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.

Political and tech observers alike have agreed these are early days for a realignment of Silicon Valley voters. Nevertheless, the titans’ interest in GOP candidates and causes — and the corresponding dissatisfaction with the current Democratic administration in Washington — have created a stir in the fast-moving world of fundraising and interest group-driven electioneering.

Silicon Valley traditionally has been measured by its most outsized personalities, a habit that has now begun to work in the GOP’s favor. Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg made a recent stir by hosting an event for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Now, libertarian-leaning Silicon Valley heavyweights have started to make regular political news.

Bold names, big headlines

Though venture capitalist Tim Draper’s Six Californias initiative has run aground, his activism has powerfully reinforced the idea that leading tech figures have given up on the status quo.

In another striking example, leading entrepreneur David Welch rocked California with his victory in the Vergara case challenging teacher tenure protections. Now he has decided to “fund and coordinate” a Vergara-like suit brought by the New York City Parents’ Union.

Then there’s Napster founder Sean Parker, whose financial support for Democrats has given way to a tide of dollars for Republican candidates. As Politico reports, Parker’s fire hose of funds was aimed squarely at moderate-to-liberal Republicans, especially those fending off primary challenges like the one endured by Sen. Thad Cochran, R-Miss.

Those spending patterns cut against the grain of other Silicon Valley fixtures like Peter Thiel. The PayPal founder’s brand of entrepreneurial libertarianism has been associated more closely with insurgent figures like Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky.

An ideological reshuffle

For California Republicans — and national Republicans who put racking up votes first — the changes have called to mind the old adage that beggars can’t be choosers. GOP officials have bemoaned the diminishing pool of swing voters in the Golden State, which has become a virtual one-party state.

The pressure has driven deep fissures into the California GOP, which has become sharply divided between pro-business social liberals and red-meat reform conservatives. Gubernatorial candidate Neel Kashkari dispatched with relative ease his primary challenger, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks. But doubts remain whether Kashkari’s candidacy against Gov. Jerry Brown could flip enough Democrats away from sticking with the incumbent.

Developments in Silicon Valley suggest time may at last be on Republicans’ side — with implications that go well beyond California. As the liberal analyst Peter Lawrence Kane put it, “The best replacement to fill a Tea Party-shaped hole in the conservative coalition is the tech industry, whose place in the Democratic fold is starting to grow uncomfortably awkward.” Kane noted a “natural” alliance between Silicon Valley and the GOP could “lead to a wholesale reconfiguration of the American political landscape. … The party has performed dramatic 180s before.”

Longtime Republican operators have positioned themselves to welcome that kind of change with open arms. Even insiders who have cultivated conservative bona fides, such as influential Republican National Committeeman Haley Barbour, made a point to speak well of Silicon Valley’s not-so-reformist billionaires. Talking to Politico, Barbour suggested Parker liked how Republicans “had a plan that was indicative of the kind of U.S. senator that Thad Cochran is — somebody who has represented all 3 million Mississippians with dignity and class.”

The more Silicon Valley money pours into Republican coffers, the more likely Republicans could be to hear that kind of exaggerated big-tent language.

On the other hand, few have underestimated the anti-corruption movement spearheaded by the likes of Sen. Paul and Peter Thiel. Although they have yet to amass the cash reserves of the big business wing of the party — and its sympathetic billionaires — the reform libertarians have developed important inroads of their own into the Washington establishment.

Paul has met privately with both Zuckerberg and Parker. In what could prove to be even more portentous an encounter, Grover Norquist, the enormously influential head of Americans for Tax Reform, returned from his first trip to the quasi-utopian Burning Man festival with glowing reviews of its spontaneous, free-form productivity. The festival is dedicated “to the spirit of community, art, self-expression and self-reliance.”

“A community that comes together with a minimum of ‘rules’ demands self-reliance – that everyone clean up after themselves and help thy neighbor,” Norquist wrote. “Some day I want to live 52 weeks a year in a state or city that acts like this. I want to attend a national political convention that advocates the wisdom of Burning Man.”

With an establishment attitude like that, after so many years in the wilderness, the fortunes of California Republicans may change sooner than once imagined.

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, provides his insights to CalWatchdog.com’s Brian Calle.

March 16, 2013

By Josephine Djuhana

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Some conservatives believe a federal balanced budget amendment is an essential reform for fiscal management in Congress. That was the topic of discussion during a panel at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at the National Harbor in Maryland.

Grover Norquist, the founder and president of Americans for Tax Reform, moderated the discussion and began with a simple two-part plan for Washington to balance the budget—by “never raising taxes” and “not spending so much of other people’s money.” He also highlighted Paul Ryan’s recently unveiled budget, which rolls back entitlements and federal power, and balances the budget without raising taxes. The budget, according to Norquist, was not only a way to reduce the size of the federal government by reforming, but also a “step in the right direction to enact tax reform.”

Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., said in reference to the Senate, “They don’t believe that the spending is the problem, and they don’t believe the debt or the deficit is a problem.” Anyone who has read Paul Krugman would know that to be the case. And even President Obama recently charged that he was not interested in a “balanced budget just for the sake of balance.” With much concern mounting over the nation’s ever-growing $16 trillion deficit, it’s no wonder that conservatives are now looking for ways to force Congress to create a balanced budget. But Democrats in Washington don’t seem to seem to agree on the need to halt spending, as the budget proposal from Senate Democrats, according to Norquist, “raises taxes and never balances the budget.” The budget plan includes $1 trillion in tax increases and a new $100 billion stimulus plan. It also increases spending by 60 percent over the next ten years, leaving an additional deficit of $500 billion ten years from now.

“That’s why you need a balanced budget amendment, because in the end, [Washington] can’t restrain itself,” Rep. Harris said. “And we certainly can’t guarantee that future Congresses will restrain themselves.”

The panelist consensus was that outside intervention is needed in order to limit spending by Congress. “Unlimited debt is the fairy dust that makes unlimited government function,” said Nick Dranias, a director at the Goldwater Institute.

There are two methods to ratify a constitutional amendment, but the path through Congress does not seem promising, as it requires a two-thirds majority approval in both houses of Congress. The state method is the alternative.

“In the state method, there is a critical check and balance on federal government,” said Derrick Khanna; he’s a former professional staff member for the Republican Study Committee. “It is unfortunate that this method has never been used as our Founders intended.”

All that is needed is a three-fourths majority of states to ratify a constitutional amendment. “States across the country are pushing for a federal balanced budget. First it was Florida, in 2010, and then it was New Hampshire, last year,” said Khanna.

Effects of a balanced budget amendment

There are certain fears that with a balanced budget amendment, members of Congress could force a tax increase in order to ensure that revenues keep up with expenditures.

But Arizona, which has a balanced budget requirement, has used this obligation to its benefit by rejecting Obamacare. When Governor Jan Brewer attempted to raise taxes in order to fund Obamacare in the state, the state legislature shot the proposal down, as state tax increases require a two-thirds majority in order to be ratified.

The balanced budget requirement also seems to be working for the state of Texas.

Texas Governor Rick Perry was also present at CPAC, and delivered short remarks on his state in comparison with the federal government.

“Texas has a balanced budget and a surplus, and is creating more jobs than any other state in the Union, and we’re doing this with a part-time legislature that meets for only 140 days every other year,” said Gov. Perry. “Our legislature—they come in and they pass laws, and then they go home and live under those laws.”

He then emphasized that states should be “the laboratories of reform.”

But instead, we have a federal government that mandates and dictates regulations to states, what with Obamacare and the expansion of Medicaid, the proposed increase in the minimum wage and more. Many conservative allies have fallen to money from the federal government and special interest groups, and we have reached a point where it seems that nothing can stop Washington from continuing on its taxing and spending binge.

“Washington doesn’t worry about how to pay its bills; they just charge it to our grandchildren’s accounts,” said Gov. Perry. “But in Texas, our constitution requires a balanced budget.”

Gov. Perry emphasized that Texas’ “number one ranking when it comes to job creation” is directly correlated to having “balanced budgets and one of the lowest tax and spending rates in the nation.”

Framework for a balanced budget amendment

During the panel, Nick Dranias highlighted the Compact for America, which is a formal amendment to balance the budget and has additional inclusions that work to prevent outright taxation by Congress in order to balance the budget.

But the path to Congressional discipline on the fiscal matters will be an uphill battle, yet many activists would like to see Congress reexamine itself and its practices when it comes to balancing the budget. As government expands, liberties decrease, and the best way to curb government intervention is to take away its ability to spend recklessly.

By John Seiler

It looks like Proposition 30 is going down to defeat. So what I’m looking forward to is Gov. Jerry Brown going into a meltdown when his pet prop loses. He could rail against the outside interests, Grover Norquist, John & Ken, the Tea Party — and anybody else his free-associating mind brings up.

Then he’s going to have to take on his “troops,” as he calls them — the unions — over the trigger cuts in spending that are supposed to go into effect.

Also interesting will be if the Democrats get a 2/3 supermajority in each house of the Legislature. Then they could raise taxes ad infinitum, without any Republican support. Or enough “moderate” Republicans might be elected to do the same thing, although on a more limited scale.

Brown pledged in his 2010 campaign not to raise taxes without a “vote of the people.” But if the Legislature passes a tax increase, would he veto it?

If so, the Legislature then could override the veto with a 2/3 vote. This rarely happens in California, but it is possible.

It also could play out that Brown says, softly, that he’s against a tax increase — wink win, nudge nudge. The Legislature passes it any way. He vetoes it. Then the Legislature overrides his veto with only minor protests by him.

Wink wink, nudge nudge.

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.