Victor Aguilar

Jul 072021
 

Unable to levy factual accusations, Bonta invents a millionaire father for Ramachandran.

Mia Bonta

There was never a question of whether Mia Bonta would launch a dirty whisper campaign against her opponent in the general election for the District 18 Assembly race. Rob Bonta, Mia’s husband and the most prominent and active member of her campaign, utilized a “dirty attacks” strategy when he, himself first ran for the Assembly seat Mia is now seeking. The question was what types of attacks the Bontas would launch against Janani Ramachandran, the other winner of the top-two primary. A brilliant public interest lawyer with an extensive history of social justice activism and work for non-profits, Ramachandran has as clean a background as you can find in a candidate. We now have the answer to that question: Bonta will seek to exploit resentment against Indian-Americans as a “privileged minority” and xenophobia in general. She has started by using tropes and dog whistles while making deceitful and outright false allegations against Ramachandran.

Mere days after the primary election, the Bonta campaign started sending out texts like these to voters:

May be an image of text
Janani Ramachandran

It is true that Janani Ramachandran comes from a privileged background. Ironically, it’s privilege that Mia Bonta shares. Both Janani and Mia’s fathers were college graduates and held professional jobs while their daughters were growing up. Both their mothers attended New York state public colleges, and both families pushed education on their children. Mia’s privilege was tampered by a broken home, while Janani’s by her LGBTQ identity. Both Janani and Mia were very good students and were able to attend top schools: Mia graduated from Yale College and Yale Law School, while Janani graduated from Stanford and UC Berkeley. Both of them had to resort to financial aid to attend college. Their privilege can be contrasted with that of two of their opponents in the primary: both Victor Aguilar and James Aguilar (no relation to each other) are gay Latino men who were the first in their families to attend a four year college. They both have endorsed Janani.

The text the Bonta campaign sent voters attempts to awaken resentment and racism against Indian-Americans by casting her father as the founder of “a large international corporation”. It accuses Janani of lying about her background and suggests that her father was rich. He is not. The Kumar Ramachandran who is Janani’s father, is an engineer who has worked for a number of companies in the US and India. He ran a small engineering firm in Bangalore for a number of years and later founded a start-up that tried to connect Indian farmers with food retailers, cutting the middle man, increasing farmer’s profits and decreasing food waste. Corruption in India made that start up go bust and Kumar is now back at working as a consultant.

There is another man also named Kumar Ramachandran who co-founded a company later sold to Palo Alto Networks for over $400 millions. Indeed, if you google “Kumar Ramachandran“, his profile is the first one to come up – along with photos of him and a young girl with very dark skin and very big eyes. I imagine it’s possible that the Bonta campaign recklessly assumed that this man was Janani’s father, despite being far too young to have a daughter Janani’s age, and they might think that all Indians look alike and that little girl was Janani. Just as likely, the Bontas were just hoping anyone googling Kumar would make the same mistake.

The other attacks on Janani are not as much outright lies as deceptions. I have no doubts that when Janani’s family moved back to India, they sent her to a private school. The Indian public school system is such that most everyone who has access to one of the 400,000 private schools in the country and can afford the very reasonable fees, sends their kids to them. Close to half of Indian students attend non-government schools. The same is true, unfortunately, in many developing countries, including in Latin America. Ironically, Mia Bonta herself sent at least one of her children to a private school despite living in Alameda, a city best known for the quality of its schools and despite serving as the Alameda School Board President herself.

Mia’s attack on Janani “only” moving back to the Bay Area to attend college is more puzzling. It’s extremely common for American children who moved with their parents to other countries to come back to the US for college. Kamala Harris is a prime example of this, she went to school in Canada and came back to the US to attend Howard university. The children of my American professors at the American University of Cairo did the same thing. But perhaps Mia seeks to further stroke xenophobic feelings by suggesting that Janani is not really American. Again, an ironic trope when her own husband was born in The Philippines.

Finally, Janani moved to Oakland while attending UC Berkeley Law School. I’m surprised that Mia knows so little of the East Bay that she does not know that many UC Berkeley students live in Oakland. My husband and most of my friends did at some time or another when we all were at Cal (I, instead, was fortunate to get a rent controlled apartment a few blocks from campus!). Janani originally lived within the borders of AD 15 and later – long before Rob Bonta was appointed Attorney General and his seat became vacant – moved in with her partner into a larger place which happened to be on the other side of this arbitrary border, in AD 18. Now, while Janani didn’t move to AD 18 specifically to run and Mia’s allegation is an attempt to falsely claim her a carpetbagger – it is not uncommon for activists and community organizers who live in one area and work in another to seek to run in the area where they work, as that’s where they know the community best. Indeed, one of the problems with Mia Bonta is that despite living in the Bay Area for over a decade, she still doesn’t know the community outside Alameda.

This was just the first dirty attack on Janani that the Bonta campaign launched (or that I’ve become aware of). I anticipate future ones will be nastier and even more deceitful. I hope that voters will be able to see through them.

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.).





Oct 092018
 

San Leandro, like many cities in the Bay Area, is in crisis.  About half of our community members are renters and skyrocketing rents are pushing them out of their homes, either displacing them out of the Bay Area or putting them on the streets.   This lack of community stability is affecting neighborhoods and schools, as the challenges of facing an ever-changing student population are significant.   Yet the City Council has done nothing to address this situation.   This is not surprising because the Rental Owners Association and landlords have poured money into the incumbents’ campaigns.

Lack of ethics and integrity is, indeed, a generalized problem in San Leandro city government.  The former City Manager, fearing that accusations of sexual harassment by the head of a local nonprofit would become public, sent out a rambling and utterly unprofessional letter to the press, in which he detailed how he’d have business meetings with his accuser in the front seat of her car and play ping-pong with a local lobbyist.  In the letter, he also discussed  the contents of private conversations with Council members.  Rather than fire him on the spot for unprofessional behavior, the Council put him on paid leave for months while he looked for a new job and and gave him  a $350K parting gift.

What San Leandro needs is progressive and ethical leadership, thus our recommendations below.  Note that San Leandro has ranked choice voting (RCV) for its Mayor and City Council races.

Jeromey Shafer

Mayor: #1 Jeromey Shafer, #2 Dan Dillman

Incumbent Pauline Cutter has been a disaster as Mayor of San Leandro.  She seems to have approached her job as a money-making scheme.  Early in her term, her daughter was hired by the City (with the approval of the City Manager) for a highly-paid position in the Parks and Recreation department – despite nepotism being explicitly forbidden by the Charter of the City of San Leandro.   Cutter would later defend the City Manager against sex harassment accusations, resist efforts to ask for his resignation after he wrote an unprofessional and incoherent public letter, and later vote to give him a $300K farewell gift on his way out.

Cutter has spent much of her time traveling at tax-payer expense, but she can’t point to any concrete accomplishments from her tenure.  The promise of San Leandro becoming a high tech center based on our fiberloop never materialized, and instead our industrial area is filled with warehouses that pay low wages.  Moreover, Cutter has supported police militarization and despite her promise that the counter-attack armored vehicle she voted to buy for the police would not be used on demonstrations, it’s been deployed twice for such purposes.  Cutter is a supporter of mass surveillance, including sharing this data with ICE.

Her opponent City Council member Benny Lee has basically the same record and positions.  He demonstrated his lack of ethics by taking large campaign contributions from a garbage company that was bidding  for a contract with the City of Oakland, and lobbied the neighboring City to award that contract to his contributor.  The competitor was based on San Leandro, so his move could have cost San Leandro $2 million.  Lee’s major “contribution” to San Leandro has been to propose honoring the genocidal Chinese government by flying its flag over City Council.  As Tibetans burn themselves to bring attention to their plight and a million Ughyurs are imprisoned in China, Lee’s loyalty seems to be foremost with the Chinese government.

Fortunately, San Leandro has another choice: Jeromey Shafer.  The co-founder of San Leandro for Bernie and leader of Our Revoution San Leandro, Shafer is intelligent, hard working, thoughtful and  unapologetically progressive.  He is committed to human rights and social justice.  If elected, he will champion rent-control in San Leandro and will take an innovative approach to solving our other social ills.  He will stop the militarization of our police forces and actually make the police department accountable to the city, not the other way around as it seems to be now.  He is running a clean money campaign, rejecting all funds from corporations and developers and limiting contributions to $99.   Shafer will also restore transparency and accountability and a sense of ethics to the office.  Really, San Leandro can do no better than to support him.

Dan Dillman is our second choice because, whatever his faults, he cares about San Leandro.

Eva Arce

Eva Arce

District 1: #1 Eva Arce, #2 Ken Pon

Incumbent Deborah Cox is another white-moderate who supports police militarization and mass surveillance and opposes rent-control. She drew controversy for not returning the financial contribution of a politician who used the “N” word in a public meeting.

Eva Arce, a newcomer to  politics, is a strong progressive who has seen her community fall apart by the Council’s regressive politics and wants to restore it.  She is a big supporter of rent control, police accountability and fixing potholes.  She is running a clean money campaign, rejecting all funds from corporations and developers and limiting contributions to $99.    She is an intelligent woman, who does her homework and will tackle issues with a fresh, yet progressive perspective.  She is just what we need in San Leandro.

Ken Pon is also a moderate, but to the left of Cox.  He opposes the militarization of police and favored marijuana dispensaries when Cox was ranting against them at City Council meetings.

 

Victor Aguilar

District 3: Victor Aguilar

School Board member Victor Aguilar was a progressive back when people didn’t want to admit to being progressive (his opponent, incumbent Lee Thomas, has never claimed himself as one).  He supports rent control, police accountability, clean money (he is not taking any corporate or developer money), and free speech.  As a commissioner, he refused to agree to the City Council’s demand that he forgo his first amendment rights and agree to no disparage the City Manager.

Incumbent Lee Thomas takes money from landlords and opposes rent controls while supporting police militarization.

 

District 5: Maxine Oliver-Benson (with reservations)

Both candidates are problematic.  Incumbent Corina Lopez supports police militarization and has done painfully little to bring accountability to the police and remained a supporter of the City Manager even after he showed himself to lack professionalism, but at least she may vote in favor of rent control if someone else brings it up to the table. She also was the impetus behind the sanctuary city declaration, but would not go a step further and make it an ordinance with some teeth – this allowed the Police Department to continue sharing data with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, which in turn shared it with ICE.  Moreover, Lopez can be difficult to work with, she easily gets offended and needs to have her ego massaged lest she retaliate over perceived slights.

Her opponent, Maxine Oliver-Benson, is an African American woman who has spent her life in East Oakland as an activist.  She is corporate free and has many strong progressive values – she favors rent control and police accountability, for example, and is rejecting all money from corporations, developers and other special interests (unlike Lopez).  However, she supports increasing mass surveillance in San Leandro – which Lopez says she does not.

Find more progressive voter recommendations in Progressive California.

Nov 022014
 

As a growing number of California votes, I get an absentee ballot but I wait until election day to fill it out and drop it at the polls. That way I can be sure I have as much information as possible before I cast my ballot.  This also gives me time to discuss my choices with others, and do some more deeper thinking.  Inevitably, this leads to changing my mind in a few races.  That’s the case with the San Leandro City Council District 3 race.  I am now recommending the following voter order:

First Choice: Allen Schoenfeld
Second Choice: Victor Aguilar
Third Choice: Lee Thomas

Allen Schoenfeld

Allen Schoenfeld

FIRST CHOICE: ALLEN SCHOENFELD

Allen Schoenfeld cannot win this race if only because he did not submit a ballot statement.

Truth be told, Schoenfeld probably shouldn’t win either.  He has no experience in City government, has only recently started attending City meetings, and is unfamiliar both with the issues and the system.  Without that basis of knowledge, he would be able to do little more than rubber stamp what is put in front of him.  He might surprise me, but I doubt he would make a particularly good City Council member.

Allen, however, is a good man who clearly cares for his community and for human beings.  He also has maintained a clear anti-police militarization stance since he joined the raise.  His views don’t seem to be as politically driven as community driven, “what’s the point of spending money on things we don’t need and don’t help us?,” seems to be his attitude.  A vote for him, in my view, is a protest vote against police militarization. He will be eliminated after the first round, so anyone trying to make that point should choose him first.

More on Allen Schoenfeld: Candidate QuestionnaireSmart Voter, SL Times profile

Victor Aguilar

Victor Aguilar

SECOND CHOICE: VICTOR AGUILAR

The race for District 3 is really between Victor Aguilar and Lee Thomas.  Thomas’ success is almost guaranteed. He has the better name, the better ballot designation and the better candidate statement. Still, I believe that we should vote for the best candidate, not the most popular one.

I originally recommended voting for Lee Thomas as a first choice because Thomas is the most knowledgeable and competent candidate on this race (see below for more on this).  Victor Aguilar has not been following what has been happening at City Hall and he seems to have very little understanding of the issues that are facing this city.  For example, he seemed to be unaware of the long battle to save San Leandro Hospital.

Moreover, at the time I wrote my original recommendation, I was unsure about what his political views were.  He had not yet responded to the candidate questionnaire I sent out, and none of his answers at the candidate fora showed a clear liberal bent.  This has changed.  He has completed the questionnaire, did not back away from the more difficult questions, and he has made it clear he supports civil liberties and the right to privacy, and opposes the militarization of the police department and the diversion of classroom funds to pay for police officers.

My concerns about Aguilar’s inexperience persist.  However, practically speaking, it’s unlikely he would get elected unless there is a significant swing to the left by the electorate. In that case, it’s likely that at least one the other liberal candidates – Mike Katz-Lacabe, Mia Ousley and Dan Dillman – would be elected, so that the pressures on Aguilar as the sole liberal member wouldn’t be so overwhelming.

Ultimately, I have said publicly that if you oppose police militarization, you need to vote for those candidates who do as well.  I must follow my own advice and choose Aguilar before Thomas. If we are not willing to take a chance to get what we really want – a freer and more just society -, then we will never get it.

More on Victor Aguilar: candidate questionnairecandidate statement, Smart Voter, Facebook page, SL Times profile

Lee Thomas

Lee Thomas

THIRD CHOICE: LEE THOMAS

Lee Thomas is a great guy. He works as a director of youth programs at the YMCA, and he clearly cares about children.  He has been involved in San Leandro’s civic life for a long time, including a stint in the Human Services Commission and later in the Board of Zoning Adjustments.  I have seen Lee in action at BZA meetings and he asks intelligent questions which show that he’s done the background reading and has thought about the issues before him.   I’ve met with him to discuss his race and I found him to be amenable to new ideas, looking forward to collaboration, and endowed with strong problem-solving skills.  Lee was the first candidate to return the San Leandro Talk/Nextdoor questionnaire, though he didn’t complete it.   He regularly attends City Council meetings – at least, I’ve seen him at them many times – and he got the endorsement of the Oakland Tribune.

In some ways his views are very progressive, he rejects warrantless searches of private property (which, unfortunately, the City Hall as a body approved of) and he believes the City needs to do a much better job of bringing after-school activities.

However, he has much more conservative views on other issues.  He opposes medical marijuana dispensaries but he is not opposed to the school district diverting money from classrooms to police and he has not taken firm positions against either the use of mass surveillance in San Leandro or the acquisition of the armored personnel carrier.  He serves in the the Police Chief’s Advisory Board, where he has not challenged the Police Chief on her overreaching policies, and has been endorsed by the Police Union.

I think he will do a good job in San Leandro, but if no other liberal candidates are elected – and that’s a strong possibility – I don’t think he’ll be rocking the boat.

More on Lee Thomas: candidate questionnaire, candidate statement, Smart Voter, website, Facebook, APAC questionnaire, SL Times profile: , tweeter: @LeeThomas94578

Oct 312014
 

policestate

 

The positions below are based on candidates’ answers to questionnaires and to questions asked at candidate fora and on other public statements from the candidates.

* While the candidate currently holds that position, s/he might consider voting differently.

? The candidate has not indicated their position on this issue.

 

Mayoral Candidates

 Is in Favor of:  Diana Souza   Pauline Cutter   Dan Dillman   Gregg Daly
(write in) 
 Red Light Cameras   Y  N  N  N
 Surveillance Cameras  Y  Y  N  N
 Long Term Retention & Sharing
of License Plate Reader Data
 Y  Y*  N  N
 SLPD Armored Personnel Carrier  Y  Y*  N  N
 SLPD searching private property
without a warrant
 Y  Y*  N  N
 Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries  Y  N  N  N
 Making School District Pay
for SLPD resource officers
 Y  N  N  N
 Flying the People’s Republic of China’s
Flag Over City Hall
 Y  N  N  N

City Council District 1 Candidates

 In Favor of:  Deborah Cox   David Anderson   Ken Pon   Mike Katz-Lacabe 
 Red Light Cameras   ?  ?  ?  N
 Surveillance Cameras  Y  Y  Y  N
 Long Term Retention & Sharing
of License Plate Reader Data
 ?  ?  ?  N
 SLPD Armored Personnel Carrier  Y  N*  N*  N
 SLPD searching private property
without a warrant
 ?  ?  ?  N
 Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries  Y  N  N  N
 Making School District Pay
for SLPD resource officers
 ?  Y  ?  N
 Flying the People’s Republic of China’s
Flag Over City Hall
 N  N  N*  N
Attends City Council Meetings
& Speaks Out on Issues
 N  N  N  Y/Y

 

City Council District 3 Candidates

 In Favor of:  Lee Thomas   Allen Schoenfeld   Victor Aguilar 
 Red Light Cameras   N  N  N
 Surveillance Cameras  ?  N  N
 Long Term Retention & Sharing
of License Plate Reader Dataa
 ?  N  N
 SLPD Armored Personnel Carrier  Y*  N  N
 SLPD searching private property
without a warrant
 N  ?  N
 Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries  Y  N  N
 Making School District Pay
for SLPD resource officers
 Y  N  N
 Flying the People’s Republic of China’s
Flag Over City Hall
 N  N  N
Attends City Council Meetings
& Speaks Out on Issues
 Y/N  Y/N  N

City Council District 5 Candidates

 In Favor of:  Leah Hall   Corina Lopez   Mia Ousley  
 Red Light Cameras   ?  ?  N
 Surveillance Cameras  ?  N  N
 Long Term Retention & Sharing
of License Plate Reader Data
 ?  ?  N
 SLPD Armored Personnel Carrier  N  Y  N
 SLPD searching private property
without a warrant
 ?  ?  N
 Ban on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries  Y  N  N
 Making School District Pay
for SLPD resource officers
 ?  N  N
 Flying the People’s Republic of China’s
Flag Over City Hall
 N  N  N
Attends City Council Meetings
& Speaks Out on Issues
 N  N  Y/Y