Suggestions Regarding the June Primary in California and San Francisco For Your Review

People keep asking me “hey, who are you voting for in the June 3rd Primary” almost every day, it seems. Well maybe not, but when there’s an election without a lot on the line (unless you live in AD 17 where the Chiu/Campos slugfest is clogging your mailbox with BS), I do hear this more often than not.
So without any further ado, here are my humble opinions on the ballot we’re stuck with for June 3rd. Remember – for partisan offices, we now send the 2 candidates who receive the most votes in the primary – regardless of party.
This means that in places like San Francisco, which have an overwhelming number of voters registered Democratic and Decline to State, you could wind up with two Democrats vying for a job in Sacramento and no other parties represented. The same goes for heavily Republican areas that may wind up with two GOP candidates on the ballot, slugging it out.
Is this a smart idea or not? Personally I’m not sure, but if nothing else it ensures that political consultants who operate in areas dominated by one party have a job, no matter what, after June 2nd, so if nothing else this creates jobs, so, awesome.
Statewide Offices:
Governor: Jerry Brown. It’s the first time in ages we’ve had an adult in charge of California. That is all.
Lt. Governor: @darth on Twitter. The current LG has made no secret he hates his do-nothing job, he never shows up to work, and spends most of his time mouthing off at the Adult in Charge (Gov. Brown). At least @darth could tell better jokes on the gov’t dime, and he’d get a nice pension out of it.
Secretary of State: This is an “open” seat, as the incumbent is termed out. You can vote for Uncle Leland if you wanted (even though he’s been busted by the feds). This is a tough call: I ended up voting for Alex Padilla, but I also like David Cressman because he’s a reform minded guy. Either one would be fine.
Controller: This office does a lot of Important Things, but the one that most people care about the most is the Office of Unclaimed Property. The current officeholder is termed out, so basically the question is: who will ensure that money you’re owed goes to you quickly, easily and legally.
Despite my years in the political business, etc, I honestly didn’t know who to vote for. The only candidates I’d really heard of were Betty Yee (Current Board of Equalization member) and John Perez (former Speaker of the Assembly for a few years). I think I flipped a coin between the two.
Treasurer: This is a no brainer – John Chiang (the former Controller). Why? Because he did a really good job streamlining the aforementioned Office of Unclaimed Property. Having had significant dealings with this office, I can say the guy made it a lot easier and quicker to get back the money the gov’t has that’s legally yours. So yeah, move this guy over to the Treasurer’s office, and let’s see what he fixes there.
Attorney General: It sometimes feels like the other parties are phoning it in, because when a major party has as one of its potential nominees Orly Taitz, a wackadoodle from the Internet, you have to wonder. I voted for incumbent Kamala Harris because she’s going to win anyways, so why fight it?
Insurance Commissioner: This is one of the few times where you can vote for someone and actually feel good about it. Incumbent Dave Jones has been one of the few people who got elected to a statewide office because they wanted the job AND wanted to do some good.
Board of Equalization, District 2: I like Fiona Ma, but it seems like all she’s done for the last 12 years is run for one office after another, always looking to the next Government Gig while in office. I left this one blank. Shoulda written in someone.
Statewide Ballot Measures:
Proposition 41: This is a bond measure (aka borrowed money) for a measure to help with housing and homeless services for veterans. While I’m not a fan of voting for every single bond ever (since this bites us all in the ass when the massive interest is paid back), are you REALLY going to vote no on something for veterans? I voted Yes.
Proposition 42: I’m not sure why we have to vote on something this arcane as the enforcement of rules regarding public meetings etc., but when I read who is for it (State Sen. Mark Leno, among others) and read who was against it (one of these conspiracy nuts who things that a bus line is a tool of Satan), well it’s clear that one should vote YES.
State Assembly – San Francisco Districts

State Assembly, District 17: I don’t have a dog in this fight because I don’t live in the district. Two SF Supervisors who ran for re-election in 2012, but somehow didn’t like their jobs enough to serve out a full term are running: David Campos and David Chiu. This could result in a classic Democrat-on-Democrat fistfight in the fall if they both prevail. Either way if one of these people gets elected, Mayor Lee will appoint their replacement, so keep that in mind, regardless of your political leanings.
If I lived in this district I’d write in myself or something, because neither one really should be getting a promotion since they more or less lied when they ran for re-election. If you really want to take this seriously, why not vote for Chiu – at least he can work with an all-Southern California based leadership in the Legislature. Campos is running primarily to increase his pay or something, and will just be a grandstander like he did here in SF.
State Assembly, District 19: Vote for me. Yes, me. Write my name in. That is all.
Look I like Phil Ting and he’s a nice enough person, but his advocacy to rename the Bay Bridge after Willie Freakin’ Brown means I can’t vote for him this time around. He’s going to win anyways, so a few write in votes for me won’t hurt. Plus in some weird twist of fate I’d win, let’s just say I’d take the term “disrupt” to a whole new level in Sacramento.
US House – San Francisco
US House, District 12: Due to redistricting, all of San Francisco is now in one district, currently represented by Rep. Nancy Pelosi. Now, I like Mrs. Pelosi, and she’s had a long career in the House, but the sad truth is the likelihood of her EVER becoming Speaker again is slim to none. There’s plenty of reasons for this, some in her control, and some not. I raise this only because if things continue with the wackadoodles running the House as is, this isn’t going to end well for anyone and someone(s) need to be held accountable for this constant Democrat Fail we have on the House side of things.
I ended up voting for Pelosi only because there’s no one else with a real campaign to challenge her, but I did so knowing what’s going to happen in November. If you’re really upset about things like drones or whatever, then vote for Barry Hermanson. He is a nice guy and presses all the right lefty buttons, but he is also a perennial candidate, so don’t expect an October Surprise if he makes it to the finals in November.
San Francisco Ballot Measures
Proposition A: I voted “No” because it’s not clear from the Voter Guide how much the cost of this bond (aka borrowed money) would be passed on to renters. I’m sure it’s a good thing, and like, every person at City Hall endorsed it, but that also makes me a bit suspicious.
Proposition B: If the Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions, then San Francisco is covered in cement and said Good Intentions. This is one of those well-meaning ballot measures (hey! let voters vote on every single thing ever near the water!) that has a lot of Unintended Consequences. Plus, the people behind it aren’t being truthful about their intentions. So, vote NO.
Put it another way: would you want that howler monkey colony known as the SFGate comments section micromanaging development in San Francisco? HELL NO, VOTE NO.
On an unrelated note, I wanted to also make a pitch for a friend of mine in Washington State who is running for their state House of Representatives in a suburban district south of Seattle. His name is Mike Sando, and he’s running for an open seat in the 33rd District up there. He’s a parent, a teacher & coach, a labor leader, and serves on the Enumclaw City Council, and worked in the Legislature for many years, so he knows how to actually Get Things Done in Olympia, and won’t need training wheels his first year in office.
I’ve known him for 20 years and know him to be a good guy, and that’s rare in politics these days.. You can read more about him at his Facebook page and if you are so inclined, send him a few dollars. House races in Washington state don’t cost a lot so even a donation of $20-$100 helps out a lot.

If Anything Interesting Happens at the California Democratic Convention in LA, I’ll Let You Know…

I’m attending the California Democratic Convention in Los Angeles this weekend. It’s unclear how much actually “news” or Democrat-on-Democrat political fighting will occur, but if anything fun happens I’ll let you know.
You can follow me on Twitter at my main account, @njudah where I’ll hashtag the relevant entries with #cadem2014. If anything warrants a longer form post, I’ll post here from some hotel computer. It should provide for at least some entertainment, if nothing else.
I’ve been going to most of these things since 2003, depending on where they’re located, and often I find just talking to the various people working behind the scenes, I learn a bit more than just what makes the daily news. Thus, I’ll pass along any interesting details, should they pop up!

The Yahoo Mail Fiasco: Yet Another Example of Silicon Valley’s Endless Commitment to “Fiddling”, not “Innovating”

Turned on the Internet this morning and it seems there was a firestorm of criticism being leveled at Yahoo.com for their changes to their long time Yahoo Mail service. Reading the coverage, it sounds pretty bad for those who relied on this service.
I haven’t used Yahoo mail much in years (although in the late 90s/early 2000s I relied on a primitive but reliable version of the service when I traveled).
After reading some of the specifics, I have to say I’m not really that surprised. Yahoo is under a lot of pressure to reinvent it self, and fast and start making something called “money” to justify all those salaries that ride the Yahoo Bus** south every day.
Unfortunately, they seem to have chosen the route that is common for companies, big and small in this so called “tech”*** sector – pay lots of people to endlessly fiddle around with a product, changing details big and small, and often, to seem like they are doing something, when they’re really not.
It would be unfair, however, to simply play the “let’s beat on poor dying Yahoo” game. Take a look at the Pain in the Ass known as ios7. Apple too, chose to add lots of gadgety bullshit we didn’t need (really, did I need my home screen to look like it’s in “3D”) and added an endless array of setting, pretty pictures and such. They also took a lot of the ease of use that was the hallmark of previous iOS’s (iOSes?).
It doesn’t really hit you until you use someone’s phone using iOS6 and you realize Apple in the post-Jobs era that this, like other products from the tech*** world was a classic example of fiddling by committee, not creating any true innovation. One can only wonder if Mr. Jobs would have really approved.
Oh, but we could go on. Facebook? HA! They took “fiddling” to a whole new level – how many times have they made revisions based on all sorts of BS. Remember when the directive was a vague notion to “be more like Twitter!” a few years ago? No? Well then how about the endless ticky tacky settings regarding “privacy” users have faced since the beginning?
Don’t get me wrong – not all companies do this and there are many mobile applications, online services and so on that actually do something useful and do continue to improve such products. Square comes to mind for its usefulness for independent merchants and those splitting the check at the restaurant, for example.
That said, it would be nice if we perhaps saw some of the Really Big Companies with Lots of Salaries tone down the fiddling, and get back to work making their products more useful.
For now, I’ll continue to use only the ones that work (free or not) and avoid the fiddlers.
**Same goes for everyone on one of those GoogleYahooFacebookBauer bus things.
***This is really for another entire post, but I think we have to stop describing the majority of these companies that call themselves “tech” as such, and instead call them for what they are – advertising companies.
The “products” are not really the services they purport to provide (Google Mail, Instagram, Facebook, Tumblr, etc) – that’s a secondary use. What they are really selling are their users who will look at said ads and supposedly click on them or whatever to buy something later on.
There’s no shame in that at all – I used to work for a company that bought online ads all the time and there’s many options for advertisers out there that didn’t exist 10 years ago. However, let’s not suggest these “tech” companies are on a par with those companies that built the US space program, create new medicines that cure disease, or build the many, many weapons that Americans like and seem to need.

Why The Decision to Cut Saturday Mail Is Not Only Stupid, But Also Makes No Sense

Why The Decision to Cut Saturday Mail Is Not Only Stupid, But Also Makes No Sense
If you haven’t heard, the US Postal Service will no longer deliver mail on Saturdays. This is a stupid idea, but not for the reasons you might think. The cause is also a bit more complex than what your “friends” in Congress and on TV would have you believe.
First: why this is stupid. For many years I worked with the US Postal Service producing large direct mail projects for candidates and organizations around the country. During that time I got to learn a lot about how the USPS actually works, and learned a lot from executives at the USPS whose job was to work with high volume mail producers to expedite their projects as efficiently as possible.
One thing that was made abundantly clear was that the one day of the week that the USPS had the least to do was Tuesday. This was for a number of unrelated reasons, owing mostly to how people pay their bills (especially credit cards) and when businesses would mail out fliers and other such things for weekly sales specials. The point is, if the USPS must cut service, cutting Tuesday makes more sense for them, and for you, the customer.
Removing Saturday mail causes more problems than it solves. Many people are busy during the week and use Saturday to get caught up on chores and the like. Not everyone can, or will, pay all their bills online, and getting rid of Saturday service is just going to make things more miserable during the week than they need to be. If you have a US Post Office box, you may or may no longer have access to it on weekends like you do now.
Worse, when you consider that many jurisdictions are openly encouraging “vote-by-mail,” and some states voting by mail only it doesn’t take a genius to see how killing mail on Saturdays could be worse than killing it on Tuesday. (I know that doesn’t seem to make sense, but if you spend enough time at huge mail facilities, trust me, it does).
There’s more, however. In addition to competition from online services and the ongoing Great Depression “Recession,” the USPS has been prohibited from providing additional services in your neighborhood, the USPS has an unprecedented mandate to fund a huge pension fund. They’ve been ordered to fund 75 years worth of pensions RIGHT NOW, something no other pension fund is required to do .
Needless to say, if you want to know where all the money is going , it isn’t going to postal service – it’s going to fund a pension fund in a way no other fund has to comply with. So far, few in Congress have spoken out, with the notable exception of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). have tried to speak out, but of course the chorus of the Know Nothing Party, and the Spineless Corporate Party tend to drown him out on the tv.
For those who sing the siren song of “privatize it,” I’ll simply leave you with how well that’s worked overseas. If you’ve ever had the stalwart efficiency of private monopolized internet service and cable tv providers in the US, or their esteemed counterparts in the health care industry, then you already can guess how well that would work here.
For decades our postal service has served us fairly well. Yes, it’s frustrating when there’s a long line, and a service that has to serve everyone, regardless of where they live, isn’t going to run perfectly. To see it get destroyed by the morons in Congress for the sake of a quasi-religious devotion to doctrine, however, is not only stupid, it makes no sense.

Another “Skinheads Vs. Geraldo” Battle: PG&E vs the Shell Game Called “SF Clean Energy”

Here we go again. Another San Francisco style cluster-frak in progress.
Let’s be clear – I now hate PG&E. After the way they totally f*cked up the pipeline situation in San Bruno, BS-ed their way about it, and caused so much damage, any past ties with these guys was done. Needless to say to have the concept of a “choice” to go elsewhere on its face should be like, awesome.
Enter San Francisco’s classic way to ruin things for the benefit of the politicians: the so-called Clean Energy SF “program.” It sounds all so politically correct – SF will “build” clean energy sources and people can choose them. OMG TEH AWESOME!
There’s just one problem – we’re trading one Big Energy giant for another. Worse, we’re going to see our power bills go up, at a time when many people can’t afford it. Even WORSE, you are going to be told to do as you’re told. If you want out, you’ll have to file papers and pay money to say “no.” (so “progressive” and “democratic.”)
In other words, it’s the classic “Skinheads vs. Geraldo” Battle: you like the idea that Geraldo Rivera gets his nose broken because he’s a jerkwad, but you hate the fact you are rooting for stupid skinhead nazis because they did it. In the end you wish you could root for someone to kick both their asses, because they both suck.
There are many pluses to energy that doesn’t require dead dinosaurs to make things happen – after all, I’ve promoted these at the N-Judah Chronicles because only an idiot thinks that gasoline and coal will be cheap for ever, and an economy based on dead dinosaurs, is, well, gonna die.
Fine and fine.That said, the mad desire of a few progressive politicians, who continue to use City Hall as the stage for stunts to improve their chances for higher office (all on the public’s dime) is poisoning good public policy. I don’t need my power bill doubled, all to service the corporate masters at Shell Oil to boost their prospects – especially if the goal is public power, we already have the solution. It’s called, the Hetch Hetchy system.
Now, oddly enough, the same “pwogwessive activists” who are on fire to give Shell Oil a death grip on ratepaying citizens in SF, are also the ones who want to pay for a “study” (oh see how it always starts as a “study” by people who predetermine the outcome before they start) to dismantle Hetch Hetcy, which provides cheap, non-carbon producing power that makes Muni run and electrifies City agencies.
See what they did there?
One has to wonder whose of pockets got lined on this deal – Shell gets your utility bill and jacks it up, and can burn cow poop if it likes, and can still call it “clean energy” – even if in fact that’s bullsh*t.
Sorry, friends, but if you fall for this one, you’ll have only yourself to blame for high power bills powered by burning cow poo. If you give promotions to the likes of John Avalos, David Campos and other “progressive” ilk, then you have no one but yourselves to blame as well. Do you really think they care about you at all? Think again – to them you are nothing but trained seals to clap when nice things and a few fish are tossed your way. Meanwhile they laugh all the way to the bank.
As for I, I will opt out of this scam for sure, and I’ll happily sign up for any other energy concern that uses non-dead dinosaur, non-polluting sources to keep my iPhone charged. I won’t, however allow my Muni to be forced to use expensive, shitty PG&E power to drive up Muni fares for the benefit of a few politicians who make six figures and don’t care about the middle class. Mitt Romney isn’t the only one that gives the finger to 47% of the country – in So-Called Progressive San Francisco, it’s the left that’s the side that says what’s yours is theirs, regardless if you can afford to pay.

Why Both Parties Suck Ass in the Second Decade of the 21st Century….

A short comment I wrote about a thing I saw on Twitter about, well, fuck it, just go read and listen, por favor.

Why I’m Not Running for Supervisor, Despite the Rumors

Several months ago, a rumor began about the possibility of me running for the Board of Supervisors in 2012. Naturally, this got the SF Internet Rumor Mill treatment for a while, and then as the months passed, quieted down. As many people still ask me if I’m running or not, I am saying today that the answer, sadly, is “no.”
I’ve entertained this notion as I have met people around the City, writing about City politics (particularly when it comes to Muni), who have encouraged me to run. The fact is I have a better understanding of how the SFMTA and Muni works than any other candidate, declared or not in the race for District 5, and I’m well aware of how the corruption, the lawmaking process and the money work at City Hall also. My only promise would be that I would never beholden to them, while others may or may not be.
If I was somehow elected, I’d owe no one anything and I would focus on getting things done at City Hall, not spending endless hours debating phony non-binding resolutions or catering to loud, small groups that too often get the ear of City Hall over Everyone Else.
As I began to research this, however, a few problems began to emerge. When I plotted a Google Map of every potential supporter of mine, a pattern emerged – many people did not live in the district (even if they lived in the Inner Sunset!). This is due in part to the fact that once again, the So-Called Progressives jammed a portion of the Inner Sunset into one of the most leftist districts in town. (Thanks for nothing, once again, guys!)
This has had the effect of dividing the Inner Sunset (for example I can walk a few blocks from my home and end up in District 7), and would put me at a disadvantage. Basically this means it doesn’t matter if the Appointed Incumbent can’t find the Inner Sunset on a map, because ultimately she can blow it off and still win election. Meanwhile, many voters would regard me as someone from the Farallon Islands, at best. So, this made me realize that right here, right now, this may not be a great idea.
The second, of course is money. Now that I no longer work in consulting, and have a little spare cash, I thought at first I’d be able to finance the startup capital to get the campaign going in a credible manner. However, much of my money is tied up right now in a couple of business ventures that are pending, so I can’t tap it like I thought. Plus – I had to ask myself how much I wanted to spend money on dead tree mail and online ads vs. health care or a vacation (an alien concept to me in recent years) or on things for my family. You can guess where I land on that.
More importantly, the Appointed Incumbent will have the billionaire 1% types and others who funded Ed Lee’s campaign last year AND the support of city labor unions who rely on the City for members to enhance their power. Going up against both of those without at least a solid base of support within a district meant that at best I’d raise “name ID” for a future run.
The prospect of that, and of having to spend most of my time at some forum answering the same questions in 1 minute or less made the prospect, at least for now, not worth it. Besides, when I do something I do it to win, not to “place” and would want to go to City Hall to do something, not just see myself on TV and blab on about stuff like most do.
Still, I have to say that many, many people came forward and offered support. I couldn’t possibly name them all here, but it was truly amazing to have people I never heard of tell me “do it!” and offer true support. I have also had many amazing offline conversations not just about the problems Our City faces, but how there seems to be a Silent Majority out there of folks just waiting to do their best and make SF once again the “City That Knows How.”
In recent times plenty of politicians have appropriated words like that, only to offer us more politics of the clubhouse and corruption. Needless to say, it’s nice to know not everyone thinks this is sustainable over the long term.
Finally, let me say this: I made the mistake in my early adulthood of getting as far away from San Francisco as I could, for whatever reason. While Washington DC and Seattle were nice places, it is only when I returned in 2000 that I realized this is where I belong, despite the nonsense. To paraphrase Mat Honan’s essay a while back, San Francisco has plenty of problems, but despite all that, I’d rather live here than elsewhere. If there’s some way I can continue to make things better, I want to go to there.*
For now, I’m going to keep on blogging, writing, and listening to the people about their daily lives and I’ll get involved when events warrant as a citizen. I want to thank again my friends, as well as the friends I didn’t know I had, for their support, and look forward to one day enlisting all of your help for something positive for Our Fair City.
PS: As for the 2012 race for Supervisor: I’m happy to have any candidate meet with me and tell me why they are the best person for the job, but they can’t use canned rhetoric or try and BS me. If one does emerge that warrants your vote, I’ll let you know.
PS2: While I may not be running, you can watch this entertaining trailer about a friend of mine in Seattle who challenged the Establishment back in 2001 (the pre Twitter/Facebook era) that’s coming out soon. Although my effort might have been a bit better organized, it would have retained an anti-Establishment tone. Also, you really should support my friend Kevin Montgomery and get him to run in District 9.
*Does anyone get this joke?

Deep Thought of the Day: Should Male Politicians Be Required to Use Condoms While In Office?

It seems like every year we, the People, are confronted with some malfeasance by male elected officials committed while in office that involve them “doing it” with people or in places they’re not supposed to. We are subjected to hearing about their (gross) sex lives, everyone gets in a huff, and nothing good comes out of it once the scandal is over.
This is a multi-partisan issue – think just in the last few years about politicians local (Newsom & Mirkarimi) state (Arnold Schwarzenegger, Mike Duvall and Gary Condit to name a few ) and national (Bill Clinton, David Vittner, Bob Packwood, and many more) who’ve had problems all because they can’t control themselves.
Clearly, this is an issue of both health and morals. Since many male politicians have seen fit to play the game of “Who Can Create the Handmaid’s Tale in Real Life” with bills to regulate birth control, abortions, de funding rape crisis centers and the like, all in the name of health and morals, maybe it’s simply time to take this to its logical conclusion: demand all male politicians use condoms during their affairs so as to limit the potential extra-marital births and for public health.
This way, we could be assured that even if we have electeds who have affairs, the worst they’ll do is make themselves look bad, and not bring in children to this world who will be put in the spotlight during a messy court case or custody battle, and we’d be assured no one is spreading diseases whilst in office. I can imagine several scenarios where this law might have diminished certain scandals to where they might not have been such a boil on the body politics.
Flame away, Internet! See how loud and crazy you can get in the comments!
PS: None of the lists I made are to be considered comprehensive at all – I didn’t have time to super Google a comprehensive list. We all know, though, that no one party has a monopoly on this kind of crap, and as far as I’m concerned, most politicians are either super corrupt, super immoral, or super neutral and just do whatever the lobbyists say. Both parties are full of people like this.

Even This Close to the Deadline, We Might Be Able to Save the Inner Sunset at City Hall

Watching the twists and turns of the San Francisco Redisricting Commission as they create new district maps for the Board of Supervisors has been like watching several well-meaning people play ping pong all at once, on meth in the dark. Things happen so fast, and change so dynamically, usually with no MSM coverage, by the time you think you know what’s going on, things have changed. Again. And again. AND…well you get the idea.
It was just about a week ago when I looked at what was the latest map, and it partially corrected the injustice committed on residents of the Inner Sunset by partisan progressive interests 10+ years ago-forcing part of the neighborhood into District 5, while cutting out many of the blocks of the Inner Sunset and put them into District 7. This injustice had the following effects:
– Many of us were forced into a district that elected Matt Gonzalez and Ross Mirkarimi, both “progressives,’ who paid more attention to more politically correct parts of the district. It also ensured that anyone from the Inner Sunset would have a harder time getting elected, since people in say, the Western Addition probably regard the Inner Sunset as they do the Farallon Islands – far, far away.
– The residents of the Inner Sunset were divided into two districts, making contact with the appropriate Board member confusing. Also, as I’ve stated before, this meant trying to get two busy Supervisors to attend a neighborhood meeting to express concerns. In Allegedly Sophisticated and Smart San Francisco, this is stupid.
Just recently there seemed to be a fix in teh works that would have at least contained more of the Inner Sunset in District 5, thus solving at least part of the problem. Unfortunately just a few days ago, the Commission decided to roll back the borders, citing the ‘traditional’ borders from 2002.
NEWS FLASH, Commissioners: that “historical” border was a partisan gerrymander hack designed by partisan progressives to jam a few precincts in to try and “help” narrow progressive itnerests, the residents be damned. Relying on this precedent is, for all intents and purposes, bullshit.
There are two remaining meetings of the Commission – one is tonight at 6pm at City Hall, Room 406. The other is this Saturday, April 14th, at 10:00am in Room 400. Both should be televised at SFGovTV online and on cable, but you never can tell if it’s going to be live or just taped it seems. UPDATE: Our Friend Paul Hogarth says the live link should be this one at SFGOVTV online.
I am going to try and attend tonight but it is a close call since I have to go spend most of the day out of town and given the commuting foibles of going from county to county, might not make it.
However, there’s nothing stopping you from going. The one good thing about the Commission is that they will listen if people show up, and will try to do their best to accommodate people, without worrying about what a few political bosses think. So that’s a good thing.

An Amended Modest Proposal: Reform “Public Financing” of Campaigns The Easy Way

There’s a whole cottage industry revolving around “campaign reform,” and for the most part it’s produced a lot of nonsense, locally and nationally. However, I am daring to get in the game and make a few modest proposals of my own, not for the sake of helping one partisan side over the other, but instead to give voters a clear choice and to be able to understand for whom or what they are voting for.
Earlier this year, I proposed that anyone running for office in San Francisco in 2012 be asked to sign a pledge saying simply that if they won election (or re-election) to the office they campaigned for, they’d actually serve the full four year term they asked voters for.
This may sound a bit nitpicky, but look at what happened in 2008 – we had several people run for Supervisor who asked the voters to send them to serve as Supervisor. Halfway through their terms, these newcomers then decided they’d had enough, and ran for Mayor. So did a lot of other elected officials.
Not only did they spend a lot of their time away from their six-figure salaried jobs, they asked for taxpayer money to finance piles of junk mail. In fact, we had so many people last year running for Another Office, things pretty much shut down at City Hall, all at a time when we needed people on the job. Add to the fact that taxpayers subsidized most of the Mayoral races (and yet the guy with the Super PACs funded by the 1% won anyway) and it’s clear something is wrong here.
Today I amend my suggestion that candidates running in 2012 sign a pledge to serve out their full terms in office and not run for another during said term with this:
Any candidate that takes taxpayer money in 2012 to run for office in San Francisco should serve out their full term. If they do not, they should be forced to return the tax money they used in 2012 to run for office if they decide to run for another job (Assembly, State Senate, Dogcatcher, Sheriff, etc.)
I don’t think this is an unreasonable request. I’m sure the politicians will ignore it, as they do anything that demands accountability or gets in the way of taxpayer dollars to finance their career advancement. It’d be interesting to see who, if anyone makes such a pledge. San Francisco voters would certainly be the beneficiaries though, since now they at least can figure out who’s telling the truth when they say “vote for me in 2012″ and who is not.