State law bans the Fresno Democrat from lobbying his former colleagues for one year following his tenure in the state Assembly. Yet, the state’s ban on influence-peddling hasn’t stopped the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America from hiring Perea as a senior director of state advocacy. Perea, according to published reports, began talking job prospects with the industry group in September.

Beginning on January 4, Perea will direct political operations in California, Arizona and Nevada for the group known around the Capitol by the acronym PhRMA. The group represents the country’s biggest pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including Allergan, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Pfizer.

“They innovate, they discover cures, they represent a lot of California employers,” Perea said in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. “The debate in health care, especially after the Affordable Care Act, is going to be very robust over the next decade or two and I look forward to being a part of that.”

PhRMA’s Robust Lobbying Operation

Since Perea’s first term in the state Assembly in 2010, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America has spent big money to lobby the governor, state lawmakers and other state government officials.

A CalWatchdog.com analysis of state lobbying disclosure forms found that Perea’s new employer has spent more than $2.59 million in state lobbying over the past five years. That half-million dollars per year in annual lobbying fees doesn’t include money spent by PhRMA’s member organizations.

Just one PhRMA member, the multinational pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, spent more than $3.18 million in lobbying over the same period, according to CalWatchdog.com’s review of disclosure reports.

Perea’s Campaign Contributions from PhRMA

The pharmaceutical industry’s robust lobbying operation in Sacramento has frequently crossed paths with Perea. Over the course of his career, Perea has accepted $157,144 in campaign contributions from the industry, according to FollowtheMoney.org’s analysis of campaign contributions. That ranks him 119th of every politician in the country and, according to FollowtheMoney.org, means he’s accepted more pharma money than Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, Speaker of the Assembly Toni Atkins and former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg.

During the 2011-2012 legislative session, the pharmaceutical industry contributed more than $74,000 to Perea’s campaign accounts, making it the second largest industrywide contributor to Perea’s campaign, according to an independent analysis by the transparency group MapLight.

Perea’s multiple campaign committees also appear frequently on campaign finance disclosure reports and political action committee summaries filed by pharmaceutical companies. Earlier this year, his campaign committee for a 2018 Insurance Commissioner campaign accepted $2,000 from Amgen. In 2014, Pfizer gave Perea $3,500 and counted his re-election among its important wins.

“We continue to face significant legislative and regulatory challenges and each election cycle is critical to our industry,” Sally Susman, chair of Pfizer PAC, wrote in its 2014 Pfizer PAC annual report, a 102-page report detailing the company’s effort to build “positive public will.”

Perea’s history of luxury gifts, trips

Although Perea has refused to disclose his new salary, it’s likely to be more than the $97,197 annual salary and $33,000 in annual tax-free per diem payments he received as a member of the state Legislature.

Over the course of his career, Perea supplemented his income with tens of thousands of dollars in luxury goods, entertainment and travel, according to his economic disclosure reports.

In 2011, Perea accepted $9,397 worth of lodging, meals and transportation for a junket to Italy sponsored by the California Foundation on the Environment and the Economy, “a San Francisco-based nonprofit made up of oil companies, utilities and environmental groups.” Two years later, Perea again accompanied the group on its junket to Eastern Europe – a trip valued at $9,984.

Perea’s biggest haul came last year, when he accepted $16,090 from the group, including a $10,221 trip to Chile. He also traveled to: Maui on a $2,148 trip paid for by the Independent Voter Project, Israel on a $11,550 trip paid for by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Central America on a $1,500 trip paid for by the government of El Salvador.

3rd lawmaker resignation since 2013

Perea will become the third California lawmaker in two years to quit in the middle of a term in order to take a job with a Capitol interest group. In 2013, Democrat State Senator Michael Rubio abruptly quit his position to take a job with Chevron’s government affairs unit. That same year, Republican State Senator Bill Emmerson quit mid-term for a high-paying job with the California Hospital Association.

Perea’s resignation will trigger a 2016 special election that is expected to cost Fresno taxpayers several hundred thousand dollars. The March 2014 special election to fill Emmerson’s seat cost Riverside County taxpayers $415,000, according to the Press-Enterprise.

Two candidates had already announced their intentions to run for the 31st Assembly District: Democrat Joaquin Arambula and Republican Fresno City Councilman Clint Olivier.

Asm. Ling Ling Chang

Sacramento once again has its eye on the sharing economy.

This year, state lawmakers have targeted ride-sharing companies and short-term accommodation services for more regulations that, some fear, could kill the burgeoning industry. But, at least one state lawmaker has embraced the mantra: “sharing is caring.”

Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang of Diamond Bar has introduced legislation that would rewrite the state’s travel policy to guarantee state workers have the right to use sharing services while traveling on government business. That means on the next business trip to Los Angeles, a state worker could ditch the corporate hotel chain in favor of Airbnb, or upgrade the big yellow taxi for an Uber.

“The sharing economy is becoming a part of our everyday lives,” Chang told CalWatchdog.com. “I see it as a growing market in California that is creating jobs and making our lives better, which is a win-win.”

Chang added, “We should be embracing these new markets and one way to do that is to allow state workers to take advantage of their cost-saving benefits.”

Bill could saves taxpayers millions

Technically, there’s nothing in state law that prevents an agency or department from approving travel reimbursements for sharing services. Chang says that her measure is a pro-active effort to keep state policies current with new innovations in the marketplace.

“By allowing state employees to use the sharing economy, California is leading by example and embracing innovation,” Chang explained. “Too many times state bureaucracies punish these new entrepreneurs because they don’t understand them. If it doesn’t fit into the status-quo, 20th century regulatory scheme, there seems to be a desire to push them into that old system.”

Last year, the University of California initially banned reimbursements for travel expenses incurred with sharing services. That led to a public outcry with some Democratic politicians calling for the UC system to modernize its travel policies.

“Sharing economy companies offer consumers more choices at often less cost than comparable services offered by traditional vendors,” Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, a member of the UC Board of Regents, wrote at the time. “Prohibiting U.C. employees from using services that cost less is simply bad for the university’s bottom line.”

Eventually, the UC system backed away from its ban. Chang’s bill encourages the UC system to follow the state’s lead in embracing sharing services.

Internet Association, Natural Resources Defense Council back bill

The $15 billion sharing industry is expected to grow to $335 billion over the next decade, in part, because it saves consumers money. Sharing services are commonly cheaper than traditional travel businesses. According a legislative analysis of the bill, home-sharing services can save consumers as much as 50 percent compared to conventional lodging options.

With more than 271,000 active state employees, a shift by state government to more sharing services could help save taxpayers money. Chang’s office says that state employees have been reimbursed approximately $110 million in travel-related expenses over the last three years.

The bill has picked up key support from the Internet Association & Natural Resources Defense Council, which believe it will help the environment and save taxpayers money.

“AB229 recognizes the value of the emerging sharing economy and how it could be used to reduce state costs relating to travel,” the Internet Association wrote in support of the bill. “Providing the ability for state employees to use sharing economy services and receive reimbursement would increase the number of safe and reliable options available to employees when they travel on state business.”

AB229 sailed passed the State Assembly on a 74-0 vote.

Sen. Ben Hueso attacks ride-sharing services

But not everyone in Sacramento is ready to embrace the idea. The bill has run headlong into opposition from one state lawmaker that has consistently opposed the new sharing economy.

“This industry, two years ago was operating illegally,” state Senator Ben Hueso, D-San Diego, said in reference to the ride-sharing industry during a committee hearing earlier this month. “This is a bill that is largely unnecessary, but it is setting a statement, saying, ‘The state of California is endorsing this mode of travel and encouraging this mode of travel over others.'”

Hueso, whose family is in the taxi cab business, has become the Legislature’s biggest critic of ride-sharing. Yet, even he could benefit from the new services. Last summer, Hueso was arrested for driving under the influence just hours after he voted for legislation that one ride-share executive feared “would literally spell the end of the ride-share industry.”

If you have to ask, probably banned

Guns are once again being targeted by California lawmakers this year, though the pace of anti-weapons legislation, seemingly on automatic for decades, has ebbed.

In previous sessions, you could scan for bills and come up with at least 100 that mentioned the word “weapon.” A search today yields 33 such bills, though the number could grow by the end of session in the fall.

Last week, a measure advanced that would bar concealed weapon permit holders from bringing their firearms to school and college campuses without permission from the school. The bill moved through a bipartisan Senate committee and on to the state Assembly.

Current law allows properly licensed individuals to carry in those places.

Other bills regarding weapons include:

• State lawmakers have tried to make sure BB and pellet guns are colorful enough for cops to discern them from the real deal.
• Under another measure, criminals convicted of firearms-related misdemeanors would be unable to possess or purchase a gun within 10 years of their conviction.
• A registered gun owner’s home address would be protected from public disclosure under Assembly Bill 1154.
• Another bill would reduce the fee for weapons licensure for members of the Armed Forces from $40 to $25.

Meanwhile, the courts are sorting out lingering issues from earlier legislation.

Those include a challenge to a requirement that gun owners in San Francisco keep their firearms stowed in a lock box in their homes, or disable them with a trigger lock, unless they’re physically carrying them. The U.S. Supreme Court was scheduled last week to consider a review of a lower court ruling against the plaintiffs, who sought to repeal the policy.

And of course there’s the “smart gun” bill from 2013, which would require owner-specific, microstamping technology on guns so that only the owner of the weapon could fire it. The requirement is on hold pending the outcome of a federal lawsuit from a gun rights group. The state prevailed in the lower courts, and the case is now on appeal.

California has some of the nation’s most restrictive gun laws, requiring background checks on all gun sales and banning a growing list of assault weapons — an issue explored in detail recently by the pro-gun rights site guns.com.

In recent years, crime in the Golden State has fallen while gun sales have exploded.

Sales more than doubled between 2008 and 2014, from 425,244 in 2008 to 931,037 last year, according to data collected by the state. Handgun sales went from 208,312 in 2008 to 512,174 in 2014.

[Related: Banned guns not the ones used in crimes]

Regardless, some could say the state’s firearms policies are working.

A report by the state’s Department of Justice noted that from 2012 to 2013, “every violent and property offense category decreased in number and rate per 100,000 population.”

According to the report, the violent crime rate fell, and the homicide rate, after climbing 4.2 percent in 2012, dropped 8 percent in 2013 to 4.6 murders per 100,000 people.

The crime rate has dropped before, as in 2010 when the statistics were trotted out and Gov. Brown said that “crime remains a serious problem in California, and law enforcement officials at every level must redouble their efforts to ensure public safety.” Even back in 2006, the state had relatively low levels of crime, ranking 14th in the U.S. for violent crimes.

Some have pointed to the firearm prohibition laws as the reason for the drop.

“At a domestic level, California is a prime example of legal reform curbing gun violence,” wrote Isaac Saidel-Goley in a report in February at the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy’s Harvard chapter. “Over the past 20 years, California – along with a few other states, including Massachusetts and New York – has pioneered the domestic implementation of gun control by passing laws enacting widespread firearm regulation, including banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, prohibiting individuals from openly carrying firearms in public, prohibiting domestic violence abusers from acquiring firearms, and establishing numerous firearm safety standards.

“These gun control laws have achieved remarkable success in preventing gun violence.”

Gun advocates, however, credit the increase in weapons purchased, a theory advanced in the 1998 book by academic John Lott, More Guns, Less Crime.

Steve Miller can be reached at 517-775-9952 and avalanche50@hotmail.com. His website is www.Avalanche50.com

Republican lawmakers in swing seats along with party operatives and campaign consultants already are preparing for the challenging task of holding those seats in the 2016 election — when the higher turnout during a presidential year favors Democrats.

“Republicans hold the advantage among high-propensity voters, while Democrat strength is centered in lower-propensity voters,” said Wayne Johnson, one of the state’s top GOP political consultants. “2016 will be a higher turnout election, therefore it is a more favorable environment for Democrats.”

GOP ran efficient 2014 campaign

Following the election, Johnson’s firm, which does work on behalf of Republican legislative campaigns, crunched the numbers on seven competitive legislative races. That analysis found legislative Republicans ran an efficient operation in 2014 that capitalized on the state’s low voter turnout.

“By relying on propensity formulae, the Republican caucuses were far more efficient in their spending,” Johnson said.

Looking ahead to 2016, Republicans will need to be even more efficient in their campaign spending overall. That’s because in 2014 Republicans were aided by a decreased turnout among women and minority voters that traditionally vote for Democrats.

“The Democrat advantage among women and minority voters shrank significantly among those who actually voted in 2014,” pointed out Dr. Val Smith, polling and research director at The Wayne Johnson Agency.

GOP lawmakers work their districts

GOP lawmakers that represent swing seats are aware they’ll need to improve their standing with a broader electorate. That’s why they’ve prioritized working their districts by recognizing community leaders and filling their calendars with community events.

Earlier this month, Assemblyman David Hadley recognized Rosalinda Garcia, an active community volunteer and the chief programs officer for the Pediatric Therapy Network, as the 2015 Woman of the Year for the 66th Assembly District. Later this week, he will host a breakfast meet-and-greet with members of the Harbor City Harbor Gateway Chamber of Commerce in Torrance.

The first-term Republican lawmaker has yet to draw a challenger, but after winning by less than 1 percentage point in 2014, he’ll be one of the Democrats’ top 2016 targets.

OC Rematch: Sharon Quirk-Silva vs. Young Kim

In Orange County, former Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, who lost by 9 percentage points to Republican Young Kim in 2014, already has announced plans for a 2016 rematch. This past Monday, Quirk-Silva formerly launched her campaign for the 65th Assembly District at a St. Patrick’s Day celebration and fundraiser in Fullerton.

“I have thought seriously about this decision and know that my work for decades in our communities has focused on education, on supporting working families, and on building great communities,” Quirk-Silva posted on Facebook. “I realize the challenge I have ahead of me, but I am ready to work tirelessly to let the voters know that there is a choice in this district, a choice that matters.”

Orange County’s liberal activists relished Quirk-Silva’s announcement and the opportunity to send her back to Sacramento.

“Sharon Quirk-Silva had perhaps the best freshman term of any assembly member who won the 2012 race,” wrote Dan Chmielewski, a blogger at the LiberalOC.com. “Her loss to Young Kim last November was more a result of terrible voter turnout than a reflection on the job she did.”

The 2014 contest was one of the most expensive races in the country, with spending topping $5 million.

Baker benefits from ongoing Democrat Senate special election battle

In the Bay Area, Assemblywoman Catharine Baker, R-Pleasanton, could benefit from a prolonged special election battle for State Senate. Last November, Baker held off Democrat Tim Sbranti by less than 3 percentage points, after a bruising three-way primary battle that included moderate Democrat Steve Glazer. Bad blood from the primary affected voters’ opinion of the Democratic nominee in the general election.

Glazer is currently leading in a special election for the 7th Senate District. As CalWatchdog.com has reported, the race is headed to a run-off, in which Glazer will face off against Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D-Concord. That means more nasty campaigning by Democrats in Baker’s area.

Baker has largely risen above the fray and focused on a moderate agenda in Sacramento. She’s helped solidify her reputation as a committed public servant by declining per diem payments and a taxpayer-funded vehicle.

Thus far, no Democrat has filed a statement of intent to challenge Baker in the 16th Assembly District.

Patty Lopez

Time doesn’t heal all intra-party wounds.

Last November, unknown community activist Patty Lopez defeated a fellow Democrat, incumbent Raul Bocanegra, in the 39th Assembly District. It is — without a doubt — the biggest upset in the history of California’s Top Two primary, which was enacted by voters with Proposition 14 in 2010.

Political professionals were left stumped at how Lopez won. In the June 3 primary, Bocanegra beat Lopez by nearly 40 points, the largest margin of any Democrat vs. Democrat primary in Los Angeles County. In advance of the November election, Lopez didn’t report any expenditures or obtain a candidate statement.

It hasn’t taken long for those unresolved questions to turn into vicious smears and an organized effort to unseat Lopez.

Recall?

Before the first-term state lawmaker could introduce her first bill, angry self-described “progressives” were talking of a recall attempt.

“We cannot wait two years down the line for a chance to rectify the results of misplaced trust and uninformed voting,” Rosemary Jenkins, a Democratic activist and chair of the Northeast Valley Green Alliance, wrote at CityWatchLA.com. “By and large, worthy office-holders must pay their dues first, gaining experience through working their way up the ladder. She has not done that.”

Jenkins even branded Lopez as “functionally illiterate. … As a Progressive, I firmly believe in diversity with all its ramifications, but to be an effective legislator at any level requires fluency in the English language and the ability to communicate well.” (boldface in original)

Jenkins offered as grounds for a recall: Lopez has failed to use her taxpayer-funded office to support patronage jobs for Democratic activists.

“Speaking of the Democratic Party, she, as an elected Democrat, is obligated to hire Democrats as her staff members,” Jenkins wrote. “She has been in violation of this regulation.”

Of course, no such regulation exists and likely would be illegal. Although it’s rare, numerous California politicians have hired staffers of the opposing political party for key positions. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger famously hired Democrat Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff. In 2013, then-State Sen. Lou Correa, a Democrat, hired longtime GOP staffer Damon Conklin to serve as a top adviser and lead his communications outreach.

Lopez’s chief of staff is a longtime Democratic staff member, Lourdes Jimenez, who recently worked for Sen. Ben Hueso, D-San Diego. What’s Lopez’s big staffing crime? She hired Ricardo Benitez, a Republican, to a field representative position.

“What Sacramento is finding out about the newly elected Assemblywoman is troubling, to say the least,” Mario Solis-Marich, another blogger angry with Benitez’s hiring, wrote at LAProggressive.com.

‘Smear campaign’

The pettiness and persistence of the attacks has some constituents questioning whether it’s part of a larger smear campaign.

“It appears that a very well-orchestrated smear campaign has been launched against Assemblywoman Patty Lopez disparaging her ethnic origins, gender, and abilities, while insulting the intelligence of the voters of the 39th Assembly District,” Michael Moncreiff, who lives in Rancho Tujunga, recently wrote at CityWatchLA.com. “All these disrespectful remarks are being callously disseminated one month after the Assemblywoman took office and well before she has commenced her legislative work.”

As recently as mid-January, an attack website accused Lopez of “deceiving voters.” However, the website has recently been taken down and no archived copy was available.

The attacks, to a degree, have galvanized support for Lopez.

“She listens to us and is working for our communities instead of the pocketbooks of a few,” Nina Royal, who is active in several community organizations in the district, recently posted on Facebook. “I am confident that she will work hard to make a difference in our District.”

Another community activist in the largely Spanish-speaking district told Hoy Los Angeles, “Ella representa lo que la gente quiere, es la voz de ellos.” In English, “She represents what people want, (she) is the voice of them.”

‘I will make sure that everyone’s voice is heard’

Lopez, who declined CalWatchdog.com’s request for comment on the recall attempt, has said she’s interested in representing all people in her district, not just politically connected party loyalists.

“I am no different from many of my colleagues in the Assembly because I ran for this office to improve the lives of people in my district and in California,” Lopez recently wrote. “And as the new representative of the 39th District in the California Assembly, I will make sure that everyone’s voice is heard.”

She added, “I am still learning how everything works in the Legislature.”

Known as the incumbent rule, derived from a 1989 article by Nick Panagakis, incumbents who poll under 50 percent are expected to lose late deciding voters. In recent years, data guru and FiveThirtyEight blogger Nate Silver has questioned the rule as it applies to polling. However, the 50 percent threshold still offers a guide to incumbents that must work in November.

Fox tops list of Democrats in trouble

Topping the list of seven Democratic incumbents in danger of losing their seats this fall is Assemblyman Steve Fox, D-Palmdale. The first-term incumbent barely eked out a victory in 2012 — only pulling ahead of his GOP opponent after late absentee and provisional balloting. Fox will face a tough challenge this November from Palmdale Councilman Tom Lackey, the top vote-getter in Tuesday’s primary.

Lackey’s first place finish is all the more impressive because two other Republican candidates were on the ballot. GOP candidates accounted for nearly two-thirds of all votes in a district that has a GOP registration of less than half a percent.

Earlier this year, a former employee of Fox’s law office alleged that the Democratic lawmaker forced employees in his taxpayer-funded state office to perform work at his private law practice. Fox denies the allegations and says he looks forward to clearing his name in court.

Los Angeles Democrats dogged by ethics issues

Fox isn’t the only Los Angeles Democrat to be dogged by ethics issues. Assemblyman Roger Hernandez, D-West Covina, is currently under investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission for allegations of money laundering during his 2010 campaign. Hernandez finished first in Tuesday’s election, but was only 2,000 votes ahead of county probation commissioner Joe Gardner.

The 48th Assembly district is considered a safe Democratic seat, according to the ATC Partisan Index, which ranks districts based on their competitiveness in the 2014 election. Gardner, who also ran in 2012, has made Hernandez’ misbehavior a central issue in the campaign.

While a member of the Assembly, Hernandez was arrested for driving under the influence. He beat those charges in court, in addition to getting dismissed allegations of domestic violence filed in a civil lawsuit by Carolina Taillon.

According to the Los Angeles Times, “The lawsuit alleges that on one occasion, Hernandez told Taillon that ‘the Speaker of the Assembly had called a medical team to come to the building because defendant Hernandez felt like he was going to die after using cocaine.'”

Strong immigrant GOP challengers:  Young Kim, Pedro Rios

While some Democratic lawmakers are struggling by their own undoing, the re-election of Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton, looks bleak due to a strong challenge in the 65th Assembly district. Small businesswoman Young Kim, a former aide to GOP Congressman Ed Royce, was the top performing candidate.

Kim also received more votes than any other GOP Assembly challenger in the state, garnering 55 percent of the vote in a Democratic district. “As many immigrant families did, my parents worked hard and struggled, but they also instilled in me the value of individual responsibility and living within a person’s means,” Kim wrote in the Orange County Register earlier this year.

A first-generation Korean American immigrant, Kim has raised nearly a half-million dollars from her network of supporters in Orange County. She’s also gained key support from legislative leaders who want to reclaim a seat once held by GOP Assemblyman Chris Norby.

Another GOP Assembly candidate with an immigrant’s tale is Pedro Rios, who illegally crossed into the United States from Mexico when he was 9 years old. “I remember walking quite a bit, and then a car picked me up,” Rios told the Bakersfield Californian in 2012. “It is a dangerous journey … I was scared.”

Below is the list of Assembly members, ranked by percent of Tuesday’s primary vote. Also shown is the number of votes.

Assembly District 36: Steve Fox

Assembly District 32 : Rudy Salas

Assembly District 61: Jose Medina

Assembly District 65: Sharon Quirk-Silva

Assembly District 57: Ian Calderon

Assembly District 48: Roger Hernandez

 Assembly District 66: Al Muratsuchi