Trump supporters to “watch” polls next week

Good morning! TGIT. Two more days until the weekend and six more days until the election. 

And don’t be surprised if when you go to vote next Tuesday (if you haven’t embraced mail-in voting yet) someone is there watching you. According to the Riverside Press Enterprise:

“Supporters of Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump have announced plans to observe Election Day voting throughout California. … Poll watchers can’t legally interfere with voting, interact with voters within 100 feet of a polling place or challenge a voter’s eligibility. But the leader of a pro-Trump veterans group said his people are prepared to call for help if they see anything suspicious.” 

In other news:

• One of the 17 measures voters will consider, Proposition 51, a $9-billion school bond, is struggling, according to polling from the last two months, despite the fact that school construction spending tends to be popular at the ballot box. The Los Angeles Times has more.

• In non-ballot measure election news, “Bay Area billionaire philanthropist Herb Sandler, who was among those blamed for the 2008 mortgage meltdown that triggered the financial crisis, has edged back into the spotlight thanks to the WikiLeaks hacking of the email account of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, John Podesta.” The San Jose Mercury News has more. 

• And speaking for the influence of the wealthy, “California lobbyist employers spent $84.4 million to advocate to officials and influence legislation from July 1 through September,” writes The Sacramento Bee. “NextGen Climate Action, a campaign committee led by billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer, topped the list of lobbyist employers, spending $7.3 million during the seventh quarter of the 2015-16 legislative session, according to state filings.”

• LA Weekly wonders if a Los Angeles Times investigation about questionable political contributions from a local developer will upend an L.A. County supervisorial race where Democratic Congresswoman Janice Hahn has been the frontrunner.

Legislature:

• Gone till December. 

Gov. Brown:

• Out on the trail, per Politico: “California Gov. Edmund J. Brown Jr., joined by Los Angeles firefighters, nurses, business and labor leaders, will detail his opposition to Proposition 53, the ballot measure that undermines local control by forcing a statewide vote on water, highway, and other local infrastructure projects.” Details: Thursday, 10 a.m., United Firefighters Headquarters, 1571 Beverly Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90026

• Per Opposition to Prop 53 release: “California Gov. Edmund J. Brown Jr., joined by public safety and local government leaders, will detail his opposition to Proposition 53, the ballot measure that undermines local control by forcing a statewide vote on water, highway, and other local infrastructure projects.” Details: Thursday, November 3, 2016, 1 p.m. at IBEW 569 Union Hall, 4545 Viewridge Ave, Suite 100, San Diego.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @sheadeanda

Read more

A transcript of a voicemail for John Podesta — at the time a top adviser to Obama — shows the Los Angeles Democrat asking if the president could mention Senate Bill 350 during a then-upcoming speech on clean energy in Nevada.

“Appreciate you taking my call,” de Leon said, according to the transcript. “Appreciate you telling me that the President will be in LV on Monday. It’s his hope [sic] that the President can make some sort of announcement in support of 350 or in support of what we’re trying to do in the legislature.”

SB350 — which requires an 50 percent increase of usage of renewable electricity in the state by the end of 2030 — was signed into law, but it faced tremendous opposition from the oil industry, which successfully lobbied against a petroleum-restriction provision that was ultimately dropped.

“Oil companies have been trying to defeat the bill,” de Leon said. “Targets are the African Americans in the lower house.” 

The oil lobby targeted business-friendly Democrats of all races in the Assembly, according to disclosures and media reports. A de Leon spokesman did not immediately respond to requests for clarification.

However, de Leon did get his wish. At the National Clean Energy Summit on August 25, 2015, Obama praised California’s efforts on SB350. 

“Leaders in California are aiming to generate 50 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2030 — 50 percent,” Obama said. 

In December 2014, prior to Clinton announcing her candidacy, Robby Mook and John Podesta (who would become Clinton’s campaign manager and campaign chairman, respectively) discussed their preference to keep blue stats like California late in the primary process.

Mook had been contacted by another Democratic strategist, Chris Lehane, who served in Bill Clinton’s administration. According to the email, Lehane had called Mook about the California primary after speaking with Podesta, who had given Lehane the impression that he wanted to move the date.

Mook sought clarification, as he believed there was already a strategy in place to keep reliably Democratic states late in the primary process.

“FYI–Lehane called me about CA primary and I told him that the operating strategy is to keep blue states late (i.e. don’t move CA),” Mook wrote to Podesta. “He said he was at dinner with you and was under the impression that you wanted to move it earlier. He’s wondering how to proceed and I said I’d try to get us on the same page and go back with an answer. Are you ok with me saying that we both want CA to stay where it is?”

There was no reply from Podesta in the email dump. But an email from March 2015 — just weeks before Clinton officially announced her candidacy — showed Mook hoping California Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon would weigh in on the timing of the primary. 

“I met with Cal State Senate President. Super enthusiastic,” Podesta wrote to Mook in an email with the Los Angeles Democrat’s name in the subject line. “Do anything including travel to other states. Also volunteered to line up other state senators.”

“Fantastic,” Mook exclaimed. “Did he mention moving the primary date at all?”

A spokesman for de Leon did not immediately return requests for comment. Clinton’s campaign did not immediately respond as well.

Complaints of a rigged process

This election cycle has been rife with complaints and conspiracy theories that the Democratic nomination process was skewed toward Clinton.

Former Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley complained the Democratic National Committee scheduled the debates to favor Clinton. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders had his own concerns. 

Indeed, the complaints of a rigged process from the public and Clinton’s primary opponents and their supporters — some of the complaints were supported by other Wikileaks dumps — were so great that Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz was ousted from her perch atop the DNC.

No biggie?

As voters know, the date of California’s primary did not change. And Clinton won handily in June, as well as in 2008 against Barack Obama.

According to John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College, those two facts should quiet concerns of a “rigged” election in a “Clinton-friendly state.”

“Conspiracy-minded Democrats might pounce on the staff chatter, but it’s not the kind of thing that makes a difference to voters,” Pitney said. “The issue might get more traction if there are revelations that states did shift dates in a deliberate effort to help Clinton, or if Clinton herself was involved in the effort.”