FLASHREPORT

Last week Democrat consultant Robin Swanson dubbed me Jon “Sherlock Holmes” Fleischman for outing Jerry Brown’s potentially illegal secret meeting with an organized labor boss. That same labor boss is currently providing funding for one of the independent union efforts attacking Meg Whitman and the law requires that no coordination occur. You can read more about it here, but I digress.

Given my new moniker, I now bring you The Case of the Vanishing Tweet.

Last Friday, Jerry Brown tweeted:

“ @JerryBrown2010 <http://twitter.com/JerryBrown2010/status/22299760434> : Going to the farmers market this weekend? Read about their history in CA, and my role in the eat local movement: http://bit.ly/cCqgBN”

I went back today to find that tweet so I could write today’s post, and lo and behold, the tweet was gone. But I think I know why. (I had to find it in one of the cache files.) In this article, Jerry Brown called the internet an aspect “of a degenerate economic system.”

So Jerry Brown may not want to share this with you anymore (and I can’t say that I blame him), but I thought I would. Here’s the entire Q and A with the Seasonal Chef and the full question and answer excerpted below. (emphasis added)

Seasonal Chef: Haven't multinational corporations created many things, such as personal computers, that have helped lots of ordinary people?
 
Brown: Yes, and they gave us Windows 95-and you have to go out and spend another thousand bucks to make it all efficient. It's another form of addiction.
 
Sure, I have computers. [He points toward a computer flickering on a nearby desk.] I like computers. I like the Internet. It's a tool that can be used. But don't be misled into thinking that these technologies are anything other than aspects of a degenerate economic system.

But I think I can solve this case. It’s another instance where Jerry Brown does not seem to understand what drives California’s economy. It’s amazing that a candidate vying to resurrect California would go-so-far as bemoan the benefits of perhaps the state’s biggest economic engine. It’s like running to be Governor of Wisconsin and attacking cheese-making. In 1996, he stuck his foot in his mouth in the interview, did it again in 2010 by linking to that article and then tried to erase it.

Elementary, my dear Watson.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 2010 is shaping up to be a very good year for Republicans.  Every day there is another article that talks about it (here is today's in The Hill) -- and it should come as no shock to lawmakers of either party that the reason for this trend shift away from Democrats and to the GOP is because of overreach. 

Most of the political factors that go into voter decision-making are geared around the national political scene -- where Democrats are reeling from a hard-left push.  Whether you look at Obamacare (and its significant costs), whether you look at the federal so-called "stimulus" spending which isn't helping the private sector economy as much as it has been a boondoggle to support the public sector, or whether you look to efforts to create artificial government-created scarcities (like with the "cap and tax" proposal) -- all of these things are driving moderate Democrats and independents away from the Donkey in droves.

What is impactful to voters on a state level?  Clearly the budget impasse and an economy that is reeling from our state's mega-tax levels (Californians are amongst the highest-taxed people in America), and over-regulation.

That said, I can't think of one piece of legislation that is in front of the legislature that would be more defining for California voters, in terms of judging the legislature, than AB 1998, the legislation that seeks to ban everyone's favorite plastic grocery bags -- and then impose a state-fee on paper bags, the proceeds of which go to grocery store owners (mostly large corporations).  I reviewed amendments to this bill -- and they actually make the bill even less palatable (now there is a wealth-redistribution scheme inserted to take money from grocery shoppers through the bag tax and gift it to some manufacturing companies -- as if in a recession we can make groceries more expensive).

One can figure that such an onerous measure, which amounts to a de facto massive tax increase on every Californian (well, at least those that shop in grocery stores!) and very Big Brother type intrusion into the relationship between grocery stores and their customers will come down to a partisan vote.  I can't think of a single Republican legislator who thinks that passing a plastic grocery bag ban and implementing a new per-bag tax is an idea with any merit whatsoever.

The question is this -- will moderate Democrats save themselves (word is that is the case), and their liberal colleagues?  If this bill becomes law, it will be a huge wedge issue for the electorate, and be a very public and obvious statement that the political problems that plague the majority in Washington, D.C., are shared by Sacramento Democrats as well...

So I guess the question for Democrats is this -- are you a deer in the headlights?  If so, don't look for sympathy when the voters drive right over you this November.

Here is a video of my speech at last weekend's convention.  Thank you all who attended and voiced your support for sending a true fiscal conservative to the Controller's office!

 

See Bradley Benbrook's "Water's 'unseemly' slate-mail game" running now on Cal Watchdog.  If you read one thing today, this should be it. It's so outrageous I'm not even going to summarize it here. Just rub your eyes on it.

SEIU at its best...

Some of the books I'm reading or have read (or re-read) over the summer.

Plunder by Steven Greenhut. If you haven't read it, buy it today and read it. In short the book is about how public employee union members have become the new elite, and how the situation is unsustainable.

The Same of the Cities by Lincoln Steffens. After you read the Greenhut book read this series of articles in book form. They run over the corruption of 19th Century political machines that led to civil service reform that lead to civil service machines.

All of the original James Bond novels by Ian Flemming. A guilty pleasure I revisit most summers. Read them slowly and enjoy.

Red State Blue State Rich State Poor State by Andrew Gelman. We live in a news world that divides states red and blue. Why? Are they? If so, why? Is it income? Yes and no.

The Stalinist Penal System by Otto Pohl. This is an original source filled book that makes you glad you weren't middle class, or non-Russian, or any number of other things when the Soviet gulag was around. More statistical than narrative.

It is downright embarrassing that we are nearly 60 days past the state’s Constitutional deadline for the passage of a state budget.  Yet there is no state spending plan in place.  The Democrats who control the State Senate and State Assembly remain committed to a course of trying to exact extreme financial pain on state taxpayers, looking to increase taxes to close the budget “gap” – while Republican legislators remain firm in their resolve to reject any budget plan that includes new taxes. 

As a reminder of exactly how dysfunctional the budget process has become, the legislature continues to pass hundreds if not thousands of pieces of legislation that at best have nothing to do with the budget, or at worst, come with financial costs that will only worsen the budget crisis.  All of the state’s legislators seem comfortable delegating the whole process over to the four legislative leaders, and we get to read tweets from the Capitol Press Corps, notifying us of occasional sightings – yesterday letting us know that the Governor is now meeting with Democrat and Republican leaders separately, conducing “shuttle diplomacy” like we are negotiating a treaty between different foreign governments.

I have been very supportive of Governor Schwarzenegger’s posturing in this year’s budget crisis because he has drawn a firm line in the sand, saying that any proposals for new taxes are a non-starter for him.  This is good public policy for our state, and good politics for the Governor and for Republicans.  We have an over-spending problem that must be solved by reducing the size and scope of state government to match available revenues.

That having been said, this seems like as a good a time as any to draw attention to the fact that the Governor’s proposed budget actually includes (at least) a couple of tax increases – and it is certainly my hope that as a final budget deal comes together, that these (and any others) are taken off the table.  One of the tax increases has had a higher profile.  It is a proposal to place a tax on homeowners and renters insurance policies, and to then take those funds to support the state’s firefighting efforts.  I could spend an entire column on why this idea is flawed, but let suffice it to say that in a recession the last thing homeowners and apartment renters need are increases in their insurance premiums!  The other tax proposed in the Governor’s May Revise is – get this – a proposed “bed tax” on seniors living in nursing homes.  Seriously.

As always, the intricacies of these proposals serve as an impediment to trying to explain them in layman’s terms, easily digestible for a casual reader.  That won’t stop me from trying, though.

First and foremost, the root of the problem here is that federal lawmakers continue to seek to contort state legislatures into raising taxes by making certain government money available only if we jump through certain hoops.  This is not uncommon, but it is unfortunate.  Probably the highest profile example this last year has been the pursuit of federal “race to the top” education grants.  Only states that have met a myriad of federally established education public policy requirements are eligible to apply for the funds.   The contortions that school districts have gone through to be eligible for Race To The Top funds has been a sight to see. 

About five years ago, the state slapped a bed tax on most of California’s skilled nursing facilities.  In doing so, the state qualified for some federal matching funds.  At the time, the skilled nursing facilities that were taxed were those with high populations of Medicaid recipients, because the way that the federal assistance was dispensed from Washington was in the form of higher federal Medicaid reimbursements.  The way this ultimately pens out is if it is a large nursing home with a large number of Medicaid recipients, the facility more or less gets made whole – with the outlay in the tax being more or less offset by the higher reimbursements from the federal government for the care of Medicaid recipients.  Smaller nursing homes, with fewer Medicaid recipients, do not recoup the hit they take from this tax.  And of course facilities that are very small, or that have a lot a patients who pay privately, and are not on Medicaid at all, get slammed hard.

At the time, back in 2005 when this tax (naturally referred to as a “Quality Assurance Fee”) was created, certain non-for-profit skilled nursing homes were exempted from having to pay it.   While this category of nursing homes represents around only 15% of nursing homes, they collectively care for over two-thirds of all privately-paying residents.  Hence if these facilities were hit with the tax, they would be hit very hard since in most cases, there is not Medicaid money coming for residents at all, thus a higher payment rate from the feds is a moot point.  It is also the case that most of these non-for-profit nursing homes are on the small side, so even if they have some Medicaid recipients as residents, the numbers are too small to bring in remotely enough benefit to offset the tax.

This tax is not a small one.  It is estimated that it would cost a resident of a nursing home $4,680 a year – and it would only hit those who are privately paying – of course it doesn’t apply to situations where the government is paying the costs of a nursing home resident.  Many of those getting hit by this fee would be seniors on fixed incomes – who are already being pinched due to the recession.   The Governor’s proposal would have two-thirds of the fees collected being redistributed to support Medi-Cal residents in nursing homes.  The other one-third would get dropped into the general fund, or get used to pay for things currently supported by the general fund.

This new tax is a bad idea, and is an example of how overspending by liberals in Sacramento is putting on pressure to cause more pain and suffering to California taxpayers – in this case, to a group of people who are mainly seniors on fixed incomes (the truly wealthy hire nurses to come to their homes, they do not check into skilled nursing facilities). 

This tax increase is a particularly onerous idea when you think about the fact that we are trying to encourage people to put away savings so that they can support themselves in their latter years -- and to the extent that this tax will actually force some people into programs like Medicaid, it has the potential to be especially costly to all taxpayers.

While I am confident that the higher-profile proposed tax on homeowners and renters insurance to fund Cal-Fire is on the “radar” of budget negotiators and I believe does it does not have GOP votes to make it into a final budget proposal, this nursing home resident tax has been so low key that its opposition may not have crystallized.  Well, it needs to – it is a bad idea.  Republicans should insist that this tax increase proposal be a non-starter – and Democrats should rally to protect this group of primarily fixed-income seniors from having the budget balanced on their backs.  Most importantly, Governor Schwarzenegger should withdraw this idea, as it is totally inconsistent with his pledge not to raise taxes to solve this year’s budget crisis.

There is no courage or nobility in taxing seniors in nursing homes to balance the state's books.

In terms of business being handled by the Convention, this typically comes from the work of three key committees – Rules, Resolutions and Initiatives.  Below is a report on how Rules issues were handled (or not) at the convention...

Delegates took key action at this convention concerning how to deal with the passage of Proposition 14, the terrible ballot measure designed by its proponents to reduce the number of anti-tax, pro-liberty Republicans in Sacramento, and allow more terrible budget deals like last year, which included the single largest tax increase in the history of any state.

Delegates approved key bylaw provisions that were ultimately authored by Senate Republican Leader Dennis Hollingsworth and Assembly Republican Leader Martin Garrick that are designed to strengthen the party’s position in pending litigation against Proposition 14 (there is unanimous resolve amongst the leaders of the party to try and overturn 14 in the courts, though the best timing to maximize potential for success is still a subject of discussions).

Also important is that a proposal by CRP delegate Luis Buhler to repeal the statewide/district convention system that will allow the California Republican Party to select party nominees going into the jungle primary in early 2012 was “postponed indefinitely” – an affirmation that the California Republican Party remains committed to ensuring that, even though Prop. 14 deprives us from using the primary ballot to choose nominees, we will have official party standard bearers in the 2012 elections.  This will be important as the party will need to fight in some districts to push our nominee into one of the top two spots to appear on the general election ballot – and in other cases the party will need to educate GOP voters if labor unions or other special interests try to manipulate Republican votes to shill candidates.

The current system in place for the 2012 cycle calls for a statewide convention to be held in advance of the primary.  At that convention, CRP delegates as well as County GOP Central Committee Members will caucus as a large group to nominate a candidate for U.S. Senate, and will then break down into smaller caucuses to determine party nominees for Congress, State Senate and State Assembly

I am pleased to report that the convention unanimously adopted a change in the Rules submitted by yours truly that moves Riverside County from the Southern Region of the Party, and into the Inland Empire Region.  While a seemingly simple change, it was years in the making.

Also passed was a rules change concerned CRP appointments by County Chairmen -- which is way too esoteric to delve into on this page.

The last item that is worth covering relative to the Rules Committee and report to the convention is an item concerning the upcoming merger between the Young Republican Federation of California and the California Young Republicans.  For history buffs, around 17 years ago hundreds of us YR’s (I was one of them) left the CYR’s and formed YRFC after the then-corrupt CYR leadership cheated rather than admit that their slates of candidates lost.  Now, all these years later, with new leadership of CYR of late, there is a great spirit of unity towards bringing these two clubs together (much credit goes to CYR President Jenniffer Rodriguez, past YRFC Chairman Shawn Fago and current YRFC President Adam Abrahms – and to a host of others).  

It is significant to note that the original group of cheating YR’s that were the impetus for the original split continue to try to cause problems, and have now (in violation of State GOP Rules) engaged in legal proceedings to try to stop the merger, and assert control over the CYR group.  This is most unwelcome, especially since the vast majority of CYR volunteers support the merger and an end to civil war amongst Young Republicans.

All of this to say that a Rules Change was introduced at this convention to help pave the way for the CYR/YRFC merger.  While not terribly significant in policy, the change was symbolic, and co-authored by the Presidents of the two YR organizations.  The rule was overwhelmingly approved by the committee before they adjourned after completing all of their business.

It was hours later that the politics heated up a bit.  Enter: Kevin McCarthy.  Most FR readers know Kevin as a Congressman from Kern County.  My history with Kevin goes back a couple of decades – where we met while engaged in College Republicans, Young Republicans and CRP politics.  Back in the 90’s, Kevin did a stint as President of the CYR’s (after the split).  He and I have what I would call a cordial relationship, and we work together when we can.  That said, McCarthy is an opponent to the YRFC/CYR merger, and he is quite passionate about his interest in this matter.  In the past he has made “assertive” (to be polite) calls and been very “blustery” (another polite term) towards those who would see this process move forward (you would think that he would have better things to do with his time).  Anyways, apparently Kevin found out about the action of the committee and blew up.  I am told that he called CRP Chairman Ron Nehring, leaders in the Whitman campaign, and presumably others – “insisting” (again, to be polite) that this change be undone.

I am not privy to all intra-politicking that went on between McCarthy, Nehring and others.  But I do know that Nehring, sometime around dinner time, made a decision – he would reconvene the Rules Committee for an un-noticed meeting, and he would direct the members to reverse their decision that they made earlier in the day, and instead reject the unity bylaw.  He directed his ever-loyal Committee Chairman, Mike Osborn, to make it so.  Osborn then conducted the rump, late-night session.

Of course calling a late night, un-noticed Rules Committee meeting meant that some members of the committee couldn’t make it.  Combine that with others who did not want to participate and legitimize “kangaroo court” proceedings (such as CRP Treasurer Keith Carlson, CRP Secretary Steve Baric, CRP Past Chairman Mike Schroeder, and CRP Regional Vice Chairman Doug Boyd), and there was not a quorum for the meeting.  But that didn’t stop the Chairman, based on what I would call a very questionable interpretation of the rules, from appointing (without Board confirmation) two new committee members (Morgan Kelly and Luis Buhler) to achieve a quorum and to change the official recommendation on that item.

This late-night chicanery let to a predictable fight on the convention floor the next morning.  Abrahms and others questioned the legitimacy of the Rules Committee report, with a very divided floor vote backing up Nehring’s ruling that he had the right to do this (from my vantage point at the head table, a majority of the people in the room actually supported overturning the Chairman’s ruling – but the bulk of the proxies were on people who wanted to uphold his ruling.  Some of those standing to overule the Chairman included Carlson, Baric, Mike Spence, Republican National Committeemembers Shawn Steel and Linda Ackerman, San Diego County GOP Chairman Tony Krvaric and of course, yours truly.).  After that lengthy debate, we had another debate over the rule itself.  But because it would have taken a two-thirds vote to pass the rule without committee approval, its defeat was a foregone conclusion.

Most painful for delegates was the performance (or lack thereof) by Rules Committee Chairman Mike Osborn as he presided over the Committee report presentation to the full convention.  This excerpt from a CRP member who wrote to me afterward is pretty straight forward:


Thus from some remote location, Kevin McCarthy on his cell-phone set into motion events that ended up wasting probably five hundred collective hours of delegate time.  It was not McCarthy’s finest hour.

Of course, the most unfortunate part of all of this is that these actions really sent a wrong message from the party to the thousands of young activists that are just trying to come back together into one organization.  For my part, as a party officer, I extend my apologies.  I’m embarrassed for the actions that took place.

(Coming soon - updates on the initiatives, with it's dust up on Prop. 22, and resolutions, which may be more about what didn't pass than what did...)

California is known for the glamorous lifestyles of its famous residents. Open up any gossip magazine and you’ll see pages of images of celebrities frolicking on the beautiful beaches of Malibu, dining at exclusive restaurants in Pacific Palisades, or partying in Hollywood nightclubs. It’s a lifestyle that very few Americans can relate to, but many envy. Conversely, celebrities, like California politicians, can lose touch with the very people they entertain. The perception of liberal bias in Hollywood isn’t inaccurate.

Some celebrities use their fame and influence to lend power to political causes. Such is the case with the California legislature’s attempt to ban plastic bags. Only in a state as celebrity-centric as California could an environmentalist protest in Malibu, featuring actors Julia Louise Dreyfus and Jeremy Irons, lead to a full-scale, statewide ban on plastic grocery bags. While Ms. Dreyfus and Mr. Irons may be accomplished actors, should their latest cause de célèbre become statewide policy?

It may seem cool or hip to follow the latest Hollywood-glamorous environmental fad and ban plastic bags, but legislators are ignoring the real, unglamorous facts about AB 1998.

First, AB 1998 will kill more than 1,000 California jobs—many of them in the state’s poorest regions. With unemployment topping 12%, legislators should be focused more on creating jobs in the state instead of passing laws that will drive business from the state and take away jobs from those most in need of employment. Plastic bag manufacturing plants here in California will be forced to shut down and lay off hundreds of taxpaying-citizens.

Second, AB 1998 will end California’s increasingly successful recycling program. Environmentalists have a history of being flighty—jumping from one cause to another; whatever will serve their ultimate goal of feeling superior to others while “saving” the planet from mankind’s destructive existence. For the past few decades, recycling has been the drumbeat of environmentalists encouraging responsible, sustainable living. Now, that recycling has become integrated into society, they want to disband the programs and completely ban products they deem environmentally unacceptable? From 2005 to 2008, plastic bag recycling increased by 28% and continues to grow. The programs in place are working—without more government intervention and loss of consumer choice.

Third, banning plastic bags would actually be worse for the environment. There’s nothing more hypocritical than passing laws that appear to help the environment (because they make their proponents feel good) while causing more damage to the environment. Environmentalists have latched onto the plastic bag ban because they think it will help prevent global warming and reduce use of oil in production. But in the United States, approximately 80% of plastic bags are made from domestic natural gas, not oil.  It’s paper bag production that uses petroleum-based paper. AB 1998 would still allow paper bags to be used—albeit with at least a 5 cent tax attached.

Fourth, AB 1998 is a tax increase. If AB 1998 becomes law, plastic bags will be completely banned. But grocers will still be allowed to provide customers paper bags—at a cost. To deter consumers from using paper bags provided by stores, there will be a 5 cent tax for every bag used. That equates to a $1 billion tax on groceries every year! With inflation, increased unemployment and average citizens struggling to make ends meet, the last thing families need is another tax on their groceries. Are legislators really willing to place the latest environmental fad above the well-being of California families?

Fifth, AB 1998 is a special interest give away.  Citizens are already wary of the relationship between legislators and special interest groups that influence legislators’ votes—putting their interest ahead of what’s actually good for average citizens. AB 1998 is the worst example of this quid pro quo.  Grocers are willing to do away with proving the convenience of plastic bags to their customers—if they get the proceeds from that state-imposed fee. Essentially, grocers have been bought off by the legislature and the environmental special interests that pushed the plastic bag ban.

Sixth, AB 1998 disregards serious public health problems.  A recent study by the University of Arizona (Tucson) and Loma Linda University found that 97 of those who take reusable bags to the store don’t know they need to wash them often. The hazardous food-borne bacteria found in reusable bags pose an even greater threat to children—who are particularly susceptible to bacteria such as E. coli. The report also found that hot weather in California increases the dangers of bacteria growth in the bags.  In their attempt to save the planet, legislators could actually harm the health of their constituents.

Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, can all agree that those are six solid reasons for legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger to trash AB 1998. Regardless of your political persuasion, the facts don’t lie. But from a purely ideological standpoint, AB 1998 should be rejected simply based on its expansion of government and usurpation of citizens’ freedom.  This legislation is more nanny state government. It will create a new government bureaucracy costing $1.5 million to make sure grocers are in compliance. And, if they follow the advice of health experts, more money will need to be spent to educate shoppers about the health dangers of not washing their reusable bags.

If legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger ignore the facts about AB 1998 and decide to ban plastic bags, or tax them, or both, there is certainly a lot of energy amongst the people to qualify a referendum and take this entire matter to the voters for them to decide. Because unlike the glamorous celebrities trying to ban plastic bags, average Californians understand the rather unglamorous yet true facts about AB 1998.

We can also expect that if the environmental activist community is successful in banning plastic bags, that they will continue to aggressively pursue their extremist agenda.  What will be next?  Certainly they will "go after" all other plastic bags out there.  What else?  How about banning plastic toothbrushes?  Or maybe outlawing tupperware?  The possibilities are limitless.

Who is Sterling Clifford and why is he lying to you????

     Sterling Clifford is Jerry Brown's campaign spokesman in the race for Governor of California.  He is a liberal political hack that used to be a chief spokesperson for Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon, who was indicted on 12 counts of perjury, theft and misconduct in office last year.   After being convicted, she resigned as Baltimore's first African-American female Mayor in January of 2010, and Sterling headed west and took his job with Jerry Brown's campaign in April, 2010.

    Sterling Clifford has "done me wrong."  I am currently working on the legal team reviewing and approving, for legal, a series of issue advocacy television advertisements which are critical of Jerry Brown's performance in office.  These ads are being produced by the "Small Business Action Committee," a nonprofit organization I incorporated and serve as General Counsel of, that is managed and directed by Joel Fox.

     Well, the Brown campaign does not like the ads, which point out the army of lawyers Brown has available to sue people in California, and his bad performance on job growth.

     So, enter Sterling Clifford, who has sullied those ads by, among other whoppers, putting out press statements and website content that accuses me of being a "right wing birther."  Clifford started his campaign attacking me for being a person who believes President Obama was born outside the United States, in a press release on August 16,   Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle picked up on the theme, and now thanks to that article, I am a "birther" for all time on the internet.

     But the problem is, I am not a birther.  I have never had anything to do with any lawsuit against Obama or anyone else on that issue.   And if anybody wants to do a Google search of the words, "James Lacy and birther," you will find at least TWENTY reported items where I criticize Orly Taitz, the co-counsel of the main "birther" litigation and a recent candidate for California Secretary of State, and say:

“It’d be a disaster for the Republican party,” says James Lacy, a conservative GOP operative in the state. “Can you imagine if [gubernatorial candidate] Meg Whitman and [candidate for Lt. Gov.] Abel Maldonado — both of whom might have a chance to win in November — had to run with Orly Taitz as secretary of state, who would make her cockamamie issues about Obama’s birth certificate problems at the forefront of her activities?”

     I feel like Reagan's Secretary of Labor, Ray Donovan, after his acquittal on some sort of charges of illegality, who said, "What office do I go to, to get my reputation back!"

     I have sent Jerry Brown's campaign a "cease and desist" demand for calling me a "birther."   I note that as of today, the Brown campaign still has references to me as a "birther" on their main website.   One thing an Attorney General should do is uphold the law and not abuse the truth.   Jerry Brown, I am herein calling on you to remove any references to me as a "birther" on your website.   If you don't remove them, you leave me no option but to sue you and your campaign for libel.  Because I am not a "birther," and I very clearly understand that term to be derogatory to me and my professional work.

     As to Sterling Clifford, you will be named in any lawsuit, too.   Can't you do even simple research before you hurt someone, professionally?

Facebook is a great way to keep in touch with far flung friends, but who knew it was a great way to spot potential campaign finance violations in real time?

The very talented Sacramento-based Democrat consultant Robin Swanson wrote on her Facebook page yesterday: “Random visitor of the day - Jerry Brown strolling into the office to meet with my office-mate, George Landers. With no entourage. And since he asked me to "like" him on Facebook, I figured I'd pass it on: http://www.facebook.com/jerrybrown”

George Landers, according to his LinkedIn, is the executive director for the UFCW western states council and their former political director. That organization has joined with and contributed nearly $300,000 to California Working Families, one of the union groups who have spent $15 million propping up Jerry Brown’s campaign. The law requires these expenditures to be done independent of a campaign, and they’re commonly referred to as “independent expenditures.”

Jerry Brown’s campaign can’t legally admit that they were talking about the election, even though I can’t imagine what else they may have been talking about 69 days before Nov. 2. I know the Brown people have their hands full keeping their Web server from crashing, so I thought I’d offer some ideas on what they can tell the media when they come calling about this meeting...

• Jerry and George were talking about Jersey Shore and how to get abs like The Situation.
• How ‘bout that hundred degree weather? About time summer came to Sacramento.
• Jerry wanted to borrow a calendar so he knows what day of the week it was.

Lest we forget, this isn’t the first time Jerry Brown has coordinated with the alleged union-backed “independent” expenditure groups. In March, he was caught on tape urging labor groups to attack the Republican nominee so he could concentrate on positive ads.

I've penned out my first draft on a CRP convention update going into detail on how things occurred with Rules, Resolutions and Initiatives over the weekend.  It's too long, goes into too much detail, and I need to double-check it because there were a lot of moving parts.  I should be able to get it up this afternoon, though! 

Jon