Disinfo Rehab

Right about now, just about anyone running for office, from Mosquito Abatement District Commissioner to Governor is sending out pleas on Twitter, Facebook, email, smoke signal, etc. begging for money. You see, we're hitting up against a "reporting deadline" whereby after today, most candidates will have to account for money raised and spent up to this point. Hence the e-begging and so on.

The Press, as usual, will peruse these, and based on how much money is reported, will declare who is a "viable" candidate. Predictable, yes. Accurate? Not necessarily.

That's because virtually every campaign (with the exception of those run by vain plutocrats) plays a little game with the reports. What they'll do is often ask staff to hold off being paid, or find vendors willing to wait a day past the deadline to get their bills paid. Why, you ask? Simple. By not showing that money as being spent they can show it as "cash on hand." Then, when The Press reports how much "money" they have, it looks like they have more than they really do. Trust me when I say this goes on way more than you might think.

It's a cheap trick, kinda like using wide ruled paper to make your report in school look longer than it is, or bumping up a font on that term paper. However, it is a tried and true way to make you look good, and The Press always falls for it. They can't help it - the next reports won't be filed for months.

Quarterly reports and the like are so 20th century. Instead, if people want to do public disclosure of money raised and spent, they should be filed electronically every week, and put online within days, and that way this kind of nonsense ends. More importantly, if you wanna drill down and see who is getting money from who, and whom they might be spending it on (vendors, consultants, pollsters, ad agencies, etc.) you'd find out a lot sooner.

As it stands, "disclosure" just means more money for the specialty lawyers and accountants who can deal with this bureaucracy legally, while the voter remains uninformed.

San Francisco has some unique twists on this, especially regarding spending limits, public financing, and so on, but that gets its own blog post.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So, in old news recycled, we're being reminding in various web-spaces that the City of San Francisco did indeed pass a non-binding resolution declaring a weekly "Meatless Monday" in order to "encourage" (love that word) people to be more holy or something. The people for it think they've really made a difference or something. Plenty of outsiders have seized upon this as another billy club to beat on Our Fair City with, and out-of-state Gate commenters are literally so angry and screaming mad they're going to need their blood pressure meds re-upped early.

Calm down, people and take a nice deep breath before you blow a blood vessel, let's review for a moment, shall we?

-Like any emotion inducing non-binding resolution, the key word here is non-binding. That means it's nothing more than a majority of supervisors expressing an opinion, albeit under the aegis of the City of San Francisco. Still, if a majority of Supervisors were sitting in a bar, and all agreed they liked Guinness, that would have about as much legal impact as a "non binding resolution."

The twist is, however when these things are doing at City Hall, emotional proponents and their feisty opposition scream and yell, cry and moan about this like it means something. IT DOES NOT! I can go to McDonalds, buy a big bag of burgers, and stand out on the street giving them out to anyone I so choose and the Man can't crack down on me.

Hell, I can even SIT DOWN ON THE SIDEWALK and hand out burgers and (for now) no one can stop me. If I want to eat NOTHING, not even VEGETABLES but simply go breatharian, I can do that too!! The point is, nothing is going to change, aside from some dead trees to print this thing up. Ooh, how "revolutionary!"

-I have no problem with Supervisors expressing their views on current events, by the way. I can respect other people's points of view, and I'm sure this had good intentions. There is an irony here, however - the resolution's main supporter, Sup. Sophie Maxwell, currently lives in a district with no real grocery stores. Try finding vegan anything or just some fresh produce on a regular basis, and you'd be hard pressed to do so. During a recent trip on the T Line I took the time to walk the neighborhood, and news flash, one has to get in a car or take a train to get any decent food. I certainly didn't see anyone thinking "Gosh we should stop selling meat on Mondays to save the planet" - because of course wealthy liberal types aren't going to go take the T Line to dialogue on these - they're too busy parking a Prius or something.

Now, had the Board used its power of the purse to mandate that the CIty no longer spend a dime or give a zoning variance to any grocery store chain that refused to start up a grocery in Ms. Maxwell's district, THAT would have had some impact. (and yes, that's not a great example but hey I'm not paid a six figure income to solve these issues, people at City Hall are, you come up with something better ok?). It would have also been a lot harder to do and a lot of well heeled lobbyists would have been crying and screaming.

But we didn't help fight apartheid in South Africa with "opinions" - it was cities and universities using their real-world power of the checkbook to cause problems for big companies like HP and Polaroid and other Big Corproations which divested from South Africa. Yet in 10 years on the Board, we heard nothing from the Board, or District 10's supervisor on the issue of fresh produce availability or access to healthy food whatsoever. Oh yeah, that non-binding resolution. RIGHT.

-Since "opinions" and "encouragement" and "feelings" play well with the electorate (after all we do re-elect these people constantly, yes?) may I propose my own non-binding resolution, one which will not cost anyone a thing.

I hearby declare Tuesdays at Noon to be the "Do The Hustle Tuesday." At the sound of the noon siren, San Franciscans will be encouraged to gather in public spaces, and do the Hustle to encourage exercising and celebrate the heritage that is the 1970s. Of course, none of you need join me when I do this in front of City Hall, and in fact, you can safely ignore it, like you can any non-binding resolution. But mine is more fun, and mine is free and no trees were killed in the making of said resolution.

So who's up for this?

(And yeah I know these prisoner dance videos are so 2008, but who cares? They are still cool.)

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For years I've often picked up pieces of political direct mail and scanned them in, with critiques, much like the way mainstream media does with political TV ads. I'd collected some for this season, but two things got in the way of doing so in advance of the election - technical difficulties (both with the blog software and my scanner) that took forever to fix, and a lack of material.

Normally I tend to get a lot of mail because I'm a mail ballot voter. But this year most of my mail was concerned with things like this zany Democratic Central Committee stuff (I mean really, do you even care who's on this, much less remember ever hearing about it before this year?) which is lovely for those who produce it and for the people running. As I sat here trying to come up with something to write about the actual mail, it was hard write it in a way that people would actually read. I mean, it's one thing if you're writing about advertising for a big campaign for Governor or Mayor, but Central Committee? Really?

I suppose what surprised me the most, with all this money being spent, is how not one slate of candidates, or any of the various local organizations promoting their favored candidates, used any online advertising. When you consider that the typical mail piece costs $600 per 1000* voters mailed to, versus online advertising where you're paying less than 10% of that**, you'd have thought that maybe allied candidates or whatever would have mixed in a little online advertising to reach voters, instead of relying exclusively on dead tree which end up in the recycle bin. And it's not like their consultants wouldn't have made money either - they just wouldn't have had the overhead of paying designers, printers, mailhouses, postage and shipping, but would have still made their 15%.

Ah well. I'm kinda glad this boring primary is over. I'm really hoping the next few months we see something better out of our candidates for state office, and for city office. I know it's asking for too much, but would it kill some of these people to avoid devolving debate into small smart-ass soundbites and instead demonstrate that they know something besides what some smart guy told them to say?

Posted by Greg Dewar at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This Democratic Primary hast to be the worst yet, because we have a lot of no-names running for office, super low turnout projected, some truly goofy candidates, and a lot of other things to vote on because people with a lot of money put 'em on the ballot. Meanwhile our state is literally falling apart. THIS is the best we can do?

It's all a big mess, so I've put together a list of things I voted for which you can use or not use, your choice. In many cases I'm leaving my ballot blank or writing in candidates. This is especially true for "unopposed" candidates - hey, unopposed incumbents, you're all wonderful people, but what's the point of voting in a race with only one candidate?

So, here goes:

Governor: If AG Brown's challenger had started up their efforts last year, instead of last month, this might have been an interesting race, especially after Gavin Newsom went down in flames like the Hindenburg on crack. But he didn't, so former Governor, Mayor, Secretary of State, Community College Trustee and Attorney General Jerry Brown gets the vote. Still, it would have been nice to have a real race, to help strengthen the eventual nominee.

Lt. Governor: F*ck this Peter Principle crap. "Mayor" Gavin Newsom has been about as useful as a football bat and as honest as a BP oil executive. The last thing we need is to give him a promotion so he can act like more of an insufferable bigshot. Vote for Janice Hahn - she seems like a nice person (So nice she hasn't really used the treasure trove of info against Newsom that much) and her dad was a cool Mayor in the 60s. More importantly, in a general election, you can bet the Republicans will use his record to engage in a political beating that in all likelihood will result in violations of the Geneva Convention. No one wins with that.

Attorney General: This has to be one of the worst primaries I've ever seen. You'd think that the California Democratic Party would have some top notch people running for this. Instead we have a DA that has an aversion to prosecuting crime (Kamala Harris), an Internet executive who's well meaning, but never served in law enforcement (Chris Kelly), and a trio of term limited legislators (Nava, Torrico, and Lieu who I am sure are all good people). I don't know that any of them are qualified in an era of high tech crime, violent crime, and so on to be our top cop in California. Given that only Harris and Kelly even have a shot, I'm voting for Kelly and hoping to GOD that if he wins, he hires some good people to ensure that the problems of crime are taken seriously in the next 4 years. Besides if Harris wins, her record is a killer outside the boundaries of Liberal San Francisco.

Insurance Commissioner: Having once worked for an Insurance Commissioner (in Washington State) I can safely say that this job seems like a yawner, but it can be often the most important job in the state. A good Insurance Commissioner can make sure that insurance companies are held accountable and fight them when they try to pull shenanigans like Prop. 17. The fact that our current one is a joke doesn't negate that. Vote for Dave Jones, as he's endorsed by all the Good People.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tom Torlakson's record on education in the Legislature was actually pretty good, and he used to be a science teacher so there's that. I've met him a few times and he was always willing to listen to people worried about education, when others wouldn't so I voted for him. Also, the ruler in my desk drawer somehow has his campaign logo on it - I think I got it at a convention or something, and it's a good ruler.

All of the rest of the state offices are uncontested, so I'm not bothering with them. Congrats in advance, people.

There's more, click on through for the rest!

San Francisco Democratic Central Committee (where I talk a lot, feel free to skip): Once a job that they had to go begging for people to run and serve in this unpaid, partisan party office, in the last 2 years these races have become bastions of well funded antagonism. As I said in a separate article, this is only important because most voters just vote however the official party mailer tells them to, so since that's the case, whoever runs this has a big bat to swing in local elections.

Many supervisors and recent supervisors are running - I'm not so sure I like the idea of elected officials serving both as party clerics charged with raising money for a party AND serving at the same time in office locally, but there's nothing illegal about it.

The City is split into 2 Assembly Districts, AD's 12 and 13, and you vote for up to 12 people for whichever district you live in. Many people are paying to put their names on phony baloney slate cards that are just paid advertising with glossy names like "Citizens for All Things Wonderful" and whatnot, so relying on the mail isn't helpful.

I voted in AD 12 for people like Dan Dunnigan, Alex Volberding (who is working hard at the Fix Muni Now campaign), and a few others that I know, some "moderate", some "progressive", then wrote in myself for one of the slots for fun. That's not because I'm mocking the people who take this seriously - but I am concerned that something that rank-and-file party members could do is being taken away by big money and by elected officials. Plus, I question why we're forcing the government to pay for elections that only members of one party can even participate in.

Last but not least: Local and State Ballot measures

California:

YES on 13 - A minor change to the tax code so people aren't penalized for choosing to upgrade their homes to withstand an earthquake. Why are we voting on this? I don't know but vote YES.

NO on 14 - Some phony "reform" that people claim will make the legislature work better. It won't and it will take away your right to choose candidates in the fall election. A stupid waste of time put on the ballot because Some Legislator threw a temper tantrum. (Thanks for nothing, Sen. Maldonado!)

NO on 15 - Another loopy, "sounds good" makes you "feel good" thing on public financing that's so limited, it's useless. Go all the way or not at all.

NO on 16 - I've already written about this in detail, although it kills me that I'm on the same side with a lot of people who were real jerks to me.

NO on 17 - Mercury Insurance's ads have been some of the most misleading I've seen. Basically they want to gut consumer protections to make more money. They don't care about helping you at all.

And finally, those (many) San Francisco Ballot Measures:

First this note: San Francisco, we really need to start limiting these things to Things that Matter, and eliminate these advisory things. They have no force of law, and I'm tired of hearing about them.

Prop. A - YES - I don't like voting for parcel taxes, but after talking to my friend Rachel Norton, who is a voice of reason on the School Board, she explained that this is a necessary step to ensure schools don't all turn to dust when the Big One hits. Vote YES, and hope that the next Big Quake doesn't sink us in to the Bay.

Prop. B - YES - Our Fire Department is one of the few things that works in this city, and anything to ensure the delivery of services during the Big One, I'll vote for because I don't want us to become another New Orleans, post-Katrina. Besides only Chris Daly is against it, and everyone else on all sides is for it.

Prop. C - NO - I wasn't sure how to vote on this until a former employer of mine who's a member of the Director's Guild of America, and is now here in SF, pointed out some problems with this. I'm all for brining more film production to SF - this is a pet project of mine, but there's nothing in the arguments here that convince me anything better will come of C's passage.

Prop. D - YES - This is one of those things I defer to the Financial Geniuses of Public Finance, and they all tell me this is one of those things you have to vote YES on so that down the line we're not cutting fire services or help to those who needs it.

Prop. E - YES - Normally I'm not for fueling the petty political fighting between our Current Mayor and our Current Board, but I don't understand why it is I can find out how much money they spend on President Obama's security and not the Mayor's. Of course THIS Mayor spent a lot of tax dollars running for other offices, and future mayors probably won't so in the end this becomes a "who cares" things that I'm voting YES on because it upsets the people that hate my guts.

Prop. F - NO - I'd love to think this would help me or anyone I know, or anyone that actually needs it, but I doubt it will. I've never seen rent control help me out, as someone who's working for a living but not making a million bucks. I'd love to see something better to help people in need who could use a break in tough times, but I doubt that this will really help.

Prop. G - YES, but WTF - Vote yes to affirm what's going to happen anyway. The Transbay Terminal is going to have the HSR there. We know that, and now the world knows it. Yeah I know , I know.

Posted by Greg Dewar at 4:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)