Category Archives: Local elections

Benicia City Council, Local elections, Mail-in ballots

Ballot voting in Benicia – slow start

By Roger Straw, October 22, 2018

Status of mailed ballots in Benicia as of Friday Oct. 19

 Political Data Inc.  shows the up-to-date status of mailed ballots in the City of Benicia.  Here’s a snapshot of the CA 2018 General Election Tracker for Benicia on October 19, 2018.

A total of 13,034 ballots were mailed, 49 percent Democrat, 22 percent Republican, and 29 percent independent.

As of October 19th only 671 ballots had been received at the register of voters office.  This seems like a low number.  Does it show low interest in the election?  More likely, I think, people are waiting for more information, or just waiting until closer to election day.  But it shows that the daily number of ballots received is increasing.  Click here or on the image below to enlarge…

 

Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, Benicia City Clerk, Benicia City Council, Christina Strawbridge, Corporate influence, Kari Birdseye, Lionel Largaespada, Local elections, Organized labor, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Services Inc.

UPDATE: Anti-Birdseye PAC gets more money

By Roger Straw, October 18, 2018

The Benicia City Clerk notified City Council members and candidates yesterday that additional campaign finance reports were received from the Pro-Strawbridge-Largaespada/Anti-Birdseye PAC. [Editor: You will notice that I am purposely avoiding use of the politically loaded and false title the PAC has chosen for itself, Wkg Fmls…]

Two NEW Contribution Forms 497 were filed, and one NEW Expenditure Form 496 was received from the PAC on Wednesday.

In addition, since last reported here on October 13, a few new reports and corrective AMENDED reports were filed.  These new filings are not clearly labeled by the City of Benicia.  All are simply listed by number on the City website without much guidance for voters.  I’ll try to sort it out below, with new totals.

But meanwhile, be alert!  In summary, the PAC is absolutely LOADED for more big campaign expenditures during these final weeks before election day.  TOTAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF $154,200 MINUS EXPENDITURES TO DATE OF $25,836.06: $128,363.94.

CONTRIBUTIONS UPDATE (Oct. 18)

EXPENDITURES UPDATE (Oct. 18)

  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_1.pdf
    PRO-STRAWBRIDGE: Winning Connections calls $5,166.67 on 10/10; Valero Use of Poll $4,733.34 on 10/10
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_2.pdf
    PRO-LARGAESPADA: Winning Connections calls $5,166.67 on 10/10; Valero Use of Poll $4,733.34 on 10/10
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_3.pdf
    ANTI-BIRDSEYE: Winning Connections calls $5,166.67 on 10/10; Valero Use of Poll $4,733.34 on 10/10
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_4.pdf
    ANTI-BIRDSEYE: Digital Turf media buy $4,689 on 10/11 (cumulative to date $16,589); Digital Turf ad production $2,000 on 10/11 (cumulative to date $16,589)
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_5.pdf
    PRO-STRAWBRIDGE: Digital Turf media buy $4,689 on 10/13 (cumulative to date $16,589); Digital Turf ad production $2,000 on 10/13 (cumulative to date $16,589)
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_6.pdf
    PRO-LARGAESPADA: Digital Turf media buy $4,689 on 10/13 (cumulative to date $16,589); Digital Turf ad production $2,000 on 10/13 (cumulative to date $16,589)
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_7.pdf
    AMENDMENT TO 496-1 PRO-STRAWBRIDGE Winning Connection calls $5,413.73 (not $5,166.67) and (cumulative to date $16,836.07); Heat & Frost contribution of $20,000 (not $30,000) on 10/16
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_8.pdf
    AMENDMENT TO 496-2 PRO-LARGAESPADA: Winning Connections calls $5,413.73 (not $5,166.67) and (cumulative to date $16,836.07) on 10/16
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_9.pdf
    AMENDMENT TO 496-3 ANTI-BIRDSEYE: Winning Connections calls $5,413.73 (not $5,166.67) and (cumulative to date $16,836.07) on 10/16
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_10.pdf
    AMENDMENT TO 496-4 ANTI-BIRDSEYE: Digital Turf media buy and ad production (and cumulative to date $16,836) on 10/15
  • Anti-Birdseye_PAC_Form_496_11.pdf
    NEW EXPENDITURE PRO-LARGAESPADA: Winning Connection calls $9,000 (cumulative to date $25,836.06) on 10/16
    TOTAL EXPENDITURES TO DATE: $25,836.06
Benicia City Attorney Heather McLaughlin, Benicia City Clerk, Christina Strawbridge, Kari Birdseye, Lionel Largaespada, Local elections, Negative ads, Negative campaigning, Valero Benicia Refinery

Lingering questions regarding Anti-Birdseye PAC money

By Roger Straw, October 18, 2018

The Benicia City Attorney and City Clerk were not helpful in clarifying certain questions regarding funds collected and spent by the Anti-Birdseye political action committee (PAC) as of October 13.

In my last report of October 13, I was able to post links to the City of Benicia website showing the Anti-Birdseye PAC’s first Contribution Report (Form 497-1), totaling $74,200.  Strangely, I was able to report an additional $30,000 contribution which showed up in an Expenditure Report (Form 496-4).  So I reported total receipts of $74,200 + $30,000, or $104,200.

Also in my Oct 13 report, I was able to post links to the City of Benicia website showing details from the four Anti-Birdseye PAC Expenditure forms. Form 496-1 reported $9,900 spent for phone calls on behalf of candidate Strawbridge; Form 496-2 showed $9,900 spent for phone calls on behalf of candidate Largaespada; and Form 496-3 showed $9,900 spent for phone calls to oppose candidate Kari Birdseye.  An additional Form 496-4 showed $6,689 for negative digital advertising to smear candidate Birdseye

Contributions (as of Oct. 13)

Expenditures (as of Oct. 13)

These expenditure reports confused me, so I wrote to our Benicia City Attorney and City Clerk asking for clarification, “On 496 Expenditure forms #1, #2 and #3, the exact same amounts are listed, $5,166.66 and $4,733.34.  Does this mean that a total of $9,900 was spent THREE times, for a grand total of $29,700?  Or are all three forms reporting the same dollars for a total of only $9,900?”

The City could not, or would not take time to help.  City Attorney Heather McLaughlin replied, “Your questions are more properly addressed to the FPPC.  The city doesn’t get into substantively analyzing the reports.”

Left to my own conclusions, I’d guess that a total of $9,900 had been spent on phone calls as of Oct. 13, and was simply reported three times on the separate forms to show the PAC’s intent to support CS & LL and to oppose Kari Birdseye.  The additional $6,689 on video smears against Birdseye brings the total spent as of Oct. 13 to $16,589, leaving $87,611 in the PAC’s account for future campaign efforts.