The Village Strikes Back

The Cook Political Report, based on no polling, no gauging of public sentiment, nothing, just up and moved Alan Grayson's seat to a toss-up based on his comments the other day. Keep in mind that Grayson currently has no opponent yet. Doesn't matter - a Democrat said something mean, surely this will hurt him.

Here's how this works. Charlie Cook is seen as a big pooh-bah inside the Village. If he divines that a seat is in trouble, that becomes the conventional wisdom. It can hurt fundraising for an incumbent and help it for a challenger. Especially in this case, where the assessment cannot possibly be based on any data, you can conclude that Charlie Cook doesn't really appreciate outspoken Democrats, so he manufactured his ratings to downgrade Grayson, not just to hurt him, but as a warning to his colleagues not to step out of line.

Only thing is, Alan Grayson keeps taking in lots of money online. He's now raised over $100,000 in a little over a day, as much as $150,000 according to his campaign staff. Charlie Cook may have gone to the fainting couch and did his part to try and get Grayson thrown out of office, but the people don't seem to be buying it.

This is the kind of pressure a Democratic who doesn't follow the Village-approved rules for discourse is under. You can get Alan Grayson's back and let everyone know that the rules of the Village don't apply in the real world, where we actually like people with guts willing to say what they believe.

CA-10: One Week To Go

Just a rundown of events in the CA-10 race with a week until primary day:

• Late last week, fundraising reports were due, showing that over $2 million dollars has been raised by the various candidates seeking Ellen Tauscher's old seat in Congress. By any metric - total cash raised, cash raised in the last cycle, cash raised since June 30, cash on hand, and cash on hand less debts - John Garamendi has the lead, though much of his money comes from big donors. Anthony Woods, and to a lesser extent Mark DeSaulnier, have found a smaller-donor base, though Woods' is mostly out of district. Joan Buchanan has basically not raised money at all; she has given herself as much as $750,000 in loans and is generally self-funded (and what donations she has not given herself have come from such health industry interests as Wellpoint, one of the largest insurers in America). I would say the top four candidates probably have enough money to get out the message within their budgets, however.

• The Contra Costa Times, the main newspaper in the main population center of the district, endorsed John Garamendi for the position. However, their criticism of Mark DeSaulnier, that he "acced(es) to the wishes of organized labor, particularly public employee unions," gives you an indication of their orientation and whether or not you find them a trusted source.

• DeSaulnier continues to hammer on the largely irrelevant point that Garamendi doesn't live inside the district. Here's a mailer to that effect. And practically every missive from campaign staff re-emphasizes this point. I would like their research department to find one instance of when a residency issue like this had any impact on a Congressional race. I just really think DeSaulnier has missed his target here. He's better off showing his progressive bona fides on issues like health care, transportation and the environment, IMO. This is such a critical time, and residency issues do not appear to be at the top of the minds of people who want to see this country make good on the change agenda from 2008, particularly Democratic partisans who would vote in a special election primary.

• Anthony Woods held another live chat at AmericaBlog this week. His position in local endorsements always comes at the end and reads something like "we were very impressed with him and think he has a bright future."

A Compromise In The Other Direction

While the deal reached between Henry Waxman and a core group of Blue Dog Democrats on the health care bill in the House Energy and Commerce Committee was reported as offering modest concessions, in truth the subsidies would have really dried up for families making between 300-400% of federal poverty level. Progressives revolted, mainly because the subsidy climb-downs attack the larger idea of offering affordable health insurance for everyone, the central goal of the program. So they revolted, and Waxman had to re-bargain with everyone to get a decent compromise of the compromise.

Liberals and a small core of conservative Democrats set aside long-standing ideological differences early Friday to cut a deal that should allow the House Energy and Commerce Committee to approve a sweeping health care bill, breaking a two-week deadlock that threatened President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

Blue Dog Democrats on the committee, who are the linchpin in the House health care debate, agreed to allow their liberal colleagues to cut billions from existing government-funded health care programs in order to restore some $50 billion to $65 billion in subsidies set aside in the bill to help middle-income families purchase coverage.

This final agreement should clear the way for committee passage later today. Energy and Commerce is the last of the three House committees to consider the bill, so passage will put the package in the hands of party leaders for a titanic fight when Congress returns in the fall over the government's role in health care [...]

The Blue Dogs preserved one of their main objectives: de-coupling the so-called public plans from Medicare, a change that gives health care providers the right to negotiate payments with the government.

Those rates were only scheduled for the first three years anyhow. My guess is that will be returned when the House bills get merged from all three committees in September, especially if progressives keep up the pressure. What's important now is to get the Energy and Commerce bill out of committee.

Let's understand how this happened. Blue Dogs held out for a deal. Progressives, instead of taking it to get the larger goal, revolted and got 57 names on a letter vowing not to support any Blue Dog compromise. The Blue Dogs, who came into this wanting to kill the public plan option, ending up voting it out of committee in Energy and Commerce and allowing for expanded subsidies. And progressives are STILL not satisfied, as it should be, because Medicare rates and providers should be tied to the public plan over its entire lifespan, and the plan (and the insurance exchange) should be available to everyone regardless of employer.

Moreover, the liberals also expressed a political concern, saying House leaders had compromised too early. “Under the agreement, private insurers are coming off unscathed,” said Representative Peter Welch, Democrat of Vermont.

He added, “They do quite well — too well, frankly.”

Representative Eliot L. Engel, Democrat of New York, said, “The public plan was eviscerated” under the deal announced Wednesday to get the bill moving again in the Energy and Commerce Committee.

Mr. Engel was less than enthusiastic about the resulting legislation. “It’s not a terrible bill,” he said, “but it’s not what I had hoped for.”

There was an abortion policy amendment in the committee that tries to split the difference by affirming that insurers "would not be required or forbidden to cover abortion." I'd prefer that the public plan be accorded the same benefits toward the most widely used outpatient procedure in America that 90% of all private plans cover, and we'll see where that debate goes.

Also hurting the Blue Dogs' cause is this WaPo front-pager, almost unquestionably meant to coincide with progressive discontent over the compromise, showing the amount of health industry money these so-called fiscal conservatives are swimming in.

The roiling debate about health-care reform has been a boon to the political fortunes of Ross and 51 other members of the Blue Dog Coalition, who have become key brokers in shaping legislation in the House. Objections from the group resulted in a compromise bill announced this week that includes higher payments for rural providers and softens a public insurance option that industry groups object to. The deal also would allow states to set up nonprofit cooperatives to offer coverage, a Republican-generated idea that insurers favor as an alternative to a public insurance option.

At the same time, the group has set a record pace for fundraising this year through its political action committee, surpassing other congressional leadership PACs in collecting more than $1.1 million through June. More than half the money came from the health-care, insurance and financial services industries, marking a notable surge in donations from those sectors compared with earlier years, according to an analysis by the Center for Public Integrity.

A look at career contribution patterns also shows that typical Blue Dogs receive significantly more money -- about 25 percent -- from the health-care and insurance sectors than other Democrats, putting them closer to Republicans in attracting industry support.

Most of the major corporations and trade groups in those sectors are regular contributors to the Blue Dog PAC. They include drugmakers such as Pfizer and Novartis; insurers such as WellPoint and Northwestern Mutual Life; and industry organizations such as America's Health Insurance Plans. The American Medical Association also has been one of the top contributors to individual Blue Dog members over the past 20 years.

Progressives are running the absolute right game in the House, forcing compromises in their direction and making sure they will be heard in this debate. Unfortunately, on the other side of the Capitol, you have health care policy literally in the hands of Chuck Grassley, who is promising his party he won't strike a deal on any bill with Democrats while SITTING IN ON MEETINGS AIMED AT STRIKING A DEAL in the Senate Finance Committee. The unicameral legislature concept is looking better and better every day.

Bunning Run Out Of The Senate

Jim Bunning had a very good chance of being defeated for re-election, and the GOP knew it. So they systematically set about to deny him the funds he would need to compete. And they were very successful. So now he's cashing out.

Blaming GOP leaders for freezing him out on fundraising, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) is bailing on his Senate campaign and won't run for re-election next year.

The move comes as a great relief for Washington Republicans concerned about Bunning's prospects in the midterm elections, and Bunning blasted fellow Republicans, saying they had "done everything in their power" to force him out.

It does leave a formidable legacy for the former baseball pitcher, being run out of Washington by his own party.

Though Democratic Attorney General Jack Conway has a good profile statewide, I would guess that Bunning's departure makes this a more likely Republican seat in 2010. Democrats should focus on other pickup opportunities.

CA Congressional Fundraising A Go-Go

Today is the deadline for Congressional incumbents and challengers to declare their fundraising totals for the second quarter of 2009, and some numbers on the California candidates jump out. If I write "incomplete," that's because their FEC report hasn't popped up yet. I'll fill in when they become available:

We'll start with the special election in CA-10:
John Garamendi: $300,000 raised, $260,000 CoH, $54,000 debt
Mark DeSaulnier: incomplete $212,000 raised, $136,000 CoH, $77,000 debt
Joan Buchanan: incomplete $64,000 raised, $179,000 CoH, $308,000 debt
Anthony Woods: $105,000 raised, $65,000 CoH
Adriel Hampton: incomplete

Waiting on more info on this one. John Garamendi's number came from 350 people, almost $1,000 a head. That suggests no grassroots fundraising base. Anthony Woods had over twice as many donors, who could be tapped again. UPDATE: OK, this is interesting. Joan Buchanan raised a fairly paltry amount considering the primary is in six weeks, but she took out a $250,000 loan and has a significant amount of debt. She seems to be blowing through operating expenses too. Likewise, Mark DeSaulnier, who raised a decent amount, has over half of his cash on hand in debt. And I missed that John Garamendi has $50,000 in debt as well. Suddenly, Anthony Woods has more debt-free cash on hand than anyone in the field but Garamendi.

CA-03:
Gary Davis: $34,000 raised, $30,000 CoH
Dr. Amerish Bera: $288,000 raised, $286,000 CoH
Dan Lungren (inc.): incomplete $233,000 raised, $322,000 CoH

That is an eye-popping number for Amerish Bera, and lest you see it as a doctor self-funding, only $4,800 came from the candidate. I was shocked by that total. We'll see what Dan Lungren ends up raising later today, but it's entirely possible that Bera will have MORE cash on hand than the incumbent (Lungren only had $121,000 on hand at the end of April, with $12,000 in debts). Wow. UPDATE: So Bera outraised Lungren, but he ekes out a cash on hand lead. As an incumbent, however, that's a weak performance.

CA-45:
Steve Pougnet: $201,000 raised, $203,000 CoH
Mary Bono Mack (inc): $166,000 raised, $448,000 CoH

Steve Pougnet outraised the incumbent in Q2, which is quite impressive. Mary Bono Mack starts out with a bigger war chest, so he has some work to do, but this is an excellent start, and I think Pougnet has a natural fundraising base that will only expand once his story gets out.

CA-44:
Bill Hedrick: $65,000 raised, $66,000 CoH
Ken Calvert (inc.): incomplete $407,000 raised, $384,000 CoH

Certainly an improvement over the first quarter for Bill Hedrick, and all of the money came from Southern California, which means he has a solid fundraising and volunteer base locally. He needs to spread that out nationally to maximize his potential in this winnable race.

CA-26:
Russ Warner: $60,000 raised, $58,000 CoH
David Dreier (inc.): $138,000 raised, $872,000 CoH

Believe it or not, Dreier actually had a much bigger war chest last cycle. Russ Warner needs to do better to be competitive, but he's actually in a slightly better position than two years ago.

CA-48:
Beth Krom: $76,000 raised, $98,000 CoH
John Campbell (inc.): $223,000 raised, $470,000 CoH

This was a tough quarter for Krom, with the tragic death of her son taking up a lot of time in the final weeks. Campbell ramped up his fundraising a bit after Krom beat him in the last quarter.

CA-50:
Francine Busby: $160,000 raised, $136,000 CoH
Tracy Emblem: $22,000 raised, $15,000 CoH
Brian Bilbray (inc.): incomplete $325,000 raised, $388,000 CoH

A solid quarter of fundraising for Francine Busby, notwithstanding that police action at one of her fundraisers while guests were pepper sprayed. UPDATE: Brian Bilbray had a good quarter.

CA-24:
Elton Gallegly (inc.): $42,000 raised, $831,000 CoH

The field is still getting together in this race, but I wanted to see Elton Gallegly's fundraising output, which is somewhat pathetic. He does have enough of a war chest that he doesn't necessarily need to get moving on that yet, however.

UPDATE the last: Swing State Project has a full roundup with a number of other interesting tidbits.

• In CA-04, Tom McClintock raised a bundle - $341,000 - but he still has over $100,000 in outstanding debt and only $245,000 CoH. Some fiscal conservative.

• In CA-10, one Republican is showing financial viability, David Harmer, with a $175,000 haul (but that's based on the first six months, not just the quarter). He has $144,000 CoH and $17,000 in outstanding debt. And his ideological viability in that district is, shall we say, suspect, though he is likely to reach a runoff.

• In CA-11, which I think is safe, Jerry McNerney raised $288,000 and has $519,000 cash on hand. One of his potential opponents, Brad Goehring, would seem to have a good financial position with $259,000 CoH, but he only raised $14,000 for the quarter and has $250,000 in debt due to a massive loan. The same with Jon Del Arroz, who guaranteed a huge loan for himself and has as much in debt as he does in cash on hand. These guys are wasting money, in my opinion.

• I added Ken Calvert's numbers in CA-44. Clearly the NRCC is protecting him by bolstering his fundraising.

• CA-47 is on the fringe of being competitive, but Van Tran had a good quarter, beating Loretta Sanchez (barely) in fundraising:

Sanchez: $242,000 raised, $714,000 CoH
Tran: $253,000 raised, $251,000 CoH, $10,000 debt

Tran gave himself $5,500 to boost his total. And Loretta has a pretty large war chest from prior years.

PA-Sen: A Real Race

While Joe Sestak may not have formally announced his campaign for US Senate, he's raising money at a clip that would be completely unnecessary for a House seat. He raised over a million dollars in the second quarter and has $4.2 million in the bank. By contrast, Arlen Specter raised $1.7 million but had a high burn rate, adding only $800,000 to his cash on hand. That war chest is impressive - $7.5 million dollars. But Sestak has enough to remain competitive. $4 million dollars can buy a lot of ads and build a substantial organization, and we're only just beginning.

The point is that, unlike past primary efforts, this is a real race, and given that Carolyn Maloney just pissed away her credibility up in New York, it's the race that progressives should focus on.

(I harbor no illusions that Sestak would hesitate from stabbing progressives in the back on health care himself, if he had to. But the mere threat of a primary by him is already doing the job of keeping conservative Dems in line, which is the point of these kinds of challenges.)

CA-45: Pougnet Has Big Fundraising Quarter

While candidates for state and federal office have until July 15 to announce their fundraising totals to the FEC, we're starting to see some of the numbers trickle out. And this is a pretty good one. Steve Pougnet, the openly gay mayor of Palm Springs, husband and father of two, reportedly raised over $200,000 in the second quarter. He claimed to have outraised his opponent, incumbent Mary Bono Mack, although the Republican has not yet released her numbers.

$200,000 is a better quarter than almost all Democratic challengers achieved at any point in the last Congressional cycle until the final fundraising quarter. It's particularly impressive this far out of the race.

With Bono Mack facing heat from her right flank over her vote for the Waxman-Markey energy bill, she may not have the kind of national backing she could need. Bono Mack has performed impressively in this seat throughout her career and she remains heavily favored, but Pougnet will have a chance in a district that went 52-47 for Barack Obama in 2008.

The End Of The Roland Burris Era

Roland Burris has decided not to run for election to the US Senate from Illinois. Also, from his jail cell, Charles Manson has passed on a Congressional run. And that guy who accidentally caught the ball to ruin the Cubs' World Series chances is begging off a run for Alderman of Wrigleyville.

All of these announcements have about the same element of surprise. Burris raised $845 in the first quarter of the year, and the rumor was that the second quarter wouldn't be much better. He'll go down in history as one of the oddest characters to wind up in the world's most deliberative body (by the way, they can be less deliberative, we won't mind).

So who will take his place in the Obama seat in the Senate? Attorney General Lisa Madigan, who would have been a lock, passed on the race, and moments later, Republican Congressman Mark Kirk jumped in. Kirk represents a moderate district and some in Illinois think he would be formidable for either State Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias or Kennedy spawn Chris Kennedy. This could be a tough race for the Democrats, but Giannoulias' ties to the Obama Administration can hopefully help get him across the line.

I'll tell you, the news has not been hopeful for Democratic Senate races lately. Obviously there's lots of time and it'll all depend on the economy, but considering the state of the Republican Party and the number of seats the GOP has to defend, this cycle is starting to look like an opportunity lost.

The Ultimate Coda

INT. HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING - DAY

Al Franken, after being sworn in as the 60th Democratic vote in the Senate, goes back to his office and shuffles through his mail, and he finds a $96,000 check from the Minnesota Republican Party that Norm Coleman's campaign owed him as part of the "loser pays" laws in the Land of 1,000 Lakes. And there's even an extra $872 in interest.

Franken chuckles as we CRANE SHOT out....

*************

Sadly, I think we'd like it all better if the movie ended there, rather than having to watch the horror show of what this group of Democrats will do with that 60-vote majority.

CA-10: Quick Sprint For September 1

The primary election in California's 10th Congressional District is set for September 1, with the general election on November 3. If nobody gets 50%+1 on September 1, the top vote-getters in each party advance to the general election, and given the orientation of the district, the top Democrat on September 1 will be the next Congressmember from CA-10.

The New York Times read off the conventional wisdom yesterday:

The lieutenant governor, John Garamendi, is considered the early favorite to replace Ms. Tauscher. Mr. Garamendi, a Democrat who had considered running for governor next year, said he opted instead for Congress in large part because of the abbreviated campaign [...]

Mr. Garamendi’s principal challengers among the Democrats, some polls show, are State Senator Mark James DeSaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan. Both were elected to their current posts last fall [...]

The rest of the Democratic field is not as well known, though one candidate has attracted some national attention: Anthony Woods, a 28-year-old graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point and a veteran of the Iraq war who was awarded the Bronze Star for two tours of duty. Shortly after his return from combat, while at Harvard working toward his master’s degree, Captain Woods told military superiors that he is gay, resulting in an honorable discharge [...]

Others in the Democratic field include Tiffany Attwood, a local planning commissioner and self-described “mom who plays soccer” — do not call her a soccer mom — and Adriel Hampton, a former reporter for The San Francisco Examiner who said he was entering politics because of a “Howard Beale moment,” referring to the fictional insane anchorman from the 1976 film “Network.”

We're slowly starting to learn further details. While candidates don't need to announce fundraising totals until July 15, Anthony Woods got the jump by announcing that he raised over $100,000 from 800 donors, which his campaign reports as twice as many as the number of donors John Garamendi announced a week earlier. He's pushing his online efforts:

Woods’ campaign is also leading his CD 10 competitors in online fundraising and online organizing. According to ActBlue.com, Woods is far outpacing the two other Sacramento politicians in the race–State Senator Mark Desaulnier and Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan—in internet fundraising, and Woods has organized more supporters on Facebook (more than 4,700) than every other CD 10 candidate combined.

Woods has captured some national attention, particularly in the blogosphere, and we'll see if that translates to a quick-sprint campaign. John Garamendi seems not to think so:

Garamendi said it's a three-way race, and he's not counting Woods as a top-tier candidate: "He's a serious young man that's capable, and he's got a national issue and a good story to go with it. And that's to his benefit."

But he said Woods is similar to the half-dozen or so other confirmed or prospective candidates who lack a natural base for their campaigns: "Everybody regards me as the front-runner."

To that end, Garamendi secured a local labor endorsement, from the Alameda County Central Labor Council. There's a small patch of Alameda County in the district, particularly around Livermore. But the dynamic in the race thus far has been that Mark DeSaulnier locked up all the early local support, including Contra Costa County's Labor Council, and Garamendi had roped in the national labor groups. The Lt. Governor getting local labor support helps him with manpower.

I hope to have much more on this race as it moves forward, including some discussions on the issues currently facing Congress.

CA-50: Sheriffs Raid Busby Fundraiser

An exceedingly strange story out of the San Diego area.

The San Diego Union-Tribune reports that a fundraiser for Francine Busby, who previously ran for the deeply-Republican Fiftieth District (editor's note: it's not that deeply Republican, Obama won here 51-47) and came close to winning in the 2006 special election and subsequent regular election, was raided by sheriffs after an unnamed neighbor made a noise complaint. Busby now calls it a "phony" noise complaint, and the article says that multiple neighbors said there was no great noise at all.

Here's the twist: The fundraiser was hosted by a lesbian couple, and shortly before the sheriffs came a particular neighbor had shouted anti-gay slurs at the assembled crowd. "It was a quiet home reception, disrupted by a vulgar person shouting obscenities from behind the bushes," Busby says.

As one neighbor told the paper: "We didn't hear anything until the sheriff came, with eight patrol cars and a helicopter."

The sheriff's department claims that somebody kicked an officer. By the time it was over, multiple people were pepper-sprayed, one of the hostesses was arrested, and the whole neighborhood got to see quite a scene.

One of the officers defended the department's conduct -- turning the blame on the candidate: "The place got out of hand. If Francine Busby was there, why not take a leadership role, step up, and nip this thing in the bud?"

There's more detail at this Daily Kos diary from arodb, who was there. I like the part where the police department blames Francine Busby for their own failure to recognize that no noise violation was taking place inside the fundraiser.

I'm trying to get some more information from the campaign, will bring it when I have it.

UPDATE: TPMDC interviews Francine Busby about this incident, and basically, she singles out the homophobic heckler for creating the noise that brought the cops to the scene:

"You could hear his voice very clearly, it was loud. But as far as the actual words, I didn't hear them," Busby explained. "I heard my name, and obviously derogatory words. Other people heard profanity, and somebody heard something about gays, as well." It should be noted that the event was hosted by a lesbian couple.

"The deputies were telling people that they were taking statements from, that the call came in about noise from a Democratic rally, or Democratic demonstration," said Busby. In fact, she said, she had last spoken at about 8:30 p.m., and the police arrived an hour later when most of the attendees had left. "It was a nuisance-noise call, because there was no noise, and the fact that it was described as a Democratic rally or demonstration indicates to me that this person was calling for his own political motives."

The LA Times reports that the San Diego County Sheriff's Department will open an investigation into the incident, particularly the use of pepper spray.

Just No Do-Re-Mi In It

I noticed last week a severe pulling back by the conservative elements bashing Sonia Sotomayor, and John Thune lets slip a bit of truth about it:

Nearly a month after President Barack Obama picked her for the Supreme Court, Republican senators say Sonia Sotomayor isn’t serving as the political lightning rod some in their party had hoped she would be.

“She doesn’t have the punch out there in terms of fundraising and recruiting, I think — at least so far,” said Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), who most likely will be elected as the No. 4 Republican in Senate leadership this week.

The calculus could certainly change when Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings begin July 13. But the Republican senators’ initial review of Sotomayor’s record, together with the meetings they’ve had with her, have left them doubting that she’ll be controversial enough to help them or hurt the Democrats heading into the 2010 elections.

That's the key, right, that outrage over her doesn't raise the bug bucks. Republicans are making a business decision by pulling up stakes here. Will Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network have enough money for steak dinners now?

You know the economy is tough when even the wingnut welfare recipients are struggling.

The Early Winner In The Sotomayor Battle

As I said before, despite the bluster, Republican Senators are considering it unlikely to mount a filibuster against Sonia Sotomayor. But there's an entire architecture of movement conservative organizations designed to push a filibuster fight, and they will be hard to ignore. After all, this is how they make their bacon:

Organizations that have been preparing for a major confirmation battle — and that depend on such fights to raise money, motivate supporters and galvanize enthusiasm for their agendas — made it clear they don't intend to sit out the debate, filibuster or no. The debate over Sotomayor could also lay groundwork for fights over later high court nominations the president might make.

Never mind the longer game of making Sotomayor illegitimate, calling into question all her future opinions, and rousing the base even more now that such a woman sits on the nation's highest court ready to persecute them.

TPMDC profiles these movement actors, the same few people you'll see quoted in every paper and appearing on every cable show in the next couple months. There's Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network, Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice (who used Sotomayor's taste in Puerto Rican cuisine to call into question her judicial philosophy - really, he did), Ed Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, who I heard on NPR criticize Sotomayor for her "silence" in an opinion she participated in but didn't write, and Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice. There are more groups, like Judicial Watch, The Federalist Society, plus the usual think tanks, et al. Why you need this many overlapping judicial organizations is beyond me, but I guess the goal is to employ as many movement conservatives as possible, plus you can mix and match them in the media to give the illusion of a broad perspective. And filibuster or not, they have to be out there raising hell and raising money. A Supreme Court fight without storefront conservative judicial organizations would be like tax season without accountants.

But TPMDC missed the one individual who has certainly gained the most in the early going of this nomination - New Republic writer Jeffrey Rosen. After all, his use of gossipy talking points has driven the entire discussion in the media, and made him ubiquitous even if he hasn't graced the camera with his presence. And though his reputation ought to be in tatters for pushing such demeaning talking points into the mainstream, as it turns out, he has the lead story in this week's New York Times magazine.

The article sidesteps the Sotomayor controversy, preferring instead to define liberalism on the Court in the 21st century, and the term "democratic constitutionalist." But the meta question of "why the hell is the NYT allowing Jeffrey Rosen a platform?" can never be far from the informed reader. Far from being punished or blackballed for his role in trying to destroy the reputation of a soon-to-be sitting Supreme Court Justice, Rosen has been celebrated and promoted. Of course, in the Village, Rosen is "one of us," and Sotomayor is "one of them."

Can Don Perata Return The Money Meant For Party Efforts Now?

Don Perata has been cleared of wrongdoing in an ongoing corruption probe that lasted throughout the Bush Administration and was seen by many as politically motivated.

We have had many problems with Perata, mostly that his terrible leadership contributed to scaring Democrats out of challenging Abel Maldonado and botching the Jeff Denham recall. If we had a real leader who actually sought to win elections instead of making friends or idle threats, and who was successful on both of those fronts, we would have a 2/3 majority in the State Senate today. I'm very glad to have him out of the state legislature. But by and large, corruption issues never made their way into our critique of Perata, and I for one am pleased he has been cleared. You can read the extremely brief letter from the Acting US Attorney here and Perata's statement here.

What we did have a problem with was Perata transferring $1.5 million dollars from a campaign account intended to help elect Democrats and push party issues to his own legal defense fund, one day after the election. The move was not illegal but certainly unethical - if he needed legal defense money he could have raised it for that purpose, and instead he raised money for one ostensible purpose and then used it for himself. I was quoted at the time:

David Dayen, an elected Democratic State Central Committee member from Santa Monica, blogged angrily this summer about his party's contribution to Perata's legal defense fund, contending the money would've been better spent on legislative races. The same goes for Leadership California's money, he said Wednesday; despite a Democratic presidential candidate carrying California by the largest margin since 1936, Democrats netted only three more Assembly seats and none in the state Senate.

"Every time I asked the California Democratic Party about getting more active and involved in local elections, they said the state Senate and the Assembly control those races ... and we don't have a lot of flexibility. So Perata, at that time, and Nunez or Bass had the authority to run those elections," Dayen said. "Now we see what happens when you vest power in these closed loops - suddenly self-interest becomes more important than the good of the party."

He believes this is why Perata didn't step aside as Pro Tem earlier, as Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez relinquished his post to Karen Bass in May: "Darrell Steinberg was sitting there ready to go ... and we were all like, 'What the hell is going on?'

"We speculated it had to be that he still needed the leverage to make the calls to raise money for himself."

So, now that this legal case has wrapped up, let me pose the question - Will Don Perata return the money left in his legal defense fund to accounts intended to elect Democrats? Both the membership of the California Democratic Party and scores of anonymous donors to Leadership California unwittingly seeded his legal campaign. If Perata used all $1.5 million between November and today, I'd like to see the receipts; no court case was ever filed, no depositions taken in the intervening 7 months, no movement whatsoever. Either some lawyers got rich on having donuts or there's a lot of money left over. What's more likely, of course is that Perata will now siphon that money from the legal defense fund into his campaign account for his run to be Oakland's next mayor. In the end, it's all about Don Perata.

That would be a betrayal, and a disservice to those who donated, expecting to help Hannah-Beth Jackson win in SD-19, or to help defeat Proposition 11, the redistricting measure. There's not much of a way to contact Don Perata anymore, though I'm assuming his Oakland Mayor campaign will ramp up soon. He needs to be asked about this pot of money, and why it cannot now be used toward its intended purpose.

UPDATE: Thanks to Josh Richman for updating this:

UPDATE @ 5:25 P.M.: David Dayen at Calitics wants to know if The Don will give back the $1.9 million he diverted from his Leadership California committee – ostensibly created to support Democratic campaigns and causes – into his legal defense fund late last year. (And hey, what about the $450,000 he got from the California Democratic Party?) Fat chance, David… looks as if it’s all gone into lawyers’ pockets by now. At least the Fair Political Practices Commission has now cracked down on these smelly transfers.

I can't believe he blew through all that money. Look out, City of Oakland Treasury! Clearly he was paying off years' worth of debts with that fund. Wow.

CA-03: Gary Davis Announces

Randy Bayne reports that Gary Davis, a member of the Elk Grove City Council, has announced that he will run against Dan Lungren in CA-03. He's unveiled an official campaign website named Davis Beats Lungren, which certainly displays confidence.

Davis also works as the Political Director for EdVoice in addition to serving on the Elk Grove City Council, and was a legislative director for Darrell Steinberg when he served in the State Assembly. EdVoice has lined up on the "reformer" side of the divide inside the Democratic Party over education, supporting charter schools and vouchers, and often raising the ire of teacher's unions. CEOs like Reed Hastings of Netflix and Don Fisher of the Gap fund EdVoice, and they have played in many local races with independent expernditure money. See this very lame EdVoice attack on eventual winner Mariko Yamada used in AD-08 last cycle on behalf of Christopher Cabaldon for an example. Simply put, EdVoice has used deep pockets to try and become a special interest player in Sacramento, with mixed results.

I've been adamant that we need a real candidate in CA-03 to take advantage of this opportunity in that district. I still believe Phil Angelides, who has been unusually active in the special election battle (advocating a No vote, I might add), could make a good fit here. Hopefully, I'll have a chance to talk to Davis in the next couple weeks, but his association with EdVoice doesn't exactly make me leap to the phone to make a donation.

We'll Kill The Campaign AFTER The Checks Clear

Couple thoughts on this George Stephanopoulos story about the Edwards campaign, which may or may not be true, but for the sake of argument, let's assume that it is. George reports that by late December of 2007, many staffers were convinced that Edwards did have the affair, and they devised a strategy to deal with it by denying Edwards the nomination from within. If it looked like he could win the nomination, they prepared themselves to sabotage it.

OK, if this is true, these are horrible, horrible people. You know how you could have sabotaged the campaign? Resigned en masse when you learned about the affair. You didn't have to reveal the reason, but clearly the press would have done the job for you at that point, and even if they learned nothing about that, the narrative of disarray would have set in. Instead, they plotted a "just in case" plan so they could keep collecting their paychecks until the campaign folded. So all those people who sent in money to Edwards' campaign after December were throwing money down the garbage. And these staffers knew it - in fact they had a plan to incinerate that money if Edwards grew too successful. And they were APPEALING to people to make donations, to pay their salaries, without informing anyone that Edwards had no chance of being President and they would ensure that.

What a bunch of weasels. Or, I could say, what a bunch of political consultants. Not much difference.

...Joe Trippi says the report is B.S.

Taking The Exact Wrong Advice

Last week, Robert Cruickshank offered the special election advocates some pretty good advice - focus on Prop. 1C, which covers 83% of the short-term budget hole that can be gained from the passage of the ballot measures, because the state party approved it, because it's the only measure that matters in the near term, and because they need to focus their energies, since very little good is likely to come of the election at this point. Of course, Arnold Schwarzenegger controls the Budget Reform Now Campaign. And he has shown himself to be completely indifferent to the short-term needs of the state in favor of writing a long-term, right-wing spending cap into the state Constitution. Because instead of abandoning all the other measures in favor of 1C, Budget Reform Now has jettisoned everything in favor of 1A & 1B. I saw this ad a couple days ago, out of nowhere, and Budget Reform Now dropped it without a press release. The ad tries to use the 2005 special election imagery which killed Arnold's Prop. 76 (substantially the same proposal) in favor of this spending cap, with the firefighter warning of "$16 billion in cuts" without bothering to mention that those "cuts," really lost revenues, would be two years off. And the new "Yes on 1A and 1B" logo makes an appearance.

I think we can finally figure out what Arnold Schwarzenegger wants from this election. He could care less about the $6 billion in short-term budget solutions - but his corporate partners want that spending cap, and his new pals in the CTA want their out-of-court settlement locked in (it would've cost them less just to take the Governor to court for falsely calculating Prop. 98 revenues, with more of a chance of winning). So all this talk about how we have to vote Yes or the budget hole will grow deeper was a ruse. The Governor clearly supports the deeper budget deficit, or at least he could give a crap with coming up with a solution. He and his Chamber of Commerce puppet masters want that cap. They have wanted it for four years. Anyone lining up with these interests should understand what they really support. Good job, Democratic leadership.

Steele's Got Them Right Where He Wants Them

Michael Steele, last seen arguing that nobody could have anticipated the swine flu, so it's OK for Republicans to have cut flu preparedness money out of the stimulus (because the duty of government is to not anticipate anything), now may get a leash put on him by the party officials who elected him, to their eternal regret:

A battle over control of the party's purse strings has erupted at the troubled Republican National Committee, with defenders of Chairman Michael S. Steele accusing dissident RNC members of trying to "embarrass and neuter" the party's new leader.

Randy Pullen, the RNC's elected treasurer, former RNC General Counsel David Norcross and three other former top RNC officers have presented Mr. Steele with a resolution, calling for a new set of checks and balances on the chairman's power to dole out money.

The powers include new controls on awarding contracts and spending money on outside legal and other services.

If I were a member of the party, I'd want this, actually. Here in California, we saw a grassroots candidate, Hillary Crosby, win the race for Democratic Party Controller over just this issue, the ability to provide meaningful checks to the party over where money should be allocated. To see it in the national Republican Party, which has always been top-down, is striking, and a symbol of just how little control Steele has. His first 100 days have been atrocious, and the party appears to be slinking quietly away from him.

Happy Blogiversary To Me

(bumped to the top for the week. There's new stuff below)

Somehow, I've been doing this blog for five years. I can hardly get my mind around that reality.

As of today, 248,078 people have visited the site, generating 290,957 page views. That's about 110,000 unique visitors this year, which is a new record. The site keeps growing, and I thank every single person who makes this site a part of their day. It's truly an honor.

Last year I ran a little experiment on Blogiversary Week. This hobby takes up a ridiculous amount of my time, and while I'm happy to do my part as an engaged citizen, there's precious little reward for all the time reading, organizing, emailing, and doing the leg work to make this blog happen. I don't do this for money, but I do believe that there is some value here, and maybe you feel the same way.

The donation button in the right-hand column links to my Paypal account. If that doesn't work, my Paypal name is d_dayen-at-yahoo-dot-com...

(I deleted the donate button in this post because it didn't work even though it used the exact same code as the one on the right-hand side. The one in the right-hand column appears to work. Also, you know, my Paypal name.)

I don't want to put on my public radio hat, but if you feel like this is a good place to spend part of your day, consider dropping a few coins in my account. My goal is to outraise Roland Burris' entire fundraising total for the first quarter of this year: $845. I think it's reachable. Ultimately, we have to build models of sustainable activism, so that we have people committed full-time to progressive causes. Fundraising drives for low-dollar donations are an example of how we get there. So I hope you can participate in my funding drive this week. Thanks so much.

dave

SEIU Money Drops Into No on 1A

The SEIU donated $500,000 to the No on 1A campaign, the first truly major expenditure by any group against the ballot measures on May 19. The No on 1A campaign now hold about $1 million in their bank account. While this is dwarfed by the money dumped into the Yes campaign by, among other groups, the CTA, billionaires like Jerry Perenchio, and Chevron, given the attitudes of the electorate even a little money on the No side could be enough to stop the onslaught and tip these measures. Politicos understand this fairly well:

"It just got a lot harder," said Dan Schnur, director of the University of Southern California's Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics and a former Republican strategist.

"The biggest advantage the proponents have had all along is the lack of a well-funded opposition," Schnur said. "Historically, you don't need to outspend ballot measures to beat them, and in a low-turnout election this is a decent amount of money." [...]

"Right now there's a tremendous tendency to reject anything out of Sacramento," said Republican strategist Dave Gilliard.

Good for the SacBee, by the way, for pointing out that Prop. 1A "has a long-term impact and would not directly alter the budget until 2011."

I've been speaking at a lot of grassroots Democratic groups against these measures, purely on the public policy merits, and the overriding sentiment I'm seeing out there lines up with what Dave Gilliard says there. The disconnect between the establishment and the grassroots is truly striking. People don't feel like their concerns have been met, either this year or for the last thirty, really. They see another layer of budget dysfunction forced upon the voters that fails to get at the structural problems. And now, they're starting to see their voices manifested with action, as well as the mother's milk of California politics, money.