We can’t be bought, but we can be rented…

"I respect all of the candidates in the Republican lineup. … I will not endorse anybody. I think it doesn't help me any, it doesn't help the state of California any, to go and endorse anybody." – Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Jan. 19, 2008

"I will go as far as saying that anyone, any candidate that writes a $14.5 billion check to the state of California, I would endorse. It's as simple as that. Anyone, Democrat or Republican alike." – Schwarzenegger, Jan. 23, 2008.

"I am endorsing Senator McCain to be the next president of the United States." – Schwarzenegger, Jan. 31, 2008.

So, when can we expect payment, Senator McCain? And no small bills...

Ever-vigilant. A bit slow, but ever-vigilant

One thing Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have in common – and there are probably at least two or three other things – is they always get their man.

For instance, Bowen’s office announced Tuesday that after an investigation by the secretary of state’s fraud unit, a fellow up in Weed, name of Dennis Roy Roberts, had been charged with feloniously voting twice in the 2005 special election.

Roberts, who is athletic director at the College of the Siskiyous, allegedly voted absentee and then at the polls. On the ballot that year, among other things, was Measure A. That was a local bond benefiting the Siskiyou Joint Community College District, of which Roberts was an employee. Felonious double-voting, by the way, can lead to three years in prison. Measure A, by the way, passed. Presumably by more than one vote.

“The presidential primary election is a week away,” Bowen said, “and the message here is if you vote more than once in California, you will be caught.”

Of course it might a couple of years…

No grass growing under their feet…

With the first of California’s three 2008 elections only six days away, naturally it’s time to start worrying about the June 3 election. At least the folks over at “No on 98/Yes on 99” think so.

Not familiar with 98/99? Those are the twin-sons-of-different-mothers initiatives dealing with eminent domain. One (98) is backed mainly by private groups such as the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and landlords. It would limit the use of eminent domain by government agencies – and phase out rent controls. The other (99) is backed mainly by government groups such as the League of California Cities. It would more narrowly limit eminent domain and doesn’t address rent control.

Anyway, the first press release from the “No on 98/Yes on 99” press release arrived today. We haven’t heard from the “Yes on 99/ No on 98,” the “No on 98 and 99” or the “Maybe on 98/Not Sure on 99” folks yet, but stay tuned.

Meanwhile…. The California Education Coalition (which is just what it sounds like, a bunch of ed groups) has launched its first radio ad to protest the budget cuts in K-12 schools by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. It features a kid in a noisy classroom complaining the cuts would be “a giant step backwards.” You can listen to it here .

And her vote counts as much as yours

It ain’t easy being a pollster. Exhibit A: A surveyor for the Field Poll recently called a registered Democrat in Nevada County. The voter says she already voted, absentee. The pollster asks for whom? The voter says she doesn’t know.

The pollster asks how the woman voted on Prop. 93. The woman says she doesn’t know. The pollster asks how the woman voted on Props. 94-97. She doesn’t know.

The kicker? On the spot on the survey form where the pollster asks if the respondent will welcome any callbacks from press people once the survey is finished, the answer is “Yes, respondent is willing to talk further and is reasonably articulate.”

Hate to think about the “unreasonably articulate” ones…

Uh, fellas?

One has to admire the independence of – or scratch one’s head in bemusement at -- the Mexican American Political Association’s primary endorsements. The group chose to endorse no Republican candidate for president “due to their anti-immigrant assaults and slants in platform and posture.”

Makes sense, at least from MAPA’s perspective. On the Demo side, the 48-year-old group endorsed Dennis Kucinich, the former Cleveland mayor and Ohio congressman who is the only candidate to acknowledge he once saw a UFO and is grouped down with “Others – 4 percent” in the polls.

OK. Then there’s MAPA’s endorsement of Prop. 91, which seeks to reserve gasoline sales tax for roads and stuff. Even the guys who collected signatures to put 91 on the ballot are against it now, since it duplicates something voters already approved last year.

All of which says something about how attentive the folks over at MAPA are – or maybe just gives Dennis Kucinich something in common with a ballot measure nobody wants.

There is no Hogue for us

Maybe this is one of those good-news/bad-news things. I guess it depends on your feelings about Assemblyman Ted Gaines, R-Roseville, and radio talk show guy Eric Hogue.

Gaines had been coveting the 4th Congressional District seat of John Doolittle. But when Doolittle bowed out last week, Gaines decided to bow out too, apparently fearing the possible competition from former Assemblyman Rico Oller and former Rep. Doug Ose for the GOP nomination.

Gaines’ change of heart prodded Hogue into announcing he wouldn’t seek Gaines’ Assembly seat.

“While I am tempted, and have been urged by many to seek office now,” Hogue said in a press release this week, “I made it clear from the very beginning that my candidacy for Assembly in 2008 was contingent on Ted Gaines running for Congress. Since that is not the case, I will stay loyal to my word.”

That alone would seem to make him a poor legislative candidate.

Political theater, under the Dome

The Foundation for Taxpayer & Consumer Rights, the lawyer-backed, L.A.-based advocacy group, is yelling about being tossed out of the Capitol today by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, because the FTCR is opposed to the Núñez-Schwarzenegger health insurance reform plan.

According to an FTCR press release, they were holding an under-the-Dome press conference featuring some guy from Massachusetts who was set to testify at a Senate Health Committee hearing today (which last week was postponed until next week.) The FTCR folks said California Highway Patrol officers, who were acting under the orders of the speaker, evicted them from the Rotunda. They had to continue their event “in the 38 degree weather outside.”

But Núñez spokesman Steve Maviglio says they were booted because they didn’t have the required permit to stage a press conference inside the Capitol. Maviglio said the FTCR should have known better, since they were kicked out last year for doing the same thing, on a different bill. Besides, Maviglio said in an e-mail, it was 56 degrees.

Proving that in this flap, there are at least 18 degrees of separation.

I’ll see your Oprah, and raise you a Tyra…

Hillary Clinton will appear on the Tyra Banks television show Friday. Banks is apparently a former model or something. Here’s an excerpt from the interview, which was conducted Monday:

TYRA: . . . If you were a contestant on a reality show, would you rather be on Dancing with the Stars, American Idol, or America's Next Top Model?
SENATOR CLINTON: In my dreams I would be on America's Next Top Model but in reality I would have to choose my limited talents and of them dancing is better than singing. You do not want me to sing.

And you thought she wanted to be president.

Never say something nice…

I was all set to compliment the folks opposing Props. 94-97, the Indian casino expansion deals, for their new commercial. It’s the one where a somber-looking narrator intones “there are more than 100 Indian tribes in California, but the gambling deals on the ballot benefit the richest tribes and could devastate other tribes. It’s unfair to let four powerful tribes control a third of the state’s Indian gaming pie.”

The guy says this as a montage of somber-looking California Indians of all ages and genders appear on the screen. Then the narrator himself is on camera, saying, “please force the Legislature to negotiate a better deal, that’s fair to all tribes.”

It could be an effective piece, since I bet it sticks in the craw of many voters that the benefits of the casino largess they gave tribes in 1998 and 2000 are being reaped largely by those relatively few tribes lucky enough to be near freeways or major urban areas. It’s disgraceful that adult members of some tribes are pulling in a half million a year each, while other tribes are scrambling to provide electricity and water to their rancherias.

Of course the ad may be bit less effective if word gets out that the doleful narrator in the commercial is Leroy Miranda, who is vice chair of the Pala Band of Mission Indians. The Pala Band runs a four-diamond casino/spa/resort in North San Diego County, and is in direct competition with at least one of the four tribes seeking voter approval to greatly expand their operations.

Guess there aren’t any poor Indians after all.

Raining on the parade

It must be no fun at all to work at the Franchise Tax Board, unless there’s a bit of the sadist in you. Witness this press release this morning from the FTB, entitled “Mortgage Debt Forgiveness May Be Taxable in California.”

The release goes on to warn Californians that a tax break signed into federal law by President Bush in December doesn’t apply to state income taxes – yet. The federal law lets low- and medium-income homeowners who bought their residences since the start of 2007 deduct 100 percent of their private mortgage insurance premiums.

But California law specifies that debt forgiveness connected to foreclosure or mortgage renegotiation is income, and subject to tax. There’s a bill (SB 1055) before the Legislature that would conform state law to the feds, but it can’t be heard until Feb. 7.

So you might want to hold up a bit in your zeal to file your tax returns. You can get more info here.

The close-to-home commercial

If you’ve paid close attention to the Yes on 93 commercial featuring former state finance director Tim Gage (and if you have, you need to get out more), you may have thought the room he’s in looks vaguely familiar.

That’s because it’s Room 125, a legislative hearing room in the Capitol. This is a location that of course is close to the hearts of 93’s most ardent proponents – the 34 legislators who can run for re-election to their current posts if voters approve the term limits-changing measure.

The location didn’t go unnoticed by 93’s opponents, who hollered it violated state law to videotape such things under the Dome. But Jon Waldie, the Assembly’s chief administrative officer, says nope. Waldie says the Capitol is a public building, that filming of stuff happens there all the time and that the pro-93 folks had the OK.

And if you have paid close attention to the commercial, you have to wonder why the No folks would object. The ad tries to convince voters that putting together a state budget is a tough job that requires the legislative experience Prop. 93 would ensure.

In other words, the best way to solve the current budget mess is to keep in office the people who were in office when the mess was created…

The Bradley effect?

This is hardly an original thought, and hardly a pleasant one, but maybe the reason the pollsters got it wrong in New Hampshire about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was the “Bradley effect.”

Most pre-vote polls had Obama winning the Democratic presidential primary handily in the Granite State. When Clinton won, the pundits and savants pointed out that Obama did not do nearly as well among women voters as he had done in winning the Iowa caucuses.

But maybe, just maybe, it was that some New Hampshire voters decided it was tougher to vote for a black man than a white woman, despite what they had told pollsters. In 1982, for example, California gubernatorial candidate Tom Bradley, an African American, was well ahead in the pre-election polls, but lost to Republican rival George Deukmejian. Pundits later surmised people decided in the polling booth they couldn’t vote for a black person but had not wanted to admit that to pollsters.

Similarly, in statewide races in Virginia in 1989 and North Carolina in 1990, black candidates had wide leads in surveys before the election. In Virginia, the African American won by less than a point; in North Carolina the black candidate lost.

So why didn’t it affect Obama in Iowa? Maybe because the state has so small a minority population, race isn’t much of an issue among voters. Or maybe because the caucus system requires people to state their preferences publicly.

Or maybe Iowans just like Obama better than New Hampsters do, and there is no such thing as the Bradley effect in modern America. Maybe.

Arkansas?

Some people may have been surprised that in his state of the state speech Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said he was modeling his proposed constitutional amendment to link spending with revenues after a process they use in Arkansas.

Under the plan, unanticipated revenues in one budget year would be set aside for use when revenues fall short in succeeding years. Actually, the guv brought up the idea of borrowing budget ideas from Arkansas way back in July.
At a press conference, he said former President Clinton told him that when he was governor of Arkansas, they prioritized programs so there was agreement beforehand about what would be cut if revenues did not meet expectations in a given year.

Of course Arkansas has some other advantages the guv didn’t mention. For one thing, the legislature only meets every other year, for 60 days, and adopts budgets for two years at a time. For another, the state budget is about 1/25th of the size of California’s.

And while it’s true that Arkansas is, with California and Rhode Island, the only state requiring two-thirds legislative approval of the budget, it’s also true that huge Democratic majorities (currently 27 Dems, eight Reeps in the Senate, 75 Dems, 25 Reeps in the House) make that not a problem.

It’s doubtful, however, that when the budget is formally unveiled tomorrow, Schwarzenegger will propose electing more Democrats and having the Legislature take even-numbered years off.

Brevity is the soul of brevity

It’s only Jan. 8, but a favorite for Press Release of the Year has already emerged. It’s from the Marin Institute, which bills itself as an “alcohol industry watchdog.”

Here’s the press release, in its entirety:

“Greetings,
A simple 25 cent per drink alcohol tax could raise over $3 Billion dollars.”

Okay, there was an attachment, but who reads those?

Another precinct heard from

Thought I’d share this note I got last night from an Iowan:

“Steve,
I read your article on Iowa caucuses on the Internet.
I am a first-time caucuser and I've lived in Iowa 18 years.
I went tonight to the Democratic caucus for Ward 1 of Knoxville, Iowa.
My ward had 144 Democratic caucus participants.
I supported Dennis Kucinich in round one, with two others (mother-daughter combo).
Chris Dodd had no support. Neither did Mike Gravel. Joe Biden had one loyal supporter.
Mike Richardson had 9 supporters on-hand. The Big Three were all automatically 'viable' in round one.
Was I happy with the results?
No.
Did the process work?
Yes.
Even though I think 'celebrity' won out over 'credentials'. I was impressed by being surrounded by many, many Iowans who were knowledgeable of the issues, and who were motivated to get out and make their voices heard. In my book, that's pretty kewl. And worth doing again in 2012.
Thanks!
Tom Schmeh”

There may be hope for America after all.

You get what you pay for

I don’t know why this bugs me, but there was an editorial yesterday in the Contra Costa Times, mildly castigating the 100 or so legislators who accepted pay raises last month, in light of state government’s yawning budget deficit. The lawmakers got an extra $3,110 a year, bringing their salaries to $116,208.

Today, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the executive director of the San Francisco Zoo gets paid $314,038 a year. That’s the zoo where one of the tigers recently bounded from its enclosure over a wall that was 4 feet lower than it was supposed to be, killed a customer and mauled two others.

Maybe legislators aren’t overpaid after all.

Sues news

Confederate Army cavalry leader Nathan Bedford Forrest once observed that the secret of military success was “getting there firstest with the mostest.”

The same could be said of publicity success. Which means the guv’s office trumped the attorney general’s office today and a quintet of environmental groups in announcing they are suing the feds.

All three entities whipped out press releases this morning, announcing lawsuits against the Environmental Protection Agency for denying California’s pitch to enforce its law regarding tailpipe emission standards.

But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s press folks got the news out first. A few minutes later, a coalition of groups -- the Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense, International Center for Technology Assessment, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Sierra Club – followed with news of their separate suit.

And then A.G. Jerry Brown’s outfit announced it was suing, on behalf of the guv and the state of California. Brown said the EPA letter denying the state’s request to enforce its own, more stringent, law, was “shocking in its incoherence and utter failure to provide legal justification for the administrator's unprecedented action.”

The guv was more succinct: He said it was “unconscionable.”