California

capt 918

color here

see CA tag; newer content at CA2 node

html overwhelmingly popular

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Quality_Act

==

HISTORIC LAWSUIT AGAINST UN AGENDA 21

FILED OCTOBER 15, 2013

The Post Sustainability Institute / Democrats Against UN Agenda 21 and Freedom Advocates are launching a legal challenge to PLAN BAY AREA/ONE BAY AREA (click for a pdf of the Plan)PLAN BAY AREA is an aggressive implementation of UN Agenda 21's "islands of human habitation."We believe that Priority Development Areas are the new wave of implementation of UN Agenda 21 in regional plans.  This prototype, when adopted in the San Francisco Bay Area, could then move across the United States.   ...

PLAN BAY AREA is an all-encompassing land use and transportation plan that regionalizes all 9 counties and 101 cities of the San Francisco Bay Area by limiting new construction to specific locations (only 4% of the land area) and requiring high density development: more apartments and condos on top of shops.  If cities want federal and state transportation dollars they will have to agree to this Sustainable Communities Strategies plan.

PLAN BAY AREA is UN AGENDA 21.  ICLEI WORKED ON CREATING THIS PLAN.

PLAN BAY AREA violates both the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. Constitution.  The 5th amendment guarantees property owners the right to just compensation, and the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection.

http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/lawsuit-to-stop-agenda-21.html

CA

SB 1272 that would put a MTA measure on the statewide ballot has passed out of the Senate and is headed to the Assembly. They may actually beat the looming deadline.

http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1272

BTW, it passed on a 23-12 vote. Every one of the 12 are Republicans.

==

We did it!  On Wednesday, Governor Brown signed SB 27, the bill to force Dark Money non-profits to reveal their secret funders in California elections.

Here's what I said about it in the Sacramento Bee:

“Governor Brown’s signature of SB 27 marks a turning point in the fight to reveal secret funders of political campaigns. It starts to shed light on dark money in California and serves as an example for the entire nation."

Here's the full story in the Sacramento Bee:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/05/14/6406111/gov-brown-signs-law-requiring.html

==

:{SB 27 (Correa):(style="outline:none"):}: closes a :{“dark money” loophole:(style="outline:none"):}: that lets nonprofits and other organizations make huge donations to California campaigns without disclosing the true source of the money. Also, large committees supporting or opposing ballot measures will have to list their top contributors on the Internet. 

==

I just heard about SB-1272, a bill to put onto the November ballot ":{an advisory question asking whether the Congress of the United States should propose, and the California legislatureLegislatureshould ratify, an amendment or amendments to the United States Constitution to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) 558 U.S. 310, and other applicable judicial precedents, as specified."

The good news is that SB-1272 passed the Senate}: Elections and Constitutional Amendments Committee on a 4-1 vote. Now it must pass the 

Committee on Appropriations before going to the entire Senate and then over to the Assembly. Learn more at http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB1272&search_keywords=

http://sapro.senate.ca.gov/

Senator Kevin de León (Chair) south pasadena

Senator Mimi Walters (Vice Chair) newport beach GOP

Senator Ted Gaines (R–Roseville)

Senator Jerry Hill san mateo

Senator Ricardo Lara D long beach

Senator Alex Padilla san fernando

Senator Darrell Steinberg distr 6 sacra

gov brown not helpful but

Los Angeles Moves Closer To City Fracking Moratorium 2/14

==

history: http://archive.org/stream/californiaintima00athe/californiaintima00athe_djvu.txt

==

It all started with California's landmark bipartisan climate bill, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006—better known as AB32—which EDF co-sponsored, has defended in court and in public debate. The law authorized the state to establish a cap-and-trade carbon market with a declining emissions cap, reaching 1990 emissions levels by 2020.

In 2013, California launched North America's first economy-wide cap-and-trade program—currently covering 350 of the state's largest greenhouse gas polluters. The Golden State has also set rigorous standards for cleaner cars, renewable energy and low-carbon fuels, sparking innovations in the way utilities generate electricity, automakers design cars and refineries make fuel.

==

 LOIS HENRY, Californian columnist lhenry@bakersfield.com

House Speaker John Boehner dug his shiny loafers into a swath of powder dry Kern County dirt on Wednesday and promised to move quickly on legislation aimed at easing the pain of California's historic drought.

Boehner and his partners on the legislation -- House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Visalia, and Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford -- all agreed that, yes, the drought is the biggest obstacle to farmers getting adequate water in the near term.

But they denounced as "idiocy" and "nonsense" California's management of its water system.

"In my part of the world we would shake our heads at how things work here, " Boehner said. "It's nonsense that a bureaucracy would favor fish over people."

He referred to the delta smelt and other fish protected under the Endangered Species Act. In an attempt to bolster those populations, water exports from the San Joaquin-Sacramento delta have been curtailed.

The proposed bill would attempt to bring "reason" to how the system is managed, if only during the drought emergency, the politicians said.

The bill has yet to be written, but its three main prongs would seek to increase pumping out of the delta -- if water is available -- to agreed-upon 1994 levels, suspend the San Joaquin River restoration settlement and create a Senate-House task force to come up with long term solutions.

The consequences of the drought were brought into sharp focus when local farmer Larry Starrh talked about his family being forced to let 1,000 acres of productive almond trees die this year for lack of water.

"Water is life," he said, his voice thick with emotion. "But sadly in this world, water has become about power, water is used as a weapon."

As real and painful as the water situation is, there was more than a hint of politics lurking around the edges of Wednesday's press conference. The first two prongs of the proposed bill have already been rejected by the Senate last year. Increased pumping and suspension of the San Joaquin River restoration agreement were both parts of H.R. 1837, introduced by Nunes, passed by the House and left to whither and die on the steps of the Senate.

Though all the politicians at Wednesday's conference insisted this bill was different because it would implement those measures on an emergency-only basis, Senate reaction is likely to be the same.

Indeed, a press release from Sen. Dianne Feinstein's office Wednesday warned that "I am concerned that (the new proposed bill) may follow the pattern of previous House bills which seek to either preempt state law or waive state water quality and Endangered Species Act requirements which could spur serious litigation and likely delay any action."

The likelihood of strong opposition cast Wednesday's event in a suspect light. Was it a sincere attempt to help California in a time of need or an unofficial reelection kickoff for Valadao, who is being heavily targeted by Democrats?

While Boehner's presence brought a great deal more media attention to California's water plight, any meaningful change in federal law or a federal-state partnership would have to get Senate buy-in, meaning Feinstein, who's long been a heavyweight in California water politics, not Boehner.

However, if freshman Valadao needed a boost to help loosen wallets before the mid-term elections this fall, Boehner would be a great leg up. Since Valadao, himself a dairy farmer, has made water a key issue, Wednesday's event would look to be a smooth political fit.

Meanwhile, California's reaction to the proposed bill pitched by Boehner, et al, was wary.

John Laird, secretary of the state's Natural Resources Agency, provided testimony in 2011 vehemently opposing Nunes' bill, H.R. 1837. The state was particularly upset by the portions of H.R. 1837 that would have set pumping levels at those agreed to in 1994 and suspension of the San Joaquin River restoration settlement, which he said would essentially toss out California water law and upend long held water rights.

The exact same measures are being discussed for this new bill, albeit on an emergency basis only.

In an email on Wednesday, Laird said that if this new bill proves sufficiently similar to the old H.R. 1837, the state would again stand in opposition.

"We are rarely forced to confront water allocations this low, salinity in the delta, and difficulty moving water during a crisis. Now is not the time to be divided -- now is the time to bring people together to find solutions," Laird said.

http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/local/x22866465/Boehner-comes-to-Kern-to-pitch-water-bill

==

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/10/28/2850021/california-oregon-washington-british-columbia-agreement/

In California, we like to go first.

Over 60 years ago, we became the first state in the nation to adopt aggressive air pollution regulations, which made us a global leader in protecting human health. Many decades later, our positive experience growing the economy while cleaning the air gave our leaders the confidence to adopt aggressive climate protection standards – which will lead to even cleaner air while unleashing investment in clean technologies that address climate change.

So it's no surprise that, when someone comes along claiming that what California really needs is a new oil drilling boom, we look at them with some skepticism. Such is the case with the Monterey Shale, which may (or may not) be on the cusp of delivering California to an oily nirvana (though it's worth noting that California is still the number three oil producer in the U.S.). We're leaning in the "may not" category, and we've got good company: The latest in our series on the Monterey Shale, out this week, includes an assessment by the world's leading oil analysts, IHS CERA, who see zero net economic benefit for many years – if ever - from the Monterey Shale. California's leaders might take a cue from these experts, and maintain their own healthy skepticism about the Monterey Shale's potential.

==

Crossroads GPS, the dark money political organization linked to Republican operative Karl Rove, apparently gave $2 million last year to Americans for Job Security, a group that was involved in a scheme in California to funnel $11 million into efforts aimed at two state ballot initiatives.

A state investigation into the movement of money found that AJS, also a dark money nonprofit, sent the $11 million through three other organizations in an attempt to hide the identities of its donors. California election authorities called it "the largest contribution ever disclosed as campaign money-laundering in California history" and demanded disclosure of the donors.

In a settlement today, after a grand jury investigation, the Center to Protect Patient Rightsand Americans for Responsible Leadership -- two of the groups through which money was channeled -- agreed to pay a fine of $500,000 each, which together amounts to the largest campaign-reporting fine ever levied by the watchdog agency. CPPR has been a major clearinghouse of contributions to other conservative dark money groups. Both CPPR and ARL have strong ties to the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, major donors to conservative political causes. CPPR received $115 million from the Koch-spearheaded group Freedom Partners last year.

In addition, the agency released a list of AJS donors the state obtained in its investigation. The document, much of which is redacted, contains enough information to identify some of the large donors. 

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/10/24/3709096_p2/calif-pacs-reach-1m-campaign-finance.html#storylink=cpy

Crossroads GPS spent more than $70 million on independent expenditures in the 2012 elections, but apparently had enough to give to other dark money groups as well. 

Some other major Republican donors are on the list, such as Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, who gave $250,000 each. The Adelsons were major donors to Republican super PACs in 2012, giving nearly $100 million to such groups as American Crossroads (the super PAC affiliate of Crossroads GPS) and the pro-Mitt Romney super PAC Restore Our Future.

Other donors included:

• Jesse Rogers of Altman Capital, $450,000
• Greg Penner of Wal Mart, $500,000
• Margaret Bloomfield of Baron Real Estate Fund, $500,000
• Glen Stearns and Stearns Lending, $250,000
• The Tulley and Elise Friedman Fund, $100,000
• The American Council of Engineering Companies of California, $500,000
• Wayne Hughes, $450,000
• Hitchcock Automotive, $100,000

The Los Angeles Times identified other donors: The Fisher family, for instance, which owns the Gap clothing empire, gave more than $9 million, according to the Times.

According to the Associated Press, CPPR said that the settlement included a recognition by the state that the group didn't intend to conceal information but made a mistake "largely because it had never previously made any contributions" in California. "The Commission today recognized that CPPR acted in 'good faith' and that there was absolutely no intent to violate campaign reporting rules," attorney Malcolm Segal said in a statement.

The money flowed like this: AJS raised $29 million. It gave nearly $25 million of it to CPPR, which in turn gave $18 million to Americans for Responsible Leadership. ARL gave $11 million to the Small Business Action Committee, which put it toward fighting one state ballot initiative that would have meant higher taxes and supporting another that would have reduced the political power of labor unions. The Small Business committee was ordered Thursday to pay $11 million to the state.

CPPR also gave $7 million to the American Future Fund, which sent $4 million on to the California Future Fund for Free Markets. The California group, which supported the anti-union ballot measure, was ordered by the state watchdog agency to pay a penalty equivalent to the sum it received. None of those organizations disclose their donors, though they are all engage in extensive political activity. The American Future Fund spent more than $25 million at the federal level in the 2012 elections.

A call and email to Crossroads GPS were not returned at the time of this post.

Political Nonprofits Investigator Robert Maguire and Money-in-Politics Reporter Russ Choma contributed to this post.

Image: Sean Noble, head of the Center to Protect Patient Rights, via his Twitter account.

Tags:

• adelson,
• american crossroads,
• california fair political practices commissio
• center to protect patient rights,
• crossroads gps,
• dark money,
• shadow money trail
• viveca novak

==

PR Watch [1] / By Mary Bottari [2]

The Fight to Take Public Assets Back from Private Control May Be Winning in California

October 30, 2013 |

While high profile privatizations have dominated the news in recent years, a new trend is quietly emerging -- communities taking public assets back under public control. The trend is most pronounced in the area of water resources. In communities across the country, people are deciding that water is just too precious to subject to the profit motive.

No state has seen more of these "reverse" privatizations than California. Today, multiple towns are fighting for-profit firms for control of the public's water. One of those firms is the New Jersey-based for-profit American Water (known as California American Water Co. or Cal Am in California).

On the scenic Monterey Peninsula, a citizen's group called "Public Water Now" makes a compelling case for public control of the peninsula's scarce water resources. Public Water Now alleges that Cal Am's long-term mismanagement of the water resources and failed efforts to secure new water resources have cost ratepayers some $100 million [3] since 2004.

In 1995, a court ordered pumping of the area's primary water source, the Carmel River, to be cut back by 70 percent by 2017. With the deadline looming, Cal Am has failed to secure another source of water. "Cal Am has shown either poor planning, poor management, poor judgment, poor decision-making, or all of the above," says Public Water Now's website. Even though it has failed in its major responsibility to the Monterey Peninsula, the firm has raked in a steady rate of profit from peninsula residents -- 30 cents on the dollar [4] in pretax profits for 2012.

After abandoning two prior plans for establishing desalination facilities, Cal Am has a new proposal for another "desal" plant. The project would depend on a ratepayer surcharge and a public bond offering. This would pass nearly all risks on to ratepayers say critics, but at the end of the day ratepayers would have no ownership stake in the asset.

Some peninsula residents are saying enough. They want public control of the public's scarce water resources.

When it Comes to Precious Water, Is it Better to Be a Renter or an Owner?

In the United States, 86 percent of Americans receive their water services from a publicly owned and operated utility. But for-profit firms have made inroads in recent decades and see public water as a new profit center. In 2011, Citigroup economist Willem Buiter predicted that "water as an asset class will, in my view, become eventually the single most important physical-commodity based asset class, dwarfing oil, copper, agricultural commodities and precious metals."

"Any solution to the Monterey Peninsula's serious water problem demands long term planning, long term investment and a consistent public planning process unfettered by short term demands for shareholder profitability. Public ownership and public control would make the whole process easier and remove conflicts of interest," Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director of the non-profit watchdog group Food & Water Watch, told CMD.

Cal Am is "so strongly driven by pure profit that they will simply ignore more economical options," says Ron Cohen. Cohen, a successful software executive, founded the nonprofit advocacy organization Public Water Now [5]. The group studied the situation and drafted an initiative for voters that would require the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District to pursue a public purchase of Cal Am's local assets.

"You just have to ask yourself," Cohen said [6], "do you want to be a renter for the rest of your life, and for generations to come, or do you want to be an owner?"

The initiative reads [7]: "The voters of the District assert that the District should, as soon as practicable and to the extent permitted by law, pursue the acquisition of Cal Am's water system assets and infrastructure in order to deliver maximum value to ratepayers in perpetuity. Such public ownership of the water system not only will remove Cal Am's current for-profit, investor-driven bias, but will also eliminate the excessive fees, costly procedures, and burdensome jurisdictional control of the CPUC over water service on the Monterey Peninsula."

The issue will be put to the voters on the June 2014 ballot.

Cal Am Prepping for Battle

But it won't be smooth sailing for proponents of public water. Cal Am has made a lot of money on the peninsula and is not likely to go down without a fight. It successfully beat back a previous referendum on public water.

In November 2005, groups mobilized behind "Measure W," a question on the ballot that would have simply authorized a study to assess the process for a community buy-out of the water utility. To defeat the measure, Cal Am hired BNA Communication, which used direct mail, field communications, and television, radio, and newspaper advertisements to fight back. Measure W was defeated [8] with 62 percent voting no. A judge later allowed Cal Am to pass the costs of its "public outreach" -- $1,353,831 -- onto its customers through new surcharges.

This time around, it will be different, says Cohen. First, while the previous initiative authorized only an expensive study, "the new initiative maps a direct line from passage to acquisition," says Cohen. Second, Public Water Now conducted a poll showing that two-thirds of residents were inclined to support the initiative. The group has teams geared up to go door-to-door to make the case for public control, and they are already past the halfway point on signature collection. But the biggest difference between 2005 and today is that "we have had eight more years of Cal Am and they have failed on two more occasions to solve the peninsula's water problems," says Cohen.

Scare tactics will be the company's preferred rebuttal. Cal Am representative Catherine Bowie told the local news [9] that any public takeover will result in an eminent domain proceeding because Cal Am's assets are "not for sale." She warned that any eminent domain proceeding would be lengthy, contentious, and costly.

Eminent domain is a legal tool used by governments to purchase private property for a public purpose, such as for the construction of power lines. If homeowners don't want to sell, the government can still legally secure the property as long as it pays "fair market value."

But the threat does not bother Cohen. He points to Felton, California. In 2001, Cal Am purchased Felton's water system and a year later proposed a 74 percent rate hike. In response, residents formed an action group and petitioned Santa Cruz County to establish a public agency to exercise control over the water system. In July 2005, Felton residents voted 3-to-1 in favor of issuing $11 million in bonds and raising taxes in order to buy their water system back. The water district offered Cal Am $7.6 million, its appraised value, but the company refused, demanding $25 million. A week before the eminent domain proceeding was set to begin, however, the company settled the case for $10.5 million [10].

Since then, the community has steadily invested in the water system, and homeowners have saved about 30 percent [11] on their water bills, says Food & Water Watch.

Trend Towards Public Ownership or "Municipalization"

In case you think the Monterey struggle is quixotic, you should know there is a bit of a trend in successful public takeovers or "municipalizations."

Ron Cohen explains that most of these municipalizations have to do with three issues: local control, better customer service, and better prices:

• In 2007, the city of O'Fallon, Missouri was considering selling its public water system to American Water, but delayed after public protest. In 2009, after more than two decades of contracting with private companies to run the system, the city opted for complete public provision of water. It saved 15 percent by operating the systems with public workers instead of private contractors.
• In 2008, citizens in the town of Cave Creek, Arizona took control of their water system, which had always been privately owned and operated.
• In 2001, Montara, California residents voted four-to-one in favor of a public takeover of the water system. At first, Cal Am refused to sell, but the California Public Utilities Commission and Montara Water & Sanitary jointly purchased the system in August 2003.

But there is a fourth reason as well. When Public Water Now polled peninsula residents on how they felt about a public takeover, "their number one reason was to keep the money in the local community. In the next 10 years, $300 million will be sucked off the peninsula and sent to New Jersey never to be recovered," contends Cohen.

With a public water system, any revenues raised are not forked over to distant shareholders, but are reinvested into the public system for the long term. And any desalination facility that is built will be owned and controlled by the members of the community themselves.

For the first time on the Monterey Peninsula, citizens will be owners and not renters.

See more stories tagged with:

water [12],

water privatization [13]

Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/water/fight-take-public-assets-back-private-control-may-be-winning-california

Links:

[1] http://www.prwatch.org/

[2] http://www.alternet.org/authors/mary-bottari

[3] https://www.publicwaternow.org/public-vs-private/cal-am-stewardship/

[4] http://www.sourcewatch.org/images/9/91/AL_976-A_--_Monterey_2013_Step_Rate_Increase_--_Filed_with_the_CPUC.pdf

[5] https://www.publicwaternow.org/

[6] http://www.montereyherald.com/news/ci_24096870/public-water-nows-ron-cohen-brings-focus-cal

[7] https://www.publicwaternow.org/the-ballot-initiative/

[8] http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/American_Water_Works_Company

[9] http://www.ksbw.com/news/central-california/monterey/Continuing-controversy-about-peninsula-water/-/5738820/21398088/-/rvl5iez/-/index.html

[10] http://www.inthepublicinterest.org/case/felton-water-system

[11] http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/Felton_FS-2013-10.pdf

[12] http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-0

[13] http://www.alternet.org/tags/water-privatization

[14] http://www.alternet.org/%2Bnew_src%2B

==

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/environmental-fracking-bill_n_3916763.html?view=print&comm_ref=false Environmental Groups Bail On California Fracking Bill] 9/13.

===

On Thursday, August 29th, Dorothy Reik, a MoveOn.org member from Topanga, to delivered over 70,000 petition signatures from from MoveOn, CREDO, and Friends of the Earth to State Assemblyman Mike Gatto’s (CA-43) and Assembly Speaker John Pérez’s (CA-53) offices, urging them to add an immediate moratorium on fracking to State Sen. Fran Pavley’s regulatory bill (SB4). The bill originally contained a moratorium on fracking, but it was stripped out in the Senate due to industry pressure. MoveOn member

==

Several lawsuits have been filed over global warming. For example, Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency before the Supreme Court of the United States forced the US government to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. A similar approach was taken by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer who filed a lawsuit California v. General Motors Corp. to force car manufacturers to reduce vehicles' emissions of carbon dioxide. A third case, Comer v. Murphy Oil, was filed by Gerald Maples, a trial attorney in Mississippi, in an effort to force fossil fuel and chemical companies to pay for damages caused by global warming.^[35]

===

Besides Williams,four other major electricity suppliers - including Duke Energy, Dynegy Inc., Mirant Corp. and Reliant Energy Inc.- have been accused of seriously overcharging California for electricity. see davis for eletictiy scam

==

defeats ag-gag

http://grist.org/news/california-might-borrow-500-million-from-its-climate-fund/

Calif. groups worry over environmental law reform

Laura Olson/The Associated Press

Posted:  07/30/2013 02:17:23 AM PDT | Updated:   7 days ago

SACRAMENTO -- A coalition of business, housing and local government leaders is warning California legislative leaders that a plan to rewrite the state's landmark environmental law could lead to more lawsuits and make it harder to approve responsible projects -- the opposite of what lawmakers hope to achieve with the overhaul.

The group outlined its concerns to Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. The group includes powerful organizations such as the California Chamber of Commerce, the Southern California Association of Governments, and the California Association of Realtors.

The coalition is among many environmental, business and labor groups that have been privately working with the Democratic Senate leader to reform the four-decade-old California Environmental Quality Act. Critics say the law, which was intended to protect the state's air and water, has been abused to block projects and gain costly concessions from developers.

Steinberg's legislation, SB731, aims to cut the number of lawsuits and the resulting delays in construction that can drag on for years when opponents object to a project.

It would create statewide standards for noise and traffic issues involving urban development projects, allowing projects that meet those standards to be protected from lawsuits based on those issues. A project's aesthetics also could not be used as grounds for suing under the environmental law.

The bill also seeks to speed up administrative procedures stemming from lawsuits and directs the attorney general to track court filings related to the environmental statute.

In the letter sent to Steinberg on Thursday, the CEQA Working Group wrote that the measure as drafted would create new requirements that will lead to meritless lawsuits against projects that otherwise comply with stringent state and local environmental laws.

”Unfortunately, as drafted, SB731 would not advance true CEQA reform and, in fact, could make approval of worthy and responsible projects even more difficult,” the leaders of several dozen groups wrote.

Mark Hedlund, a spokesman for Steinberg, said Monday that he could not immediately comment on the concerns outlined in the letter. He said the Senate leader is continuing to work with interest groups to address concerns and craft a final version of the bill.

”The pro tem is still optimistic that we'll be able get this done this year,” he said.

Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, has supported changing the environmental law, though he has expressed doubts about whether the reforms could be completed this year. Many environmental groups and labor unions strongly support the existing law and argue that the tough rules are necessary to safeguard the state's natural resources.

Gary Toebben, president and CEO of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, said he appreciated Steinberg's efforts to find consensus but insisted the current version of the legislation was not acceptable.

The proposal “does not make the improvements that we were looking for and in some cases makes CEQA even more likely to be abused,” said Toebben, who serves as co-chairman of the CEQA Working Group.

Among the group's concerns are provisions to create statewide standards for noise levels and handling parking issues. The group says it is impractical to address those issues on a statewide basis and could discourage development.

It also is concerned an optional procedure intended to speed up the legal process would actually encourage lawsuits by putting the significant cost of preparing the case record on agencies or developers, giving potential plaintiffs little to lose in filing suit.

Other sections of the proposed overhaul provide little or no benefits over current rules, according to the coalition.

The group says it would like further changes that would prevent lawsuits and delays for renewable energy projects and those that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Steinberg has said he also aims to streamline approval for such projects.

The letter also calls for disclosure of any parties that help pay for a lawsuit filed under the environmental quality law.

Steinberg's legislation passed the Senate in May. It is before the Assembly Local Government Committee, where it could be taken up when lawmakers return to session next month.

==

older:

Significant CEQA Streamlining Reform Bills Enacted

Courtesy of Meyers / Nave

Read the original article here.

This is a little bit dated but some of these new regulations and interpretations will take effect on January 1, 2012.

October 24, 2011

Three important reform bills designed to streamline California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) processing and review for certain classes of projects have been enacted and will take effect January 1, 2012.  SB 226 creates a new exemption for urban infill and renewable energy projects.  It also makes a variety of amendments to both CEQA and SB 375, the landmark 2008 legislation designed to integrate California’s land use, transportation and greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction policies.   AB 900 shortens the Court review for CEQA challenges to certified “leadership projects” by authorizing lawsuits to be brought directly in the Court of Appeal on an expedited schedule.  “Leadership projects” must be certified LEED silver or higher, be carbon neutral, create “high-wage, highly skilled” jobs, and result in an investment of at least $100 million in California’s economy (among other requirements).  SB 292 is a narrow bill designed to accommodate a new sports stadium and convention center in downtown Los Angeles by  streamlining judicial review in exchange for reductions in GHG emissions and traffic impacts.

At the outset, it is important to note that these three new CEQA bills were rushed through at the very end of a legislative session and were not subjected to legislative staff review.  Each bears some technical flaws and inconsistencies which may create difficulties for agencies applying these new provisions.  Clean up legislation in the future may be warranted.  As a result, we encourage public agencies and developers to consult with legal counsel before relying on the new legislation, especially the exemption for urban infill projects.

The first step to Banning Fracking in California, has been approved in Sacramento! There is a lot more work to be done though. The Natural Resources Committee voted 5-3 to temporarily halt fracking till further health assessments can be done. The moratorium bills passed including  Santa Monica Assemblyman Richard Bloom's Bill 1301. Which would stop fracking until further legislation is enacted outlining how it can occur safely. We know it cannot be proven safe.

Two similar bills; AB 1323 by Holly Mitchell, and AB649 by Adrin Nazarian, call for creating an advisory committee to review health, environmental, economic and other effects. They would recommend regulatory changes. They both deserve praise. Now the studies need to be conducted and data collected. That ball has already started rolling.

Those bills from Holly Mitchell of Baldwin Hills and Culver City, and Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian, of Sherman Oaks, would require state officials to decide by January 2019 if fracking should occur in California.

It is still an uphill climb! California was the 3rd largest producer of oil and gas last year, and those natural resources were also the biggest export for the US in 2011! It is very frustrating that our neighborhoods and agricultural farms, and groundwater are getting poisoned,  while we are getting gauged at the pump so people overseas can drive cars for $9 per gallon and up!

==

http://grist.org/news/los-angeles-to-ditch-coal-by-2025/

2010 Midterm Election Spending

American Crossroads aired 17,360 pro-Republican ads in the three-month period between August 1 and October 1 2010, primarily on Senate races.^[17] In the final weeks of the election, American Crossroads is part of an alliance of Republican groups planning on spending $50 million on a "House Surge Strategy" to help Republicans in House races. The strategy is carried out in coordination with the American Action Network and the Commission on Hope, Growth and Opportunity; American Crossroads is expected to spend $10 million on the effort.^[1]

As of October 2010, American Crossroads has spent money on Senate races in California, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. They anticipate beginning to influence House races, as well. ^[18]

American Crossroads has been conspicuously absent in major races in Wisconsin, Washington, and Florida. This is likely due to their coordinated efforts with the American Action Network, another right wing action group with similar purposes, and with whom they share office space (see "Coordination With Other Conservative Groups," below).

According to the Huffington Post, American Crossroads had already raised over $30 million as of April 2010.^{[2] [19]} One of the primary targets was Senate Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), in an effort to reprise their partisan success in 2004 in targeting Tom Daschle (D-SD), who led Democrats when they controlled the Senate during President George W. Bush's first term as president.

During the 2010 election, most of American Crossroads' funding was filtered anonymously through the 501(c)(4) Crossroads GPS. As of September 20, 2010, American Crossroads reported that it had raised a total of $32 million (and was well on the way to meeting its $50 million dollar goal); however, of that amount, only $9.3 million was donated directly to American Crossroads' 527 wing. ^[14] Based on this report, it is fair to say that Crossroads GPS is not merely a "wing" of American Crossroads; it is American Crossroads.

==

McJobs

"There's good reason such service-sector positions are called 'McJobs'," wrote Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser.

His Los Angeles Times piece described California State Proposition 72 as:

"an initiative that would require large and medium-sized business owners to give health benefits to their workers. ... The fast-food industry is the nation's largest employer of minimum-wage labor. ... Led by McDonald's, the industry has pioneered a workforce that earns low wages, gets little training, receives few benefits and has one of the highest turnover rates of any trade."

Other opponents of Proposition 72 included Burger King, Wendy's, Walgreen, Best Buy, Target, Sears, YUM! Brands, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Restaurant Association. The state legislature had already passed a bill in 2003, signed into law by then-Governor Gray Davis, that required larger businesses to offer health care benefits. But fast-food companies, big box retail chains and their allies spent millions of dollars to rescind the law through the initiative process. In their campaign to defeat the initiative, the same groups ran television ads relying on "scare tactics, distortions and ... fundamental misrepresentation(s) of Proposition 72." ^[4] Proposition 72 failed.

Celeste Greig, California Republican, Claims Pregnancy From Rape Is Rare

lcv top scores Eight House members had perfect scores: Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Woolsey (D-Calif.), Stark (D-Calif.), Honda (D-Calif.), Capps (D-Calif.), Polis (D-Col.), Quigley (D-Ill.), Markey (D-Mass.).

California has been a hotbed of both legal and illegal activity in the name of animal rights lately.

The largest beef recall in history began here, after an undercover investigation by an animal welfare group. Meanwhile, California universities have been the site of a protracted battle between animal experimenters and underground activists using threats and property destruction. And last week, the secretary of state announced that a proposal to eliminate some of the cruelest confinements in animal agriculture will go before voters in November.

These are disparate tactics, yet they all threaten animal businesses.

Enter Gene Mullin, a member of the California State Assembly and a Democrat, who has introduced AB 2296, the Animal Enterprise Protection Act, to stifle the First Amendment rights of animal advocates. The law would prohibit the posting of publicly available information on activist websites, restrict access to public meetings, and require heavy-handed penalties for non-violent civil disobedience.

All in the name of fighting “terrorism.”

Background

In November, 2006, Congress passed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, a sweeping, overly broad law that was, ostensibly, introduced to target underground activists like the Animal Liberation Front. It was pushed through Congress, with little discussion or debate, by a coalition of corporations and industry groups including the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Pfizer and the Fur Commission. It wraps up a range of activity—from non-violent civil disobedience to property destruction—as “terrorism” if it targets an “animal enterprise,” and, most dangerous of all, it has made many activists fearful of continuing their work because they could be labeled a “terrorist.”

The government has used the passage of the AETA to cozy up with these “animal enterprises” even more. In March, 2007, Ricardo Solano Jr., a lead attorney in the “animal enterprise terrorism” case of the SHAC 7, gave a keynote speech at the Animal Agriculture Alliance’s Stakeholders Summit. According to *Dairy Herd Management Magazine*, he told the executives present: “The fact of the matter is that there are extremist individuals and groups that will go through great lengths to put you out of business. The recent passage of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act sends a clear signal to animal-rights extremists that if their activities cross the line, the federal government will not stand idly by.”

Nevertheless, the new law hasn’t been used. You might remember that, after the passage of the federal Animal Enterprise Protection Act in 1992, corporations immediately began pushing for more legislation, and more power. They got what they wanted with the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. But now that victory is simply being used as a political springboard for even more legislation, providing even more power.

Key provisions in the California bill:

Prohibits the publication of publicly-available information

The most significant section of the bill says that “no person, business, or association shall knowingly publicly post or publicly display on the Internet a home address, home telephone number, or image of any employee of an animal enterprise or other individuals residing at the same home address of the employee of an animal enterprise” if the posting is intended to do one of a few things.

It must either be intended to:

“Incite a third person to cause imminent great bodily harm to the person identified in the posting or display, or to a coresident of that person, where the third person is likely to commit this harm.”

Or

“Threaten the person identified in the posting or display, or a coresident of that person, in a manner that places the person identified or the coresident in objectively reasonable fear for his or her personal safety.”

Here, lawmakers are trying to push the limits of what a long history of First Amendment law has established. They’re singling out a group of people solely based on their political beliefs, and restricting their speech because of those beliefs. If someone posted information about an executive at Wal-Mart, because of a labor dispute, that wouldn’t be prohibited. Or, perhaps a better comparison would be someone who posts information about an abortion doctor (a situation which, unlike animal rights campaigns, has led to murder).

Beyond that, though, these clauses are so ambiguous as to be meaningless. Or, in the hands of an ambitious prosecutor, so ambiguous as to be quite dangerous.

The biggest problem here is the use of amorphous term “reasonable fear.” The word “eco-terrorism” is batted around recklessly by industry groups, in a scare-mongering campaign that has included full-page ads in major newspapers and even stooping so low as to call a children’s movie “soft-core eco-terrorism for kids.” They are doing everything they can to create this fear through scare mongering: that’s the point. In light of this political climate, it’s impossible to discuss “reasonable fear,” because industry groups are throwing all their weight into making the unreasonable seem reasonable—into making the public afraid of non-violent activists, so they can push a political agenda.

Furthermore, lawmakers are twisting and redefining the idea of “incitement.” Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) established that incitement is more than mere advocacy, and it is more than simply providing information: it must tend to cause “imminent lawless action.” That’s a bit of a stretch with the Internet, unless someone were to post the information and then send a fiery email to someone saying, “Go do something illegal!” The reality, though, is that this hasn’t happened. Lawmakers are targeted websites for merely posting publicly available information in a political context.

Restricts access to public meetings

The bill “imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies” on the grounds that, among other points, some researchers have been the targets of property destruction and threats.

The bill also notes, as a justification for this restriction, that “The information used to target the victims of these crimes often is obtained by making a request for public records from a government agency.” It’s quite curious that lawmakers can make such a bold statement about the methods of underground activists responsible for the illegal actions in California, considering they have not been caught.

Catching the underground activists, though, is only part of the intention. More importantly, researchers and corporations could use this fear mongering to restrict publicly available information that is used by a wide variety of legal, mainstream groups in their campaigns.

Creates new crimes and disproportionate penalties

The bill spells out civil remedies for individuals whose public information is posted publicly, including suing for “damages to that individual in an amount up to a maximum of three times the actual damages, but in no case less than four thousand dollars ($4,000).”

Lawmakers also went to great lengths to spin standard court procedures into fear-mongering tactics. For instance, the bill spells out that courts “shall take all action reasonably required” to protect animal enterprise employees, including restraining orders and bans on photography. And in court, employees may use a pseudonym out of fear of animal rights advocates. These are all tools available to the court in extreme situations, but lawmakers have gone out of their way to emphasize them here seemingly to enforce the “terrorist threat” posed by activists.

Perhaps most disturbing, though, are thedisproportionate penalties.

One of the slaughterhouse workers in Chino, Calif., whose abuse of cows led to the beef recall, pleaded guilty recently to three misdemeanors. Undercover video showed Rafael Sanchez Herrera and others trying to force sick cows into the kill chutes by stabbing a cow in the eye with a stick, dragging sick cows with forklifts and shooting high-pressure hoses into their mouths. He was sentenced to 180 days in jail and a $100 fine.

Under this legislation, someone who uses non-violent civil disobedience outside of a slaughterhouse in protest of these abusive practices could receive the same amount of jail time, and a $5,000 fine.

Tagged as: Animal Enterprise Protection Act, State Terrorism Laws

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/04/14/495728/-California-Considering-Censoring-Political-Bloggers#

draft: http://www.greenisthenewred.com/blog/wp-content/Images/ca_aepa_draft.pdf

UC favors? http://www.calstate.edu/air/legislative_report/2008/07.03/story3.html

AB 685 (Eng) - Will establish a right to water for basic human needs as a policy of the state of California. This currently proposed Bill, states that every human being has the right to clean drinking water. As you know, Fracking irreversibly pollutes drinking water. Here is a link about AB 685. Here is a link to sign a petition to Governor Brown asking him to pass this Bill, and to make it into a legislative Act.

2012 "Ag Approps" Gives Props to the "Big 6"

This regulatory victory was not good enough for industry, however. Quietly, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) wrote a gift to biotech companies into the 2013 agriculture appropriations ("Ag Approps") bill. Opponents of GMOs refer to this as the "Monsanto Protection Act." Beneficiaries of Kingston's "rider" to the bill (Section 733) -- such as Monsanto, which lobbied for it in the second quarter of 2012 -- refer to it as the "farmer assurance provision."

If the Ag Approps bill passes as written, if a court removes a GMO from the market after the USDA has deregulated it, the USDA will be required to grant a permit to plant that crop to any farmer who requests one, even if that crop's safety is in question or under review.

Buried Biotech Treasure in the 2012 Farm Bill

At the same time, another far-reaching provision favoring the biotech industry is in the works. Buried in the House version of the 2012 Farm Bill, sponsored by House Agriculture Committee chair Frank Lucas (R-OK), is an enormous gift to the biotech industry. The bill changes the Plant Protection Act (PPA) to limit the time and scope of future environmental assessments of GE crops.

The House farm bill as changed by Congressman Lucas alters the legal rules to cut corners on the environmental review by requiring only the more limited EA and by requiring the USDA to complete that review in a maximum period of a year and a half -- or else the GE crop is automatically approved. It also restricts the scope of that limited environmental review and forbids the spending of any money on any broader environmental analysis of the effect of the GMO.

In California, the battle over Proposition 37, which would require the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in food products, is heating up. In late July, pro-labeling groups obtained a flier sent out by a group opposed to the proposition containing the endorsements of three Democratic California Assemblymembers, even though the Democratic Party of California (and over 90 percent of consumers) supports GMO labeling.

The group that ran the flier is "No on 37: Coalition Against the Deceptive Food Labeling Scheme, Sponsored by Farmers and Food Producers," formerly known as "Coalition Against the Costly Food Labeling Proposition." "No on 37" receives major funding from the Council for Biotechnology Information (CBI) and Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), both front groups for the "Big 6" pesticide and genetic engineering companies: Monsanto, Dow Chemical, Syngenta, Bayer, Dupont, and BASF. The flier proudly bears the endorsements of Assemblymembers Henry Perea, Manuel Perez, and Alexandra Rooker, the Vice-Chair of the California Democratic Party. This despite the California Democratic Party announcing its endorsement for Prop 37 on Monday.

Big Food puts its back into fighting GMO labeling in California

By Michele Simon

http://grist.org/food/big-food-puts-its-back-into-fighting-gmo-labeling-in-california/

In case you had any doubt that California’s Prop 37— which would require labeling of food containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) — poses a significant threat to the food industry, a top food lobby has now made it perfectly clear that it does.

In a recent speech to the American Soybean Association (most soy grown in the U.S. is GMO), Pamela Bailey, president of the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), said that defeating the initiative “is the single highest priority for GMA this year.”

You may not know the GMA, but its members represent the nation’s largest food producers — those with the most at stake in the battle over GMO labeling. Soft drink and snack giant PepsiCo, cereal makers Kellogg and General Mills, and of course, biotech behemoth Monsanto all belong to the GMA.

According to state filing reports, GMA has already spent $375,000 on its efforts to oppose the labeling measure, with its members adding additional out-of-state lobbying power in the tens of thousands of dollars.

Big Food: “Lobbying is us”

This is hardly the first time the nation’s most powerful trade association of food manufacturers has marshaled its resources to oppose food and nutrition policy — at both the national and state levels.

For years GMA flexed its lobbying muscle in state legislatures all over the country fighting bills that were simply trying to remove junk food and soda from school vending machines.

Big Food lobbyists have also banded together to vociferously fight any attempt to restrict junk food marketing to children. For example, in 2005, GMA was a founding member of the Alliance for American Advertising, whose stated purpose was to defend the food industry’s alleged First Amendment right to advertise to children and to promote voluntary self-regulation as an alternative to government action.

More recently, GMA was among leading trade groups and corporations opposing the federal government’s attempt to improve industry’s own voluntary guidelines for food marketing to children. As this Reuters special report from April explains, GMA’s chief lobbyist visited the White House last July along with several top food industry representatives (from companies including Nestle, Kellogg, and General Mills) to scuttle an effort by four federal agencies that would have protected children from predatory junk food marketing.

Big Food loves labels

It seems ironic that the same companies taking advantage of every inch of packaging space to convince shoppers to purchase their products would object so strongly to labeling for something they claim is not harmful.

In recent years, the federal government has gone so far as to recognize that food companies’ so-called “front of package” labeling is out of control. Federal agencies have commissioned not one but two Institute of Medicine reports in search of solutions to the problem.

Unwilling to tolerate government intervention, the GMA has been aggressively promoting its own new nutrition-labeling scheme called “Facts Up Front.” But as Food Politics author and nutrition professor Marion Nestle has explained, this is an obvious end-run around the feds. Here’s how the food industry describes its own voluntary program:

“Facts Up Front” is a nutrient-based labeling system that summarizes important information from the Nutrition Facts Panel in a simple and easy-to-use format on the front of food and beverage packages.

Translation: We are repeating information already required on the back of the package, but placing it in a format we like better on the front.

See how that works? The food industry is always in charge.

So polls indicating that a whopping 90 percent of Californians want GMOs labeled, and the fact that 40 other nations (including the European Union, Brazil, and China) already require food makers to disclose GMOs, have GMA shaking in its boots.

In her recent speech, GMA President Bailey warned her audience: “If California wins, you need to be worried the campaign will come to your state.”

She’s right. In fact, they should be very worried.

Michele Simon is a public health lawyer specializing in industry marketing and lobbying tactics. She is the author of Appetite for Profit: How the Food Industry Undermines Our Health and How to Fight Back. She is grateful to live in Oakland, Calif., within walking distance of a farmers market. You can follow her on Twitter.

http://grist.org/food/big-food-puts-its-back-into-fighting-gmo-labeling-in-california/

special exemption for superpacs?  http://www.stopspecialexemptions.org/updates/crystalball

Could Attorney General Kamala Harris Turn the Tide on Dark Money?

Lee Fang on November 5, 2012 - 10:50 PM ET

A major misstep by a conservative nonprofit has led to a dramatic turn of events in the Golden State. In what was first a case of a mysterious Arizona group laundering political money for two key ballot initiatives in California, the scandal may quickly evolve into a criminal investigation that could rock the foundations of Capitol Hill by unmasking the most prominent dark money slush fund in the country.

It’s all up to Kamala Harris, California’s attorney general, who was elected two years ago on a platform of getting tough on white-collar crime. Her office told reporters today that she is laying out the options for either a criminal or civil investigation into this major secret money group.

First, some background:

• On October 15, a mysterious nonprofit in Arizona called Americans for Responsible Leadership**cut**a stunning $11 million donation to a committee in California dedicated to defeating Prop 30 (a ballot initiative to raise taxes to fund the budget) and passing Prop 32 (an anti-union effort to ban payroll deductions), but didn’t disclose where that money came from. The move violated a brand new rule in California mandating that even 501(c) nonprofits disclose the source of their donations.

• Three days later, on October 18, Common Cause, a government watchdog, filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission asking for an inquiry. The commission, a state campaign finance regulator that puts the Federal Election Commission to shame with its aggressive pursuit of the public interest, took up the case and on October 25, advised Americans for Responsible Leadership that it had 25 hours to comply with a request for information about the source of that $11 million check.

• Americans for Responsible Leadership hired Holtzman Vogel, a DC-area law firm retained for years by Karl Rove and other Republican leaders, to try to quash the FPPC’s requests, claiming at one point to a local judge that the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision protected the group from having to disclose its donors. As the Sacramento judge accurately observed, the Citizens United decision did no such thing.

• In a surprise last week, an appellate judge, without comment, agreed with the Arizona group in preventing the FPPC from action. This forced a late minute appeal that led to an emergency decision by the California Supreme Court, which ruled 7-0 on Sunday to force disclosure.

And that brings us to the revelation this morning that Americans for Responsible Leadership received the $11 million from Americans for Job Security, a trade association based in Virginia. Americans for Job Security, founded by two Republican operatives who now handle media-buys for Karl Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC, is just another coin-operated front group. In the past, corporations have given it large sums in exchange for negative advertising in campaigns and lobbying efforts.

In the letter to regulators, Americans for Responsible Leadership conceded that Americans for Job Security in turn received the $11 million from yet another nonprofit, this one called Center to Protect Patients’ Rights.

The FPPC’s chair, Ann Ravel, says the trail of dummy nonprofits is a clear sign that the Arizona nonprofit behind the $11 million donation was engaged in “campaign money laundering.” It’s obvious to anyone that Americans for Responsible Leadership is still playing shell games. The two nonprofits it disclosed do not give any real information about the individuals or corporations that provided the money for the $11 million check.

Here’s why this now gets very interesting.

As I reported exclusively in May, the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights—the group that is, at this point, the closest thing we know about the origin of the $11 million in California—is the hub for billionaire donors to funnel cash to attack ad campaigns across the country. Sean Noble, the president of the group, is a key deputy to the Koch brothers’ political machine. He helps run weekly meetings with other Republican Super PACs to coordinate spending. As head of the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, he doles out checks to various nonprofits that in turn use that money to pummel Democrats with negative advertising.

Noble’s strategy centers on brand marketing. To appeal to Catholic voters, his group will cut a check to a right-wing religious nonprofit, like the Susan B. Anthony List, to run ads accusing Democrats of supporting abortion. To make an appeal to elderly voters, the Center finances a nonprofit called the 60 Plus Association to run ads accusing Democrats of cutting Medicare. The list goes on, from organizations dedicated to scare tactics against Muslim Americans to Tea Party groups, Noble has channeled billionaire cash to a stunning array of different fronts that then air nasty negative ads during elections. The public only sees the brand at the end of the commercial, but never the true source of the money. Quirks in nonprofit law allow even the most modest forms of disclosure—the transfers from one group to the next—to be kept secret until over a year after the election. That’s why we learned about the transfers during the midterm elections only this year.

Noble’s group completely altered the shape of Congress. During the 2010 election cycle, Noble’ group funneled some $55 million, which in conjunction with the US Chamber of Commerce’s $75 million, lifted House Republicans into the majority, radically shifting the balance of power in Washington, DC. This year, it’s pretty clear that shadow money groups active in federal elections across the country are again depending on this pool of untraceable money.

The right-wing billionaire clique, rumored to be the same group of tycoons who attend the posh Koch strategy conferences, is obessed with secrecy. They were quick to kick me out of one of their confabs earlier this year, and have used every legal instrument available to prevent their names from being revealed. Accordingly, Center for Protecting Patients’ Rights pushes the limits of campaign finance law, but rarely violates it.

Even in California, a nonprofit can avoid disclosure laws by claiming to only support issue advocacy.

That’s where the operatives messed up. The $11 million they financed in California went to an explicit campaign committee, voiding any argument that the donation was in pursuit of an “issue” rather than a political campaign. There’s no grey area here; the money was part of a campaign donation, and its true donors, meaning the people behind the Center to Protect Patients’ Rights, must be disclosed.

Kamala Harris seems determined to pursue a criminal investigation. But will she?

The growing scandal resembles another eleventh-hour Koch campaign effort. In 1996, a resurgent Clinton administration came close to helping Democrats retake the House of Representatives. In the closing days of the 1996 election, a nonprofit group called Triad Management helped two other nonprofits air $3 million in television ads in twenty-six House races and three Senate races. The money saved Speaker Newt Gingrich’s majority.

A subsequent investigation found that more than half of the Triad money came from an organization funded by David and Charles Koch, and that the money was spent disproportionately in areas where Koch Industries owned refineries and pipelines. The investigation also found that Koch Industries provided direct corporate money for the ads, an apparent violation of campaign finance law at the time.

At the time of the Senate investigation, Koch Industries had been building up its lobbying muscle to combat charges relating to over 300 oil spills caused by the corporation in the mid nineties.

Just as The Wall Street Journal reported on many Triad-related documents, Koch received help from its allies in DC. In October of 1997, Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)—then, the chair of the Senate Government Affairs Committee—moved to cancel hearings into the investigation.

Today, the dynamics are different, but the core issue is the same. A Koch-group was caught violating the law, and there’s a chance to uncover the truth about one of the biggest secret money efforts in American history. It’s likely that Koch and these billionaires will do anything it takes to prevent this current scandal from growing.

Attorney General Harris will decide whether or not to pursue an investigation into the $11 million donation. The result of the effort may reveal who really purchased Congress for the last two years, and the next two.

Katrina vanden Heuvel recently made the case against dark money on MSNBC's Up with Chris Hayes. Watch here.

Related Topics: Campaign Finance | Election 2012 | Politics

http://www.thenation.com/blog/171055/could-attorney-general-kamala-harris-turn-tide-dark-money

june 12 election:

debate over campaign regulation

Mercury News Editorial

Posted:   06/05/2012 12:35:49 PM PDT

Supporters and opponents of campaign finance reform usually agree that sunshine is important. But supporters say disclosure should be the starting point for regulation, while opponents say just reporting donations is enough.

This debate goes on but court rulings have made most regulation beyond requiring disclosure all but impossible. And a report on campaign donors by the Center for Investigative Reporting's California Watch only illuminates the problem.

In state elections over the past 11 years, the top 50 individual donors and the top 50 group contributors combined spent $1.25 billion to sway lawmakers and voters, says California Watch. That's about one-third of the political contributions in that

time. And more than 80 percent of the cash went to campaigns for ballot measures.

It's just more evidence that an initiative system designed to curb abuses by elected officials has become a tool of special interests.

California Watch analyzed contributions through 2011. The California Teachers Association is the biggest donor on the list, spending 85 percent of its money on ballot measures. And of course the tobacco industry is right up there -- no surprise after the Proposition 29 battle this week. California Watch shows Philip Morris as the eighth-largest group contributor and R.J. Reynolds as the 11th.

That's not to say contributions to elected officials are insignificant. The top 100 contributed $219 million in those 11 years to candidates and political parties -- about 60 percent of it to Democrats, roughly their proportion of representation in the Legislature. Why? Because for many if not most contributors, the goal is not so much to help get somebody elected as it is to buy influence over those who are going to win.

The take-away from the report: A small number of interest groups including drug companies, tobacco, labor unions, Indian tribes and Pacific Gas & Electric exert huge financial influence on the political process. Similarly, wealthy businessmen -- and they are overwhelmingly men -- are disproportionately shaping public policy.

But what to do? Public financing of campaigns might work if somebody found a really practical formula, but current ideas are a tough sell for voters. Combine that with the courts shielding corporations and wealthy individuals from contribution restrictions, and it's hard to see how to level the playing field.

California Watch's report could do some good if voters read it, take it to heart and look carefully at who's supporting what and whom next time around. For now, the report will mostly make donors feel smug and the rest of us mad.

The Rainmakers: California's top political donors, 2001-2011

Lavishing their largesse on legislators and political committees alike, the largest donors to California politics spent $1.25 billion from 2001 through 2011. The group – 50 special interests and 50 wealthy individuals – spans the Golden State's social order. They are corporate leaders and venture capitalists, real estate developers and Hollywood scions. They are energy and tobacco companies, labor unions and tribal governments. Collectively, they shelled out a third of all the money given to campaigns in the state during the 11-year period.

Produced by

• Top 10 individuals
• Top 10 groups

Officials Eye Cap-and-Trade Revenues for Transit

In California, some officials are eyeing revenues from the state's cap-and-trade system to get drivers out of their cars. The cap is envisioned as a financial backstop to the state's high-speed rail plan. Gov. Jerry Brown's budget indicates that cap-and-trade could provide up to $1 billion in revenue. Building high-speed rail up and down the Golden State could be just one plan for cap-and-trade monies. Former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez advocates using revenues to boost clean tech, while State Sen. Kevin de León wants to see at least 10 percent of the revenues be put toward greenhouse gas reduction projects in disadvantaged communities. Some farm groups, meanwhile, are vying for funds to go to supporting agricultural practices that cut greenhouse gases.

huffpo

This week, there were two big clean energy projects announced in California that are remarkable for a couple of reasons. Together, these two projects will power hundreds of thousands of homes with clean, affordable solar energy.

They will create thousands of good-paying jobs and billions in local economic benefits.

They also garnered support from a diverse and unexpected group of allies that included business, labor, and environmental organizations.

On Tuesday, the Los Angeles City Council approved an ordinance clearing the way for 150 megawatts of rooftop solar in the city. The CLEAN LA Solar program will allow local property owners to sell solar power generated from rooftops and parking lots back to the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (DWP), using a mechanism called a feed-in tariff, or, in plain language, a solar cash-back program.

Los Angeles will be the largest city in the nation to adopt such a program, which will supply renewable energy at a reasonable cost while spurring private investment and creating high-quality jobs.

"This is a smart, cost-effective method for businesses to create economic opportunity while weaning ourselves off the coal-fired plants that generate most of the city's power," said Brad Cox, Immediate Past Chairman of the Los Angeles Business Council.

Evan Gillespie of our California Beyond Coal campaign says this victory represents two years of work with the business community in LA: "The program, when fully realized in three years, will lead to 4,500 new jobs and $500 million in economic activity here in LA," Evan says. This move will also offset 2.25 million tons of carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.

Meanwhile this week, more clean energy good news came out of California when we (along with Audubon California, Defenders of Wildlife and the Natural Resources Defense Council) announced our support for a set of proposed large-scale solar power projects in Imperial County.

When completed, the Mt. Signal, Calexico I and Calexico II solar projects under development by 8minutenergy will produce 600 megawatts of electricity, enough to power more than 200,000 households. The projects are located on privately owned, disturbed land currently used to grow highly water-intensive landscaping grasses.

The developer has agreed to create and implement a conservation fund to address possible impacts to burrowing owls, which are potentially affected by the large-scale development of solar in Imperial County. The biological effects from the projects are significantly less than proposed renewable energy projects on environmentally sensitive public lands. These Imperial County projects show that it is possible to develop viable, cost-effective projects without sacrificing our precious desert wildlands.

Importantly, to help ensure this project would provide quality jobs, the Sierra Club introduced the developer to the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. IBEW and 8minutenergy entered into a Project Labor Agreement to employ local Imperial Country workers for the projects. Imperial County has the highest unemployment rate in California (27 percent) and 23 percent of the population is below the poverty line. The projects represent a $1 billion economic impact to the county over 30 years and will provide $20 million for the Calexico Unified School District.

"These projects are truly a win-win for local Imperial County workers and the environment," said Johnny Simpson, Business Manager with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 569. "They will create good, middle-class green jobs with skilled training, health care benefits and pension retirement while reducing polluting greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change."

We are replacing dirty coal power with clean renewable energy that won't harm public health but will create good jobs. Now, we need to unlock this kind of innovation and job creation in every state in America. This is our energy future!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mary-anne-hitt/major-new-clean-energy-pr_b_1406486.html

----

Business group loses ‘green’ members in global-warming fight

January 16, 2010 | Ali Winston

An organization representing some of California’s biggest carbon polluters is working to alter the state’s global warming law, while claiming to represent several “green” environmental companies that have since left the coalition after learning of its recent actions.

The coalition, calling itself the AB 32Implementation Group, says it represents a broad section of California interests focused on global warming regulations. The group, which is being managed by a large public relations firm, Woodward & McDowell, features photographs of white clouds and a field of flowers on its Web site.

But the organization itself includes 22 of the state's biggest carbon polluters   http://californiawatch.org/data/californias-top-greenhouse-gas-polluters-mapas ranked by the state Air Resources Board. Oil refiners, cement manufacturers, chemical companies, and trucking firms figure prominently. And, according to environmentalists and lawmakers, the Implementation Group has engaged in a steady campaign to undermine the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandates a 25 percent reduction in the state’s emissions by 2020.

California Watch found companies on the Implementation Group’s membership list that no longer exist or whose executives were surprised to learn of the group’s efforts to alter the global warming law. Many of these companies are environmental-technology firms that had added a green luster to the Implementation Group’s big-business coalition, which includes more than 180 companies and associations.

The PR firm running the group has a history of clashing with environmentalists. In the 1990s, Burlingame-based Woodward & McDowell helped defeat Proposition 128, dubbed “Big Green,” which mandated sweeping changes to environmental laws. Company associate Dave Fogarty said his firm helped the Implementation Group draft its mission statement and manages its public image, but they have promoted a variety of issues, from school bonds to transportation funding, over the years.

Status of the Rulemaking

The formal Cap-and-Trade rulemaking began with the release of the Staff Report: Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR).  The ISOR and formal rulemaking materials are available on the cap-and-trade rulemaking webpage. The Board Hearing on this item was held on December 16, 2010.  The Board considered the draft resolution which was approved with modifications as discussed at the Hearing. The final resolution is available on the formal rulemaking webpage.

• Final Resolution
• 2011 Activities Schedule

Background

The AB 32 Scoping Plan identifies a cap-and-trade program as one of the strategies California will employ to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that cause climate change. This program will help put California on the path to meet its goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, and ultimately achieving an 80% reduction from 1990 levels by 2050. Under cap-and-trade, an overall limit on GHG emissions from capped sectors will be established by the cap-and-trade program and facilities subject to the cap will be able to trade permits (allowances) to emit GHGs.

The California Air Resources Board (ARB) will work with stakeholders to design a California cap-and-trade program that is enforceable and meets the requirements of AB 32, including the need to consider any potential impacts on disproportionately impacted communities. Consistent with AB 32, ARB must adopt the cap-and-trade regulation by January 1, 2011, and the program itself must begin in 2012.

California is working closely with six other western states and four Canadian provinces through the Western Climate Initiative (WCI) to design a regional cap-and-trade program that can deliver GHG emission reductions within the region at costs lower than could be realized through a California-only program. To that end, the ARB rule development schedule is being coordinated with the WCI timeline for development of a regional cap-and-trade program.

http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/capandtrade/capandtrade.htm

Welcome to the Western Climate Initiative (WCI). The WCI is a collaboration of independent jurisdictions working together to identify, evaluate, and implement policies to tackle climate change at a regional level. This is a comprehensive effort to reduce greenhouse gas pollution, spur investment in clean-energy technologies that create green jobs and reduce dependence on imported oil.

http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/

map

http://www.westernclimateinitiative.org/wci-partners-and-observers-map

not tx, but az and idaho observers

=

25% of w-m/ house votes came from CA and NY sats rogers 400 pooley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Solutions_Act_of_2006

The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (also known as AB 32) is an environmental law in California, signed into law by Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger on September 27, 2006. The bill establishes a timetable to bring California into near compliance with the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol.

A year prior to signing the bill, Schwarzenegger had declared, "I say the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat. And we know the time for action is now. Global warming and the pollution and burning of fossil fuels that cause it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world.”^[1]

California political consultants

From Ballotpedia

Petition drive management

• Arno Political Consultants
• Bader & Associates, Inc.
• JSM, Inc.
• National Petition Management
• Progressive Campaigns, Inc.

Polling firms

• Public Opinion Strategies

Strategy, messaging

Firms

• Bicker, Castillo & Fairbanks
• Fairbank, Maslin, Maullin & Associates
• Goddard Clausen Strategic Advocacy
• LFM Campaigns
• Winner & Mandabach Campaigns
• Lew Edwards Group

Individuals

• Chris Lehane
• Chad Griffin
• Chris McKenzie
• Clint Reilly
• Dave Gilliard
• Ed Rollins
• Roger Salazar

Attorneys, law firms

• Thomas W. Hiltachk
• Nielsen, Merksamer, Parrinello, Mueller & Naylor
• Olson, Hagel & Fishburn
• Townsend, Raimundo, Besler & Usher

BM

Californians for Realistic Vehicle Standards

Burson-Marsteller is also behind a front group called "Californians for Realistic Vehicle Standards," formed to oppose restrictions on automobile emissions

of nitrogen oxide and other polluting gases. "The address of the month-old lobbying group is the Sacramento headquarters of the California Chamber of

Commerce, while the group's phone number is that of the Sacramento office of Burson-Marsteller, an international public relations firm often used by the auto

industry. Detroit auto makers provided the bulk of the money for the new group”[53].

"Republican Assemblyman Anthony Adams cast his "aye" budget vote at dawn today with full knowledge that, as he has said, "This will probably be the end of a political career for me."

...

"I think it's important that people know that my caucus is supportive -- that I'm not making any decision lightly," Adams said on his way into a GOP member's office Wednesday. "I'm also not making a decision outside the realm of our caucus. I'm not out there by myself or trying to engage in something that does not have the support of my caucus.""

The Bee article continues:

"A recall effort against him is already afoot.

The 38-year old lawmaker has been in anti-tax advocates' crosshairs ever since a Sacramento Bee story on Jan. 22 and an appearance later that day on the John and Ken radio show in Southern California. The shock jocks were blasting Republicans, including Adams, for telling The Bee that taxes were on the table in budget talks.

"I dare with the full knowledge that this will probably be the end of a political career for me," Adams told the radio duo. "But the fact of the matter is California is in a place where they need people who are willing to sacrifice their own personal agenda for what's right."

The radio hosts responded by posting an image of Adams' decapitated head on a stick on their Web site."

history, pt 1 daily kos

A look at CA politics part 1

by lordpet8

For much of its early history California had been regarded as solidly Republican state. This two part diary will look at how California slowly transformed from Republican bastion that brought us Nixon and Reagan to the Democratic stronghold we know it today.

This diary will start at the New Deal Era to age of Reagan in the governorship

Republicans held the governorship for nearly a 40 year span from (1899-1939). The only exception was former Republican Hiram Johnson winning as a Progressive in 1910. During this period the Democrats were shut out of most state wide elected positions (the only exception was the single term for senator James Phelan who was elected during the progressive era of Woodrow Wilson)

The Great Depression and FDR

GOP dominance of the state began to weaken at the start of the Great Depression. A huge influx migrants flocked to the state as the population of California exploded.These new demographics gave the state a whopping 9 additional house seats during the 1930 census. Democrats which at the time were nothing more than an insignificant minority in the legislature. They held only a mere 8 seats in the assembly and 5 seats in the state senate. With the economic downturn at hand Democrats began to make huge gains throughout the state. FDR's 1932 election coattails gave California Democrats a majority of the US House delegation and a senate seat. By the time FDR secured a landslide reelection in 1936 Democrats had tripled their numbers in the state senate (5 to 15) and had won control of the state assembly for the first time in a half a century. President Roosevelt openly supported Culbert Olsen's candidacy for the governorship in 1938. Olsen's victory ended the Republican's 40 year hold over the governorship and was known as one of the founding father's the modern California Democratic party.

Olsen defied the national Republican wave of the 1938 midterms and defeated the sitting conservative Republican governor, Frank Merriam. Olsen had campaigned on a New Deal/Pro-Labor platform and won in a landslide. Merriam as it turned out had committed political suicide by angering both the left and the right. His actions in suppressing the

Longshore Strike angered progressives and labor communities. Secondly his support of a tax increase infuriated many conservative Republicans. These factors tipped the scale in favor of a Olsen victory.

Trivia: Olsen was an intriguing governor, although raised a Mormon he declared himself an atheist at age 10 and refused to say "under god" while taking his oath of office.

Olson had a rocky relationship with his divided legislature, which made it tough to pass his new deal proposals. Business friendly Republicans remained in control of the state senate, while the assembly was under the control of a coalition containing both conservative and socialist Democrats (yes it's shocking to see conservative and socialist running under the same party)

The GOP was on the defense during the New Deal era, and decided to create new a organization. The GOP activists created the California Republican Assembly(CRA) in 1933 which would serve as the conscience of the CA GOP party. They endorsed attorney general, Earl Warren for Governor to take on Olsen in the 1942 gubernatorial election. An important note: although the CRA today is viewed as a very conservative organization it was not so during this period. In fact moderates and progressives made up a healthy portion of the CRA. Warren, himself campaigned as moderate to appeal to both sides of electorate. Olsen faced a tremendous uphill battle for reelection. Unable to accomplish much with his divided legislature and a strong Republican wave election on his heels, Olson was ultimately defeated by Warren in a landslide. Republicans resumed control of the assembly and padded their majorities. Earl Warren won reelection in a rout in 1946 by taking in 90% of the vote. He had taken advantage of the cross filling system in California that allowed him to win both the Republican and Democratic primaries ensuring an easy victory. The success of Earl Warren earned him the VP spot on Thomas Dewey's 1948 Presidential Campaign. In a major upset  President Truman won the election and narrowly carried the state.

The 1950 US Senate Race and the Age of Ike

The 1950 midterm elections resulted in a near clean sweep for Republicans who gained back a senate seat with Richard Nixon. The current incumbent Democratic senator, Sheridan Downey had grown more conservative and had become a big supporter of the oil industry. Downey faced a spirited primary from congresswoman, Helen Gahagan Douglas. Ill health resulted in Downey dropping out and endorsing a another Democrat, Manchester Boddy, in the primary. When Douglas won the Democratic nomination, Downey promptly endorsed Nixon as he felt Douglas was too liberal for the state. Nixon used his usual campaign scare tactics by painting Douglas as communist sympathizer ("who was pink right down to her underwear") who was far too left for CA. Nixon ran with the advantage of running for the open seat with a Democratic candidate still bruised from a bitter primary. The end result was an easy victory for Nixon in the good Republican year.

Trivia: Both nicknames "the pink lady" for Douglas and "Tricky Dick" were originally coined by Manchester Boddy. Nixon and Douglas would then recycle these nicknames during the general election.

Earl Warren's popularity enabled him to win a 3rd term in 1950 (the first CA governor to do so). The overall results of the 1950 midterm elections left Pat Brown as the sole statewide elected Democrat in the state. In 1952 Eisenhower selected Nixon as his running mate. Although Nixon had less than 2 years of the senate under his belt, he had made a name for himself as strong opponent of communism after his house career. The Ike-Nixon ticket easily won California and Republicans padded their majorities in all levels of government in the state. Ike nominated Earl Warren to the position of Chief of Justice and Republican Lt. Governor Goodwin Knight assumed the governorship.

Democrats ,down in their luck, decided to reorganize the party and formed the California Democratic Council (CDC).

Ike easily carried CA in his 1956 reelection campaign, but at the same time Democrats gained 4 seats in the state senate. This small change resulted in Democrats winning control of the chamber for the first time since 1890 (which may have served as a harbinger for upcoming 1958 midterms). Republican never again won back the state senate which has now been in Democratic hands continuously for 56 years!

The Big Switch and start of a Democratic California

Republicans still had a strong grip in the state, but there were growing divisions within the conservative and moderate wings. Three men fought for influence of the state party. Goodwin Knight ,now serving a second term in his own right, represented the moderate wing (with sympathies to labor unions). William F Knowland ,US Senator and leader of the Senate Republicans, symbolized the conservative wing of the party. Finally there was Richard Nixon ,current Vice President, who had his eyes set on winning the Republican nomination for president in 1960.  The problem was that Knowland also had his eyes on the presidency. Unsatisfied with the US senate, Knowland felt the statehouse would be a better spring board for the Presidency. Thus Knowland decided to challenge sitting governor Knight for the governorship by running to Knight's right. The growing conservative movement within the CA GOP would make the primary an uphill battle for Knight. To avoid a bruising primary Ike, Nixon and Knowland pressured Knight to run instead for Knowland's open senate seat. Knight agreed and the move was dubbed the "big switch" as a means to keep two popular GOP officials in office. Also on the ballot was a Right to Work initiative, Prop 18. Knowland, who wanted to bolster his conservative credentials, endorsed the proposition.

The 1958 midterms served to be decisive win for Democrats. Proposition 18 was wildly unpopular with voters and led to massive turnouts by unions and pro-labor forces in the state. In a single election Republicans were decimated on all fronts. Knowland and Knight went on to lose their respective races in landslides to  Pat Brown and Clair Engle.

Fun Fact: On June 10, 1964, during the roll call for the historic, successful effort to break the filibuster on what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when the clerk reached "Mr. Engle," there was no reply. The tumor had robbed Engle of his ability to speak. Slowly lifting an arm, he pointed to his eye, thereby signaling his affirmative vote ("aye").The cloture vote was 71-29, four votes more than the two-thirds required to cut off the filibuster. Nine days later the Senate approved the Act itself.

Democrats also padded their state senate majority, won control of the state assembly, regained a majority in the US house delegation, and took 5 out of the 6 partisan statewide races. Since this election Republicans have never been able to gain a majority of the CA House Delegation.

Trivia: shortly after the 1958 elections Pat Brown was a special guest on the game show "What's my line"

Democrats decided to have their national convention in Los Angeles where they nominated JFK and LBJ. The ticket would narrowly win the presidency while Nixon won CA.

Pat Brown went on to stop a strong challenge from Richard Nixon in the 1962 gubernatorial election. Nixon, suffering from two stinging defeats in a row, went on to declare his "political retirement" famously telling the media that they "won't have Dick Nixon to kick around"

The 1964 Presidential election became a major turning point for the CA GOP, up until this point the moderate and conservative factions of the party constantly fought over for control of the party.  The candidacy of of Barry Goldwater, an ardent conservative, aggravated the situation in the state. Moderates and establishment Republicans favored Nelson Rockefeller in the CA primary. Conservatives in the CRA at the time did not have the votes  give Goldwater the endorsement of the CRA. Instead conservatives worked to override the 2/3 rules required for an endorsement and just have a simple majority voter. The Rockefeller supporters(Republican moderates) eventually left the convention, giving the CRA  the opportunity to endorse Goldwater and made the CRA the conservative organization that we see today. Despite this seemingly Goldwater/Conservative victory, deep rifts within the GOP were still visible. Liberal Republican Senator Thomas Kuchel, refused to endorse Goldwater ticket, earning the ire of conservatives. 1964 was a pivotal battle for the heart and sole of the CA GOP. Conservative began gaining clout in the party. Liberal moderate Republicans would still exist but their influence and stature in the party was fading. Lyndon Johnson carried the state handily (by nearly 20 points). It was the first time a Democratic candidate had won CA since Truman won it in 1948. The feat would not to be repeated till Bill Clinton won the state in 1992.

1966 Republican Resurgence

Incumbent Democratic governor Pat Brown ran for a 3rd consecutive in a rough political year. The now conservative dominated CRA wholeheartedly endorsed Ronald Reagan for governor. Reagan, a former liberal New Deal Democrat, had grown more conservative and became a Republican in 1962.

Trivia: The last time Ronald Reagan actively supported a Democratic candidate was in 1950 when he helped Helen Gahagan Douglas in her unsuccessful Senate campaign against Richard Nixon. Yes that's the same Douglas who Nixon once labeled as the "pink lady" for her supposed communist leanings.

Reagan had gained much of his conservative fame from when he gave his "a time for choosing" speech in which he endorsed Goldwater's campaign for president. Running against anti war protests, and welfare, Reagan upended Brown in a landslide election. Republicans won 5/6 of the statewide partisan offices.

The 1968 elections came with mixed results for the GOP. Nixon easily carried the state and GOP won 2 house seats along with control of the state assembly. At the same though, Senator  Thomas Kuchel was narrowly defeated in the primary by the conservative Max Rafferty. Many consider Kuchel's loss to his increasingly liberal views in a party that was rapidly moving rightward. Rafferty proved to be too conservative for CA and was defeated by Democratic State Controller, Alan Cranston. The senate seat has been in Democratic hands ever since.

Ronald Reagan had now become a darling of the conservatives, with his tough tactics against Berkley anti-war protesters during "Bloody Thursday" at the people's park protests. In 1970 Reagan faced a spirited challenge from former Democratic Assembly Speaker Jesse Unruh, but was easily given a 2nd term.

The most interesting race to watch was the US Senate race. Democrats had a bruising primary between two congressman to face the incumbent Republican senator George Murphy.  The two congressman were John Tunney and George Brown (who also happens to be the last democrat to represent my hometown Riverside). Both Democrats questioned the war in Vietnam but differed in opinion when considering the military draft. George Brown, known as a liberal democrat who managed to win in largely Republican areas, campaigned as the anti-war candidate who had always opposed the war from the start including the draft. Tunney, painted himself  Robert "Kennedy-esque" candidate, who highlighted his youth and charisma. He campaigned as center-right candidate. While he wasn't in full support of the war he still approved of the draft. Tunney had the advantage of getting into the race early and having a bigger organization, but still was trailing to Brown. The primary got nasty with Tunney saying that Brown supported the violence going on in the campuses. Brown countered with calling Tunney a spoiled rich kid. An 11th hour ad blitz allowed Tunney to narrowly beat out Brown. At this point Republican Murphy was leading in the polls by over 20 points. But this all changed as Tunney began getting his message out in the state. Although he was a center-right candidate Tunney was still to the left of Murphy who was the staunchest supporter of the Vietnam war. Murphy had suffered from throat cancer which made him barely able to speak over a whisper (further hurting his campaign). In the end Tunney won the race by 9 points giving Democrats both US senate seats the first time since Milton Latham lost his seat in 1862!.

Trivia: Tunney's successful Senate race in 1970 is reportedly the inspiration for the 1972 Robert Redford film The Candidate.

Democrats also retook control of the state assembly. Jerry Brown was elected as Secretary of state and was the sole Democrat in the statewide offices.

This concludes the first part of my California Politics diary, I hope you enjoyed it. There was so much more I would have loved to include but I wanted to keep things as concise as possible.

If you're interested in hearing more about the 1950 US senate campaign (which If I covered in full detail would have a taken a whole diary by itself) I recommend you try here

Anyways when I continue we'll look at Jerry Brown terms as governor, Prop 13, and much much more.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/02/01/1060209/-A-look-at-CA-politics-part-1

http://www.iandrinstitute.org/California.htm

The initiative and referendum are available at the state level and in every city. The state-level initiative and referendum were adopted in 1911. San Francisco and Vallejo were the first cities to adopt the initiative in 1898, and California counties were given initiative rights in 1893.

 Progressive-era Governor Hiram Johnson is well known for leading the successful fight for direct democracy in the Golden State, the critical groundwork laid by Dr. John Randolph Haynes may have been as important. A Philadelphian who held doctorates in both medicine and philosophy, Haynes moved west to Los Angeles in 1887, at the age of 34. He established a successful medical practice, counting many prominent Southern Californians among his patients, invested his profits skillfully in real estate, and eventually became a millionaire.

In 1895 Haynes helped found the California Direct Legislation League, dedicated to winning the rights of initiative, referendum, and recall statewide and in every local jurisdiction. He won election in 1900 to a Los Angeles "board of freeholders" responsible for drafting a new charter for the city. Haynes used this strategic position to ensure that the board included I&R in the new charter, only to see the entire charter thrown out by the courts on a technicality. A new board, without Haynes, was elected in 1902, but he continued to advocate I&R and brought Eltweed Pomeroy of New Jersey, president of the National Direct Legislation League, from the East Coast specifically to address the board. After Pomeroy's speech, the board voted to include initiative, referendum, and recall in the new charter. Voters ratified the charter in 1903.

Haynes then concentrated his efforts on winning statewide I&R. The odds against him were daunting. The entire state government had for decades been under the control of the Southern Pacific Railroad. Bribery was the accepted method of doing business in the state capitol. Realizing the hopelessness of dealing with the current officeholders, Haynes and other reformers began a campaign to get rid of them and remake state government from top to bottom. In May 1907 they founded the Lincoln-Roosevelt League of Republican Clubs, and elected several of their candidates to the legislature. These legislators worked for a bill to require the nomination of party candidates through primary election rather than state party conventions. The bill passed, and the League's 1910 gubernatorial candidate, Hiram Johnson, ran in the state's first primary election. Johnson won the primary and the general election and swept dozens of other reformers into the legislature on his political coattails.

Johnson and the new Progressive majority in the legislature sweeping changes in the state's government. Among these were adoption of the initiative, referendum, and recall at both the state and local levels. Voters ratified these amendments in a special election on October 10, 1911.

Reformers in Los Angeles won voter approval, in December 1911, of a unique local initiative to create a municipally owned, yet editorially independent, newspaper to compete with the anti-labor, anti-reform Los Angeles Times and provide unbiased news and an equal forum for all political views. Each political party was given a column in every weekly edition. This bold experiment in free speech attracted the state's top newspaper talent and got off to a highly successful start. After less than a year, however, it failed because of the harassment of vendors and an advertiser boycott organized by the Los Angeles reformers' arch-enemy, Harrison Gray Otis, owner of the Times.

The first significant statewide initiative in California abolished the poll tax in 1914, and a construction bond initiative for the University of California also won voter approval that year. Immediately thereafter, anti-initiative forces launched their first counterattack, in the form of a constitutional amendment passed by the legislature to make it more difficult to pass initiative bond proposals. Haynes mobilized his pro-initiative forces and defeated the amendment at the polls in 1915.

Anti-initiative forces tried again in 1920, this time using the initiative process themselves to propose a measure that would have made it virtually impossible to put any tax-related initiatives on future ballots.Haynes mobilized his forces again and defeated the measure at the polls; and he won a third, similar contest in 1922. After this he changed the name of his California Direct Legislation League to "The League to Protect the Initiative," and for the rest of his life kept close watch over the legislature to make sure that it enacted no laws to restrict I&R procedures. Haynes died on October 30, 1937, at the age of 84.

On the ballot in 1934 were four successful constitutional initiatives to revamp the state's law enforcement and criminal justice systems. All four were sponsored by Alameda County District Attorney Earl Warren, who went on to become the state's attorney general in 1938, its governor in 1942, and the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1953. The principal changes involved procedures for judicial selection and retention, and increasing the woefully inadequate powers and jurisdiction of the office of attorney general. Warren's foresight in revamping the justice system before running for attorney general accounted in no small measure for his effectiveness once elected, which in turn made possible his rise to higher office.

One of the highest stakes initiative campaigns, in terms of campaign spending was the 1956 struggle over changes in the state regulation and taxation of oil and gas production. The initiative was sponsored by one group of oil companies that sought to make their business more profitable, and opposed by another group of oil firms that preferred the existing system. Campaign funds spent by both sides totaled over $5 million. The 1956 initiative lost: California voters, inundated with conflicting claims about a complex measure, took the cautious route and voted "no."

Almost as expensive was the gargantuan 1958 labor-capital conflict over a "Right to Work" (open shop) initiative sponsored by employers. This battle ended in a double defeat for employers: not only did voters decisively reject the initiative, but the opposition campaign mobilized Democrats and union members to vote in droves, resulting in the election of Governor Edmund G. Brown, Sr., the first Democrat to occupy that office in 16 years.

In the 1960s, California liberals soured on the initiative process as a result of two measures passed by voters in 1964. The first repealed the Rumford Fair Housing Act, which the legislature had passed, and Governor Brown had signed, in 1963. The second banned cable television. That measure was sponsored by theater owners who, fearing competition, advertised the initiative as guaranteeing "free television" and eliminating the specter of "pay television." Both 1964 initiatives were later overturned by the courts as unconstitutional.

The California initiative process gave rise to a new breed of campaign professional: the paid petition circulator. With signature requirements doubling nearly every decade, citizen groups were unable to rely solely on volunteer effort. As early as World War I, Joseph Robinson was offering his organizing services to initiative proponents. His firm, which paid its employees a fee for each signature brought in, had a virtual monopoly on the petition business from 1920 to 1948 - a period during which, Robinson estimated, his firm was involved in 98 percent of the successful statewide initiative petition drives. Robinson stayed in business into the late 1960s, when he offered his services to Ed and Joyce Koupal, but by then he had competitors.

California's most famous initiative wasProposition 13, approved by voter in 1978. Proposition 13 capped property taxes at 1 percent of value and limited assessment increases. It sparked a so-called tax-revolt across the country that ran for almost a decade, and also led to a revival in initiative use across the country as citizens increasingly turned to the initiative process to gain a greater control over their lives.

In recent decades, Californian has led the nation in high profile initiatives. California initiatives have allowed voters to express their views on wide variety of important social, economic, and governmental issues including term limits, bilingual education, racial preferences/affirmative action, medical marijuana, punishment for crimes, taxes, government debt, and same-sex marriage. Elected officials in other parts of the country sometimes vilify the initiative process by saying, “we don’t want to be like California.” Despite the view from outside (and in some cases inside) the state that the initiative process has been a problem for state government, the process remains overwhelmingly popular among the electorate. Defenders note as well that California is not the only state to face economic and fiscal problems, and that many of the problematic policies were passed by the legislature not by initiatives.