Undercover FBI agents, posing as Hollywood producers in search of a tax credit, allegedly set up a $50,000 “special fund” with Ron Calderon’s name on it.

The state Senator, according to an affidavit obtained by Al Jazeera America, allegedly spent those funds on his son’s tuition, a Lady Gaga concert, airfare for a spring break trip to Miami, and a sham non-profit organization controlled by his brother. In total, the Montebello Democrat politician allegedly lined his pockets with $60,000 from undercover agents. But, in return, the phony film producers didn’t get much.

“He didn’t get it done on the film credits,” Anthony York, a Los Angeles Times political reporter, pointed out on a recent News 10 Capitol Connection podcast. “The tax credit amendment was never even introduced.”

To get results on the alleged bribe, the FBI might have paid more.

Ten special interest groups effectively circumvented state campaign finance limits by transferring more than three-quarters of a million dollars to Diversity PAC, which, in turn, Calderon used to pay for private jets, five-star hotels, elite golf courses and extravagant meals at the country’s finest restaurants. These same special interest groups that funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars to a political action committee under Calderon’s control benefited from bills introduced by the state senator and repeatedly earned his vote on legislative matters, an analysis of campaign finance and legislative records has found.

$1.2 Million to Diversity PAC

In its six-year history, Diversity PAC, which is referenced in the FBI’s affidavit, has collected more than $1.2 million in campaign contributions from the biggest names in the insurance, energy and pharmaceutical industries. If the FBI were added to the list of Diversity PAC contributors, it would barely rank in the Top 10. (See chart below.)

The two biggest contributors to Diversity PAC, United Services Automobile Association and PG&E, transferred $120,000 and $117,500, respectively, to the organization. The PAC has also accepted $85,000 from Philip Morris, $78,500 from Sempra Energy, $78,500 from the Insurance Brokers and Agents Candidate PAC, $75,000 from American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, $55,000 from AT&T, $55,000 from Walgreens, $50,000 from Eli Lily and Company, and $42,500 from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

Special Interest Donations After FBI Raid

Even after the FBI’s June 4 raid of Calderon’s offices, special interest groups didn’t shy away from Diversity PAC. On June 10, just six days after the FBI executed search warrants on Calderon’s Capitol offices, Diversity PAC collected $90,000 in contributions from PG&E, 7-Eleven, First American Title Insurance, and Philip Morris USA.

The following months, Diversity PAC collected more checks from the Insurance Brokers and Agents Issues PAC, Professional Engineers in CA Government, and Sempra Energy. In all, the PAC has accepted $128,000, more than double the amount of the FBI’s alleged bribes, since June 6.

Pay Raise for Professional Engineers Union

Some special interest groups didn’t have to wait long to see a return on their investment. Less than three weeks after Diversity PAC accepted an $8,000 check from the Professional Engineers in CA Government, Calderon voted for the union’s new collective bargaining agreement with the state. The union, which has contributed $27,500 in Diversity PAC’s six-year history, considered the new contract, Assembly Bill 478, a win for the organization.

In addition to a 3.3 percent salary increase, AB 478, by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez, D-East Los Angeles, granted the engineers’ union “other favorable provisions in the contract, including a limited vacation cash out option, optional enrollment in an enhanced vision plan, clarification of the license application reimbursement, and improvements to alternate work schedules, telecommuting, and hardship transfers, as well as limits on involuntary transfers.”

Calderon as Chairman of Senate Insurance Committee

While some organizations delivered checks near key votes, other industries sustained a long-term relationship with Calderon and Diversity PAC. The insurance industry’s $331,500 in campaign checks topped the PAC’s list of contributors by industry. Insurance groups, such as USAA, American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida and the Insurance Brokers and Agents Candidate PAC, have relied on Calderon to shepherd bills through the Senate Insurance Committee, which he leads as its chairman.

Last week, Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, asked the Senate Rules Committee to remove Calderon from his committee assignments, including his chairmanship of the Senate Insurance Committee. However, if the Rules Committee acts on Steinberg’s request, it won’t reverse the bills Calderon carried this session on behalf of insurance interests.

Senate Bill 251, which was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown, allows insurance companies to transmit some documents electronically instead of by mail. Another Calderon bill that was signed into law, Senate Bill 281, allows policyholders to tap into life insurance policies before death. Both bills were listed on state lobbying disclosure reports for USAA. Calderon highlighted both bills in an October press release on his 2013 legislative achievements.

In addition to carrying legislation for the insurance industry, Calderon introduced a bill this session that benefited First American Title, another top contributor to Diversity PAC. Senate Bill 310, which was passed and signed into law on September 6, exempted title companies from liability in certain circumstances involving notice of default proceedings.

Calderon’s Support for Energy and Utility Companies

In 2009, Calderon served as a member of the Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications, which allowed him and Diversity PAC to cultivate a relationship with energy and telecommunications companies. The following year, when Calderon was replaced, one energy industry group considered it a loss for their interests. “The removal of the more moderate Calderon is disappointing as he typically took supportive positions to most of our business interests,” the California Alliance for Competitive Energy Solutions wrote in a January 2010 newsletter.

Overall, the energy sector donated $197,000 to Diversity PAC, making it the second biggest contributor to the political action committee. On June 10, Diversity PAC accepted a $40,000 check from PG&E, followed by a $15,000 check from Sempra Energy in late September.

This session, PG&E and Sempra made a major end of session push to pass Assembly Bill 327, which allowed state regulators to restructure energy rates. Calderon was among the votes in favor of the proposal that would benefit energy companies.

AT&T, which has donated $55,000 to Diversity PAC, has received support from Calderon in the past, including last year’s controversial new regulations on voice-over internet protocol services.

A shadowy political action committee cited in the FBI’s case against state Senator Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on private jets, five-star hotels, elite golf courses and extravagant meals at the country’s finest restaurants, a CalWatchdog.com analysis of campaign finance reports has found.

But the biggest questions might be over nearly half-a-million dollars in mysterious payments funneled to a professional political fundraiser, who promises on his website to “put the FUN in fundraising!”

According to the FBI affidavit that was obtained by Al Jazeera America, “Californians for Diversity is a charitable arm of the Diversity Political Action Committee.” In its five year history, Diversity PAC, according to campaign finance reports, has raised more than $1.2 million. More than two-thirds of those funds, $813,766, has been spent on payments to hotels, golf courses, resorts and professional fundraisers.

Half-million paid to Capitol fundraiser

By far the largest recipient of Diversity PAC funds has been John Jacobs and his professional fundraising company, Capitol Alliance. Diversity PAC has paid Capitol Alliance and John Jacobs more than $462,750 in combined payments for consulting fees and fundraising expenses. Jacobs did not respond to CalWatchdog.com’s email request for comment.

“The Capitol Alliance is a broad-based professional political consulting and fundraising services company,” the company states on its website. “We have the experience and know how to creating long lasting mutually beneficial relations for our clients.”

Among the questions raised by Diversity PAC’s campaign finance report is why the organization split expenditures, of approximate value, between John Jacobs and Jacobs’ company, Capitol Alliance. As an individual, John Jacobs received more than $175,000 in campaign funds from Diversity PAC. Over the same period, the PAC disbursed $237,000 to The Capitol Alliance with another $50,000 listed on campaign reports under a third category, “John Jacobs, DBA — The Capitol Alliance.”

While little is known about the payments to the Sacramento fundraiser, even less is known about the PAC itself. The Capitol Alliance website maintained the only public information about Diversity PAC. Since Al Jazeera America’s bombshell report, Capitol Alliance has scrubbed any reference to Diversity PAC from its website. However, CalWatchdog.com archived copies of the website in September.

“The Diversity PAC was founded in December 2007, at the suggestion of concerned private citizens nad [sic] business interests; and with the financial support of key founding members, all with diverse backgrounds, education and experience,” the archived version of the website explained of Diversity PAC. “Since then, ‘DPAC’ developed, created and implemented strategic grass rooots [sic] election campaigns that directly resulted in the election of intelligent and thoughful [sic] candidates who were concerned, focused, and committed to addressing the critical business issues facing California in the 21st Century.”

“We put the FUN in fundraising!”

Rather than focus on the “critical business issues facing California,” Diversity PAC relied on its fundraiser to deliver luxurious meetings, events and conferences. According to the Capitol Alliance website, the fundraising company boasts as its motto, “We put the FUN in fundraising!”

Diversity PAC’s fun included nearly $220,000 spent at Bandon Dunes, Pebble Beach, Indian Wells and the American Club — with $32,000 in expenditures at these luxurious resorts incurred after the FBI’s June 6 raid on Calderon’s offices.

Topping the list of the organization’s favorite destinations with more than $104,000 in expenditures is the Bandon Dunes Resort. Described by Golf Odyssey as “the single best place to play golf in the world,” the exclusive Oregon golf resort served as the venue for Diversity PAC’s 2013 Fall Policy Conference. It scheduled a “Winter Policy Conference” at the golf resort next month.

“Picture a cross between Pebble Beach and Carnoustie — with a pinch of Pine Valley for good measure — and you have Bandon Dunes,” Golfweek’s Dave Seanor explains of the resort.

But beneficiaries of Diversity PAC didn’t need to imagine Pebble Beach. In September, the organization spent $9,000 in expenditures at Pebble Beach.

The committee’s golf junkets spanned the state. Earlier this year, the organization rang up more than $57,000 in two trips to the Hyatt Regency Indian Wells. According to the Capitol Alliance website prior to its removal, DPAC chose Indian Wells for a Winter Conference in January and its Spring Break Leadership Conference in March.

Not content to enjoy the West Coast’s luxury resorts, Diversity PAC also accumulated more than $33,500 at the American Club, Wisconsin’s first and only five-star hotel. “A place untouched by neon lights, fast food and the cares of cable news,” the American Club promises guests on its website that it’s a place where “you can focus on the things that really matter to you.”

Chartered jets and limousine rentals

To reach these five-star resorts, Diversity PAC relied on chartered flights and limousine rentals charging more than $56,000 in luxury travel. The committee selected charter companies that specialize in providing privacy to “a discriminating list of clients.”

“Our seasoned pilot crews fly you in luxury, privacy and security to one of hundreds of airports not served by commercial airlines,” Axis Jet, which received $10,800 in Diversity PAC funds last November, explains its brochure. “Today, we serve as an aviation partner to a discriminating list of clients who enjoy all the benefits and value that aircraft ownership has to offer.”

Diversity PAC also accrued nearly $26,000 in expenses with Trans Global Travel, $10,100 in expenses to Byron McCluskey Aviation Services, $8,753 in expenses with Tower Aviation Services, LLC, and $180 in expenses with American Limousine and Transportation.

PAC payments to Ron and Thomas Calderon

Ron, and his brother Thomas, also accepted thousands of dollars directly from Diversity PAC. The Calderon Group Inc., a political consulting company owned by Thomas, received $13,607 from Diversity PAC in addition to $1,183 in reimbursements paid directly to Thomas. Meanwhile, Ron’s officeholder account accepted $1,562 in campaign funds directed from the PAC.

Ron and Thomas also benefited, according to the FBI’s affidavit, from more than $10,000 in campaign funds transferred from Diversity PAC to Californians for Diversity.

“We have this nonprofit. It is called Californians for Diversity,” Ron Calderon told an undercover FBI agent, according to an affidavit obtained by Al Jazeera America. “So, we are gonna build this thing up and … then, Tom and I down the road, we build that up, we can pay ourselves. Just kind of make, you know, part of a living.”

On July 16, after the FBI had already raided the State Senator’s offices based on evidence that he had used Californians for Diversity as a slush fund, the committee transferred $13,607 from the PAC to Californians for Diversity.

In recent years, Diversity PAC has provided minimal support to political candidates and campaign committees. On the Capitol Alliance website, Diversity PAC listed past support for State Senator Rod Wright, Los Angeles City Councilman Curren Price; and Rep. Juan Vargas, D-El Centro. In 2010, the committee transferred $150,000 to the “Put California Back to Work” committee, which spent heavily to elect Vargas to the state Senate.

Disability advocacy groups throughout the country are planning a sizeable delivery to Goodwill Industries today. But, instead of secondhand clothing or gently-used goods, the disability rights groups will be dropping off thousands of signed petitions from citizens who are demanding that the nonprofit clean up its labor practices.

More than 100 Goodwill entities nationwide employ workers through the Special Wage Certificate program, a Depression-era loophole in federal labor law that allows organizations to pay subminimum wages to people with disabilities. In May, a Watchdog.org investigation revealed that these same Goodwill entities that use the special wage program simultaneously spent $53.7 million in total executive compensation.

In an effort to increase public awareness of Goodwill’s labor practices, the National Federation of the Blind and Autistic Self Advocacy Network sponsored a Change.org petition, which has gathered more than 170,000 signatures. The organizations will be delivering petitions to Goodwill headquarters and stores in Sacramento, CA; Providence, RI; New York, NY; Corpus Christi, TX; Rockville, MD; and Seattle, WA.

Fight

“Over 170,000 Americans have joined us in our fight to ensure that workers with disabilities are paid a fair wage,” Dr. Marc Maurer, president of the National Federation of the Blind, told CalWatchdog.com. “We thank all those who signed the petition for standing up to Goodwill and urging the retailer to end its unfair and immoral payment of subminimum wages to disabled workers.”

Under Section 14 (c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, employers can apply for a special wage certificate that allows them to hire people with disabilities at a subminimum wage. Nationally, more than 300,000 workers are subject to the law. Goodwill uses the special minimum wage exemption to take advantage of 7,300 of its 105,000 employees.

In California, five organizations use the special wage certificate: Goodwill Industries of Sacramento Valley & Northern Nevada, Goodwill of Silicon Valley, Goodwill Industries of Orange County, Goodwill Industries of San Diego County and Goodwill Southern California.

Goodwill says that the subminimum wage program is a tool for helping the disabled.

“With 80 percent of working age adults with disabilities in our country not participating in the workforce currently, we believe that it’s important to explore more types of opportunities,” Brad Turner-Little, the director of mission strategy at Goodwill International Inc., has repeatedly said in public statements on the issue. “The special minimum wage certificate is a tool to create employment for people with disabilities. It’s not the only tool.”

However, that argument doesn’t sit well with petitioners. “This is disgusting info!” wrote Jeanne Green of Riverside, who signed the petition and added her own comments. “It is 2013, for Heaven’s sake!! WHY hasn’t this OLD-OUTDATED pay scale been challenged before now?”

For some signers, it’s more personal. “I have signed the petition as the proud mother of a son with autism,” said Amy Mais, a neighborhood activist, who has battled Goodwill’s bin bullying tactics in Phoenix.

The organizations hope that the public awareness campaign will increase support for federal legislation to end the controversial policy. Rep. Gregg Harper, R-Miss., has introduced the Fair Wages for Workers with Disabilities Act of 2013, to close the subminimum wage loophole.

“The 170,000 people who have put their name to this petition show the broad scope of the outrage against Goodwill’s unfair and unethical practice of paying thousands of disabled workers less than minimum wage,” said Ari Ne’eman, president of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, a co-sponsor of the petition drive. “We urge Goodwill to hear these voices and reconsider this discriminatory practice.”

Compensation

According to the May 2013 Watchdog.org investigation, Goodwill of Southern California paid more than $1.1 million in total compensation to its then-CEO, making him the highest paid Goodwill executive in the country. The following month, an NBC investigation of Goodwill repeated the findings.

Last year, CalWatchdog.com first reported that five California-based Goodwill charities pay hundreds of employees less than minimum wage, while providing lucrative compensation packages to top executives. While the organization cries poor when it comes to workers’ wages, it has no problem spending money on online advertisements defending its labor practices.

Earlier this year, Google searches for “Goodwill worker wages,” “Goodwill wages,” “Goodwill pay,” and “Goodwill disabled,” all produced a sponsored ad, paid for by Goodwill, in the top search result.

In the dog-eat-dog world of Sacramento politics, no one is off limits. Not even man’s best friend.

Last Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle featured a front-page story by newshound Carla Marinucci about an arrangement between the governor and an influential lobbyist. Jennifer Fearing, the Humane Society’s top dog in Sacramento, regularly walks Sutter, a loveable corgi with a massive Twitter following under the care of Gov. Jerry Brown.

This is hardly a “man bites dog” story.

Two weeks ago, CalWatchdog.com’s Katy Grimes, who is like a dog with a bone when it comes to rooting out the Capitol’s nefarious activities, first reported on the arrangement. Critics are barking that, because Fearing is a lobbyist, her volunteer dog-walking should be classified as a gift that is subject to the state’s gift limits.

“Is there a conflict of interest with such a close relationship between a lobbyist and a governor?” asked Jennifer Kerns, the publicity hound for Free California, a gun-rights group that routinely gets into a dogfight with the Humane Society. “There are services being provided, and those services have monetary value.”

The San Francisco Chronicle story unleashed thousands of comments from online attack dogs. This morning, the dog and pony show continued with another biting piece from the Washington Times, which reported that a formal ethics complaint could be in the works.

“Gun-rights and hunting groups are considering filing a complaint over the pro bono dog exercising with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission,” the Times noted.

Exempt as “Act of Neighborliness”

Fearing’s ankle-biters will likely prove to be the barking dog that never bites. That’s because the Fair Political Practices Commission, which is responsible for bringing lobbyists to heel, has exempted “acts of neighborliness” from the state’s gift limits. Regulation§ 18942, which identifies exceptions to the gift limits, includes:

Acts of Neighborliness. A service performed, such as a loan of an item, an occasional needed ride, personal assistance in making a repair, bringing in the mail or feeding the cat while the official is away, and other similar acts of ordinary assistance consistent with polite behavior in a civilized society that would not normally be part of an economic transaction between like participants under similar circumstances.

Maybe the dog ate their regulatory homework.

Campaign watchdogs say that critics haven’t a dog’s chance of proving that the arrangement violates this “act of neighborliness” exemption.

“This activity would fall under the FPPC’s new ‘act of neighborliness’ exemption, so there doesn’t appear to be any violation of ethics,” said Phillip Ung, a policy advocate for California Common Cause. “I doubt they will lay down the hammer on dog walkers.”

There’s also the fact that the dog isn’t even the governor’s.

Sutter was left in the governor’s care when Kathleen Brown, the governor’s sister, moved to Chicago in 2010. “The dog is happily situated,” the former state treasurer told the Sacramento Bee, “and I wouldn’t presume to disintermediate his celebrity status and special relationship with the first lady and the governor.”

If anything, Fearing’s dog-walking constitutes a gift to Kathleen, who is no longer a public official.

Fearing: An animal’s best friend

Fearing, who has always been open about her gubernatorial dog-walking, says that she’s a friend to all animals.

“I do occasionally watch Sutter — a neighborly activity that I enjoy,” Fearing told CalWatchdog.com. “Ask any dog, I’m pretty fun. And yes, he sleeps on the bed.”

Never one to let sleeping dogs lie, CalWatchdog.com hounded one of Fearing’s friends to confirm that she, in fact, helps other less-politically connected animals.

“Whenever I need a hand with dog walking, feeding when I can’t make it home on time, or even hen bathing — I kid you not, it has happened!– Jennifer has always volunteered to help out if she’s available,” Kayte Fisher, one of Fearing’s animal-loving friends, told CalWatchdog.com. “I have only ever repaid her with soup delivery when she’s sick or invitations for dinner at my house.”

If her critics in the political opposition hadn’t been as lazy as a dog, they’d know that Fearing’s neighborliness extends to everyone.

So what’s the real motivation behind this Brown Dog Affair?

“Fearing scored a perfect 6-for-6 record this legislative season in getting bills signed by Brown, placing her in the ranks of Sacramento’s most effective lobbyists,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.  “Among the coups for the Humane Society was legislation banning lead ammunition that Fearing said endangered as many as 130 species in California.”

This session, Fearing and hunting groups fought like cats and dogs over a bill to ban lead ammunition. AB711 was opposed by, among others, the Sacramento sheriff, game wardens and hunters. Opponents contended that the lead ban wouldn’t help endangered species, but would kill thousands of jobs associated with the hunting profession.

Even if you don’t have a dog in this fight, there are plenty of reasons to object to putting Fearing in the doghouse. While reporters are busy barking up the wrong tree, they’re not sniffing out genuine conflicts of interest in Sacramento.

“State politics is a billion dollar business with millions more spent at the local level,” said Ung, whose organization tracks special interest spending in Sacramento. “I think voters would want us to focus on those who plot in the shadows not dog walkers in Capitol Park.”

Time to call off the dogs.

Last month, Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a $2.3 billion tax extension. The measure, authored by a Central Valley Democrat, passed both houses of the legislature with overwhelmingly Democratic support.

Yet, the multi-billion dollar tax extension, a Democratic creation, couldn’t have passed the legislature without the help of Republican lawmakers.

Nine Republican legislators, a majority of whom have signed the no-tax pledge, delivered critical votes to ensure that the $2.3 billion tax extension reached Brown’s desk.

Assembly Bill 8 by Assemblyman Henry Perea, D-Fresno, extended the sunset date on various vehicle taxes and fees. The additional revenue will go toward programs for the construction of hydrogen fueling stations and the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program, which provides taxpayer-funded grants for businesses to buy new eco-friendly engines and equipment. It also postpones new regulations by the Air Resources Board, a move which is praised by businesses and criticized by environmental groups.

According to the bill analysis, it extends until January 1, 2024:

• $8 increase of the smog abatement fee;
• $0.75 fee increase on tire sales;
• $3 increase of the annual vehicle registration fee;
• $2 surcharge for local air districts on vehicle registrations;
• $5 increase of the fee for special identification plates for construction equipment, farm trailers, cotton trailers, logging vehicles and cemetery equipment;
• $10 and $20 increase for vessel registration.

“This is horrible news for taxpayers because California motorists will now be paying $2.3 billion in additional taxes and charges,” writes Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “Adding insult to injury, taxpayers will find their hard earned dollars being used to subsidize programs such as the purchase of all electric cars, like the Tesla that, even with the taxpayer provided discount, can be afforded only by a handful of wealthy individuals.”

GOP votes for AB8

In the State Assembly, Republican Assembly members Katcho Achadjian of San Luis Obispo, Frank Bigelow of Madera and Kristin Olsen of Riverbank voted for AB8, giving Speaker John Perez the 54 votes needed to pass the bill off the Assembly floor. If any of the GOP Assembly members abstained in that floor vote, the bill would have failed. Both Olsen and Achadjian voted for an earlier version of the bill in June.

The vote wasn’t nearly as close in the state Senate. But that didn’t stop Senate Republicans from delivering more votes for the controversial tax extension. Senate GOP Leader Bob Huff was joined by his Republican colleagues Anthony Cannella of Ceres, Bill Emmerson of Redlands, Jean Fuller of Bakersfield and Andy Vidak of Hanford in voting in favor of the multi-billion tax extension in the September 11 floor vote.

Earlier in the year, State Senator Mimi Walters, R-Irvine, voted for a companion measure with nearly identical language, SB11, but changed her vote once AB8 reached the floor in September.

Legislators repeatedly warned of tax hike

Republican legislators who backed the tax extension can’t claim ignorance. Both taxpayer groups and the Legislature’s committee staff pegged the bill as a major tax extension. In January, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association warned that the total bill to taxpayers was $2.3 billion.

An April bill analysis by the Assembly Transportation Committee identified the measure as a tax increase under Proposition 26 that was subject to a two-thirds vote. “Because this bill extends the additional fees on vehicle and boat registrations and a portion of the tire fee, and because these fees are deemed taxes under Proposition 26, this bill requires a two-thirds vote,” the policy committee analysis states.

Similarly, the Senate Republicans' legislative staff cautioned lawmakers about the vote. An internal Senate Republican Caucus bill analysis obtained by CalWatchdog.com found:

“The continuation of billions of dollars of vehicle registration fees and tire taxes for eight years is a hefty price to pay. This bill would result in fee extensions of $8 in smog abatement, $18 for vehicle registrations, $10 on boat registrations, and $0.75 per tire on consumers annually until the year 2024.”

The analysis included an all-caps warning that the bill imposed “VERY MAJOR STATE COSTS AND REVENUE INCREASES.” And it quoted this analysis from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association:

“SB11 has been keyed as a two-thirds vote tax increase. The cumulative impact of these exactions will result in a $2.3 billion tax extension.”

Taxpayer groups following the vote

The tax votes could haunt Republican lawmakers, especially those that have signed the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.” In April, when CalWatchdog.com first reported on Republican votes for the tax extension, Patrick Gleason, the director of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, reprimanded one GOP lawmaker on Twitter:

“Looking forward to letting all of @KatchoAchadjian's constituents know that he broke his commitment to them,” tweeted Gleason, whose organization oversees the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge.”

Coupal adds that, in addition to individual legislators, the vote hurts the GOP brand.

“If Republicans can’t agree with the grassroots movement on tax hikes, what do they stand for at all?” Coupal told CalWatchdog.com earlier this year. “With several Republicans supporting AB8, a multi-billion-dollar tax increase, the Republican brand may have been tarnished.”

October 7 marks the 10-year anniversary of the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. The 2003 recall brought a movie star to power and marked only the second time in American history that a sitting governor has been removed by such a vote.

Born on talk radio, the recall was panned by the political experts. Once it qualified for the ballot, Democrats responded like a “Bengal tiger” facing off against the “Taliban.” Republicans split on ideological lines but eventually rallied behind a man who “couldn't wait to become an American citizen” so he could “vote Republican.”

Rather than buy something tin, the traditional gift to mark the first decade, we thought it best to assemble our Top 10 quotes from the 2003 recall.

10. Shawn Steel: “Our party is going to be looking very seriously at a recall movement”

“I think that our party is going to be looking very seriously at a recall movement… And I think if we start talking about recall with Davis, it’s focused, it’s specific. It’s not some pie-in-the-sky dream.” — Shawn Steel, then the Chairman of the California Republican Party and the first signatory of the recall petition, kicked off the recall talk in an interview with KSFO-AM’s Melanie Morgan on January 20, 2003. (H/T Joe Mathews, The People’s Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy.)

9. Art Torres: “Vindictive attempt to overthrow the will of California voters”

“The right-wing Republican recall effort is a vindictive attempt to overthrow the will of California voters.” — Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party, wasn’t too happy with the idea. (Source: San Mateo County Times, February 24, 2003)

8. Political Experts: “Not going to go anywhere”

“I didn't see a groundswell of support for a recall. I saw a crowd that would add credence to the governor's claim that it is a partisan movement.” — Sherry Bebitch Jeffe led the chorus of political experts who downplayed early recall campaign efforts. (Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, February 22, 2003)

“I think it's irresponsible mischief myself that's not going to go anywhere. The reality is if (Republicans) are the ones who are going to push it themselves, they're going to push themselves into a hole.” — Bruce Cain, the director of the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley, who also dismissed its chances. (Source: Contra Costa Times, February 13, 2003)

7. California Business Roundtable: “We are opposed”

“We all should devote our energies to efforts that will positively benefit our citizens rather than activities that will have no positive productive results and bypass the accepted process for selecting our state leadership. For these reasons we are opposed to placing the recall measure on the ballot.” — The California Business Roundtable, an influential group of business executives, unanimously opposed the recall. (Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune, June 4, 2003)

“Groups like this are the last to wake up to these things. I can't remember one of the special interests that supported Proposition 13 either, and this is a very similar movement. It's something that isn't from the top down, it's from the bottom up.” — Dave Gilliard, a political consultant for the recall group Rescue California, said the campaign would march on without the support of the business community. (Source: San Gabriel Valley Tribune, June 4, 2003)

6. Ted Costa: “The potential to just go like wildfire”

“This has the potential to just go like wildfire. We're going to go all out to get the signatures.” — Ted Costa, the “father of the recall,” organized the massive grassroots effort. (Source: Washington Post, February 23, 2003)

5. Rep. Darrell Issa: “Wasn't late for the party”

“I respect the work that he (Ted Costa) did. He's the father of the recall. Whatever place in history I get for the recall, it doesn't start until the paragraph after what Ted did. I wasn't late for the party, but Ted was there for the start.”— Rep. Darrell Issa, who provided crucial financial support for the recall, made sure to give credit to the grassroots activists. (Source: San Bernardino Sun, August 22, 2003)

4. Bob Mullholland: “No surrender…to this Taliban element of the California Republican Party”

“There will be no surrender in this state to this Taliban element of the California Republican Party.” – Bob Mulholland, a California Democratic strategist, tried to paint the recall as a partisan effort. (Source: NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, July 24, 2003)

3. Gov. Gray Davis: “I am going to fight like a Bengal tiger”

“I am going to fight like a Bengal tiger, and one of my greatest strengths is people have because underestimated me since I was born. Every time they say I'm road kill. I continue to win because I have great faith that the California voters are fair and believe in fundamental fairness.” — Gov. Gray Davis, an accomplished campaigner, didn’t go down without a fight. (Source: NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, July 24, 2003)

2. Tom McClintock: Why must the most qualified candidate defer to celebrity?

“If the most qualified candidate must defer every time a celebrity or a millionaire casts a longing eye on public office, well then we've lost something very important in our democracy, and it's called merit.” — Then-state Sen. Tom McClintock, the choice of California conservatives, continually faced questions about his candidacy splitting the Republican vote. (Source: Associated Press, August 23, 2003)

1. Arnold Schwarzenegger: “Let us unite for victory”

“Are we going to win in unity, with our common fiscal conservative principles? Or let the liberals win, because we are split? Are we going fight Davis and [Lt. Gov. Cruz] Bustamante, or fight among ourselves? I say, let us unite for victory. I have been a Republican ever since. I campaigned for Republicans, knocked on doors for Republicans, I handed out leaflets for Republicans, I've given money to Republican candidates. And I couldn't wait to become an American citizen, so I can vote Republican. And now I'm here, running for governor of this great state as a Republican.” Arnold Schwarzenegger assured Republicans that he was one of them. (Source: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, September 13, 2003)

A bill to ban lead ammunition in California has sparked a heated debate among environmentalists, conservationists, hunters and sportsmen.

But, don’t expect these groups to follow political conventions. This isn’t your usual gun control debate.

This week, the National Shooting Sports Foundation launched a new radio spot which calls for a voluntary program to reduce the use of leaded ammunition in lieu of Assembly Bill 711’s ban. It also claims, “Hunters are overwhelmingly conservationists.” If that seems like a contradiction in terms, or a Machiavellian effort to draw the ire of environmentalists, you’d be wrong.

Even proponents of AB711 acknowledge the important role that hunters play in conservation efforts. Many supporters of the lead ammunition ban are lifelong hunters themselves. Both sides of the lead ammunition ban are defying political stereotypes with hunters and sportsmen being praised for their contributions to conservation and even some lifelong hunting enthusiasts supporting the lead ammunition ban.

Hunters: The original Green Movement

“Hunters and sportsmen are the original ‘green movement’,” said Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which is opposed to lead ammunition ban. “Since 1937, hunters and sportsmen have been the primary source of game and non-game wildlife and habitat conservation funding in the United States.”

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that nearly $200 million in hunters’ federal excise taxes are designated to conservation efforts, including wildlife management programs, the purchase of lands open to hunters, and safety classes.

“As paradoxical as it may seem, if hunting were to disappear, a large amount of the funding that goes to restore all sorts of wildlife habitat, game and nongame species alike, would disappear,” Steve Sanetti, the president of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, told the Associated Press in 2010.

Hunters’ dollars aren’t their only contribution to conservation. They also provide vital data about the health of flocks and herds to conservation research.

“The great irony is that many species might not survive at all were it not for hunters trying to kill them,” Robert M. Poole explained in a 2007 National Geographic piece about one conservation program supported by hunters. “The nation’s 12.5 million hunters have become essential partners in wildlife management.”

Group of lifelong hunters supports AB711

If you’re struggling to process the hunter as conservationist, here’s another twist: some lifelong hunters support a ban on leaded ammunition.

Judd Hanna, a lifelong hunter and former member of the state Fish and Game Commission, has been an outspoken supporter of banning lead ammunition.

“The image of the hunter has suffered badly in recent years, due in part to bad behavior and irresponsible hunters,” Hanna wrote in a letter of support for AB711. “Anything we can do to demonstrate to the 38 million non-hunters that we respect our environment and recognize our responsibilities as outdoorsmen and women will help slow the erosion of our image and our numbers.”

Hunters have their own self-interest for supporting a lead ammo ban, supporters of the bill say. Why would hunters want to expose themselves, their families or animals they’re not shooting to potentially dangerous lead? That question is raised by an advocate for the Humane Society of the United States, which is co-sponsoring the bill.

“The same tiny lead fragments that scavenging birds and mammals eat and are poisoned by have been found in packaged venison and other game meat that people consume,” said Jennifer Fearing, senior state director for the Humane Society. “We have taken lead — which we have known for hundreds of years to be toxic to all living things — out of gasoline, pipes, children’s toys and paint.” She points to multiple studies that question the safety of lead ammunition and call for the use of alternative ammunition.

It’s the very reason cited by more than a dozen lifelong hunters in their letter of support for AB711.

“As hunters, we are also increasingly concerned that our families may be at risk when eating game meat from animals shot with lead bullets,” wrote a group of individual hunters and sportsmen. “Demonstrations and studies on the public health risk from game taken using lead ammunition are compelling and have led us to use non-lead ammunition when hunting game that will end up on our dinner tables.”

Overwhelming majority of hunting associations oppose AB711

By no means is it an even split among hunters and sportsmen. The overwhelming majority of hunting and sportsmen organizations oppose a ban on leaded ammunition.

Hunting organizations opposed to AB711 include the National Rifle Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation, National Wild Turkey Federation, North American Bear Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Wildlife Management Institute and Wildlife Forever.

“Our organizations, which represent millions of sportsmen that actively support wildlife conservation and the preservation and enhancement of our nation’s hunting and recreational shooting heritage, are writing to express our strong and united opposition to AB711,” wrote representatives from a long list of the biggest hunting advocacy groups.

These organizations, somewhat surprisingly, also make a conservationist argument against the bill. Keane says that if AB711 becomes law, it could reduce funding for conservation efforts.

“AB 711 will effectively ban hunting in California, conservation funding in California will crater, causing harm to the very animals the HSUS (Humane Society) purports to care so much about.”

So, what will Governor Jerry Brown do on AB711?

As CalWatchdog.com’s Katy Grimes has reported, several prominent labor leaders have come out in opposition to the bill. In a recent Sacramento Bee live chat, Capitol reporter David Siders said that it was too difficult to predict the fate of AB711.

“I know this isn’t satisfactory, but I can’t predict his action on that bill,” Siders said. “The labor groups that have been pushing publicly on it aren’t the big ones, from what I can tell. Also, environmentalists haven’t had much luck with Brown in recent years.”

This week, a group of current and former state lawmakers, led by Speaker of the Assembly John Perez, D-Los Angeles, returns to the state following a 10-day trip to Armenia. According to multiple Armenian news outlets, the trip is intended to strengthen ties between the country and California, the “motherland” of the largest Armenian diaspora community in the United States.

“We are hopeful that this first in kind mission would leave a lasting impact and contribute to strengthening political contacts between the Republic of Armenia and the great State of California — home to hundreds of thousands of compatriots,” Grigor Hovhannissian, the former Consul General of Armenia, said in advance of the trip.

In addition to Perez, the legislative delegation to Armenia includes Assembly members Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo; Cheryl R. Brown, D-San Bernardino; Adrin Nazarian, D-Sherman Oaks; Scott Wilk, R- Santa Clarita; and Nazarian’s chief of staff, Dan Savage. Former state lawmakers and current Los Angeles City Councilmen Bob Blumenfield and Paul Krekorian, along with several of Krekorian’s staff members, also joined the delegation that was organized in conjunction with the Armenian National Committee of America, Western Region.

Trip to strengthen diplomatic ties

The trip, which began on September 15, included meetings with the President of Armenia, dinner with the Speaker of the Armenian National Assembly, a visit to the Armenian Genocide Memorial and several festivities in conjunction with the Armenian Independence Day celebration.

“The President of Armenia noted with satisfaction that the Armenian-American relations are currently at the highest level,” reports the Times.am, an Armenian news site.

Nazarian echoed the Armenian president’s sentiments.

“I look forward to continue working with the ANCA in building a greater relationship between the Republic of Armenia, the California State Assembly and the Armenian American Diaspora,” said Nazarian, who was the only legislator to be accompanied by staff. “Promoting further awareness of issues pertinent to Armenia is an integral part of my responsibility as both a State Assemblyman and as an Armenian-American.”

California officials won’t talk publicly about Armenian trip

Yet, if the trip’s purpose was to strengthen ties between government officials, the California delegation has a funny way of showing it. Neither Speaker Perez’s office nor Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, the most senior Republican lawmaker on the trip, would respond to repeated requests for comment about the trip.

It’s not clear why the Speaker’s office did not respond to press inquiries about the trip. Perhaps the speaker felt the Armenian press, which ranks 74th in Reporters Without Borders 2013 World Press Freedom Index, was up to the task.

One report in the Armenian press described the delegation’s visit to the Dzidzernagapert memorial monument, which honors the victims of the Armenian Genocide. Perez, according to Yerkir Media, said it was a “very emotional” experience.

“This trip, especially this pilgrimage to Dzidzernagapert is very emotional for me,” Perez said. “My colleague is Armenian and his family is from Kharpert. When we saw the Kharpert emblem (on the map in the museum), we became very emotional. It is important for the all countries of the world to recognize the Genocide and find the way to justice.”

Speaker of the Armenian Parliament Hovik Abrahamyan awarded Perez the National Assembly’s Medal of Honor “for the development of the inter-parliamentary relations … as well as for big contribution in strengthening of Armenian-American relations.”

Perez pledged to continue “fighting for historic justice and truth, revealing them to the world.” Public Radio of Armenia reports, “He presented his impressions of the meetings and visits conducted in the framework of his pretty heavy agenda and underscored that the California State Assembly is faithful to its values and pledges to continue its efforts in fighting for historic justice and truth, revealing them to the world and promoting peace and stability, strengthening and developing also our biliateral relations.

Just don’t expect the speaker to reveal much to the world about the trip itself.

Wilk open about trip

Not every legislator on the trip has declined to share information about the trip. Wilk, whose district includes a large Armenian-American community, has openly shared updates about the trip on his Facebook page. Wilk’s frequent updates referred to his visit to the Armenian Genocide Memorial, dinner with government officials and the Armenian Independence Day celebration in Republic Square.

“What a night Vanessa and I had tonight in the Capitol of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic,” Wilk posted in a Facebook status update about a dinner with the president and members of parliament. “Vanessa kept insisting that the gentleman at the other table was Seal,” a singer. “I pooh poohed her until he was introduced!”

“What an incredible trip we’ve been on,” Wilk wrote.

The fall trip to Armenia is the fourth international junket by California lawmakers this year. During the legislature’s spring break, 15 legislators participated in fact-finding trips to Poland and Taiwan, according to the Los Angeles Times.

CalWatchdog.com first reported on an eight-member legislative trip to Cuba with Sacramento lobbyist Darius Anderson. One legislator that participated in the Cuba junket remains unidentified.

Few Capitol battles are as heated as the ongoing feud between the trial lawyers and advocates for tort reform. Yet, the two groups have found themselves on the same side of one litigation controversy. Both sides are critical of Orange County Assemblywoman Diane Harkey’s defamation lawsuit against a fellow Republican lawmaker.

In late August, Harkey filed a civil lawsuit against state Sen. Mark Wyland, R-San Diego, in Orange County Superior Court for defamation, presenting her in a false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The dispute centers on comments Wyland made at a summer Tea Party event, in which he allegedly referred to a failed investment company managed by Harkey’s husband, Dan. Both Wyland and Harkey are candidates for the Board of Equalization.

Harkey is seeking $10 million in damages after Wyland’s comments caused her to obtain medical treatment for “severe and grievous mental and emotional suffering, fright, anguish, shock, nervousness, and anxiety.” Harkey has refused to respond to CalWatchdog.com’s repeated requests for more information about the claimed medical treatment.

Tort reform advocates “disappointed” by litigation

Harkey’s multi-million dollar claim for emotional suffering has “disappointed” advocates for tort reform.

“Assemblymember Diane Harkey has been a strong ally in the fight against lawsuit abuse,” said Tom Scott, executive director of California Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse. “We are disappointed that she felt this dispute needed to be settled through litigation, and we hope for a speedy resolution that avoids using scarce resources from our state's already overburdened courts.”

That statement put CALA on the same side as their mortal foes, the consumer attorneys (often called “trial lawyers”). Brian S. Kabateck, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, offered a strong rebuke of Harkey’s lawsuit and accused the lawmaker of having a hypocritical stance on legal reform.

“Some people dislike the legal system until they need it,” Kabatech told CalWatchDog.com. “Diane Harkey’s recent propulsion from so-called ‘tort reform advocate’ to major litigant, filing a lawsuit some would term facially frivolous, highlights the hypocrisy in her position.”
adobe cs6 download

He added, “Reminds me of the old saying that, 'People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.'”

Potential violation of CA GOP rules

Harkey’s attack on Wyland could result in problems of her own. The California Republican Party could potentially rebuke Harkey at its upcoming fall convention. Under the party’s bylaws, delegates are obligated to “first exhaust their administrative remedies” before pursuing litigation against another delegate. Both Harkey and Wyland are delegates to the California Republican Party.

Section 3.09 of the CRP bylaws state:

“(B) All delegates or Committee-chartered organizations with any dispute or conflict subject to this section must first exhaust their administrative remedies pursuant to subsection 3.09(C) and if still unsatisfied, then subject such conflict or disputes to binding arbitration pursuant to subsection 3.09(D). This section constitutes the sole source of legal or equitable relief for all disputes subject to this section.”

Stephen Frank, who served for eight years as the parliamentarian for the California Republican Party, said that the rarely-used provision of the bylaws could be applied to the Harkey lawsuit.

“Technically, yes, two delegates cannot sue each other — even though it had nothing to do with the CRP,” said Frank, who helped write the anti-lawsuit section of the party’s bylaws.

Frank, who emphasized that he has not read the lawsuit and has no position on the dispute, said that Harkey’s potential violation of the party’s rules could result in a censure or even removal as a party delegate. A delegate must file a complaint, which is referred to the party’s Rules Committee. The committee considers whether to take action before referring it to the full convention for a vote.

Messy intra-party feuds

In his long history of Republican political activism, Frank can only recall one instance in which a CRP delegate has been rebuked for filing a lawsuit against a fellow party member. The provision was originally drafted to address a feud between rival young Republican clubs.

“It was messy and made the party look bad,” Frank said of the dispute. “The intent [of the provision] was to stop those suits from going public, and instead try to handle disputes internally.”

Already, the consumer attorneys have seized on the lawsuit to impugn the entire tort reform movement. The movement is a favorite talking point for Republican candidates.

“Using her office to routinely slam lawyers who represent truly injured and powerless victims, all the while planning to file her own lawsuit, makes a mockery of the entire tort reform movement,” Kabateck said.

Assemblywoman Diane Harkey, R-Dana Point, is suing state Sen. Mark Wyland, R- San Diego, for defamation, presenting her in a false light and intentional infliction of emotional distress, according to court records first obtained by SDRostra.com. Harkey says that Wyland’s statements at a summer Tea Party event exposed her to “hatred, contempt, ridicule” and even caused her to seek “medical treatment on a number of occasions.”

Wyland allegedly alluded to Harkey’s ongoing financial and legal troubles surrounding the bankruptcy of Point Center Financial Inc., a company that is controlled by her husband, Dan. The Orange County assemblywoman has reported the company on her financial disclosure forms filed with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

Disgruntled investors say that Dan Harkey made ill-advised loans and pocketed additional fees from the company. In July, a jury “found Dan Harkey and his company liable for $9 million to investors,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Statements in question

The week of the jury verdict, Wyland allegedly made the following statements that were apparently so hateful they forced Harkey to seek medical treatment:

“Unfortunately, there has been a lawsuit brought by a lot of investors of modest means against her and her husband for defrauding them. … There was decision that those investors were defrauded and there is a judgment.”

While Harkey has filed a $10 million lawsuit against Wyland for allegedly misstating facts, her own complaint gets some simple facts wrong. Harkey’s complaint refers to “the public office for which she seeking as a Member of the Franchise Tax Board.” That’s factually incorrect. Not only is Harkey seeking a position on the state Board of Equalization, but members of the Franchise Tax Board are not elected at all.

Harkey: Critic of “feeding trial lawyers”

As a member of the Legislature, Harkey has repeatedly criticized lawsuit abuse. Earlier this month, Harkey opposed SB131, a measure to allow victims of sexual abuse to bring civil lawsuits against private organizations that harbored abusers, which the Legislature just passed.

“It ought not to be just about reopening wounds and feeding trial attorneys,” Harkey said in a floor speech against the bill.

Harkey, according to her legislative website, has also introduced legislation that “prevents lawsuit abuse and protects our state and local municipalities.” She has also criticized the state’s payment of interest on legal settlements because it “often times merely serves to fund the next lawsuit against small businesses and California employers.”

Possible SLAPP lawsuit?

Harkey’s defamation suit could be considered an example of a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” or SLAPP case. According to the California Anti-SLAPP Project, a public interest law firm and policy organization that fights such cases, a SLAPP case is “legally meritless, they can effectively achieve their principal purpose: to chill public debate on specific issues.”

Wyland’s reference to Harkey’s lawsuit could be considered to be a valid criticism that is relevant to her campaign for the state’s tax board. In the past, the business dealing of the Harkey family have been raised in her political campaigns.

In February 2013, the Orange County Register reported that a group of angry investors had demanded that Harkey resign from office and abandon her candidacy for the state Board of Equalization. “Investors have lost 96-cents on the dollar invested yet you and your husband continue to live in a guard gated, ocean front home, drive a Rolls Royce, own a stable of horses and otherwise live an affluent lifestyle paid for by investors,” a letter from the investors said.

In 2009, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Harkey accepted $16,600 in political contributions from real estate developers who had received loans from her husband’s business, now under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

(Correction: This article originally said the lawsuit was for $5 million. It really was for $10 million, as the text now shows.)