Benicia CA, Campaign finance, Fair elections, Local elections, Local Regulation

Benicia electoral campaign reform – E-Alert by Benicia Mayor Elizabeth Patterson

Do you want clean and fair campaigns?

Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 - present
Elizabeth Patterson, Benicia Mayor 2007 – present

This question is asked because an item on the Tuesday agenda is focused on the goal for clean campaigns.

But while people will say they want clean and fair campaigns, they also need to work at it themselves.  For instance, what are the criteria for determining “clean” and “fair”?  Local government and to a lesser degree state rules require identifying who is paying for what.  But there are limits on what must be disclosed.  These are limits because of federal court decisions.

It is a pretty fair guess that lots of Facebook postings that are negative and against another candidate are likely to NOT be clean and fair, although legal.

How did we get here where we hear loud voices (what I mean is lots of mailers, Facebook and other) drowning out issues and character and record?  There used to be a federal FCC Fairness Doctrine.

The doctrine prohibited personal attacks (yep!).  Provided that broadcast radio and tv must provide equal access (like Fox News or MSNBC?).  In other words, if a candidate was on the air, their opponent would have equal access.

The Fairness Doctrine was eliminated during the Ronald Reagan presidency because the FCC commissioners (all appointed by the President) felt that there was too much “bashing” of the president.  Libertarians supported the elimination as well as the conservatives.

So how is that working for us now?  You will probably note that things are much worse because not only are the public air waves (hence the role of government because these are public air waves) and the internet is mostly private with limited federal rules and even fewer state and local rules (lobbyist do earn their keep and have been very successful so far in telling the feds, state and cities “hands off’).

Back to the basics, since local government is limited by law in terms of restricting the amount of money spent in campaigns (no authority) and limited in disclosure (some, but not good for  “dark money”), the individual voter has a lot of work to do and cannot depend on the feds, state or city to provide “clean and fair’ elections no matter how hard they try.

One approach that is available to California Cities is partial public funding for candidates in charter cities.  As I understand it, general law cities cannot do this due to a court decision in favor of Howard Jarvis folks – you know, those folks who took away local property tax decisions and gave the decision making to state assembly and senate members (known as Proposition 13) far fewer of them and less accessible to most people.  Neat trick to take local property tax and give the state authority how to spend it.  Probably the idea that local candidates could get public financing versus big spenders is a threat to the Jarvis peoples” influence.  Click here for a PowerPoint presentation by the League of California Cities that explains current 2019 election rules.

Again, back to the basics.  As I see it the individual has a very large responsibility to read reliable sources such as the League of Women Voters website for positions on various issues, background and so forth.  Be suspicious, very suspicious with negative ads, Facebook stuff and lots of literature with glossy photos and little actual position statements.

Also, if you care, come to the door when a candidate is on your doorstep.  I can’t tell you how many times I have knocked or rung the door bell, hearing voices inside but no one comes to the door.  If you want a face to face with a candidate wouldn’t you want to take advantage of the knock?

I have come to the conclusion that many people in local government and who live and work in Benicia do not know what elected official do.  Listing my committees below (which by the way is not up to date on the city website) tells you that I go to a lot of meetings.  But what decisions are made and how do those decisions affect Benicia.  This is a lot for a citizen to understand and follow, but during an election it seems critical to know what that elected person or candidate is doing.

From the city website this is what you would learn about my duties other than serving as presiding officer of the council meetings and setting the agenda.

      “Elizabeth serves in the following committee:

    • League of California Cities:  Northern Division member and former President.
    • Napa/Solano Area Agency on Aging – provides funds for Meals on Wheels, Fall Prevention, Ombudsman services and much more.
    • Solano Transportation Authority, chair one time – rotates through all cities
    • Solano Water Authority: meets once a year – funding mechanism for projects
    • Solano County Water Agency:  on Executive Committee and Water Policy Subcommittee and Legislative Subcommittee
    • Delta Subcommittee [hasn’t existed for several years]
    • Soltrans Joint Powers Authority – help form and set up, rotate chair with Vallejo mayor
    • Arsenal Investigation & Remediation Committee [done and very successfully]
    • Valero Water Supply Reuse Subcommittee [doesn’t meet]
    • MCE (Marin Clean Energy) – Executive Committee
    • North Bay Watershed Association”

What would be helpful is a voting record.  Right now there is no way to provide that without painful research meeting by meeting tally.  Maybe this is something the city should do to enhance “clean and fair’ campaigns.

Other ideas are for the city to provide is a voter guide – not everyone knows to seek out the League of Women Voter’s website and this information could be provided on the city website along with information about how to judge campaign literature, who is paying for what and how to use critical thinking strategy to separate the fluff from the position on real issues.  Click here for specific tools.

I have wandered around the issue before the council on Tuesday to try and frame what I think we all say we want – clean and fair elections – and the reality of what we can do locally and I think my message is this:

It is in large part up to you.  Do you homework.  Answer the knock. Use critical thinking tools above to judge candidates.

A wild card would be to volunteer to check voting records for incumbents, design a canvas questionnaire to get candidate on record for things like climate change, reducing dependence on fossil fuels, housing – how dense and how high?; active transportation – walking and biking – Clean Tech Expo, how to pay for water and waste water infrastructure, cannabis (develop questions so candidates can’t flip flop once in office).  In the end you want to know what the candidate cares about and can they be trusted to get there.

Don’t believe it when they say there is no difference between politicians.  Grit, ethical and trustworthiness are characteristics of some, but not all.

2020 Presidential campaigns, Benicia Herald, Bernie Sanders

Benicia Herald: Misleading letter attacking Bernie Sanders

As published in the Benicia Herald, by Roger Straw, January 5, 2020
Roger Straw, The Benicia Independent

First, please note that I have not been a Bernie Sanders activist or supporter.  I am among the huge number of Democrats who have taken the Indivisible Pledge: to support the eventual Democratic nominee in order to be rid of an incompetent, lawless and immoral first-term president.

But I was shocked at the attack published on the Benicia Herald’s Forum page on January 3.  For some reason, Arcata resident Jake Pickering was featured there, bashing Senator Sanders with four damning and salacious charges.

I had to wonder if this was one of the Russians’ faked attempts at stirring up internal dissention among Trump’s opposition.  But I did a little googling of Mr. Pickering in Arcata, and discovered that he is real, and a supporter of Elizabeth Warren – and highly critical of the current president.

Next I got busy on Snopes, fact-checking Mr. Pickering’s charges against Bernie.

To go through the charges one by one here, in public, would probably only add to the misinformation by repetition.  So I’ll refrain from detailing and debunking each one.

Suffice to say that Senator Sanders describes himself as a Democratic Socialist.  Wikipedia states that Sanders is “an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of ‘democratic socialism’ with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s proposal for a Second Bill of Rights, saying that democratic socialism means creating ‘an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy,’ reforming the political system (which Sanders says is ‘grossly unfair’ and ‘in many respects, corrupt’), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a ‘vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote.’ He explained that democratic socialism is not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism but rather describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.”  [Wikipedia]

The Wikipedia article also states that “Multiple commentators have examined Sanders’ characterization of his political platform and ideology as ‘socialism’ and generally found it to support tax-funded social benefits rather than social ownership of the means of production.”

Mr. Pickering levels ancient charges stemming from Senator Sanders’ life and words back in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.  Snopes confirms that Sanders wrote an unfortunate essay in 1972 which has been characterized as misogynist. But the gist of Sanders’ article was “to attack gender stereotypes of the ’70s”, pointing out that long-held patriarchal gender stereotypes have kept both men and women from full and equal relationships.  Sanders “explains his ideas about gender roles and eventually gets at a sharper point — that traditional gender roles help create troubling dynamics.” [Snopes.com]

It’s a given that electoral campaigns must draw distinctions between candidates, but voters should be wary of overstated attacks of any one supporter on their competition.

Each and every one of the huge field of Democrats running for president would be a great and welcome improvement over the Russian stooge we elected in 2016.

2020 Presidential campaigns, Donald Trump

Religious and family-values conservatives who view Trump as “profoundly immoral”

Evangelicals need to follow Christianity’s morals, not Trump’s

President Trump in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Saturday. (Marco Bello/Reuters)
President Trump in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Saturday. (Marco Bello/Reuters)

The Washington Post, by  Michael Gerson, Dec. 23, 2019

Though it won’t be remembered as a classic Christmas movie such as “Elf” or “Die Hard,” “Bombshell” richly deserves your time this holiday season. It tells the sordid story of how powerful men at Fox News tried to gain sexual favors from some young women in exchange for professional advancement. At the drama’s center is the lardaceous, lecherous, loathsome Roger Ailes, who once ruled the conservative world from behind a bodyguard of enablers, before Gretchen Carlson, Megyn Kelly and other courageous women exposed his predation.

My first reaction to the movie was to suppress a gag reflex at the thought of Ailes with his zipper down (which is, mercifully, implied, not shown). I was also struck by the fact that the single most influential conservative institution of the past few decades was run by men who combined social Darwinism and the Playboy philosophy, resulting in the survival of the scummiest. Millions of conservatives, including religious and family-values conservatives, absorbed their view of the world from a source characterized by misogyny, cruelty, immorality and contempt for the powerless.

It is in this context that the recent commentary by Mark Galli in Christianity Today calling for President Trump’s removal from office should be read. Here, in contrast to Fox News, is an institution trying to use a specifically Christian lens to examine the president’s conduct in office. Galli argues that cheating to influence a presidential election is not merely a threat to the Constitution but also “profoundly immoral.” Trump’s lies and slanders on Twitter are “a near perfect example of a human being who is morally lost and confused.” The corruption and cruelty of the president and those around him have “rendered this administration morally unable to lead.”

Trump’s swift, disproportionate, mendacious response to the editorial — falsely accusing Christianity Today of a leftist slant and promising he would never again read a magazine he has likely never read before — indicates how crucial to his political survival he believes lockstep evangelical Christian support to be. The president’s most visible evangelical Christian supporters — doing their best to mimic Trump’s tone and approach — brayed in agreement. And some conservative writers were highly critical of the editorial. My colleague Hugh Hewitt pronounced himself “bewildered” that anyone would “seek an absolutist political opinion from a website about evangelical faith.” “Whether Trump is good or bad for the republic isn’t a theological question,” said Hewitt. “It is a political one.”

Evangelical institutions such as Christianity Today, in other words, should be content to stay in their lane. They should defer to the political experts. Like Fox News. Like conservative talk radio. Like conspiratorial Internet sites. Wouldn’t it be easier for all involved if evangelical Christians simply accepted the proposition that a political coalition with ethnonationalists, led by a malicious, immoral buffoon, is good for the cause of justice and for the cause of Christ? Isn’t it obvious that the appointment of conservative judges should satisfy all the other moral convictions of Christian citizens?

This, after all, isn’t a theological matter. It isn’t a theological matter that evangelical Christians — influenced by conservative media and white identity politics — have become the religious group most hostile to refugee resettlement and most supportive of a policy of family separation at the border. It isn’t a theological matter that loyalty to Trump is making an older generation of evangelical Christians look like crude hypocrites in the eyes of their own children, who are fleeing the tradition in droves.

From the perspective of Trump partisans, a less carnal version of the Ailes arrangement still applies. Evangelical Christians will be given rhetorical deference, White House access and judges and regulations of their liking. All they need to do is set aside their criticisms of cruelty, deception, misogyny, racism and contempt for the vulnerable. All they need to do is forget decency and moral consistency.

From the standpoint of committed evangelical Christians, the calculus should be more complex. Christians are called to be representatives of God’s kingdom in the life of this world. Betraying that role not only hurts the reputation of evangelicalism; it does a nasty disservice to the reputation of the Gospel. It is time, and past time, for Christian believers to listen to Christian sources on Christian social ethics, including the small, clear voice of Christianity Today.