by Jack Lee
The Keene for Senate campaign disclosed today that when adjusted for debt, Keene reports having right at 1 million dollars cash to spend on the race compared to Doug LaMalfa's $479,168. My question is, where did the million bucks come from? It sure wasn't in 10 and 20 dollar donations from the people in his district. So, who is giving him that kind of money and why? (We'll dislcose at least part of this soon)
"The ability you have to communicate your message to the voters at election time is the only real issue funding demonstrates when it comes to assessing a winning campaign," said Keene.
Yes, it's a known fact that if you can dominate what people hear and read you can win an election. Typically the person who can spend the most will win in 94% of all elections according to the FEC and FPPC. Money talks. . . and it looks like if Keene is prepared to spend a million bucks on his election it's about to do a whole lot of talking!
Is there anyone out here that thinks it's a real bad idea that you should even need a million dollars to get your message out and win a job that pays 100K for 4 years?
What a shame that politicians have to have their hand out looking for cash their whole time in elected office.
Jack,
First, I am clear that you did not say that small donations from people in Mr. Keene's district are not included in his total. I would not want anyone to make that inference because they are in fact there. The FPPC requires reporting the names of only the $100 plus donors. By pointing out the obvious that small donors cannot make up the entire million dollar total certainly you did not mean to down play the wide support that Keene has across his district from small donors? My personal experience is that Keene has always set a place at his fundraising banquets for supporters that cannot afford to give the suggested donation for the event.
Another point that should be without any misunderstanding, and has never been challenged, is that legislation Keene has authored to solve district problems never had any causal relationship to the beneficiary being a donor or not. Be is the Lindo Channel legislation that save the seniors' mobile home, the meth lab home disclosure law or the funding bill that save Plumas County Schools.
You might not be aware that Mr. Keene's fundraising total spans the time since he was first elected in 2002, as does Mr. LaMalifa's. During that time LaMalfa also raise well over $1.5 million. Neither had any creditable opponent running against them for re-election. The dramatic difference is because LaMalfa spends the money that his supporters entrust to him at break neck speed. He frittering $450,000 away running a hardball campaign against Barbara McIver, a Tehama County Democratic supervisor who spent only $10,000 of her own money. LaMalfa's contributors' money has went to personally enriching his Chief of Staff/Campaign Consultant by some reports [Redding newspaper] as much as $400,000 over the time since 2002. LaMalfa viciously smeared that poor woman who had no chance whatsoever of beating him nor did she have the funds to defend her good name. She was a Deacon in her church and LaMalfa smeared her with a total lie about her being associated with pornographer Larry Flynt. While on the other side of the battle everyone knew was to coming to replace Sam Aanestad. Keene was saving his contributors' money and observing his coming opponent. LaMalfa's 2002 race was also one in which he used his financial advantage to viciously smear his under funded opponent, then mayor of Redding Pat Kight with lies.
I liken this race to the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. Keene like the ant seeing the coming storm conserved the money entrusted to him to meet the coming need. LaMalfa the grasshopper spends the money entrusted to him nearly as fast as it comes in. Much like his more liberal colleagues in the legislature do with our tax dollars. Now the storm has arrived. Unlike in his previous races LaMalfa will not be able to smear his opponent's good name without a response. Nor at this funding level for the seat can LaMalfa write a big check as he did in 2002 to bury his opponent with lies.
In my opinion it is a demonstration of conservative leadership we are seeing. One candidate has planned ahead and saved the money entrusted to him for future needs. Isn't that the kind of financial responsibility that CA so desperately needs right now?
John Gillander
BTW, when Maurice Johannessen won the Senate seat in the 1990's I remember him writing a check for around $1 million. So the amount raise to be spent is not without precedence.
Thank you for your comments John. So it sounds like you are no longer going to vote for the farmer? lol Okay, this is what elections are about and we can change our minds whenever we want. People come forward with information and we make decisions on that information, which I should ad, is often times more credible than the campaign information we get in the mailbox.
I can't speak about Barbara McIver because I don't know one thing about this race. So I will have to hope there is somebody else that does know some facts that will come forward with an opposing view for balance. Maybe there is no balance on this, who knows, but I have to put it out here. Until then, you have the last word on this particular point and a few others that I just don't know enough to comment on.
You said Maurice Johannessen wrote a check for $1,000,000 for his senate election. The usual amount is $100,000 that candidates put up to get some money into their campaign for everyone to see. Why $100,000? It is because this is the total amount that is refundable, anything over that is not. So I would have to question that Johannessen would put $900,000 at risk. John please give me a link to his finacial records that would show this is true.
Next, point and sorry these are not in order, but it's been my experience that Doug LaMalfa also sets a place at his fundraising banquets for those who cannot afford to give the suggested donation for the event. This is a common practice during elections because to turn away supporters for lack of the full tab is counter productive.
You said "that legislation Keene has authored to solve district problems never had any causal relationship to the beneficiary being a donor or not." If that is accurate then that is highly commendable! Right now off the cuff, I think I could say the same thing about bills that Doug LaMalfa has authored and sponsored, but we need to be sure on this.
and this is why I'm looking into it. As Ronald Reagan said, "trust, but verify." Please let me know if you find any bills tied directly or indirectly to contributions to either candidate. This is very, very important and I am trusting that you and others out here will keep us informed on such things.
John where you and I agree seems to be that elections ought to be as tranparent as possible and elections should be run honestly and on the issues. I can work with that, no matter who you support!
Jack,
I don't want to get too much into the campaign discussed but I do appreciate the subject of money in campaigns.
A friend once asked me why it took so much money to run a campaign. The only answer I could come up with at the time was that "when every last voter finally educates themselves on the issues, knows what they believe and what they stand for, knows without a doubt what each candidate stands for and how it relates to their beliefs, and can no longer be swayed by Nike/Pepsi styled ad campaigns, then we will no longer need money to win elections." Yikes.
Take a look at our local city council races in Chico. The liberals have paid activists in the form of college professors, many of whom are radical leftists and make relatively higher incomes than the average worker in our county. They not only have extra money to give to liberal campaigns, but they have a captive audience with the students as well. It is a well-oiled machine nearly impossible for us to beat. The only way for conservative candidates to fight this is to raise enough money to get their message out to the conservative voters in the outlying suburbs. It costs money for mailers, brochures, radio, etc. Unless we expect our conservative candidates to fork out their own money to run their campaigns, they are going to have to ask for money from those who share their belief in common sense government. I hope they do and I will be helping them to win. Larry Wahl has been the lone conservative for too long.
As for the actual dollar figure in any race, it usually depends on the market being reached out too. A million would certainly seem like overkill for a city council race here, but not in Los Angeles. Our gubernatorial candidates have already spent millions in their race. A Senate district that spans from Placer County all the way up to the Oregon border seems like it would need a hefty chunk of money to reach everyone. When you think about it, anyone who can't raise a million for that race may want to reconsider their candidacy.
Good subject Jack.
"You said Maurice Johannessen wrote a check for $1,000,000 for his senate election. The usual amount is $100,000 that candidates put up to get some money into their campaign for everyone to see. Why $100,000? It is because this is the total amount that is refundable, anything over that is not. So I would have to question that Johannessen would put $900,000 at risk. John please give me a link to his finacial records that would show this is true."
Remember, MoJo's first race was before the days of campaign contribution limits. And before the the passage of the $100,000 loan refund limit. Campaign contribution limits did not come in until 1998 and the loan limit did not come in until the 2002 elections. His first campaign was before the time of Internet reporting and even before Windows 95. I will have to refer you to the printed contribution forms in the Shasta County Recorder's archives for verification.
Barbara McIver is a very soar spot for 2nd AD newspapers. Links to the "Larry Flynt and Barbara McIver -- the wrong team for Northern California" smear that Doug LaMalfa's campaign heaped on that poor woman should not be hard to find. I saw the ads.
Jack you are somewhat quick to with the "me too" for LaMalfa. I suggest that you do some research before being off the cuff.
http://www.redding.com/news/2009/feb/07/editorials/
This is not a direction that I want to go in. My experience was at first the same having done research for LaMalfa's 2002 campaign I was welcome to dine at events and celebrate his swearing in at the Capital. As I cannot afford to make large cash contributions I was quickly there after expunged from the invitation list. I know first hand what he did to Pat Kinght in fact I still have a copy of the late hit lie. Would you like me to send you scan of it? Frankly, that was when I got out of the opposition research business. It destroys the soul.
Thanks John and Steve for your helpful input. Im kinda overwhelmed with honey-do's at the moment, but as soon as I can get back to you and address those very important issues you have raised I shall.
If I know something about the particular issue, I shall comment on them, but if I don't I will have to leave that up to others to address because I simply don't have the time to do a whole lot of investigation on everything anyone could bring up. I don't mean that in a dismissive way at all and I hope you can understand what I am saying. I try to respond to issues but I just don't always have the time to respond in kind.
Steve would you like to advertise your campaign school coming up next week? If so, please send us the particulars and we shall give you page one coverage exactly as you have worded it.
Steve and John, I looked into a couple of things you brought up and here is what I found.
Apparently Larry Flynnt contributed a lot of money to oppose the candidacy of the politicians that were against his gaming interests. It was purely retaliatory and candidate McIver opposing LaMalfa was clearly the benefactor of his lavish spending. The problem was, she for whatever reason, never publically came out to distance herself from Larry Flynnt. The LaMalfa campaign was being slimed by him and she was benefitting. Why she didn't say I have nothing to do with this porn guy who knows, maybe it just didn't cross her mind or it was a strategy, who knows? Next, I checked on her campaign records and you were off quite a bit. Check it out for yourself....
http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/PDFGen/pdfgen.prg?filingid=1112286&amendid=0
This link above shows the last McIver Termination Campaign Statement on file with the secretary of state. Line 22 of page 3 shows the cumulative spending she spent during her campaign $137,882. Thats quite a bit more than you've indicated!
It's okay to be biased in our personal comments, but lets all try to keep our opinions seperate from the facts. With that said, I do appreciate your comments and your opinions. They are interesting and it helps voters form their own opinions.
Ok Jack, I went to the link that you provided. I was wrong she spent $13,815 of her own money not $10,000 [loan forgiven]. That's no where close to the $225k worth of checks LaMalfa wrote in his first campaign all of which he paid himself back with contributions made after he cinched the seat in the Primary. BTW, what contributions tend to have the most corrupting influence? The ones received before victory is certain? Or the $225,000s received from the special interests in Sac after the seat is certain that when right into LaMalfa's personal bank account?
I know that she had a whole herd of small contributors and some party money. So what? There was no chance whatsoever that she could win, NONE. The party registration in the 2nd AD is heavily republican that any dem involvement is strictly to panic a fool into squandering campaign money that could be used to help in other races.
As for your justification of LaMalfa's smear tactics that's shear nonsense. Flynt sent out *A* mailer attacking incumbents both dems and reps that opposed a bill that was in his gaming business interests. At least only one mailer [post card] showed up attacking LaMalfa, that's it. Doug knew full well who sent that mailer and why, that McIver had no part in it and it would make no difference. She did distance herself when LaMalfa started attacking her for being associated with Pornography, not gaming, pornography! "Why she didn't say I have nothing to do with this porn guy?" She did! Also, she did not take any money from Flynt or his gaming interest.
Actually defending that smear as some how being justified is just sad. Did you read the opeds from the newspapers at the time or ask David Reade how he justified it?
Well, not sure what else I can say here John, I've tried to present the facts as I found them. You're twisting my words again too John and that's not appreciated. I never said this woman took one penny from Larry Flynt. Further, I'm not defending anything, I am just telling you what I found out. I am reporting the other side of the picture, a part not mentioned by you. This is fair because there's always two sides to every story, isn't there?
Look, obviously you have an axe to grind with Doug on behalf of your candidate Keene and thats fine as long as we're being clear about it.
And another thing, it looks like Mr. Keene really doesn't have a million bucks to spend on the primary election. Some of the donations to him that would otherwise have exceeded the legal limit were split into two donations. This means they can only be partly spent in the primary and then the other part spent in the general. So when you see his grand total, you have to account that it is not all spendable in the primary.
It looks like there is about $200,000 worth of these big donations that must be spilt up and that brings the actually money available by both candidates in the primary to be at least closer than Mr. Keene was reporting in his news letter two days ago. Of course you know how I feel about the need for big money, so I'm not impressed that either side should find it necessary to raise so much for an election to the state legislature, but I also realize I am being an idealist and not a realist.
Fair enough, you are not defending anything. Can you offer the link you found that lead you to reasonably conclude this?
"The problem was, she for whatever reason, never publicly came out to distance herself from Larry Flynnt. The LaMalfa campaign was being slimed by him and she was benefiting. Why she didn't say I have nothing to do with this porn guy who knows, maybe it just didn't cross her mind or it was a strategy, who knows?"
It's not so much an axe to grind as telling the past as I remember seeing it happening. I was there. Although at the time I remember we were laughing about it. I remember saying that doing ops research on McIver would be like clubbing a baby seal. I am not one bit hesitant to do what is necessary, even if it is distasteful. Crushing a candidate without any need just because you can is petty and childish. Are you sure you would not like to see a copy of the last minute sleazy lie told on Pat Kight? I found it today in my scanner archives. It's a beutiful 4 color 8 x 11 flat mailer.
John, you have made your point. You were there and I wasn't.
It'[s just my humble opinion now but I think I can smell a a red herring here and if that's the way it has to be, fine. This is old news and it's obviously been hashed over and over ad naseum, but it looks like these kind of things are going to make a come back in this campaign. I hate to see us digress to that, would rather we stay on point with issues, with facts and with reporting of the money and all the transparency we can get.
Could I ask, are you employed by the Keene campaign now and were you employed by the Keene campaign back when this Flynt thing came up?
Could I ask, are you employed by the Keene campaign now and were you employed by the Keene campaign back when this Flynt thing came up?
No. The LaMalfa campaign hired me to do the opposition research on McIver. I started it and decided that I did not want to be a part of what was going to happen. I never turned in the information or billed for my time. They hired some one else to do the deed.
I brought up McIver in the context of explaining the disparity in reported fund raising totals. Had LaMalfa not frittered away $450,000 grinding her into the ground they would have about the same amount of cash. You tend to imply [and have directly said in previous posts] that the difference in cash on hand is that one candidate has made more behind the scenes deals than the other.
It was you that went down the road [I said I did not want to go down] of offering justification for the slime campaign. So we went. Realistically, LaMalfa could have followed Richter's example and spent nothing on re-election campaigns. In the 2nd AD it would not have changed the final results much if at all. In fact it might have improved his numbers because the smears turn the newspapers and many local activist [in the case of Kight and Byrne] against him.
You did not offer a link to how you came to that opinion about McIver. Also, it's kind of hard to believe that you took the time to parse Keene's contribution list to come up with the $200,000 of non-primary usable cash. What with all your pressing honey dos and such. Although, I think that you would tell us if the opinion and number came from the LaMalfa campaign and was not independently verified by you. I am sure that they are free to correct anything they feel is not accurate posted here under their own names. You would never let them use you to put out something that they were not prepared to back up or be accountable for.
John Gillander
John, the things I would like to address here is going back to where we started before we got all these side issues going. The flier Keene sent out indicated his campaign raised a million bucks give or take and they said LaMalfa was way behind. (You accused LaMalfa of wasting his campaign money trying defeat a non-contender. )
I did a lot of checking, a whole lot of checking! And yes, Mr. K does have about 1 million in his war chest as his flier said. A million dollars for a campaign up here in the rural counties is a very large amount of money and I questioned where all this big money came from and suggested that it probably didn't come from 10 and 20 dollar donations and I was right.
In fact, those small donors represent a very small percentage, the big money is coming from PAC's (special interests), unions and insurance companies. Check it out and come back and then tell us who the top 3 largest contributors have been to his campaign. I can tell you right now that one union gave him $50,000, but they broke in down into 50 $1000 donations. This is good to know, but only a handful of voters would ever see it because its not that easy to find!
Mr. Keene reported in Feb 2010 that in 2009 he raised $109,661, but I see his expenses for the year totalled $149,272. He's not even an office holder at this point, but he still spent almost $150k?
Funny you never mentioned Keene's expenditures, yet you are quick to accuse Doug LaMalfa over his spending habits during an actual campaign! Look, maybe he didn't have to spend what he did to defeat a weaker opponent, but he was also getting his own message out and positioning himself as a strong candidate for future events and that would more than justify his expenditure. Now, that's just my guess and I know you have another opinion. Still, I suspect that the Larry Flynt money (40k) was an opportunity for Doug not only to gain ground on his opponent, but to connect with the voters as a strong candidate getting his own message out. So you say he overspent, maybe, but it was his campaign, who are we to say. He won it so he must not have been running his race too bad! lol
Why would I think that Doug was trying to connect with the voters using the Larry Flynts spending against him? Well for starters, LaMalfa's conservative score card by the CRA was much higher than Keene's. Keene scored an 80 and thats nice, but LaMalfa scored 95% on the CRA's Legislative score card - 2007. Feel free to double check and comment on this one if you wish.
Looking at the most recent filing for the Keene campaign, yes he does have a million bucks, but it's not all spendable in the primary. I did my homework and it looks like about $200k must be rolled over to the general election, because it can't be spent in the primary. I did my homework John and it was a lot more work than I wanted to do - now you can do yours if you want to prove I'm wrong. But, really its not about me, you will have to show the filings are wrong. I got my information right off the Sec. of State's site.
John, you are a very smart person. You are highly experienced in campaigns and you have professionals you can call in heartbeat to help you find what you are looking for. I had to struggle to find this stuff, I admit it, I don't have your connections nor your knowlege. However, I made many phone calls on my own dime, I had to tediously do counts and so on, it was a bad experience for me and it just shouldn't be this hard to get clear information on a candidate! (maybe we can agree on that one?) However, it just shows our Secretary of State has a long ways to go before the average person can figure out what in the heck is going on in a particular race! They (SoS) don't even break down the money by types of contributions, i.e. pac money or unions, this all has to be hand counted one contribution at a time by us! What a crock, who has time for that other than paid consultants? I sure don't and I ain't getting paid one dime for my research. But, if I can help people be more informed, I will whenever possible.
I like to think you would too John. And I want to believe that you would do it for no other reason than you just like to support your candidate and you have no employment or money interest involved in this race. I sincerely hope that is the case and if it is, then my hats off to you. We don't have to agree to respect one's patriotic devotion to their candidate of choice.
Jack,
I have spent the entire morning going over paper campaign finance reports. It keeps occurring to me that besides us and a few others, no one ever looks at these things, certainly not the voters in general.
I don't disagree with your last post.
I will point out that your question:
"He's not even an office holder at this point, but he still spent almost $150k?"
Seems like a moot point when you look at LaMalfa's report he raised $359,304.46 during the same time and spent $212,532.47 even though he wasn't in office either.
Have a look at 2008 the last year they both were in office. Keene raised only $23,646. In political terms hardly worth noting. He must have been busy at his job. Where as LaMalfa raised $216,769. I guess he put in more time with his "hand out looking for cash" that last year. As a backbencher he had more spare time?
You should know by now that I am not a rich man or even well off. Any deminimus amounts of money I might from time to time receive from doing political stuff is purley to cover the vulgarities of life such as food and gas. No one could ever look at any amount I have ever received and accuse me of even being even a moderately paid political operative. I was on Richter's staff for $500 a month. The lowest paid staffer in the whole Capital. I have never been a mercinary. When you see me with a campaign the one thing you can know for certain is that I belive in that person. And before you say it deminimus paid campaign work has never lead to a staff position once the canidate was elected nor has such position ever been promised to me. [I came to work for Richter only after he was in his 3rd term]
John Gillander
Well there you go John, we're now incredibly well informed and that makes about a handful of us. Now if we could only educate and inform the other 95,000 that are expected to actually cast a vote we would be doing good.
Its disheartening to know most voters won't give more than 30 seconds consideration to how they vote. They might like his smile or something and vote on that basis alone....you want to talk about something that is sad, it's the level of informed voting that takes place in this country. People for the most part really don't care, they feel their vote is pretty much worthless. I don't know we change that either because I can understand how they would feel that way!
If a vote was really worth something people might treat it better. But, when you have dead people voting on a regular basis, when people vote twice or more, when illegals vote, when they bus in bums to cast votes...it's downright discouraging, know what I mean?
I do not share your opinion about the voters at least those that cast ballots. If I did I would not do the work that I do. I believe in the process. It is up to the people to elect leaders with vision that will inspire more participation and lead us back to not just the point where our County, State and Communities got lost but onward to a better future.
The fundamental disagreement that I always have with your perfect world arguments is that we will never live in such a world. Money is absolutely essential to being able to reach voters with a vision. People are not inherently stupid or lazy, at least the ones who vote. They will always vote for the government that they want and deserve. It is up to candidates to educate them that there is a better way with better ideas. And that takes a lot of money from many sources.
I don't blindly support any candidate even if he has a R after his name. So I am not suited to the BCRCC. When a Republican candidate, a real Republican comes forward with a vision based on the values and principles that we share and has proven that he lives those by those values. Then I support him. Reciting the Party Platform isn't enough to get my support. As you say we both have educated ourselves. We just interpret what we have found differently.
I don't know that I believed what I said about dumb voters either John, so we can agree on that! Hows that for an admission? No, that was just my many years of frustration speaking, because California voters have repeated voted in liberal democrats into office. I'm really angry and frustrated over that, because its really hurt this state on so many levels, education, immigration, prisons, highways, etc.
That's where that snide remark was coming from and I know a substantial number, maybe a fairly high number at least try to vote intelligently and not in some knee jerk fashion.
Now I have to disagree with you. Money is NOT essential to electing good candidates. If that was true then our founding fathers had it all wrong. I believe big money in elections leads to corruption. I also believe as do the British, that there are ways to take a large portion of influence away from the big money special interests and give back to the voters.
It will never be a perfect system, for every loop hole we close, two spring up, thats just the way it is, I get it. So I'm not striving for perfect, just less corrupt. Wouldn't you like to see politics less corrupt? I know most folks would and its why the voted in Prop 208, but lost it before anything was changed.
My friend himself a former Senator, Maurice Johannesen, told me many times that Sacramento was beyond anything he could have imagined, that it was so corrupt and there were so many games being run, it was just unreal.
We are always going to disagree about the need for money.
Hey, how about telling us why you think LaMalfa will be a good Senator? Does he have a vision? How did he inspire to to support him? All I remember your posts in the past saying is that you think their voting record are close and you didn't like some of Keene's campaign tactics. That wouldn't be enough for a candidate to get my support. Why does LaMalfa have yours?
Then perhaps I could write a response using positives only telling why I think Keene is the right man for the job. Even explain why I believe that their records are not really the same and why I think Keene has been the more effective legislator.
If all of Doug's supporters were like me he probably wouldn't win, because I'm not what I consider a rabid supporter like candidates need. No big donations here! lol None... I can guarantee that! In fact I'm not sure I gave him anything, but if I did it would be $25. That's my personal limit to candidates.
I've probably given out 10 or 12 small donations this year (all good conservative republicans of course) and I did that just because its an election year.
You asked, why do I like Doug? Okay, thats a fair question. Right off Doug comes across as one of us. A regular guy we can talk too.
I suppose our friendship started long before he ran for anything, when he and I were just members in the Central Committee. I always liked him. Doug was very generous with his support for us, but then again so was Rick in the CRA and he's a personable guy too.
So far they are pretty much even. Moving forward a few years when Rick became a city councilman, I strongly supported him. He was attacked viciously by the left and he stood his ground and did very well defending himself. I admired Rick for that and I went public with my support. Now Rick has the political edge over Doug with his council experience, but Doug was more active within the Central Committee, so make this point a slight edge for Rick. Then Doug and Rick ran for Assembly and things for conservatives couldn't have been much better. The dynamic duo enters the assembly and all was good.
They both performed within expectations. But, Doug exceeded expectations with his voting record as reflected by the study done by the CRA. Then when the state was experiencing financial problems and the legislature had really failed us on some major screw ups they wanted to give themselves a pay raise. Never mind the fact they were already the highest paid in the nation! Rick accepted the raise and Doug publically rejected this raise and said pretty much what I was thinking, that the legislature didn't deserve it and our state budget really couldn't afford it. Of course very few echoed his stand for what was right, even if it cost him $20 grand a year. So in my humble minset Doug now has a slight edge over Rick.
The way each chose to run their campaigns was a factor and you have your opinion and I have mine on this and you know the area we part company, so I won't rehash that at Rick's expense, wouldn't be fair. But, this bumped Doug up a few points now and he's a front runner. Then Rick's ideas in his campaign came out and they reflected many of my own, like limiting the number of bills the assembly can rubber stamp thru in any give year, we both hate that. Now Rick gains a couple of points for his creativity. Overall both men stand for conservative values and would do a very respectable job if elected.
I have this strong feeling that nobody is going to sway Doug LaMalfa to write legislation to help out an industry because they are big campaign donors. I don't know if Rick would, he probably wouldn't, but with Doug I feel very confident he wouldn't. I also strongly feel that Doug is more like one of us, he's very approachable and I like that. I also feel Doug really feels like I do about what money and campaigning has come to in elections and he feels very uncomfortable about being forced to raise the money, just like I would if I were in his shoes. He's a very reluctant fund raiser. I like that. I also like his support of law enforcement and farmers and I support him for the same reasons Butte County Sheriff's Association does and why so many farmers do. He understands us and he relates very well to us. So I give Doug LaMalfa that slight edge. I could say more, but it would be over kill.
Your turn?
Busy day, I will endeavor to respond tomorrow ~ JG
I never make any cash donations to candidates. If I truly believe in a candidate I will work for that candidate so long as any personal costs to me are covered, as I am not a wealthy man able to afford politics as hobby.
This direct comparison isn’t really the format that I had envisioned because it tends to invite negatives when referring to one candidate over the other. Oh well, we will go wherever the truth takes us without worrying about giving offence. Brutal honesty while seldom considered political does in my view have much merit.
I can see your point when I first met LaMalfa he did have a “regular guy” affect about him. I do not have the republican party experience that you do so I haven’t come into contact with County Club republicans whom I would assume do not come off as “regular guy” types? In 2002 Doug didn’t come off as a guy born into great wealth, whose folks handed him everything on a silver platter including the money for a campaign to win a seat in the CA Assembly. His more recent temper tantrum at the Shasta County CRA which cost him their endorsement does argue that perhaps a true nature is coming out under the pressure of having to run a contested campaign. Prior to 2002 I did notice him in the background at Republican Party functions but truthfully he was so quiet that I never learned anything about him. I assume that he was at the meetings which I attended but I would have to check attendance sheets to be sure.
I met Rick Keene when he was serving on the Chico City Council. Back then there were 2 conservatives and 5 liberals on the council. For 6 years I attended council meetings and City finance committee meetings only missing a few. I witnessed first hand Keene’s commitment to conservative principals both in speaking and voting. I saw him recruit his conservative friends to become candidates and work to elect them to the council. It was his leadership that brought the conservative council majority into being and sadly in the leadership void when he left to serve in the Assembly I saw the liberals take the council back. 1998 to 2002 it was the finance committee where the real conservative action was taking place in Chico. I saw Rick restructure city finances creating reserves and restoring fund balances that once were filled with IOUs. For a time there the city finances were truly in good shape and able to survive economic fluctuations. I saw him resist temptations to spend our tax dollars and week in week out demonstrate that he is truly a fiscal conservative. The record is there, actions means far more than any words ever could. Having a demonstrated track record put Keene so far a head of LaMalfa by the 2002 Assembly races that they were not playing in the same league.
LaMalfa went into 2002 untested and unproven or vetted as an actual office holder. I had always assumed that from what little public comments that he had made he was a conservative. More pointedly was that Pat Kight the guy that he was running against was most definitely a RINO salivating at the chance to continue the Dick Dickerson practice of selling us out to Gray Davis and the democrats on budget deals for personal or political gain. Much like your friend Mojo used to do. Sorry but that’s the truth, Jack your friend was a deal cutter on the budgets.
In the Assembly I saw LaMalfa mostly as a backbencher not saying much. I did notice that he authored legislation that would financially benefit his contributors and himself. Bills that tend to enrich rice farmers such as Doug and his farmer contributors at the expense of us run of the mill taxpayers, count don’t they? As you say: “I [Jack] also like his support of law enforcement and farmers and I support him for the same reasons Butte County Sheriff's Association does and why so many farmers do.” I don’t know about the Sheriff’s but I can sure see why farmers support him. I guess that you do not consider writing legislation that helps his farmer donors as helping out an Industry?
Keene hit the ground running in 2002. With his government finance experience he went right on to the state budget committee during the 2002 budget crisis. Most newly elected republican legislators from NoCal like Doug tend not to have the experience necessary and find themselves way over their head relying on staff and the caucus to tell them how to vote. I watched the budget hearings, audit committee hearings and Assembly floor sessions for a few years when I still was getting the Cal Channel. I will admit to experiencing pride when Keene stood up eloquently for conservative principals during floor debates and at seeing his ability to convince other legislators to vote with him. While wincing at LaMalfa stumbling over his words during the same debates. Doug does speak in complete sentences now, if in a monotone. I am not finding much inspiring in what he has been saying. His voting "no" may have given him a good over all records by some standards of measurement but that not a vision to bring our state into the future. Nor is following caucus staff recommendations leadership.
It is easy if you look at the internals to see how the CRA ratings can be gamed. The bills used to establish the rating are picked only after the votes have been taken. A clever person can make pick the bills using the ones that will give the future candidate of his choice a better or even a 100% rating while lowering the potential opponent’s rating by picking bills where they differ. It is a very subjective process. I cannot see where some of the bills used, such as one that made it illegal for teenagers to drive while talking on the cell phone, is a bell weather conservative issue. Read past the descriptions on the website as to what the bills really did and see if we can agree. I know that these rating are seen as helpful by people who are too busy to watch the legislature in action. Also that the CRA ratings do not represent the CRA endorsement. We need not go into how that endorsement can be gamed. When it comes to making up my mind I have to go with my own senses, what I see, hear first hand and read.
This took awhile I hope that you have the space and might put it and your post together in a new post closer to the top of the cue. As people do read this blog.
John Gillander
Thanks John you went to a lot of effort to express your opinion in support of Rick Keene and I am impressed with your observations. You have stated your case quite well and I am now digesting those points you have made. Yes, all very well said John, very well said. I'm glad we had this exchange.
Just one point in response for now and that is about farmers. You said, " I did notice that he authored legislation that would financially benefit his contributors and himself. Bills that tend to enrich rice farmers such as Doug and his farmer contributors at the expense of us run of the mill taxpayers, count don’t they?" Yes they do and so do farmers, we all are sharing the same life boat and we depend on each other.
Because of the complexities in today's farming it's difficult for the average non-farm citizen to relate to some of the strange rules and costly regulations farms are forced to follow. They might not appreciate what a big deal it is to have farm use only diesel and gasoline exempt from road tax, or tilling regulations or pesticide application licensing and workers comp costs and all sorts of liabilities involved in this dangerous occupation , but farmers sure do, they know these issues intimately and when the wrong legislation gets passed it can hurt or destroy small farms. Theres a lot more farm specific issues, water rights for example, that are critical to the support of the farm industry in this assembly and senate district. Farming is huge business and it supports thousands of people in our area and they pay a huge amount of taxes so it's right that we should have people like Doug LaMalfa in there to speak for farmers.
Like most people I just want government to stay out of the way and I don't support subsidies unless it's for national security interests. So I can appreciate a legislator with ag understanding willing to speak for the farmer. This is our heritage from the begining of this nation, I see nothing wrong with legislators trying to help struggling farmers, God knows legislators have done plenty to hurt them over the past few decades.
That is part of the problem in CA. Everybody sincerely believed that their program or tax cut is justified. I thought it was a good program to give very low income senior citizens and disabled folks a $470 rebate on their property tax. It seems justified especially in the case of seniors because most of their property tax is going to pay for local schools even though the don't have any children in them. It was a big help to people living on Social Security in making ends meet. This is cutting edge poverty stuff and people who have worked and paid taxes all of their live. That program was almost the very first one cut. How does farming tax credits, tax breaks on fuel, or farm subsidies stack up against that? Is the farmer going to go to bed hungary, have to cut back on heating his home, forgo medical treatment because he cannot afford the medicare co pay without his breaks?
Maybe so. But then isn't it time for leadership? We need to look to a better way. Are we even looking at ways to restore farming to a free market model. Farm subsidies are older than both of us. Haven't things changed in all that time? Isn't it time to end the government support?
Wouldn't be less unseemly if the legislator authoring bills to give farmers tax breaks wasn't a farmer who personally benefited from those breaks and whose contribution list wasn't mostly farmers? To me that is looks just like the appearance of corruption that you are railing against.
This thread has gone off the grid. See ya on the next one ~ John
A final thought about:
"Doug publicly rejected this raise and said pretty much what I was thinking, that the legislature didn't deserve it and our state budget really couldn't afford it. Of course very few echoed his stand for what was right, even if it cost him $20 grand a year. So in my humble mindset Doug now has a slight edge over Rick."
Which meant more to Doug's bank account and the State treasury? That tax breaks that he authored or the pay raise that he turned down.