Ethics a focus for 7 remaining California secretary of state candidates

State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) quit the race for California secretary of state after his arrest last month. Above, Yee faces reporters after a court appearance. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images / March 31, 2014)

SACRAMENTO — The arrest of a front-runner in the race for California secretary of state on corruption charges has made ethics a key issue for the seven candidates still in the contest.

State Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) quit the race after his arrest last month on charges of taking payments in exchange for official favors and conspiring to illegally traffic in firearms. He has pleaded not guilty.

As the remaining candidates focus on the best way to clean up Sacramento, Yee's stumble has thrown the June primary competition wide open.

AT A GLANCE: Candidates for secretary of state

Yee, whose name will remain on the ballot, was the second-best-financed candidate for the state's top elections job. The contestant with the most money, state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), is favored to grab at least one of the two runoff slots for November.

"With Yee out of the picture, it definitely opens up the race more to the other candidates," said Tony Quinn, an editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which handicaps political races.

A recent Field Poll showed Padilla running second to Republican public policy specialist Pete Peterson, whose last quarterly disclosure report showed less than $2,000 in his campaign fund.

The secretary of state, with nearly 500 employees, oversees federal and state elections in California, maintains the public databases that disclose campaign contributions and lobbyist spending, and processes and maintains records related to corporations and other business entities.

Incumbent Debra Bowen, a Democrat, is prevented by term limits from running for reelection.

Besides Padilla, the other Democrats in the race are Derek Cressman, former vice president of the watchdog group Common Cause, and Jeffrey H. Drobman, a computer scientist and engineer.

There are two Republican candidates: Roy Allmond, a program technician in the secretary of state's office, and Peterson, executive director of the Davenport Institute for Public Engagement and Civic Leadership, a think tank at Pepperdine University.

David Curtis, a designer in an architectural studio, is a Green Party candidate. Dan Schnur, on leave as director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC, is a "no party preference" candidate.

Padilla has a large advantage in campaign fundraising, having brought in $1.6 million, according to his required filings with the state. Cressman is a distant second in campaign cash, having raised $390,000 and lent himself $100,000.

All of the candidates say the state must upgrade the computer systems that register businesses and tell the public who contributes money to which politicians.

But they have clashed over what to do about the apparent prevalence of corruption in the Capitol as well as over how to handle Yee and Democratic Sens. Ronald S. Calderon and Roderick Wright, who are facing their own criminal charges.

Cressman and Schnur have criticized Padilla for voting last month to impose paid suspensions on the three. Schnur and Cressman said they should have been permanently expelled.

In voting for suspensions, Padilla noted that Yee and Calderon have not yet had their day in court. But he has called on all three lawmakers to resign.

As he has campaigned for secretary of state, Padilla has proposed a blackout on political fundraising for more than three months during the end of each legislative session. That's when special interests seeking favorable votes on bills also flood legislators with campaign cash. The Legislature has not yet voted on his proposal.

Like most lawmakers, Padilla, 41, said fundraising has nothing to do with how he votes on bills.

"But the public perception has gotten to the point where it needs to be addressed," he said. "The perception is that fundraising activity has an undue influence on how decisions are made in the Capitol."

View the original article here

California's lopsided politics yield little election intrigue

SACRAMENTO — It has come to this: California politics have become so one-sided that the only half-way intriguing statewide races this spring are for two largely ministerial jobs.

One is secretary of state.

The other is state controller.

Both are pretty mundane.

The secretary of state oversees elections and maintains public databases on campaign contributions and lobbyists' spending. The office also processes a lot of business-related stuff.

Sounds simple. But under termed-out Democrat Debra Bowen, few things seemingly have been simple. There have been glitches galore, mainly involving web technology.

"It has had more headaches than the Obamacare rollout," says Allan Hoffenblum, frequent user of the state campaign finance database called Cal-Access. "They [the feds] at least got their web fixed."

Hoffenblum publishes the California Target Book, which closely follows legislative races, and says he has been frequently frustrated trying to track how much money candidates are raising and where they're getting it.

Bowen has blamed her problems on a shortage of funds caused by budget cutbacks during the recession.

As for the controller, he or she writes the state's checks and has the power — not used enough — to audit how money is spent. The office also holds seats on some potent tax and regulatory boards.

The sexy offices — governor and attorney general — are considered slam-dunks this year for the Democratic incumbents, Jerry Brown and Kamala Harris.

Blame the pathetic Republican Party, which received more bad news Tuesday. Since the last gubernatorial election in 2010, the GOP's share of the California electorate has dropped another 2 percentage points and is down to 28.6%.

Democrats lost 1 percentage point, but their share is 43.5%, giving them a huge advantage in statewide elections. Voters with no party preference increased by 1 point to 21.1%.

Under California's new "top two" open primary system — with the first and second place finishers advancing to the general election, regardless of party — there's no assurance a Republican will even be in every statewide runoff.

In the secretary of state contest, most political pros believe that Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla, a former Los Angeles city councilman, will make it into the top two.

As a sitting legislator, Padilla has more name-ID — at least in vote-heavy L.A. — and can raise a lot more campaign money than his main Democratic rival, Derek Cressman, a former official of the political reform group Common Cause.

The big primary tussle for the other top two spot seems to be between Republican Pete Peterson, who heads the Davenport public policy institute at Pepperdine University, and no-party candidate Dan Schnur, who's on leave from the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at USC.

Schnur, a former GOP operative, is trying to become the first nonpartisan elected to statewide partisan office in California. If he can raise enough money, he'll go after Republican voters, trying to cut into Peterson's natural support.

Also on the ballot, although he has withdrawn from the race, is disgraced state Sen. Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), recently suspended by the Senate after being indicted on federal corruption charges.

A recent Field Poll found Peterson leading among likely voters at 30%, followed by Padilla with 17%. Trailing far behind were Green Party architectural designer David Curtis at 5%; Schnur, 4%; and Cressman, 3%.

View the original article here

Obama to honor Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act

President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act in the East Room of the White House on July 2, 1964. (Associated Press)

AUSTIN, Texas — President Obama has tried to model Abraham Lincoln's team of rivals and Teddy Roosevelt's power of the bully pulpit. He's lauded Ronald Reagan's communication skills and linked himself to the Kennedy clan. He's praised his onetime nemesis, George W. Bush, as well as his onetime adversary, Bill Clinton.

But Obama has rarely cozied up to the predecessor some argue did more than any other modern president to pave the way for his election as the nation's first black president: Lyndon B. Johnson.

Five years into his presidency, Obama will head to Austin on Thursday to remedy what some Johnson admirers have described as a "pattern of omission." At a ceremony at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library and Museum, Obama will honor Johnson and the Civil Rights Act, signed 50 years ago this year.

But it is other elements of Johnson's legacy that have confounded and irked the Obama White House. As a president who tried to end two wars, Obama was not inclined to align himself with a president who escalated the Vietnam War.

More recently, any mention of Johnson and Obama in the same sentence is typically a comparison of their legislative prowess — and Obama comes up short. In the age of partisan gridlock, the master of the Senate, as Johnson became known during his time as majority leader, has become for many Democrats an example of how a president once used government to do big things. By comparison, the current president has become a symbol of how little government can get done.

But the story of Obama's and Johnson's legislative records is more complex — and with a more similar arc than sometimes described. Both passed sweeping legislation in short order, taking advantage of early political momentum, mindful, in Johnson's words, that a newly elected president is "a giraffe; six months later, he's a worm."

Both also faced great frustrations and backlash in later years. And like Johnson, Obama hopes history will prove his earliest major legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act, to be his most widely embraced.

For now, the White House is quick to note the many differences between the two presidents and their times.

Most obviously, Johnson benefited from large Democratic majorities in both chambers of Congress when he pushed the Civil Rights Act, even as the country mourned John F. Kennedy. Those majorities jumped — to a whooping 295-140 in the House — after the 1964 election. When Obama passed his healthcare overhaul in 2010, Democrats had 253 seats.

But Johnson also embraced the sort of parliamentary maneuvers and horse trading that today would have good government advocates screaming about legislative payoffs and backdoor politics. And thinking Obama could wine and dine his way to moving his legislative agenda is to misunderstand the current political climate, White House aides argue. Political polarization has diminished common ground between the parties and left few moderates to woo.

Even Obama seems to chalk up Johnson's success to political momentum, noting that his election in 1964 was followed in 1966 by Democratic losses in the congressional elections, although the party retained control of Congress. Obama has faced a Republican majority in the House since 2011.

"When he lost that historic majority, and the glow of that landslide victory faded, he had the same problems with Congress that most presidents at one point or another have," Obama said in a recent interview with the New Yorker.

For those close to the Johnson legacy, attributing his legislative accomplishments to mere political good fortune ignores Johnson's political gift.

"Schmoozing is not just sitting and having a drink — though LBJ did plenty of that," said Joseph Califano Jr., a former Johnson aide. "It's knowing exactly what buttons turn congressmen on and off. I think, bluntly put, Johnson knew the price of every member of Congress — whether it was a dam or a schoolhouse or invitation to dinner."

Califano noted, "Obama has other skills, but that was a big one for Johnson."

Mark K. Updegrove, a historian and director of the Johnson library, noted that Johnson was willing to alienate his old friend and mentor Sen. Richard Russell, a fierce opponent of the civil rights legislation. Russell, a Georgia Democrat, warned that he'd risk losing the presidency and also the defection of Southern states to the GOP.

"LBJ said that, if that was the price for the bill, he'd gladly pay it," said Updegrove, author of three books on the presidency, including one on Johnson. "He said, 'What the hell is the presidency for?'"

That's a question Obama faces regularly in his fifth year, as he uses his executive authority to move his priorities, including environmental regulation, increasing minimum wage and, this week, closing the gender pay gap.

H.W. Brands, a presidential historian at the University of Texas in Austin, said Obama could not count on the same kind of powerful social movement and growing consensus that benefited Johnson in passing civil and voting rights bills. "The issues are less clear-cut today and the parties are more clearly at odds," he said.

Even Johnson saw the limits of his powers of persuasion. After the 1966 midterm election, Johnson came to feel a backlash from lawmakers he had won over, particularly when it came to paying for the Great Society programs.

But Johnson's agenda was cemented into American life. Medicare, passed in 1965, was quickly accepted by the opposition, implemented successfully by the administration and, over time, embraced by both parties — along with the Civil Rights Act.

Despite that, Johnson's legacy has often been overshadowed by the Vietnam War. Thursday's event, and Obama's remarks, were anticipated by those who have sought recognition for LBJ's domestic achievements.

"Every family wants to have their loved ones get the credit they believe they deserve. But I grew up in politics. I know that doesn't happen when you want it to, as you want it to; that's part of life," said Luci Baines Johnson, the president's daughter. "Whatever has happened in the past and people have not focused on Lyndon Johnson, I'm just so glad they are now."

christi.parsons@latimes.com

kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com

View the original article here

Obama administration delays decision on Keystone XL pipeline

Rep. Lee Terry (R-Neb.) calls for approval of the Keystone XL pipeline at a news conference in March on Capitol Hill. (Jim Watson / AFP/Getty Images / March 25, 2014)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has delayed a decision on the controversial Keystone XL pipeline project, perhaps until after November’s midterm election.

A further delay in the evaluation of the pipeline, which already has lasted more than five years, is necessary because of a Nebraska state court decision in February that invalidated part of the project’s route, the State Department said in a statement.

Shortly after the court ruling, administration officials had said the Nebraska case would not have an impact on their deliberations. But in the new statement, the State Department said federal agencies could not evaluate the pipeline’s impact until the “uncertainty created by the ongoing litigation” is resolved.

That could take awhile. Nebraska officials have appealed the case to the state Supreme Court but have said they do not expect a ruling until late this year at the earliest.

In the meantime, the latest delay could get President Obama off a politically difficult hook in an election year. The White House has been pressed on one side by environmentalists who have turned opposition to the pipeline into a major cause and on the other by conservative Democrats from energy-producing states who support it.

Administration officials have differed on both the substance and the politics of a decision on Keystone, which would carry oil from the tar sands deposits underneath Canada’s western prairies to refineries in Texas and Oklahoma.

Opponents say the project would worsen global warming by opening up the tar sands to development. Supporters say it would reduce U.S. dependence on oil from the Middle East, Africa and other unstable parts of the world and that Canada will develop the tar sands whether the U.S. approves a pipeline or not.

Obama has said he would approve the project only if it could be proven not to worsen emissions of greenhouse gases that lead to global warming. His approval is needed because the pipeline crosses an international border.

Politically, Obama’s advisors have disagreed about the impact on a difficult election season in which Democrats face a strong prospect of losing control of the Senate.

Some advisors believe that a decision to kill the pipeline could boost enthusiasm among Democratic activists, which has been lagging. Others argue that since most of the key Senate races are taking place in red states, such as Louisiana, Alaska and Arkansas, a decision against the project could hurt Democratic prospects.

Those political calculations were on display as lawmakers and others reacted to the administration’s decision.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), who has campaigned for reelection by stressing her independence from Obama, lambasted the delay as “irresponsible, unnecessary and unacceptable” and vowed to use her position as head of the Senate Energy Committee to win approval for the pipeline.

“Today’s decision by the administration amounts to nothing short of an indefinite delay of the Keystone pipeline,” she said, warning that it sends “a signal that the small minority who oppose the pipeline can tie up the process in court forever.”

Another conservative Democrat, Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), said the move “leaves everyone waiting in limbo.”

“It hurts all of us when no decisions are made,” she said in a statement.

Republicans and the oil industry quickly denounced the decision.

“At a time of high unemployment in the Obama economy, it’s a shame,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

“It’s a sad day for America’s workers when politics trumps job-creating policy at the White House,” American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard said in a statement.

Russ Girling, chief executive of TransCanada, which is proposing to build the pipeline, said in a statement that the company was “extremely disappointed and frustrated with yet another delay.”

Environmental groups were thrilled. The League of Conservation Voters hailed the delay as “great news” that “makes us even more confident that the harmful Keystone XL tar sands pipeline will ultimately be rejected.”

david.lauter@latimes.com

Twitter: @DavidLauter

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

Twitter: @LisaMascaroinDC

View the original article here

Assembly's tea party firebrand, Tim Donnelly, cools his rhetoric

Gubernatorial candidate Tim Donnelly says he is working to be less confrontational in the Assembly. (Barbara Davidson / Los Angeles Times / February 11, 2014)

SACRAMENTO —Tim Donnelly arrived at the Assembly in late 2010 with big plans.

First on his list: a sweeping crackdown on illegal immigration. A plan to dismantle the state's air quality board was close behind.

In a Capitol dominated by Democrats, those proposals, unsurprisingly, went nowhere. And the cool reception extended to Donnelly himself, one of the Legislature's few tea party disciples.

The Republican from Twin Peaks, near Lake Arrowhead, had vowed during his campaign that he was "going to Sacramento to start the war," and he kept up the provocative oratory once he landed.

Donnelly is now running for governor, campaigning on many of the themes he sounded in his initial Assembly run: personal liberty, low taxes and small government. But even as he rails against the political establishment, he says that serving in the Legislature has changed him, particularly in how he deals with political adversaries.

"Instead of looking for ways I can do a frontal assault against this massive wall, I found a way to chip away at a single brick," Donnelly said. "The key is you have to pick the right brick, and that means people have to agree with it."

That's a notable departure from the approach he took when he first ran for office 31/2 years ago. Donnelly, formerly a small-business owner and leader in the Minuteman volunteer border-patrol group, told supporters that he had no interest in making friends in the Legislature.

"I'm going there to reach across the aisles to the enemies of freedom and annihilate them and pound them into the ground and take back our power," he said at a Tea Party Express rally in Barstow in October 2010.

He promised legislation based on a controversial immigration law passed in Arizona, parts of which have since been overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. It was the first bill he introduced.

The measure would have ended "sanctuary cities" by ordering state and local officials to comply with federal immigration laws. It would also have imposed strict penalties on businesses that did not verify the immigration status of employees.

A throng of supporters attended the bill's committee hearing, but the Democrats on the panel promptly killed the measure. Similarly, his bids to require photo identification to vote and to strip funding from the statewide high-speed rail project failed to make it past their first hearings.

An ardent gun-rights advocate, Donnelly offered several firearms bills that have languished. One would have eased the state's ban on the open carrying of weapons. Another, introduced after the mass shooting at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school, would have created a plan for armed "marshals" on school premises.

In his first two-year term, just one of the 37 measures he introduced passed the Legislature: a resolution recognizing January as National Slavery and Human Trafficking Prevention Month. He has had more victories in his current term: two resolutions (one a reprise of the trafficking measure) and three bills that became law.

One bars state employees from helping the federal government detain terrorism suspects indefinitely in California — a change Democrats could support and a product of Donnelly's new approach. The proposal was a rebuke to a 2011 federal law requiring certain foreign terrorism suspects to be held by the military rather than move through the civilian justice system.

The bill forged an unexpected partnership between Donnelly and state Sen. Mark Leno, a staunchly liberal Democrat from San Francisco. Leno carried Donnelly's bill in the Senate. When the two lawmakers' names appeared side by side on the Senate's announcement screen, "there was some audible chuckling," Leno recalled.

Soon, Donnelly returned the favor, shepherding a Leno bill in the Assembly that streamlined the compensation process for those wrongfully convicted of crimes. It later became law.

Leno said Donnelly's libertarian streak offers chances for collaboration with some Democrats.

"That is where left meets right, at a libertarian point," Leno said.

Donnelly's relationship with his fellow Republicans is strained at times. He said the minority party is too willing to compromise, and after his first several weeks in the Capitol, he stopped attending the Assembly GOP's weekly lunches.

"I eat my lunch by myself," Donnelly said, adding he thought the confabs were "an impediment to really standing up for what I believe in."

View the original article here

Obama, lampooning GOP, calls for hike in minimum wage

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Wednesday that Republicans were "not necessarily coldhearted" in their policies but then devoted much of his speech at the University of Michigan to lampooning GOP opposition to his views on economic issues, including his proposal to raise the federal minimum wage.

As Congress gears up for a debate on his proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, Obama said lawmakers would have to decide between sticking with him or sticking it to working Americans.

"They've got to make a clear choice — talk the talk about valuing hard work and families, or walk the walk and actually value hard-working families," Obama said. "You've got a choice. You can give America the shaft, or you can give it a raise."

The address in Ann Arbor featured Obama in a feisty mood, a day after he announced that 7.1 million people had signed up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, exceeding the administration's target.

Obama said that if Republicans tried to sell their economic plans at the deli where he had just ordered a Reuben, "they'd have to call it the Stinkburger or the Meanwich." And he said opponents to a minimum-wage increase complain it will primarily help young people, which he suggested was not much different than yelling, "Get off my lawn!"

The edgy message opened a new phase for Obama. With the rollout of his 2010 health law nearly complete, the president is now focusing on the congressional elections and on keeping the Senate in Democratic hands, a task his advisors think depends in part on his ability to draw a sharp contrast with the GOP's economic proposals.

For starters, Obama is leading off with the fight to raise the $7.25 minimum wage, an idea that polls have shown is favored by a strong majority of Americans.

But even as Obama used the minimum wage to highlight a difference with Republicans, Democrats on Capitol Hill are preparing for the politics of the issue to grow more complicated.

Democrats concede that they are unlikely to get enough support from Republicans to overcome a 60-vote procedural hurdle to advance the measure. But there is also some concern that an effort by Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) to support a smaller increase — perhaps to $9 an hour — could siphon off some Democratic support. Collins is the only Republican senator running for reelection this year in a state that Obama won in 2012.

A Collins aide said the senator has had discussions over the last three weeks with a number of Democrats about packaging a wage increase with other economic measures, including tax credits for small businesses.

Senate Democratic leaders say they are committed to passing the president's $10.10 proposal. Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat in the Senate, argued Wednesday that other Republicans had made it clear they would not support a minimum-wage measure no matter what the increase might be.

"We're sticking with $10.10," Schumer said. "We're not negotiating against ourselves."

But Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat, raised the possibility of a compromise, although he also predicted that Democrats would "hold our votes" to open debate on an increase to the $10.10 level.

"Let me be honest about this," he said. "If we reach a level where we don't have the votes to pass it, then we have to be open for conversation about what it might look like in the future."

It took months of work to advance an extension of unemployment insurance benefits, a measure that could finally pass the Senate on Thursday. The plan attracted enough Republican votes to end a filibuster Wednesday.

"How many times did we come at that before we finally reached a bipartisan agreement?" Durbin said.

In the Republican-controlled House, an aide to Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) took issue with a minimum-wage increase, noting reports from economists who say that the president's proposal would lead to job losses.

"The president's plan would increase costs for consumers and eliminate jobs for those who need them the most," Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck said. "The House is going to continue focusing on our plan to protect workers' hours and create jobs, not the president's plan to destroy them."

In Michigan, where the retirement of Sen. Carl Levin has fueled GOP hopes of picking up a Democratic seat, Obama delivered a sharp-edged critique that fused Republican policy with Republican personality.

The new House Republican budget plan is a replay of the party's 2012 campaign themes, the president said, "like that movie 'Groundhog Day,' except it's not funny."

christi.parsons@latimes.com

michael.memoli@latimes.com

View the original article here