Disinfo Rehab

A Modest Proposal for Campaign 2013-Onward: End Public Subsidies for Partisan Primaries

2012-01-24T06:54:36Z

Regardless of what political party you may belong to, one cannot escape the conclusion that "primary" elections, particularly at the national level, have been devolving into epic, money-fueled "sh*tstorms" for the last few decades. Every year it's the same thing - a few small states suddenly become "important" for a few weeks, other states play games moving their primaries to be important, some states still have party caucuses and so on.

It's hard to believe that it really wasn't that long ago when primaries were not the main method of selection for delegates to the national party conventions - much less choose in advance who said nominee would be. I'll skip a long history lesson and simply say this - it's time to ask if primary elections are effective anymore in a post-partisan era, and more importantly, why cash-strapped states should be forced to pay for what is essentially an exercise by private entities to decide matters related mostly to internal governance.

Having lived in a caucus state in the past, I can tell you that while party caucuses can be a bundle of crazy in and of themselves, they do attract people who are genuinely interested in what's going on, and supporting a certain candidate or political ideal. In the last few presidential years, participation has increased in caucus states, and I believe even more people would attend if they simply knew where to go (in this example I'm excluding Iowa for obvious reasons).

More importantly, people of a particular party should be the ones to decide their nominees - not lazy sometime voters who only vote based on junk mailers and obnoxious Super PAC TV ads. If they want to let in non-members that's the party's choice - but again, I don't see why the taxpayers need to pay for it (and in the case of caucuses, they do NOT since it's a party function. Heck Iowa's GOP makes money off their straw poll!).

But beyond that, regardless of how parties want to conduct themselves, I still have yet to hear a solid answer as to why the state needs to spend millions to conduct an election that's really just a private organization's decisionmaking apparatus.

If a party wants to have us use county and state resources so they can have a poll about who they're supporting as their presidential nominee (or whatever), they can simply raise the big time cash they raise anyway, and write a check to pay the costs. So to be clear - I don't necessarily want to abandon them altogether - but the subsidy has to be reconsidered.

Heck, why not open up the voting booth to any private group that wants to poll their members? Maybe this is a money maker counties and states are passing up?

Seriously, it's time to end the public funding of these moneybombed storms of tv ads, mailers, and more. It's fine if the Democrats and the Republicans want to have their fistfights and their precious primary elections - they can simply reimburse the taxpayers so it's one less burden on us when we really can't afford it anymore.

A Modest Proposal for Campaign 2012: Signed Pledges to Serve Full Terms in Office!

2012-01-23T19:53:55Z

This year we have a lot of elections this year - everything from President down to Supervisor here in SF. You can expect the usual avalanche of junk mail, advertising, and whatnot everywhere you go. Today I'm making a modest proposal for Campaign 2012 focused on our local elections - a signed pledge by every candidate running for Supervisor in San Francisco stating that they intend to actually serve the full term of the office they claim to be seeking in 2012.

This may seem superfluous, but look back to just last year. We had several candidates for office who got elected in 2008 saying they wanted to serve as Supervisor or in some other capacity, but within a few years were spending most of their time running for Mayor. Not only did this mean they spent a lot of time not doing the job they were elected to do (and well paid for) but also spent taxpayer money to get that other big job.

I don't think it's unreasonable for people who are filling our boxes with junk mail and ads saying how they're going to do all sorts of wonderful things as Supervisor to sign a pledge saying that they will actually do said job.

Obviously there's nothing legal binding anyone to said agreement, but anyone breaking it sure would look shady, that's for sure. Likewise, those who did honor it would restore some integrity to CIty Hall.

Here's a suggested pledge:

I (state your name) am running for Supervisor in 2012. If elected by the voters of my district, I hearby pledge to serve the entire term in office.
I will not run for higher office during my term, nor will I raise money to run for another office during my term.

I will serve the people of San Francisco to the best of my abilities and will stay at City Hall during my four year term.

SIgned (state your name)

It'd be curious to see if anyone signed this pledge. I certainly would like to know if I vote for someone or volunteer on their campaign that they'd actually follow through, and not just use City Hall as a campaign office for another gig.

If you have suggestions for this proposed pledge, leave a comment in the section below. Thanks!

Why Is The Inner Sunset SF's Perennially Politically Abused Neighborhood?

2012-01-20T23:50:05Z

Here we go again.

As you may or may not know, after every census, legislative districts at all levels are redrawn to better reflect a growing and/or shifting population. Other times it's to reflect the decline in population of an area. No matter what, how those districts are drawn are important, especially in a city like San Francisco. However, once again, it seems the Powers That Be at the Redistricting Task Force want to once again gerrymander the Hell out of the Inner Sunset neighborhood at the Board of Supervisors.

For ten years a strip of the Inner Sunset was tacked on to the former District 5, which was represented by Matt Gonzalez, and later Ross MIrkarimi. From what I've been told, this was a way to "ensure" the district was progressive. Never mind the fact that it created a strange division in a neighborhood, or disempowered community activists - it was serving the "Progressive" needs that came first. Whenever local leaders wanted to organize an event with local Supervisors, they had to find a time when both Supervisors Elsbernd and Mirkarimi could attend, since both represented the area. I remember moving literally across the street and down a block and finding myself in another district.

The proposed changes make things worse. Now, it's proposed we divide the neighborhood into three districts. I've posted a zoom in view of the map, but you can go to the Redistricting Task Force website

You'll note, for example that UCSF, the area's biggest employer and with whom many in the area either work for or attend school at, is now in District Eight. However if you cross the street, suddenly you're in District 5. And for the mostest fun ever, you can walk to 8th and Kirkham and play the local version of Four Corners (but with three districts!) as you step from one to the other.

The Inner Sunset has traditionally been identified as a westside neighborhood, and its interests align themselves with other contiguous neighborhoods. The political gerrymandering of this area to serve shallow interests that could care less about our neighborhood has to stop. I would hope that some adults would intervene and make some changes. In the meantime, email the commission and the politicals at City Hall and let them know you're tired of seeing our neighborhood cut to pieces to serve the politicians' needs, not ours.

OccupySF Continues to Disappoint. Maybe It Should be Called CampingSF Instead?

2011-12-06T21:54:16Z

WTF, OccupySF?

Seriously. First I read this story where the "brave" Occupy Army went and harassed a locally owned business based on totally false information that made them look like complete idiots. Wow! Way to show solidarity with the 99%, gang! What's next, beating up hot dog vendors in the Mission?

Second, I read a story in the Chronicle about the increasing number of homeless kids in SF public schools. (the story doesn't mention the number of kids who may have a roof over their head, but still live in poverty). This, in a city of billionaires and innovation? Really? Even worse, these kids have to compete against kids in wealthy suburbs (who have all the advantages necessary) on standardized tests. You'd think that would inspire some direct action, perhaps at a billionaire party, or a corrupt fundraiser for the "Mayor" or one for Supervisors, or for anyone in the Political Establishment? Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?

Instead, there's just more infighting about whether to camp in the Mission, or whatever. Fortunately, the disorganization at City Hall is about the same at OccupyCampingSF, so no raids are forthcoming. Thank goodness the camping can continue.

I don't disagree with some of the points the Occupy movement is supposed to be making - it's a sick world we live in whereby profitable banks like Wells Fargo are getting huge tax rebates (and bailouts from taxpayers) and meanwhile I'm fighting off illegal charges to my dead dad's estate by similar banks and the like, charged in the hopes I'm either too dumb or too frustrated to fight them. It's even more frustrating to see needed projects get held up in bureaucratic limbo - but a stadium for billionaires gets a pass on CEQA and a billionare yacht race is being subsidized by a broke city.

Unfortunately once you leave echo chambers like blogs and IndyBay and other said media, the message ain't getting through to the people who really are part of the true 99%. Anecdote: During the holidays I was at a suburban pizza place and the news was on some of the TVs. When the latest footage of Camping SF came on, I couldn't help but overhear comments by folks, most of whom wrote the whole thing off as a bunch of kids playing protester. However, these people are also folks who are getting screwed over by a tax burden shifted from the wealthy to the 99%, who are paying more in taxes and getting less in services, and so on. They should be joining the movement (if they do in fact feel it's in their interests) but they won't because who wants to be around a bunch of smelly protesters bent on God Knows What?

In the end, this is becoming a clusterf*ck on all sides, and like most "protests" on the left, will go nowhere. That's too bad , because another loud, unruly lot, the Tea Party folks, have practically "occupied" the GOP to the point where a joker like Herman Cain was considered a real candidate for President.

WTF, indeed.

#Occupy is No Longer About Important Issues We Need To Deal With, It's About Camping

2011-11-17T07:52:40Z

(This is an expanded version of a post I did earlier this week.)

The #Occupy movement, be it in San Francisco, Oakland or elsewhere insists on having "no leaders" to distinguish themselves from The Man, Wall Street, etc. That's lovely. However, this leaderless movement has created an unintended consequence: we're no longer talking about issues of economic inequality, democracy, corporate accountability or other Really Big Problems, and how to fix them.

Instead, we're mostly talking about a movement centered on camping in parks.

While there’s a core group of people who are committed to an Actual Cause, there’s a growing part of the encampments that are only about people wanting to camp in parks and be allowed to do whatever they want, laws and civility and cleanliness be damned.

Mike Aldax's day with #occupysf made this clear - and that the growth of the "camp" has less to do with people working to bring up issues, and more to do with transients taking advantage of the situation for their own selfish needs (drugs, booze, etc.) Needless to say, this isn't doing much to expand the people involved to include more of the Actual 99% they claim to represent.

I support the Occupy movement bringing up their issues and forcing people to confront what they’ve been in denial about, but it’s time to apply some creativity. We don’t have to have people camping in crappy tents in a park to continue to force local and national government to deal with the issues mentioned above. They also need to do some (gasp!) self-policing and tell those who are there to cause trouble to fuck off, and work with the police to keep the peace if they want to keep claiming the moral high ground.

The “shock and awe” movement of the initial Occupy movement is over - its time for Act II. Be creative. Don’t repeat the past like a Civil War re-enactment (looking at you, 21st century hippies). Blow minds, not with your funk, but with something that really shows why financial abuses by the few at the top harm the many, and why we who aren't hipsters, hippies, or Those Not Part of the Left should give a damn.

Oh, and that "human microphone" thing? Cute, but the joke's over. At this point it just sounds like a Protestant church overrun by angry white kids.

Don't take my word for it. Here's some additional insight from those who've seen this all before, and make some suggestions, which of course will be ignored by Occupy.

Final thought: How many of ‘em went to vote in the SF Mayoral election, where LITERALLY the “1%” bankrolled a campaign to protect their tax breaks and elect our "Mayor" ?

Oh, right. They were at the camp site.

Why I Like #OccupySF but Don't Like the Symbolic Resolution A Certain Candidate for Mayor Proposes

2011-11-01T05:22:19Z

I've made no secret in the past that I am a true "law and order" kind of guy, in that I believe both the state and the people need to abide by rules, created by the people, and enforced by the state, to ensure than tyranny by the mob does not rule.

That said, I don't disagree with most of what the #occupysf folks are out there for. Even as a capitalist who technically should be on the side of those shi*tty big banks who bankrupted the world economy, I cannot abide by them. That is because at heart, I am a true capitalist, and I think those who manipulate government to allow for so-called "investments" that would not meet the standards of the shadiest Las Vegas Casino, much less what the SEC should allow, need to seriously STFU. Also, those shithead "banks" are fucking over real capitalists and have shit interest rates. So, yes, the #occupysf movement is making a point, and if it means some days in the park, whatever.

Today, however I talk about talk vs. action. In San Francisco we have a member of our Board of Supervisors (A county legislator for the rest of you outside our fair City and County, a unique blend of government in California), who is trying to ride the #occupy movemenet to City Hall as Mayor. That is his right, of course, but what I find offensive is the use of the most impotent weapon out there: the Non Binding Resolution.

What this means to you, the #occupy supporter in San Francsico, and to the millions of you outside of San Francisco who are ticked off at income inequality and at a political system that makes money #1 and the people #230002893203020320302 is that despite all the heat and light discussed tomorrow, at the Board of Supervisors meeting is that, no matter what, not a goddamned thing will change.

Yes, you'll have a nice piece of paper with the City's name on it supporting La Causa. A failed candidate for Mayor will have something to slap on some cheap dead tree in the last 7 days of the race. The Temp Mayor, who is truly the mayor of the 1% will have to either go nuclear in his response or save it for November 9th, post election. In the end, the "politics of feelings" will have won and a chance at stopping the localized version of corruption will be swept away, a la Oakland last week.

There is another option.

That option is to tell all the self-serving politicians who show up and talk liberal platitiudes at #occupysf and tell them to fuck the Hell off unless they do the following:

-They renounce Ed Lee, a puppet of the corporations who is doing what he is told and is well paid to do so

-They renounce things like a billionaire yacht race that gives away the City to the Billionaire 1% while they pay not a dime, all in the promise of "trickle down economics"

-They stop giving billionaires like Sean Parker tax breaks, while small businesses in our neighborhoods shutter because they can't make payroll.

-They stop supporting a plan that kills public transit for the pathetic needs of a few so-called "non profits" and steers money away from the N-Judah, the 5-Fulton, the 38-Geary, the L-Taraval, the M-Ocean View and more.

It's up to you #OccupySF and up to you, Liberal San Francisco. Don't be bullshitted by dead tree mail or empty actions. It's the votes that count and if after 10+ years of So-Called Progressives running the legislative branch of City government you can't stop it?

It's time to admit you lose.

And you and John Avalos can take your "symbolic resolution" to the nearest impotence clinic, as that is the best it will be.

Approve of Occupy Oakland? Don't Approve? Either Way, Jean Quan F*cked Up

2011-10-27T17:54:34Z

Whether you support Occupy Oakland or if you think they should not be at Ogawa Plaza at night, there's one thing everyone can agree on: "Mayor" Jean Quan is a complete f*ck up. Her lack of leadership, lack of accountability, and past failures regarding public safety came to a head and the result is that now people worldwide know just how much Oakland sucks.

Listening to Jean Quan's babbling at the press conference, it was clear she was in way over her head, and resorted to invoking Bil Keane's "Not Me" as often as she could. Apparently Ms. Quan (the same "Mayor" who can't be bothered to maintain her home) had plenty of excuses, but never once said "the buck stops here" the way a real leader would.

Quan has never had a strong record on public safety to begin with, firing lots of Oakland police officers (only to have to re hire many once the crime rate soared) and the epidemic of violence plaguing the city, particularly African American citizens, has never been a priority for Quan to begin with. Heck one of her top advisors is a pro-criminal attorney (who, in an ironic twist, will represent protestors from Occupy Oakland).

Now, she's found a new way to piss off everyone. For those who wanted the protestors out of the plaza at night, as per "the rules" she has failed miserably. The heavy handed response (which included critical wounding of an Iraq war vet) was way out of proportion, and inflamed the situation. Now, we have more people in the park, tensions are higher, and in response, last night Quan decided to let the protestors stay.

In other words, she was for beating them down before being against it. One day it's a threat to the Republic if the protestors stay past 10pm, the next it's peachy keen. What the f*ck? No matter which side you're on, we can all agree that this isn't how to run a city.

Quan's non-management had an impact far beyond Oakland, however. Any plans by the SFPD to clear out the encampment at Justin Herman Plaza went out the window, because the last thing Temporary Mayor Lee's political advisors were going to do was allow him to pour more gas on Quan's flames. More importatnly, the images of Oakland went worldwide, and today we have people marching all over the world, protesting Quan's incomptence and mishandling of a delicate situation.

Finally, a word about the ranked choice system that gave us Jean Quan in the Mayor's office: it sucks. She never had much support, her election was due to a flawed system, and now, thanks to that, we have a so-called "mayor" who isn't up to the job, and has no support.

One wonders what will happen on Election Day in SF as voters are subjected to this bullshit system and who might end up as Mayor. No matter what happens in November, I predict we in SF will show once again why we're better than Oakland, and send RCV to the dustbin of history so we avoid the potential of a Jean Quan in office here at home.

UPDATE: Now Ms. Quan has completely capitulated to OccupyOakland. So basically all the violence and cracking veteran's skulls were totally unecessary. She's now pissed off everyone at City Hall and everyone at OccupyOakland because, well, she has no idea what the f*ck she's doing. Time to resign, Jean, you're just not up to the job.

Also, if you'd like to help out Scott Olsen, the vet critically injured by Quan's indecisive "leadership, here's a link to some resources so you can get involved.

Campaign 2011: Vote NO on LEE

2011-10-20T15:36:37Z

So far this election season has been one of the most depressing ones we've had in a while. At a time when San Franciscans have a chance to change our City and make things better, we've seen the full force of political corruption joining with corporate/plutocrat funded media to rig this election as much as possible.

It's bad enough that Temporary Mayor Ed Lee has proven to be a liar, and to be a corrupt, arrogant "business as usual" politician, but it's worse when we see the lamestream media pimp a candidate like the Chronicle and the Bay Citizen, to name a few, have this year. The print journalism people wonder why it is that they're going the way of the dinosaur - perhaps their corruption is just too much for readers to take.

As for the charity-funded "media" - their days are numbered when the wealthy find a new fad to invest in, but in the meantime have provided some of the most biased news in town, so bad it would make even the political pamphlet known as the Bay Guardian blush

However, thanks to the bullshit voting system known as Ranked Choice Voting (or whatever the f*ck it's called now), things get even blurrier. Because one has to vote for three candidates, you can bet that many people will end up putting St. Ed Lee on their ballot somewhere. This will do more to help him than anything else, because under ranked choice voting, if you put the front runner ANYWHERE on your ballot, you're more likely to help them, even if they aren't your first choice.

Yes, that's right. I am hoping we abolish this system after this election and send it back to the east coast lefties who sold us this snake oil, and we can go back to honest elections.

In the meantime there is one solution to the corruption at City Hall - vote for ANYONE but ED LEE. Vote for whomever you want, but for the love of God and City, don't put this thug's name anywhere on your ballot.

If you're wondering who to vote for, three reformers come to mind: Public Defender Jeff Adachi, an effective administrator, author, businessman and filmmaker, City Attorney Dennis Herrera, an effective reformer who fought for gay marriage and is against the Central Subway to Hell, and Assessor Phil Ting, who's trying to run a campaign not based on lies, but instead asking voters to help create solutions at City Hall.

These are just a few, but whatever you do, vote for ANYONE BUT ED LEE. We can't afford another four years of corruption and lies and Willie Clown Brown and his minions.

Artwork created by Eric of Baghdad By the Bay.

Which of San Francisco's Artwork for Campaign 2011 Window Signs Do You Like Best

2011-09-16T23:40:31Z

It's campaign silly season again, and we're about to see a massive deforestation effort to provide endless piles of junk mail, doorhangers, window signs and the like all over Our Fair City. Having worked in this business for some time, one thing I find interesting is the amazing graphic design (or total lack thereof) in these things.

In the past, I've scanned in mail pieces and done some critiquing (which you can find to your left in the Categories section). I may do some of that this year too. Today, however I'm asking readers - which of the many candidates' window signs do you find look the best, design-wise, regardless of whether you support them or not?

I have some thoughts, and I've mentioned a little before about those awful Run Ed Run design abortions (complete with ironic captions), and about the politics of black and orange. However, add your thoughts in the comments below. Remember, this is all about design only - not about the candidates themselves (that's another column).

Just How Much Is Anyone Making Off Mayoral Candidates in SF?

2011-08-07T17:11:04Z

To nobody's surprise, it seems Temporary Mayor Ed Lee, backed by powerful financial interests and a shadow campaign that has yet to see sunlight, is running for mayor. And again, as the unofficial press spokesperson, the Chronicle once again provides cover for their candidate.

Today we read about how St. Ed is not taking public money for his campaign, instead relying on the aforementioned shadow campaign, and whatever private money he chooses to take. This contrasts with others who participated in the public matching funds/spending limit program provided by the City of SF. The Chronicle, naturally, uses this to somehow distinguish St. Ed from his opponents. It's a nice hit for Ed, but it's just the latest in a line of articles that the Chronicle has written that basically promote Ed. That's fine, but if I wanted to read a dying medium's political endorsements sold as news, I'd read the Guardian (which I don't).

However, putting that aside, the article also starts to rattle off how much consultants have made off the other candidates, again implying that they were all "subsidized" with tax dollars. There are several problems with the reporting on this piece of news.

First, the matching funds are only awarded if a candidate has raised money from a lot of private donors, who can ONLY live in San Francisco, and they have to have significant disclosure as to who donated. There is also a cap on how much campaigns can get from the city, and the majority of their funding is private, despite the Chronicle's insinuations. Moreover, there is more disclosure than there ever was for the shady "Run Ed Run" campaign which denies helping the Mayor even though it was helping the mayor.

Second, the amounts. I've yet to meet a reporter that understands how the political consulting business works, especially when it comes to the actual business of running such an operation. So when I read about "fees" for consultants in the Chronicle, my first question is how this amount is computed.

Naturally, the Chronicle wants to provide an image of these "consultants" raking in the big bucks on the poor taxpayer's dime, and so on. What the Chronicle doesn't seem to understand is that just because a campaign handed over a big bundle of cash, the consultant doesn't necessarily keep all the money, depending on the arrangement.

For example, I used to work for A Big National Consulting Firm That Shall Not Be Named a few years ago. Our company was working on a Big Campaign, and if you looked at the disclosure forms, you'd think we were raking in the big bucks. However, what the disclosure statements didn't point out was how much of that was going right out the door to pay for printing, letterhead, campaign staffers we administered payroll for and other products the campaign elected to purchase. Out of about $180,000 or so in "moneys" we got, we kept maybe $5000-$7500 that could be considered a fee.

Another example: some campaign consultants don't take more than a modest retainer at the start, and then charge no consulting fees at all, and mark up things like TV ads, direct mail (printing/production, not postage!) and other items at the standard industry rate of 15% to cover their overhead costs (taxes and staff and a modest profit). So looking at the gross amount isn't very realistic.

There's also another thing about San Francisco campaigns that no one in the press corps seems to understand - working in SF politics is no way to make a living in the consulting business. Even with a well funded campaign, with campaign donation limits, as well as the "consultant tax"** and other unique requirements for campaigns in San Francisco, you won't be netting a large landslide of cash. Supervisor races make very little for anyone involved as well.

That's not to say they pay so little no one will work on them, but with all the limitations, being a consultant for city candidates isn't a great way to make a living. Consultants are better off working for either a labor union(s) or other organizations, or working in jurisdictions Not In San Francisco. When I was working in the business, most of my work was out of state. Not only did it pay me as a freelancer fairly well, it was also a lot easier.

I'd expect the gaggle of New Yorkers working for the various chain-owned online entities to get this wrong, but I'd expect more from the supposedly Old School Journalistic Entity located here for over 100 years. I guess when you keep on firing the people who make the product you're supposedly selling, mistakes happen.

**The "consultant tax" I refer to is a profoundly bone-headed attempt by the Board of Supervisors, ages ago, who hated a certain consultant, and decided to clobber him a little with this law. The intent was to make consultants pay a special "consultant tax" and disclose for whom they were working for. This is stupid for several reasons. First, the "tax" they impose also applies to campaign day to day workers. Ironically the big companies and out of town companies can pay this no problem, but the poorly paid, day to day overworked staffer ends up paying proportionally more than the Big Companies.

Second, the disclosure as to whom people are working for is already done in the campaign finance reporting that is required for every candidate. So once again a typical SF Progressive FAIL: More rules that hurt the lowest paid people, and duplicate efforts elsewhere.

Post Filing Debate Set for August 16th, Courtesy of the Alliance for Jobs and Comcast!

2011-08-03T03:04:44Z

Debates are a tricky proposition when you have more than 2 candidates running for office. Endless side debates begin about Who Gets To Participate and Who Doesn't, and so on. This has been especially difficult since we still may have more candidates running for Mayor here in San Francisco after the official filing period ends.

That's why the debate on August 16th at 7:30pm, co-sponsored by the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, and Comcast, is worth checking out. This will likely be the first major broadcast of a debate, post-filing, and given the sponsors, should be a quality event. If you're not familiar with the Alliance, it's a coalition of business, labor and community groups dedicated to finding long-term prosperity for San Francisco that benefits everyone, not just the connected. Comcast, you know of course, but the fact Comcast is putting time and effort to produce this event deserves a high five.

Best of all, you, the voter can participate. Go to the Facebook Page for the debate, and once you "Like" the page, you can post suggested questions for the candidates for all to see. This is your chance to ask the tough questions and see what happens. Check it out!

Who Paid For This Anti-Ed Lee Ad On Facebook? No Assuming, Please! UPDATED

2011-07-26T18:16:07Z

So this morning while on Facebook (something I use rarely), I noticed an anti-Ed Lee ad appearing on the side of the page. Curious as to what it was all about, I clicked on it, assuming I'd be taken to either a Facebook Fan Page, or linked to a campaign website that would tell me who was putting this ad on Facebook, and what they were all about. Instead, it just linked me to the Mayor's official website and its "Contact Ed Lee" online email page.

Facebook keeps pushing back on disclosure for political ads, but here's an example of how their "links are disclosure" defense doesn't hold up. I, the voter, am left to make assumptions instead of having facts. When I posed the question to Twitter, naturally it started endless speculation that Leland Yee's campaign, or perhaps his consultant, Jim Stearns, posted the ad.

Personally, I don't think that's very fair to Yee or Stearns, since it's not a fact, it's an assumption. If they didn't do it, they're getting tarred with something they had nothing to do with. If they did buy the ads, then they should just say so somewhere. However, given the fact that Yee and Stearns have been aggressive in attacking the less-than-transparent doings of the "Run Ed Run" operation, I don't imagine they'd be dumb enough to pull a shady move of their own that would be as un-transparent as the "Run Ed Run" movement.

I'll be waiting to see what, if any, information is later found. Given how lame the Ethics and Elections office is in San Francsico, and how SF politics tend to be some of the most corrupt, I doubt we'll ever know. It's kinda like that anti-Leno site that stole my pictures off flickr.com and never paid me for my stolen image.

UPDATE: In a tweet to myself and another Twitter user, Mr. Stearns confirmed that neither his firm, nor the Yee campaign purchased the Facebook ad.

Is San Francisco Setting a New Record for the Number of Electeds Running For Office?

2011-07-23T22:56:52Z

So there I was, reading yet another "What if Temporary Mayor Lee Runs For Office" blather on some news site or whatever, and it got me to thinking - just how many people are running for office, while (supposedly) serving the public?

Let's take a look:

Current Mayor - Running? Not Running? (this tease is getting very tiresome, btw)

City Attorney - Running for Mayor

Assessor - Running for Mayor

President, Board of Supervisors - Running for Mayor

Supervisor Avalos - Running for Mayor

Supervisor Mirkirimi - Running for Sheriff

District Attorney - Running for DA (Appointed in 2011)

State Senator - Running for Mayor

To be honest, with so many people in office running for another in an "off year," if Mr. Lee decides to have a "do over" on his promise to be a caretaker, look for City Hall to basically shut down for the rest of the year.

There'll be so many people posturing and looking for short term gimmicks so they can slap some crap on a piece of dead tree mail and spend special interest cash to pay for it, you can't expect much to happen.

Nostalgia for a Death Match Young Democrats Meeting from Long Ago...

2011-07-14T22:11:55Z

If you're not already reading Beth Spotswood's column at the Chronicle, or at the Appeal, or now at the Huffington Post (with Melissa Griffin on video!), you're missing out on some great observations about San Francisco. Her column today, on the San Francisco Young Democrats meeting was rather entertaining, and reminded me of an incident years ago in Seattle.

Young Democrats (known popularly as YDs) can have some intense meetings, and not about who to endorse for US Senate or something, but on internal matters. It's easy to belittle, but it's really no different than a condo association, a bowling club or whatever, because in the end, if you're a devoted member of any group,and you want to be a leader in said group, you're going to take this seriously. So I have no doubt that Beth's account is rather accurate in its description of the events. More importantly it wasn't all about the internal workings of the YDs - it's also about the race for Mayor.

That's because the YDs are one of many endorsements a politican can put on his or her junk mail. If the group's leadership favors one candidate over the others, it can make a difference. In this case, it would seem that a pro-Yee slate seems to have won, so if you hear about a YDs endorsement later on, well you can figure that one out.

This reminded me of one of the all time death match meetings I'd ever attended in my life - the Washington State Young Democrats in 1996. The YDs up there were smart - they timed their annual election to an early endorsement for the Governor's race, which featured four major candidates. Playing off the "first endorsement of the year" meme, campaigns went into a panic and started having their supporters sign up to buy a membership by the deadline to be eligible to vote. Needless to say this meant the YDs had one heck of a party fund afterwards.

However, on the day of voting for their officers and the endorsement, all Hell broke loose. First off was the fight for the YD offices, which had an unforseen wrinkle - so many people had joined in the months previous who weren't acquainted with the candidates, the votes started to shift back and forth and the speechifying and whatnot was out of control. In the end, the "new" members began voting for people based on which school they went to (UW vs WSU, and believe me, that is a Big Fucking Deal in Washington State) and to the shock of the "regulars" they suddenly had people in office they hadn't expected to win. That thing Beth said about people losing limbs in these fights almost came true that day.

The biggest bloodbath was the run up to the endorsement. Four major Democratic candidates (a former congressman - who is likely to become Governor in 2012 ironically after being Congressman from Elsewhere- a state senator,a King County Executive, and a Mayor of Seattle) had their minions out there scrounging for votes. I'd shown up mostly to hang out with my friends and go to the after parties, but since I was a member, suddenly people were barking at me about who to vote for. I remember one partisan literally screaming at me, face red, veins pulsating merely because I cracked a joke or two about how silly the whole thing was.

I can't remember who won the endorsement, and in the end it really didn't matter, but the fact the press bought into this as much as it did made me realize how easily they are to manipulate. I was more impressed at how the YDs figured out a way to make themselves relevant, and make a few bucks, just like those silly straw polls in Iowa before the caucuses.

I put most of this out of my mind until I read "Zioncheck for President," an account of my friend Grant's run for Seattle City Council in 2001 and Beth's piece, because I always tended to regard party functions of any sort (Democrat, Republican, Whatever) as things to be aware of but not invest too much time or energy into, because in the end, once you leave the multi-purpose room these things are held in, no one really cares.

Because, really, when did you, the average voter, give a damn about the internal workings of political parties who are about as concerned about you as, say, Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner?

Seriously.

Just How DO Paid Signature Gatherers Get Paid?

2011-07-14T16:33:08Z

Today's Chronicle had a report that signature gatherers for Public Defender Jeff Adachi's pension reform measure were "caught on camera" saying things to voters that were "misleading." After checking out, all I can say is that if anyone thinks they found a smoking gun, they may not be aware of a) how words can be twisted and b) how paid signature gathering works.

First, the words: many canvassers in the video were saying things like "if you want to prevent night time parking meters sign this petition." It is very correct that the petition says nothing about it, but at the same time, it would be almost impossible to prosecute. That's because if city pensions begin to dominate city spending, why yes, one could reasonably infer that "nighttime parking meters (WTF?) could in fact be a response to said financial crisis.

So could a tax on unicorn horns. You see where this is going.

Also, those that point the finger should be darn sure none of their folks pulled any similar weasel word stunts too - these things can backfire spectacularly if you're not on solid ground.

I avoid signing petitions at all costs, unless it is for something that I've heard of that is sponsored by people I trust. I think people in San Francisco would be doing themselves a favor by not signing these things based on some emotional chatter they get from some fool collecting signatures. It sucks, because many good things are put on the ballot this way, but I think we need to thin the herd on ballot measures for a while.

Second, the methods. When the press talks about paid signature gatherers, they'll usually do their research and find out how much they're paying per signature. In California it can be as high as $6 a signature. The question is - did the hippie in front of Safeway who asked you to sign a petition get $6 for your signature? Probably not.

Campaigns usually hire a professional firm to gather signatures for a ballot measure (local or state). That company will then hire contract workers who then go out and get the signatures. However, these sub-contractors don't simply go out with a stack of clipboards and start earning $6 per signature. Instead, they go out and hire another series of sub-contractors, and pay them a percentage of the $6. In some cases those sub contractors might even hire another level of folks, but that is rare.

Let's make it simpler: Campaign Signature Company "A" hires contractor "Elvis" to get signatures at $6 each. "Elvis" then hires a crew of 10 people to get signatures, but pays them only $3 each. This means that 10 people are being managed by "Elvis" bringing in signatures, who is getting $3 each and isn't actually out there doing anything - he is instead managing a crew of 10. Any one of those could take a dollar less and sub out the work themselves too, if they wanted. In the end, "Elvis" is going to make more money farming out the work to 10 people, each armed with 4 clipboards a piece, than he ever would alone getting the full $6.

Most of the people who do this are pros who follow the action wherever it goes, similar to those who once followed the Grateful Dead back in the day. They may or may not be from the jurisdiction and in almost all cases are simply trying to play a numbers game, racking up as many signatures as they can. Needless to say, these aren't people who know or care much about what the petition is for, so it's easy to see where the incentive is to make up stuff just to get people's signatures.

A bill to regulate the signature mills made its way through the state Senate. Predictably it was all on party-line votes - Democrats wanted it regulated to prevent fraud, while Republicans want to ensure that money buys access to the ballot.

One thing you can do right away is if approached to sign something is to ask if they are paid or not. Under the law, they have to tell you and it must be printed on the petition.

Either way, take the time to read the fine print before you sign. Just because something is called "The Kittens Puppies and Rainbows Initiative to Save The Children" doesn't mean it's so.