It’s what Republicans fear and Democrats embrace: How the controversial presumptive nomination of Donald Trump as the GOP’s presidential candidate will affect races further down the ballot.

Democrats are hoping to tie Trump around the necks of Republican candidates throughout the state, particularly among Latino voters who have so far largely rejected Trump in polling — and the ads are just beginning. 

Democratic PACs announced one such ad yesterday for a coastal congressional race, while another ad has been floating around online for an Assembly seat in Los Angeles County. 

Much of Trump’s strength is derived from his “outsider” status — a strong personality untainted by Washington. He’s mastered the art of winning headlines by making brash statements often seen as anti-immigrant and misogynistic. 

But it’s those outlandish comments that may make it hard to paint a fellow member of the GOP with the same brush, absent an endorsement, which neither of the two attacked candidates have done. 

“The problem for them is Trump is not transferable that way,” said Mike Madrid, a Republican consultant who specializes in Latino issues. “No one believes someone is a Trump Republican. Trump’s whole rise is that he’s not a typical Republican nor a typical politician. Very little evidence to suggest this will work.”

Ads

The House Majority PAC and CHC BOLD PAC are spending almost $300,000 in an ad campaign attacking Republican Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian as a Trump-like, anti-immigrant demagogue.

The ad supports Democrat Salud Carbajal. Both men are running to replace the retiring Democratic Congresswoman Lois Capps in a district that runs from Santa Barbara to north of Morro Bay. 

The district is more than one-third Latino, but has a close partisan split — Democrats have 39.79 percent of registered voters to Republicans’ 33.65 percent, with 22.87 percent declining to state. 

In Los Angeles County’s South Bay, former Democratic Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi is trying attacks like www.hadleytrump.com against the man who knocked him out of the Legislature in 2014, Republican David Hadley. Slightly different than the Achadjian ad, Muratsuchi is attacking Hadley for not denouncing Trump.

Hadley won by only 1 percent of the vote in the 21-percent Latino district. Democrats have nearly an 8 percent voter registration advantage, with 22.74 percent declining to state a preference. 

“These ads are exactly what Trump exposes Republicans to in swing districts,” said GOP strategist Rob Stutzman, who launched a campaign to stop a Trump nomination earlier this year. “Hadley’s answer is savvy though. I’m not convinced there’s a huge liability for ‘refusing to denounce’ him in general. But Trump will surely get trounced in (Hadley’s) district.”

Polling

A Field Poll last month showed 83 percent of Latino voters in the state had an unfavorable view of Trump, with even 69 percent of white voters having an unfavorable view (which is the most favorable of all the ethnicities).

And tying a candidate to an unpopular figure is a successful technique, to the extent that it can drive voter turnout. In 1996, President Bill Clinton tied his Republican challenger, Sen. Bob Dole, to former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. The Trump connection will be successful to the extent that it can drive voter turnout. 

“When it comes to motivating Hispanic turnout, Trump is the greatest gift that Democrats could want,” said John J. Pitney, Jr., a Roy P. Crocker professor of politics at Claremont McKenna College.

A majority of Californians would rather have lower taxes and fewer government services than higher taxes and more government services, according to a recent Field poll. But the drive for higher taxes and more government services continues unabated in Sacramento.

The Assembly Committee on Local Government recently passed Assembly Bill 2170, which would help local governments, acting as joint powers authorities, increase taxes and fees. Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, D-San Mateo, introduced the bill to the committee.

The committee vote was 7-2, with Chairman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, joined the committee Democrats in support. Two other Republicans voted against it.

On April 28, the full Assembly approved the bill, 44-26, and sent it to the Senate. Curiously, on this vote Achadjian switched and voted nay. On May 8, the bill was assigned to the Senate Rules committee.

JPAs

“AB2170 would clarify that all JPAs are able to raise revenue for projects consistent with the purposes for which the agency was formed,” Mullin said. “Most believe that existing law provides such authority to these JPAs. However, some attorneys and local officials worry that the law may not be precise enough.

“This bill does nothing to diminish vote requirements in Propositions 13 or 218. AB2170 simply provides that the parties to a JPA may exercise any power common to the contracting parties – including, but not limited to, the authority to levy a fee or a tax.”

Prop. 13 requires two-thirds voter approval when local governments seek to raise taxes for a designated or special purpose. Prop. 218 guarantees the right to vote on all local taxes, assessments and property-related fees.

Redundancy

Taxpayer and business groups consider AB2170 redundant.

“Cities, counties and many special districts already possess the revenue tools to fund local programs, making this bill’s authorization unnecessary,” argued the California Taxpayers Association and the California Chamber of Commerce in a joint letter to the Assembly on April 16.

They cited the example of San Mateo’s JPA, the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, seeking to impose a stormwater tax. But residents are already paying for that service through a vehicle registration fee, special assessments and general fund revenue, according to the letter.

“Under current law, if a local government determines that funding is not sufficient to finance its needs, there are other options,” the letter said. “For example, in December 2010, the former Senate Local Government Committee published a report titled ‘Revenues and Responsibilities: An Inventory of Local Tax Powers,’ which stated that counties and other local governments currently have the statutory authority to impose special taxes and property-related assessments.”

Possible tax gerrymandering

The California Taxpayers Association’s May 2 newsletter voiced concern “that under the provisions of the bill, there would be gerrymandering of tax votes. A local agency that is unable to secure enough votes for a tax would join with another agency in an area where voters historically have provided large margins of approval for tax measures.

“The combined vote in favor would result in the imposition of the tax in the jurisdiction where the voters do not favor a tax increase. This also could work in reverse – after a countywide vote in which there aren’t enough votes to approve a tax proposal, a joint powers authority could be formed with just those jurisdictions that voted in favor.

“Another question raised by the legislation is whether two agencies combined in a joint powers authority would be authorized to impose a tax that one of the agencies is not permitted to impose by itself?”

Also opposed is the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

“AB2170 would give JPAs the authority to levy a fee or tax,” the HJTA stated in a letter to the Assembly, according to the legislative analysis. “Currently, it is an open legal question whether JPA’s have the authority to do this, even if they follow the appropriate constitutional guidelines specified under Propositions 13 and 218.

“While AB2170 would clarify this question, we believe it is unnecessary. Local government entities do not need new revenue generating authority. They can either approve a special tax with a two-thirds vote, or a Proposition 218 fee or assessment with a majority vote of the affected property owners.”

Clarity needed

The California State Association of Counties and League of California Cities, in a joint letter to the Assembly on April 8, argued that the legislation is necessary in order to clarify the issue:

“The law governing joint powers authorities has always allowed the contracting parties to exercise any common powers, as long as they are specified in the joint powers agreement; therefore, the statement that the bill is declaratory of existing law is important.

“This bill would clarify current law so that there could be no doubt that this authority extends to the imposition of fees and taxes.

“Joint powers authorities are an important part of California governance, and it is helpful to clarify the law to ensure a common understanding of existing joint powers authority powers to levy fees or taxes.”

Another JPA empowerment bill is making its way through the Legislature. AB2046 authorizes California JPAs to issue bonds and enter into loan agreements to finance or refinance private projects located outside the state. It’s being amended in the Assembly Local Government Committee.

By John Hrabe and Katy Grimes

After Friday’s report on CalWatchdog.com that at least two state legislators traveled to Cuba with a powerful Sacramento lobbyist, you’d think the state’s political watchdog might be launching a formal investigation. After all, the trip was hosted by the same lobbyist that reached a $500,000 settlement in 2010 with then-New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo over allegations of pay-to-play practices in that state.

Lawmakers haven’t answered any questions, and won’t face any scrutiny from the state’s ethics watchdog, because they claim to have paid for their own expenses.

“We are not investigating the Cuba trip,” confirmed Gary Winuk, chief of the Enforcement Division at the Fair Political Practices Commission. “If someone violated the current laws and regulations, then we will pursue it.”

The FPPC’s failure to investigate the matter rests on legislators’ claim to have paid their own trip expenses. It’s perfectly legal for lobbyists to escort legislators on foreign junkets, away from any public scrutiny, or the ability to independently verify legislators’ claims.

New details

To date, it still isn’t clear which legislators were in Cuba, their purpose of traveling to a foreign country with a lobbyist, or why they’ve refused to release any information about the trip itinerary, which they claim wasn’t a secret. Only State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, and Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, have been willing to confirm to CalWatchdog.com that they spent the spring holiday in Cuba with lobbyist Darius Anderson, the president and founder of Platinum Advisors.

The state’s ethics commission might not be asking any questions, but new details are slowly emerging about the trip thanks to local media reports. The San Luis Obispo Tribune, in a follow up to CalWatchdog.com’s piece, confirmed that there were eight state lawmakers on the Cuba trip.

“It is also important to note that the delegation included seven other members of the Legislature, nonprofit staff, as well as other business leaders,” Achadjian told his hometown paper in defense of his trip to a foreign country with a registered lobbyist. “It was not a personal trip with a lobbyist as it was described in other news outlets, nor was it done in secret.”

That raises the question: if the trip wasn’t a secret, why do the identities of six legislators remain a mystery?

Not talking to CalWatchdog.com

A spokesman for Galgiani said the government office doesn’t have any information on the Cuba trip and that the senator isn’t willing to comment.

Achadjian’s office was even less forthcoming with us, only telling CalWatchdog.com to read other media reports. “Earlier today the assemblyman was happy to answer a series of questions regarding his participation in the delegation trip to Cuba,” said Craig Swaim, chief of staff to Achadjian. “You are free to use that as a reference for your reporting.”

He added: “As for [who] else participated in the delegation trip, you may wish to contact Californians Building Bridges or member offices directly, as I only speak on behalf of Assemblyman Achadjian and not for other members of the Legislature.”

Achadjian’s staff was referring to the Tribune’s report, which included Achadjian’s declaration that the trip wasn’t a secret.

It isn’t clear whether the legislators used campaign or personal funds to pay for trip expenses. Under state law, it wouldn’t make a difference.

Influence

One campaign watchdog group believes that lobbyists and legislators shouldn’t be traveling together, regardless of who pays the bill because it gives lobbyists more influence than average citizens.

“We are in an era where powerful lobbyists have more access to public officials than constituents. Look no further than these trips as proof,” said Phillip Ung, a policy advocate for California Common Cause, a non-profit, non-partisan citizens’ lobby organization. “These junkets must either end or voters should know who is on the trip and what is being discussed regardless of who pays for it.”

Ung said that California’s weak ethics regulations don’t meet the federal government’s disclosure requirements for members of Congress that engage in foreign travel.

“Congress banned travel junkets with lobbyists years ago and now requires strict disclosure before a privately funded trip can even take place,” Ung said.

Campaign funds

“From trips across the ocean, gifts to staff, and even cars, many elected officials feel there is no real restriction for what they can spend their campaign funds on,” said Ung. “Under current law this is legal because of the vague definitions that allow campaign funds to be spent on almost anything under the sun.”

Not everyone in Sacramento is critical of the lobbyist-legislator foreign travel issue. Dan Pellissier, the president of California Pension Reform, defended the trip to Cuba based on his own experiences on a similar trip organized by Anderson’s nonprofit, Californians Building Bridges.

“I do not know what happened on other CBB trips, but ours was an outstanding experience without a hint of secrecy or impropriety,” Pellissier told CalWatchdog.com.  “It was a wonderful personal experience for both of us and I cannot imagine a more meaningful cultural exchange. I tipped well, in U.S. dollars.” Pellissier also wrote similar comments after the first CalWatchdog.com article on the trip.

All of this means that entertainers Beyonce and Jay-Z, who also recently traveled to Cuba, have faced more scrutiny than state lawmakers traveling to the same place with the state’s “best-connected” lobbyist. Two members of the U.S. Congress from Florida, Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Mario Diaz-Balart, have demanded answers from the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control Department of Treasury about the superstars’ trip. No word yet on whether the Florida members of Congress will demand a similar investigation into Achadjian and Galgiani.

CalWatchdog.com is currently contacting every member of the State Assembly to confirm their whereabouts over the spring holiday.

By John Hrabe and Katy Grimes

At least two California state legislators secretly traveled with Sacramento’s “best connected” lobbyist to Cuba during the legislature’s spring break, an exclusive CalWatchdog.com investigation has revealed.

State Sen. Cathleen Galgiani, D-Livingston, and Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian, R-San Luis Obispo, confirmed through their offices that they spent the spring holiday in Cuba with lobbyist Darius Anderson.

The founder and president of the influential lobbying firm Platinum Advisors, Anderson and his firm agreed in 2010 to pay out half a million dollars to settle pay-to-play allegations.

Both legislators’ offices said the elected officials paid their own way on what one Capitol source described as a “super-secret trip.” The source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that participants “shredded their itineraries when they landed.”

“He went on the annual trip to learn and study about Cuba,” said Craig Swaim, Achadjian’s chief of staff.

“Sen. Galgiani did travel to Cuba on the Darius organized trip,” said Trent Hager, the senator’s chief of staff. “As opposed to other trips, the costs for this one are fully borne by the participants.”

Anderson did not respond to requests for comment regarding the trip.

Nonprofit: “Wholly-owned subsidiary of lobbying firm”

One ethics expert said that the trip raised multiple ethical questions, including why legislators were traveling with lobbyists, the true purpose of the nonprofit and why officials felt compelled to hide the trip from the public.  “It absolutely raises ethical questions when lobbyists travel with elected officials,” said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law school professor who specializes in campaign finance issues. “We want elected officials to hear from all of us, not just those who are taking trips.”

In order to comply with the State Department’s ban on travel to Cuba, the trip was arranged by Californians Building Bridges, a shadowy non-profit organization controlled by Anderson.

In addition to Anderson, the nonprofit’s board of directors includes Holly Fraumeni and Melinda McClain, both of whom are registered lobbyists with Platinum Advisors. Only two other individuals serve on the board of directors, Kevin Murray, a former state senator and lobbyist, and James Bruner, the director of Orrick’s Governmental Affairs Practice Group in Sacramento.  The foundation shares the same phone number with Platinum Advisors.

The organization’s website was registered by Fraumeni in August 2010 and the provided contact information was for Platinum Advisors.

That information, Levinson believes, raises the question of whether “the nonprofit is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the lobbying firm.”

CA Building Bridges: “Renowned artists, fine arts museums & fabulous home restaurants”

In June 2012, the Sonoma News described a trip organized by the California Building Bridges Foundation, which served as a raffle prize for the Sonoma Valley Museum of Art:

 “’This really opens it up to the community,’ says Kate Eilertsen, museum director. ‘Imagine, a chance for two people to spend a week in Cuba, seeing renowned artists in their studios, visiting the Rum and Fine Arts Museum, and dining in the fabulous home restaurants – all for a $100 ticket.

“Travel plans also include a two-day side trip to 16th-century tiny Trinidad with its Valley of Seventy Sugar Mills and French-inspired Cienfuegos.”

A 2011 San Francisco Chronicle column by former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown described a similarly lavish trip. “Having spent a few days in Havana as a part of a Californians Building Bridges junket,” Brown wrote, “the trip was put together by Darius Anderson, who turns out to be very big in Cuban investments. So big, in fact, that the night he was missing from the group, he was dining with the president.”

However, federal charitable tax documents and the group’s website present a very different mission for the 501(c)3 organization. “The organization’s primary purpose is to assist other charitable organizations in expediting projects, setting priorities and achieving goals,” the group stated as its charitable mission on tax forms. “Californians Building Bridges will develop humanitarian programs that help volunteers and corporate partners alike make a useful connection to a world in need.”

In 2011, the only year for which the organization filed a tax return, it spent $94,586 on travel-related expenses of $136,476 in overall expenses. The organization’s mission also listed as a priority, making “one-time financial grants and donations of supplies and materials to charitable organizations that lack their own resources or do not qualify for assistance through existing agencies and organizations in their region.”

Yet, in 2011, it paid out $0 in domestic and foreign grants, according to the group’s tax return.  The organization’s tax return raises questions about whether the group is meeting its tax-exempt mission statement. Contributions to Anderson’s non-profit organization are tax deductible, according to an IRS database.

Conflicting history of group’s operations

According to his biography on the Platinum Advisors website, “Through Californians Building Bridges, Darius founded Project Havana, a humanitarian project dedicated to making a difference in the lives of the Cuban people through providing grants and donations of supplies to charitable organizations that lack their own resources. For the past 10 years, Darius and CBB have led over 50 missions to Cuba.”

Yet, according to the organization’s website, it did not receive a license to legally operate in Cuba until 2011. “On March 29, 2011, Californians Building Bridges (CBB) was granted a license by the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control, License # CT-16606, to travel and engage in transactions directly related to a new humanitarian project in Cuba,” the organization states under “Project Havana,” one of only four pages on its website. Guide Star, the independent organization that tracks nonprofit financial information, lists the organization’s founding and ruling year as 2012.

Only one tax return, filed on October 30, 2012, was publicly available.

Well-connected lobbyists

According to state disclosure reports, Anderson’s firm is the lobbyist of record for thirty-four government organizations and special interest groups, including Anthem Blue Cross, AT&T, California Thoroughbred Breeders Association, Clear Channel Communications, Station Casinos, LLC, Sutter Health, United Food and Commercial Workers, UPS, and the counties of Alameda, Napa, Orange and San Bernardino.

In 2009, Anderson was voted by state legislators as the “best connected lobbyist,” according to a survey of all 120 legislators conducted by Capitol Weekly. In 2010, Anderson and Platinum Advisors “paid $500,000 to settle claims by New York Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo stemming from a yearlong investigation into so-called pay-to-play practices in city and state pension fund investment partnerships,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Following the settlement, Dan Schnur, then chairman of the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, appointed Anderson to serve on the Chairman’s Task Force on the Political Reform Act. The appointment was criticized by Common Cause.

The past three consecutive years, Anderson has ranked in Capitol Weekly’s Top 100, the list of the most influential people in state politics.

“Darius Anderson rose to prominence during former Gov. Gray Davis’ administration, handling fund-raising chores, then expanded his contacts and influence dramatically,” read Capitol Weekly’s 2012 profile, when Anderson ranked 76th on the list.

In November 2012, Anderson and former Democratic Rep. Doug Bosco were among a group of investors that purchased the Santa Rosa Press Democrat.

Cuba trip: One of three spring junkets

CalWatchdog.com contacted every member of the state Senate to confirm their whereabouts over the spring holiday.

Thirty-one offices confirmed that their bosses did not participate in any foreign travel over the holiday. Only the offices of four state Senators, Ron Calderon, Hannah-Beth Jackson, Curren Price, Jr. and Rod Wright, would not definitely confirm that their bosses did not participate in any trip to Cuba. Two state Senate seats are vacant.

State Senator Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, and Senate Republican leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar were participating in a separate junket to Eastern Europe, which, according to the Los Angeles Times, was “sponsored by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, which is bankrolled by groups lobbying the Legislature, including PG&E, Chevron, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Southern California Edison, among others.”

CalWatchdog.com was unable to reach all members of the State Assembly.