From the Marin Independent Journal, September 8, 2007:

Ties between the Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger administration and Marin Services for Women of Greenbrae are being scrutinized because the domestic partner of Schwarzenegger's chief of staff, Susan Kennedy, is a longtime employee of the nonprofit. Vicki Marti is the nonprofit's director of programs and has worked there most of her career.

Marti and several other women with connections to Marin Services for Women are on the state's payroll, and corporations are queuing up to attend the nonprofit's annual benefit dinner next week, when Kennedy will be guest of honor. Kennedy, a recovered alcoholic, has spoken candidly of her past struggle with alcohol. Kennedy and Marti share a home in Fairfax.

Schwarzenegger has kept Marti on the California Medical Assistance Commission even though her term expired in January 2005. The position pays $54,250 a year.

In February, the governor appointed Renee Zito, the former director of programs at Marin Services for Women, as director of the state's Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. The position pays $142,965 a year.

In June, the governor appointed Angela Bradstreet, a member of Marin Services for Women's board, as state labor commissioner. The position pays $134,000 a year.

And in August, the governor appointed Tiffany Rystrom, Bradstreet's domestic partner, to the Public Employment Relations Board. That position pays $123,897 a year.

"It suggests that connections to Susan Kennedy through this charity and her partner may have been what helped secure those positions," said Derek Cressman, a consultant for government watchdog groups and the author of "The Recall's Broken Promise: How Big Money Still Runs California Politics."

...

Cressman said he sees nothing wrong with Marin Services for Women hosting a fundraising event honoring Kennedy.

"The potential concerns come up when you have lobbyists using an event like this as a potential way to curry favor with Susan Kennedy. That's a different dynamic," Cressman said.

Cressman said it is particularly worrisome that several of the corporate sponsors are telecommunications companies because Kennedy - a self-described pro-business, Clintonian Democrat - has been criticized in the past for her pro-industry votes while serving on the California PUC from 2003 to 2005.

...

From the Los Angeles Times, Sept. 4, 2007:

SACRAMENTO — Marin Services for Women, a small treatment center in a San Francisco suburb, offers alcoholic and drug-addicted women a portal to better lives. Since Susan Kennedy, the domestic partner of a Marin Services executive, became chief of staff to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, it also has become a gateway to powerful people and places in state government.

This summer, Schwarzenegger hired a member of the nonprofit's board as state labor commissioner, then gave her domestic partner a $123,897-a-year- state job. Schwarzenegger also appointed a Marin Services executive to direct the state's drug and alcohol programs.

And the governor has kept Vicki Marti, Kennedy's partner, on a state medical commission that pays $54,250 a year even though her term has expired. The board is a favored spot for patronage appointments; it includes three termed-out legislators and an ex-wife of a former state Senate president.

Now, Marin Services is using the lure of time with Kennedy to raise money. The center is honoring her at its annual fundraising dinner Sept. 14 and soliciting donations of as much as $25,000 for the chance to attend a private reception with her beforehand.

Capitol lobbyists whose clients have much at stake before the administration have been invited to donate, according to an e-mail obtained by The Times. Already, AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Reliant Energy and Santa Anita Park -- the Arcadia racetrack that wants state permission to expand its gambling operations -- have agreed to help sponsor the event, according to Marin Services' website.

"It sounds pretty clear that lobbyists are using this event as an opportunity to either buy access to Susan Kennedy or simply pay her a favor," said Derek Cressman, a consultant for government watchdog groups. "We all know that in Sacramento, lobbyists do those things for a reason, and that reason is to eventually gain some benefit for their clients."

Read the full story here .

(This column originally appeared August 17, 2007 in the Monetery County Herald )

Frustrated with the refusal of all but one Republican senator to support a budget deal that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger negotiated with legislative leaders, Democrats are threatening a recall campaign against Sen. Jeff Denham, whose district includes eastern Monterey County.

A recall could help break Sacramento's gridlock by taking the issue directly to voters, but improvements in the recall process itself would make this a better tool to resolve issues like this one.

Senate Republicans are holding up the budget over several grievances, including a disagreement with Attorney General Jerry Brown's actions to require developers to consider the impact of future growth on global warming. The current California law requiring a two-thirds vote to approve a budget gives the Republican minority unique leverage which they are using to try to deny Brown the funds to enforce the California Environmental Quality Act as he sees fit.

While it may be frustrating that an issue as complicated as a $145 billion state budget is being resolved more by politics than by policy, it is entirely appropriate that both Denham and the Democrats would be looking to their political futures as much as to pundits or their personal beliefs on the budget. While ugly at times, elections (including recalls) are ultimately the process by which citizens can retain the final say in matters of great importance, of which the budget is surely one.

The accountability problem may be that Denham is thinking more about his potential future constituents than voters in his current district. Denham has filed papers to run for lieutenant governor in the 2010 election and it is possible that his vote on the budget is guided more by voters in the statewide Republican primary than by the folks in his district.

A recall would let voters sort out the legitimate difference of opinion between legislators. Do voters generally agree with the Republicans that the budget should be cut and that developers need not worry themselves with global warming? Or, are they willing to accept the compromise worked out between Democrats and Schwarzenegger? Just as two employees with different views at a company appeal to their superiors, it is entirely appropriate for politicians to occasionally take their differences to their boss, the voters.

Denham won re-election by a comfortable margin of 58 percent, but his district is composed of 48 percent Democrats and 38 percent Republicans. This is as good a microcosm of the state as California's gerrymandered political districts currently provide. If Denham were to defeat a recall effort, it would tell the state's Democrats that they should give more ground in the budget debate. Should a recall succeed, it would serve notice to the Republicans that they had overplayed their hand.

Unfortunately, the Legislature has failed to fix problems with the recall process itself that surfaced in the 2003 recall of Gov. Gray Davis. To qualify a recall of Denham, it would take signatures from 20 percent of his district's turnout in the 2006 election, or 31,000 valid signatures. These numbers all but require the effort to depend upon signature gatherers who will certainly be paid by donors residing outside of Denham's district. It also means the process will be too slow to resolve the budget deadlock in a timely fashion.

Might it be better to adopt a lower signature threshold but require that the funding come from within the district or place the same limitations on contributions that applied to Denham's last re-election? California law currently treats recalls as ballot questions, which have no limits on contributions, rather than candidate elections, which are regulated. Given the fundraising we saw during the 2003 recall, courts should now be willing to take another look at this question.

If a Denham recall does qualify, voters may then see multiple candidates on the ballot with no primary or runoff process to winnow the field. If three or more viable replacement candidates emerged and split the vote, Denham could be recalled only to be replaced by a Republican even more entrenched on the budget than Denham. To avoid the prospect of any candidate winning by a small plurality, California should change its recall process to adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Used in San Francisco and other localities, IRV allows voters to rank their choices among a larger field of candidates and ensures that the winner receives support from at least 50 percent of the electorate.

Derek Cressman is a fellow at the Poplar Institute in Sacramento and author of "The Recall's Broken Promise — How Big Money Still Runs California Politics ."

At least 12 novices seeking state office have written themselves
six-figure checks, records show.

From the Sacramento Bee, July 30, 2007 . 

As the calendar neared the end of June, the secretary of state's office began reporting one $100,000 donation after another -- each to relatively unknown candidates in California politics, the likes of Richard Holober and Robert Rao and Neil Blais.

Who was writing the checks? Richard Holober and Robert Rao and Neil Blais.

As the six-month fundraising deadline approached, at least 11 candidates for state Assembly and one for state Senate in the June 2008 primary injected roughly $100,000 into their own campaign coffers. Another gave himself $100,000 more than 18 months ago.

The donations are part of what has become a biennial money dance in which newcomer candidates try to prove their viability to the chattering class of Sacramento and the well-heeled lobbyists in the Third House.

"It's become an epidemic," said Dave Gilliard, a Republican campaign strategist who works on Assembly races. "Candidates are so desperate to look viable to the Third House and the legislative leaders -- a lot of the time ... it's all for show."

The self-donations are a growing trend -- some call it a vicious cycle -- in California politics, where money begets money and deep-pocketed candidates hold a distinct advantage.

"It makes it harder for ordinary citizens to run for office when they are faced with opponents who can easily jump-start their campaigns with personal wealth," said Derek Cressman, a campaign watchdog and author of the upcoming book, "The Recall's Broken Promise: How Big Money Still Runs California Politics."

Matt Rexroad, a GOP political consultant, who managed the Assembly Republican efforts in 2002 and 2004, said, "If you look back into the primaries of two years ago, you will see that there were very few people elected to the Assembly who didn't put their own money in there."

...

Without money, few California legislative campaigns succeed. But Cressman, the author and campaign finance watchdog, said the infusion of self-given money is hurting democracy.

"(It) has a pretty significant and negative effect on representative democracy when you are so significantly narrowing the pool of people who can run for office in the first place," he said.