The DCCC Refuses To Lift A Finger To Help, But Meet The Democrat Working To Replace Kevin McCarthy

Blue America endorsed Bill Ostrander in the 9 person race for the Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo CA-24 congressional seat. He ran a strong issues-oriented campaign, very much in line with Bernie's political revolution, to which he ascribed. He wasn't left standing on election night and voters in the 24th will have to pick between a garden variety careerist Democrat or a corruption-tainted GOP extremist. There are no good choices there.

A few days ago, Bill called me and told me he's backing another "Berniecrat" though, Wendy Reed, who made it through the primary and will face off against Republican House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy in November in the district next door. In line with their policy of never challenging GOP leaders, the DCCC has refused to help Reed take on this onerous task. McCarthy, one of the most corrupt members of Congress-- only Paul Ryan has taken more money from Wall Street than he has this year-- has raised $6,727,189 this cycle something like 250 times more than Reed!

McCarthy is not especially popular in his district, which is now a white minority district, has an over 36% Hispanic population, and includes much of Bakersfield and Lancaster, as well as Tehachapi, Rosamond and lots of wide open spaces and national wilderness preserves that McCarthy wants to sell off to developers, including Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon National Park.

This morning, Bill sent me this note telling me why he is so enthusiastic about backing Wendy's campaign, over and above just helping her beat the odious McCarthy:

CA-23 is the district next door. The two districts meet at Los Padres National Forest, the Bitter Creek National Wildlife Refuge and at the Carrizo Plain National Monument, space very much valued and cherished by people in both districts and space that Wendy Reed has pledged to protect from rapacious developers. She is a land use planning activist who has worked in the community for 3 decades and, like myself, was immediately drawn to Bernie's values-and-policy oriented campaign. She went back to school to earn a Masters degree in Public Administration and is a land trust founder, and a climate change educator, with experience working with federal, state, county, and local agencies.

I saw a mailer, a hit piece, that McCarthy sent out about her called "The Choice Is Clear." It featured a picture of Wendy and Bernie and excoriated her as a liberal. She probably didn't have the resources to create and send out a flier like that herself but I know it brought her a tremendous amount of positive attention.

I was impressed that her top two platform commitments are (1) to get money out of politics/politics out of government-- as she said, "reversing or superseding Citizens United, eliminating loopholes for contributions, establishing limits for expenditures, excising lobbyists from the halls of government, establishing clear conflict of interest and insider trading restrictions and enforcing them mercilessly, prosecuting patronage at all levels of government, and supporting effective public funding for elections-- to restore representational self-government, and (2) to bring resources to this part of our state to invest in local infrastructure, upgrade the health and safety of our industries, and face the challenges of climate change. These aren't partisan issues and they appeal broadly to people in central California regardless of party ID.

McCarthy was advertising that he is a friend to veterans while he was whipping GOP efforts in Congress to slash Veterans Administration funding and services, and eliminate safety nets for military families. He blamed President Obama for FEMA's denial of services and loans to the Kern River Valley after the Erskine Fire, while he was whipping GOP efforts to slash FEMA funding, staffing, and services. McCarthy and the Republicans even tried to eliminate FEMA as an agency in 2012.

McCarthy appears to do nothing for central California and nothing for the taxpayers of the 23rd district. That, along with Wendy's reasonable and innovative approach to the problems in our area, are why I'm asking my supporters and the Blue America members who did so much to help me to contribute to her grassroots campaign today.

Campaign Finance Fraud In Santa Barbara's Congressional Election Likely To Result In Mulitple Prison Terms

Same as the last generation conservatives-- steeped in ugly corruption

A few weeks ago I blogged about how I was in the middle of investigating a shady campaign finance situation up in Santa Barbara on behalf of an entitled young right-wing up-and-comer, Justin Fareed. Basically what I had discovered was that Fareed is funding his congressional campaign from just a few wealthy families with very special interests involving the healthcare industry. The investigation is still on-going but, basically, Fareed has taken in over $180,000 from eight families representing four healthcare companies, particularly the Kolodny family-- all of whose adult members have declared bankruptcy in the past as a way of escaping debts-- who are first-time political donors but have maxed out to Fareed for over $40,000. They run controversial nursing homes in Maywood and Oxnard. I never did get to finish the tedious tracking down of shady-looking contributions I had started when-- BOOM!-- Javier Panzar of the L.A. Times broke the story wide open Thursday. He reported that almost all of the million dollars Fareed is spending to win a blue district comes from outside the wealthy district and that nearly $200,000 has come from donors with ties to two of the state’s largest nursing home operators. He traces the money to two shady businessmen, Lawrence Feigen and Shlomo Rechnitz.

This is the district where independent-minded progressive (and Berniecrat) Bill Ostrander has been endorsed by Blue America (CA-24). If you'd like to contribute to Ostrander's grassroots campaign-- he's up against Fareed and a bunch of well-funded establishment Democrats as well-- you can do that here.

Feigen’s company SnF Management owns more than 35 long-term nursing facilities in California and Arizona under the name Windsor Healthcare.

Rechnitz owns more than 70 facilities and has been described as the state’s largest nursing home operator. In recent years, state and federal authorities have investigated his companies on charges including elder abuse and involuntary manslaughter.

Feigen and at least 30 of his employees, business associates, friends and family members have together contributed at least $108,000 to Fareed’s congressional campaign. Rechnitz, employees of his businesses and their family members have given just over $74,000.

Federal law caps direct donations to candidates at $2,700 for the primary and $2,700 for the general election.

Feigen donated the maximum amount to Fareed’s campaign. Rechnitz contributed $2,700. Three Feigen family members listed as students in finance disclosures each donated $2,700.

In addition, Feigen, his family’s trust and his company donated $25,000 to New Generation, a pro-Fareed political action committee that has since disbanded. Ramat Medical, where Rechnitz is chief financial officer, donated $10,000. Feigen and his wife also donated $10,000 to another PAC set up to support Fareed.

When asked about his donations, Feigen said he and his family “like people who are honest” and not part of the political establishment. He said he knew Fareed through business connections in the medical sector. Rechnitz, through a representative, declined to speak about his contributions to Fareed’s campaign beyond an emailed statement.

"Mr. Rechnitz is a major, non-denominational, non-partisan donor who last year alone contributed to more than 1,100 institutions," Rechnitz’s spokesperson Stefan Friedman said in the statement.

At the recent opening of his campaign’s Santa Barbara headquarters, Fareed described Feigen as "a supporter like all of our other supporters for the campaign."

...In August, California Atty. Gen. Kamala Harris filed involuntary manslaughter charges against one of Rechnitz’s nursing homes, and two of its employees were also charged with dependent adult abuse. Charges against one defendant were dismissed at a hearing last month after she agreed to testify in this case. The charges against the head of nursing and the nursing home remain, and the case is pending. At another Rechnitz-owned facility in Orange County, two former employees were charged with three counts each of elder abuse and failure to report abuse. Their trial is scheduled for July.

Santa Barbara Republicans wasting their money

In addition, three Rechnitz-owned facilities repeatedly failed inspections and were eventually decertified by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency spokesman said. Regulatory violations at facilities owned by Rechnitz have led to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. Rechnitz’s spokesman declined to comment on those cases but said the executive brought "59 nursing homes out of insolvency and currently provides life-saving care to thousands of Californians."

West Hollywood resident Viktor Kogan and his wife each gave $2,700 to Fareed's campaign in late October.

Asked recently about the contributions, Kogan said he could not recall donating to Fareed, adding that he had never heard of the candidate.

When shown a copy of a federal record noting his contribution, Kogan, 75, said his daughter, Ksenya Kogan, arranged the donation. She also contributed, and listed one of Feigen's companies, SnF Management, as her employer.

Ksenya Kogan, an attorney, declined to comment about the donations except to say she had met Fareed through friends.

In nearby Hancock Park, Freda Stock gave a total of $5,400 to Fareed, but said she didn't know anything about the candidate or his campaign. Stock said Feigen has done business with her husband and has been a family friend for “many, many years.”

Fareed’s campaign also has received donations from outside the state, including a $2,700 contribution from Chaim Feigen, a recent graduate of New York University who works for SnF Management and is registered to vote at Lawrence Feigen’s Los Angeles home. Asked about his contribution, he declined to comment.

Other donors interviewed by The Times said they had given money to Fareed’s campaign based on the advice of friends or business associates.

One of those is Denise Wilson, an executive at Ramat Medical, the West Los Angeles medical supply company where Rechnitz is chief executive. Wilson, who gave $2,700, said a group of people that she works with introduced her to Fareed’s campaign.

“They said that he was a good guy,” she said. “I couldn't give you a definitive answer of his issues or what he stands for. They just said that he was a good, up-and-coming person to support our industry.”

Giving money to straw donors to contribute to political campaigns is illegal-- very seriously so and people go to prison for it. Ksenya Kogan will certainly loser her license to practice law if it's proven that she participated in this scheme. Meanwhile, needless to say, the slime-meister behind all this, Justin Fareed, absolutely refuses to return the dirty money to the nursing home crooks and their associates and family members.

Who Will Protect Social Security From Paul Ryan? Not Trump-- And Not Any Corrupt Conservatives From Either Party

Over the weekend, the NY Times speculated that the "early optimism" in the Clinton camp for an easy landslide win against a Trump campaign weighed down with so much baggage "is evaporating." The hopeless party hacks and mercenary lobbyists who control her dull, utterly conventional campaign have no idea how to fight Trump. "In the corridors of Congress, on airplane shuttles between New York and Washington, at donor gatherings and on conference calls, anxiety is spreading through the Democratic Party that Mrs. Clinton is struggling to find her footing. While she enjoys many demographic advantages heading into the fall, key Democrats say they are growing worried that her campaign has not determined how to combat her unpredictable, often wily Republican rival, to whom criticism seldom sticks and rules of decorum seem not to apply." Today one of the world's most brilliant men, Stephen Hawkings told a British TV audience that Trump is a demagogue who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator." Does anyone doubt what Trump's pre-adolescent respond is likely to be?

In any case, Bernie would make a far more formidable opponent to Trump, and not just because independent voters-- as much as 40% of the electorate-- find Bernie the most appealing candidate at a time when they find Hillary and Trump about equally unappetizing. Bernie is a credible opponent for the Establishment Trump and Hillary personify. When Daniel Marans excoriated Trump for his flip-flops and lies on Social Security, he outlined a field of attack that Bernie would use effectively and with fluency against Trump that probably couldn't be carried off by a candidate like Hillary who's lives in a space halfway between Bernie's and Trump's. If Bernie is an FDR Democrat and Trump is an opportunist with fascist tendencies, Hillary is an Eisenhower Republican, all positions going back to each of the candidates' upbringings.

Marans reported that at their May 12th fence-mending meeting, "Trump supposedly told House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) he supports cutting Social Security but will not admit it publicly because it would hurt his election chances, according to a report in Bloomberg Business Week."

“From a moral standpoint, I believe in it,” Trump said of cutting Social Security. “But you also have to get elected. And there’s no way a Republican is going to beat a Democrat when the Republican is saying, ‘We’re going to cut your Social Security’ and the Democrat is saying, ‘We’re going to keep it and give you more.’”

Trump’s professed opposition to cutting Social Security and Medicare has been both a hallmark of his campaign and one of his greatest departures from traditional conservative ideology. And Ryan, who repeatedly criticized Trump before the mogul effectively secured the GOP nomination, has made proposing dramatic reductions in the popular social insurance programs a defining feature of his congressional career.

Many conservative House Republicans told The Huffington Post shortly after the May 12 meeting that that they were unconcerned about Trump’s public posture on the programs. Several members interpreted him as wanting to extend the solvency of Social Security and Medicare solvency through some combination of the benefit cuts and other reforms that conservatives favor.

Trump policy advisor Sam Clovis had already appeared to reverse course on May 11, indicating that Trump would be willing to consider cuts as president.

Of course, what Trump reportedly said to Ryan is consistent with what he told Fox News host Sean Hannity back in 2011.

“Things have to be done, but it has to be done with both parties together,” Trump said at the time. “You can’t have the Republicans get too far ahead of this issue.”

Trump may very well be running his campaign according to beliefs he espoused years ago: Social Security and Medicare must be cut, but telling people that should be avoided, because it is too politically unpopular.

“It is really clear: Donald Trump would 100 percent go along with the Republican donor class position of cutting Social Security,” said Alex Lawson, executive director of Social Security Works, a group that promotes benefits expansion. “He openly says he will lie to the people about it because he knows that the people are against it.”

“In his eyes the ‘moral’ thing to do is to steal people’s hard-earned benefits and not talk about it,” Lawson added.

Social Security, the United States’ public retirement, disability and life insurance program, faces a funding gap beginning in 2034. Without congressional action to either raise the program’s revenues or scale back benefits there will be an across-the-board benefit cut of approximately 20 percent.

The Democratic party has adopted steadily more progressive positions on Social Security in recent years, arguing not only that the shortfall should be closed entirely through revenue increases-- such as lifting the cap on earnings subject to Social Security taxes-- but also that benefits should be expanded to address a growing retirement income deficit.

Of course the first congressional candidate we went to for some insight was Eric Kingson, Syracuse University professor and founder of SocialSecurityWorks. Eric is the progressive candidate vying with 2 random establishment Democrats to take on Republican freshman John Katko. (Needless to say, the DCCC, Pelosi, Schumer, Israel, Gillibrand and the rest of the Democratic Party shitheads are supporting the conservative Democrats.) "No surprise, Donald Trump is now telling Speaker Ryan that he's willing to cut Social Security," Eric told us today. "What else would you expect from the political sociopath who's captured the lunatic fringe and what's left of the Republican Party? He knows that Americans-- conservatives moderates and progressives-- do not want to see our Social Security cut. So he simply lies and says he won't do it. It's the same game many Republican representatives play, like Representative Katko in my district. But when Speaker Ryan demands their vote to cut Social Security, they'll gladly give it."

Bill Ostrander is another Bernie-supporting progressive, like Eric Kingson (above) and Lou Vince (below), who is adamant about protecting and expanding Social Security.He's running for the open seat in Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo against a gaggle of conservative establishment candidates from both political parties. This morning he told us that "Given that Donald Trump inherited more wealth from his father at a young age than most people earn in a lifetime, and has never suffered from want, he is uniquely unqualified to offer perspective regarding social security. Those among us who choose, or are often confined, to our communities less skilled jobs and services, are still filling necessary functions of our community and deserve to have a basic financial safety net of dignity, gratitude, and access to health care. The contempt and lack of compassion shown to our elderly is not only economically short sighted-- the cost will not go away but be born elsewhere, it reveals a lack of social maturity among us."

Lou Vince, in the district next door, is the progressive opponent to Social Security and Medicare slasher Steve Knight in a district spanning northern L.A. County and eastern Ventura County. Lou is the official nominee of the California Democratic Party but is being violently attacked by a now tragically unhinged Nancy Pelosi and her whacked-out and fully destructive DCCC on behalf of some rich conservative guy the DCCC parachuted into CA-25 from Orange County. Lou has been vocal about protecting Social Security and Medicare from Republicans and from conservative Democrats who make common cause with Republicans. "Steve Knight," he told us, "is one of the biggest dangers to Social Security in Congress. He went so far to say Social Security was a mistake at a recent debate with me. Not only did I disagree, I called him out for his belief that Social Security is an entitlement. It's no such thing. It's an earned benefit that our seniors worked hard for and paid into. With the likes of Congressman Knight in office, Social Security will always be under threat. I will be a steadfast defender of Social Security and attempts to undermine it, like the idea of 'chained CPI' which is just another way to take money from our seniors. I also stand for raising the payroll tax cap so that everyone pays their fair share."

Protecting Social Security-- and Medicare-- isn't going to be easy. That's why it's absolutely essential that we elect members of Congress who are unequivocally committed to doing just that. No one gets on this list unless, like Lou Vince, they are:

Zephyr Teachout Schools The DC Political Establishment About What Bribery Means

Congressmen Alan Grayson (D) and David Jolly (R) are running against each other for the open Florida Senate seat but are also co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit federal elected officials from soliciting campaign donations-- which everyone in DC knows are bribes. Yes, bribes, but bribes redefined in such a way as to keep those who write the laws and those who underwrite their careers out of prison. The video above, an ad running in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo from the Bill Ostrander for Congress campaign hones in on the abstract messaging around "campaign finance reform" and bolsters what Jolly told a 60 Minutes audience a few weeks ago-- a message frantically denied by the criminal elements at the NRCC-- that as soon as he was elected he was told he would have to spending enough hours per day dialing for dollars to raise $18,000... every.single.day. Forget working on reforms, legislation or even thinking about the country's problems congressmen are elected (and paid) to deal with; first and foremost they would have to call rich people, lobbyists, PACs and all kinds of special interests to do whatever it takes to get them to send money.

And in both parties, the Members of Congress willing to sell their souls most blatantly would be the ones who rise in power. Those unwilling to prostitute themselves, those who preferred to spend their time working on legislation would be shunned and relegated to the back-benches. On both sides of the aisle, criminally-minded characters devoid of moral scruples, advance rapidly up the ladder of power, setting a low tone for everyone else. That why the worst and most corrupt members of Congress-- Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Charlie Rangel (D-NY), John Cornyn (R-TX), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Jim Himes (D-CT), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Steve Israel (D-NY), Pete Sessions (R-TX), Joe Crowley (D-NY), Patrick McHenry (R-NC)-- rise the most rapidly in the ranks and get into position to fill the party ranks with corruption-minded characters like themselves.

Chuck Schumer's fanatic sponsorship of Patrick Murphy is the most classic current example. The Finance Sector has given Schumer $24,710,208, more money than any other member of Congress in history other than 3 who ran for president. And, in return, Schumer has long delivered for and protected for Wall Street. Now he's doing everything in his power to drag the least effective, laziest, most corrupt and probably stupidest member of the House into the Senate on behalf of those same Wall Street interests. Murphy, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee, has been the banksters' cat's paw among the House Democrats on the committee, advancing Wall Street's anti-regulation, anti-consumer agenda, while picking up money money from Wall Street this cycle than any other non-incumbent running for the Senate, $1,105,850 so far. Patrick Murphy is the definition of crass political bribery and, at Schumer's behest, the corrupt Beltway establishment has rallied around his cause, not despite his criminal bent but because of it.

Although raising money for Zephyr Teachout's congressional campaign, the DCCC and Hillary Clinton have kept as far from it as possible. NY-19 should be one of the most obvious seats the Democrats can pick up in the nation. Obama won it twice, the PVI is D+1, registered Democrats outnumber registered Republicans and the Republican incumbent is retiring. But the DCCC is studiously ignoring the district. They fear a smart-as-a-whip, independent-minded reformer like Zephyr Teachout, far more than they fear another corrupt Republican who speaks their lingo. Teachout's OpEd for yesterday's Washington Post makes it abundantly clear why Democratic Party powerbrokers like Steve Israel, Chuck Schumer and Jim Himes fear and loath her and would rather see a Republican win the seat. "Members of Congress," she wrote, spend the majority of their time fundraising from wealthy donors, learning the smallest details about donors’ lives-- at the expense of learning about the policy details most relevant to their legislative work. When they’re not fundraising, members may be anxious about meeting their fundraising quotas set by the national committees, or worried about offending the secret donors to powerful super PACs. This lurking fear undoubtedly shapes policy decisions, lest a wrong move trigger a deluge of attack ads from special interests." Zephyr Teachout is recognized by the party bosses as a threat to both party establishments and to the way Congress works (or doesn't work).

The Supreme Court has said that none of this is corrupt or corrupting. That defies law, history and logic. In a recent case Chief Justice John Roberts wrote: “Any [campaign finance] regulation must instead target what we have called ‘quid pro quo’ corruption or its appearance. That Latin phrase captures the notion of a direct exchange of an official act for money.”

While quid pro quo is, in fact, a Latin phrase, that’s the extent of the rightness of his argument. The phrase comes from contract law, and traditionally was used to describe a relatively equal exchange between parties to a contract. It is not historically a phrase from corruption law. “Quid pro quo” appeared less than 100 times in all state and federal bribery and extortion cases before 1976. That year, Buckley v. Valeo struck down limits on campaign spending while upholding limits on campaign contributions. There, the Court used the phrase quid pro quo in passing. But the Roberts Court has clung to it, using it to narrow the definition of corruption and thus broaden the limits of what our representatives can do. This new standard is inappropriately limited and reveals an unrealistic view of the corruption in our politics.

Our founding generation understood that corruption happened whenever those in public power use public power for private ends. They also understood corruption as the central threat to the survival and flourishing of our country. During the Constitutional Convention, the Founding Fathers debated the corruption implications of dozens of Constitutional provisions, and George Mason described their job as protecting against corruption lest the country “be at an end.” Alexander Hamilton described the convention as a project in enacting “every practical obstacle to corruption and cabal.”

We know the Founders weren’t just talking about direct exchanges of money for official action, because as Professor Larry Lessig has shown, only five of the 325 mentions of “corruption” in the debates around the ratification of our Constitution referred to what would now be considered criminal bribery. The rest referred to instances where those in public power used that power for private, selfish ends. The fact that the narrow quid pro quo definition has replaced the traditional idea of corruption is not just bad history; it’s a dangerous misunderstanding.

The stakes are high. The quid pro quo understanding is vastly naïve, and Robert’s distortion of a critical term in our history has made a vocabulary fight into a constitutional crisis. It overturns laws that were designed to address truly dangerous big money forces.

Lobbyists have gained grotesque amounts of power in legislation, allowed to use campaign cash and the revolving door of political appointees to gain influence. According to the Court, as long as you don’t say magic words of exchange while talking to a lawmaker, your financial support is not corrupting, even if it sways legislation and policy. To add insult to injury, the Court is now-- in McDonnell v. US-- also considering narrowing traditional bribery laws as well, adding requirements before prosecutors can bring basic federal corruption charges. A tendency to constrain corruption in both campaign finance and criminal bribery law will lead citizens with few tools to fight a serious threat to our democratic culture.

It’s common sense that big money is corrupting: When corporations spend vast amounts of money, they do it because they they know that they can use that capital to exert their influence. A 2014 study by the Sunlight Foundation showed that $5.8 billion spent by corporations in lobbying and campaign contributions reaped some $4.4 trillion in federal business and subsidies for those corporations. They do it because it works.

But it doesn’t work for democracy. We need to revive the traditional understanding of corruption, overturn Citizens United and continue the long American fight for freedom from powerful interests.

What will that mean? First and foremost, it means public financing of elections, which Teddy Roosevelt called for long ago. Public financing allows candidates who show some threshold amount of public support to receive sufficient funding for their campaigns. Congressman John Sarbanes has introduced legislation that would match small contributions with public funds, and free candidates and officeholders from begging from big donors. This legislation would broaden and diversify democratic participation, in our voters and candidates alike.

Only with independence from outside interests can our representatives disentangle from the corruption of our current system.

Let's wander back down to Chuck Schumer's greasy little fledgling in Florida for a moment. As Alan Grayson pointed out this week, "No other politician in Florida-- Democrat or Republican-- has gained more financially than Patrick Murphy and his family has from doing business with Donald Trump. Patrick’s construction company still brags about its work to deliver Trump Royale and Trump Hollywood. Thanks in part to those deals, Patrick sits on millions of dollars in company stock that his daddy gave him, and Donald has parlayed those and other real estate deals into a Republican presidential nomination. So it’s fitting that these business partners are teaming up once again to push destructive conservative policies in Washington. Democrats know that none of us can afford more of the Trump-Murphy partnership. Just as Donald Trump has bragged about how he enticed Hillary Clinton to attend Trump’s wedding, you can expect Trump to brag about how he made Patrick Murphy fabulously wealthy (owning up to $5 million in company stock)-- without Patrick ever working a day in his life." This is the crook Schumer and the entire DC Democratic Establishment is trying to foist on Florida Democrats as "their" candidate-- and Wall Street is footing the bill for their efforts.

Zephyr Teachout, Bill Ostrander, Alan Grayson... all on the Bernie Congress page, candidates dead serious about ending the corrosive and corrupt system that gives us a Congress despised by between 85 and 90% of Americans:

Can Local Democrats Cut Off The Tentacles Of DCCC Political Bosses-- In California?

Not the Beltway

William Ostrander, the congressional candidate in CA-24-- Santa Barbara and San Luis Obsispo-- who has endorsed Bernie and is running on his issues, tends to get left out of the Beltway coverage of the race for open seat created by the retirement of backbencher Lois Capps. Capps and the DCCC picked their candidate, Salud Carbajal, and as far as the media wen, that was the end of the story. That's why the media missed the gargantuan 74-26% victory Mary Ellen Balchunis had over "heavily favored" DCCC recruit Bill Golderer in the Philly suburbs Tuesday. Golderer had the Beltway Democrats, Inc machine firmly behind him. The DCCC assured "journalists" and pundits that the race was all wrapped up and that there was nothing to see in Delaware County. Besides Golderer outspent Balchunis $239,391 to $45,541. There are races like this all over the country, where to DCCC tries to create facts on the ground with a lazy and ignorant Beltway media reprinting their press releases and "tips." It didn't work in PA-07 and there are districts in California where the strategy may well fail as well, particulrly in CA-25, where local favorite, Lou Vince, is battling some DCCC carpetbagger from Orange County and in CA-24, where the DCCC wants another go-along-to-get-along careerist to not make waves.

This week, Impactmania published an interview with William Ostrander that helps explain why California central coast residents are starting to wonder why the media is reporting a version of the race-- a virtual anointment of Carbajal-- that is different from what they're seeing and hearing with their own eyes and ears in a lively swing district race that features 3 Republicans, 4 Democrats and 2 independents.

Melissa Walker kicked off the interview by asking Ostrander, a sustainable farmer, why he's running for Congress. He explained, in a way that anyone familiar with Bernie's political revolution will understand, that he believes "our current system is unresponsive and corrupted by money and that dynamic affects all legislative outcomes. The huge sum of money needed to run a viable campaign excludes participation for many and forces candidates to disproportionately seek the interests of a handful of wealthy contributors and special interests. We need to dilute the influence of money so the interests our representatives work for is the community at large-- not just those with disposable incomes who can make campaign contributions. Reform of how candidates finance campaigns is critical to address the 'calculated inequalities' facing most Americans today."

As Director of the Citizens Congress I have worked toward reforms at the local, state, and national level. I have given a Congressional briefing on campaign finance reform in DC, and held a national congress here in San Luis Obispo with people from all over the country, including Lawrence Lessig, Trevor Potter, and Hedrick Smith.

As a farmer, I am dedicated to sustainable, regenerative agriculture, restoring genetic diversity in our flora and fauna, conserving our natural resources and protecting our food supply without the use of petro-chemicals and GMO’s.

As a single parent, I’m concerned for the cost of my sons’ education and developing young people’s employment prospects after school in careers that match their skills.

As a union member I understand the necessity of collective bargaining and the right to organize. And as an activist, the necessity of all of us participating in our governance.

Do you have expertise in a particular area that you think would benefit the citizens of the 24th District? How will that expertise inform your work as a congressperson?

Yes, I do! This is a great question. Candidates are typically asked a variety of questions on a wide range of subjects. That may well suggest how they will vote on general legislation, but what most people don’t realize is that new bills have about an 8% chance of being passed on average. That means a legislator must be very committed and aggressive to be successful in passing legislation. That means that that legislator must have experienced and understand the issue personally.

If you consider that Lois Capps was a nurse before she was a legislator it’s very easy to understand that approximately half of all of the legislation that she originated-- most were not passed-- were on issues of health.

If you review my platform issues, money in politics, agriculture’s role in climate change, student debt and a national civil service program, and wealth inequality, you will find a life parallel. For example, I am the co-founder and director of a non-profit fighting for campaign finance reform.

I am somewhat of an expert in the area of money in politics and I work on it everyday. I’ve given Congressional briefings on the subject. I’ve co-authored an ordinance for publicly funded elections in San Luis Obispo.

As a regenerative farmer, I work on improving the soil and sequestering durable carbon through natural processes. I was also a self-funded volunteer in rural Namibia, Africa, and I recognize the harmony that needs to exist between farming and conservation.

I presently have a son in college and I understand the high price of education. And in 2009, my construction and real estate businesses were devastated by unregulated Wall Street abuses.

I live these issues. One of my concerns about my opponents is they have little to no private sector experience, and as a consequence, a poor understanding of how policy trickles down or the practical priorities within change.

If you are elected, what do you hope to accomplish during your first term in office?

The first thing that I will do is to throw my weight and experience of non-profits at the issue of money in politics. No matter what your issue, money in politics is the umbrella issue of all the others.

We need public financing of elections and strict disclosure of private money. It’s absurd that we use private money to elect public officials.

Our legal system understands that conflict and judges recuse themselves when there may be a conflict of interest with someone before the bench. Ironically, the very people who create the laws judges preside over consider themselves exempt from this same conflict of interest.

At present there are at least 12 bills languishing in committee in the House of Representatives dealing with money in politics that leaders are refusing to bring up for a vote. I would be tenacious in my push to enable legislation to be brought to the floor for discussion and a vote.

The public gets it. Legislators spend 30 to 70 percent of their time simply trying to raise money rather than solve our considerable list of problems. The second thing would be to reshape the farm bill to actually benefit the health of farmers, consumers and the environment.

Farm bill policies originated in 1935, under entirely different circumstances than we have today. Using the farm bill to promote agricultural practices that would reduce green house gas emissions, monetize carbon farming, restore soil health, and focus more on foods rather than commodities.

For example, Americans are encouraged to eat 50 percent of their foods in the forms of fruits and vegetables and yet over 80 percent of our farm subsidies go to corn and soybeans. Fruits and vegetables get less than one half of one percent! Even tobacco gets more at 2 percent.

Think of how changing this priority could change the dynamics of global warming, and at the same time, the overall health of the country while defraying billions in health care and environmental costs!

Polls indicate that most voters don’t think the government works. What would you do to fix the underlying structures and systems that are flawed?

First, I would ask you to refer to our government rather than the government. Reagan did us a huge disservice by creating the us versus them mentality about our governance, which, in and of itself is part of the problem. No one seems to remember it is “We the People…”

One of the most important things I can do as a candidate is to educate people about how our election system and the legislatures actually operate. When voters learn about how much time candidates spend raising money, or how cronyism supports the same recycled candidates in the same dysfunctional system, or specific and narrow interest can use wealth to warp laws that favor a special interest over the community interest, people are appalled and begin to search for, and demand, alternatives.

Today our election system barely qualifies as democratic and people are finally seeing the reasons why.

Our democracy is designed to be a creative tension of ideas. Today we have two fundamental issues to contend with that render consensus, or at least majority rule, nearly impossible. One,  we have forgotten what our social contract is with one another. There is too much of “I did it on my own”, or, “I’ve got mine, you get your own!” in our discourse.

And two, I hate to sound like a broken record, but money in politics fuels the us versus them polarity in our country today.

Statistically, political consultants know that ideologically consistent voters are twice as likely to give money and be active than the ideological center, so we are encouraged to be divided.

One of my platform issues regarding student debt includes a national civil service program that requires 18 to 25 year olds to put in at least 500 hours of civil service. Whether that is caring for the elderly, mentoring youth, environmental clean up, or even the military, I believe that our youth need to commit to participating in the amazing country that they are inheriting.

I would also strive to remind people of our social contract and remove private money from the process by which we elect our public officials.

The people in power within the structure of the Beltway Democratic Party, Inc-- the Chuck Schumers, Steny Hoyers, Steve Israels, Joe Crowleys... may pay lip service to some of these ideas about campaign finance reform and how lobbyist and special interest money is at the root of the preponderance of problems the country is saddled with, but this is the very system that is the source of their power and guys like Chuck Schumer-- who has taken $24,710,208 from the Finance Sector-- or Steny Hoyer-- who has taken more money from corrupt K Street lobbyists than anyone serving in the House today, are not going to do anything to change a system that puts them on the top of the heap. To break free from that system, we need less Chuck Schumers and fewer Steny Hoyers-- and the zombie-candidates they recruit-- and more independent outsiders like Ostrander who understand the corrupt nature of the system and intend to smash it to bits.

Why Bill Ostrander?

Since inheriting her late husband's seat and then ignoring her own term limits pledge, Lois Capps hasn't been a bad congresswoman. She doesn't stand out as a leader but ProgressivePunch grades her a solid B-- not as good as progressive a record as California Members like Barbara Lee, Mike Honda, Judy Chu, Linda Sanchez, Alan Lowenthal, Mark DeSaulnier, Maxine Waters, Grace Napolitano or even establishment-oriented liberals like Xavier Becerra, Jared Huffman and Nancy Pelosi. But nothing to be ashamed of. Now that she's finally retiring (at the age of 79), it would be nice to see the Santa Barbara/San Luis Obispo congressional district (CA-24)-- which gave Obama a 57-41% win over McCain and a 54-43% win over Romney-- upgrade itself representationally. Why not someone actually great instead of a party hack? Instead, Capps has picked a Santa Barbara crony as her successor, County Supervisor Salud Carabajal, a weak and utterly uninspiring garden variety Democratic Party candidate heavily pushed by Capps, the DCCC and the Wall Street-owned New Dems. He's well liked by the local Santa Barbara political establishment.

The race is routinely portrayed as pitting Carabajal against Santa Barbara Mayor Helen Schneider, another decent, moderate Democrat. We covered the race a couple of weeks ago and it was refreshing to see a candidate from the San Luis Obispo part of the district who stands head and shoulders against the two establishment picks, Bill Ostrander, the Bernie endorser who's running on the package of reforms that embodies Bernie's political revolution, something I get the impression is as far from Carabajal's and Schneider's world as the planet Neptune.

Yesterday, Blue America endorsed Bill and added him to our Bernie Congress page. We didn't endorse him because Helene or Salud is horrible; they're not. We endorsed him because he's exactly the kind of candidate we need if we're going to reform a corrupt, rigged system; they're not.

In a press release to the district media he wrote that he is "gratified to learn that a progressive organization supports and embraces many of the same policies and programs I discuss with residents when walking door-too-door or when attending community forums. It's amazing that the traditional Democratic Party establishment hierarchy is so tone deaf about what the majority of the electorate wants. Americans are participating in our democracy across the country, as well as here in the 24th District, whether it’s volunteering, contributing or turning out to vote in huge numbers... Foolishly doubling down on the same candidates, or those chosen to succeed them, is one reason why Congress has generated a 14 percent approval rating. In my opinion, that choice can be traced back to the influence of money on our elections, policy and legislation."

He pointed to DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz as an example of what's gone wrong with the Democratic Party, particularly her decision make into the core of the party establishment, something banned by President Obama but aggressively backed by Hillary Clinton, who has taken more money from lobbyists than any other candidate in the United States in history and whose entire campaign structure is riddled with them. "It leaves too many of us disgusted with the process," Bill wrote. "Rather than gain swing voters, we breed more apathy, and wonder why the American Dream keeps slipping further away."

Wasserman Schultz is one of the corrupt conservatives from the New Democratic Coalition (the New Dems) that endorsed Carabajal-- and 8 other conservative candidates they feel will be open to the kind of revolting corruption on which the New Democratic Coalition is premised-- this week. Capps engineered the group's endorsement of her protégé and handpicked successor. The group is all about keeping the system rigged and the deck stacked in favor of the corporations that fund the New Dems. We need less New Dems and more progressives in Congress. Bill Ostrander intends on joining and working with the Congressional Progressive Caucus when he's elected to the House. If you'd like to contribute to his campaign, you can do it by clicking the thermometer below:

On The California Campaign Trail With Bill Ostrander-- Getting Special Interest Money Out Of Elections

Bill Ostrander's e-mail sign-off is "Elections must depend upon the Voters, not the Funders." You get an idea where he stands right away. And lot of independent-minded voters are starting to question the Establishment case for the "inevitability" of Salud Carbajal, the anointed candidate of the DCCC. When I started talking to Bill in March I thought the race had been neatly wrapped up and it was too late to do anything to help the real progressive in the contest for a blue California seat that Obama won in 2008 57-41% and in 2012 54-43%.

Generally speaking, in a presidential year CA-24 will see about 110,000 voters in San Luis Obispo County and 140,000 voters in Santa Barbara County vote in the congressional race (as well as about 3,000 voters in a tiny sliver of Ventura County included in the district). Some folks rate it a swing district because, by registration, there are almost an equal number of Democrats (37%) and Republicans (33.5%) with independents at 27%, although the district has been voting regularly for Democrats and the last Republican elected to Congress from the area was Andrea Seastrand, a far right one-term nut, who succeeded Michael Huffington, a vaguely closeted mainstream Republican billionaire, when he got pushed into running for the U.S. Senate. That was 1994. In 1996 Walter Capps defeated Seastrand and died 9 months later. His wife, Lois Capps, who claimed-- untruthfully as it turned out-- that she would abide by a term limits pledge, has been the Representative ever since. She's been a fairly mediocre centrist backbencher with no particular accomplishments other than being voted "nicest House member" a few times.

This year, with the drama being played out in the presidential race suggesting that America’s political gag reflex is at work, people would be more than justified in wondering how much complicity do voters share for hiring Representatives that, collectively as Congress, have a 14% approval rating?

CA-24 on California's central coast is one of the 41 districts nationally without an incumbent running for re-election. So far 25 Republicans have announced they won't be seeking reelection, though only 9 of those districts isn't so gerrymandered that there is no shot for an upset. Of the 16 Democrats who have announced they're not running again, Republicans might hope to have a reasonable chance to compete in 4 of them (if you include CA-24).

The district has a relatively low-cost media market that makes it attractive to "ideology investors" who can buy another seat/vote much more cheaply than a congressional seat in a large city with high TV and newspaper ads. These conditions create ugly aspirations for party competition and the community interest becomes a red-headed step-child. In a situation like this, more than ever, the tools of our political system have become: money, cronyism, orchestrated efforts of cliques to influence voters' choices of real candidates, and confidence in the fact that too many voters are apathetic to the process, feeling-- sometimes rightly-- that their votes don’t matter at all anyway.

Complaints about Capps tend to be that, other than her vote against the Iraq war, she hasn’t distinguished herself and lacks gravitas. She's focused her legislative career largely on health issues and the environment-- particularly the issues of oil and fracking along California’s coast. Her daughter, Laura, was a speech writer for Bill Clinton and briefly flirted with the idea of running for her mother’s seat. One thing Americans seem to agree on this cycle is that we are tired of family dynasties and the thought of the third member of the Capps family representing the district in succession turned just about everyone off other than DCCC staffers. The ease with which her temporary candidacy elicited sheer joy from the party regulars is a testament to how thoroughly cronysim is embedded into our politics. Laura is married to Bill Burton, a political consultant and a co-founder and senior strategist with Hillary's Priorities USA Action superPAC. Circle the wagons, the cronyism starts here.

Last June, Capps endorsed Salud Carbajal, a fellow Santa Barbaran she has known for 20 years. Salud is a County Supervisor and former Chief of Staff to his predecessor, the late Santa Barbara County Supervisor Naomi Schwartz. He's known as a gregarious handshaker but not particularly charismatic or possessing of a unique perspective. Without any democratic process of vetting he was promptly anointed by Capps and then her congressional cronies. As a nine term veteran she knows how the game is played and she stacked the deck. She enlisted the Democratic establishment’s leadership, including Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to put the full faith and credit of the party establishment behind him. Not sure what the value of that is in 2016 but the baton was passed with no vetting and and no interviews of any of the other candidates. It’s not illegal but it’s ethically gross and pretty anti-democratic. These endorsements are "gifted" between political allies and cronies. Most of the public is unaware of such cronyism. The uninitiated simply assume that there is some type of audition, where the candidates present their accomplishments and abilities before a group of wise party members who then endorse the candidate who stood above and beyond all the others. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cronyism was so blatant that even as hackish a Beltway outfit as The Hill ran a story on Pelosi’s uncharacteristic endorsement in a primary of someone she barely knew.

One of the sad distortions of money in politics is that it is assumed that whoever has raised the most money is the most popular choice. What money affords are massive media campaigns that make the required six to eight 'touches'-- the emails, mailers and radio and television ads meant to wear down voters and and penetrate their consciousness-- to convince them that the product advertised (AKA, the candidate) is the right choice. Do you assume that McDonalds is the best dining choice because it has the most commercials? Money also allows you to make "investments" in the party. Salud has donated to the local Democratic Party infrastructure in both Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo counties and to the establishment candidates. This makes a politician like him popular among the political insiders who opine on the electability of said candidate, which is then erroneously presumed to be a general popularity among constituents.

The public is mostly unaware of the concerted effort by the few insiders, mostly in DC, who thrust Carbajal’s candidacy on CA-24. This same dynamic is being played out openly with the Republican Party in their efforts to squash Donald Trump. Nearly 30 PACs and other special interests scattered throughout the country have already be directed to spend more than a million dollars on Carbajal’s campaign. Moreover, there is another geographic advantage: Carbajal’s supporters come from one of the wealthiest communities in the world-- think Oprah Winfrey and her $50 million estate, where, in fact, Carbajal held a fundraiser. His average contribution was approximately $1,300 in 2015. Out of the $1.4 million he raised through the last reporting period, only $48,000 came from small donations of under $200. Given that less than one half of one percent of the U.S. population gives over $200 to a campaign, Carbajal’s donor list-- Capps’ own donor list was bequeathed to Salud for a mere $396 "in kind" donation-- is unique.

Upon closer inspection of Carbajal’s FEC filings, you find that he has spent $140,000 on fundraising consultants and about $400,000 on his campaign from April 1, 2015 until December 31, 2015. No other candidate in the race has come anywhere close to that amount of spending. And, although Carbajal has spent a huge sum in the early months of the campaign, first hand report indicate that he has performed poorly in debates and on the stump, leaving many voters unimpressed-- and for good reason.

While the media has focused attention on how impressed they are with Carbajal’s million-dollar campaign war chest, the same media outlets seem to have overlooked his tens of thousands of dollars of personal debt. He has significant debt on three credit cards, one with as much as $50,000. He is in debt for as much as $15,000 on two other credit cards. He has reported student loan debt in the range between $15,000 and $50,000. This is a huge vulnerability for a Democrat and one can easily imagine the attack ads that Republicans will no doubt exploit at every opportunity should he make it to the general election. You can visualize the ads now: "How can voters trust Mr. Carbajal with our country’s multi-billion-dollar budgets when can’t even manage his own personal finances?!" He sounds almost as bad as Marco Rubio! Add to that that Carbajal is a career politician who has very little experience in the private sector and it’s likely that his candidacy would fall apart without the considerable butressing from Capps and the huge sums of money he gets through DCCC patronage.

Carbajal’s Democratic rivals are Santa Barbara Mayor Helene Schneider and re-genrative farmer Bill Ostrander of adjacent San Luis Obispo County.

Mayor Schneider is rated a polished performer and an earnest politician. She's smart and does her homework. She is the only female in the crowded jungle primary field, which will be motivating for some voters. Unfortunately, she was passed over by many of the party insiders and has mixed to derogatory reviews for her opposition to the widening of the 101 highway through the exclusive Monetcito neighborhood, which was viewed as a nod to her wealthy backers. In fact, her objection was with a faulty environmental impact report that later, in court, proved to be true. But, the damage was done. Like Carbajal, she also has the advantage of geography in fundraising and has publicly said that her contributions average $500. She raised close to half a million dollars in 2015, which is considerable without the luxury of party cronyism. Also like Carbajal, she's neither charismatic nor does she instill confidence of leadership.

The 24th District is comprised of approximately 37 percent Democrats, 33.5 percent Republicans and 27 percent independent. Santa Barbara holds the greatest concentration of progressive voters in the 24th district and Salud and Schneider will no doubt split the majority of vote.



The non-Santa Barbara candidate in the race is Bill Ostrander, who is looked at as the "dark horse" in the race and the Bernie-like candidate.

Bill is a regenerative farmer (he told me that means he works to improve the soil and sequester carbon) from San Luis Obispo. He founded and runs a non-profit called Citizens Congress, an organizations committed to removing the corruptive influence of money in politics, especially in elections.

Much like Bernie, with whom he shares campaign volunteers galore, Bill was dismissed by party insiders for a while. However, like Sanders, Ostrander is articulating the frustration of most Americans and the insiders are having to take note. Many who hear him pull back the curtain on money in politics, cronyism, and offer unique perspectives on things like publicly financed elections, agriculture’s role in climate change and a national civil service program for 18-25 year olds, become enthusiastic supporters. He's a persuasive speaker and every report indicates he wins the debates, especially when measured by crowd response. He has not succumbed to the dull, safe scripts coached to most candidates by their handlers. Predictably, he is gaining a lot of traction and volunteers from students who attend several colleges in the district, including Cal Poly and the University of California at Santa Barbara.

Raising money in San Luis Obispo County (which the locals term SLO County or just "SLO") is vastly different from the gilded city of Santa Barbara. Forty percent of the population of SLO County works in Tier 3 jobs that pay on average $12.43 an hour. Despite the economic challenges of his home turf, without hiring a big Washington D.C.-based fundraising team, from out of 141 Congressional candidates in California, Ostrander ranks in the middle of the money tree. It was a risky but deliberate move to run the type of campaign that placed the first priority on ideas rather than money. Ostrander, like Bernie, is investing in people and upending cliché politics that favor vague platitudes of "new beginnings" and "cleaning house in Washington" while playing by the same rules of money and cronyism that created the dysfunction in the first place.

Ostrander told me-- and the evidence supports his assertions-- that "the influence of money in politics manipulates our legislative outcomes. It’s inarguably the single most important problem facing our nation today. Our elected officials spend up to 70% of their time asking for campaign contributions. Since only wealthy donors, lobbyists and special interests can afford sizable donations, politicians tend to favor individual donors’ interests over community interests. Studies show that ideological voters are twice as likely to donate to campaigns. A politicians' dependence on donors is a principal reason Congress is dysfunctional."

Republican Justin Fareed, a 27 year-old Santa Barbara resident who works for his parents, has amassed a small fortune in donations. Of the $754,000 Fareed had raised through 2015, 87.5% of his contributions were from out of the district and more than $300,000 from out of state. Money being spent on Fareed’s faux Tea Party candidacy appears to be coming largely from conservative ideological investors. Justin has little real-world experience, and this campaign message is porn from the pages of the garden variety Republican playbook of "less regulation, lower taxes, clean up Washington" drivel that he doesn’t seem to understand. This is his second attempt at Capp’s congressional seat. He was edged out in the 2014 primary by Chris Mitchum. By virtue of his fundraising and ideology, Justin will also pull votes from the Santa Barbara pool.

"Katcho" Achadjian, a Republican from Arroyo Grande, is a state Assemblyman from SLO county. Katcho is an immigrant from Armenia who owns four gas stations and receives money from a Koch brother subsidiary. One doesn't have to wonder how Achadjian, will vote on the issues of fossil fuels and global warming. He is not well liked by the Sierra Club or any serious Californians concerned about the environment or Global Warming.

While Katcho is well-liked by his conservative constituents for his personal handling of grievances with governmental bureaucracy, he likes to claim that California’s financial turnaround was under his watchful eye-- despite being in the legislative minority and on the wrong side of many of the votes that contributed to the turnaround.

Fareed is raising more money than Katcho, but that may have more to do with Justins’ family wealth and connections than support. So far, Republicans are staying out of the endorsement business of their candidates.

There are other candidates, but they’ve raised little to no money and have no apparent organization or structure to suggest much credibility.

Ostrander is looking at this race as an opportunity that offers important lessons for people in the district regarding what ability or interest America has in "trying to make our grand experiment of democracy whole again. Has our disgust with the system left us blind to cronyism? Has money over taken even our recognition of good ideas? Does it matter if 'investors' from out of the district help a candidate succeed? Can average citizens have a place in our government, or must they all be schooled in the system as lifetime public servants? Or the reverse: Should career politicians be disqualified if they’ve never spent time in the private sector? Is America rewarding innovation in our governance the way we might expect our technology to out compete the rest of the world? Or have we all become so fatigued through this process that we just want it all to stop?"

The race for California’s 24th Congressional District is a microcosm of the presidential race: a career politician propped up by cronyism, ideological investors, a competent administrator, and a dark horse who is channeling visceral disgust with the rigged system. Young, innovative but idealistic millennials against cynical seniors with financial resources who are not comfortable with risk. "Both sides," Ostrander reminds us, "are turned off by an institutional hierarchy that leaves everyone behind and unheard."

The Santa Barbara County Supervisor, a career politician, is the anointed candidate of the establishment and falls squarely in the Hillary Clinton mold. Bill Ostrander, in addition to sustainable farming, directs a non-profit that seeks to severely limit the influence of money in politics, especially the money spent on campaigns. Salud has never really worked in the private sector or owned a business. Ostrander has worked on four continents, owns and operates a small business, but always worked outside of government.

Carbajal has a stump speech and it sounds like it. Ostrander has a consistent message but speaks extemporaneously.



As Bill explained at the candidates forum at UCSB last month (on the video above), Robert Reich blogged that Hillary is a good candidate for the government we have. But for the government that we want to have, we need Bernie Sanders. The same could be said for Carbajal vs. Bill Ostrander. Is America’s political gag reflex working? Will we accept our complicity when the next approval poor rating of Congress comes out? You can contribute to Bill's campaign by clicking on the thermometer: