FLASHREPORT

Brown Calls on CalPERS and CalSTRS to Divest from Iran

Sacramento-Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today called on the nation's two largest public pension funds-the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the California State Teachers' Retirement System (CalSTRS)-to "honor the state law" that requires them to divest from companies doing business in Iran.

"CalPERS and CalSTRS need to honor the state law requiring them to divest from companies doing business in Iran," Brown said. "It's time for our public pension funds to show some leadership and stop supporting companies that do business with a tyrannical regime."

The California Public Divest from Iran Act was signed into law in October 2007 after the state Senate and Assembly passed the bill by unanimous vote. The law requires CalPERS and CalSTRS to annually report holdings in companies doing business in the defense, nuclear, petroleum, and natural gas industries in Iran and to divest from any company that fails to take substantial action to cease or limit operations in Iran.

Although CalPERS and CalSTRS both filed annual reports at the end of 2009, these reports fail to:

- Explain whether investments in companies with ties to Iran have been reduced;
- Describe when the funds anticipate fully divesting from these companies;
- Summarize investments transferred to funds that exclude these companies; and
- Calculate divestment costs or losses.

The full text of the California Public Divest from Iran Act can be read at: http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/asm/ab_0201-0250/ab_221_bill_20071014_chaptered.pdf

According to the U.S. Department of State's "Country Reports on Terrorism 2008," Iran remains "the most significant state sponsor of terrorism."

CalPERS is the largest public pension fund in the nation with more than 1.6 million members and more than $200 billion in assets. CalSTRS is the largest teachers' retirement fund in the country with 833,000 members and more than $130 billion in assets.

Brown's letters, sent today to CalPERS and CalSTRS, are copied below:

Anne Stausboll
Chief Executive Officer
California Public Employees' Retirement System
Lincoln Plaza East
400 Q Street, Suite E4800
Sacramento, CA 95811

Re: Violations of Iran Act

Dear Ms. Stausboll:

We have reviewed the December 31, 2009 Iran Related Investments - Second Legislative Report issued by the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). Unfortunately, in violation of state law, the report fails to explain why CalPERS continues to invest in companies that do business in Iran.

In 2007, the Legislature enacted the California Public Divest from Iran Act, declaring it "unconscionable for this state to invest in foreign companies with business activities benefiting foreign states such as Iran that commit egregious violations of human rights and sponsor terrorism." This law, commonly called the Iran Act, requires CalPERS to report annually on its holdings in companies that are doing business in the defense, nuclear, petroleum, and natural gas industries in Iran, and to divest from any company that fails to take substantial action to cease or limit its Iranian operations.

Although CalPERS has filed annual reports, these reports lack enough detail to enable the public and CalPERS members to know whether CalPERS is complying with the Iran Act. On page 3 of its most recent report, CalPERS declares that it decided "to not divest shares . . . as specified in the Iran Act." Apparently, this decision was based on a conclusion made by the Board almost a year ago that divestment would violate CalPERS' fiduciary duty to its members. But the report utterly fails to explain how and why this is the case.

In addition, the report fails to include many of the Iran Act's specific reporting requirements. The report merely lists 24 CalPERS holdings that do business in Iran (up four from the last report) and states-without analysis or elaboration-that "substantial progress has been made through the engagement process, in the curtailment and cessation of business operations in Iran." Nothing in these general comments complies with the Iran Act's requirements for CalPERS to explain whether it has reduced its investments in these companies, to describe when it anticipates fully divesting in these companies (or to explain the reasons for not divesting), to summarize investments transferred to funds that exclude these companies, or to calculate divestment costs or losses.

Please let us know as soon as possible what specific actions you plan to take to comply with the provisions of the Iran Act.

Sincerely,

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

--------

Jack Ehnes
Chief Executive Officer
California State Teachers' Retirement System
100 Waterfront Place
Post Office Box 15275
Sacramento, CA 95851-0275

RE: Violation of Iran Act

Dear Mr. Ehnes:

We have reviewed the December 31, 2009 Response to Iran Risk Report issued by the California State Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS). Unfortunately, in violation of state law, the report fails to explain why CalSTRS continues to invest in companies that do business in Iran.

In 2007, the Legislature enacted the California Public Divest from Iran Act, declaring it "unconscionable for this state to invest in foreign companies with business activities benefiting foreign states such as Iran that commit egregious violations of human rights and sponsor terrorism." This law, commonly called the Iran Act, requires CalSTRS to report annually on its holdings in companies that are doing business in the defense, nuclear, petroleum, and natural gas industries in Iran, and to divest from any company that fails to take substantial action to cease or limit its Iranian operations.

Although CalSTRS has filed annual reports, these reports lack enough detail to enable the public and CalSTRS members to know whether CalSTRS is complying with the Iran Act. The most recent report refers to several lists of companies with varying degrees of ties to Iran. The report neither identifies all of the companies nor states which ones are actually held by CalSTRS.

Nothing in the report complies with the Iran Act's requirements for CalSTRS to explain whether it has reduced its investments in companies with ties to Iran, to describe when it anticipates fully divesting in these companies (or to explain the reasons for not divesting), to summarize investments transferred to funds that exclude these companies, or to calculate divestment costs or losses.

Please let us know as soon as possible what specific actions you plan to take to comply with the provisions of the Iran Act.

Sincerely,

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.

The Oceanside Analysis... Voters in the City of Oceanside recently turned back a labor-fed attempt to recall Councilmember Jerry Kern, who fueled the contempt of the unions for touting fiscal responsibility.  Now, the San Diego County Taxpayers Association has released an analysis of the fiscal problems in the city, concluding, "Generous increases in employee pension benefits coupled with lower than projected revenues are at the heart of the City of Oceanside's municipal budget quandary."  Read all the details and download the reports (link to the Oceanside item under News and Highlights)...

Taxpayers Association Analysis Pinpoints Cause of Oceanside Municipal Budget Deficit

Napping in the 77th Assembly District... A few readers didn't agree with my "ridicule" the other day of the lackluster fundraising by the field in Assemblyman Joel Anderson's seat (see prior post), responding to me that no one will be able to raise dollars until the incumbent officially says he'll be running for Senate.

The post was of course meant as "inspiration" to the candidates, not as a chastisement.  The three major contenders -- Brian Jones, Christine Rubin and Bill Wells -- each raised in the neighborhood of $25,000.  Each decided to announce and start campaigning prior to Anderson making his intentions formal, because none of them could afford to wait, needing to raise bucks in the interim. Anderson should have no problem with them fundraising, as they are all on record they won't be running if he were to seek re-election. So, that leaves the rightful assumption that no donor wants to appear to be contributing against a sitting incumbent. Thus, I understand some of the small bankroll, but not all of it. I would think that sitting officeholders would be doing better at this point....and, I am letting them know!

Yet, Does Money Matter so Much?... The blogs slay me, but there seems to be more of a contention in comments on various political blogs in recent months that money somehow isn't so important anymore, as the political climate has changed the landscape and candidates with little funding, but lots of concern for freedom-loving citizens will do well.  Puh-leaze.

The number of candidates over the years that told me that they weren't going to raise a lot of money because they didn't want to be beholden to anyone...I can place that number in the several dozen. The number of them that actually won...I can count on one hand. The political landscape is littered with the carcasses of those that "thought" they could win without having the resources to get a message to the voters. Yes, I know, the landscape has changed and candidates all over are going to win because of mass voter frustration and the tea party movement, right?  Those things are substantial, dependent on the race, but in most cases -- like always -- it will be those candidates helping themselves that will be further bolstered by sentiments and movements, not those doing little for themselves and expecting a movement to carry them to victory.

Waking Up in the 78th Assembly District... In Democratic Assemblyman Marty Block's district, previously held by Republican Shirley Horton, the incumbent may not be able to nap.  GOPers Rick Powell, a retired Army Colonel who served in Iraq, and La Mesa-Spring Valley School Board Member Emma Turner, have both taken out initial paperwork to vie for the seat.  Jim Sills has the news at San Diego Rostra...

No Free Ride for Martin Block

CalPERS Thumbing Its Nose at Legislature on Iran, Sudan Divestment... Many FlashReport readers will remember Assemblyman Anderson's AB 221 a couple of years ago that banned the State's two huge retirement systems, CalPERS and CalSTRS, from investments in Iran.  Now law, the legislation mirrored a previous Paul Koretz bill that similarly forced divestiture of the retirement systems in Sudan.  So, how is that all going, you may ask?

San Diego CityBeat says not so well.  CalPERS has said pound sand, even if not of the Iranian and Sudanese desert variety.  In a great piece, Dave Maass writes, "Now, California has more money tied to Sudan and Iran than it did before the legislation was enacted to curtail these investments."  This is really worth the read, especially as an example of how a large, virtually self-funded bureaucracy can defy the law and get away with it...

Trading the blame: CalPERS bucks the state Legislature by profiting off Iran and Sudan

Tweet of the Week... "Global warming rampage continues as Washington DC is buried in snow." -Ron Nehring

Have a super Sunday and a great week.  Go Saints!

###

Barry's prior entries

On Twitter

Although I might put it a tad more tactfully then "Criticus" did on San Diego Rostra this morning (see Campaign Money in Assembly 77 Race), the overall message is similar for those vying in the open Joel Anderson State Assembly seat:

Uhhhh, you'd better step it up.  That is, if you want to be taken seriously.

Liking and trusting more than one of them, I stated several months ago that my support for any particular candidate may be dependent on how they are doing financially at the end of the 2009.  

First sign that none may be doing very well?  Easy.  No press releases or early touting of financial disclosures.  I had to wait all of January.

The jury is still out.  Plus, getting hungry and irritable.  The reports speak very...ummm...quietly:

Santee Councilman Brian Jones
Raised - $22,625.00
Cash on Hand - $20,878.96

Christine Rubin
Raised - $26,891.00
Cash on Hand - $7,112.34

El Cajon Councilman Bill Wells
Raised -  $24,294.00
Cash on Hand - $13,313.47

I would take a nap now, but a little more to report, in that the fourth previously announced Republican candidate, former school trustee Jeff Kover, has dropped out of the 77th race...

Dear Friends,

Due to personal and professional obligations that cannot be set aside, I am withdrawing from the race for the 77th Assembly seat.  The events of this past month have made me realize more than ever that my primary obligations of being a high school vice-principal and a husband and father don't always allow the time necessary to devote to an active and successful campaign.

I am heartened by and grateful to all who have endorsed my campaign and supported it.  To all who gave advice, money, and time, thank you.  I am also encouraged that regardless of the outcome of this race, the East County will continue to have a strong conservative voice in Sacramento.  My best wishes go to all of the candidates.

Sincerely,

Jeff Kover

8:30 am Update:  Here is the Fox News take.  See Jim Lacy's blog post here on FR as well.

From the AP (click for the link)...

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on business efforts to influence federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said companies can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed.

"The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach," Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

Strongly disagreeing, Justice John Paul Stevens said in his dissent, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens' dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year's midterm congressional elections.

"It's the Super Bowl of bad decisions," said Common Cause president Bob Edgar, a former congressman from Pennsylvania.

The decision removes limits on independent expenditures that are not coordinated with candidates' campaigns.

The case does not affect political action committees, which mushroomed after post-Watergate laws set the first limits on contributions by individuals to candidates. Corporations, unions and others may create PACs to contribute directly to candidates, but they must be funded with voluntary contributions from employees, members and other individuals, not by corporate or union treasuries.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas joined Kennedy to form the majority in the main part of the case.

Roberts, in a separate opinion, said that upholding the limits would have restrained "the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy."

Stevens complained that those justices overreached by throwing out earlier Supreme Court decisions that had not been at issue when this case first came to the court.

"Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law," Stevens said.

The case began when a conservative group, Citizens United, made a 90-minute movie that was very critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton as she sought the Democratic presidential nomination. Citizens United wanted to air ads for the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it through video-on-demand services on local cable systems during the 2008 Democratic primary campaign.

But federal courts said the movie looked and sounded like a long campaign ad, and therefore should be regulated like one.

The movie was advertised on the Internet, sold on DVD and shown in a few theaters. Campaign regulations do not apply to DVDs, theaters or the Internet.

The court first heard arguments in March, then asked for another round of arguments about whether corporations and unions should be treated differently from individuals when it comes to campaign spending.

The justices convened in a special argument session in September, Sotomayor's first. The conservative justices gave every indication then that they were prepared to take the steps they did on Thursday.

The justices, with only Thomas in dissent, did uphold McCain-Feingold requirements that anyone spending money on political ads must disclose the names of contributors.

A Great Choice for Haiti Relief... With the tragic devastation in Haiti on just about everyone's mind, many may still be deciding how they can help.  There are of course several outstanding entities through which contributions can be sent.  If anyone is looking for a homegrown organization with very low overhead and a great track record, California-based Rescue Task Force has my highest recommendation.

Started in 1988, RTF was led for many years by two Congressman Duncan L. Hunter staff members.  Wendell Cutting passed away a few years ago, but many will remember him from his days as mayor of San Jacinto, president of California Republican Assembly, and -- more recently -- Hunter's Congressional district director. Cutting is branded in the San Diego area as the namesake of a handful of continuing awards, given annually to those in the community exemplifying humanitarian efforts and high ethical standards.

RTF continues its relief efforts under the leadership of founder Gary Becks and his daughter Andrea Stone, in most cases with Becks and/or volunteers going directly to the stricken areas and Stone coordinating the delivery of relief supplies and contributions.  Here is a Friday's RTF press release, including donation information...

Rescue Task Force Sending a Team to Haiti

The cries for help have been heard...We are on our way!!!

Rescue Task Force's (RTF) "boots-on-the-ground" team a will be leaving for Haiti on Monday, January 18th, 2010. RTF's veteran volunteer Darryl Hall along with Chris Simmons, Jose Garcia and John McRae are packing up their gear and heading into the devastated Port-au-Prince to bring some much needed immediate relief.

The immediate needs the first few days after mother nature strikes are a given - basic food, water, shelter, sanitation along with anti diarrhea medicines and Tylenol. Within days disease and cholera set in and the needs change quickly. RTF there, on the ground, will assess the needs, purchase the supplies and do direct distribution.

Your donations help hand-to-hand - Your hand to our hand to their hand. Working with our local in-country volunteers the support will go to those who need the help the most. Please help us help those that are hurting right now.  Please help to save a life.

Online donations: http://www.wer-us.org/haiti-RFT-donation.htm or

Send Checks to:
Rescue Task Force
2270 Camino Vida Roble, Suite K
Carlsbad, CA 92011
760-930-9089

For media contact
Andrea Stone
Tel: 760-930-8001
Cel: 619-991-3669
Email: andrea@rescuetaskforce.org

###

Congrats to Martin Garrick!... In case you missed it somehow, since the news did break as the weekend was unfolding, San Diego's own 74th District Assemblyman Martin Garrick has locked down the votes to be the next Assembly Republican leader.  All the best to him!  Here is Jon Fleischman's FlashReport post from yesterday, as well as an entry at SDRostra by Jim Sills...

FR: Martin Garrick Secures Votes For Assembly GOP Leader

SDRostra: Garrick may be Next Republican Leader in State Assembly

Global Warming: The Other Side... San Diego's KUSI-TV has long been known for its independent and sometimes quirky news personalities, but last week the station took "willingness to go against the flow" to a new level.  KUSI ran an hour-long Thursday night special report by its meteorologist John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, calling into question the science of man-made global warming.

Link to video of Global Warming: The Other Side.

One local reporter remarked on Twitter, "KUSI has allocated a prime-time hour (9-10pm) so John Coleman can 'debunk' climate change. This is what's wrong with San Diego."

Wow.  Seldom a day goes by in which the media and society at large aren't filled with very one-sided messages and images about the subject.  Yet, a news station provides one-hour of an alternative viewpoint on the science of climate change...and that's "what's wrong"?

Is a quirky, independent TV news outlet really that much of a threat?  Or could it be that the real threat is people having access to both sides of the issue, so they can come to their own conclusions?

"Overheard on the Street"... After the news broke a couple of days ago that Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-75) -- while out for a mid-day run in Sacramento -- stopped to talk someone out of suicide, a few folks simply couldn't resist the irony.  At San Diego Rostra, the site administrator quipped...

At the risk of being glib about a serious situation (but we'll take that risk), SD Rostra could not confirm that Fletcher was also heard to say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you," as well as "You think you've got it bad...I'm a California State legislator."

A commenter followed with...

No doubt that as a Republican legislator in Sacramento Fletcher could empathize with a depressed, disenfranchised person.

That said, have a great week!  Go Chargers!

###

Barry on Twitter

The whole issue of providing water stations or at least strategically placed water bottles in the desert for illegal border crossers from Mexico is an interesting dichotomy.  Some view the effort as akin to abetting an illegal activity, others as simply keeping people from dying from dehydration in the hot and rough terrain north of the border.  

Realistically, it's a bit of both.  

Many are more focused on what they view as the compassion side of the question than they are the unlawful activity.  Former Congressman Duncan L. Hunter, he and his family certainly not known for a stance in support of open borders, even has a brother involved in providing water for border crossers.  John Hunter is often quoted in news stories on the issue.

Similar to debates over needle exchange programs -- philosophically, at least -- it's no different than apologizing for any illegal activity within the context of "settling" for what many believe will take place anyway, like it or not.  The message seems to be clear: People will break the law in a particular arena, so as long as they will be doing so, they might as well not die in the process.  

For some, the comparison between drug addiction and border crossing may end with the question of fault.  "It's not their fault they are simply striving for a better life," is the typical refrain, "and they have no idea what they will face in a dangerous border crossing by foot."

So, faculty members at the University of California at San Diego are now taking "compassion" to the next level, as they develop a GPS phone device to assist border crossers.  Here are some excerpts from the December 29 10News story...

A group of California artists wants Mexicans and Central Americans to have more than just a few cans of tuna and a jug of water for their illegal trek through the harsh desert into the U.S.

Faculty at University of California, San Diego are developing a GPS-enabled cell phone that tells dehydrated migrants where to find water. It also pipes in poetry from phone speakers, regaling them on their journey much like Emma Lazarus' words did a century ago to the "huddled masses yearning to breathe free" on Ellis Island.

The Transborder Immigrant Tool is part technology endeavor, part art project. It introduces a high-tech twist to an old debate about how far activists can go to prevent migrants from dying on the border without breaking the law.

The designers -- three visual artists on UCSD's faculty and an English professor at the University of Michigan -- are undeterred as they criticize a U.S. policy they say embraces illegal immigrants for cheap labor while letting them die crossing the border.

The effort is being done on the government's dime -- an irony not lost on the designers whose salaries are paid by the state of California.

"There are many, many areas in which every American would say I don't like the way my tax dollars are being spent. Our answer to that is an in-your-face, so what?" says UCSD lecturer Brett Stalbaum, 33, a self-described news junkie who likens his role to chief technology officer.

The designers want to load inexpensive phones with GPS software that takes signals from satellite, independent of phone networks. Pressing a menu button displays water stations, with the distance to each. A user selects one and follows an arrow on the screen.

The designers, who have raised $15,000 from a UCSD grant and an art festival award, hope to hand out phones for free in Mexico. The phones sell used for about $30 apiece. It costs nothing to add the GPS software.

Perhaps many illegal border crossers really don't have a clear picture of the dangers of such a desert trek.

Yet, compassion aside for a moment, they do know it's unlawful.  That's something even the most rabid apologists have to admit, whether they like the laws of the United States or not.  After all, if border crossers didn't know their effort was illegal, why attempt a remote desert crossing?  The answer is obvious.

Only a zealot cannot see the clear dichotomy in that.

Speaking of a dichotomy, in this case the zealots clearly understand the illegality of the situation, in the midst of brazenly making a mockery of the laws they don't like, all while openly using the dollars provided by the very entity that put the laws in place.  And, as long as the law-making entity does nothing about it, we will continue to read such stories and shake our heads in disbelief.
____

Albeit a bit late, a Happy New Year to all of you!
____

Barry on Twitter

When we broke the news on FlashReport last July that Steve Danon was in the race for San Diego County Supervisor in 2012 -- whether or not incumbent Pam Slater-Price would seek her own sixth term in the Third District -- some political watchers raised eyebrows about the timing.  After all, the election was still three years away.

However, Danon's apparent "early foray" has done nothing to hurt him, it seems.  His campaign is attracting support from a mix of influentials that haven't shown a willingness to oppose a sitting supervisor since perhaps the mid-1980s.  In fact, Danon could be demonstrating more progress in a 2012 effort than some of the current challengers are displaying in this year's races.

No surprise that Danon has the support of his boss, Congressman Brian Bilbray.  It was also announced several weeks ago that the Deputy Sheriffs' Association was backing him (early even for them).

As the press release below notes, Danon is garnering some additional support.  Campaign statements will show the chairs of both the Lincoln Club and New Majority providing maximum contributions to him.  Encinitas Mayor Dan Dalager and Councilman Jerome Stocks are both on board.  It should be noted that it was previously speculated that Stocks may be a candidate in the race.

Father Joe Carroll, a local icon if there is one, has also endorsed Danon.

Let's be fair.  Some will question the strength of early endorsements in a campaign for supervisor, especially against a formidable incumbent.  Supervisor Slater-Price, who says she will indeed be running, is no pansy in the support arena herself.  That includes a proven ability to raise money, lots of it.

Yet, this early momentum on the part of Danon means we may see the first truly competitive race for supervisor since...well...since before even I cared about such things.

Here's the release...

Third District Supervisorial Candidate Steve Danon Announces Key Endorsements and New Fundraising Numbers

Carmel Valley - Third District San Diego County Supervisorial candidate Steve Danon announced today the endorsements of local Congressman Brian Bilbray (CD-50), Mayor Danny Dalager (D-Encinitas), Councilman and Vice Chairman of SANDAG Jerome Stocks (R-Encinitas), Father Joe Carroll and the Deputy Sheriffs' Association of San Diego County representing more than 2,400 sheriff deputies.

"With more than 29 months left until the primary, I am honored to have such a prominent group of supporters who have been at the forefront of fighting for North County for decades," Danon said.  "To have a local coalition come forward to support me so early says a lot about the kind of changes our community believes we need to make."

Coming into 2010, Danon's campaign has surpassed expectations, raising close to $30,000 ($28,205) from individual contributors throughout the region without having a single fundraising event. Some of Steve's notable supporters are Chairman of the New Majority Joel Reed and President of the Lincoln Club Tom Sudberry.

"I'm very humbled by the support and by the momentum that the campaign is gaining," said Danon.  "My campaign is about reaching out to every community and neighborhood so that for the first time, in a long time, the residents of the Third District have a real voice at the Board of Supervisors.  Working together, we can create and retain jobs, support the creation of a Regional Firefighting Authority, crackdown on illegal immigration and improve health care access to the 374,000 county residents who do not have insurance," continued Danon.

###

I have written in the past about how the City of San Diego's campaign finance laws go far beyond those included in the California Political Reform Act.  On top of this, add a City Ethics Commission that oftentimes takes "interpretation" into its own hands, seemingly becoming a policy-making entity instead of a regulatory body that is supposed to simply apply and enforce the already restrictive local laws.

When the fledgling candidate can't even begin to compete for a city position due to the costly need for professional treasurer, accountancy and campaign software assistance, that marks only the beginning of the problems with the city regs.  What of campaigning for a seat a couple of years or more in advance if one so chooses?  Seems like a fundamental right if you ask even the distant observer.  It's not.

As a Charter City, does San Diego have the authority to restrict campaign activity in such a manner as to exceed that regulated by the State's Fair Political Practices Commission?  Good question.  Charter cities do indeed have the authority for localized restrictions in several areas, but when it comes to State Law in the campaign finance arena, who has the answer?

What we have in the City of San Diego is a series of campaign laws long ripe for a challenge on First Amendment grounds.  Yet, what candidates have ever wanted to take on those laws at the risk of being perceived in the media -- and at the hands of opponents -- as wanting to loosen restrictions on "those bad politicians" in general (and themselves specifically)?  Not many, if any at all.

Well, it's the middle of winter, but it appears a few folks are stepping up to the plate...

PRESS RELEASE
Monday, December 28, 2009
Contact: James Bopp, Jr.
Phone: 812/232-2434; Fax: 812/235-3685; jboppjr@aol.com

San Diego's Campaign Finance Law Challenged in Federal Court
  
Last week, a coalition of plaintiffs asked a federal court to grant a preliminary injunction to keep  San Diego from enforcing campaign finance laws that violate the First Amendment. One of the plaintiffs, Phil Thalheimer, wants to be able to spend his own money to announce his run for City Council, yet he is prohibited by the law from so much as mailing a letter that even implies he might be a candidate. Another plaintiff, Lincoln Club, wants to be able to spend as much of its own money as it wants for independent expenditures—that is, spending that is made totally without any coordination with any candidate, while plaintiff Associated Builders and Contractors PAC wants to be able to spend money it raises from its supporting businesses for independent expenditures.  Plaintiff John Nienstedt, meanwhile, wants to be able to give more than $500 to the candidates he supports.  And, the Republican Party wants to be able to contribute money to its candidates' campaigns, and make coordinated expenditures on their behalf.  Yet, San Diego's laws prohibit each of these plaintiffs from engaging in these activities.
 
James Bopp, Jr., lead counsel in the suit, stated, "Each of the challenged laws violates the rights guaranteed to all Americans under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has made clear that candidates should never be told that they cannot spend their own money to support their campaign. Nor should any political party be told that they cannot support their own candidates. The Supreme Court has said that groups that want to spend money independent of candidates have the right to spend as much as they want.  And, the contribution limits of $500 are lower than any the Supreme Court has ever found constitutional.  These laws infringe on the rights of all citizens of San Diego."
 
Mr. Bopp further explained that while the plaintiff organizations tend to be pro-business, if the court declares the law unconstitutional, it will benefit labor as well.  Similarly, if the court decides that the Republican Party should be able to contribute to its own candidates, other political parties will be able to, also.  Mr. Bopp commented, "This is not a lawsuit that will only benefit conservatives. If the court agrees that these laws are unconstitutional, all San Diego's citizens will be able to exercise their First Amendment rights."

###
 
James Bopp, Jr. has a national federal and state election law practice. He is General Counsel for the James Madison Center for Free Speech and former Co-Chairman of the Election Law Subcommittee of the Federalist Society.

Service Employees Solely Bankroll San Diego County Supe Term Limits Effort... Jim Sills of SD Rostra breaks the news yesterday that the entire $250 grand raised so far to qualify a term limits initiative for County Supervisors has come from either the local chapter of SEIU or its State PAC.  It is of course no surprise that labor is pushing the measure; perhaps the surprise is that SEIU hasn't bothered to raise any funds from outside sources.  

Uhhh, and perhaps that's no surprise either.

In his SD Rostra piece, Sills creatively paraphrases Winston Churchill with, "Never have so few, donated So Much, for So Little."  He points out the apparent "philosophical disconnect," as only a year ago SEIU contributed $2,200,000 in support of Proposition 93 to overturn state term limits.

So, why the dichotomy?  Does SEIU oppose or support term limits?  Read Sills' piece here.

Fleischman: Join SEIU in Supporting County Supe Term Limits?... On the heels of the news of SEIU's most recent display of its largesse, FlashReport Publisher Jon Fleischman last night submitted a provocative guest column to SD Rostra.  Some excerpts:

"I question why there are some Republicans out there who seem to be concerned or upset that some unions have coughed up some cash to place a term limits measure on the ballot for San Diego County Supervisors.  To this I say, "THANK YOU!"

"For a long time now, it has been Democrats who have opposed term limits, because Democrats believe in elected offices being life-long careers with lucrative pay and lavish pension benefits.  Republicans have long said that people elected to public office should return back to the private sector, where they can lives under the laws that they have created.

"We should not let unions, or Democrats, co-opt "our" issue in San Diego.  Sure, it may be union dollars that have placed this measure on the ballot ... but when "they" come 100% around to our position on an issue - then we should claim victory."

Read the entire Fleischman column.

Speaking of Labor, one word: Oceanside... One of the most controversial recall efforts in San Diego County history will come to its conclusion on Tuesday, when voters go to the polls in the City of Oceanside to cast a ballot in the Firefighters Assocations-led effort against Councilman Jerry Kern.

As cities grapple with budget constraints throughout the state, this election could very well set the tone as to what may happen to local elected officials who stand up and honestly say, "We don't have the money."  Will they be supported by an electorate that understands the reality of the economy and currently unsustainable public employee salaraies and pensions?  Or, will the unions be able to replace them with those of their choosing?

Here is today's Union-Trib wrap-up article on the Oceanside battle.

For some addtional background, see some SD Rostra entries on the recall election.

County Employee Gets Six-Figure Salary -- To Stay Home... Just wondering aloud here if any of our elected representatives on the SD County Board of Education are willing to talk about this...or maybe even do something about it?  If so, please contact me at barry@flashreport.org.  

Read the 10News I-Team story.

My Political Thought for the Week... The guaranteed way to end corruption in politics? No longer elect human beings to public office.

Have a great week!

In the weeks and months ahead we will likely be hearing much about the "Manhattan Declaration," a 4,700 word document released Friday, signed by several leading Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians, united in efforts to "reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good" and calling upon their fellow citizen to join in the defense of:

-The sanctity of human life.

-The dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife.

-The rights of conscience and religious liberty.

Anyone can now go to www.manhattandeclaration.org and sign on as well.  It will be interesting to see which politicians are willing to be included.

Of the over 150 original signers, the following are from California (note that the FlashReport's own Frank Schubert is included)..

Pastor Randy & Sarah Brannon
Senior Pastor, Grace Community Church (Madera)

Most Rev. Salvatore Joseph Cordileone
Bishop, Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland

Dinesh D'Souza
Writer and Speaker (Rancho Santa Fe)

Stuart Epperson
Co-Founder and Chariman of the Board, Salem Communications Corporation (Camarillo)

Dr. Jim Garlow
Senior Pastor, Skyline Church (La Mesa)

Dr. Cornell "Corkie" Haan
National Facilitator of Spiritual Unity, The Mission America Coalition (Palm Desert)

Most Rev. George Dallas McKinney
Bishop, Founder and Pastor, St. Stephen's Church of God in Christ (San Diego)

Frank Schubert
President, Schubert Flint Public Affairs (Sacramento)

Dr. Sarah Sumner
Professor of Theology and Ministry, Azusa Pacific University (Azusa)

Joni Eareckson Tada
Founder and CEO, Joni and Friends International Disability Center (Agoura Hills)

An excerpt from the Declaration...

In recent decades a growing body of case law has paralleled the decline in respect for religious values in the media, the academy and political leadership, resulting in restrictions on the free exercise of religion. We view this as an ominous development, not only because of its threat to the individual liberty guaranteed to every person, regardless of his or her faith, but because the trend also threatens the common welfare and the culture of freedom on which our system of republican government is founded. Restrictions on the freedom of conscience or the ability to hire people of one's own faith or conscientious moral convictions for religious institutions, for example, undermines the viability of the intermediate structures of society, the essential buffer against the overweening authority of the state, resulting in the soft despotism Tocqueville so prophetically warned of. Disintegration of civil society is a prelude to tyranny.

As Christians, we take seriously the Biblical admonition to respect and obey those in authority. We believe in law and in the rule of law. We recognize the duty to comply with laws whether we happen to like them or not, unless the laws are gravely unjust or require those subject to them to do something unjust or otherwise immoral. The biblical purpose of law is to preserve order and serve justice and the common good; yet laws that are unjust—and especially laws that purport to compel citizens to do what is unjust—undermine the common good, rather than serve it.

The statement ends with these words...

We will fully and ungrudgingly render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But under no circumstances will we render to Caesar what is God's.

For all of the details on the Manhattan Declaration, here again is the link...

http://www.manhattandeclaration.org/

Jim Duffy, Candidate for San Diego County Sheriff, Leads in the Polls

SAN DIEGO -  If the election were held today, Jim Duffy, candidate for San Diego County Sheriff, wins, according to a 10News poll conducted by SurveyUSA.

Among likely voters who have made up their minds, Duffy leads over his nearest challenger by 17%, 41% to 24%.

"Voters realize I am the only law enforcement candidate with real and recent experience," Duffy said.

The Duffy family has been involved in law enforcement in San Diego County for five decades.

"I am encouraged by this support, but understand it is early and will continue to earn the voters' confidence. Our message of keeping the citizens of San Diego County safe and being fiscally efficient and prudent seems to be resonating," Duffy continued.

Duffy leads in every demographic category, including race, age, income level, gender, and party affiliation.

Among 403 likely voters, Jim Duffy leads with 24%. Bill Gore and Jay LaSuer trail with 14% each. Bruce Ruff received 5% with 42% undecided.

# # #

Following yesterday's breaking news by Andrew Breitbard's BigGovernment.com that a San Diego ACORN official was recently caught on tape claiming a whitewash by Attorney General Jerry Brown's office of the ongoing investigation of the organization (also hilited on today's FR mainpage), the Republican Party of San Diego County today demanded answers.  

Chairman Tony Krvaric shot off a letter to Brown, as well as hand delivered a letter to the local ACORN office in National City.  The KGTV Channel 10 video of today's GOP activities sums up the entire story very nicely (make sure you click on the video to the right of the linked page)...

http://www.10news.com/news/21588591/detail.html

Krvaric had the following to say...

We can recall the appalling videos from the National City office of ACORN, where an employee was caught on tape seemingly offering to assist with human smuggling of under-age girls across the border for the purposes of child prostitution. That incident was just the latest sad example of alleged misconduct by ACORN employees in offices throughout the United States, including at least two known instances here in California.

On the heels of the undercover videos of the alleged misconduct by ACORN in California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, as well as the local San Diego County Board of Supervisors called on Attorney General Jerry Brown to conduct a full investigation into the allegations. Subsequently, a spokesman for Jerry Brown stated that "we're going to look at the tapes, we're going to follow the facts without fear or favor, and we're going to see where it takes us."

However, in an audio recording obtained by BigGovernment.com, from an East County Democratic Club meeting at a Coco's restaurant in El Cajon back on October 15th, ACORN organizer David Lagstein makes statements which raise several serious issues regarding the integrity of the investigation and communications and/or agreements between ACORN representatives and investigators in the Attorney General's office.

On the tape, Mr. Lagstein asserts that he has been in contact with the AG's office and suggests that they have been assured that "the fault will be found with the people that did the video - not ACORN." Mr. Lagstein is also heard claiming that a serious investigation is "completely not what's happening." In words and in tone, Mr. Lagstein appears to suggest that Attorney General Jerry Brown would turn a blind eye to ACORN's alleged misdeeds and focus instead on the actions of the individuals who uncovered those misdeeds.

With that as background, we have formally presented letters to both Attorney General Jerry Brown and ACORN organizer David Lagstein, demanding answers as to the state of the investigation, whether any communication between the two has been promissory in nature, and the basis upon which Mr. Lagstein made his comments.

Californians are entitled to know that their Attorney General is conducting an honest, thorough, and unprejudiced inquiry into the very serious allegations of misconduct by ACORN,and that the target of the inquiry is fully cooperating with the investigation - not colluding with the AG's office to stymie it.

Here as well are links to the letters sent by the party...

Letter to the AG

Letter to ACORN

I attended the annual Grossmont Hospital Foundation gala last night while Congressional voting was taking place on healthcare.  Some say it wasn't a good night for hospitals to celebrate, but the Grossmont event was scheduled long ago and Nancy Pelosi didn't ask about any scheduling conflicts.

Any night that the community comes together and significant funds are raised for a local hospital from hundreds of generous donors -- the Feds not included -- it's a good time to celebrate.

It remains to be seen how difficult such private efforts may become in the future.  In the meantime, some area GOP voices on the healthcare vote:

California Republican Chairman Ron Nehring...
California's 19 Republican Members of Congress tonight stood together on the side of the American people and against a giant, costly new health care bureaucracy that will transfer decisions about Americans' health out of the hands of patients and doctors and into thousands of bureaucrats' little cubicles in Washington D.C. ... Tonight's vote demonstrates Democrats have no interest in learning the lessons of the 2009 elections that gave Republicans control of two governor's offices plus many state and local government posts.  As the Democrats lurch further to the left, we'll seize the opportunity to teach those same lessons again in 2010.

Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-52)...
The Democratic health care bill puts an enormous burden on workers, businesses and, worse, future generations.  This proposal is nothing more than a partisan power-grab that will unfairly disadvantage the very Americans it's meant to help ... We can certainly achieve responsible reform without imposing a government takeover of our nation's health care system.  There is a real chance to enact meaningful reform but this opportunity is being wasted on a plan that will lead to higher taxes, reduce the quality of care and compound already record debt levels.

Congressman Darrell Issa (R-49)...
This 2,000 page, 1.3 trillion dollar bill will cost Americans more jobs, add to an exploding Federal deficit, make it more lucrative for trial lawyers to sue doctors, and take away health care choice.  At the same time, it won't control the growing cost of health care.  The American people are opposed to this flawed bill and I expect they will hold those who ignored their concerns accountable.

Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-50)...
The bill, written in backrooms and closed-door meetings that shut out the American public, carries a heavy price tag. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the non-partisan congressional agency that provides economic analysis, projects the true cost of the bill to the American taxpayer as more than $1 trillion. Since that projection, H.R. 3962 supporters have added more programs, and the bill has bloated to $1.2 trillion...$300 billion more than President Obama's $900 billion goal. The CBO has also said that H.R. 3962 will cost America more in the long run than if we kept the current broken system in place. Recently, the CBO estimated our 2009 federal budget deficit at $1.6 trillion (or 11.2 percent of our Gross Domestic Product—the highest since WWII) and a ten-year projected budget deficit of $9 trillion. That begs the question: How will America pay for the Affordable Health Care for Americans Act?

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R-46), via Twitter...
When the Berlin Wall came down 20 years ago, we made the mistake thinking that socialism was defeated.

By the way, all of the above was easily culled from their respective websites and/or press releases sent out following last night's vote.  I had intended to also toss in a fair representation from the Democrats representing San Diego County and the State Party.  Nothing yet.  Here are the links, in case their websites are updated to reflect anything they have to say on the matter...

California Democratic Party

Congressman Bob Filner

Congresswoman Susan Davis

Have a great week.  Here's to your health!