political campaigns

Developers Skirt Contribution Limits and Funnel Tens of Thousands of Dollars into Fremont Mayor Race

Developers Skirt Contribution Limits and Funnel Tens of Thousands of Dollars into Fremont Mayor Race ACDCC, Politics 1 Response »

Nov 062016

Incumbent Mayor Bill Harrison

Incumbent Fremont Mayor Bill Harrison is a darling of housing developers. He has never seen a development worth questioning, much less voting against. And developers are repaying his generosity with their own, not only directing tens of thousands of dollars directly into his campaign but contributing tens of thousands more to a local Democratic Party organ, money used to produce and send mailers asking Democratic voters to vote for Harrison.

According to campaign finance disclosure forms filed with the California Department of State, the Ohlone Area United Democratic Campaign (OAUDC) has received $60,000 from housing developers in the last two months. It received $5,000 from Summerhill Construction, $10,000 from Sanjeev Acharya, $20,000 from Robson Homes and $25,000 from Ron Zeff, CEO of Carmel Properties. Records show that the OAUDC has spent around $58,000 (including a partly unpaid bill to a printer) on mailers supporting Bill Harrison. Though the Democratic Party has endorsed fifteen candidates in the Ohlone Area, the mailers only feature Bill Harrison.

By going through the Democratic Party, developers supporting Harrison are able to skirt Fremont’s campaign contribution regulations, which cap all contributions to $600 per donor. There are no limits on how much money any single contributor can donate to a political party, however, or on how much said political party can spend on supporting a candidate. The law does prohibit earmarking of contributions to political parties, but as long as winks and nudges substitute subpoenable e-mails, it’s too difficult to prove to deter political money launderers.

In addition to developers, the OAUDC received a $10,000 contribution from the Fremont Police Association and another $10,000 contribution from the Scott Haggerty for Supervisor campaign. Bill Harrison is the Haggerty campaign’s treasurer. As Haggerty is not currently running for office, his campaign does not need to file its own campaign finance reports until the end of the year. Therefore it’s impossible to know if Haggerty’s donation to the OAUDC followed a similar donation to his own campaign from developer interests.

The OAUDC contracted with Shawn Wilson, of Trident Consulting, to do the mailers for Harrison. Wilson happens to be Scott Haggerty’s chief of staff; last year the Grand Jury found that Wilson was pressuring county staff to do “favors” for large contributors to Haggerty’s campaign. On October 28th, Wilson contributed $7500 to the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee (ACDCC). As the ACDCC has yet to disclose any expenditures on behalf of candidates, we don’t yet know what that many is being used for.

If you receive a mailer for Harrison claiming to come from the Democratic Party, beware of who really paid for it.

California Democratic Party to Automatically Endorse Incumbents

California Democratic Party to Automatically Endorse Incumbents Politics 3 Responses »

Jan 242016

The California Democratic Party has just become a little bit more undemocratic. New rules quietly enacted by the Party give Democratic incumbents for state and federal office the automatic endorsement of the Party. While in the past an incumbent would get the Party’s endorsement if he received just 70% of the votes at a pre-convention endorsement caucus or 50%+1 of the votes at the convention, incumbents will now be automatically endorsed unless 20% of all delegates from the district to file an objection. This is harder than it sounds. While delegates may punish a bad incumbent by voting for someone else, voting for no endorsement or not voting at all, filing an actual objection to the endorsement of someone who is already sitting in office, and who therefore enjoys a significant amount of political power, is not for the faint of heart. It also means that in races where the incumbent doesn’t have a challenger to organize an objection signature drive, even unpopular incumbents will receive the party’s endorsement.

This year in Alameda county, all but one of the incumbents will be receiving the party’s automatic endorsement. The exception is Congressman Mike Honda who is facing a tough re-election fight from former Obama administration official Ro Khanna. Honda has been hurt by an ethics investigation and has lost the support of several prominent Democratic politicians. Regardless of who wins the Party endorsement, it seems likely that Khanna will unseat Honda in the fall.

While it’s understandable that the Democratic party would want to solidify its support behind incumbents, a policy that benefits the establishment against what may be more popular challengers runs the risk of further damaging the party’s own standing before voters – and the weight of the party’s endorsement. Indeed, while just two or three election cycles ago, the vast majority of candidates endorsed by the Alameda County Democratic party were elected, that number fell to about 50% in the 2014 election. Part of the reason, I believe, is that too many of the party’s endorsements are based on personal relations and politicking rather than on the personal qualifications and progressive ideology of the actual candidates.

Mike Honda’s Campaign Hits New Low with Trump reference

Mike Honda’s Campaign Hits New Low with Trump reference Politics No Responses »

Dec 302015

Today Mike Honda’s campaign sent an e-mail to Honda’s supporters (and people like me, who somehow ended up in his mailing list), suggesting that his opponent, Ro Khanna, is supported by Donald Trump.

Ro Khanna

Forget the fact that Khanna is a liberal Democrat, who is deeply committed to human rights and social justice. Forget the fact that the differences in political ideology between Khanna and Mike Honda‘s are so minute that Honda has not been able to articulate them. And forget the fact that to Trump’s supporters likely consider Khanna a brown-skinned, non-Christian “anchor baby” worthy of the same type of disdain than other non-white immigrant. The simple facts are that neither the GOP nor Trump have ever, in any way whatsoever, shown any support of Khanna. Indeed, you have to embrace Trump’s method of politicking to even make such allegations.

Mike Honda

But the truth is, I don’t know that it is Honda who is channeling Trump on this campaign – because I don’t believe Honda has the mental faculties to understand what’s going on around him well enough to take such positions. Every time I have heard Honda address an issue for which he didn’t have ready talking points, ever time my husband or I have tried to engage him in a conversation about a non-trivial matter, he fumbled through it without giving any hint he understood what the issue was about. I suspect that it is his Congressional staff who decides how he votes, and his campaign staff (which may or may not be the same) who decides how he campaigns while Honda is left to smile, shake hands, make jokes and play everyone’s favorite uncle.

Voters deserve better, but so does Mike Honda. Honda is already the subject of a Congressional ethics investigation on his use of public resources for campaign purposes and for proposing to exchange political favors for campaign contributions; he does not need to finish his political career with the reputation of being a nasty campaigner. I know that like Pete Stark before him, Honda will not give up in his quest for re-election, but his staff should show respect for Honda’s past accomplishments by making sure he runs a dignified campaign.

This is the text of the e-mail I got today

Dear Margarita,

I’ll cut to the chase:

Mike Honda has spent his career fighting for justice and equality in Washington — and the Republicans can’t stand it. That’s why they’re aligning themselves, again, with our opponent, Ro Khanna, in attacking one of the nation’s leading progressive champions.

It’s shameful — and we can’t let Donald Trump’s Republican Party get away with.

Contribute $3 or more to our campaign before tomorrow’s deadline to help us fight back.

At a time when fear is rising again in American politics, we cannot afford to lose Mike Honda’s voice in Congress. Can you speak up today to support our campaign?

Thanks,

Michael Beckendorf
Campaign Manager
Honda 2016

Sierra Club to Candidates: Not in Our Name

Sierra Club to Candidates: Not in Our Name Politics No Responses »

Oct 312014

City Council candidates in Oakland and San Leandro try to usurp the Sierra Club endorsement

The Sierra Club is not happy. In particular, the Northern Alameda County Group of the Sierra Club seems quite angry. Political candidates are usurping its good name and in return weakening its political power.

It started with Oakland City Council District 4 candidate Jill Broadhurst. Broadhurst, the Executive Director of the East Bay Rental Housing Association did not get the Sierra Club endorsement. Indeed, it was her opponent, Annie Campbell Washington, who got it. Campbell is a pro-environment progressive. Broadhurst is not.

If you look at political candidate mailers, you will probably notice that many of them depict the logos of the organizations that have endorsed such candidate. Indeed, on one of her mailers Broadhurst included the logo for the Oakland Chamber of Commerce PAC above the caption “Proudly endorsed by the Oakland Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce.” Right next to it, she placed the Sierra Club logo. The caption, written in smaller print, reads “Proud supporting member of the Sierra Club.” Another mailer contained the phrase “For Jill” in large print next to the logo of the Sierra Club. Again, the caption saying that she is a member was written in very small print. The intent is pretty clear: to suggest to voters that Broadhurst has been endorsed by the Sierra Club.

The Sierra Club was not amused. It sent Broadhurst a cease and desist letter, stating that Broadhurst’s use of their logo infringed the Club’s trademark and that it falsely implied that she had been endorsed by them. It threatened to sue her.

Broadhurst said she wouldn’t do it again but, of course, the damage had already been done.

Deborah Cox, who is running for San Leandro City Council District 1, was more brazen. Rather than use the Sierra Club logo on her own literature, she spent $1,000 to buy space in the “Californians Vote Green” slate mailer and outright claimed that she had been “[e]ndorsed by Sierra Club.”

The “Californians Vote Green” mailer is a commercial enterprise not associated to any environmental organizations. However, it’s name and the fact that it lists candidates as endorsed by the Sierra Club, misleads voters into thinking it’s an actual Sierra Club endorsement list. When Cox’s false claim came to the attention of the Sierra Club, it may have been the proverbial stroke that broke the camel’s back.

I don’t know if Cox got a letter from the Sierra Club admonishing her, but the Chair of the Sierra Club’s Northern Alameda County Group wrote a letter to the San Leandro Times clarifying that Pauline Cutter and Corina Lopez were the only endorsed candidates in San Leandro. The Club can hope that voters who pay attention to slate mailers, also read the local newspaper. To make sure voters did get the message that Cox was not endorsed by the Sierra Club, the Club also sent out their own mailer with its logo and the heading “OFFICIAL VOTER GUIDE,” listing the candidates it actually endorsed.

This is an important matter for the Sierra Club. It wants to make sure that its name is not associated with politicians that push anti-environmental policies, as this would tarnish their own reputation with the community. But it also wants to reward with its endorsement candidates that commit to support sound environmental practice , thus encouraging more candidates to make such commitments.

The Sierra Club can only hope that Broadhust’s and Cox’s actions will not encourage candidates in future races to also rip off its name. How successful Broadhurst and Cox are in the election, may very well determine how likely that is.

Fact Checking Candidate’s Mailers

Fact Checking Candidate’s Mailers Politics No Responses »

Oct 262014

For the last few weeks, we’ve been inundated with mailers from all sorts of candidates. Those running for City Council don’t make too many claims, limiting themselves to listing their resume, saying a few platitudes and maybe having a banal quote or two from some elected official, often one voters have never heard of. The candidates for Mayor who’ve served in the City Council, however, need to make the case of what they’ve been doing for the last four to eight years. But are they being honest with their claims? I decided to check it out.

Diana Souza

False Claims:

In her mailer, Souza claims that several buildings were “approved and accomplished under Diana’s leadership.” Most of these are discussed under “questionable claims” below, but it’s patently false that the 9th grade campus and Grocery Outlet were “approved and accomplished” under her leadership. The 9th grade campus was built entirely with School District funds. The City demanded that some aesthetic changes be made to the outside of the building and paid for these changes. The City also partnered with the District to build the school’s gymnasium, paing part of the cost and in return having the district make it available for City purposes. The City Council voted against having Grocery Outlet move into the downtown property which is being developed as “The Village”. Grocery Outlet then found another property that was zoned for grocery stores and opened there.

In the “Parents for Progress” paid slate mailer, Souza claims to have provided money to complete the new health clinic, championed after-school programs, safe routes to schools, school resource officers and crossing guards.” However, the The City Council did not provide any money to complete the new health clinic. Rather, they provided a loan to the School District, at a higher interest that they were receiving from investing those funds, so that the District could buy the building. Souza has never championed after-school programs and these, indeed, were cut while she was in the Council. At the last City Council meeting, Souza argued that the School District, and not the City, should pay for school resource officers; she has also voted to cut crossing guards.

Questionable Claims:

In the “Parents for Progress” paid slate mailer, Souza claims to have “been good for both our school districts, funding joint projects.” However, Souza has often spoken out against the City providing any funds to the School District, even to maintain facilities used exclusively for the City. Indeed, her animosity to the school has been so great that the San Leandro Teachers Association, who supported Corina Lopez when she ran against Pauline Cutter due to their own animosity to Cutter, has endorsed Cutter for Mayor.

In her mailer, Souza claims that under her leadership several buildings were approved and accomplished. However, while she approved them by voting for them, she did nothing to “accomplish” them.

Souza also takes credit for many “accomplishments” that are questionable at best. The Council “added resource officers” but Souza now favors making the School District pay for them. The Council might have increased city programs for youth, but only to cut them later. The Council may have expanded shuttle programs, but she has voted and/or spoken against the Links shuttle since she was elected. The Council had historically funded crossing guards, only to cut them in 2010, and then restore them but only after the School District agreed to share the costs. As far as I know, there are no neighborhood police beats – at least not any visible ones around here -, but if there are, they would be because of the Police Chief, not anything that Souza has done. She might have voted to adopt transit oriented development plans, the same ones which the Council used to block Grocery Outlet form using the former Albertson’s site, but these have fallen apart, which is why “The Village” was able to be constructed.

Souza has not brought new shopping and dining opportunities to town, unless she means she did so by approving Village Marketplace, which will feature a fast food burger joint. And if she brought back the Cherry Festival and the Tree lighting (Sausage & Suds is not funded by the City) before Cutter joined the Council, it was only to cut them again, as neither took place in 2010.

Her only role in the other accomplishments she lists was to vote for them.

Empty Promises: Souza has a long list of things we need to do. However, she’s been in the Council for 8 years without fulfilling them.

I e-mailed Diana Souza to ask for clarification on these claims, but did not hear back.

Pauline Cutter:

Questionable Claims: In one of her mailers, Cutter claims to have “lobbied Justice Department officials in Washington, DC for additional public safety resources.” However, the law enforcement funds that the City has obtained came in the form of competitive grants based on objective criteria. Cutter also claims that San Leandro just received federal funding for four more officers, however the COPS grant is only for $500K, which will cover less than the cost of one police officer for four years. The City wants the School District to pay the $1.7 million needed for the three other officers.

Under “Record of Accomplishments,” Cutter claims to have hired new police officers; however, the funds came from the COPS grant the City obtained before Cutter was in the Council. When I e-mailed her about it, Cutter said she found the funds to continue funding the police officers after the grant expired. Her claim to have opened Kaiser Hospital seems also unfounded, as the hospital was well under way to being built before Cutter joined the Council. Upon e-mailing her, Cutter responded that the Council fast-tracked Kaiser and it opened before it was originally scheduled to.

Empty Promises: Cutter promises she “will continue to enhance our quality of life by attracting quality retail and dining options to San Leandro.” However, she has not been able to accomplish that in the last four years, and she has not outlined a plan as to how she will do this. She also voted to sell the former Albertson’s property to developer David Irmer, assuring that only chain stores would be present in the new “Village Marketplace”.

Older Entries