California Assembly

May 212021
 

Mia Bonta’s campaign casts fraudulent vote in failed attempt to obtain the California Democratic Party’s endorsement

Update: Bonta’s campaign appears to have forged delegate signatures on dues waiver applications.

Mia Bonta

At the top of Mia Bonta‘s Facebook page, right below her name, lies a question: “What would you do if you weren’t afraid?”. In the present circumstances the question sounds almost mocking. Party activists have kept quiet about the attempted fraud to secure the California Democratic Party endorsement — exactly because they are afraid of angering Mia’s husband, Rob Bonta, California’s recently appointed Attorney General. Nobody wants to make powerful enemies. It’s exactly this fear that makes powerful politicians get away with all sorts of misdeeds.

Rob Bonta, California Assemblymember for District 18 (Alameda, San Leandro and much of Oakland), was appointed Attorney General a couple of months ago – leaving his Assembly seat vacant and precipitating a special election in late June.

Mia Bonta, Rob Bonta’s wife, is running for his seat against a myriad of other candidates (8 at last count). Five of those candidates sought the endorsement of the California Democratic Party – a valuable endorsement as campaign finance laws allow political parties to funnel money into their endorsed candidate’s campaigns with little transparency and high contribution limits.

To get the coveted endorsement, a candidate needs to receive 60% of the votes cast in the endorsement election. The rules of who can vote in endorsement elections are rather arcane, but in this case it included about 40 people who had been Democratic Party delegates for Assembly District 18 in 2020. I was one of them.

It was clear the endorsement would go to Mia Bonta or nobody at all. Rob Bonta controlled many of the votes, either because he had appointed the delegates himself or he endorsed and financially supported the delegates. However, it was an open question whether he controlled enough delegates to get his wife the endorsement.

Not long before the endorsement meeting, a woman showed up to the house of the parents of a delegate. This delegate had not yet cast her ballot. The woman identified herself as Mia Bonta’s mother.

The woman presented the delegate’s father with a ballot already filled out. The woman falsely told him that his daughter had agreed to sign it.

She then asked him to sign his daughter’s name on the ballot. The father complied.

The woman from Mia Bonta’s campaign marked the ballot for Mia Bonta and e-mailed an image of it to the Party’s regional director, who was responsible for receiving the ballots and counting votes.

When the delegate learned what happened, she immediately contacted the regional director and told him that she had neither cast nor authorized anyone to cast a vote on her behalf.

The delegate then went on to cast a valid ballot for “no endorsement”. Mia Bonta ended up being three votes short of receiving the Party’s endorsement.

This whole chicanery might have flown under the radar, but at the end of the endorsement meeting, a delegate close to Rob Bonta asked whether anyone had cast two votes. This prompted the regional director to explain what happened.

Mia Bonta has yet to give any explanations as to why her campaign cast a fraudulent vote. I reached out to her personally asking to speak about this, but have not received a response. It is possible that Mia’s mother acted on her own and lied to the campaign about who had signed the ballot and how she had procured it. It is also possible that she acted under the direction of either Mia or someone else in the campaign.

The candidate, of course, is ultimately responsible for what their campaign does. It is incumbent on Mia to address this matter publicly. How and whether she does it will speak to her character, and voters have the right to know about it before they cast their votes. As things stand, Mia Bonta is the likely frontrunner in this race. Thanks in no small part to Rob Bonta’s efforts, her campaign has raised twice as much money as her closest opponent. If she does win the Assembly seat, her term should not start with questions about her ethics.

Update: I have recently confirmed that Mia Bonta’s campaign not only cast a fraudulent vote, but they are likely to have forged one or more delegate’s signatures in fee waiver applications. In order to be able to vote for this endorsement, delegates had to have paid their 2020 delegate fees. Usually, delegates pay these fees together with their California Democratic Party annual convention fees. However, there was no convention in 2020 (the 2020 convention actually took place in the fall of 2019) and thus many if not most delegates were in fee arrears when they learned they were called to vote for this endorsement. Delegates could either pay the $85 dues before the endorsement caucus or request a dues waiver due to financial difficulties. Requests for waiver require the signature of the delegate making the request.

The delegate mentioned above did not pay her 2020 dues nor did she request a dues waiver. However, a dues waiver application was filed with the party, which included a forged signature, and the only likely party to have made this fraudulent dues waiver request is the Mia Bonta campaign, the ones who cast the fraudulent vote in the name of the delegate.

It is possible, and even likely, that the Mia Bonta campaign also forged the signatures of other delegates who applied for due waivers and then proceded to vote for her, it appears that quite a few of the delegates who voted for Mia Bonta had their dues waived.

The California Democratic Party should investigate this matter. However, it is very unlikely that they will given the close relationship of the Party Chair, Rusty Hicks, with Rob Bonta, who endorsed him when he ran.

Similarly, falsifying someone’s signature with the intent to defraud is a crime under California law. However, no DA is likely to investigate the campaign of the wife of the Attorney General.

Full disclosure: I voted no endorsement on the CDP’s endorsement election, but I personally intend to vote for Victor Aguilar – as a San Leandro City Council member Victor has worked to bring reforms to the police department and has pushed a progressive agenda. I thought I had left political blogging behind – but misdeeds like this one need to be part of the public record.

(Note, this article was slightly edited for grammar/clarity.).





May 162017
 

Eric Bauman

Eric Bauman

Eric Bauman, the so-called kingmaker of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party (LACDP), is now seeking to become king himself.   He is running to become Chair of the California Democratic Party (CDP), potentially turning the institution into the largest pay-to-play operation in the States.

Eric Bauman, a nurse turned manager turned legislative staffer, already receives a generous six-figure salary from his job as senior adviser to whoever the Assembly speaker is at the time – he’s done it for John Perez, Toni Atkins and now Anthony Rendon -, but his real money comes from Victoryland Partners, a political consultancy business he runs together with his husband, Michael Andraychak, and Adam Seiden , the Executive Director of the LA Democratic Party.  In 2016 alone, Victoryland Partners received over $450,000 from the campaigns behind (or opposing) several ballot propositions.   Among their clients were pharmaceutical corporations that wanted to fight Prop 61, which would have reduced the cost of medicines paid for by the California government.   Despite being endorsed by Bernie Sanders, the Nurses Union and every progressive in the state, Prop 61 failed to get the endorsement of the California Democratic Party.  After a campaign against it that reached nine figures, it was defeated at the ballot box.  Bauman seems unwilling to take credit, but he won’t disclose who, exactly, is funding his campaign for Chair of the Party.

As LACDP chair and vice-chair of the Party, Bauman uses his influence to get the Democratic Party to endorse candidates of his liking.  He then profits from these endorsements through a loophole on campaign finance law.   While campaign finance laws limit how much money candidates for state office can receive from any one contributor, political parties and PACs (known in California as independent expenditure committees)  have no such limitations.   PACs are not allowed to coordinate their ads with candidates.  Both must list contributions, but as PACs receive theirs from fewer sources, it’s easier to link a candidate with the industry that supports him.  Getting contributions from a dirty money PAC can quickly become a campaign issue.

Campaign laws, however, allow political parties to send out as many campaign ads as they want supporting political candidates to their members through member-to-member communications.  Corporations trying to quietly support candidates can thus contribute money to the Democratic Party, which will then spend it on the candidate of their choice. The ads will say that they are paid for the California Democratic Party, rather than paid by the bad PAC, and no one will be the wiser.  The corporation’s contributions will be seen as contributions to the Party rather than to a specific candidate.    While it’s illegal for these contributions to be earmarked, earmarking is virtually impossible to prove, and therefore it’s rampant.  These member-to-member communications can only be done for candidates that have been endorsed by the Party – the true value of the Democratic Party’s endorsement, and the reason why candidates fight fiercely for it, is that it allows them to use the Party to launder such campaign contributions.

At the state level, the leaders of the Assembly and the Senate are the ones that decide which candidates the party will launder money for and which consultants they will use.  Both the party and the consultants take a cut for their services.  Bauman has a very close relationship with both John Perez and Toni Atkins, who were the Assembly speakers in 2014.  In that year, he raked somewhere between $10K and $100K  as a “salary” from the California Democratic Party.  The Party doesn’t pay vice-chairs; according to Party insiders, he was paid these funds as the consultant.

At the local level, money for endorsed candidates is funneled through Central Committees and sub-regional “United Democratic Campaigns” or UDCs.  I have written about how the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee, where I serve, and the Ohlone Area UDC have engaged in this semi-legal money laundering before.   Eric Bauman would apper to also rake in money “consulting” for the Los Angeles Democratic Party, of which he is chair. Indeed, he also lists a $10K to $100K salary from that institution for 2014 and 2015.  The position of county party chair itself is not paid.

As if these ways of financially exploiting his relationship with the Democratic party were not enough, Eric Bauman has also made money as a “consultant” to the “Democratic Club Slate Mailer“.  Slate mailers are mailers sent to voters that sound like they are coming from some official organization, but in actuality they are put together by people trying to make a quick buck, and paid for by the candidates appearing on them.  Bauman made between $1K-10K in 2014.  It’s not clear who is actually behind the slate mailer, but the treasurer is Mark Gonzalez, a member of the LACDCC.  This particular slate mailer seems to have been put together mostly to push John Perez, who at the time was running for Controller.   Mark Gonzalez was a senior field rep for Perez.

Delegates to the 2017 California Convention will have a serious choice to make: elect as Chair someone who has seen the Democratic Party as a source of profit and who has shown little concern about how dirty the money he takes is, or elect an honest outsider who wants to thoroughly reform the Democratic party for all of us.

Nov 032012
 

Dear Rob,

I just got *yet another* campaign mailer maligning your opponent, Abel Guillen.  This is the /twelfth/ mailer I get that supports you.  It’s the second that’s negative towards Abel.  The first one was put out by an independent committee, but this one comes straight out of your campaign.

Really, Rob?  Did you need to do that? Sure, Abel sent a negative mailer against you (and a pretty good one), but it was one of just two mailers we got supporting him.  We got twelve supporting you!  All pretty much repeating the same platitudes (would it be so hard to actually share your platform or any concrete proposal in /one/ of your mailers? I know your parents worked with César Chávez and that you are in favor of education, what else do you have to offer?), this one also attacks Abel.

Look, Rob, you are going to win.  All the money you spent, coupled with the hundreds of thousands of dollars PACs have spent on your behalf, will make sure you do.  And I think you will do a good job, even though all that money indebts you to so many special interest groups.  You are smart, you understand the issues and how to approach them, you are a careful thinker and I think you have solid Democratic values.  That’s why I endorsed you a year ago, and kept my endorsement even though now I support Abel.  I also think you are ethical – though beware that politics threatens everyone’s moral core.  I think you will become one of the stars of the Democratic Party.  I look forward to seeing you in that role

Your bright political future is even more of a reason to refrain from attacking Abel.  At this point in the race, with 12 mailers for you versus 2 for him, why the need to be petty?  Why create enemies and leave a sour taste in the mouths of voters?  Don’t we have enough acrimony in the Presidential race?  And did you forget the campaign maxim that you attack when you think you’ll lose, and you are graceful when you think you’ll win? Don’t you think you’ll win?

And Rob, one last thing.  Twelve mailers is way too much.  How many hundreds of thousands of dollars have you and your supporters spent on them?  You talk about being all for education, but why not just send 6 (still 3 times more than Guillen), and give the rest of the money to the schools?  Here, in San Leandro, we could afford to keep our music and arts program for at least a year with that money.

Thanks for reading,

Margarita Lacabe

This letter has also been posted on Rob Bonta’s Facebook page