The Democrats Completely Control Sacramento-- So Why Is It Such A Cesspool Of Corruption?

If the old maxim is true that absolute power corrupts absolutely, then California Democrats have a very real problem. As the power and legitimacy of the GOP has waned, Democrats have seized control of a supermajority in the state, with both hands. With their power now left unchecked by a viable opposition party, the party politics of the left have drifted into corruption, led by party power players like Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and Christy Smith, an unaccomplished freshman legislator running for the CA-25 seat abandoned by Katie Hill, as well as a wide cadre of party apparatchiks.

Their goal has been to put their thumbs on the scales of primary elections across the state in order to elect moderate back benchers who will maintain the status quo and not rock the boat for party leadership. The internal party bias has been especially hard on the progressive wing of the party, where the California Democratic party routinely tries to pick the winners of primary races.

The Young Turks recently reported one such story of unethical influence into races that are supposed to be democratic in nature. The story featured Eric Ohlsen who is running for State Assembly in District 36, the Antelope Valley district that is contained within the boundaries of CA-25. According to Ohlsen, he was told at a meeting with Christy Smith that the decision had already been made behind the scenes to support his opponent, Jonathan Ervin, so Ohlsen should just try again in a few years. She also took umbrage with his messaging to get big money out of politics and fight corruption. Ohlsen had said in a speech-- up top-- at the California Democratic Convention, "Democrats have a supermajority in Sacramento and they keep telling us that we need to learn how to compromise. We’re not compromising with Republicans to pass legislation, we’re compromising with industry because they’re donors." Regarding that anti-corruption stance, Ohlsen said, "Christy told me that my anti-corruption messaging was 'personally offensive' to her." Which is probably a good self-assessment because both Smith and Rendon had pushed Ervin from behind the scenes and made sure that opposing candidates did not get any endorsements, which gave Ervin a $121 thousand advantage over everyone else in his race.

Ohlsen confirmed in a follow up interview that during his meeting with Smith, she had noted that both herself and Rendon had endorsed Jonathan Ervin before any primary races had even begun, effectively removing any democracy from the Democratic Primary.

Rendon has a long track record of using his influence with the unions and special interest groups to deny funding and endorsements to any candidates that he does not hand pick. His position as Speaker of the House in the State Assembly gives him leverage over groups that may potentially offer endorsements to candidates. By offering to reduce access to legislators, Rendon can control or eliminate the flow of money to candidates that he does not approve of. Encouraging his membership in the Assembly to direct funds at particular candidates is another tactic that Rendon has used to starve out competition from progressive candidates, and favor ones, like Ervin, who will act as an empty vessel for his agenda.

Threats of the denial of funding have also been used against other progressive candidates such as those who support Cenk Unger. Alaina Brooks, SEIU delegate for California's 36th Assembly District, executive board member for Local 2015, made it very clear to the Ohlsen camp that if he continued to support his fellow progressive candidate that his political future would be in jeopardy.

"The amount of pushback that we have gotten is surprising to me," Ohlsen said, "Nearly every Democrat in Sacramento ran on talking points to get money out of politics, but as soon as you ask, 'that sounds great, so where is your bill?' they start working like crazy behind the scenes to block you from competing." With a supermajority of Democratic votes in the California Legislature, passing any anticorruption measures would be a simple task, the problem is that the measures would need the support of people who have spent their careers benefiting from the money in politics.

This is the reason why many states have enacted publicly funded elections, which limit the ability of party elites and special interests to pick and choose the winners of elections before they have even began. It is a proposition that has been supported on the national level by several Presidential candidates including Tom Steyer, who said, "I think the point about publicly funded campaigns means that if you are running, the public will fund a campaign that’s at least comparable to what anyone’s going to spend on their campaign," Steyer told reporters. "And that’s actually I think the easiest way to go about this and the proper way."

Also on the national level, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has faced many of the same problems by bucking the party establishment. She rose to prominence by defeating Joseph Crowley, a corporate Democrat who portrayed himself as being a progressive liberal while simultaneously taking money from Goldman Sachs, Facebook, Google, BlackRock, amongst others. AOC has continued to garner criticism from her own Democratic colleagues for holding House Democrat’s feet to the fire regarding financial corruption within the party.

The GOP lost their position as a viable opposition party in the state, but by quashing the voices of opposition within their own ranks, Democrats could undo any gains they have been given. The activities of Rendon and Smith to put their thumbs on the scales of party elections could create a culture of corruption that will bring down their own house. Matt Stoller summed the problem up nicely in a 2019 column for the Washington Post, "For too long, disagreements in the Democratic Party have been kept behind closed doors, and the result was the protection of powerful financial interests. It is time to start talking about this dynamic, so that voters can make a democratic choice about what kind of politics they actually want to build. That, in the end, is why it’s called the Democratic Party."

A Guest Post By Eric Ohlsen-- Cleaning Up Sacramento

Eric Ohlsen is the progressive candidate, endorsed by Blue America, running for the Antelope Valley state Assembly seat occupied by Tom Lackey, the last Republican in the Assembly from Los Angeles County. One of his top priorities is to help clean up corruption in Sacrament by getting corporate sewer money out of the electoral process. Please consider contributing what you can to his grassroots campaign by clicking on the state legislative 2020 thermometer below.

I want to mention that though the Democrats control both houses of the state legislature-- and by very big margins-- corruption is still rampant in Sacramento. Though there are no good Republicans-- not one-- there are both good Democrats and bad Democrats-- plenty of bad Democrats-- serving in the state legislature. Most of the most conservative, corporate-friendly Democrats happen to also be the most corrupt ones. That's the nature of conservatism and the nature of the kinds of individuals who embrace conservatism. Based on the research from California's Courage Campaign, there are 15 Democrats who have been graded failures ("F"), based on their alignment with the corporate interests that exploit Californians. Here's the list, from bad to worst (with their 2019 vote scores):

• Al Muratsuchi (Torrance, Redondo Beach, Gardena)- 54
• Joaquin Arambula (Fresno, Coalinga)- 50
• Freddie Rodriguez (Ontario, Chino, Pomona)- 48
• Jacqui Irwin (Oxnard, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks)- 47
• Patrick O’Donnell (Long Beach)- 42
• Tim Grayson (Vallejo, Concord)- 39
• Tom Daly (Santa Ana, Anaheim)- 36
• Brian Maienschein (Rancho Santa Fe, Poway)- 32
• Sharon Quirk-Silva (Fullerton, Buena Park)- 32
• Ken Cooley (Citrus Heights, Rancho Cordova)- 27
• Sabrina Cervantes (Corona, Jurupa Valley)- 27
• Rudy Salas (Bakersfield, Hanford)- 18
• Jim Frazier (Vacaville, Fairfield, Antioch)- 11
• Adam Gray (Merced, Los Banos)- 9
• Jim Cooper (Elk Grove, Lodi)- 9

The Corruptive Effects of Lobbying
by Eric Ohlsen

When we think about the topic of corruption in our political system, it is easy for the mind to focus on the overt acts of corruption and abuses of power that come from the White House in a steady torrent. And we are not wrong to be concerned by that. However, that type of bald faced corruption is not the only kind that should concern us.

Moneyed interests use their leverage on our politicians every day in an effort to subvert the will of the people for their own financial gain. That is what cooperate lobbying is, and it is an activity that is corrosive to our democracy. Now, to be fair, it doesn’t have to be corrosive; there are groups, causes, and issues that deserve an opportunity to be heard, but the problem is that corporate lobbying has the money and influence to drown out the worthy types of lobbying, allowing their interests to overpower all others.

During the 2019 legislative year, lobbyists in Sacramento spent $219.4 million. That is a startling $2 million spent every day that the State Legislature was in session. It is a figure that has continued to rise. Corporate lobbying has increased 24% over the last 4 years and shows no sign of slowing down. Some of the most concerning lobbying efforts have come from the energy industry. During the 2018 election cycle, the petroleum industry lavished $19.2 million into California politics. Republicans have traditionally been the most welcoming to contributions from the oil industry but they are not the only place that the oil industry directs its effort.

The petroleum industry has been working hard to push their agenda by aiding conservative Democrats who are amenable to their cause. In 2018 there was more than $853,000 in direct contributions split between 47 Democrats who were in races for both Assembly and Senate, plus another $2.8 million to help Susan Rubio, $343,000 campaign supporting the re-election of Democratic Assemblyman Rudy Salas of Bakersfield, and $160,000 to a committee that campaigns for "business-friendly"-- meaning BIG business-friendly-- Democrats.

The thinking is that since the Republican Party has waned in California in recent years, the energy industry should try to reshape the type of Democrats that are getting sent to Sacramento. By helping to elect conservatives from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, the oil lobby hopes to slow the momentum of progressives who will not be willing to kill or water down environmental legislation at the behest of big money donors.

Also, let’s not limit the energy industry’s lobbying efforts to just the oil and gas sectors, this is true too for Pacific Gas & Electric which spent more than $10 million in 2018 to buy political influence. And while the numbers have dropped some, they have still spent more than $6 million on lobbying this year as well. Meanwhile PG&E has continued to pour out $4.5 billion in dividends to its shareholders rather than conducting the necessary maintenance needed to prevent fires. It is a bald faced effort to buy their way out of accountability for failing to maintain the system that California rate payers have paid them to maintain. And as the legislature begins to revisit the rules around the role of utilities to prevent wild fires in the future, you can bet that PG&E’s spending on lobbying efforts will ramp up.

It is not just the energy industry trying to buy its way into our legislative decisions. There was, of course, recently California had the opportunity to provide a single-payer Medicare option to all Californians, only to have the bill blocked by Democratic members of the Assembly who were bought off by the lobbying efforts of the health insurance industry. They managed to get SB-562 killed at the last moment.

Another area where there is a concerning amount of money trying to purchase influence is around the issue of education. If ever there is an issue that we, as a community, a State and a Nation that we need to get right, it is education. However it took a yeoman’s effort for the California Teachers Association to get Assembly Bill 1505 passed which gives local school districts necessary control over the expansion of charter schools. Charter school groups spent about $900,000 on lobbying and even more poured in by other outside groups. These charter schools cost the same amount as public schools, while providing fewer services and not producing any better results, but because they are backed by interests seeking to privatize education they are able to funnel money into efforts to avoid necessary oversight by local school boards.

And finally I want to talk about the lobbying efforts of the NRA. This is the most infamous and insidious lobby, and it really is worth considering the NRA as a meta issue about lobbies and not as a discussion of the Second Amendment. However you may feel about gun ownership rights, when you look at the methods, tactics, and money that the gun lobby throws at legislatures around the country it is clear that they have managed to subvert the will of the people in a way that has been both incredibly successful and unbelievably dangerous. It is not just about getting their way, the greater problem with their lobby is that they have poisoned the water on having a meaningful debate about how to manage and regulate guns in a sensible way, to ensure public safety. The most egregious example of this is the gun lobby and their allies in Congress managed to block the CDC from even studying gun violence as a public health issue.

Ultimately, when you look at all of these points, the problem becomes clear, that while lobbying does not have to be inherently bad, the way that it is currently regulated tips the scales to those with the most money. And whenever money is such a decisive factor in democracy, then it becomes extremely difficult for the legislature to pursue the interests of the people.

Affordable Housing Is Becoming A Crisis In California-- Don't Expect GOP Hacks Like Tom Lackey To Be Part Of The Solution

Los Angeles doesn't have any Republicans in its congressional delegation any longer-- and there's only one left in the delegation it sends to the Assembly in Sacramento, Tom Lackey of Palmdale (AD-36). His name is an apt description. The Antelope Valley seat stretches from southern Kern County through the northeast corner of Los Angeles County and into northern San Bernardino County. There are 9% more registered Democrats than Republicans in the district, but that number is deceiving because there are more Independents than Republicans and they tend to lean right.

There are 3 relatively viable Democrats in the race, two conservatives, Steve Fox (a reactionary who lost to Tom Lackey the last 3 elections) and Johnathon Ervin (who hasn’t won an election despite trying 3 times for City Council and once for State Senate). As of today, Blue America is endorsing the progressive in the race, Eric Ohlsen. Eric enlisted in the Coast Guard right out of high school. After this service he enrolled in L.A. City College and ran up $30,000 in student debt. His wife and her family are from Palmdale and that's where they settled. Today he works as a producer and is an unabashed progressive which he believes gives him the best chance of winning over independent voters and beating Lackey. He's a booster of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. He feels he can not just pinpoint the problems that his neighbors care about but that he has the solutions to deal with them.

One of the big ones in the Antelope Valley is an affordable housing crisis that is kicking in all over the region. I asked Eric to introduce himself by talking about that specifically. If you like what you read, please consider contributing to his campaign by clicking on the Blue America state legislative thermometer above. As you can see, he's the only Californian on the list.


California’s Housing Crisis
by Eric Ohlsen

Housing costs continue to increase faster than income levels. The financial strain pushes too many good citizens further and further toward the fringes. While there is no magic policy pill that will solve California’s affordable housing crisis, as a State, and a community, we desperately need to find solutions. That means changing the way we approach the problem as a whole.

First, let’s start at the state level with Proposition 13. Because of Prop 13, both commercial and residential properties are only reassessed for tax purposes when they are sold. So owners pay property taxes based on the value of the property when they acquired it, not at its current market value. The problem with this is that a municipality’s revenue does not reflect the rising costs of its operations, and must therefore cut costs any way possible in order to account for annually increasing shortfalls. And the easiest budgets to slash are social services and education. Prop 13 was a bill that was sold to the public in a way that sounded good at the time, but has ultimately had far too many unintended consequences. It has hamstrung local governments and deprived them of necessary civic revenue, forcing cuts to important social services including affordable housing initiatives.

Another unintended consequence of Prop 13 is on construction of new housing. The city still has the same costs associated with new construction, but not the same revenue. So now cities are forced to work around those costs by passing them onto the developers in the form of up-front fees that must be paid before construction. This additional burden of up-front costs drives up the initial investment and makes it more difficult for developers to build much needed housing throughout the state. This exacerbates the problem of housing shortages and rising home costs to everyone. Also, the front-loaded development fees that cities have become increasingly reliant on, favor large-scale housing developments and shopping malls.

There are currently efforts underway to treat commercial property different than residential property, which has become known as “split roll.” By enacting the split roll, nothing would change for residential properties, but businesses would have their properties reassessed to market values every three years or less and these commercial properties would still be taxed at their value plus 1 percent. These additional funds would help communities across the state pay for much a much needed upgrade in our educational system, fund social programs, affordable housing initiatives, and rebuild civic infrastructure. In short, it will give our communities the resources they need to thrive.

Rent control solutions are also an option, such as AB 1482, which recently passed the State Assembly, and caps rent increases at 7 percent plus inflation. But this legislation falls woefully short because it not only does not go far enough, but it also lacks any renter protections. What good is rent control if a landlord can evict a tenant without any just cause, only to raise the rent as much as they want with the tenant gone? We can and should do better than this, but it is at least one direction where we can find progress.

Next, let’s look at local solutions like Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). CDBGs are allocated to social service programs locally and can be used in very specific ways targeted to the individual needs of the community, for example, subsidized housing or maintaining the stock of affordable housing in the area. CDBGs can also be used to keep small business real estate more affordable, which creates jobs and retains locally owned businesses.

Another local solution to help address California’s housing shortage is to amend zoning ordinances to ease restrictions on second dwelling units. While from a State level these units do not require additional reviews or hearings to build, many local municipalities have restrictive city ordinances in place that create a barrier to secondary dwelling units on a property. These units are beneficial to a community because they increase the supply of affordable housing, increase the urban density, and help homeowners with financial stability. Zoning ordinances can also be amended to account for the development of “tiny house” communities which have been successfully used to help the chronically homeless, but also as an alternative housing solution in other areas.

Finally, and most urgently, let’s look at the housing crisis from the street level. Immediate action must be taken to give help to our most vulnerable neighbors. Those with the greatest housing needs can be helped through expanded programs for subsidized housing. These programs can be paid for in part by the proposed changes to Prop 13 and can help our neighbors now, before they face the devastating effects of homelessness. We can also work to make the system easier to navigate for those in need by continuing to improve the coordination of services through L.A. County’s “No Wrong Door” policy. This helps people to avoid getting swept up in bureaucracy and to find their way to the help they need.

These are all specific things that can be done to help ease the crisis of housing costs in California, but I think that the biggest change has to come with how we approach this problem as a whole. We need to seek out a comprehensive solution rather than treating the problem as an afterthought. This is a problem that impacts literally every Californian and solving it must be seen as a priority by legislators and not some secondary or tertiary problem. We must demand a bolder approach from our State Legislature.