Tomorrow's Notable California Congressional Races-- Some Democrats Aren't Worth Voting For-- And Some Are Fantastic

Tomorrow's the big day here in California. Let me remind you, that all of our endorsements for the 17 statewide propositions are here. There are no Republicans worth voting for anywhere in the state-- not for any office. In the U.S. Senate race, Kamala Harris is a better bet than Blue Dog Loretta Sanchez and in the congressional races, the Democrats I would never consider voting for are corrupt New Dem Ami Bera (who should be in prison instead of his poor fall-guy father), Blue Dog Jim Costa, New Dem Ro Khanna, coked-up New Dem Pete Aguilar, New Dem Isadore Hall, Blue Dog Lou Correa, and New Dem Scott Peters. Blue America has endorsed Ted Lieu, Doug Applegate, Bao Nguyen, Mike Honda, Nanette Barragán, and, of course, Barbara Lee. The rest of the Democrats range from excellent to... well get a clothespin and remember they're not as bad as Correa, Bera, Costa or Hall. It's also worth noting that there are half a dozen Dem vs Dem congressional races in the Greater Los Angeles area tomorrow:

• CA-29- Tony Cardenas vs Richard Alarcon
• CA-32- Grace Napolitano vs Roger Hernandez
• CA-34- Xavier Becerra vs Adrienne Edwards
• CA-37- Karen Bass vs Chris Wiggins
• CA-44- Nanette Barragán vs Isadore Hall
• CA-46- Bao Nguyen vs Lou Correa

And in CA-40 (East L.A., Downey, Paramount, Vernon, Bell, Cudahy, Commerce, Maywood) progressive Democrat Lucille Royball-Allard is opposed by an Independent, Roman Gonzales, who won 27% in the primary. He's likely to earn a smaller percentage than that tomorrow. But in these bizarre races with no Republicans, two are especially important: CA-44 (South Gate, Watts, Lynwood, Willowbrook, Compton, Carson, Rancho Dominguez, North Long Beach and San Pedro) and CA-46 (Anaheim, Orange, Santa Ana, and Garden Grove, easily the bluest congressional district in Orange County). What makes these two races so interesting is that there is a progressive pitted against a notoriously corrupt reactionary in each.

Yesterday when the L.A. Times reiterated their endorsements, they only picked ONE of the two dozen congressional districts in the L.A. area to highlight. That's how stark the difference and important the race is between Nanette Barragán and Sacramento's most corrupt legislator, sold-out conservative Democrat Isadore Hall, already recruited by the Wall Street-owned New Dems. Of course, the entire corrupted Democratic Party establishment has sided with Hall. He is, in every way, one of them. "Barragán," wrote the L.A. Times editors, "has strong environmental credentials. State Sen. Isadore Hall’s environmental record is dismal." They neglected to mention that his sleazy political career has been funded by Big Oil and Gas, tobacco, gambling and every rot-gut issue oriented lobbyist who is generally just welcomed aboard by the worst and most pay-for-play of the Republicans.

Nanette would be a great candidate even if she wasn't running against someone as reprehensible as Hall. Same goes for Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen, whose opponent, Lou Correa, is, incredibly, even worse than Hall! If he wins-- and nearly a million dollars in right-wing SuperPAC money has flooded into his race-- he will surely be California's worst and most corrupt member of Congress. Congratulations, in advance, Orange County! Correa is the poster child for the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Naturally, he's been endorsed by both the Blue Dogs and the New Dems.



Correa is a realtor who took advantage of the mortgage crisis to build up an empire of rental properties all over Orange County-- particularly Anaheim and Santa Ana-- and one of the sleaziest realtor lobbyist groups, the National Association of Realtors Congressional Fund, spent $535,000 on his campaign so far. trying to make sure they would have an ally against consumers and homeowners inside the House Democratic caucus. But corporate special interests is a huge part of the Correa brand, another reason he fits in so well with the New Dems and Blue Dogs.

In a majority Latino district, Correa isn't just keeping it quiet that the joined the New Dems and Blue Dogs, but also that he voted against SB60, which would have made drivers licenses available for all qualified Californians regardless of immigration status. His vote was a complete betrayal of the Hispanic population. Although he's on record of having voted against it, when confronted with the vote he just lies and claims he voted for it. No wonder the Blue Dogs and New Dems love this guy!

Nor is that the only time he voted with the Republicans against working families-- far from it. Although Correa claims when he campaigns that he's committed to affordable higher education, that sure isn't what his record in Sacramento shows. When Assembly Speaker John Perez proposed AB 1500 and 1501, the Middle Class Scholarship Act, to provide scholarships covering 60% of fees and tuition at all California State colleges and universities for families with household incomes of under $150,000, Correa crossed the aisle and voted with the GOP again. Perez took the unusual step of going on the record and singling out Correa for killing the bill "because he wanted a $300 million (tax) carve out [for out-of state corporations including his campaign contributor International Paper]. "Today was an opportunity for the State Senate to join the Assembly in approving tax fairness for California businesses and college opportunity for middle class families. Unfortunately, even though most Senate Democrats supported the Middle Class Scholarship Act, we could not reach agreement with Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) or Senate Republicans that would achieve the two-thirds vote necessary... It is disturbing that Senator Correa and so many Republicans would refuse to stand up for the middle class and instead continue to support a tax giveaway that favors out-of-state companies over our own." In a disturbing pattern that defines Correa's life, he pocketed campaign contributions from International Paper-- which vehemently opposed the bill-- 10 days before he voted against AB 1500, and more loot three weeks after the disgraceful vote.

If killing the Middle Class Scholarship Act wasn't bad enough, Correa also helped kill SB 935 which was an attempt by Democrats in the legislature to raise the minimum wage in 2014. Although 63 of his fellow Democrats were co-sponsors of the bill, he claimed he voted with the Republicans against it because it was too long and he didn't know what it meant. It's almost as though he was already practicing to be a New Dem or Blue Dog!

He also worked with the GOP to restrict women's access to family planning and abortion services and to push the NRA's agenda. Planned Parenthood gave him a big fat ZERO rating and labeled him anti-Choice, the only Senate Democrat who didn't receive a 100% rating in 2009. The DCCC likes this guy; can he really be anti-Choice? You tell me-- this is is record on women's reproductive health in the state legislature:

• voted to prohibit state funding of family planning service providers
• voted to limit state funding for abortion services
• voted to ban ban abortion procedures that he disagrees with (and, no, he's not a doctor)
• voted to require parental consent before a minor can access abortion care
• voted to force women to look at biased and unscientific information before they can access abortion care

This is how patriarchal Republicans vote on Choice issues, not how Democrats vote. Although it certainly works in real well with the Blue Dogs and the rest of the Republican wing of the Democratic Party. Ditto on his cozy relationship with the gun nuts in general and the NRA in particular. He's actively supported loopholes to make sure assault-style military weapons would wind up in California neighborhoods. Again, Correa's sick record is not what Orange County Democrats and independents (nor even Republicans) want to protect society from gun massacres.

• voted against banning high capacity ammunition magazines and conversion kits (AB 48)
• voted against making it illegal to knowingly store loaded firearms that are accessible to minors (AB 231)
• voted against extending the waiting period for gun purchases when the background check reveals potential criminal and/or mental health history requiring further investigation to determine eligibility to purchase weapons (AB 500)
• voted against requiring registration of homemade guns and assault rifles, AKA “Ghost Guns" (SB 808)
• voted against restrictions on ownership of Assault Weapons and .50 Caliber Browning Machine Guns (AB 170)
• Correa opposes license requirements for purchase of guns, despite overwhelming public support, even among gun owners and voted against requiring a valid Firearm Safety Certificate in order to purchase a firearm (AB 683)

I bet you could guess he's also an environmental disaster, right? You'd be guessing right. California's League of Conservation Voters says he has the worst environmental record of any Democratic elected official in the state. He always sides with special interests to protect corporate polluters, consistently failed to protect the state's water sources from lead and contamination, and voted against ensuring Californians have a right to clean, safe and affordable water. Even though he joined corrupt Republicans to vote against SB 685, the Human Right to Water Act, in 2012, the bill passed, establishing a right to safe, non-toxic and affordable water for human consumption. But Correa voted to hide the source of vended drinking water, whether that water was from a public or private source, and the county from which the water came. AB 301 would have required water sellers to disclose this information: Lou Correa voted to keep such information hidden from the public. Large corporations have been bottling California's public water supply for years. This water is bottled and sold back to the public at an extreme profit. At the same time, the cost of water to the public is rising, and penalties being imposed for overuse. Swiss based Nestle Company has been bottling millions of gallons a year from San Bernardino's forests under a permit that expired over 25 years ago-- a permit with an annual costs of $525.00. Nestle bottles over 700 million gallons of water a year to sell back to the public at a staggering profit. As the public was ordered to cut back on water during the drought, with significant penalties at risk, corporations like Nestle were bottling California's water to sell back to them.

In 2009, the California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) scored Correa's environmental voting record at 29%, 53 points below average Senate Democrat average. Correa had the lowest environmental rating of any Democrat. The following year they gave him a 30%, 61 points lower than the average Senate Democrat and the lowest rating of any Sacramento Dem. And the following year... same thing-- a 29% rating, 57 points lower than the average Senate Democrat and the lowest of any Dem in the state. The guy is a catastrophe and it's just repulsive that, for the sake of expediency, the Democratic establishment has embraced this garbage candidate who always, always, always puts corporate profits, tax breaks, and special interests over the needs of his constituents, while collecting special interest and PAC money for his next campaign. Is that the California Democratic Party today? It's certainly what Nancy Pelosi's DCCC has turned into. Steny Hoyer gave him the biggest contribution of any of the Democratic candidates of this cycle, $20,000 so far.

The weight of the Democratic Party Establishment is behind both Correa and Hall. If you live in California and you oppose corruption and conservatives, you should ask yourself why.

Meanwhile, one especially odious, brand new and little-known right-wing SuperPAC, Cooperative of American Physicians, which has spent most of it's money helping right-wing Republicans Joe Heck (R-NV), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), Jeff Denham (R-CA), and Paul Cook (R-CA), has also come to the aid of corrupt conservative California Democrats Pete Aguilar ($22,438), Jim Costa ($31,627), Lou Correa ($35,000) and, worst of all, Isadore Hall ($100,122). Another right-wing SuperPAC created by Big Oil, the misleadingly named California Progress Coalition, has spent $271,411 smearing Nanette and another $63,842 trying to make Hall sound like he's a Democrat.

UPDATE: Can The Dems Win Super-Majorities In Sacramento?

No one disputes that we're going to see a blue wave in California. Democrats are counting on it giving them super-majorities in the Assembly and possible the state Senate that were lost in 2014. Ironically, in San Bernardino, Eloise Reyes beating a corrupt conservative like Cheryl Brown, ostensibly a Democrat but fully owned and operated by whichever lobbyists write the biggest checks, is the first step. And it looks good. If early voting trends are indicative, Eloise is likely to end Brown's miserable career tonight. Beyond that the Democrats need to pick up two red seats to triumph in the Assembly. Also in San Bernardino, Democrat Abigail Medino looks to beat Republican Assemblyman Marc Steinorth (Rancho Cucamonga). Two Dems who went down in 2014, Al Muratsuchi (Torrance) and Sharon Quirk-Silva (Fullerton) are back for re-matches with David Hadley (Manhattan Beach) and Young Kim (Fullerton).

The Senate looks tougher but the Democrats' best shots would be Ling Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar) losing to Josh Newman) and Scott Wilk (R-Santa Clarita) losing to Jonathan Ervin. Either race would take a massive Latino turnout indicative of a Hillary landslide.

Nanette Barragán-- Standing Up Against Corruption And Against Trumpism

It's relatively rare-- though it shouldn't be-- that a Democratic primary so clearly highlights the differences between the two wings of the party. But the race for the seat Janice Hahn is giving up in Los Angeles is just that kind of race. CA-44 starts down in San Pedro and heads north through Wilmington, Keystone, Carson, Rancho Dominguez, North Long Beach, Compton, Willowbrook and Lynwood to end up in Watts and South Gate. Demographically, the district was once an African-American bastion but has changed drastically and is now over 70% Latino and just 14% African-American. The only district in California that gave Obama a greater share of it's votes in 2012 was Barbara Lee's Oakland/Berkley district, 85% of CA-44 voters going for Obama and 88% of CA-13 voters doing so. Needless to say, in a normal situation, the Democrat winning the primary in a district like this would be the next congressmember. However, with California's bizarre and dysfunctional jungle primary system the top two Democrats will compete in November. There are 10 candidates on the ballot a week from next Tuesday (June 7), the two most viable contenders being Nanette Barragán, the progressive in the race, and Isadore Hall, the corrupt conservative in the race. As of the Match 31 FEC filing deadline Hall had $513,446 on hand and Barragán had $415,646 on hand.

Hahn, who needs Hall's help for her own career aspirations has persuaded California's corrupted Democratic Party establishment to back Hall, while Barragán is being supported by Blue America, the Sierra Club, the League of Conservation Voters, DFA, PDA and Congressional Progressive Caucus chairman Raul Grijalva. You can contribute to her campaign by tapping on the thermometer to the right. As we saw 2 weeks ago, the L.A. Times endorsed Nanette with a stunning rebuke to Hall and his corrupt Democratic backers, pointing out that "only Barragán has demonstrated the integrity, courage and commitment to the environment that this industrial district needs. Voters should choose her on June 7." So why are so many self-described California "liberals" backing Hall? The Times wrote that "The answer is in Hall's record as a state legislator, particularly his years as one of the self-styled “moderate Democrats” in the Assembly who consistently opposed crucial climate change policy and tougher gun laws. For example, Hall did not join his colleagues in calling on the federal government to halt offshore drilling leases, or vote for a statewide ban on plastic bags, or a moratorium on fracking. His consistency was rewarded by the oil lobby, and he is one of the top recipients of donations from oil interests. Other big donors to his campaigns are casinos and gambling interests, tobacco companies and the alcohol lobby."

And yesterday one of the big local papers in the area, the Daily Breeze also pointed to Barragán as the better candidate for the district. "Both are Democrats-- Hall moderate, Barragan more progressive-- who grew up in the 44th Congressional District that covers a large swath of Central Los Angeles, from the port north to South Gate, including North Long Beach," they reminded their readers. "Poverty and pollution are among the pressing problems in a region dotted with poor-performing schools, heavy manufacturing and oil refineries. Hall and Barragan each came from modest means and worked their way to success, but their political paths couldn’t be more different."

Barragan is a relative political newbie with an impressive resume, a lawyer for a high-powered law firm who once interned for a California Supreme Court justice.

In 2013 she was elected the first Latina councilwoman in Hermosa Beach, a wealthy, 1.4-square-mile city.

There, she focused most of her energy on defeating an oil company-backed measure that would have allowed for drilling. It lost in a landslide.

Hall rose through local politics, first at the Compton school board, then to the Compton City Council, California Assembly and state Senate. Never has he faced serious opposition.

Hall is backed by gaming interests and oil companies, to which he has been a friend, opposing legislation that would have created tougher environmental rules near oil sites.

Hall is also supported by a Democratic establishment loyal to its longtime colleague.

Barragan is the outsider. Encouraged to run in the heavily Latino district by Rep. Linda Sanchez, chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, she resigned her post in Hermosa Beach and moved to the district.

Hall is the insider, and he uses that to his advantage in pushing legislation like Senate Bill 63, a bill that allows ports to create financing districts for infrastructure bonds.

There are questions about whether Hall is a sincere public servant or acts out of political expediency.

The Barragán/Hall race is one of the clearest in the country, pitting a good government reformer against a corrupt, self-serving careerist grasping for a leg up in the political power game. You can contribute to the good government reformer here:

Nanette Barragán's Battle Against The Corrupt Political Machine Gets A Huge, Unexpected Boost

Nanette Barragán

Janice Hahn sees herself as a future governor and realized Congress isn't the stepping stone taking her in that direction. So she's leaving the safe deep, deep blue 44th congressional district seat-- Obama won it with 85% against Romney and it is likely to be even more Democratic in November-- for a seat on the L.A. County Board of Supervisors. Vaguely liberal, Hahn isn't really about values or even issues as much as she is about Hahn. As part of her unending lust for higher office she made a deal to back Sacramento's most corrupt Democrat, Isadore Hall, for the congressional seat she's leaving in return for Hall's help with black voters in the supervisorial campaign. Who gets hurt in the deal? The people, 70% of whom are Hispanic, who live in the towns and neighborhoods in CA-44: Willowbrook, Compton, Rancho Dominguez, South Gate, Lynwood, Carson, Wilmington and San Pedro, and are treated like props in the careerist machinations of two self-serving political strivers.

Virtually every political hack in the state has endorsed Hall... he may be corrupt and conservative but he's the insider candidate all the other careerists want to see move up the ladder. Yesterday, though, the Los Angeles political landscape was jolted when the L.A. Times suddenly-- and very prominently-- endorsed Nanette Barragán, the progressive reformer in the race. Choosing not to accuse Hall of any criminal behavior or even corruption in general, the editors of The Times instead wrote that "only Barragán has demonstrated the integrity, courage and commitment to the environment that this industrial district needs. Voters should choose her on June 7."

Barragán has an up-from-the-bootstraps story that certainly resonates in this district: from the hardscrabble streets of Carson to the halls of UCLA and USC law school, to a White House internship and a job at one of Los Angeles' top law firms, Latham & Watkins. Her accomplishments were earned, not bestowed. Even her political opponents concede that her intellect and policy chops are impressive. And her legislative priorities-- the environment, education and jobs-- are clear.

Barragán has demonstrated that she can get things done in a short time. In her less than two-year career on the Hermosa Beach City Council, she led efforts to block oil drilling in the small city and pushed through a citywide plastic bag ban. Her record has won her the support of two powerful environmental advocacy groups, the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters.

Practically everyone else in the state's Democratic political establishment, however, is backing Hall. This is not because he's a demonstrably better candidate, but because of his longevity in politics. Hall has held elected office for 15 years, climbing from the Compton school board and city council to the state Legislature. That might mean something to party operatives, but voters should ask what more he has done than win elections.

The answer is in Hall's record as a state legislator, particularly his years as one of the self-styled “moderate Democrats” in the Assembly who consistently opposed crucial climate change policy and tougher gun laws. For example, Hall did not join his colleagues in calling on the federal government to halt offshore drilling leases, or vote for a statewide ban on plastic bags, or a moratorium on fracking. His consistency was rewarded by the oil lobby, and he is one of the top recipients of donations from oil interests. Other big donors to his campaigns are casinos and gambling interests, tobacco companies and the alcohol lobby.

If Hall's votes were guided by a deep-rooted political conviction, that would be one thing. But he took an unexplained left turn after moving to the state Senate in December 2014. There he supported issues he once opposed, notably tougher gun laws and last year's landmark climate change bill, SB 350. Perhaps it's an intellectual evolution by Hall, but it raises questions about what his real priorities are.

By comparison, the biggest knock on Barragán is that she recently lived in Hermosa Beach, which is outside the 44th district. Federal law doesn't require members of the House to live in their districts; even so, Barragán has moved her residence to San Pedro, at the southern end of the district. More important to voters, she has historic ties to the district where she was born and raised, and where her family still calls home. Barragán does have challenges she must overcome if elected. On the Hermosa Beach City Council she displayed sharp elbows and an impatience that won't serve her well on Capitol Hill. But those are minor flaws compared with the major red flags of her main opponent.

I might add that although Hall was endorsed by a garbage-bagful of career politicians, Nanette has been endorsed by Blue America, DFA, PDA, countless Latino groups and women's groups and by a handful of standout members of Congress who Hahn wasn't able to manipulate, namely Raul Grijalva and neighboring congressmembers Linda Sánchez, Grace Napolitano and Lucille Roybal-Allard, as well as one of the icons of the Southern California environmental movement, L.A. Councilman Paul Koretz. RL Miller, who heads California's most cutting edge environmental group, Climate Hawks Vote, endorsed Nanette and told us last night that "This is the most important Congressional primary in California because the contrast between the two candidates is so stark. Nanette fights for clean air, clean water, and a brighter future for the working class families of her district. Her opponent represents the worst aspects of machine politics, funded by Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Sugar, gambling, and billboard blight." That about sums it up alright. Please consider contributing to the Barragán campaign at the thermometer below:

Conservatives Are Corrupt By Nature And By Ideology-- Whether Republicans OR Democrats

TPP shill Ami Bera

Corrupt conservatives-- often recruited or at least heavily supported-- by the DCCC are constantly betraying progressive values in return for campaign contributions. Few are as bad as New Dems Patrick Murphy, Sean Patrick Maloney and Gregory Meeks. But another aisle-crossing New Dem, Ami Bera, has supported job-killing trade pacts once too many times and the local Democratic Party in the suburbs east of Sacramento have denied him the Democratic Party pre-endorsement and several major labor unions have announced they will not endorse him and have cut off funding to him. Alas, though, he has no primary opponent and the DCCC has pledged to stand by him, despite a consistent record of voting with the GOP. In 2014 the DCCC spent $4,654,796 to save his worthless hide. Nancy Pelosi's House Majority PAC spent another $1,203,057. He scraped by with by a nose-- 92,521 to 91,066, one of the closest races in the nation. California has 5 conservative Democratic Members of Congress besides Bera who deserve to be primaried and retired: Julia Brownley (New Dem), Pete Aguilar (New Dem), Scott Peters (New Dem), Raul Ruiz and Jim Costa (Blue Dog). Each of them has been graded "F" by ProgressivePunch.

But California's problem with corrupt conservatives doesn't start with Congress. It starts with the den of corruption in Sacramento. In fact, many of California's worst Members of Congress learned how to see so bad while serving (or self-serving) in Sacramento. This cycle, the single most corrupt Sacramento legislator, Isadore Hall, is being heavily pushed by the Democratic Party establishment, including the same unions out to defeat Bera, for a House seat against a proven progressive woman, Nanette Barragán.

This week, Taryn Luna, writing for the Sacramento Bee explained exactly how corrupt conservatives defeat any bills the Chamber of Commerce doesn't like. "Every spring the California Chamber of Commerce introduces its so-called 'job killer' list," she wrote, "a handpicked collection of bills the group says will reduce jobs and deter companies from doing business in the state. Critics of the long-standing lobbying practice call the list little more than a marketing campaign carried out on behalf of big business. One thing is certain: You don’t want your bill to be on it."

Only 47 of 650 bills labeled job killers have become law since the list debuted in 1997, according to the chamber’s tally. The history is archived in a section labeled “The Graveyard” on a website devoted to the issue, CAJobKillers.com. Many of the bills never reach a formal vote and instead die off at the author’s discretion, lacking support.

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, a San Diego Democrat who boasts a rare 2-0 winning record against the chamber, considers it a badge of honor when business interests attack her bills. A self-described supporter of workers’ rights, Gonzalez said it proves that she’s doing her job.

Gonzalez introduced a bill in 2014 to provide workers with three days of paid sick leave a year. AB 1522 made the job killers list because it increased the employer mandate, according to the chamber.

The bill was one of three labeled job killers that passed in 2014, but was removed from the list 12 days before it was signed into law... Gonzalez said the chamber took the bill off the list to keep its bill-killing record intact.

In the late 1990s Pete Wilson helped destroy the California Republican Party as a real contender and the Chamber started depending more and more on easily corruptible right-wing Democrats (like Hall). Blockheads in the media label the corrupt conservatives "moderates," but it's a terrible use of the word. A trio of Bee reporters wrote relatively cogently about Sacramento's corrupt conservaDems-- with the stupidly applied "moderate" appellation-- in September. "On the final day of the session Friday, Democrats who dominate the California Assembly labored to pass a watered-down measure expanding the state’s unpaid family leave policy. They were at least eight votes short, with stiff resistance from business-friendly moderates in their party. Senate Bill 406 had been a major target for the California Chamber of Commerce, which placed the measure on its list of 'job killer' legislation. Earlier, it had been weakened in the Assembly to reduce the number of businesses to which it would apply." The lobbyist-controlled right-wing Democrats have joined with the GOP to defeat an increase in the minimum wage, as well as bills to protect consumers, a bill to protect minors from tobacco products, bills to disadvantage unions and bills to prevent pollution and ameliorate Climate Change. The corrupt rightists also introduce lobbyist-written bills into the Democratic caucus. Who needs Republicans?

Today many liberal lawmakers credit the chamber for developing an effective tactic to draw attention to its opposition, but question whether the list has any real impact on jobs.

“When you call something a job killer, my goodness, in one second you’ve got someone’s attention,” said Sen. Jackson. “You’ve hit on a chord. People don’t want their jobs being killed. They don’t want public policy to be destructive of jobs. It’s a very simple, but frankly not a very accurate, characterization.”

A year ago Jackson introduced a bill to give workers up to 12 weeks of unpaid family sick leave. SB 406 would allow employees to retain their jobs and take unpaid time off to care for their newborn, or themselves or a close relative with a serious health issue.

Jackson’s bill made the job killer list because the chamber said it increased costs, risk of litigation and created less conformity with federal law. Gov. Jerry Brown vetoed SB 406, highlighting some of the same concerns as the chamber.


One of the worst of the corrupt conservatives in Sacramento is San Bernadino County Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown. The Sierra Club has called her out for taking $18,300 from Big Oil and then backing their toxic agenda. This year they assigned her a failing grade-- 67%, tied for 3rd worst in the legislature. Clean Water Action graded her a D, normally a grade Republicans get, not Democrats. Blue America has endorsed Eloise Reyes, a progressive, against her, as have the AFL-CIO, the Teamsters, the Sierra Club, Congressman Xavier Becerra and the most trusted of the members of the state legislature, Sen. Tony Mendoza.

What progressives are doing with Bera-- withholding endorsements and money might defeat him, though probably not-- is sending a message. It's not really an effective way to change the corrupt conservatives' behavior, especially not while the same groups are supporting a character like Isadore Hall, who is even worse than Bera (and Brown). However, recruiting and backing Eloise Reyes and helping her beat Brown... that's the perfect vehicle for a message and I don't have any doubt that several of the worst members of the state legislature will get the point. If you'd like to contribute to Eloise's campaign, by the way, you can do so here.

Hall And Coates (CA-44)

California state Senator Isadore Hall, widely considered the most corrupt politician in Sacramento, must have been feeling his oats when he snagged a cushy deal at the Alameda Court apartments development he helped push through... with a nice subsidy from the City of Compton. Shortly after the initial approval, the developers contributed $10,000 to Hall. Can you spell quid pro quo? Or you thought only Republicans engage in this kind of bribery? Did he get his place rent free while the other tenants were subjected to leases based on the old racist "rent-to-own" program historically foisted upon African-Americans who were red-lined by the banks? The idea is to take the money but find an excuse-- any excuse will do-- to void the agreement and steal the money while evicting the hapless and helpless buyer. In his much discussed Reparations piece for The Atlantic last week, Ta-Nehisi Coates went into this ugly practice in some depth. "From the 1930s through the 1960s," he reminds his readers, "black people across the country were largely cut out of the legitimate home-mortgage market."

Three months after Clyde Ross moved into his house, the boiler blew out. This would normally be a homeowner’s responsibility, but in fact, Ross was not really a homeowner. His payments were made to the seller, not the bank. And Ross had not signed a normal mortgage. He’d bought “on contract”: a predatory agreement that combined all the responsibilities of homeownership with all the disadvantages of renting-- while offering the benefits of neither. Ross had bought his house for $27,500. The seller, not the previous homeowner but a new kind of middleman, had bought it for only $12,000 six months before selling it to Ross. In a contract sale, the seller kept the deed until the contract was paid in full-- and, unlike with a normal mortgage, Ross would acquire no equity in the meantime. If he missed a single payment, he would immediately forfeit his $1,000 down payment, all his monthly payments, and the property itself.

The men who peddled contracts in North Lawndale would sell homes at inflated prices and then evict families who could not pay-- taking their down payment and their monthly installments as profit. Then they’d bring in another black family, rinse, and repeat. “He loads them up with payments they can’t meet,” an office secretary told the Chicago Daily News of her boss, the speculator Lou Fushanis, in 1963. “Then he takes the property away from them. He’s sold some of the buildings three or four times.”

Ross had tried to get a legitimate mortgage in another neighborhood, but was told by a loan officer that there was no financing available. The truth was that there was no financing for people like Clyde Ross. From the 1930s through the 1960s, black people across the country were largely cut out of the legitimate home-mortgage market through means both legal and extralegal. Chicago whites employed every measure, from “restrictive covenants” to bombings, to keep their neighborhoods segregated.

The devastating effects are cogently outlined by Melvin L. Oliver and Thomas M. Shapiro in their 1995 book, Black Wealth/White Wealth:

Locked out of the greatest mass-based opportunity for wealth accumulation in American history, African Americans who desired and were able to afford home ownership found themselves consigned to central-city communities where their investments were affected by the “self-fulfilling prophecies” of the FHA appraisers: cut off from sources of new investment[,] their homes and communities deteriorated and lost value in comparison to those homes and communities that FHA appraisers deemed desirable.

In Chicago and across the country, whites looking to achieve the American dream could rely on a legitimate credit system backed by the government. Blacks were herded into the sights of unscrupulous lenders who took them for money and for sport. “It was like people who like to go out and shoot lions in Africa. It was the same thrill,” a housing attorney told the historian Beryl Satter in her 2009 book, Family Properties. “The thrill of the chase and the kill.” ... Contract sellers became rich.

Now... back to Compton and Hall, the crooked state senator being boosted by the party establishment for a congressional seat (CA-44) that covers, San Pedro, Wilmington, Carson, Compton, North Long Beach, Willowbrook, Lynwood, Watts, South Gate and West Rancho Dominguez, a district that is over 70% Latino.

After some of the Alameda Court tenants filed a lawsuit over the leases, complaining of violations of their supposed "rent-to-own" provisions, claiming that there was never any intention to let these tenants buy their apartments, they were served with eviction papers-- and further claiming that Senator Hall received special "white glove" treatment and was exempt from the harassment that Plaintiffs endured because of his relationship with the landlord. Instead of being credited towards down payments, the additional payments were confiscated by the property managers to cover "repairs" and "deposits." Sound familiar? And Coates thought this was a practice that was used against blacks "from the 1930s through the 1960s?"

While the plaintiffs continued to proffer rents, their payments were rejected and the retaliatory evictions proceeded. And caught up in the mix was our friend, Senator Hall. He too was served with eviction papers (less than 3 months ago while he was running for Congress)! Somehow he owed rent of $4,800 and ran up utility bills of $5,000! What was he growing?? After allowing Hall to live rent-free in the complex, "Landlord" Doug Baker signed a declaration, under penalty of perjury, that Hall had not paid rent since March, 2015.

Are you listening, California Democrats? You endorsed him for Congress! Yes-- it's a good idea to get him out of LA-- even his landlord agrees-- but is this the best way to do it? Congress has more than enough crooks already.

Blue America has endorsed environmental hero Nanette Barragán in the CA-44 race. If you can, please help her raise the money she needs to compete against the Democratic Party establishment machine behind Hall. You can contribute to her grassroots campaign here.

Don't Think The Democratic Party Establishment Is Any Less Odious And Self-Serving Than The GOP Establishment

Did you know that tomorrow is another Democratic presidential debate? If you didn't, don't worry... you weren't meant to. Or, do worry because you weren't meant to. Former Hillary Clinton Campaign co-chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, now head of the DNC, has scheduled a series of debates with one thing in mind-- exposing the candidates to as few viewers as possible. Who schedules a debate on a Sunday night in the middle of the NFL playoffs divisional weekend? DEBBIE! Her candidate-- the establishment and Wall Street pick-- has universal name recognition and her centrist agenda was fashioned for a general election, not for a primary that will be more dominated by progressives. By offering as little mass media exposure as possible to Clinton's opponent, the lesser known Bernie Sanders-- and by preventing voters to find out about his platform-- Wasserman Schultz is acting as an arm of the Clinton campaign (again). Over 100,000 Democrats have signed petitions by CREDO and RootsAction demanding she resign or be fired.

Blue America has endorsed Tim Canova, a law professor and progressive activist/writer, in his primary bid against her. (You can contribute to his campaign here.) After the GOP 6th prime time debate, Canova started another petition, this one asking Wasserman Schultz to schedule at least one debate in prime time so that TV viewers can actually watch the Democratic candidates and judge their positions in the issues that will motivate their votes. "Last night," Canova wrote on Friday, "the Republican presidential debate was more of the same. Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the leading candidates, are not speaking to the crucial economic issues of most importance to us. Instead, they continue to promote policies that attack women, minorities, and working families. These debates are perhaps the greatest running example in this country of why we need a political revolution." And then he got into Wasserman Schultz's role:

Meanwhile, Debbie Wasserman Schultz has guaranteed virtually no one will watch the Democratic debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton on Sunday. She has used her influence as Chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee to tip the scales toward Clinton’s campaign over the last several months, and it is clearly evident in the infrequent and irrational presidential debate schedule.

Sign my petition now to tell Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the Democratic National Committee to schedule a debate between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in primetime before it’s too late.

This isn’t the first time Debbie Wasserman Schultz has abused her influence and position to advance her own agenda. And it always comes at the expense of her constituents, the progressive movement, and the Democratic Party. For example, after taking huge sums of money from Wall Street, she voted against financial regulation reform-- and blocked the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau from writing new rules that would stop racial discrimination in car loans. She has supported Republican candidates for Congress while, purportedly, running a program to help Democrats retake the U.S. House. And she’s even opposed legalizing medical marijuana simply because her corporate donors who own private prisons believed it was against their best interests.

This is simply unacceptable. If we’re going to reform Wall Street and retake our democracy from the billionaire class we can’t have a DNC chair undermining us at every turn. We have to change the status quo and elect more progressives from the Elizabeth Warren-wing of the Democratic Party. I believe we can do that in this election, with your help and support.

In the meantime, let’s keep up the pressure on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and force her to correct the injustice that is the Democratic debate schedule. I believe we can do it, but only if enough people sign our petition and we show the DNC the power of our political revolution.

Add your name and demand the Democratic National Committee schedule a primetime presidential debate before voting begins in Iowa and New Hampshire next month.

Before I knew much about Wasserman Schultz, an old friend showed me how she would use money from the the Fanjul's American Crystal Sugar Political Action Committee to enhance her own power. That was a long, long time ago, but last night I noticed that the most corrupt state legislator in California, Isadore Hall, now a congressional candidate embraced by the Wasserman Schultz-wing of the Democratic Party has also taken a fat $5,000 check from that same American Crystal Sugar Political Action Committee. All the worst elements of the Rahm-Wasserman Schultz-Van Hollen-Israel Democratic Party are determined to get Hall into Congress instead of tested progressive and environmental activist Nanette Barragán.

When Members of Congress whose endorsements he was seeking wanted to know why so much money from shady PACs, financed his legislative career, he promised he wouldn't take any more of their money in running for Congress. That certainly turned out to be as false as it sounded. Among his contributions in the last couple of months:

• Altria Group, PAC (tobacco)- $2,500
• Cigar PAC (tobacco)- $1,000
• CIPAC PAC (big oil)- $5,000
• American Crystal Sugar Political Action Committee- $5,000

Hall has a charming demeanor and bubbly personality. But that isn't why these PACs finance his political career. They see another Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the making... or hope they do. Progressive candidates like Nanette Barragán, Tim Canova, Alex Law, Bao Nguyen, Mike Noland are standing up against the forces of reaction and corruption that have their claws in the Democratic Party nearly as badly as they have their claws in the Republican Party. If you can please consider helping in the congressional front of the political revolution. Bernie is going to need people like Tim Canova and Nanette Barragán and the others on this list if he's going to be able to implement his program.

CA-44-- There Are Good Democrats... And Then There Are The Other Kind

Just over three months ago, we looked at how Sacramento Democrats plan to get rid of their most corrupt member, state Senator Isadore Hall, by backing him for an open congressional seat. Hall, who just became a state senator last year, won a special election when just 7% of the voters in his district chose to participate. He heads one of the prime "juice committees" in Sacramento, which are committees that oversee lucrative industries, allowing politicians to foster relationships they can squeeze for campaign cash. And Hall's is the giant bicameral innocuously-named committee on government organization, once known as the "committee on public morals," which regulates card rooms, racetracks and Indian tribes that run casinos-- gambling-- industries that have taken a big hand in financing Hall's political career. More than one-third of the $369,000 Hall raised in the first six months of the year came from people tied to a gambling business.

Monday, the L.A. Times ran a piece on Greg Glassman, founder and CEO of CrossFit, which has been lobbying for labelling on the sugary drinks that are at the heart of the explosion in diabetes and obesity rates, particularly in poor areas, like the one Hall represents. Gassman is supporting the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Safety Warning Act. Sponsored by state Sen. Bill Monning (D-Carmel), the act would require sugar warning labels on soft-drink cans, bottles and vending machines. The warning, similar to that on cigarette packs, would read in part, "Drinking beverages with added sugar(s) contributes to obesity, diabetes, and tooth decay."

The proposal was defeated before a state health committee last year [by 1 vote]. Although a Field Poll that showed 74% of voters favor warning labels, the bill failed in part due to four lawmakers who abstained.

A new vote is slated for Jan. 13.

The lawmakers who abstained at the last vote-- state Sens. Ed Hernandez (D-West Covina), Richard D. Roth (D-Riverside), Isadore Hall III (D-Compton) and Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove)-- declined to comment. Glassman notes that many of the lawmakers' constituents are black and Hispanic, two groups that disproportionately suffer high diabetes and obesity rates.

Nguyen's chief of staff, Mark Reeder, said her office has heard similar criticism: "We got a fair amount of unhappy letters … generally saying 'It's a health issue,'" he said. "Some minority groups met with us, thinking they are being targeted by the soda makers."

Abstaining on key bills is a tactic Hall and other conservative Democrats in Sacramento use in situations where they are stuck between what their constituents want-- that 74% is a big number-- and what their campaign donors expect from them for the money they dole out. CrossFit tracked Hall's campaign contributions from the beverage industry, $66,724 through 2014.

2007-2008:

$3497 from Pepsico Inc.
$3500 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs

2009-2010:


$4978 from Pepsico Inc.
$5195 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs
$1000 from California/Nevada Soft Drink Association PAC

2011-2012:


$3514 from Pepsico Inc.
$7800 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs
$3900 from Allied Beverages Inc.
$3000 from Ace Beverage Co.
$2800 from Pacific Beverage
$1000 from Mission Beverage Co.

2013-2014

$4916 from Pepsico Inc.
$12300 from California Beer & Beverage Distributors Community Affairs
$4000 Pacific Beverage
$3000 Ace Beverage Co.
$1324 Pepsico Incorporated and Affiliated Entities
$1000 Mission Beverage Co.

Blue America has endorsed Hall's progressive opponent in the congressional race, Nanette Barragán, and it looks like CrossFit owner Greg Gassman has as well.

Hall is also close with tobacco and alcohol companies. According to the Sacramento Bee, Hall “has the distinction of accepting more tobacco money than all but one other Democratic legislator since 2009.” And Hall has taken more than $100,000 from alcohol companies since 2013, the highest number for any Californian legislator.

Like Big Soda, Big Tobacco has gotten its money’s worth from Hall. The Bee reports “many of the most significant anti-smoking measures died or were watered down in the influential committee Hall oversees.” True to form, Hall declined to comment.

Hall is running to represent California’s 44th district in the US Congress. CrossFit strenuously opposes Hall’s nomination. The reason is simple; CrossFit believes that Hall is not fit for public office. California doesn’t need another congressman in the pockets of alcohol, tobacco and soda.

Opposing Hall is fellow Democrat Nanette Barragan. The 44th district is “solidly Democratic.” Hence, whoever wins the Democratic nomination will likely go on to win the general election. CrossFit Founder and CEO Greg Glassman has spoken to Barragan and expressed his support to her campaign.

Even if Hall weren't one of the worst Democrats running for Congress anywhere, Blue America would still be as enthusiastic about Barragán as we are. A successful fighter against Big Oil-- whose lobbyists are all in for Hall, of course-- she is an unapologetic progressive across the board and is being supported by Congressional Progressive Caucus members eager to have her join their ranks, including Linda Sánchez (CA), Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA), Grace Napolitano (CA), Ruben Gallego (AZ), Lois Frankel (FL), Raul Grijalva (AZ), Debbie Dingell (MI), and Luis Gutierrez (IL).

If you'd like to help Nanette win her race, her grassroots campaign gratefully accepts contributions here.

Courage Campaign Exposes The Rot In California's Democratic Party

Nanette Barragán and HUD Secretary Julián Castro talking about bringing federal resources to California

The other day I heard KPCC interviewing California's new Assembly Speaker, Anthony Rendon. He sounded great, especially on the environment.

KPCC: Please tell us about your district. It’s strung together by the 710 Freeway. There's a refinery and an aircraft parts manufacturer not far from your office.

Rendon: We still have one of the few steel plants left. In addition to the manufacturing presence that we have here, we are also bisected by the 710, the 105 and the 91 freeways. The Alameda Corridor project goes by the district as well. We are exceptionally close to the Port of Long Beach and the Port of Los Angeles. So a lot of the attendant environmental problems related to the proximity to all those things very much impacts the district, and the residents of the district.

KPCC: You've made your mark as an environmentalist. What took you there?

Rendon: I ran a series of nonprofit organizations here in the district that I now represent. We found that a lot of the problems that we had, whether they were problems relating to health or even problems relating to learning and education, were linked to the environment. Some problems relating to groundwater contamination, a tremendous amount of problems relating to asthma and air pollution. So those types of environmental problems led to problems that I had to address as a nonprofit executive director.

KPCC: When you went into the Assembly, did you come with an environmental agenda in mind? What this something you wanted to tackle having already worked in this area?

Rendon: Yes, certainly. Environmental issues, environmental justice were things I was interested in. But I also spent about 15 years in early-childhood education, so that was important. I think what is important is the intersection between all these issues, and how they all relate.

KPCC: The perception of the environmental movement in Southern California has typically been that it's more of a Westside movement, typically white, based in places like Santa Monica. You’ve done some bridging of the two. Can you tell us about that?

Rendon: I like to think of myself as a bridge between a lot of the Westside environmental organizations and the Eastside or Southeast Los Angeles County environmental justice folks, and environmental justice groups.

What's interesting about that perception is that if you look at public opinion polls, for example, the recent PPIC (Public Policy Institute of California) poll on climate change, you find that communities of color are more concerned about these issues that the general public is, statistically speaking. So there is a disconnect between the formal environmental organizations and the communities on the Eastside. But the people themselves on the Eastside are very much affected by these issues, and very much concerned about that.

I got so excited I wanted to call him immediately and talk to him about Nanette Barragán, the progressive, pro-environment congressional candidate in his part of town (and a Blue America endorsee). But then I checked to see if he had already endorsed her anti-environmental opponent, California's most corrupt legislator, Isadore Hall. They served together, so Rendon endorsed the guy who is likely to do the most harm--as he already has-- on the issues Rendon says he cares about most.

Yesterday the Courage Campaign sent out an e-mail that mentions neither Rendon, Hall nor Barragán, but that goes a long way towards explaining this kind of bizarre endorsement. "The world, they wrote, "was hoping California would set a new global standard with bold action to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. But in one fell swoop, Big Oil-- backed by its corporate Democratic cronies-- forced California Senate Pro Tem Kevin de Leon to gut his historic bill and remove its call for a 50 percent reduction of our petroleum use by 2030." We covered this in a couple of posts in August and September. The Courage campaign was even clearer:

The other two parts of Senate Bill 350-- a 50 percent increase in our investment in clean energy and a 50 percent increase in buildings’ energy efficiency-- made it through thanks to the activism of Courage Campaign members. However, we cannot claim this as a full victory until we hold the morally bankrupt, corporate Democrats accountable for blocking the policies necessary to protect our children from the most catastrophic effects of climate change.

If we expose the corporate Democrats for ALL their constituents to see, we will change their selfish political calculations and pass this critically important legislation next summer. If we don't, nothing will change.

SB 350 had a wide range of support from elected officials such as President Barack Obama; top scientists including Nobel Prize winner Mario Molina; celebrities like Mark Ruffalo, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Halle Berry; and notable businesses including The North Face. A representative from the United Nations even visited Sacramento to support California's climate change bills!

Despite the outpouring of support, a group of twenty renegade Assemblymembers calling themselves “moderate” Democrats, led by Assemblymember Henry Perea (D-Fresno), held the bill hostage. The Sacramento Bee explains, “the definition of moderate has less to do with wavering on social issues and more to do with owing one’s elections to campaign spending by big business interests including oil.”

The pressure from Big Oil and the group of "moderate" Democrats worked. Speaker of the Assembly Toni Atkins delayed the vote on SB 350 until it was gutted-- “an indecision [that] gave the bill’s opponents the cover of not having to cast votes that would have defined [moderate Democrats] as siding with the oil industry."

Even more outrageous, after the defeat on the Assembly floor, R.L. Miller, Chair of the CA Democratic Party’s Environmental Caucus, caught a Chevron lobbyist writing thank a you note to a Democrat who voted against the bill.

...But the biggest and most problematic twist from all of this is that many of these Democrats represent progressive districts-- some of the most polluted areas in our state-- and districts with constituents most impacted by climate change. The asthma rate in Fresno, Assemblymember Henry Perea's district, is 38% higher than the state average.

Prior to the vote, when we simply asked Assemblymember Perea to see if he would stand up to Big Oil to protect the health and well-being of his constituents-- Assemblymember Perea blocked us on Twitter! 

For years, Big Oil has dominated the political dialogue in California. While this certainly isn’t news, there is a growing trend of Democrats voting in favor of corporate interests over the people they represent.

For example, since 2011, Assemblymember Adam Gray (D-Merced) has received over $160,000 in contributions from Big Oil.

As the Sacramento Bee revealed, "One of Gray’s amendments was, word for word, the same as what [his corporate donor] proposed.”

And corporate Democrats not only get their campaign donations from Big Oil, but they raise “twice as much from alcohol and tobacco interests [when compared to] other Assembly Democrats.”

Anthony Rendon is NOT one of those kinds of Democrats. But by endorsing state Senator Isadore Hall, who certainly is, he is betraying everything he stands for and believes in. It makes me as sick to my stomach as the environmental catastrophes he fights against and Hall fights for. If you're in a fighting mood, you can help Nanette Barragán beat Hall here.

Once Again Sacramento Democrats Want To Send Their Most Corrupt Member To Congress

Corrupt legislators Isadore Hall and Henry Perea from the juice committee joined lobbyist Dennis Loper at Churchill Downs for the Kentucky Derby. Who picked up the tab?

A few years ago Democrats in the California state legislature, the Sacramento Democratic establishment and the state's labor bosses were incredibly eager to get rid of the worst state senator among them, corrupt conservative San Diego Democrat Juan Vargas. So they backed his bid for an open congressional seat! Let him become Washington's problem! Former Congressman Bob Filmer-- who had beaten Vargas in three primaries, and had given up his House seat to become mayor of San Diego-- endorsed Vargas for his old seat, despite having said about him:

While Juan has not yet been convicted of a crime, virtually everyone closest to him has been found guilty of something. Juan's former Chief-of Staff and handpicked successor on the San Diego City Council is now a convicted felon. Another of Juan's political cronies made millions off the poorest people in National City as a slumlord and recently, Juan's chief campaign consultant was convicted of a felony for misusing public money... If Juan truly didn't have any knowledge of the crimes his close associates have committed then he may well be the most clueless man in America.

ProgressivePunch grades Vargas' congressional career an "F," for consistently voting far more conservatively than one would expect from someone representing a his deep blue D+16 district. (Obama beat McCain 66-32% and then trounced Romney 69-29%.)

Some observers in Sacramento and the Los Angeles Democratic establishment have a sense of déjà vu in the race between Nanette Barragán and state Senator Isadore Hall to replace Janice Hahn in the South Bay's 44th Congressional District. The establishment is firmly behind Hall, one of the worst of the lobbyist-owned conservative Dems in Sacramento. His list of endorsements is gargantuan. Hahn herself, who is running for county supervisor and is counting on Hall to help deliver her votes from African-Americans, was the first to back him, even though she has been a stalwart progressive and he is far more conservative. No one was surprised when Juan Vargas, now a sleazy Wall Street-owned New Dem, also endorsed him.

Several other right-of-center New Dems did likewise, namely Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA), Greg Meeks (New Dem-NY, generally considered one of the dozen most corrupt politicians in Washington), Donald Beyer (New Dem-VA), Cedric Richmond (New Dem-LA) and Terri Sewell (New Dem-AL). Other Democrats with shady Wall Street ties-- Joyce Beatty (OH), Julia Brownley (CA) and Carolyn Maloney (NY)-- have also jumped on board the Hall bandwagon, as have ambitious corporate whore Gavin Newsom and nearly the entire state legislature, starting with the retired Senate President Pro Tem, Darrell Sternberg, who had played such a key role in getting Vargas out of Sacramento by helping push him into DC. Hall has also been backed by slimy party bosses like LA County Democratic Party Chair Eric Bauman and by all the state legislators you read about who block progressive reforms, from Henry Perea, Jim Cooper, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas and Autumn Burke to Mike Gipson, Chris Holden and Reggie Jones-Sawyer. But most important to his campaign, Hall has the powerful lobbyists in Sacramento behind him, especially his pals involved with Big Oil.

Last week, Laurel Rosenhall, writing for CALmatters, blew the whistle on the corruption that has been the centerpiece of Hall's career in politics, in "The Juiciest Job in Sacramento." Keep in mind, we're talking about a guy who wears thousand-dollar belts and shoes on a modest legislator's salary.

Around the Capitol they’re known as “juice committees”-- those that oversee lucrative industries, allowing politicians to foster relationships they can squeeze for campaign cash.

These panels preside over business interests that fight obscure industry battles before the Legislature; think of lawyers vs. insurance companies, doctors vs. physical therapists, or card rooms vs. Indian casinos.

“These are non-visible issues that are of high interest to very wealthy groups," said Stacy Gordon Fisher, a political scientist who studied Sacramento's juice committee as a professor at the University of Nevada, Reno.

So those groups spend what it takes to get noticed, hiring lobbyists and pouring money into political campaigns.

One of the juiciest committees is responsible for regulating booze, cigarettes and gambling. It was called the "committee on public morals" back in the 1800s but now goes by the more innocuous name: the committee on government organization.

G.O., as the committee is known, is one of the Legislature’s biggest, with a total of 34 members of the Senate and Assembly. Its decisions impact profits for California's gambling factions, card rooms, racetracks and Indian tribes that run casinos. And now, those businesses are bankrolling the political ambitions of the committee's chairman, Sen. Isadore Hall (D-Compton).

Hall landed in the California Senate in December, following a special election in which just 7 percent of those registered turned out to vote. It was the latest in a long string of political victories for Hall, who advanced from the school board in Compton to its city council to the state Assembly. He represents one of California's poorer Senate districts, where about 20 percent of the people live in poverty.

Hall had served less than three months in the state Senate when he announced plans to run for the congressional seat being vacated by Rep. Janice Hahn (D-San Pedro), who endorsed him. Through June, he’s raised twice as much money as his closest opponent, attorney Nanette Barragan.

As Hall works to build a campaign war chest for what's likely to be a competitive election next year, about 8 percent of his donors have come from the district he seeks to represent.

Instead, the bulk of them reflect relationships he built as G.O. chairman. More than one-third of the $369,000 Hall raised in the first six months of the year came from people tied to a gambling business. Donors include:

• Former Assembly Speakers Fabian Núñez and Willie Brown, who have worked as consultants to casino magnate Sheldon Adelson in his fight against online poker-- an issue that has come before Hall’s committee for several years.

• Pornographer Larry Flynt, who owns the Hustler Casino in Hall's Senate district and pushed for a bill this year that would change a rule about casino ownership.

• Sacramento lobbyists David Quintana and Steve Cruz, who represent casino-owning Indian tribes, and Robyn Black, who represents Flynt and horse-racing interests. They routinely lobby bills in Hall’s committee and are forbidden by state law from contributing to a legislator’s state-level campaign. The law does not apply, however, to federal races.

• Las Vegas casino executives Frank and Lorenzo Fertitta, who company worked with a California tribe to plan a casino near Fresno with the help of a bill carried by Hall.

• Seven Indian tribes that run casinos, as well as owners of numerous card rooms and horse racing tracks.

They want to have access to him to have their position heard," said Gordon Fisher, the political scientist who wrote a book called Campaign Contributions and Legislative Voting.

"Over the long term they give him money, he hears them out. There's not necessarily a quid pro quo, but a relationship is built."

Asked about his fundraising, Hall said he didn't want to talk about it while inside the state Capitol. And then he did not respond to follow-up inquiries.

Card room owners are supporting Hall's congressional campaign because he's "a champion of the industry," whose support goes back to his experience in local government, said Jarhett Blonien, a lobbyist who represents several card rooms.

"It's not so much that they're looking for favors, it's that Isadore is their friend and they want to help him out," Blonien said.

Black, the horse-racing lobbyist who gave $500 to Hall's campaign, said her donation is unrelated to the business she has before him. She pointed out that she’s donated to several congressional campaigns across party lines. [With one exception, she has contributed entirely to right-wing Republicans on a federal level-- $2,300 to Romney, $3,000 to Kevin McCarthy, $500 to Mimi Walters and money to the National Republican Congressional Committee.]

"There are members that you get to know because you worked with them here in Sacramento and you just know they’re the kind of person you want representing our state,” Black said.

The message was the same from Quintana, the lobbyist for several casino-owning tribes, who gave $2,000 to Hall's campaign: "I’ve seen him operate in Sacramento… and I think he would make a great congressman."

Blue America has endorsed Nanette Barragán because of her own record as a progressive and an environmental activist willing to stand up to special interests that Hall champions... and to beat them. If you'd like to see her in Congress instead of Hall (and his despicable lobbyist buddies) you can contribute to her campaign here.