A group called Americans Elect today became the
first new political party to gain ballot status in California since 1995 -- a
development that helps set the stage for a potential third-party candidacy for
president next fall. The group has already qualified for the ballot in
11 other states and says it is on track to get on the ballot in all 50 states.
It promises to hold an online nominating process, and its existence has
generated speculation about a potential high-profile third party candidate,
with names such as New York Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, former Utah Gov. Jon
Hunstmanamong those in the rumor mill. The party qualified by submitting more than
1,030,040 signatures of registered voters registered voters (10 percent of the
total number of votes cast in the November 2010 general election), the
secretary of state announced today. The possibility of a third party candidacy next is
now very real. The group says it does not seek to play a spolier role to
specifically hurt the nominee of either major party, but rather that its intent
is to give American voters a broader array of choices. http://blogs.venturacountystar.com/therdt/archives/2011/12/coming-to-calif.htmlComing to California '12 ballot:
Americans Elect
December 20, 2011 California tribes give $275,000 to Gov. Jerry Brown's initiative
California gambling tribes have given $275,000 toward Gov. Jerry Brown's new 2012 ballot initiative to raise taxes on sales and the wealthy, the first known major contribution to his effort.
The California Tribal Business Alliance and two of its member tribes have written checks to help Brown's cause, said the group's political director, David Quintana.
The Alliance gave $75,000, while the Lytton Band of Pomo Indians and Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians each gave $100,000. Brown's initiative would raise the sales tax by a half-cent and increase income taxes starting at $250,000 for individuals to raise an estimated $7 billion in the first fiscal year. Both would expire at the end of 2016. "We wholeheartedly support this governor's vision for California," Quintana said. "We want to make sure the governor's vision can get before the voters so they can make a choice.
We run the gamut of businesses, and if we don't have a healthy economy our businesses are going to suffer." The California Tribal Business Alliance was active this year in opposing a bill backed by cardrooms and other gambling tribes to legalize Internet poker. Asked about the group's legislative interests as motivation, Quintana said, "No, what this is about is the state of California. We stand firmly behind his vision."
The
contributions mark the first known major financial support to Brown's
initiative campaign, though it has become difficult to track donations since
the secretary of state's campaign finance website, Cal-Access, failed earlier
this month. The governor must collect 807,615 valid signatures of registered
voters, an effort that could cost $3 million or more, depending on how many
groups are circulating petitions at the same time.
Read more here: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/12/california-gambling-tribes-give-275000-to-jerry-brown-tax-ballot-initiative.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20and%20California#storylink=cpy
Old computers crash campaign finance data
December 20th, 2011, 12:24 pm · · posted by Martin Wisckol, Politics reporter
Secretary of State Debra Bowen‘s aging computer system has resulted in the state’s campaign-finance disclosure data crashing for more than two weeks, and has now brought down the state’s voter registration verification network as well.
The Cal-Access system allows the public to review campaign contributions and expenditures. This information is most viewed after new filings, like at the end of January when year-end records are due. But it’s also used by those looking at historical campaign donations – particularly when comparing a legislator’s votes to their donor base – and for those keeping an eye on large contributions, which must be reported within 24 hours.
To address this last issue, Bowen is posting all contributions of $5000 or more on a separate web page.
The crash of the CalVoter system is causing a backlog for some county registrars of voters who are in the process of verifying signatures for initiative petitions. California Watch has more on this in its look at the problems, including criticism from watchdogs and some registrars.
Bowen told California Watch that a full upgrade would cost millions – money that the state doesn’t have, particularly at a time when education and programs for the elderly and disabled are being slashed.
“It’s pretty tough to argue that those functions are less important than a brand-new, shiny Cal-Access, which I would love to have,” she said. “I don’t want to lose credibility on things that I need by asking for things where the timing just isn’t right.”
Bowen’s office said they hope to have everything up and running again in two weeks.
http://totalbuzz.ocregister.com/2011/12/20/old-computers-crash-campaign-finance-data/81012/California Dream Act's opponents gather signatures
They want a November ballot initiative to repeal the Dream Act, which gives illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges. There is a January deadline.
By Paloma Esquivel, Los Angeles Times
December 18, 2011
In the parking lot of a closed Pasadena restaurant, a handful of tea party volunteers huddled under a tent to escape a sudden downpour of rain.
They were there to gather signatures to repeal AB 131, or the California Dream Act, which gives illegal immigrants access to state financial aid at public universities and community colleges. The rain smudged their signs, they were shouted at by a driver who called them racist, and the turnout was lower than they'd hoped.
But they were undaunted. On their side were a radio campaign and a small number of determined folks who arrived steadily despite the weather.
When the state Dream Act was signed into law in October, it was greeted with cheers by those who felt it would give undocumented youth a much needed opportunity to succeed. It has also inspired anger and dismay among many who believe that the state should not spend scarce resources on illegal immigrants.
"It's ironic they want to use education dollars for foreign nationals when they're raising tuitions for U.S. citizens," said volunteer Ernie Arnold of South Pasadena.
The effort to repeal AB 131 was launched almost immediately after Gov. Jerry Brown signed the legislation. Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-San Bernardino), who started the campaign, said his office received more than 20,000 emails requesting petitions and opportunities to volunteer in the first week and a half after the petition was filed.
Since then, the assemblyman has become a staple of conservative talk shows and a champion of those who seek repeal. He's traveled the state attending gatherings like the one in Pasadena, which have had mixed results.
In order to get an initiative on the November ballot, those opposed to the Dream Act must submit more than 500,000 valid signatures by the first week of January. Whether they'll meet that goal is unclear.
Their effort has been largely grass-roots, led by tea party groups and other volunteers and buoyed by some paid signature gatherers, Donnelly said. They've raised more than $100,000 and distributed thousands of petitions, but organizers are waiting until the petitions are returned until they will say how many signatures they have, he said.
Dan Walters: Are tax increases a solution to California's woes, or a downer By Dan Walters dwalters@sacbee.com The Sacramento Bee By Dan Walters Last modified: 2011-12-18T07:14:04Z Published: Sunday, Dec. 18, 2011 - 12:00
Call it the half-percent solution.While they differ – a lot – in details, there is one fairly consistent theme in the competing proposals to raise Californians' taxes:
They assume increases in the range of $6 billion to $10 billion per year.That's roughly one-half of 1 percent of Californians' personal incomes, or 8 percent to 11 percent of the increases in those incomes that state officials project are occurring this year as the economy slowly pulls itself out of the worst recession since the Great Depression.
It's highly unlikely that a tax increase of those modest dimensions would have any appreciable economic effect, such as retarding recovery.Indeed, since the money would just continue to circulate in the economy, albeit through state and local government and school spending rather than through private spending or investments, it probably would have no net impact.
That's not an argument either for or against hiking taxes, but rather the simple fact of the matter.And it's important to keep that context in mind, because those who will campaign for tax increases next year will claim some hugely beneficial economic impact, while those who oppose them will contend that enactment would be economic ruination.
What we don't know, however, is whether raising taxes even
by a relatively small amount would have a major negative impact on California's
economic future.
Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/12/18/4130705/dan-walters-are-tax-increases.html#mi_rss=Capitol%20and%20California#storylink=cpy
THE LATEST ON CALIFORNIA POLITICS AND GOVERNMENT
November 28, 2011
Republican Elizabeth Emken to run against Sen. Dianne Feinstein
With less than a year to go until the November 2012 election, a GOP challenger to Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein has emerged.
Elizabeth Emken, a longtime advocate for children with autism and 2010 congressional candidate, has decided to run against the incumbent Democrat next year, announcing her candidacy on her campaign website and the conservative blog Flashreport.org.
"She's definitely in and we're putting together the campaign now," campaign consultant Tim Clark said in an interview Monday.
Emken, 48, most recently served as vice president of governmental relations for Autism Speaks, a national nonprofit organization that bills itself as the cause's largest U.S. advocacy group. The Danville Republican, whose 19-year-old son is autistic, previously worked as a legislative consultant and board member for Cure Autism Now, another nonprofit advocacy group that merged with Autism Speaks in 2007. Clark said she also worked in what he called an "efficiency manager" role for IBM Corporation.
"I'm running for U.S. Senate because my children need me to," Emken, who Clark declined to make available for an interview, wrote in a guest post on FlashReport, which first reported the news of her bid. "The massive government debt, the lack of resolve to control spending, and excessive government regulation threaten to fundamentally change the American way of life. I'm not going to let that happen, at least not without a fight."
Emken loaned her 2010 campaign for the 11th Congressional District $300,000, according to federal campaign records, but placed last in the four-way GOP primary with 16.7 percent of the votes cast Clark said he expects Emken, who has launched a campaign website and opened a federal committee to raise money for her new bid, to focus on cultivating a "broad based group of donors" instead of tapping into personal funds to fuel her bid.
Unable to win fair and square, Big Labor pushes 'ambush elections'
By: | 11/22/11 8:05 PM
Leaders of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) last week officially endorsed President Obama for re-election in 2012. Endorsing a presidential candidate 11 months before the general election may seem a bit premature, but it's not even the record for the earliest endorsements so far in this cycle. The National Education Association (NEA) endorsed Obama in July, 14 months before the voting. While these early endorsements highlight the fact that Big Labor's leaders are little more than cheerleaders (and paymasters) for the Democratic Party, at least voters will have plenty of time between now and next November to weigh all the facts, policy positions and records of the parties' two eventual nominees.
But what if they didn't? What if unions not only got to endorse candidates, but also schedule election day at a time of their choosing? What if they could also control what the opposing party could say during that election? Would that be fair? Well, it's obviously a moot point in elections for public office, but President Obama thinks it would be just dandy in union votes. His appointees on the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) promise to make a final decision November 30th on their proposed new regulations that would allow unions to force organizing elections in non-union workplaces in as little as 10 days.
Currently, there is about a five-week window between when union organizers petition the NLRB to conduct a secret-ballot election, and when the vote actually happens. That time between announcement and vote allows both sides abundant opportunities to make their case, so workers can cast informed ballots on whether to form a union. But the problem for Big Labor is that informed workers are increasingly choosing to keep their freedom to work without paying union dues. Union membership peaked at 26 percent of the work force in 1953. Today, only 9.6 percent of workers are union members. In the private sector, less than 7 percent of workers are unionized.
The NLRB regulation to be adopted next Wednesday is designed to reverse that trend. Union organizers would be empowered to force hurry-up, or
"ambush," elections in less than two weeks. At best, this compressed schedule would significantly reduce the time business owners and managers have to make their case against unionization.
Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/2011/11/unable-win-fair-and-square-big-labor-pushes-ambush-elections?utm_source=11/23%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2011/23/2011&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest#ixzz1emkLSo3r
Willing Vassals in Congress Do Lobbyist Bidding
By Jack Abramoff
Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- As I built what became the nation’s largest individual lobbying practice -- with 40 employees at its peak -- I remained the only lobbyist in the firm who had not previously worked on Capitol Hill. Former Congress members and staff are everywhere on K Street, the lair of the lobbying world. Why? Because they have access.
That access was crucial to our lobbying efforts. If we couldn’t get in the door, we couldn’t present our client’s case to decision makers. Hill veterans also had expertise. They knew the Byzantine legislative process and how to make it work for clients. Access and expertise: That’s how the great lobbying machines work. But that’s not all.
I had many arrows in my lobbyist quiver to endear our firm to Congress: two fancy Washington restaurants that became virtual cafeterias for congressional staff, the best seats to every sporting event and concert in town, private planes at the ready to whisk members and staff to exotic locations, millions of dollars in campaign contributions ready for distribution. We had it all. But even with these corrupting gifts, nothing beat the revolving door.
During my time lobbying, I found that the vast majority of congressional staff I encountered wanted to get a job on K Street. And why not? Their jobs on the Hill were only as secure as their boss’s re-election prospects. Even then, they were never certain when they would encounter an office purge. The other side of the rainbow -- K Street -- was heavenly. Salaries were much higher. Perks were abundant. And lobbying is a growth industry, no matter which party is in office. As young staff members got married and had children, making the jump to K Street was often on their minds.
As I cultivated relationships on the Hill, or as the firm’s lobbyists transformed their congressional friends into champions for our clients, I noticed the staff members craved a job on K Street far more than a fancy meal or a Washington Redskins ticket.
Loyal Staff
Most staff were fiercely loyal to their boss and to the institution they served. But, once they thought there was a chance to join our firm sometime down the line, they switched teams -- psychologically first, and then in conduct.
Understanding this, we would drop hints about the gilded life that awaited them on K Street, or share jokes with them about our future together as colleagues.
Staff members who thought they might be hired by our firm inevitably began acting as if they were already working for us.
They seized the initiative to do our bidding. Sometimes, they even exceeded the lobbyists’ wishes in an effort to win plaudits. From that moment, they were no longer working for their particular member of Congress. They were working for us.
They would alert us to any inside information we needed to serve our clients. They would quash efforts to harm our clients, instead seeding appropriations and other benefits for them. I
emphasize: They were working for us.
Our situation was not unique.
During my years as a lobbyist, I saw scores of congressional staff members become the willing vassals of K Street firms before soon decamping for K Street employment themselves. It was a dirty little secret. And it is a source of major corruption in Congress.
There is only one cure for this disease: a lifetime ban on members and staff lobbying Congress or associating in any way with for-profit lobbying efforts. That seems draconian, no doubt. The current law provides a cooling off period for members and staff when joining K Street. The problem is that the cooling off period is a joke.
Here’s how it works. “Senator Smith” leaves Capitol Hill and joins the “Samson Lobbying Firm.” He can’t lobby the Senate for two years. But, he can make contact with his former colleagues. He can call them and introduce them to his new lobbying partners, stressing that although he cannot lobby, they can. His former colleagues get the joke, but the joke’s on us.
Because the vast majority of lobbyists start on the Hill, this employment advantage is widely exploited. It cannot be slowed with a cooling off period. These folks are human beings, not machines -- and human beings are susceptible to corruption and bribery. I should know: I was knee-deep in both. Eliminating the revolving door between Congress and K Street is not the only reform we need to eliminate corruption in our political system.
But unless we sever the link between serving the public and cashing in, no other reform will matter.
(Jack Abramoff is the author of “Capitol Punishment: The Hard Truth About Washington Corruption From America’s Most Notorious Lobbyist.” He spent three years in federal prison for corruption and tax evasion. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Some Democrats refuse to back President Obama
Sen. Joe Lieberman was treated like an outcast back in 2008 when he broke from the Senate Democratic Caucus and openly opposed Barack Obama’s bid for the White House.
Asked last week if he’d back Obama in 2012, the Connecticut independent said, “I don’t know what I’m going to do.”
This time around, there may be more Liebermans.
A number of moderate Democrats like Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar and liberals like Sen. Bernie Sanders are declining to give their unqualified support for the president, saying they’re either too focused on their own races or are calling on the White House to cater to their agendas before they will offer an endorsement. Some up for reelection in red states or in swing districts fear that even showing up on stage with Obama will give their opponents an image to seize upon — much as Democrats did in 2008 when they repeatedly flashed shots of Sen. John McCain hugging President George W. Bush.
So as the president faces the dual challenges of energizing his base while wooing moderates, some Democrats in Congress are keeping their distance, with the president’s approval rating hovering in the mid-40s — and even lower in states like West Virginia, where moderate Sen. Joe Manchin is up for reelection.
“I’m supporting the state of West Virginia and the people of West Virginia,” the freshman Democrat said, when asked if he backed the president’s reelection bid.
Informed that West Virginia won’t be on the ballot next year, Manchin chuckled and said: “You don’t know that. You know something I don’t know?”
In the House, moderate Democrats have a tough calculation to make, a product of the volatile political landscape and a still-undefined presidential race. No matter how low the president’s approval ratings get, they tend to be higher than congressional Republicans. Some Democrats in the House will wait and see whom Obama is running against before they decide whom they’ll be running against — the president or his opponent.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68266.html#ixzz1dhbPJxqI