Ellen Corbett

Aug 152013
 

policestateOur state officials seem to be working as hard as they can to help the NSA track the movement of US citizens as much as possible.  Their latest stunt? Enhanced drivers’ licenses.

These are drivers licenses or ID cards that have a radio chip that transmit information about you. The purported reason for this is to make it easier to cross borders.  Getting a passport, however, is no more hassle than getting one of these and provides you with much more privacy: as you don’t usually carry them around.

Once you have these types of ID, anyone who has the right equipment (which is cheap and easy to find) can read it.  With the right antenna, you can read enhanced license plates from as far as a mile.  Readers can be automatically placed throughout towns and roads, and the information about the movement of citizens can be automatically stored to help track them.

While the IDs start by being “voluntary”, they soon won’t be.  You can’t get a passport without one any more, for example.  They definitely make the work of police easier.  You won’t need a drone to take pictures of a protest, if you can just scan the driver licenses people keep in their wallets.  Why bother sending a mole into a political meeting, when you can stay outside and scan them instead?

And what a great way to give people tickets! Just keep your scanners open and you’ll be able to find out who has unpaid parking tickets or who is late with their child support and pick them up.  Much easier than investigating actual crime.

It’s thus not surprising that my own Assembly member Rob Bonta, who took a ton of money form police unions for his campaign (and has taken a ton more since), already voted in favor of this bill in Committee.  Shamefully, so did Loni Hancock and Ellen Corbett on the Senate, despite opposition from the ACLU, the Consumer Federation of California and Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

Consumer groups are concerned about these chips, because they provide an open invitation to criminals.  As I mentioned, the equipment to read these chips is cheap and easy to put together. While the chips are only supposed to have a number in them, not the owner’s name and address, it’s a number that is unique to its owner.  Criminals can easily match numbers with their owners by either breaking into government databases or by simply scanning the licenses of people they have already identified.

The bill still has to pass the Assembly and be signed by the governor. Bonta and Bob Wieckowski, who also voted for it in Committee, still have a chance to redeem themselves and vote against it. I hope that Bill Quirk and Nancy Skinner will as well.

Here is some more info on these tags:http://cafe.1933key.com/How-RFID-Tags-Could-Be-Used-to-Track-Unsuspecting-People

Apr 182013
 

Eric SwalwelFor the last few months, Congressman Eric Swalwell has been working hard at painting himself as a progressive (or, at least, as not the Blue Dog Democrat he is said to be at heart). He has advocated in favor of gun control, co-sponsored the Violence Against Women Act, joined the Pro-Choice Caucus and even told constituents that the only thing that kept him from joining the Progressive Caucus were the caucus fees (which, it turns out, are both modest and voluntary).

But his flirtation with the progressive wing of the party seems to have ended. He celebrated his 100 days in office today by being the sole member of the Bay Area Congressional delegation (unless you count Napa Congressman Mike Thompson, himself a Blue Dog) to cast a vote in favor of CISPA. This so-called cybersecurity law will do little to secure computer systems, but it will provide even ampler powers both to the government and to private entities to monitor and share information about the private activities of regular citizens in the internet. The privacy holes are so egregious that even President Obama, who whole-heartedly supported the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, has threatened to veto it.

Politically, this move doesn’t make too much sense. His Republican and independent supporters in the Tri-Valley tend to display a libertarian streak and this vote is unlikely to please them. However, it may bring him a check or two and it should reassure his cronies in law enforcement that he won’t be an advocate for civil liberties any time soon.

The move, however, does provide an opening for his 2014 challenger, State Senator Ellen Corbett to publicly reassert her own commitment to due process and civil liberties. It’s also a silent “told you so” to anyone in the local party (me included) who might have thought Swalwell could be redeemable. If nothing else, this vote makes Corbett’s case that Swalwell needs to be taken out sooner rather than later.

Feb 122013
 
Ellen Corbett

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

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

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.

Jun 162012
 

Tea Partiers for Stark, Neocons for Swalwell?

If you want to find out how topsy-turvy American politics really are, you can’t do better than to look at the race for California’s 15th Congressional district.

Pete Stark, easily the most colorful, outspoken and liberal member of Congress and its only atheist, is facing his first real challenger in 39 years: Eric Swalwell, a Dublin councilman and prosecutor.  Swalwell is your all-American guy – he even looks like a Ken Doll – and is currently selling himself as a moderate Democrat.

Chris Pareja ran against both of them in the June Primary.  This time he did it as an “independent”, but in 2010 he ran against Stark as a write-in Tea Party Candidate, after losing the Republican primary.

Conventional wisdom was that Pareja would endorse Swalwell as he’s by far the more conservative candidate.  However, Pareja is one of those rare candidates who run because they believe in greater principles of government – and for Pareja those include a distaste for government corruption and a respect to civil liberties and property rights.   Unfortunately, given our “pay to play” system of government, there are few politicians on either party that fit into this mold.  Stark does, but only because he’s been in Congress so long and his seat has been so secure that he hasn’t had to worry about fundraising.

So Pareja took the probably unprecedented step of issuing a press release anti-endorsing Swalwell.   Among his reasons, he cites Swalwell’s lack of  “life experience and character to effectively represent this district” and worries “about his positions on property rights and individual liberties.”   While he disagrees with Stark on most issues and is not endorsing him, Pareja offers his respect for Stark’s  “service to the community and the country”.  He discourages his followers from voting for Swalwell calling him “more dangerous to the future of the country.”

A cynic could also point out that a Swalwell win wouldn’t be particularly beneficial for Pareja.  As things stand now, Stark is likely to retire after this term, leaving an empty seat for the 2014 election – and an open opportunity for Pareja.    Pareja did surprisingly well at the polls this June – getting almost 22% of the vote.  Numbers like those will not only raise his profile with voters, but catch the attention of potential financial supporters.  The right tilt towards libertarian politics, for example, could bring in Silicon Valley money.  If he’s done this well with no money – just think about how well he can do with a little bit of it.

The 2014 field, moreover, is likely to be crowded with Democratic candidates.  Ro Khanna, a former Commerce Department official, and California Senator Ellen Corbett have both made it clear they’ll run.  But they won’t be the only strong candidates.  Look for Union City Mayor Mark Green to jump into the race, as well as former Assembly member Alberto Torrico and even embattled, but shameless, Assembly Member Mary “My Brain Tumor Made Me Do It”  Hayashi.  The lack of term limits in Congress and the firm Democratic bent of the district make it likely that this seat will not open up again for at least a couple of decades – so also look for multiple lesser known politicians to throw their hats into the race.  A plethora of Democratic candidates in the June primary would give Pareja a good shot at making it to the November elections.

Republican neocons, howevers, may not be willing to take those chances.  Word in Democratic circles is that American Crossroads or a similar group will be emptying their piggy banks in support of Swalwell.  Of course, as we say in Spanish, “del dicho al hecho hay mucho trecho,” so we’ll have to wait and see if that’s true

So what we have is a Tea Partier passively endorsing the most liberal member of Congress, while neocons look to party with a moderate Democrat.  Aren’t politics divine?

In reality, Pareja’s anti-endorsement is not meant to lead any of his supporters to vote for Stark, it’s hard to imagine anyone doing so (unless they really want to make sure to give Pareja a shot in 2014) – but any vote he takes away from Swalwell should help Stark win.  Personally, I can only hope this will just give Republicans one less reason to go to the polls at all.

Mar 152012
 

Short Answer: No

There are many things that voters should look into when choosing which candidate to vote for, but endorsements from politicians, parties, organizations and even prominent individuals is not one of them.  The unfortunate fact is that most politicos and organizations do not endorse based on the quality of the candidate, but based on factors such as personal ties, political advantage, likelihood of winning and willingness to do their bidding.

For Voters: How Candidates get Endorsements

Incumbency/Likelihood of Winning

Endorsements usually go to the candidate deemed most likely to win, which is usually thought to be either the incumbent or the candidate that has raised the most money.   This is true for both individual and institutional endorsers.  Most endorsers want something in return for their endorsement (even if simply access or future support), and they’re more likely to get it if their endorsee wins.  In addition, some candidates have a reputation for vindictiveness, and politicos or organizations may not want to irate them by endorsing their rivals.

A couple of examples.  During the 2010 Mayoral election, the Police Union initially endorsed City Council member Joyce Starosciak.  Not only was she a staunch police supporter (her husband is a sheriff deputy), but the conventional wisdom back then was that a woman candidate, going against two males, would win.  As the campaign developed and it became clear that Starosciak wasn’t doing well, the Police Union hurried to co-endorse the incumbent Mayor Tony Santos (who had a reputation for vindictiveness).  During the 2008 campaign, the San Leandro Teachers Union (SLTA) endorsed Carmen Sullivan for School Board, but only after it was clear that she was the only candidate running.  Sullivan was at the time a supporter of Superintendent, which the SLTA wanted to oust.

Personal and Political Ties

It makes sense, if a candidate is your friend you are likely to endorse him.  Some ties are very old and very strong.  For example, Congressman Pete Stark had a standing policy of not endorsing candidates in non-partisan races when more than one Democrat was running.  However, he broke his rule and endorsed Julian Polvorosa, a long time friend,  for City Council during the 2006 race.  Charlie Gilcrest, a local campaign manager who has been active in the Democratic party for close to forty years, obtained the endorsement of practically every politician in the East Bay when he ran for City Council in 2008, even though he’d never held elective office.

There is also an unwritten rule that if someone works in your campaign, you endorse them when they run for office.  For example, Governor and former Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown recently endorsed Libby Schaaf for Mayor; she used to work for him.

Not everyone follows this rule. Ellen Corbett, in particular, is much criticized for putting political considerations above loyalty to her former supporters. That strategy came back to hurt her, however, when she ran against Eric Swalwell for Congress.  Most of those former supporters turned on her.  They knew she wouldn’t have their back.   Smart candidates, however, pay their political debts.

Political Alliances

Often times endorsements are the result of political alliances.  An endorser who doesn’t care much about the outcome of a given race, might endorse a candidate at the request of a political ally or, in case of politicians, big campaign contributors that do have a steak in that race.

Affinity Politics

African American politicos almost always back other African Americans.  This is less true for Latino and Asian politicos.  It makes sense.  As minorities, you want to build the influence of your community in the political arena.  The problem is that the candidates they back are not always going to be the best.

Similar Agenda

Organizations, in particular, are likely to endorse candidates who have similar agendas (or views) to their own.  This can be a good or bad thing, as far as voters are concerned, depending on whether they know what the actual agenda of the organization in question is.  For example, the SLTA backed Hermy Almonte and Morgan Mack-Rose in the 2008 School Board election, because they also wanted to get rid of the Superintendent.

Some membership nonprofit organizations, however, have been “infiltrated” by members who are more interesting in political power than furthering the cause. Endorsements from the Sierra Club, for example, are often suspect.

Tit-for-Tat

Business associations, in particular, are likely to endorse candidates based on what they think the candidates can do for them.  The Rental Housing Association and the Association of Realtors, for example, will endorse candidates that will vote against rent control measures. The Chamber of Commerce will likely endorse candidates that won’t vote to raise the minimum wage.  The Police and Fireman unions will endorse candidates that are willing to give their departments the most money, raise their salaries and pensions, and do not insist in holding their departments accountable.

Pettiness

Often times, endorsements are actually based on pettiness.  In 2010 the SLTA endorsed Corina Lopez for San Leandro City Council – even though they had never before endorsed in City Council races – because she was running against Pauline Cutter, whom they opposed because she had supported the Superintendent they didn’t like.  In 2012, the SLTA president endorsed Ursula Reed because she was running against Morgan Mack-Rose whom, as School Board president, had angered the SLTA leadership.  In the current election, Diana Prola endorsed Leo Sheridan, and worked hard to get him the endorsement of the Democratic party and of labor, because he’s running against Latrina Dumas.  Dumas was a parent supporter of that controversial Superintendent and often spoke out in her favor at School Board meetings.

Democratic Party

The candidates endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee are often those that have powerful interests behind them.  Candidates often hire Alliance Campaign Strategies, a campaign management firm run by a member of the ACDCC’s executive committee, as a way of assuring themselves the Democratic endorsement or at least blocking that of their opponents. There is a lot of behind the scene deal making and threats.  Occasionally, the endorsements do go to the candidates that best exemplify Democratic values, but often that’s not the case.

The Democratic endorsement is considered very valuable, however.

Newspapers

A newspaper’s endorsement will be based on the political views of their current editorial board. In the case of the Bay Area Newsgroup papers (Oakland Tribune, Daily Review, etc.) their endorsement is based solely on how much a candidate knows about the financial situation of the city/district they are running for, how much they understand the nature of their unfunded liabilities and how they plan to address this issue.

Whose endorsement should you actually pay attention to?

My own, of course.  I’m sort of joking, but I do actually stand by the candidates I endorse, whom I’ve chosen based on their liberal ideology, knowledge base and ability to do the job.

The endorsements you really should pay attention to are those of people you know and respect, who know the candidates and, preferably, the requirements of the office for which they are running.  For example, I decided to vote for Latrina Dumas for San Leandro School Board in part due to the fact that a friend of mine, who has been involved in the schools for many years and understands what the School Board does, fully recommended her.  Sure, I did my research, but her first-hand opinion mattered greatly.

Beyond that, pay attention to endorsements that actually explain why a candidate is chosen over another.  The Green Party, for example, provides explanations of their endorsements, though unfortunately they don’t include San Leandro.  The East Bay Express and other newspapers do as well.

For Candidates: Which endorsements should you seek?

You should seek endorsements from organizations or people:

1- who will give your campaign financial contributions

2- who will get others to contribute to your campaigns or throw fundraisers for you

3- who will put elbow grease into your campaign

4 – who have a “base”.

One of the reasons why labor is so powerful in the Democratic party is that they can do all of those things for you.  While you can definitely win against a candidate endorsed by labor (Mayor Cassidy did in 2010 and Benny Lee in 2012), it’s definitely easier if they are behind you.

An endorsement from the Democratic Party, on the other hand, is much less powerful because it’s “passive,” i.e. it doesn’t come with anything attached.

In addition to the unions, there are several PACs that will give you campaign contributions, often considerable ones.  They usually won’t do anything more than that for you, but money is essential for running campaigns.  Of course, most of those PACs will want something from you in return.

Having big politicians endorse you is usually, in itself, not that useful – it may help your ego, but voters are seldom  impressed -, unless those politicians also contribute to your campaign directly or indirectly.  Mayor Cassidy, for example, gave Pauline Cutter’s Mayoral campaign $2,000 and has helped her campaign behind the scenes.   Other politicos, on the other hand, usually do little more than sign their names and, if you are lucky, record a robocall for you.  If you are running, it’d behoove you to find out which endorsements are worth pursuing.

The value of big-name endorsements, however, is in convincing other endorsers that you’re the most credible candidate, and thus generate the support of more endorsers, in particular those who will give you money because they believe you’ll win.

For local campaigns, volunteers are just as important as money, if not more so – so pursuing the endorsement of people and groups that are willing to put time and effort into your campaign is time well spent.  For example, the San Leandro Community Network, a now defunct local political and civics organization, did not make financial contributions to political candidates, but its members provided lots of very valuable volunteer work, from graphic design to data management and computer services, to phone banking, walking and flyering.  The candidates they supported saved thousands of dollars (tens of thousands, in the case of Cassidy) by having SLCAN members work on their behalf.  Similarly, in San Leandro you want to get Jim Prola’s endorsement (though he’ll rarely endorse someone until Labor endorses them first), because he LOVES walking door to door and he’s great at convincing people to vote for you and put up a lawn sign.

Finally, you want the endorsement of people who have influence among the voting population you are targeting.  Some times those people are politicians, but most often they are not. In general, the higher up the ladder the politician is, the less influence s/he has with the voters – at least for what I can see.  Stark’s endorsement did little to help Polvorosa, Corbett couldn’t help Santos and Hayashi didn’t help Starosciak.  That’s because people who are in Washington or Sacramento most of the time, are unlikely to be able to keep their bases energized and loyal.  But you can’t even count on local politicians to have bases – they need to be built, and that requires a lot of time and effort.  Currently, in San Leandro, I’d say there are only a couple of politicians that actually have influence over a large number of voters.

Non-politicians can actually be more influential.  Go after people who are thought to be “on the know” and reasonable by many members of the community.  Long-time teachers, coaches and principals are great endorsers, as hundreds if not thousands of voters may have personal experiences with them (just make sure the teachers were well thought of).  Endorsements by community leaders are great as well.  Religious ministers can endorse you in their personal capacity – so it’s not a bad idea to seek the endorsement of those who have particularly large congregations.

Some endorsements from well known people are more problematic.  My endorsement, for example, may lose you as many votes as it gains you.  The same can be true of PTA and Homeowner Association presidents – often times there are as many people who dislike them as who like them.

How to get the endorsements you want

Organizations, such as the Alameda Labor Council and the Democratic Party, usually have procedures for getting their endorsement and you should look them up on their website.  As for the rest, you need to call – and ask to meet with them.  And then you sell yourself to them.  To do so, you need to be prepared.  You need to know why you are running, how your values match theirs, what your position is or would be in a number of different issues, and how you differ from your opponents.  Cold calling is fine, but it’s best if you can have someone with influence with them call for you first, or at least let you use their name when you call (i.e. “I’m running for X, so-and-so suggested I meet with you).

Now, as I mentioned above, some endorsements are very political and a simple meeting won’t do it.  For those, try to find someone in the know to give you some hints on how to approach them.

If you have any questions or comments, feel free to contact me.

SLT’s Guide to Local Elections

This article was updated for the Nov. 2014 election.