(also available in blue)

I am fairly surprised that more has not been made in the blogosphere of the unwelcome news that Chevron is doing everything it can to buy off the California Democratic Party and some of its top legislators.  Outside of this small item in The Oil Drum, pretty much nobody has said a word about the fact that the CDP accepted a $50,000 check from a company that is attempting to artificially depress capacity and manipulate the energy market in a way that is shockingly similar to how Enron made themselves a fortune during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.  You can read the details here.

As a delegate to this party, I feel personally tainted by this donation.  I feel like there is a concerted effort to buy my silence.  It will not work, and I want to outline why I am respectfully asking this party, of which I am a member and to which I pay dues, to return the money.

I don’t think I have to go into how Chevron controls the oil market in California by owning most of the refineries, and that in another era that would rightly be called a trust.  I don’t need to discuss their record profits or their expenditures of $44 million to defeat ballot propositions like Prop. 87 and Prop. 89 last year, or their consistently greedy profit-taking at a time of record gas prices throughout the state, or how they refuse to increase refining capacity to keep that profit artificially high.  And I don’t need to explain how corporations aren’t in the business of charity, and that every expenditure they make has a stated outcome, whether for public relations purposes or to engender favorable legislation or just to keep government off their backs while they continue to rake in billions.  What I can talk about is the poverty of imagination that leads the CDP to take a gift like this.

What bothers me most about taking a fat corporate donation like this, from the very interest group you fought tooth and nail against on Prop. 87 just 6 months ago, is how LAZY it is.  There are an unlimited amount of ways to raise $50,000 that not only show no appearance of impropriety or corporate favoritism, but bring people into the process and grow the party, which are the key metrics for politics in the 21st century.  If you really needed $50,000 in a state of 37 million people, how about this: ask 50,000 to give a dollar to specifically ensure that the CDP won’t be beholden to big corporate money.  You can hold dollar parties and write about how giving citizens a stake brings them closer to the party.  And in return for that dollar, you could give people prominent space on the CDP website to upload a minute of video about what problems facing California most affect them.  Then, once the money is collected, PUBLICLY REBUFF Chevron by telling them that their donation has been paid by the people.  Not only would you be seen as populist folk heroes, you would be investing in the party by allowing 50,000 Calfornians get a share and a stake.  That’s called people power.  The new metrics for the Presidential campaigns, for example, are not just money but numbers of donors, because that shows a broad base of support.  A party that gets rich off fat $50,000 checks is a mile wide and an inch deep.  We already have a party like that in California.  It’s called the Republican Party.  And I expect them and their leaders to take hundreds of thousands from the oil industry, as Arnold has.

If that corporate money were even drilled in to infrastructure and party building, that would be something.  But typically, it’s not.  And the party that continues on a traditional model of collecting big corporate checks and running big broadcast ads will be obsolete in a new media environment.  Stoller:

We need to figure out new metrics for receiving party support aside from money and polling.  Perhaps opt-in email addresses acquired?  Friends on MySpace?  Newly registered voters (I like this one)?  Chatter across blogs using sites such as Blogpulse?

I’m not sure, but the whole landscape of politics is shifting.  It’s like an entirely new grammar is emerging, but we’re not there yet.

A “dollar party” strategy, that could spread virally through social networking sites (is the CDP even on MySpace or Facebook?), that would bind more people to the party in a small way and set up a core of activists for GOTV, that would allow a press release that says “50,000 donors!” instead of hiding the fact that one polluting Big Oil ripoff artist gave you 50,000 dollars… would simply be a forward-thinking way to grow the party and gather attention.

I’m sure that there are a host of conciliators and “my-party-right-or-wrong” types that have a problem with me sharing even a scintilla of disagreement with the state party (there’s another guy that believes in the silencing of any alternative voices, he resides at 1600 Penn. Ave, Wash, DC, 20500).  First of all, I would have them take a look at the rise of DTS voters and the lack of success in joining the progressive wave in 2006 and ask them where all that brushing aside criticism has gotten them.  But the second thing I would ask them is, why are you a Democrat?  What do you believe, if anything?  And how do you square that belief with the fact that one of the companies most committed to stopping any progress on global warming or reducing dependence on foreign oil just handed you – you! – a wad of money in order to shut you up?

The Speaker’s Office claims that these donations won’t impact Democrats’ ability to take a hard look at what Chevron is attempting to do on refining capacity, and that “tough” legislation is forthcoming.  I would hope so.  I cannot impact what individual candidates receive in gifts; at least, not until election season.  I can have an impact when it’s my party.  I’m a delegate and a member in good standing.  I know for a fact that members of the Party leadership read this site.  I’m asking those in charge at the CDP, nicely, to give back the Chevron money.  I want to work on innovative fundraising solutions that can simultaneously fund the important work of the party and bring it closer to the people whom it serves.  But like any addiction, the first step is admitting you have a problem.

(Learn the rules to the game – promoted by Lucas O’Connor)

Thank you for your e-mail Marlene.

On your first issue, keep in mind the definition of resolutions that the State Party operates on—a philisophical statement. Resolutions are not designed to manage the Party structure. Generally we refer resolutions that deal with party structure to the Organizational Development Committee. We refer resolutions that would change the bylaws to the Rules Committee. We generally refer resolutions that seek a support or opposition to a specific pience of legislation to the Legislative Committee. For example, the resolutions that would create an audit committee is a bylaws change. You can’t change the bylaws by way of a resolution. The proponent could have made a bylaws change at this Convention but chose not to use the proper process. We did refer some resolutions calling for support for legislation to the legislative Committee. Your resolutions dealing with 58 counties were part of a referral to the Task Force that Art is developing. Art committed that the proponents/authors(in this case your Don Lowrie I take it) would be on the Task Force.

Second, its not written in stone but its good common sense to show up at a meeting where your resolution is going to be heard. We actually heard from almost all the resolution sponsors of those resolutions that were going to be referred to the Task Force. Had anyone represented themselves as a sponsor or spokesperson for your resolution they would have been allowed to speak. We got 117 resolutions this time and every convention has alot of resolutions. My co-chairs and I develop a consent calendar if we’re able to come up with some agreement on what to do with a resolution. Resolution Committee members will often disagree and pull a resolution to discuss other courses of action. Whatever the recommendation, a proponent is allowed to make their case. I am sorry you had a conflict but they are frankly unavoidable. We work with delegates who come to us and ask us to put their resolution on a “second call” or if possible, handle it as a priority. We can’t always do this but we will try to accomodate people where possible. Suggestion for next time—have someone else attend the Rural Cuacus(or have someone else attend resolutions committee). Keep in mind even if you had shown and spoke up the Committee most likely would have referred your resolution to the Task Force.

Third, those resolutions passed by our Committee and not taken to the floor(non-prioritized resolutions) will go to the floor of the Executive Board in July. Those resolutions which were late and objected to will goto the July Executive Board resolutions committee. The 58 County and 50 state strategy resolution will not come back to our Committee unless the Task Force send it back to us. If you introduce a new resolution similar to this we will refer it to the Task Force and/or the Organizational Development Committee.

Fourth, check your convention rules which discusses what a resolution is. Our Committee is reworking our Resolutions Procedures and will have a new handout which we will have posted on the CDP web site prior to the 10 day cut off for resolutions to be submitted to the executive Board. Until then I would refer you to the Bylaws and if you have a specific question opn a specific resolution please e-mail me and I will help you as best I can. Keep in mind, no more then 3 whereas and 2 resolve clauses, keep away from areas outside Resolutions Committee jurisdiction(bylaws, Organizational Development, legislation), make sure you have it sponsored by a committee members(easier to introduce a resolution to E-Board then Convention) and show up at the meeting or have someone who will speak to it. By the way, a resolution can support the concept embodied in legislation, just not the legislation itself. The Legislative Committee will report their resolutions back to the Resolutions Committee.

I hope these responses have been helpful. Like you, im a volunteer who is trying my best to help the Party. We passed some wonderful, important resolutions in San Diego and I look forward to having good quality resolutions passed at the Executive Board meeting in July.

(Now cross-posted in Orange and Blue. – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

During the convention, I spoke (*not so well*) about the impact of community blogs. It was a rocking good time, except for the fact that I felt a bit on the unprepared side. Sorry folks! Well, anyway, there was also a reporter in that room, one Jennifer Hunter from the Chicago Sun-Times. She does a lot of coverage for the local Senator…uh…Barack Obama. Well, on May 4, she let out a cry for the old media.  Not from a position of knowledge or experience, rather it was another example of media defensiveness. 

When I walked into the California State Democratic Convention last Saturday in San Diego and saw all the bloggers, I realized that not only was I a Luddite, hauling around my ailing microcassette tape recorder, but that this trend of political blogging is growing like a kudzu vine, snaking around a dozen newspaper boxes … overnight. (Chicago Sun-Times 5/4/07)

Well, I wasn’t sure about the reference to kudzu, either. But after a little kudzu research, I don’t think it’s a very friendly reference. It turns out kudzu, in America, is invasive and grows out of control in the Southeast. Not nice, Ms. Hunter. But we probably shouldn’t  feel to threatened by Ms. Hunter’s call to arms. It turns out that she throws out any remaining credibility at the end of the article.

You see apparently, Ms. Hunter never covered the tech beat, either in Chicago, or for her previous Canadian gigs.  You see, had she covered, well anything remotely related to tech, I’m guessing she would have heard the phrase “early adopters.”  Well, she hasn’t, because throughout the whole article she cites blogs as the domain of “early adaptors.” 

But putting that aside, her closing is a doozy.

In the end, who has time to blog? After reading four newspapers each day and my e-mails and doing my work, I’ve had it. Blogging remains a luxury for the young — or the bored.

I guess I should apologize for wasting your time. I mean I shouldn’t have spent all that time explaining the blogosphere to Ms. Hunter, given that it’s such a waste of time. But I’m no therapist, and I don’t know where she was coming from. Perhaps she was intimidated by the fact that Calitics had the best coverage of the CDP Convention. Or perhaps she doesn’t understand the symbiotic nature of blogosphere and the MSM. Or, well, whatever, but somebody is a bit nervous.

But, Ms. Hunter, thanks for the shout out to Calitics. Any attention, misguided or not, is a boost to the blogosphere. Thanks for the help.

(Finally ready – promoted by Brian Leubitz)

John Edwards’ speech was the buzz of the convention.  Unfortunately, many of the Calitics bloggers were in meeting with Gov. Bill Richardson during the Edwars speech. However, Todd Beeton was there, and he blogged that the place really loved the Former Senator from North Carolina.

He has a great mix of the best of both of the other two major candidates, and his own set of weaknesses. He talks the language of hope and progressive populism. He speaks with a note of experience as somebody who has fought in a national election in the past. He is certainly an appealing candidate.

His position on Iraq seems to have coalesced, and he is now an outspoken critic of the war. And he aced that question right out of the box. His theme of two Americas is growing more obvious now. I mean, half of the country feels like it’s failing to get ahead.

Finally, this video is up in the CDP’s archive of all of the speeches. I couldn’t figure out how to embed that video, so I sent it over to Google video. Thanks CDP!

Here you have Fabian endorsing Hillary Clinton. I broke it into four parts, b/c well, I don’t know why.  The other parts are over the flip.  I just wanted to get these out there.

Part 2 of 4:

Part 3 of 4:

Part 4 of 4:

I need to get all of these videos up. I still have Hillary’s Presser and Lori Hancock on Clean Money. But today, here’s Edwards Presser. If you listen closely, you will hear the first question came from Tim Redmond of the SFBG. And it’s a great question. If you can’t hear the question, basically he asked if Edwards would consider some sorts of tax on the uber-wealthy, you know like people making $25 mil/year. Edwards wasn’t immediately opposed to the concept. I guess that’s a start.

For videos broken up by topic, check out Working Californians. Well, we both posted at the same time. So…here’s juls’ videos over the flip

Like Todd, I shot video of the Edwards press conference.  I have edited it down into three clips. Unfortunately, the media focused more on politics than substance, but Edwards still had the opportunity to address some of Working Californian’s issues, plus a bonus talk on what it takes to be a great leader.  Three videos below the fold.

All the clips are up on Working Californian’s YouTube page.

In this clip, Edwards takes a series of three questions on taxes.  He broke new ground in the press conference refusing to rule out excess profit taxes.

The question on leadership was posed not by the mainstream media, but a credentialed online journalist.  The reporters groaned, but it was a refreshing change from questions about his hair.

The last clips is the same as Todd’s but a little steadier since I had tripod. Edwards talks about California leading on energy, minimum wage and health care.

Like Todd, I shot video of the Edwards press conference.  I have edited it down into three clips. Unfortunately, the media focused more on politics than substance, but Edwards still had the opportunity to address some of Working Californian’s issues, plus a bonus talk on what it takes to be a great leader.  Three videos below the fold.

All the clips are up on Working Californian’s YouTube page.

In this clip, Edwards takes a series of three questions on taxes.  He broke new ground in the press conference refusing to rule out excess profit taxes.

The question on leadership was posed not by the mainstream media, but a credentialed online journalist.  The reporters groaned, but it was a refreshing change from questions about his hair.

The last clips is the same as Todd’s but a little steadier since I had tripod. Edwards talks about California leading on energy, minimum wage and health care.