. She is the chair of the Senate Health Committee and serves as a member of the Agriculture, Appropriations, Environmental Quality, Joint Rules, Judiciary, Labor and Employment, and Natural Resources and Water Committees. Kuehl is also chair of the Select Committee on School Safety and Chair of the Select Committee on the Health Effects of Radioactive and Chemical Contamination. Kuehl previously served as chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee from 2000-2006:
In her thirteen years in the State Legislature, Sen. Kuehl has authored 171 bills that have been signed into law, including legislation to establish paid family leave, establish the rights contained in Roe vs. Wade in California statute, overhaul California’s child support services system; establish nurse to patient ratios in every hospital; require that housing developments of more than 500 units have identified sources of water; further protect domestic violence victims and their children; prohibit discrimination on the basis of gender and disability in the workplace and sexual orientation in education; increase the rights of crime victims; safeguard the environment and drinking water; many, many others. Since 2003, she has led the fight in the legislature to achieve true universal health care in California, and, in 2006, brought SB 840, the California Universal Healthcare Act, to the Governor’s desk, the first time in U.S. history a single-payer healthcare bill had gone so far. Undaunted by its veto, Senator Kuehl continues to work to bring universal, affordable, quality health care to all Californians.
She was selected to address the 1996 Democratic National Convention on the issue of family violence and the 2000 Democratic National Convention on the issue of diversity. In 1996, George magazine selected her as one of the 20 most fascinating women in politics and the California Journal named her “Rookie of the Year.” In 1998 and, again, in 2000, the California Journal chose her as the Assembly member with the greatest intelligence and the most integrity. In 2006, the Capitol Weekly picked her as the most intelligent member of the California Legislature.
Prior to her election to the Legislature, Senator Kuehl drafted and fought to get into California law more than 40 pieces of legislation relating to children, families, women, and domestic violence. She was a law professor at Loyola, UCLA and USC Law Schools and co-founded and served as managing attorney of the California Women’s Law Center.
Senator Kuehl graduated from Harvard Law School in 1978 where she was the second woman in the school’s history to win the Moot Court competition. She served on the Harvard University Board of Overseers from 1998 to 2005.
Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) represents the 3rd District in the California State Senate, which includes the eastern half of the City and County of San Francisco, all of Marin County, and portions of Sonoma County. Senator Migden was first elected to the Senate in November of 2004.
Currently, Senator Migden is chair of the Senate Democratic Caucus and also serves as Chair of the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee. In 2004, she began serving as Chair of the Appropriations Committee:
Prior to being elected to the Senate, Carole Migden served as Chairwoman of the California Board of Equalization (BOE); the nation’s only publicly elected tax commission; represented San Francisco’s 13th District in the California State Assembly; and for five years served as a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.
During her tenure at the BOE Senator Migden worked to modernize the state’s outdated tax system and manage taxpayers’ money responsibly. Her accomplishments at the BOE included strengthening domestic partners’ property rights, leveling the playing field between Main Street and on-line retailers, protecting California’s precious open space, and advocating for increased revenues to fund vital services by eliminating obsolete tax breaks.
In the State Assembly, Migden served for five years as Chairwoman of the Assembly Committee on Appropriations. She was the first woman and the first freshman legislator to chair that influential committee. For four years she also served as a conferee on the state’s Joint Budget Conference Committee, which writes the final version of California’s state budget.In that time Carole Migden authored legislation to create California’s landmark domestic partner registry, promote children’s health, preserve the old growth Headwaters Forrest, increase accountability in K-12 schools, protect borrowers from predatory and deceptive lending practices, protect consumers from manipulation by energy generators, and promote the use of emergency contraception.
Senator Migden has received numerous awards for her service. California Journal named her among California’s power elite of women elected officials and awarded her with their “Rookie of the Year” award in 1998, taking top honors in the categories of most integrity, most intelligence, hardest working, most ambitious, and most influential. She received “Legislator of the Year” honors in 1999 from the California School Employees Association and in 2001 from the California National Organization for Women (NOW), as well as leadership awards from prominent environmental and civil rights organizations. She continues to receive high honors in California Journal’s annual rankings, including “Quick Study” in 2002.
Carole Migden is a longtime member of, and current super-delegate to, the Democratic National Committee. She also served as chair of the San Francisco Democratic Party for eight years.
(You should meet Hannah-Beth. She’s pretty cool. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)
In California Hannah-Beth Jackson is running for the State Senate. This is a key race because this is the Senate seat that could flip from Republican to Democrat, finally giving the Dems a 2/3 majority and enabling them to finally pass budgets. Her website is: Meet Hannah-Beth
Hannah-Beth is a former member of the California State Assembly who founded Speak Out California, where I post once or twice a week, and the Institute for the Renewal of the California Dream (which does not yet have a website) where I am a Senior Fellow. This should tell you that she is a solid progressive, concerned with advancing democracy, community, and the mutual prosperity of all Californians instead of the benefits of our work and investment being funneled to the corporations and wealthy. So she has my endorsement and I hope she can earn yours.
Well, that didn’t take long. Yesterday, we pointed out a Capitol Weekly story indicating that Sen. Steinberg was planning to run to be the Senate Leader. Today, it appears to be a done deal. The CA Majority Report is now citing “several legislative sources” that Senator Perata has “orchestrated” a smooth transition to Senator Steinberg, a fairly progressive Sacramentan. Sen. Steinberg will take over as leader on August 21, a few months before Perata is termed out of office.
Now, I guess we’re left with watching the Assembly for all the “palace intrigue.”
[UPDATE by Dave]: And if this part of that intrigue is true, there’s going to be some serious pushback:
Meanwhile, very reliable sources tell me that Democratic Assemblymember Charles Calderon has been trying to put together a deal with the Republicans in the Assembly-who number 32 in all-and to cobble together at least 9 Democrats in the body to get to 41, the magical number to become Speaker.
If we have a Lieber-Speaker in the midst, that’s not going to work out well, to put it charitably. This needs some attention.
Cross posted from Sunlight Foundation
“We can never understand [a House member’s] Washington activity without also understating his perception of his various constituencies and the home style he uses to cultivate their support…” states Richard Fenno in Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Fenno understands that the work of members of Congress is more than committee meetings and votes but is also people they meet with from the district. The work in the district builds trust constituents need to send them to Washington and to accept the decisions they make there. Fenno’s makes the point that the work of lawmakers done in the district is not an exhibition but the yang to Washington’s Ying.
This trust that lawmakers create in the district extends to who they meet with in Washington. The Punch Clock motto has always been “Members of Congress work for us, and we should know what they do every day.” Fenno made this point a different way, “Trust is, however, a fragile relationship. It is not an overnight or one-time thing. It is hard to win; and it must be constantly renewed and rewon. ”
In this spirit, Sunlight has decided to help out by creating a trust-building tool. This tool, the Punch Clock Map, is a Google map mashup with corresponding RSS feeds that lets citizens see for themselves just how elected officials spend their time and how they serve their district’s needs.
Punch Clock Map provides a visual representation of the meetings detailed by the eight members of Congress who post their daily schedules online. Currently, that includes: Sen. Max Baucus,? Rep. Kathy Castor,? Rep. John Doolittle,? Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand,? Sen. Bill Nelson,? Rep. Denny Rehberg,? Rep. Jan Schakowsky? and Sen. Jon Tester.? (As Rep. Alcee Hastings? posts an abridged weekly schedule, his is not included.)
To let citizens monitor how their elected officials address their district’s needs, the maps mark the home-base location of the organization or individual who met with the lawmaker, not where the meeting occurred. If the lawmaker’s schedule provides a location, organization or individual (who can be easily identified), those meetings are plotted on the map. (The map does not include internal business meetings, committee hearings, meetings with constituents without easily identifiable addresses or location and meetings with other current members of Congress.)
The Punch Clock Map is an extension of the Punch Clock Campaign, an initiative the Sunlight Foundation began in 2006, which asked all candidates for congressional office – challengers and incumbents – to promise, if elected, to post their daily schedules on the Internet. Inspired by the 60 percent of Americans who ‘punch a clock’ to account for their time at work, Sunlight asked why members of Congress should not also account for their time to their employers: the citizens they represent.
Building trust is an essential part of the representative – constituent relationship. Posting a schedule helps maintain the trust that lawmakers go through such efforts to maintain and it also helps instill trust in the constituents who are always looking for ways to not trust their lawmakers.
Disclaimer: I am the outreach coordinator for the Sunlight Foundation
This article written by: Former Assemblymember Hannah Beth Jackson of Speak Out California
A weekly update on the goings-on in Sacramento
For the week ending November 3, 2007
Key bills and issues we’ve been following during the
Past week and beyond
This is usually a pretty quiet time in Sacramento. While this situation remains pretty much the case, the slowly dying Special Session still remains. With the big battle over water ending in a stalemate, the debate over health care reform showed a glimmer of activity this week as the Assembly Health Committee held a full-blown hearing on the Governor’s health care proposal. There wasn’t any progress to speak of, although the Speaker, Fabian Nunez pledged to keep working to reach a compromise. Unfortunately, few in Sacramento believe either side will make necessary concessions to make that happen.
When times are slow, polls become more interesting-at least to those political wonks who are otherwise suffering withdrawal from relative inactivity. This week was no different as the well-respected Public Policy Institute of California came out this week with the latest on several fronts. Among these are whether the people feel California is moving in the right direction or not (which is just another way of asking whether people are optimistic and hopeful about their future) and how the Governor would fare should he decide to take on Senator Barbara Boxer in 2010 for the U.S. Senate. As you can see, a lot of inside baseball here, especially since even the baseball season is finally over.
The ballot measures for 2008 are again coming to life, especially since right-wing Congressman Darrell Issa, who brought us the Davis Recall in 2003, has announced he will bankroll the return of the Electoral College measure. For those who thought this blatant right-wing power grab was dead, this measure will split California’s electoral votes from a winner-takes-all to a split of electoral votes by Congressional District. Translated, this would likely give the Republican candidate 20 electoral votes—or the size of Ohio or Florida. Since the Republicans haven’t won California in years, this is as good as giving them a 40 vote turnaround in the Electoral College, enough so the conventional wisdom holds, to steal the election for the Republicans. And since it is felt that Rudy Guliani is the one most likely to benefit from this ploy, and there are many dirty footprints leading to his door on this measure, the Dems are howling. All this makes for good copy, of course, and keeps the political junkies busy during an otherwise slow period before the election cycle kicks in. Of course, this year, the election cycle seems to have started months ago and seems to be in overdrive already.
With so much bad press recently for Speaker Fabian Nunez’s spending habits, the Term-Limits/Extension measure Prop. 93 appears to be sliding out of favor dramatically with California’s likely voters. Added to the woes of current members hoping to extend their terms in office is the announcement by billionaire State Insurance Commissioner, Steve Poizner, that he will help bankroll the opposition to the measure. Even though the supporters of the measure have a substantial war chest, this measure looks like it may go down with a big thud.
And now for the week’s goings-on:
Health Care in the Governor’s Special Session
The Governor finally got his opportunity to publicly roll-out his insurance-based health care plan. With his normal theatrical flair, the measure had a full hearing before the assembly Health Committee this week. Ever gracious Health Secretary Kim Belshe, presented the Governor’s now more specifically formulated proposal to a skeptical committee. Because the measure assumes that the insurance industry remains in the play—and in fact, insists upon it, there was no discussion of one of the fundamental questions in the entire debate: what benefit (if any) does the insurance industry bring to the delivery of health care to Californians? The Governor’s proposal simply presumes a benefit, although it is seriously challenged.
In fact, the basic premise of real universal health care is that there is one entity that is responsible for paying out to the healthcare providers (like the very successful and cost-effective U.S. Medicare/Medical system). No insurance companies, no profits, just one agency that oversees payments. That allows everyone to choose their own docs and healthcare providers who will be able to practice without insurance company interference, get paid a fair fee and discard all the bureaucratic tape of having to deal with the thousands of different plans in California alone.
But, unfortunately, the Governor’s proposal would require that all Californians buy health insurance and on that basis all Californians would be covered. Even assuming for the moment that this is a good approach, the Governor’s proposal makes the purchase of insurance mandatory, but doesn’t say what that cost would entitled us to receive and doesn’t cap the cost that the insurance industry can charge for the various services, medications, etc. that we would be getting for our premium payments.
Without any controls, the measure was predictably poorly received. In addition, there is no agreement on how to fund the program. The Republicans won’t support any system to pay for the coverage and the Dems don’t like the mandatory requirement aspects of the proposal. The Governor wants to cap employer contributions at 4%, but this is even less than what companies who are already contributing for health premiums are paying now.
During the hearing, it was exposed that the Governor’s proposal is not clear as to who is covered under the mandatory provisions requirement. Nor is there a mechanism to contain costs of premiums that the insurance industry can charge.
Another cause for concern is that minimum insurance would mean minimum coverage, so that those unable to afford much would likely end up paying for something that doesn’t provide them with the care they would need anyway- meaning they would be paying for nothing…not a very good system.
About the only point of agreement in all this is that insurance companies would not be able to reject providing insurance (such as it would be) for pre-existing conditions. Although this might seem to be a good place to start negotiations, neither side appears to be willing to concede on any of the above mentioned points. This is often referred to as a stalemate.
Hopefully, at some point, we’ll be able to get back to a meaningful discussion of whether healthcare should be available to everyone and if so, how we can construct a profit-based, yet more cost effective and equitable system to delivering meaningful healthcare to all?
For an excellent piece on the problems with the Governor’s proposal, check out Consumer Federation of California’s Richard Holober’s piece here.
Polls: a snapshot of what the people are thinking today
When times are slow, polls take on a particular interest. This week’s offerings from the highly regarded Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) are no exception. One of the most consistent areas the PPIC investigates is how the public perceives the present and future- taking the pulse of the public’s optimism or pessimism regarding the days to come. While it tends to fluctuate significantly, trends are often discernable and serve to highlight the kinds of policies and leadership the public wants or believes it is getting.
Right track or wrong track?
The current pulse shows that Californians are evenly divided on whether they believe the state is on the “right track” with 42% believing we are and 42% believing we’re on the “wrong-track”. For those who think we’re headed in the wrong direction, 21% cite immigration and uncontrolled borders as the reason we’re going the wrong way. This represents a 6% increase from the 15% who felt immigration was the number one problem in California in 2005. Thirteen percent of those who think we’re headed down the wrong path cited education and school cuts as the second most serious problem in the state.
Those who believe the picture is rosy and headed down the right path attributed their optimism to the Governor (21%) while 19% attributed it to the state’s economy. For a further discussion of this data, check out the Sac Bee article here.
The importance of college and higher education
And while on the subject of higher education, a strong majority of Californians believe that one of the keys to success is obtaining a college education. Sadly, 56% of Californians believe is harder to get that education today than it was a decade ago. The PPIC poll shows that an impressive 76% see our state’s higher education system as a key- to our quality of life and economic well-being. There is little doubt that we need to do more in California to improve access to this vitally important path to economic opportunity and well-being. For more on this subject, check out Frank Russo’s excellent piece here.
Boxer vs. Arnold for U.S. Senate in 2010:
For real political wonks, polls showed that if there were a match-up today between Senator Barbara Boxer and Governor Schwarzenegger, it would be a statistical dead heat. While this has many progressives concerned, the governor insists he has no interest in the seat and doesn’t intend to challenge the Senator who, by virtue of her seniority, now chairs the very important Senate Subcommittee on the Environment. While one would like to take the Governor at his word, he has been known to change his mind at the very last minute—as he did when he announced his decision to run for Governor on the Jay Leno show. Not only did that announcement shock his staff, but his wife as well. So, we’ll have to stay-tuned on that one.
New or re-heated initiatives on the horizon
Just when we thought the right-wing power-grabbers were sufficiently embarrassed and humiliated to put the Electoral College scam measure on the ballot, they’ve found a new champion to come to their rescue in the form of Darrell Issa redux. This is the measure that was originally fronted by a group with the ignominious distinction of being led by a Republican operative best known for biting the backsides of women. While this measure would certainly bite the back-side of democracy by breaking up California’s electoral votes, and possibly handing the Republican presidential candidate an undeserved victory in the 2008 Presidential election (not exactly something new), it needs a quick insurgence of cash to ensure it can qualify for the November 2008 ballot. With only a few weeks left to qualify, we’ll be seeing a lot of paid signature gatherers misleading unsuspecting voters to sign their petitions. It will be ugly and is already the subject of litigation as the Dems are not going to let this piece of undemocratic mischief see the light of day, if at all possible.
Proposition 93- The term limits/expansion initiative
The measure, sponsored by the leadership of both houses of the legislature, got some bad news this week as the polling shows that support for Prop 93 plummets dramatically when the public discovers that it will give sitting members additional time in the legislature. While the current term-limits rule has wreaked havoc on our legislative system, this proposal has far too many skeptics seeing it as an obvious attempt to keep the current leadership in power longer than it should be. Given the negative couple weeks Speaker Fabian Nunez has had over his disclosed uses of campaign funds, it is little wonder that the public is souring on this measure. For more on this story, click here.
From the Speak Out California In-box
While we often receive emails from our readers (who for some reason would rather email than post on our blog!), this week was particularly heavy on concerns and outrage over Senator Dianne Feinstein’s support of Judge Mukasey’s confirmation. Several of you were indignant that the Senator would support a candidate who will not condemn water-boarding as torture. While we generally try to focus on California issues and activity within the state, we, too, are very concerned about approving someone who hasn’t the courage or perhaps the moral compass to condemn torture sanctioned by the government of the United States. We urge those who share this concern, to let Senator Feinstein’s office know of your displeasure. Certainly, at the least, we as Californians are entitled to know why she has given her critical vote to confirm under these circumstances. To contact her office, click here.
The Rest of the Story
Our blogging offerings for the week:
Keeping big business happy at our children’s expense— A look at the conduct of the federal agency tasked with protecting our health and safety as consumers and as parents, while our children are exposed to dangerous and unsafe toys.
The Power of the Words, We the People— a look at how “we”, the people, are really “we”, the government.
To read and comment on these entries just go to: www.speakoutca.org/weblog/
Until next week,
Hannah-Beth Jackson and the Speak Out California Team