Current California law already bars the practice of seizing property without a conviction for assets valued at under $25,000 and requires “clear and convincing evidence” of a connection to a crime for assets exceeding $25,000 in value.

Law enforcement can get around that if the seizure is done in coordination with federal law enforcement and 20 percent of the proceeds are kicked up to the federal government — yet often there’s not even an arrest because federal law doesn’t require it. Instead there’s just a suspicion that the property, not necessarily the person, is attached to some criminal activity.

People often get their property back, but after considerable time and hassle. Or sometimes they don’t. So the bill, sponsored by Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Asm. David Hadley, R-Torrance, would close that loophole and require a conviction for seizure of assets of any amount. Proponents like Mitchell and others say the practice often violates the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

“Our country and our state’s constitutions aim to protect the citizenry and this is a classic example of that,” Mitchell told CalWatchdog in an interview. “If folks love to promote the right to bear arms, I say we have the right to our own private property not being seized by law enforcement, (especially) when not even being charged with a crime.”

How it works

The program was designed to seize the assets of large criminal enterprises, toppling them in the process. But as budgets were cut, law enforcement saw it as a viable revenue stream, and the claims of abuse started piling up.

Some of the more egregious examples have been the attempted seizure of a $1.5 million building in Anaheim because the landlord rented space to a medical marijuana dispensary (which was legal in CA), and the story of Bob Alexander, who had $10,788 in cash that he was about to use to purchase a car for his daughter before the money was seized in Mendocino County because he had medical marijuana on him (along with the doctor’s recommendation for the marijuana, which was shown to police).

Alexander did get his money back eight months later. No charges were ever filed.

Opponents of the bill argue that law enforcement doesn’t police for profit, and asset seizure is a vital tool used to cripple criminal organizations, partially by funding costly investigations. The California District Attorneys Association claimed the bill would “deny every law enforcement agency in California direct receipt of any forfeited assets.”

“California’s asset forfeiture law will be changed for the worse, and it will cripple the ability of law enforcement to forfeit assets from drug dealers when arrest and incarceration is an incomplete strategy for combatting drug trafficking,” Sean Hoffman, CDAA’s director of legislation argued in a letter.

“Narcotics investigations are costly, and the California asset forfeiture law’s dedication of forfeiture proceeds to the seizing law enforcement agencies speaks to the serious resource needs involved when drug traffickers and their ill-gotten gains are pursued,” Hoffman added.

Revenue from the equitable sharing program exploded over the last decade as local agencies in California became more aware of the loophole and budgets were threatened as part of the recession. From 2002 to 2013, revenue from federal forfeitures (the ones that don’t need a conviction) tripled while revenue from state forfeitures (which often do require a conviction) stagnated, according to a study by the Drug Policy Alliance.

And it pays. The LAPD was able to purchase a $5 million helicopter with funds from its equitable sharing account.

There is also a difference between civil asset forfeiture and criminal forfeiture. According to the Department of Justice, criminal forfeiture comes as part of a criminal prosecution of a defendant. Yet in civil forfeiture cases, “the property is the defendant and no criminal charge against the owner is necessary.”

While this doesn’t easily explain how property can commit a crime, it does explain why there are cases have names like U.S. v. $4,000 and U.S. v. White Cadillac, as reported by NPR.

Building momentum

On Monday, Mitchell will join Alexander, the American Civil Liberties Union and a local Black Lives Matter chapter outside the Capitol building to push for the bill along with another, which would make public the details of investigations into use of force incidents and confirmed cases of misconduct by police.

The bill died on the Assembly floor last year under massive pressure from law enforcement groups, but is eligible for reconsideration, so supporters are building momentum. The bill already passed the Senate, and it’s unclear where Gov. Jerry Brown stands on the issue.

The bill is supported by groups on both sides of the political aisle — Mitchell and Hadley penned an op-ed last year. In fact, Grover Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform, came out in support of the bill last week, giving additional cover to Republicans.

“In America, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments are supposed to protect our due process and property rights, civil asset forfeiture in its current form undermines these principles,” Norquist said in his statement. “This status quo in the Golden State is unacceptable.”

Late last year, momentum for the bill dissipated as the DOJ put on hold the equitable sharing program. But just last week, the DOJ was “pleased” to announce the program was back on.

Mitchell told CalWatchdog that she’s not against the program in general, just when it’s used to take property without giving due process to the owner. She said many of the reports she’s read about and heard about from voters scared her into thinking about how her and her mother could have run into similar problems on one of their many trips back from Vegas, where her mother would win jackpots playing slots.

“When I thought about it and began to hear the stories I realized that I could have been a victim,” Mitchell said. “The kinds of scenarios are so commonplace.”

She applauded state lawmakers who years ago added the conviction requirement, but said it’s time to take it one step further.

“California legislators stepped up years ago to change law, but it’s this loophole that continues to cause problems for Califorina residents,” Mitchell said.

Golden State cops teamed with prosecutors to sink the legislation once it became clear that the Senate vote had made it a viable threat to current forfeiture law, which permits law enforcement to keep confiscated property worth under $25,000 even if the former owner is not convicted of a crime. Through these so-called forfeitures, police departments across the country have been able to swell or cushion their budgets — sometimes substantially.

A tide turned

But in spite of protections that have made California’s asset forfeiture rules more stringent than others, lawmakers in both parties zeroed in on the practice as excessive and sometimes unjustifiable. State Sen. Holly Mitchell, D-Los Angeles, and Assemblyman David Hadley, R-Torrance, advanced legislation that would have returned property valued at any amount without a conviction. But after the state Senate version, SB443, won in a 38-1 vote, bipartisan support for the bill began to dry up, despite efforts to scale it back in committee and dispel budgeting worries. “The bill was opposed by Republicans and some Democrats, and failed on a 24-41 vote in the Assembly. It could be revived on the floor in the future,” the Los Angeles Times noted, although this year, the deadline for passing new legislation itself has passed.

Adding to the uphill climb, the federal government did its own part to pressure the state to abandon reform. “Documents obtained by the Institute for Justice show that the California District Attorneys Association has been circulating emails from the Justice and Treasury Departments confirming that the current reforms proposed to California’s civil asset forfeiture laws would make the state ineligible to receive millions of dollars through the federal government’s Equitable Sharing Program,” according to the Daily Signal, a news site run by The Heritage Foundation.

Through that program, which gives a cut of seizures to agencies at the state and local level, California law enforcement netted nearly $90 million last year, the Daily Signal noted.

Other states advancing asset forfeiture reforms have also faced similar pressure to that inflicted on California. But they have met with mixed results. “The Departments of Justice and Treasury threatened New Mexico with ending it equitable sharing program if reforms were passed. In response, New Mexico not only passed asset forfeiture reform, but abolished it entirely,” observed Americans for Tax Reform. “In May of this year, Montana passed asset forfeiture reform that requires a criminal conviction prior to permanent forfeiture, as well as several other requirements that beef up protections for property owners. Other states making strides in asset forfeiture reform are Minnesota, North Carolina and Michigan.”

Looking ahead

So far, advocates for California forfeiture reform have not talked up the prospect of reintroducing a bill for next year’s legislative session. According to Reason, however, another option remained — a ballot initiative building on past successes with reducing some criminal penalties, paring down the so-called “three strikes” law, and encouraging treatment instead of jail time for lesser drug offenses. “But that’s a plan that would have some timing issues,” Reason noted, with organizers unlikely to get a measure before voters until the off-year election in 2018. Nevertheless, “if the polling is accurate, it’s certainly an option if they aren’t able to push legislation through by then.” According to Americans for Tax Reform, California respondents expressed hostility to asset forfeitures “by a massive 76 percent to 14 percent.” Despite the reform bill’s setback in Sacramento, little seemed likely to shift that imbalance in the months and years to come.

By John Hrabe

With a Democratic supermajority, Republican votes no longer are needed to increase taxes in the California Senate. Yet in a strange development, five GOP senators backed a tax increase anyway.

SB 11 is a $2.3 billion tax “extension” co-authored by a Democratic state senator, Fran Pavley of Calabasas; and by a Republican state senator, Anthony Cannella of Ceres. It passed the full Senate, 32-5, with two not voting and one vacancy.

Of the votes, 27 were from Democrats, or 67.5 percent, which was above the two-thirds supermajority threshold in the 40-seat Senate to raise taxes.

Yet in addition to Cannella, Republicans voting for it were Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff of Brea and Sens. Bill Emmerson of Redlands, Jean Fuller of Bakersfield and Mimi Walters of Irvine. Although Cannella did not, the latter four all signed the Americans for Tax Reform’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge, a solemn promise never to raise taxes.

Total: Out of the Senate Republican Caucus’ small membership of 11, five voted for SB 11.

The Senate Republican Caucus’ own analysis identified the bill as “the continuation of billions of dollars of vehicle registration fees and tire taxes for eight years.” Yet not a single Senator, Republican or Democrat, spoke against the bill.

None of the Republican senators who signed the anti-tax pledge responded to CalWatchdog.com’s request for comment on their tax flip-flop. A spokesman for Huff referred comment to a YouTube video (provided below), in which Huff referenced his vote.

“What we did this week was we extended fees for smog abatement, registrations, tire purchases,” Huff said in a 40-second explanation of his tax extension vote. “I wouldn’t normaly do that. But the bill was tied to easing regulations, burdens imposed on gas stations, truckers, ag equipment. And so it was one of those situations where you were taking a bad situation and making it better. ”

GOP analysis: Tax extension is “hefty price to pay” 

Huff’s argument that industry incentives are worth a multi-billion-dollar tax increase is disputed by his own caucus.  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:

“SB 11 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.”

GOP Caucus: Not a tax increase

Bill Bird, a spokesman for Huff, denied the bill is a tax increase. “The pledge states the legislator will not vote to RAISE taxes. He didn’t,” Bird said of Huff’s vote.

This nuanced interpretation of what constitutes a tax increase is contradicted by none other than Huff himself. In 2011, when Senate Democrats proposed legislation to grant local governments the authority to raise taxes, Huff gave a fiery speech against what he dubbed the “I Love More Taxes Bill of 2011.”

“Our staff believe it’s in violation of Prop. 26, which reads, ‘Any change in state statute which results in any taxpayer paying a higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the legislature,’” Huff said. “What are we doing? We’re creating something on a majority vote that will facilitate raising taxes.”

Huff even took time to acknowledge the nuance of the “I Love More Taxes Bill of 2011.”

“This in itself doesn’t raise taxes,” Huff said. “Local government already has the ability to raise taxes, but it gives them more taxes they can raise on a majority vote.”

Just a month ago, Huff was warning that high tax rates hurt the economy. “Higher tax rates and continuing high unemployment mean less money in people’s pockets and less money to propel the economy,” he said in a press release in response to the Gov. Jerry Brown’s May Revision budget proposal for fiscal year 2013-14, which begins on July 1. “The Legislature should spend less time on a growing list of additional tax proposals.”

Taxpayer groups: A tax extension is a tax increase

Patrick Gleason, the director of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, which organizes the “Taxpayer Protection Pledge,” said his group considers a tax extension a violation of the pledge that Huff, Emmerson, Fuller and Walters signed.

“Legislation that would extend a tax scheduled to sunset is a tax increase,” Gleason said in an email.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association adds that Republican legislators could face a backlash for breaking their promise to their constituents.

“We’re not sure legislators fully grasp how this vote will be perceived by all the drivers — most of whom are voters — in their districts,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. “The backlash will be severe.”

Huff is no stranger to taxpayers’ backlash for halfhearted promises. In 2009, some taxpayers launched a failed recall for what they considered Huff’s failure of leadership to protect taxpayers from the largest tax increase in California history. That was the $13 billion signed into law that year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, with the help of two Republican state senators and two Assembly members. In his rebuttal to the 2009 recall attempt, Huff clarified that he never voted for the tax extension, and therefore had not violated his tax pledge.

Huff also opposed Proposition 1A, a May 2009 initiative pushed by Schwazenegger that would have extended the tax increases. It was defeated heartily by voters, 65-35.

“While these reforms became linked to a two-year extension of taxes and packaged as Proposition 1A, Huff didn’t vote for the budget, the tax increase or the extension,” Huff’s recall rebuttal stated. “Bob Huff has not violated his pledge to not raise taxes!”

Huff vs. Huff: “Doesn’t Fix the Real Problem”

SB 11, Huff argues, is a compromise to offer temporary relief to struggling industries.

“I wouldn’t normally do that, but the bill was tied to easing regulations of burdens imposed on gas stations, truckers, ag equipment,” Huff said in his May 31 Capitol Comment. “It was one of those things where you’re taking a bad situation and making it better.”

In April 2011, for the same reason Huff opposed a tax extension proposed by Democrats during budget negotiations. He said, “I have often said an extension of the taxes doesn’t fix the real problem.”

By John Seiler

Governments today wield immense power over every aspect of our lives. That’s why threats by politicians should be taken seriously.

Gov. Jerry Brown recently said he saw “fear in the eyes of Republicans when the tax word is uttered in their presence.” The Sacramento Bee reported:

“To make his point, the Democratic governor recounted a tale from the final week of session (watch the video here) when he lobbied Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, for a 1 percent lumber tax during a chance encounter in the Capitol basement garage.”

Brown, the most powerful person in California, then mocked LaMalfa:

“He kind of got into a little fetal position and started shaking, he literally was shaking. And this big man, he looks like a — wears boots, he’s kind of an outdoorsman, a mountain man kind of. And I saw him kind of start shriveling in fear of, I guess, it was the FlashReport or [Grover] Norquist or whoever the hell it was.”

Jon Fleischman of FlashReport and Grover Norquist, the head of Americans for Tax Reform, are two longtime Brown bugaboos. He blames them for threatening Republican legislators who might vote for jobs-killing tax increases.

But neither Fleischman nor Norquist has anything but the power of words. They only can point out when a Republican legislator violates his “no new taxes” pledge.

Powerful Brown

It’s Brown who heads a vast state police and regulatory force that can crush even the biggest business like a mosquito. Look at how he went after even giant Amazon.com.

And with AB 32’s new Soviet-style Cap and Trade regulations now going into effect, businesses are cowering in fear before the governor — or leaving the state for freedom. LaMalfa is a rice farmer directly affected by this and other legislation implemented by Brown and such Brown factotums as CARB boss Mary Nichols.

And now Brown, in his his extreme egoism, is comparing himself to God — literally. He said:

“At the end of the day, vox populi, vox dei. The voice of the people, as they say, the voice of God. It’s either take the money from those who have even more than we can imagine and give it to our schools or not. And whatever it is, I’ll manage it and we’ll make it work. One way would be better, but whatever way the people decide is the way we’ll go and that’s the way it should be.'”

Vox populi

Brown likes to pepper his conversation with Latin tags from his Jesuit miseducation. “Vox populi, vox dei,” means, “Voice of the people, the voice of God.”

In Brown’s parlance, it means, “The people elected me, and the people is God, so do what I say — or else.”

Actually, one of the earliest uses of the phrase was from Alcuin, whose promotion of learning began lifting Europe from the Dark Ages (I mean the one from about A.D. 500-1000, not the current Dark Ages). In a letter to Charlemagne, Alcuin wrote:

“And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.”

Of course, 1,200 years ago was not a democratic age. But even today, it is not true that Vox populi, vox dei. Sometimes the people do insane things. I recently wrote of the incarceration of loyal Japanese-Americans during World War II. The 1932 elections in Germany couldn’t have turned out worse.

The point is that, as with everything else, the voice of the people must be checked by common sense and common decency.

Brown also was deceiving the populi — the people — when he said, “It’s either take the money from those who have even more than we can imagine and give it to our schools or not.” For one thing, in mega-expensive California, $250,000 — the point where his Proposition 30 tax increase would dig in — is not having “more than we can imagine.” You’re certainly well off, but not rich. After all, at that point you’re going to want to pull you kids from the failing government schools and put them in private schools at a cost of $15,000 or so a pop. If you have three kids, that’s $45,000 right there — after taxes.

And many small businesses file as S Corporations, which pay taxes at the individual level. So raising taxes on an S Corporation with $250,000 or more in profits means less money for business expansion and jobs creation. It could mean less business — or a dead business — and job losses.

And the real problem with our “schools” is not a lack of tax revenue, but: 1) they’re badly managed, commonly scoring 46th or worst among the 50 states on test scores; and 2) California’s massive government pension liabilities of at least $500 billion, only slightly improved by the anemic reform the Legislature just passed with Brown’s backing, is sapping school and state budgets.

Keep in mind that image of big Doug LaMalfa cringing before Jerry Brown. That’s how Brown and the rest of the ultra-powerful government functionaries that lord it over us, want us — prostrate in fear.

By JOHN SEILER

Opponents of Gov. Jerry Brown’s proposed $12 billion tax increase already are spoiling for a fight. They’re not waiting to find out the fate of the governor’s proposal to put the matter before voters in June.

“We always have to be prepared are are starting to develop a campaign strategy,” Jon Coupal told me today; he’s president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and has fought many anti-tax battles in California.

However, Coupal added, “Today, it looks increasingly like there won’t be a vote.” Fresh from attending the weekend’s Republican convention, he said that he’s hopeful that the Democratic majority in the Legislature will not be able to peel off the two Republicans votes in each house, the Assembly and Senate, needed to put the matter before voters.

But he’s not taking any chances. “I think we’ll be ready the way were two years ago,” he said, referring the the successful effort to defeat a nearly identical tax increase advanced by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. According to Ballotpedia:

If Proposition 1A had passed, $10 billion in “temporary” sales, use, income and vehicle taxes imposed as part of the 2009-2010 budget agreement would each have been extended for one or two years, resulting in a further tax increase of some $16 billion.

Brown’s tax increase would be for five years.

Prop. 1A was wiped out by voters, 65 percent to 35 percent.

Anti-tax Coordination

Coupal said he already is coordinating with the Tea Party Network, Americans for Prosperity and other activists. “We’ll have a fairly broad-based coalition,” he said. “We’re already looking at a media buy” for anti-tax ads. “We’re actually more ready than we were two years ago. We’re more confident about defeating these tax increases.”

In media depictions of anti-tax activists, Coupal and the Jarvis group often are paired with Americans for Tax Reform and its president, Grover Norquist, whose main offices are in Washington, D.C. ATR tries to get legislators at all levels of government to sign anti-tax pledges, including opposition to even putting tax increases before voters. Most GOP members of the California Legislature have signed it.

ATR’s California activism has even drawn a reaction from Brown. The governor blasted Norquist’s efforts to keep tax increases off the ballot as “highly undemocratic.”

“We’ve definitely been following the situation in California,” Patrick Gleason, ATR’s director of state affairs, told me. “We’re doing robocalls in targeted districts. We hope the tax increase won’t get referred to the ballot. We’re still trying for that. But we’re looking ahead. We’re already planning strategy for the No campaign.”

Local Activists

Unlike across the nation last November, California’s Tea Party activists didn’t have much influence on California’s elections. They hope to change that should a tax-increase be on a ballot in June or later.

“Absolutely we’re gearing up for an election,” Dawn Wildman of Tea Party Patriots in San Diego told me. She’s also the California state coordinator and one of the national coordinators for the Tea Party. “We’re already opposing it while it’s still squirreling around the chambers of the Legislature. We’re planning anti-tax events for April 14-18.” In 2011, the filing deadline for state and federal taxes is April 18.

“We’re real certain the governor will be pushing for a vote,” she added. “We want a narrative about the tax increases. The governor and the mainstream media are not getting out the information that these are tax increases, not extensions.”

I wondered if this election would be similar to the recall election of Gov. Gray Davis in 2003, which garnered national attention. “No,” Wildman replied. “The biggest challenge right now is watching the Republicans in the Legislature to make sure a couple of them don’t go to the dark side” and vote to put the tax increase on the ballot.

Another difference between past elections and events this year, she said, is the maturity of the Tea Party activists. “We get the game now,” she said. “We’re just not playing the game.”

Game Over?

Indeed, it may be that this activity by anti-tax activists will signal that the game is over for putting the tax increase on a ballot in June, or later. As I wrote a month ago, a vote on a California tax increase would become a national melee, drawing anti-tax groups from around the country against the increase, while also bringing in union pro-tax activists from across the land.

But the tax increasers almost certainly would lose, just as they did in 2009, and again with a different tax increase in 2010, Proposition 24. According to Ballotpedia, Prop. 24 lost by 58 percent to 42 percent.

Moreover, as I keep reminding people, the biggest problem in California isn’t the $25 billion budget deficit, but the 12.4 percent unemployment rate. Not just conservative economists, but liberal economists insist that the worst thing to do during a recession is to slam the economy harder with tax increases.

That may be why the Bee yesterday reported that an “all cuts budget may surface.”

We may be witnessing the end of the tax-increase game.