It turns out that a fellow by the name of Jason Bezis must be on the same wavelength as Progressive Sundae. On the same day last week that this blog questioned the legality of Ellen Tauscher's endorsement of Mark DeSaulnier, Bezis, a lawyer from Lafayette, filed a 17-page complaint with the State Department vis-à-vis that endorsement. Citing much of the same material as the PS post (the State Department cable banning political endorsements by presidential appointees, the prominent Tauscher endorsement on DeSaulnier's website, and the campaign brochure that features Tauscher on three of its four pages), Bezis requested the following remedy:
I believe that the State Department Legal Adviser, State Department Inspector General and/or another responsible entity (e.g., Office of Special Counsel division that enforces the Hatch Act) should require Undersecretary Tauscher to repudiate her endorsements of all candidates for partisan political office, especially in election races that are now underway. Her statement should specifically state, "I neither endorse nor oppose any candidate in the special elections of September 1, 2009 and November 3, 2009 for California's 10th Congressional District, notwithstanding any of my previous statements. I instruct all candidates for those elections to cease and desist from use of my name and likeness in campaign advertisements, broadcasts, campaign literature, and similar media where they state or imply that I have endorsed or opposed their candidacies."
The news comes from Sam Stein that the Obama Administration, through its political arms, Organizing For America and the DNC, is now applying pressure on 15 members of Congress who are presenting a roadblock to its healthcare reforms. Courtesy of the DNC, this commercial will be airing in the districts of the 11 conservative Democrats and four moderate Republicans who are on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Sadly for many of us, Jerry McNerney (CA-11) is one of those recalcitrant Democrats. So for those of you who live in the Sacramento TV market, when you see this ad playing -- even though it doesn't specifically name him, the representative you should call is Jerry McNerney. (202) 225-1947.
For reform advocates, the Energy and Commerce Committee remains the toughest venue of the three committees handling health care in the House of Representatives, in large part because of the Blue Dog and moderate Democrats that make up its ranks. In making this purchase, Organizing for America either is worried about the committee's progress or -- much more likely -- sending a message that it has no problem applying pressure on fellow party members.
No representative is named in the ad. But every one of the aforementioned members will know that the spots are airing in their districts.
So there's a lot of interesting reading in the FEC reports that were filed yesterday, and I'll be posting tidbits and thoughts from those filings soon. But here's the big one that jumped out at me.
Listed under the heading of "Debts and Obligations," is an item showing that John Garamendi's Congressional campaign owes $1005.72 to Black Diamond Graphics for "campaign volunteer and staff shirts." A very little checking with Black Diamond Graphics reveals, though, that "Well, it's really hard to find tee-shirts that are made in America. There are only one or two companies left that still manufacture clothing in the USA, and they're real expensive." Fancy that. Oh, and as far as the screen printing and embroidery services that it offers, no, Black Diamond Graphics is not a union shop.
Now, they do have the advantage of being located in Calaveras County, in John Garamendi's home district -- oh, wait. That's CA-03.
But seriously, if you are involved in local Democratic politics in any way, shape, or form, you probably know that there's a wonderful union shop over the hill in Berkeley where everything is union-made -- it's called Alliance Graphics. Sure their goods are more expensive. That's because they buy union-made materials and treat their workers with dignity -- something that in most circles is considered to be a strongly-held Democratic value.
But the message that I'm receiving from John Garamendi is that he wants to go to Washington, DC to fight for Democratic values and American jobs; he just doesn't believe in putting his money where his mouth is.
When the news broke last March that Ellen Tauscher was going to be nominated to a position in the State Department, the jockeying to replace her began immediately. In those early days, back before John Garamendi even quite knew where CA-10 was located, Mark DeSaulnier was considered the prohibitive favorite. (Remember, this was when folks were speculating about whether Joe Canciamilla would enter the race.)
"The reality is that this primary is coming down to who the Big Four support -- [Rep.] George Miller, Ellen Tauscher, Torlakson and labor," said California Democratic consultant John Shallman, who is working for DeSaulnier. "And I'm extremely confident they're all going to be behind Mark."
And that's been the DeSaulnier message in a nutshell: "Leaders we trust, trust Mark DeSaulnier." But there are some serious problems with that message... on the flip.
We've all heard the old saying "Don't look a gift horse in the mouth" -- to wit, when someone gives you a gift, don't question its value; instead, just accept it and be grateful.
But the reality is a little bit different. In our world today, if someone offers you a gift horse, you'd better check it out carefully. Looking at a horse's mouth will tell you a lot about its age and overall health. And with the expense of keeping a horse pushing well over $1,000/month locally, a little bit of caution at the outset (e.g.; looking that gift horse in the mouth) could help you avoid being burdened with a costly liability.
And so it's been in CA-10 with Mark DeSaulnier and his endorsement by Ellen Tauscher. I'm guessing that when Tauscher's endorsement was offered, it never occurred to Mark DeSaulnier to question such a gift and weigh the overall costs associated with receiving the seal of approval of an incumbent who is widely disliked by the progressive base of the Democratic Party. He just accepted the endorsement gift and dismissed its potential downside.
But the expenses associated with Ellen Tauscher's endorsement have mounted, with precious little indication that there's any real upside to having received her imprimatur.
The special election to replace Ellen Tauscher in CA-10 is taking an ugly turn. The CDP has announced that its endorsement caucus will take place on August 1, and I'm already having flashbacks to Migden-Leno and the 2008 CDP convention.
You see, even though major flaws in the endorsement process were exposed over a year ago, nothing has changed; nor is there, at least to date, any apparent desire on the part of the CDP to address a situation where powerful outsiders are invited to skew the outcome of endorsements in local races.
Way back in April, I wrote a post about Sen. Jon Kyl's plan to place a hold on Ellen Tauscher's confirmation to the position of Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
Well, it looks like Kyl's threat was far from idle. That hold was placed sometime last week, although there seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether Kyl put a hold on just Tauscher and one other nominee or whether it's a blanket hold on all State Department nominees. The precise reason for the hold seems unclear as well.
Here's what The Cable is reporting about Kyl's action:
A Congressional source says that Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) put a hold on all State Department nominees earlier this week because he is not satisifed with the information he has been receiving from the administration on the progress of arms control negotiations with Russia. [...]
I was skimming Roll Call's Shop Talk that get's emailed to me once a week (cause I'm cool like that) and typically it's just ex-hill staffers bragging about their new consulting firm, or new clients etc.
This one though had some local news:
The Winding Rivera. The California consulting firm Gilliard, Blanning, Wysocki & Associates has promoted Cristina Rivera to lead their new political action committee fundraising division. Rivera comes from California Republican Party and worked on the effort to recall then-Gov. Gray Davis (D). GBWA consults with several Congressional clients, and Rivera said she is handling district fundraising for businessman Jon Del Arroz in California's 11th district.
So who is Jon Del Arroz? Well first off he apparently he has some problems with the truth.
Using the Google, one of the first hits besides his campaign site was The Huffington Post's Fundrace. On his website he says that he is a lifelong resident of the 11th District. Problem is Fundrace has him making a $500 contribution to Ron Paul's presidential bid in 2007 at his residence in LaFayette, well within Ellen Tauscher's district.
Perhaps he's moved into the 11th since then, but lying about being a lifelong resident it isn't a great way to kick off your campaign.
The Political Blotter published this blurb about San Ramon last week:
Mayor Abram Wilson is up for re-election along with councilmembers Dave Hudson and Jim Livingstone [both Republicans].
Wilson has said he will seek re-election and he has also said he will run again for state Assembly in 2010. Wilson, a Republican, is the city's first directly elected mayor and he has never faced significant opposition. But it one wonders if the Democratic Party will attempt to field an opponent in the mayoral contest in an effort to weaken Wilson's chances for success in the Assembly.
Well, it seems like the more things change, the more they stay the same. It's nearly two years since I wrote the following post here:
As I write this post, the City Council of San Ramon is appointing two incumbent council members, Carol Rowley and Scott Perkins, and the current mayor, H. Abram Wilson, to new terms. All Two out of three of these appointees are Republicans, including Wilson, who has announced his plans to leverage his mayoral office to run for the Republican primary in AD-15 (this appointment will give the Republican front-runner an extra two and a half months to campaign for AD-15).
These three seats were scheduled for a November 2007 election. So why are the incumbents being appointed rather than having to face the voters in November? Because nobody challenged them for their seats.
The City Council scheduled a special meeting at 5:30 pm on Monday, August 20, 2007, to appoint the Mayor and City Council members. Since only the incumbents filed for reelection, the City Council will vote to appoint the three qualified candidates to the positions.
The State of California requires the appointments to be made 75 days before the election, August 20th is 78 days before the election, and 5 days after publication of a notice in the newspaper. The City will save over $100,000 by not holding a public election.
If you live in CA-10, you may have gotten a robocall from John Garamendi over the weekend telling you about his candidacy and encouraging you to visit his website www.Garamendi.org. The only problem is that these annoying political robocalls are illegal in California. Our state laws specifically prohibit robocalls unless the call is announced by a live operator who requests your permission to continue.
2874. (a) Whenever telephone calls are placed through the use of an automatic dialing-announcing device, the device may be operated only after an unrecorded, natural voice announcement has been made to the person called by the person calling. The announcement shall do all of the following:
(1) State the nature of the call and the name, address, and telephone number of the business or organization being represented, if any.
(2) Inquire as to whether the person called consents to hear the prerecorded message of the person calling.
Garamendi's robocall had no live voice at the beginning, and no request for consent was made. And the PUC has made it very clear in a FAQ sheet (PDF) that this law explicitly extends to political campaigns:
3. What about the robocalls I get around election time about political candidates or other election issues?
Political candidates or others supporting candidates or ballot issues also must follow the
law and about using Robocalls, which is found in the California Public Utilities Code,
Sections 2871-2876.
So what can you do if you receive an annoying robocall from a candidate? Well, you have three options:
1) You can ignore them (or blog about them);
2) You can follow the PUC advice from its FAQ sheet and file a complaint with your local carrier; or
3) You can notify the National Political Do Not Call Registry through their website at StopPoliticalCalls.org and hope that they are successful in bringing your complaint before the California PUC.
In the meantime, speaking as a resident of CA-10, it sure would be nice if the other candidates in the race made the decision to abide by California law and take a pledge that they will not engage in placing these annoying and illegal calls.
But the reality is a little bit different. In our world today, if someone offers you a gift horse, you'd better check it out carefully. Looking at a horse's mouth will tell you a lot about its age and overall health. And with the expense of keeping a horse pushing well over $1,000/month locally, a little bit of caution at the outset (e.g.; looking that gift horse in the mouth) could help you avoid being burdened with a costly liability.
