ACDCC

The Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (ACDCC) is the official Democratic Party organization that represents Alameda County. Members are elected by registered Democraitc voters during presidential primaries. I was first elected to the ACDCC in 2010.

California Democratic Party Condemns Unlawful Use of Drones

California Democratic Party Condemns Unlawful Use of Drones ACDCC, Politics No Responses »

Apr 162013

dronevictims At last weekend’s convention, the California Democratic Party issued a resolution calling for an end to extrajudicial executions and the unlawful use of drones. I wholeheartedly hope that Democratic politicians, both in California and other states, will put it into effect.

I thank resolution co-author California Democratic Party Chair John Burton as well as Resolutions Committee co-Chair and former California Senator Martha Escutia for their commitment to have this resolution reach the floor of the Convention, where it unanimously passed. I also thank the other co-authors of the resolution, in particular Karen Bernal and Peter Leinau, for all the work they put into drafting it. It was one of the most efficient and pleasurable drafting collaborations I’ve experienced.

You can see this and the other resolutions passed by the Party here.

—

Resolution to End Unlawful Drone Strikes, Extrajudicial Executions, and Restrict Domestic Drone Surveillance

WHEREAS, the U.S. government sets a dangerous precedent as it continues drone strikes and extrajudicial killings on people in countries with whom America is not at war, the majority being “signature drone strikes,” where operators fire upon groups of men whose identities are unknown, but who are deemed “targets” based on vaguely defined “suspicious behavior” or “signatures,” including being a male of “military age,” while also utilizing the unlawful and inhumane practice of “double taps,” where rescuers of victims of initial strikes are killed by a second strike; and

WHEREAS, our drone attacks result in the disproportionate killing of 36 to 50 civilians for every one alleged combatant and, given that the Geneva Conventions prohibit attacks that “may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life… excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” during armed conflicts, and that the extrajudicial execution of any person, whether in peace or war time, is prohibited by International Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, and knowing that the constant overhead presence of U.S. drones engenders hatred and desire for revenge among the communities under attack by terrorizing the daily lives of ordinary civilians beyond actual death and physical injury- destroying the culturally binding fabric of weddings, funerals, everyday community activities and the lives of children, many who are so traumatized they cannot go to school, and are unable to eat, sleep, play, socialize or function normally, which is a form of physiological torture and collective punishment prohibited by international law, all the while making the world and our nation less safe; and

WHEREAS, the current administration is directing the use of drones on American citizens by

1) authorizing the use of military drones to target and kill alleged terrorists, including U.S. citizens who may not even be involved in operational plots to harm our nation, without recognizing the United States Constitutional guarantee of due process for all people, including those accused of treason; and

2) directing the FAA to create regulations enabling drones to fly throughout U.S. airspace including California by September 2015 for surveillance of individuals or groups in public spaces and in their homes, in direct violation of our Constitutional guarantee to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches;

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party stands in opposition to the extrajudicial killings and use of drones as described herein, both foreign and domestic, and urges that our policies be structured within the framework of international law, Constitutional checks and balances, due process, judicial review, and transparency; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we call upon the Congressional delegation and the White House to:

1) Make public all claimed legal justifications of present policies and practices;

2) Conduct a fundamental re-evaluation and overhaul of current practices by reforming the policies authorizing the use of American military force, both foreign and domestic; and

3) Re-institute Congressional authority and oversight with regard to war making powers and federal law enforcement.

Authors: Karen Bernal, Margarita Lacabe, John Burton, Peter Leinau, Rick Tuttle

Democratic Delegates Pass Resolution on Domestic Use of Drones

Democratic Delegates Pass Resolution on Domestic Use of Drones ACDCC, Police, Politics 4 Responses »

Mar 112013

drones (Correction)

Last Saturday, delegates to the California Democrats Convention from Region 5 (encompassing most of Alameda County, as well as western Contra Costa and northeastern Santa Clara counties) had a pre-convention meeting. At the meeting, I introduced a resolution to have the California Democratic Party urge Congress and the California Legislature to pass legislation requiring police to obtain a warrant before using drones for law enforcement purposes. The resolution (see below for the text) was overwhelmingly approved by the delegates present at the meeting. It now goes up to the state party’s Resolutions Committee for consideration – along with potentially hundreds of other resolutions passed by county committees, charted organizations and regional meetings or signed by multiple delegates throughout California.

The Resolutions Committee will bring a handful of the resolutions submitted to the floor at the Democratic Convention in April, where delegates to the Convention will vote on them (often by a voice vote, which gives those with louder, deeper voices and advantage!). But if it passes, it will be a clear message to Democrats both in Sacramento and in Washington that people are concerned about the invasion of privacy that drones represent.

If the Resolutions Committee doesn’t bring this resolution to the floor, then we will need the signatures of 300 delegates present in Sacramento to bring it to the floor ourselves. If you will be a delegate to the convention and want this resolution passed, please contact me so that I can get your signature if need be. Please let other delegates to the convention know about this resolution as well!

Restricting the use of drones in law enforcement has become a particularly urgent matter for residents of Alameda County, as the county Sheriff is planning to acquire them and does not accept any privacy restrictions as to how to utilize them. Absent a state law, law enforcement could use drones to monitor demonstrations, peek into people’s windows or take infrared pictures of homes through walls – among even more nefarious things.

Sadly, it’s been the libertarian branch of the Republican Party that has been most concerned about the unconstitutional use of drones. But Democratic leaders are starting to see the dangers of this technology. Earlier this year, Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-Silicon Valley) introduced legislation that would require warrants for the use of drones in law enforcement while state Senator Alex Padilla (D-San Fernando Valley) introduced a spot bill to provide some state regulation on the use of drones.

Unfortunately, not all efforts to regulate drones are in good faith. In Arizona, Republican lawmakers introduced legislation to both promote Arizona as a test-ground for drones and to require police to get warrants before using the drones, but almost immediately gutted the privacy aspects of the bill. Assembly members Jeff Gorell (R-Thousand Oaks) and Steven Bradford (D-Los Angeles) may have a similar plan for California. They’ve co-sponsored one bill that would provide financial incentives to drone-building companies locate in California and another that would place privacy limits in the use of drones both by public and private actors. Both assemblymembers have taken contributions from drone manufacturers and Gorell is a former District Attorney and Navy Intelligence officer, so it seems unlikely they are actually concerned about the misuse of drones.

Find more information on drones at the websites of the ACLU and Alameda County Against Drones

—

Resolution Restricting Use of Drones for Domestic Surveillance

WHEREAS the Federal Aviation Administration Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 directs the FAA to create regulations that will enable drones to fly throughout U.S. airspace by September 2015 and small drones, 25 pounds or under, are now permitted to fly in general airspace below 400 feet for the use of police and first responders, with FAA permission; and

WHEREAS drones can be used for surveillance of individuals or groups in public spaces and in their homes, and police departments throughout the country have begun implementing drone technology; and

WHEREAS the California Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to privacy and the California and United States Constitutions guarantee the right to be free from unreasonable searches, and the rapid implementation of drone technology throughout the United States poses a potential threat to the privacy and constitutional rights of the American people, including California residents;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the California Democratic Party calls on the United States Congress and the Legislature of California to adopt legislation restricting the use of drones for law enforcement purposes without a warrant.

—

CA previous version of this posting featured the resolution I originally proposed, before it was amended and voted upon by Region 5. This has now been corrected to show the resolution that was passed by Region 5 and submitted to the State Convention. I apologize for the error.

—

Margarita Lacabe, the author of San Leandro Talk, is a human rights activist, a member of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee and a delegate to the California Democrats Convention.

Elections 2014: Can Ellen Corbett beat Eric Swalwell?

Elections 2014: Can Ellen Corbett beat Eric Swalwell? Politics 2 Responses »

Feb 122013

Ellen Corbett

She can, but only if she stop playing it safe.

Last October, in the midst of the 2012 electoral battle between veteran Congressman Pete Stark and Dublin City Councilman Eric Swalwell for Congressional District 15, California Senate Majority leader Ellen Corbett took the unprecedented step of announcing she would run for that seat in 2014.

Corbett had been angling to run for Stark’s seat, after he retired, for years. And there was much speculation that Stark would retire in 2012. He was in his 80’s, frequently in bad health, and had been marginalized in Washington. Furthermore, his district had been redrawn and he had lost much of the more liberal parts of western Alameda county, while gaining the conservative Tri-Valley area where his liberal policies were unlikely to be popular. Corbett already represented some of these areas – namely Castro Valley and Pleasanton – and her more moderate Democratic views would be an easier sell.

Stark, however, declined to do the “right thing” (for the local party, at least) and retire and while Corbett entertained the idea of challenging him, she eventually backed off. My guess is that labor would not support her against the aging incumbent.

Eric Swalwell

Her decision proved to be like manna from heaven for Eric Swalwell. The young Dublin City Council member had little to lose by taking on Stark. A prosecutor from a conservative Bay Area suburb, Swalwell was too young and had yet to pay enough dues to be taken seriously by the Democratic establishment or by labor. He had no support to lose by challenging the incumbent.

Swalwell, however, proved to be a consummate campaigner, willing to knock on door after door, attend event after event, and embrace the power of social media and new campaign technologies. He was also able to draw on the expertise of local politicos disaffected with Stark and the local Democratic party. Our own Mayor Stephen Cassidy, for example, shared his own tips and experience on defeating incumbents (he’d done it twice in San Leandro) while Swalwell’s former High School teacher and mentor Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti, an upcoming political force himself, once again took him under his wing. It certainly didn’t hurt that Stark made some serious gaffes during early debates and then disappeared altogether from the campaign trail, leaving it all in the hands of his campaign managers and his supporters in labor and the Democratic party.

Pete Stark

Ultimately, it was the new open-primary system in California that gave Swalwell his win. After his surprisingly good showing in June, which put him in a one-to-one contest with Stark in November, Swalwell started drawing on support and money from more disaffected politicians and individuals. He became the new darling of the news media, which covered Stark’s gaffes with gusto. And he was able to make the race about personalities, rather than issues, which allowed him the flexibility of appealing to voters with very diverse ideologies.

By the end of the campaign, Swalwell had raised $826K and spent $800K of that. That still pales in comparison with the almost $1.4M Stark spent on this race, but it definitely made him competitive.

At the end of the day, in the November election, Stark’s incumbency held and he easily won the part of the district that he had historically represented, while Swalwell easily won the rest.

The question, of course, is what all of this means for Ellen Corbett. While nobody can predict the future, it’s helpful to look at the differences between Corbett and Stark and what she can and cannot bring to a Congressional campaign. Let’s also keep in mind that as everyone wants to back a winner, Corbett’s chances at winning are also dependent on the analysis politicos, contributors and voters make of those same chances. If people think Corbett has a shot, they are more likely to give her their support. And she will definitely need lots of it.

Ellen Corbett is not Pete Stark – in either the bad or the good ways. She is a calm, measured politician; she’s pleasant, smart, compassionate and empathetic, without being overly emotional. She is unlikely to make offensive statements on the campaign trail and give Swalwell the type of ammunition that he had with Stark. However, Corbett has been in public office for a couple of decades: first as a City Council member and Mayor of San Leandro, and then in the California Assembly and now California Senate. If Swalwell decides to run a negative campaign against her, he will probably be able to find plenty of things to criticize.

In 2012, Corbett’s advantages over Pete Stark were that her Senate district included most of CD 15 and that her views were more moderate, and thus more attuned to the voters. She’s always been a grass-roots politician, and knows the importance of one-to-one contact with voters. Voters have seen her at community events in their cities throughout the years. Since the district was redrawn, Corbett has also been seen in community events in those cities she does not currently represent: Dublin, San Ramon and Livermore.

In order to win, Corbett will have to make sure that the votes that went to Stark in 2010 now go to her and that the Democratic voters in Castro Valley and Pleasanton who voted for Swalwell, now vote for her instead. Of course, she will also have to make inroads with other Tri-Valley voters.

The first proposition should be the easiest. Southern Alameda county voters are used to seeing her name on their ballot and seeing her at events, and they may still be bitter about Stark’s loss. However, Swalwell is well aware of this and he is reaching out towards those parts of the district, attending events and trying to ingratiate himself with the local political establishment. He might have made a mistake by locating his district office in Pleasanton, however, as that sends a message that his heart is really in the Tri-Valley (plus it’s awfully inconvenient for voters in the southern part of the district to drive to Pleasanton), but Corbett is not helping herself either by keeping her district office in San Leandro.

Converting Swalwell voters to her is likely to be more difficult. While it’s true that many of the votes that Swalwell got were “anyone but Stark” votes, Corbett will need to make a case to the voters as to why she’s a better choice for them than the man they just put in office. Attacking his youth or inexperience did not work for Stark, so she will have to try to draw other distinctions.

So far the only message I’ve heard concerns Swalwell’s political stances. Rumors are being circulated that he has reached out to Blue Dog Democrats and to Republicans and that he is really a Republican in disguise (though that can also be said about President Obama). But rumors are just rumors and Swalwell is smart enough to know that it behooves him, at this point, to entrench himself within the Democratic party and follow Nancy Pelosi‘s lead. So far, all indications are that he’s doing just that. He has co-sponsored gun control legislation and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and he happily accepted being appointed an Assistant Whip, which means he is now responsible for making other Congress members fall into the Democratic party line. If Corbett wants to go after Swalwell on the issues, she will have to be ready to make strategic attacks on the party line.

One area in which Eric Swalwell and the Democratic leadership are particularly weak is the protection of civil liberties. Swalwell approves of the Patriot Act, going to war with Iran and has dodged questions about whether he supports US Presidents having the power to assassinate American citizens (which would imply that he does). Swalwell, moreover, has made it explicit that he doesn’t believe in a separation of Church and State and has suggested there is no place in government (or maybe even America?) for non-believers. While those positions may play well with his conservative base in both parties, they will make many voters on his district – both in the Democratic left and the libertarian right – very uncomfortable. Indeed, his support for gun control legislation is already losing him support in the Tri-Valley. Corbett could seize on this and develop a strong civil liberties agenda that would put all those voters in play. Indeed, this would also draw her closer to her potential colleagues to the north and south, Barbara Lee and Mike Honda, both staunch civil liberty advocates. That said, Corbett has not focused on civil liberties in the past and seems to be in favor of stronger federal gun control measures.

Corbett has two other big hurdles to clear: money and support. It’s almost impossible to win a Congressional campaign without money. Candidates need to put their names out there and that involves sending out mailers and putting out radio and TV ads, all of which are very expensive. A crafty candidate can save some money by manufacturing news events and getting free media coverage, but Corbett has not exhibited those media skills. Corbett started the year with only about $100K in her campaign account for Congress, that’s less than a tenth of what she will need in order to run a competitive race. And it’s not clear where her funds will come from. Her previous campaigns have been funded almost exclusively by PACs, so she doesn’t have a network of individual contributors on whom to rely on (by contrast, 85% of Swalwell’s contributions came from individuals). PACs, however, are unlikely to support her unless she can give them something that Swalwell can’t or won’t.

It’s also unclear how much support Ellen Corbett will be able to get from the Democratic party, labor and other groups. She is extremely entrenched within the local party, while Eric Swalwell has received the cold shoulder – at least publicly – from local politicos. But Corbett is not without her detractors: it’s hard to be in politics for so long without making enemies. She also has a reputation for not paying back her political debts, something which may come back to haunt her. She does, however, have a good shot at winning the party’s endorsement, though it’s definitely too early to know how that will play out.

Local Democratic insiders seem to be under the impression that Corbett’s gender will play in her favor. Some believe that Corbett will get the support of Nancy Pelosi because Pelosi wants to see more women in Congress. While I’m sure she has that goal in general, I will note that in 2011 she participated in fundraisers for Ro Khanna, who at the time was planning to run for CD 15 against Ellen Corbett. And if Swalwell falls into line, Pelosi would have no incentive to back Corbett – in particular, when there are plenty of more important races for her to concentrate on. It’s also doubtful whether Corbett will enjoy the support of Emily’s List, which also has more important races to focus on. Plus Swalwell has been playing it smart, not only did he co-sponsor re-authorization of VAWA but he joined the pro-choice caucus.

Even without overwhelming party support, Corbett is likely to have the support of the Alameda Labor Council. She has been faithful to labor for many years and chances are they will go to bat for her. However, it’s unlikely that the AFL-CIO will go against an incumbent Democratic candidate – in particular, if he doesn’t do anything to offend them – which could put local labor in a pickle. Without labor’s money and volunteers, her campaign is a non-starter.

Even with them, Corbett’s campaign has one additional problem: it has not embraced digital campaign technologies. As of this writing she doesn’t have a Facebook page, a Twitter account, a blog, a mailing list or even her own campaign website. This means that, at least online, the story of her campaign is being told by others (including me, if you search for “Ellen Corbett” you’ll see a link to San Leandro Talk). While in the digital age, it’s impossible for any politician to completely control their message; they still need to attempt to do so. And digital technologies not only allow politicians to interact with voters and maintain name recognition, but they also make it easier to run organized campaigns cheaply.

Swalwell knows all of this only too well. He has been tweeting out a storm (though he doesn’t respond to tweets), keeping up his Facebook page, posting videos on YouTube and making sure he’s seen everywhere. According to a recent tweet: “January by the numbers: 50 mtgs, 30 dist. events attended, 10 hearings, 200 guests from #ca15 for swearing-in & 9,000+ miles in the air.” He could have added his office issued 10 press releases in January, all available on his website (Corbett’s last press release is from September 2012). Moreover, Swalwell has been keeping the eyes of the media on him by hosting quirky events (e.g. “Ride with your Rep“) and vowing to try out one job held by people in his district every month.

One of the keys to Swalwell’s victory in 2012 was the support that he got from the news media, in particular San Francisco Chronicle’s Carla Marinucci and Bay Area Newspaper Group’s Josh Richman, who were happy to write about the many gaffes of Pete Stark. Stark’s personal arrogance and disrespect for the media had made him many enemies, of course. It will be interesting to see what type of coverage Corbett gets.

One final factor on this analysis are what other candidates might enter this race. It seems unlikely that any serious Democrats will throw their hat into this ring, but stranger things have happened. Ro Khanna, who raised over $1 million in anticipation of a run, has since transferred his ambitions towards a run in CD 13 against Mike Honda. If a serious moderate Republican entered the race, however, things could get complicated very quickly. Roughly 40% of the votes in CD 15 are conservative/Republican votes. Swalwell got all of these in November 2010, but he would likely lose a large percentage of them in June 2014 if a serious, well-funded Republican entered the race. If Corbett was able to hold on to Stark’s votes, it’s possible that Swalwell could be eliminated in June, sending her and the Republican candidate to November (when the 60% Democratic votes would give her a win). If I was Corbett, I would be looking hard through my Rolodex with anyone with an R by their name.

Conflicted About Conflict of Interest

Conflicted About Conflict of Interest ACDCC No Responses »

Jan 032013

Note: This ar Democrat Donkey ticle was originally published here.

Update on January ACDCC meeting: Members Sworn In and Party officers elected. I cast sole vote against having a paid campaign manager as local party Vice-Chair.

Last night was the first meeting of the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee of the year, as well as the swearing-in of the elected and re-elected members of the Committee. We were sworn in by Senate Majority Leader and San Leandro native Ellen Corbett, in a very uneventful ceremony.

Every member of the Committee, including “ad-hoc” members (Democrats elected to state and national offices who live in Alameda county), picks an alternate who can represent them when they can’t make it to the meetings. The alternates then have to be approved by the whole committee. My alternate this term is Tim Holmes. He is the owner of Zocalo Coffeehouse in San Leandro (where many a Democratic event has taken place), and a co-founder of the San Leandro Community Action Network. He is one of the most influential political voices in San Leandro, but he is also very liberal, perhaps even as liberal as I am. He is a better communicator, however.

We also voted to approve the Committee’s delegates to the state convention (basically, all the Committee members plus some of the alternates) and for Committee officers (Chair, Vice Chair, Recording Secretary, Corresponding Secretary and Treasurer). All of the latter ran unopposed and all but one were unanimously approved.

The one exception was Royce Kelley, who was running to be re-appointed Vice-Chair of the Committee. He is currently one of the state party’s regional directors. There was one vote against him: mine. I could not in good conscience vote for him, given the conflict of interest that holding his position signifies.

Royce Kelley is one of the principals at Alliance Campaigns Strategies. He and Angela Ramirez-Holmes, another member of the Committee, specialize in managing the political campaigns of Democrats running for office in Alameda county.

Candidates for local office usually seek the endorsement of the Democratic Party as a “seal of approval” to use in their literature; in the case of local candidates for non-partisan office, this means endorsement by the county Central Committee. Candidates are first interviewed by the Committee’s Executive Board, which is composed of the Chair, Vice-Chair, Treasurer, Secretaries and the District Vice-Chairs (each AD delegation gets to appoint its own vice-chair). The Executive Board then votes on which candidates should be put on the consent calendar to get the party’s endorsement. While it’s possible for regular Committee members to pull candidates from the consent calendar, it’s pretty rare. Usually, if you make it to the consent calendar, the endorsement is yours.

Both Kelley and Ramírez-Holmes are members of the Executive Board, as was their former partner, Shawn Wilson. Robin Torello, the Committee Chair, is very close to Kelley and they often speak with one voice. What this means is that Alliance Campaigns has an inordinate amount of influence on who gets the Democratic endorsement in Alameda county.

Now, I will not presume to say that Kelley and Ramirez-Holmes vote or lobby for the candidates that have hired them. However, they do seem to have represented quite a few candidates that have gotten the Democratic endorsement, even when running against more progressive candidates. And many candidates believe that they must hire Alliance Campaign if they want to get the Democratic endorsement, or at least prevent their opponents from getting it. I find this very problematic from an ethical point of view. A democratic system that is not or has the appearance of not being clean, an endorsement system that is based on something other than an objective evaluation of who is the best candidate for that often, is a corrupt and undemocratic system. And that’s what I ran to stand up against.

I understand why even fellow committee members who agree with me, are reluctant to speak out loud about this matter. If you hope to have a political career, it’s not a good idea to make powerful enemies. But I also believe that we need to vocally stand for what we believe, and I believe in a fair and open process

Marga Lacabe was is an elected member of the ACDCC representing AD 18. These articles are meant to update her constituents on what’s going on at the party.

There is something about Mary Hayashi

There is something about Mary Hayashi ACDCC, Politics No Responses »

Oct 312012

Just last year, California Assembly Member Mary Hayashi was convicted of stealing over $2,000 worth of clothing from Neiman Marcus in San Francisco. She made excuse after excuse (she was distracted and forgot to pay for the items, she had a brain tumor) but her movements were observed and filmed from the moment she came into the store, and the story she told the media was clearly a lie. The San Francisco Sheriff’s department has refused to release the tape, but the police report about the incident describes all her movement within the store.

Like many, I thought that was the end of her political career – but the woman has chutzpah and she’s now running for Alameda County Supervisor. What’s worse is that she has a very good chance of winning.

Her opponent, Richard Valle, has been unwilling to bring up her shoplifting conviction. Whether that’s strategic or because it conflicts with his ethical values, I don’t know. There have been nary a public criticism of Mary’s actions by any Democratic officials. Indeed, when the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (ACDCC) interviewed the candidates, I was the only member who asked asked Mary a question referring to her shoplifting. Even then, I had to be very subtle to get the party chair to accept my question.

During the discussion period, several ACDCC members praised Valle, but once again none of them was willing to say something negative about Mary. I was the only one to point out that her dishonesty brings shame to the party. Valle got the endorsement, but that alone won’t guarantee him a victory.

I don’t know why there is such a reluctance among democrats to criticize Mary publicly, but I can guess that it’s because she is still very powerful, and very vindictive. Everyone fears the political consequences of becoming her enemy. I understand. As payment for my words, Hayashi made a point of voting for the endorsement of a City Council candidate that’s running against Chris Crow, the candidate I support. She did not cast a vote on most other races.

Finally, one group has been willing to bring up the issue of her conviction into the Supervisor race. Mary has received copious campaign contributions from the medical industry and has paid them back by broadening doctor’s monopoly on health issues. This has specially harmed physical therapists, who are now hitting back. They’ve sent out a mailer to registered voters “featuring the convicted shoplifter from Sacramento” with the headline “There is something about Mary.” As far as attack mailers go, it’s pretty good. Take a look.

Older Entries Newer Entries