Category Archives: Valero Services Inc.

"Push poll", California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), Kari Birdseye, Local elections, Negative campaigning, November election, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Services Inc.

KQED: State chooses not to investigate Valero’s push poll

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 and five of its allies have spent more than $165,000 on a political action committee to influence the election, an amount that’s close to three times as much as all of the candidates have raised combined.

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.

Benicia City Council, Benicia Open Government Commission, Final Word Forum, Kari Birdseye, Legal action, Negative campaigning, Organized labor, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Services Inc.

Anti-Birdseye PAC tries to stop forum, threatens to sue City

By Roger Straw, November 3, 2018

Deep pockets hire attorneys, send threatening letter

Just hours before Benicia Open Government Commission was to convene its “Final Word” forum on Saturday Nov. 3 to give candidates a chance to counter dirty campaign tricks and last-minute smears, Valero’s anti-Birdseye PAC hired the attorney firm Nielsen Merksamer Parrinello Gross & Leoni to demand the forum be cancelled.

The November 2 letter is itself a last-minute campaign smear, explicitly linking Birdseye to city officials, claiming “the Forum is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded platform to boost the candidacy of a single candidate favored by the current Mayor.”

In a Trump-like maneuver to flip its own dark side back on its declared enemy, the letter makes up a fantasy and cries, “the appointed city officials tasked with policing political speech at the Forum certainly know that the City’s Mayor and Vice-Mayor have endorsed one of the candidates in the debate in the hopes of cementing their own political agenda, while aggressively trying to demonize others for their support of a different candidate.”

Reports indicate the City of Benicia will go forward with the forum.  The attorney letter will be reprinted and placed on a side table in Council Chambers as a matter of record.  [UPDATE: The forum was held.  See Final Word: No one likes the anti-Birdseye PAC’s dirty campaign.]

The PAC is highly active in its negative campaigning in other ways.  A local resident who works for a Richmond refinery and supports Birdseye reported receiving a phone call from an Ironworker asking him to arrive early to pack the forum.  The caller clarified that the PAC hoped to deny any Birdseye supporters from participation.

Now both sides are asking supporters to arrive early.  The doors at City Council chambers open at 8:30 a.m. for the 9 a.m. event.

One may assume that rules and procedures as adopted by the City will prevail:

“The City of Benicia code(Sec 1.42.110) allows for a last minute candidate forum to allow candidates to address last minute “hit pieces” and to respond to inflammatory statements and misinformation.

This forum does not always happen but, given the amount of negative campaigning happening in the City Council race, the City’s Open Government Commission will sponsor such a session this Saturday, Nov. 3 from 9-11am at the City Council chambers.

The event will be televised live on Ch. 27, and rebroadcast at 7pm on Sunday and Monday nights, Nov. 4 and 5. It will also be archived for the public on Monday, 11/5 on the City’s Agendas & Minutes page – scroll down to Open Government.

The forum will be moderated by Open Government Commission Chair Bonnie Silvera, with assistance from two other OGC members.  Questions from audience will be written on 3×5 cards and selected by OGC members. Questions will be addressed to all candidates.  Only questions that deal with the purpose of the forum will be addressed.  Candidates are asked to speak to the issues and not make personal comments about other candidates, especially in a negative manner.

Benicia City Council, Kari Birdseye, Local elections, Negative ads, Negative campaigning, November election, Organized labor, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Services Inc.

ANTI-BIRDSEYE PAC SPENDS ANOTHER $58,000, TOTAL NOW OVER $135,000

By Roger Straw, October 30, 2018
[For PAC income report, see ANTI-BIRDSEYE PAC SPENDS ANOTHER $58,000, TOTAL NOW OVER $135,000.]

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
Kari Birdseye, Local elections, Negative ads, Negative campaigning, November election, Organized labor, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Services Inc.

Anti-Birdseye PAC receives a Halloween gift of another $15,000, total now $195,000 to buy a seat

By Roger Straw, November 2, 2018
[For PAC spending report, see ANTI-BIRDSEYE PAC SPENDS ANOTHER $58,000, TOTAL NOW OVER $135,000.]

Valero/Labor PAC for Largaespada and Strawbridge, against Kari Birdseye gets a second contribution from the Boilermakers

The Anti-Birdseye political action committee (PAC) filed a new contribution report yesterday.  This report shows another receipt of $15,000 on October 31.  This is the second contribution from the International Brotherhood of  Boilermakers (etc.).  The “Brotherhood” helped kickstart the fund with a $30,000 contribution on October 10.

This raises the total Valero-inspired anti-Birdseye fund to $195,000.  The four candidates are limited by City ordinance to less than $30,000 each.  So the PAC now has over six times the financial power than any citizen who organizes friends and neighbors to support a campaign.

For previous reports of contributions and expenditures of the candidates as well as the Anti-Birdseye PAC and others, check out the City of Benicia Campaign Finance Reports page.