Get free daily email updates

Syndicate this site - RSS

Recent Posts

Blogger Menu

Click here to blog

Doug Haaland

California Justice…. or Political Opportunism

During the U.S. Senate candidate debate in San Diego, Attorney General Kamala Harris inferred that she was fearless, but not reckless when it came to investigating and charging someone with a crime. Specifically, she said, ““When with the swipe of a pen you can charge someone with a crime,” sounding equally thoughtful about the fact that such capricious actions can change lives forever.

This assertion was obviously intended to assure Californians that she understood the seriousness of her present office, while trying to effect a transfer of that seriousness to the office she seeks. It’s clear that she’d prefer everyone forget her recent “official acts” that federal courts, newspapers, and public interest groups across California and the Nation have found to be profoundly political in nature.

Attorney General Harris showed no regard for the damage her “swipe of a pen” could inflict when she filed a politically-charged demand against the Americans for Prosperity that a federal court swiftly dismissed. Her level of concern for harm was clearly the last thing she observed when she announced her investigation of Exxon-Mobil for hiding the “evidence” of climate change from investors of the company. The AG has yet to make clear which California laws Exxon-Mobil violated by its actions and while such actions may hurt stockholders, her actions are clearly beneficial to her campaign in enviro-centric California.

More recently, caving to political and media pressure and with a “swipe of a pen,” the Attorney General gave little consideration to the changes she’d create for David Daleidan, director of the Center for Medical Progress sending CA Department of Justice agents to seize video tapes from his home. At the same time, the Harris U.S. Senate campaign website maintains a petition drive to support Planned Parenthood funding by the federal government and collects thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Pro-Planned Parenthood entities. Once again, clearly helpful to a candidate for federal office in left-leaning California.

On the surface the acts of the Attorney General appear to be efforts at public policy that produce significant elements of political benefit to her campaign. One could even call the pronouncement of political benefits as “tenuous at best,” but there are at least two situations that when compared to the above raise noteworthy weight to such speculation.

First, there’s the ongoing “investigation” into the CPUC and Southern California Edison involving the closure of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. After raiding the home of the former CPUC President Michael Peevey the Attorney General’s investigation appears to have ground to a halt. In fact, after getting search warrants for offices of Edison and CPUC regulators the investigators have failed to conduct the search and instead delivered the warrants politely asking officials to turn over documents. Quite a difference between actions in the San Onofre investigation and the unhesitating and very public raid of anti-abortion activist David Dalidan’s home.

Of course, there are those who suspect the Attorney General is reluctant to chase leads in the San Onofre case due to the substantial political implications of such pursuits that could involve a Democrat Governor and several powerful figures in the California Democrat Party. Unfortunately for the AG, she is running a campaign that depends heavily on harmonious relations with the state party to beat a “renegade” Democrat competitor.

The second situation surrounds the “minimum wage deal” reported in the news between labor unions and Democrat lawmakers with Governor Brown’s blessing over a sunny weekend in March. The stories reported the “deal” dodges a bruising and costly ballot proposition battle between Democrats and their normally supportive labor unions in the November elections. While much time and printer’s ink was dedicated to the economic impacts of the move on both workers and the businesses, there has been no attention paid by the Attorney General to those who may have benefitted the most by their quick response to the “deal”…legislative Democrat politicians.

The Attorney General has never expressed any concerns about “how the deal” became law, given the fact that California law expressly prohibits the bribery of legislative or executive officials. Now some may call this statement a “reach,” but when you consider that labor unions avoided spending nearly $2 million each to qualify the ballot measures and multiple times more attempting to gain passage, it’s easy to understand their leverage in reaching a “deal.”

Legislative Democrats rely heavily on labor union money and support in elections. Avoiding the need for their friends to spend major dollars “selling” voters a minimum wage initiative would mean those funds are available for re-election campaigns. Consider the fact that shortly after the vote on the measure several legislative “leaders” on the issue received campaign contributions from their grateful labor union friends

It would also mean that legislative Democrats wouldn’t face the humiliating possibility of being asked who they represented… labor unions and their demands for “economic justice” or middle-class Californians and businesses who will bear the cost of their “deal.” It should be noted that the legislative analysis of the measure said it will cost the State of California $4 Billion…with a B…of taxpayer funds.

In the end, the Attorney General who claims thoughtful prosecution and defending the consumers of California are her highest concerns owes the People of California an explanation. Why are prosecutions of conservatives and conservative organizations worthy of loud public pronouncements, yet politically “sensitive” legal actions that involve legislative friends and political organizations helpful to her own campaign fail to garner an ounce of her concern.

Doug Haaland is a retired Republican policy consultant having spent more than 27 years “Under the Dome.”