Unofficial at this hour, but unlikely to change:
City Council: Strawbridge and Largaespada
School Board: Maselli, Zada and Ferrucci
Measure E Cannabis: YES
Losing is never easy. One learns to lose graciously, and most times, it’s best to do so. This morning, however, the candidate might disagree with me, but the grapes are in fact sour.
My take: they learned their lesson – and the lesson they learned is not good. Attack. The way of Trump works.
Fill your promo literature and phone calls with a bad enough lie. Smear the candidate. Scare the public. Fill a dump truck with money. Hire a nasty lawyer. Get away with it.
Here in Benicia, if you take off the gloves and punch low, the public might not notice. Go with hit pieces and innuendo and the public might give you a pass. Heaven help us in 2020.
Repost from KQED California Report [Editor: The anonymous Valero spokesperson’s comments quoted here amount to yet another last-minute hit-piece. The letter from which the quotes are taken is malignant with lies, and appears in the online edition of the Vallejo Times-Herald. Read this article to the end for comments by Mayor Patterson and Vice Mayor Young. – R.S.]
State Rejects Benicia’s Bid to Have Political Watchdog Investigate Valero
By Ted Goldberg, Nov 2, 2018
The Valero refinery in Benicia. (Craig Miller/KQED)
State campaign finance regulators have decided not to launch an investigation into one of the apparent tactics the Valero Energy Corp. may have used in order to influence the Benicia City Council election. The San Antonio-based oil company operates a refinery that’s one of the Solano County city’s largest employers.
City officials last month filed a complaint with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) against the Valero refinery in connection with a series of phone calls made to Benicia residents about the election.
City Attorney Heather McLaughlin alleged that Valero sponsored a so-called push poll that may have involved a questioner laying out negative statements about one of the council candidates the company opposes, and positive ones about two candidates the company sees as allies — but did not disclose it was behind the poll during the calls.
The FPPC said Thursday it would not pursue an enforcement action against Valero.
“The Enforcement Division found insufficient evidence of a violation of the Political Reform Act,” Galena West, the division’s chief, wrote in a letter on Thursday.
The company says it’s not surprised by the FPPC’s decision.
“It only highlights the greater concern that the Mayor and Vice Mayor consistently and inappropriately use their City Council leadership positions and our city resources to advance their agenda against our company,” the refinery said in an open letter Thursday to the city’s residents.
Valero-Backed Group Spends Heavily to Sway Benicia City Council Election
The PAC is pushing to defeat Kari Birdseye, an environmentalist, and is backing Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada, to candidates the committee sees as Valero backers.
The energy company claims that McLaughlin, Mayor Elizabeth Patterson and Vice Mayor Steve Young inappropriately used city money, time and energy to go after Valero in an effort that supports Birdseye.
“The goal of these political antics is to provide the Mayor with a secure majority vote for a single minded agenda to negatively impact our refinery,” Valero said. “This is just the latest example of the Mayor using bully tactics against our company in her quest to shut down our business,” the company said.
Birdseye has been critical of the refinery and has expressed support for the mayor’s proposed safety regulations that emerged after Valero’s May 5, 2017 full-facility power outage that led to a major release of toxic sulfur dioxide.
That proposal, called an Industrial Safety Ordinance, failed at the City Council.
Strawbridge and Largaespada do not support the ordinance. The three candidates, along with a fourth candidate, William Emes, are running for two spots on the Council.
McLaughlin, the city attorney, said the city was disappointed with the FPPC’s decision but is still looking into the matter. In fact, city officials still have not been able to confirm what questions were used in the poll, she said.
On Thursday night, the Council directed McLaughlin to get a copy of the questions from the commission and Valero to determine if they violated the city’s clean campaign laws.
One of the firms Valero hired to conduct the poll, EMC, has refused to hand the questions over.
Gary Winuk, a lawyer representing EMC, argued that the poll was conducted in full compliance with federal, state and local laws. EMC does not engage in campaign advertising and the poll was not partisan, Winuk argued in a Oct. 9 letter to the city.
The poll’s purpose was to gather feedback from local voters and the company is not obligated to hand over its questions, according to Winuk.
“Professional polling companies are under no obligation to provide you with the information you requested,” he said.
Mayor Patterson and Vice Mayor Young disagree.
“We are seeking facts to determine if the polling was for or against candidates,” Patterson said.
“We respect freedom of speech even for large, mega-billion-dollar fossil fuel corporations trying to bully and buy council seats.” she said in an email.
“There is no reason why Valero or the polling company should not now agree to our repeated requests to provide a copy to the city,” Young wrote, also in an email Friday.
The latest campaign finance reports posted by the City of Benicia show that the Anti-Birdseye (Texas-Valero/Labor “Working Families”) PAC has spent additional funds totaling $57,997 on the following:
$3,283 on 11/1 for “Live Calls” scripted against Birdseye and in support of Birdseye’s opponents, and paid to Winning Connections of Washington, D.C.
$523 on 11/03 for Door Hangers opposing Birdseye and in support of her opponents.
$38,192 on 11/03 for “Canvassing” (media buys) paid to Digital Turf of Kennebunk, ME. (Previous buys paid to Digital Turf were designated “media buys”. That is likely what this report is for.)
$8,000 on 10/27 and another $8,000 on 10/30 for Mailers paid to Digital Turf of Kennebunk, ME.
The reports show cumulative PAC totals spent:
For Strawbridge, new spending of $28, 178, TOTAL of $52,652
For Largaespada, new spending of $29,819, TOTAL of $61,582
Strictly against Birdseye,$21,432.31
TOTAL PAC SPENDING TO DATE: $135,666
Compare these totals to those spent by the individual campaigns:
Strawbridge campaign, $24,354
Largaespada campaign, $14,348
Birdseye campaign, $17,076
TOTAL OF ALL THREE CAMPAIGNS, $55,778
And the PAC still has over $59,000 to spend in the last few days before the election! (LATE BREAKING – Reports indicate that the PAC most likely spent considerable additional funds on an attorney, whose letter was sent today challenging Benicia Open Government Commission’s Final Word forum. One estimate is that such a letter could cost around $20,000! More on that later…)
I’VE SAID IT BEFORE, BUT IT BEARS REPEATING: Corporations can throw their money around for and against candidates, but they don’t get to VOTE. Living, breathing humans cast ballots and make all the difference. Please vote for Kari Birdseye!
Click here to go to Kari’s campaign website, BirdseyeForBenicia.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.