Cooking up a campaign? Need a new recipe? You've come to the right place! The Campaign Cookbook offers tips to season your campaign, make the dough rise, and be prepared for when it gets hot in the electoral kitchen. Recipes tried and true, and innovative too, presented by GreenDog Campaigns. www.greendogcampaigns.com
Now that several judge candidates have been "outed" so to speak for improprieties or perceived improprieties on the campaign trail, will all this exposure in the press help or hurt their campaigns? What about the ones who so far have stayed above the fray? Should they wallow in the mud with the rest, or hold their heads up high?
Only time will tell. But all campaigns are ramping up. More mailers, TV ads, Facebook rants - who knows what to expect?
Is the legal business a lofty profession or just a bunch of sleazeballs looking for the next ambulance to chase? A little of both. As a lawyer myself, I like to think the best of my colleagues. Personally, I'm looking for ethics, consistency, compassion and a strong grounding in the law from my judges. That and a showing of respect for all who enter the courtroom, from litigants, to the other lawyers, to victims of crimes and those accused of crimes, to the jurors who give up their time, and often money from their jobs to serve.
If they can't keep their campaigns out of the muck and mire, what will their courtrooms be like?
Think on it.
A happy Memorial Day to all. Here's a little something to throw on the barbie while you wade through all those flyers you've saved from your mailbox over the last few weeks. You have saved them all, for a deliberative decision making process, haven't you?
Prosciutto wrapped asparagus seems to be my new latest addiction. It is... mmm..... mmmm
good. I know, I know, another post on asparagus huh? I have grilled
these three times in the last couple of weeks, so had to write about
it. They are just so simple to make and very tasty! Trim, wash, wrap,
brush with olive oil, season, and throw them on the grill. It's a slam
dunk!
Grilled Prosciutto wrapped asparagus is a great appetizer but I like
them as a side dish as well. I recently paired them with grilled Cornish Games Hens.
As I mentioned in a previous post, we do love asparagus in our home
and it is asparagus season here in northern California. The
earthiness of the Asparagus is enhanced by grilling. Add the thinly
sliced Prosciutto and you are really onto something. Asparagus has
always been one of my favorite grilled veggies and this recipe moves it
up the list for sure.
The sweet, savory, salty taste of the grilled Prosciutto along with the
smoky, rich earthy flavor of the grilled asparagus sits well on the
palate. It is a wonderful little finger food to go along with a nice
glass of wine. Prosecco or Cava is
a good pairing for this as an appetizer. Sauvignon Blanc and
Chardonnay also pair very well. The thicker fat asparagus work well
wrapped individually while the smaller ones are better nicely wrapped in
bundles of three or four.
I like my asparagus with a little firmness left in them. If they get a
little too done, they can be mushy and lose some of that great flavor.
The great thing about Prosciutto is that because it is so thinly
sliced, it will crisp up easily and you won't have to worry about
overcooking the asparagus to do so.
If you like asparagus, give this recipe a try as an appetizer or side
dish. It will be something you will make again and again!
Until next time, Happy Grilling!
The Marin County Sign Wars are escalating, with tit for tat from supporters of the judicial candidate calling herself Judge Nancy. Now she has gone and put a thicker line between the words Judge and Nancy as if that means anything or can shield her from the law.
Slightly grimy view of offending sign through windshield
Her supporters point out more minor infractions of others, many of whom have rectified their problem and apologized for any misleading impressions they might have caused. Not so Judge Nancy. She is in full on trench warfare,
This can't end well. See the Marin IJ's latest of the subject. Front page, above the fold.
Full article for your entertainment here:
Marin judicial race sees more mud fly over alleged misrepresentations
Marin judicial candidates Nancy McCarthy, Renee Marcelle and
David Shane have been accused of suggesting incumbency in their campaign
materials. Sheila Lichtblau’s website, lower right, pictures her with
retired judge Lynn Duryee, who is wearing a judicial robe. (Clockwise
from top left: Robert Tong/Marin Independent Journal;
marcelleforjudge.com; sheilaforjudge.com; shaneforjudge.com)
A supporter for a Marin judicial candidate accused of misleading
voters has lodged similar complaints against four other candidates.
Nancy McCarthy, one of nine candidates
in the June 7 election for a Marin judgeship, has come under criticism
for campaign materials that could suggest she is a sitting judge. The
materials place the words “Judge” and “Nancy” close together in extra
large type.
The materials prompted a complaint to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office. The complaint came from a supporter for rival candidate Renee Marcelle.
The district attorney referred the matter to the state Attorney
General’s Office for review because three county prosecutors are running
in the primary.
Under state elections law, it is a misdemeanor
when a candidate, in an effort to “mislead” voters, “assumes, pretends,
or implies, by his or her statements, conduct, or campaign materials,
that he or she is the incumbent of a public office when that is not the
case.” Violators can be subject to civil action by other candidates.
McCarthy,
a labor and employment lawyer, has denied any intention to mislead
voters. On Thursday, Linda Remy, a McCarthy supporter, sent a letter to
state and county prosecutors seeking an evaluation of possible
“misrepresentations” by four other candidates.
The other candidates are Marcelle; Otis Bruce, a county
prosecutor; Sheila Lichtblau, a deputy county counsel; and David Shane, a
personal injury lawyer.
“All candidates should be treated alike,” Remy wrote.
Remy
cited examples of campaign materials where Bruce, Marcelle and Shane
placed judge-related phrases close enough to the candidates’ names to
suggest incumbency.
For example, Marcelle’s website had her name
over the words “Marin Superior Court Judge,” although the campaign has
since added the word “for.”
Bruce declined to comment, and Shane did not respond to a request for comment, but both have amended their websites.
Marcelle said she did not create the website, but she added the word “for” after learning of the oversight.
“Regardless,
no one would responsibly argue that there was at all, any intent to
deceive,” she said. “Certainly if one did get misled in the slightest, I
apologize and take full responsibility.”
In the case of
Lichtblau, Remy cited campaign materials that picture her with two
retired judges who are supporting her. The retired judges, who now work
as mediators, are wearing judicial robes.
Remy calls that a misrepresentation. Lichtblau says her campaign materials “clearly identify” both former judges as retired.
“There is no misrepresentation,” Lichtblau said. “I remain humbled by and proud of the judicial support I’ve earned.”
District
Attorney Ed Berberian did not respond to an inquiry on whether he has
referred Remy’s complaint to the Attorney General’s Office.
Brenda
Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General’s Office, did not
respond to an inquiry on whether the complaint is under review.
The candidates are running to succeed Judge Faye D’Opal, who is
leaving when her terms ends on Dec. 31. Unless a candidate wins an
outright majority on June 7, the top two vote-getters will compete in
the general election on Nov. 8.
The other four candidates in the
race are Michael Coffino, a public defender; Beth Jordan, a family law
specialist; Thomas McCallister, a county prosecutor; and Nicole
Pantaleo, a county prosecutor.
Marin judicial candidate accused of implying incumbency in campaign materials
A Nancy McCarthy campaign sign stands next to De Long Avenue in
Novato. Critics have questioned whether the placement of “Judge” and
“Nancy” on her campaign materials is meant to suggest she is running as
an incumbent. (Robert Tong/Marin Independent Journal)
Nancy McCarthy, who is facing criticism that her
campaign materials imply incumbency, noted that rival Renee Marcelle’s
website says “Marin Superior Court Judge” under her name.
(Marcelleforjudge.com)
Elections Code 18350
(a)
A person is guilty of a misdemeanor who, with intent to mislead the
voters in connection with his or her campaign for nomination or election
to a public office, or in connection with the campaign of another
person for nomination or election to a public office, does either of the
following acts:
(1) Assumes, pretends, or implies, by his or her
statements, conduct, or campaign materials, that he or she is the
incumbent of a public office when that is not the case.
(2)
Assumes, pretends, or implies, by his or her statements, conduct, or
campaign materials, that he or she is or has been acting in the capacity
of a public officer when that is not the case.
(b) A violation of this section may be enjoined in a civil action brought by a candidate for the public office involved.
A Marin judicial candidate running to uphold the law is facing accusations her campaign is flouting it.
Nancy
McCarthy, one of nine candidates in the June 7 primary, has come under
scrutiny for campaign signs and materials that prominently display the
words “Judge” and “Nancy” together in large letters.
Although the
two words are separated by a small star or thin vertical line on her
campaign signs, her campaign website goes further. It is designed to
place the words “Judge” and “Nancy” close together, unseparated by any
characters, in a type size about twice as large as the other words.
Under state Elections Code Section 18350, it is a misdemeanor
when a candidate, in an effort to “mislead” voters, “assumes, pretends,
or implies, by his or her statements, conduct, or campaign materials,
that he or she is the incumbent of a public office when that is not the
case.”
Violators can be subject to civil action by other candidates.
District
Attorney Edward Berberian referred the matter to the California
Attorney General’s Office because his office has a conflict of interest.
Three of his prosecutors are running for the same seat as McCarthy.
Brenda Gonzalez, a spokeswoman for the attorney general, said state prosecutors are reviewing the matter.
Gonzalez
said she did not have statistics on how often Section 18350 charges are
filed in the state. In Marin, a records search going back to 2002 shows
no Section 18350 filings by county prosecutors, said Assistant District
Attorney Barry Borden.
No complaints against McCarthy or any of
the other judicial candidates have been filed with the state Fair
Political Practices Commission, spokesman Jay Wierenga said Thursday.
The judicial race is the most
competitive in years, putting extra pressure on the candidates to
distinguish themselves before the electorate. Unless a candidate wins an
outright majority on June 7, the top two vote-getters will compete in
the general election on Nov. 8.
In addition to McCarthy, a labor
and employment lawyer, the candidates include Otis Bruce, a county
prosecutor; Michael Coffino, a public defender; Beth Jordan, a family
law specialist; Sheila Lichtblau, a deputy county counsel; Renee
Marcelle, a family law attorney; Thomas McCallister, a county
prosecutor; Nicole Pantaleo, a county prosecutor; and David Shane, a
personal injury lawyer. They are running for the seat being vacated by
Judge Faye D’Opal when her term ends in December.
Gigi Bibeault, a Marcelle supporter who complained about
McCarthy’s campaign to the Marin County District Attorney’s Office, said
the signs and online materials create the appearance she is running as
an incumbent.
“As a parent, as a citizen, I just feel like they’re
over the line,” she said. “And I’m trying to teach my kids to be wise
about marketing.”
“If it said ‘Vote President Clinton’ for
Hillary, everyone would be up in arms,” she said. “It’s over the line.
The more I see it, the more irritated I get.”
Tara Higgins, a defense attorney, called McCarthy’s approach “underhanded” and unbefitting a candidate for judge.
“Clearly
she approved this method of getting votes but she’s vying for a job
that requires the highest level of integrity and ethics,” said Higgins,
who has endorsed Bruce, Coffino and Pantaleo. “She’s failed already on
both counts because her method of campaigning demonstrates she’ll try to
get votes at any cost.”
McCarthy, in an email
Thursday, said her materials are not intended to mislead but to help her
stand out. She said she emphasized her first name because she is
“sandwiched” alphabetically in the middle of nine candidates, three of
whom have last names that start with M.
“In fact, I would never want to be considered an ‘incumbent’ in
this race because that would indicate that I was such a loser of a judge
that 8 attorneys decided to run against me,” she wrote.
In
addition, she said, campaign signs “are small and it is hard to see what
office someone is running for, emphasizing the word Judge, makes clear
the position sought.”
She noted that Marcelle’s website has the candidate’s name at the top, with the line “Marin Superior Court Judge” underneath.
McCarthy
also cited the campaign materials for Lichtblau, who is pictured with
endorser Lynn Duryee, a retired judge who is now a mediator. Duryee is
wearing a judicial robe.
“Is that misleading?” McCarthy said. “Where did the robes ‘prop’ come from?”
Lichtblau
said: “My campaign has been very careful to follow all campaign laws,
including the California Code of Judicial Ethics. I’m proud to have my
candidacy supported by current and former judges.”
McCallister,
one of the prosecutors running for the judgeship, said McCarthy “is not
alone and that other candidates have done similar things on their
signs, websites, in their campaign literature, and on badges that they
wear to events.”
He also said candidates are broadly violating state and local
rules against posting campaign signs in medians, fences or properties
without permission.
“A prime example of this contrast between me
and other candidates can be found at the intersection of Sir Francis
Drake and Bon Air Road and all along Sir Francis Drake leading up to
that intersection from both directions,” he said in an email. “There you
will find many signs posted in the medians and on public fencing. My
signs are only posted on Marin Catholic property with permission of the
President of Marin Catholic or otherwise with permission of property and
business owners.”
“This is what our community should expect from all candidates,
especially judicial candidates, who are seeking a position in our
community that requires that they know our laws and that they follow and
enforce them.”
Other candidates declined to comment on McCarthy’s signs or could not be reached Thursday.
From the Point Reyes Light, more news of the Sign Wars of 2016. This time it's the candidates for District 4, Marin County, in the first open election (no incumbent) in twenty years. Just as an aside, I was running in that race 20 years ago. No, I did not win, but it was the last seriously contested election in that district. The fight is getting heated now. Signs are popping up like mushrooms in the public right of way. Go ahead, try to pick a "winner" out of this motley crew. Signs don't vote, people.
Candidates took sign rules lightly
CAMPAIGNING: Signs for four supervisor candidates huddle together at the intersection of Levee Road and Highway 1. Many of the eight candidates are suspected of placing signs illegally in county and state highway rights of way, the boundaries of which require a surveyor to map.
By
Beau Evans
05/19/2016
Candidates for District 4 supervisor hoping to broadcast their names and messages have picketed West Marin in recent months with a flurry of political signs, many of which violate county and state rules that prohibit signs in rights of way. Some candidates reason that the illegal placement of signs is an unfortunate byproduct of a campaign machine that has unleashed a follow-the-pack political mentality.
“Everyone’s been doing it. If everybody’s doing it, I’m going to do it,” said Wendi Kallins, of Forest Knolls.
The packed campaign season—with eight candidate’s vying for outgoing 20-year Supervisor Steve Kinsey’s seat and nine others seeking a open judge seat on the Marin County Superior Court—has prompted one of the largest outpourings of signs in recent memory. “There are more signs out this political season than I’ve seen during my time at the county,” said Ken Zepponi, a road maintenance supervisor who has worked for the county’s Department of Public Works for 26 years. “They are all over the place.”
Signs located in county and state highway rights of way violate signage codes—a fact that requires them to be taken down by the candidate or already taxed county and state road maintenance staff. And though pinpointing the boundaries of a right of way is difficult, Mr. Zepponi is confident that most supervisor candidates have been disregarding the rules.
“I can say, with reasonable certainty, that pretty much every candidate in West Marin has a sign in a right of way,” said Mr. Zepponi, who noted that the only way to verify a right of way’s existence would be to hire a surveyor to map it.
Under Marin County Development Code, political signs may only be placed by a property or business owner on his or her private property. Likewise, Caltrans prohibits signs on rights of way along its highways and anywhere else on state property without approval—which none of the supervisor candidates have obtained.
Candidates should know they cannot place signs in county or state highway rights of ways, said Dan Miller, the county Election Department’s candidate filing officer. All candidates, upon filing candidacy papers, were handed a booklet on general information, including signage restrictions.
All but two supervisor hopefuls—Mari Tamburo and Tomas Kaselionis—told the Light that they, their volunteers or supporters have put up scores of signs in West Marin. (Al Dugan, of Novato, could not be reached for comment, though his signs appear in West Marin and Novato.)
Many of those candidates said they are familiar with right-of-way rules and that some of their signs may violate those rules. Like Ms. Kallins, several said they chose certain locations because others were putting them there, too.
Dominic Grossi, of Novato, said violations might originate from an unclear understanding of what constitutes a right of way. “From what I’m hearing, there have been a few [in rights of way]…But the legal definition of a right of way—I’m not sure. We were just putting them where everyone else has been putting them up,” he said.
Lagunitas resident Alex Easton-Brown stressed that undefined right-of-way boundaries make proper sign placement a challenge, though he echoed Ms. Tamburo and Mr. Kaselionis in his view that “philosophically, I don’t like signs.”
Brian Staley, of Woodacre, said the same. “Unfortunately, because of the nature of the race, I was forced to make a sign commitment,” said Mr. Staley, who began putting out his signs just last week. “The goal is to keep them modest.”
Dennis Rodoni, of Olema, was the only candidate not to claim responsibility for placing some signs set in potential rights of way. Out of roughly 250 signs, all “bar a few” were set up by supporters, he said, and were meant to be placed on private property.
“It is tough to tell what rights of way are,” said Mr. Rodoni, whose signs were the first to appear in West Marin. “I know some of my supporters have them out on what they believe to be their property, but whether they have or not….”
Mr. Rodoni acknowledged that his signs went up “a little bit early,” in violation of a county rule that requires signs to be placed no sooner than 45 days prior to and 10 days after the primary election, which this year is on June 7.
But enforcing that rule is tricky, said county counsel Steve Woodside, given a 2013 ruling by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on free-speech issues related to signs that has called into question whether the 45-day period is too short.
Mr. Woodside said the county plans to update its decade-old sign code to reflect the court’s decision. “I think there would be an interest in looking at that issue after the primary is over,” he said. “But no one is going to retroactively apply a 45-day limit.”
He added that sign violations do not rank high in enforcement priority for the Sheriff’s Office. Nor do those violations often stir the Community Development Agency, which is tasked with fielding public complaints.
“It is not on the top of our priority list because of staffing,” said Tom Lai, the agency’s assistant director. “We always get complaints each campaign season, and we try to point people toward the language of the ordinance if they inquire with us.”
So far, the agency has logged just one complaint about signs in West Marin—about Mr. Grossi’s signs “in the Pt. Reyes area,” Mr. Lai wrote in an email. He declined to elaborate, citing confidentiality policy.
At the Olema Campground, just a stone’s throw from Mr. Rodoni’s residence, Mr. Grossi’s signs have been the target of vandalism in recent weeks. On two occasions, signs were ripped down from a barn and a tree, and some at the campground have pointed to Mr. Rodoni as the alleged culprit.
Mr. Grossi told the Light that Mr. Rodoni called him to complain about the campground signs. “He had a very serious problem with that,” Mr. Grossi said. “He said it was very rude, but I didn’t even know they were there.”
Mr. Rodoni denied any involvement with the vandalism, stating that he does not “get involved in that sort of petty stuff.” He noted that 12 of his own signs disappeared Friday night between Olema and Point Reyes Station.
Aside from violations and vandalism, many view the proliferation of signs as an eyesore. Though reluctant to join the fray, Mr. Staley said he is keeping close watch over his signs to make sure they do not become garbage.
“Many of the early-placed signs have since become litter, which was one of the reasons I waited till later to place mine,” he said. “As you drive through certain communities like Novato, there are many signs that have disintegrated.”
It’s for this reason that Ms. Tamburo and Mr. Kaselionis decided from the start not to incorporate signs into their campaigns, they said. Instead, Mr. Kaselionis—a Novato resident who said he is “adamantly opposed to mailers and signs”—drives a Ford Excursion with his name plastered on its flanks. That approach, he said, serves as a more effective advertisement that has garnered him some votes.
“It’s not wasteful, and it catches people’s eye,” he said. “I don’t appreciate the littering on the side of the road.”
Ms. Tamburo, meanwhile, said she may distribute a few recycled “I Love Marin” bumper stickers she’s collected from the county fair and repurposed as an advertisement. “Just a few creative snips here and there, and now it says ‘Mari’ on it,” she said. “I don’t believe in littering our beautiful landscape with signs.”
About this time every election cycle, the sign wars start to heat up. This year is about the worst I can recall in recent memory for proliferation of signs, like weeds, along the roadways of Marin County, down the median strips, over the highway on overpass bridges, every empty space is now filled with signs for every candidate in this most crowded campaign year.
Two notable races are the one for Marin Superior Court - 9 people for one seat - and the one for Supervisor, District 4 - 8 people for one seat.
And almost all of them have signs. Big signs, little signs; signs that proclaim their coveted Sierra Club endorsement (this year shared by two of the District 4 candidates, just to further confuse the issue.)
Letters to the editor have started too, a recent one calling out a judicial candidate for signs that appear to imply she is the incumbent (there is no incumbent). Another candidate whose signs could also have been interpreted that way, has changed them for ones that more closely comport with the canons of judicial ethics, which all judge candidates must follow.
Soon the complaints of stolen signs, defaced signs, obscured signs, will begin. Already some of the candidates are moving their signs up higher on the poles than their opponents.
Of course, seasoned campaigners and readers of this blog know that signs don't vote; they don't influence voters (at least no more than 2.5% according to one, overly optimistic - in my opinion - study.).
But I have lost the sign wars. My candidates like all the others, spends time slapping up the signs, rather than talking to potential donors, so that she can pay for that all important mail, with a message that actually gets into every voter's' hands.
So go ahead and put up your signs. But please, do it legally. Know the rules in your jurisdiction. Try to get them on private property, in neighborhoods or shop windows, where at least passersby and customers can register that someone they know supports you and not the other myriad of candidates vying for attention.
In the meantime, the weather is warming up and it might be a nice time for a soothing cucumber martini to calm your nerves after a tough day battling the Sign Wars.
Ingredients:
2 ounces Vodka
1/2 ounce Lime Juice (1/2 lime)
2-3 slices of Fresh Cucumber
2 mint leaves
1/2 ounce Simple Syrup
Simple Syrup:
1 cup granulated white sugar
1/2 cup water
Instructions
Simple Syrup:
Bring the water to a boil.
Dissolve the sugar into the boiling water, stirring constantly.
Once the sugar is dissolved completely, remove the pan from the heat.
Allow to cool completely and thicken, then store in refrigerator for up to one week
Cocktail:
In
a martini shaker, add 1 cucumber slice and 1 mint leaf and crush with
spoon. Add fresh ice vodka, lime juice and simple syrup. Shake
vigorously and pour into a martini glass. Garnish with a cucumber slice
and 1 mint leaf.
It's Ugly time in politics. Today's post is lifted from the pages of 48 Hills, whose Tim Redmond gives us the scoop on dirty dealings in San Francisco. it appears Air B'N'B and their cronies are funding hit pieces against women of color running for the Democratic Central Committee. Yes, they put out a very nasty hit with the pictures of a group of progressive women (and a couple of men) most of whom are not even elected to office, and claim that they voted against housing.
Here it is. Enjoy. It's Ugly Season in San Francisco. And of course, the ugly is everywhere. Watch for it. if there's an election where you live, it may come to your mailbox soon.
A committee funded in large part by Airbnb and tech
executives has unleashed a remarkable hit piece that targets almost
entirely women of color running for the Democratic County Central
Committee and calls them tools of a “Peskin Machine.” What’s wrong with this picture? Pretty much everything …
The piece accuses the candidates of “voting to stop building housing”
in “the worst housing crisis in years” and tries to appear as a
progressive mailing with a big stop sign over the words “evictions and
displacement.”
Of course, Airbnb has been a huge source of evictions and displacement in the city.
The political goal here is obvious: The consultants who wrote the hit
piece are trying to target progressive reform candidates who might be
on the cusp – that is, people who might be close to winning a seat on
the DCCC.
None of the targets are current elected officials who took any votes at all on any policy measures related to housing.
There’s no attack on Tom Ammiano, or David Campos, or John Burton, or
even any mention of Aaron Peskin (except for his “machine,” which we
will address in a moment.) Gabriel
Medina isn’t even part of the Reform Slate, but his picture is here
(maybe because all the other people under attack are women?)
Those candidates are almost certain to win one of the 24 contested seats in the critical DCCC election June 7.
So are the conservative candidates with high name recognition, like Scott Wiener and London Breed.
The control of the panel will be decided by the handful of people who
aren’t already well-known or incumbents – and the ten candidates
attacked by this radically misleading mailer all fall into that
category.
Oddly, in the mailer sent to the West Side of town, there’s an attack
on a man – Gabriel Medina – who isn’t even on the reform slate. “I
guess that’s because it would have looked even worse to be attacking
only women,” Myrna Melgar, one of the subjects of the hit piece, told
me.
She added: “It’s shitty, to say that all of these women are just puppets of this guy.”
Let’s get this part straight right now: Aaron Peskin has no
“machine.” He was recently elected to the Board of Supes with widespread
progressive support, but the rest of the progressive wing on the board,
and the progressive community in the city, clearly doesn’t take any
orders from him. Witness the recent discussion over the future of the
police chief; four supes have called for his resignation, and Peskin is not among them. In fact, when we asked Peskin for his position on the chief, he said “no comment.”
And Peskin wasn’t even the main person creating the Reform Slate for the DCCC. That was David Campos.
But apparently some polls somewhere suggest that the term “Peskin machine” might be negative, so that’s what’s on the mailers.
The mailers attack the eight women and two men for voting “to stop
building housing.” The smaller print says they “made a near fatal
decision to stop building affordable housing.” That’s not political
hyperbole; it’s a lie, and there’s no other way to put it.
The “vote” that this piece talks about was in favor of Prop. I – a
measure on last fall’s ballot that would have stopped all MARKET RATE
housing in the Mission until the city had an anti-displacement plan in
place. Prop. I would NOT have stopped ANY affordable-housing projects.
Every single legitimate tenant, anti-eviction, and anti-displacement group supported Prop. I.
“It’s a serious debate,” Melgar, who has spent most of her career in
the affordable-housing field, told me. “Do we believe affordable housing
is created by the free market, or do we believe that government
intervention will create more affordable housing?”
The people who are attacking the Reform Slate women are also, in many
cases, opposing Prop. C, which would mandate more affordable housing.
The mailers attack Cindy Wu, Petra DeJesus, Sophie Maxwell, Pratima
Gupta, Alysabeth Alexander, Hene Kelly, Sandra Lee Fewer, Myrna Melgar,
and Brigitte Davila. Oh, and Gabriel Medina and Jon Golinger, who are I
guess the two token guys.
The mailers were produced by Progress San Francisco. According to
state and local campaign-finance filings, that group recently received
$20,000 from a committee controlled by Airbnb.
Airbnb, of course, is facing new regulations on its local business model,
and has a direct interest in the outcome of the June election. If the
real-estate slate, which supports this mailer, wins, the company will
have a much easier time electing pro-Airbnb supervisors in the fall and
derailing any attempts to limit illegal short-term rentals.
Among the other donors: Kevin York Systrom, CEO of Instagram
($30,000); Matthew Cohler, general partner, Benchmark Capital ($25,000);
Zachary Bogue, Investor, Data Collective ($5,000); Stephen Simon, Simon
Equity Partners ($5,000); Fergus O’Shea, facilities director, Facebook
($250)
It’s a little tricky figuring all that out. The committee filed as a
state “slate mailer” committee, but the SF Ethics Commission doesn’t
have full records on it. That’s a loophole that Friends of Ethics is
trying to close; SF Ethics ought to be a one-stop shop for filings that
impact local races.
From FOE’s Larry Bush:
Friends of Ethics asked for transfer of Slate Mailer
filings from the Department of Elections to the Ethics database for
nearly two years.
All that is required is for Ethics to ask the Board to transfer the
filing. There is a letter on file from the FPPC stating San Francisco
has this authority.
Here is a current example of why that transfer is vital if we are to follow the money in our elections.
In April “Progress San Francisco” filed as a slate mailer
organization. It does not file a statement of organization (Form 410) or
contributor information in San Francisco.
Some records can be found on the Secretary of State’s web portal.
Since organizing on April 27, it has made independent expenditures
through its slate mailer totaling $39,278.06, all for candidates in San
Francisco’s June election. This information cannot be found on the SF
Ethics database, but can be obtained on Cal-access by the Secretary of State.
It reports no other expenses — no office or consultant or other costs.
Friends of Ethics suggests that this is a compelling example of the
need for the Ethics Commission to act speedily to ensure that slate
mailer filings be transferred to Ethics and included in the database.
If that cannot happen speedily, I recommend that the Ethics
Commission database note that there are entities that do not file with
Ethics and that their contributors and expenditures are not included in
these databases, may involve significant spending, and that some
information can be found on the Secretary of State’s web page.
I’ve seen a lot of political sleaze in this town in my 30-plus years
of watching elections. But when it comes to lies and slime, this one is
near the top of the list.
This Presidential primary has all the makings for Disaster Stew. A Republican candidate who is bombastic, juvenile, rich as Croesus, mean as a junkyard dog, and as bigoted as they come. His rivals are not much better, just somewhat more polite, unless they are on stage with The Donald and then it's Katy bar the door. Cage fighting is more civilized. Mud wrestling cleaner, and cock fighting fairer. Talk about cock fighting...if you saw the latest debate, you know what I'm talking about.
How low can you go? And what is the appeal of an oligarch whose claim to fame is firing people, kicking out small businesses for his mega casinos and serial misogyny? And why am I even talking about this lout on my blog? Here's why. If Trump (real name Drumpf. Look it up) is allowed to win, he will be serving up major does of toxic slop to you and me alike.
Compared to that Epicurean nightmare, Moose Turd Pie is a gourmet delight.And don't be fooled; if any of these bozos on the Republican bus have a chance at the White House, expect to choke on your dinner for at least four years, if you even get any dinner. You could be deported, interned in some desert encampment or conscripted to be cannon fodder in a never ending "War on Terror." Never ending that is, until someone on one side of the conflict or the other pushes the button.
I'm not going to give you a recipe today. No Disaster Stew or Toxic Slop. We may all learn more than we want to know about that soon enough. I am going to offer my antidote: Get off your duff and vote. (I'm talking to you Democrats and independents; Republican go back to your Fox News broadcasts) Not just in the primary, but in the General, whoever the candidate is. I'm for Bernie, no secret there. But I'll vote for Hillary in a heartbeat if she gets the nod. We need to build an ongoing effective coalition of progressives this year and beyond. The way to do this is for millennials and baby boomers to start working together now on a common future. If your guy or gal is not nominated, do not sit this one out. Do not cast a protest vote for the Green Party candidate. Even if you are a Green.
Think George Bush.Think the Supreme Court. Think Nazi Germany; yeah, go ahead, think it. The stakes are too high. The youth and us old codgers who were young rebels once ourselves need to join forces, organize, vote, and then hold their feet to the fire.If not, it's gruel for you, me and everyone else for the foreseeable future.
If, like I said, there is to be any future at all.
