Campbell, the last Republican to represent Silicon Valley in Congress, doesn’t want to repeat the mistakes Republicans made in the 2016 primary. Republicans were unable to unite behind a candidate, which led to two Democrats being thrust into the general election, thanks to the relatively new primary system where the top two candidates advance regardless of party.

“I see the 2018 race for Governor headed toward a disaster, when it could be a major rebirth of the Republican party,” Campbell wrote to other Republicans just after the June primary. “The disaster would be if, like the U.S. Senate race just completed, 12 Republican candidates all run, none of them strongly supported, and the Democrats place the top two candidates who go on to November.”

In describing what he wanted in a candidate, Campbell pitched a platform built on five pillars: Fix roads and build water storage, delegate decisions on government employees’ compensation to a civil service commission that’s free of political influence from public employee unions, protect Prop 209 (which barred ethnic and gender preferences in the public university admissions process), protection of Prop 13 (which capped annual property tax increases), and increase school choice.

“The vast majority of California Republicans can unite behind a few very important principles, leaving the points that divide us to one side,” Campbell wrote.

“We need to find a candidate for Governor in 2018, and support her or him strongly and early, who shares the principles I’ve identified, who is not divisive,” Campbell added. In a follow up interview with CalWatchdog on Wednesday, Campbell did not offer specific candidates but said he was actively recruiting and he had not planned to run.

The comment about divisiveness is surely a nod to the 2016 Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. In August, Campbell announced he would leave the party in protest if the nomination was not vacated (which of course it wasn’t).

Campbell, a professor of law at Chapman University in Orange, served in Congress twice, from 1989 to 1993 and then from 1995 to 2001. In the interim, he served in the state Senate.

He also ran for Senate three times. He lost to Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein in the 2000 general election. And he lost in the Republican primaries in 1992 and 2010.

So far, the two major candidates for governor are Treasurer John Chiang and Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, both Democrats. 

By Dave Roberts

In California, there are three certainties: death, taxes and the re-election of Sen. Dianne Feinstein. In 2006, she shellacked Dick Mountjoy by 24 points. In 2000, she trounced Tom Campbell by 19 points.

The grande doyenne of California Democrats has been in the Senate for 20 years and will turn 79 next month. She’s up for re-election and, short of serious illness or death, it’s likely she’ll still be in the Senate when she’s 85 and 91 if she wants.

So it’s not exactly a shock that prominent Republican congressmen like Darrell Issa, David Dreier and Dan Lungren have chosen to sit this one out. That has left the field of challengers to 14 Republicans, five Democrats and four minor party candidates — all of whom have zero to little electoral experience or name recognition. In a crowded field of nobodies, getting their party’s endorsement provides an advantage in winning the second spot in the new top-two primary system and its ticket to the general election in November.

The top two system was instituted by Proposition 14 in 2010.  Under it, the top two winners of June 5 primary will face off in November. No other candidates for U.S. Senate will be on the ballot. Assuming Feinstein is the top vote getter, that means just one other person will face her on the ballot, likely a Republican. Third party candidates will be shut out.

The function of the political parties has been reduced to official endorsements.

In March, the California Republican Party endorsed more than 100 candidates for a variety of offices, including for the U.S. Senate. “As the party prepares to be a vigorous contender in California’s first top two primary, we seek to promote the most competitive candidates in the field this primary season,” said Party Chairman Tom Del Beccaro in the press release announcing the endorsed candidates.

Elizabeth Emken won the GOP nod as the most competitive candidate to face Feinstein. However, the Danville autism advocate’s only electoral experience is finishing fourth out of four candidates in the 2010 Republican primary in Democratic Rep. Jerry McNerney’s district. Emken received 16.7 percent of the vote. In a district that winds through four counties, Emken didn’t even win her own Contra Costa County, finishing second, just 270 votes ahead of the third-place finisher.

Such a poor showing might be understandable if a candidate were running a token campaign, placing her name in contention for publicity’s sake but doing little campaigning. But Emken ran full out in 2010, spending $456,404 — more than $200,000 of it from her own pocket. That equates to $40 per vote. At that rate Emken would need to raise more than $200 million to best the more than 5 million votes Feinstein gathered in 2006. As of March 31, Emken had raised just more than $300,000. Feinstein’s campaign treasury had more than $7 million on hand.

‘Most competitive candidate’?

So what makes Emken the “most competitive candidate” in the eyes of state GOP officials? One factor is that her senior communications advisor is Mark Standriff, who in January left his position after two years as communications director for the California Republican Party. “Mark has been a tireless member of our senior staff and dedicated himself to improving the CRP’s communications efforts by helping me reach more voters in more corners of our state,” California GOP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro said in a statement upon Standriff’s departure.

In an email interview, I asked Jennifer Kerns, who replaced Standriff as the California GOP communications director, whether it was helpful for Emken in getting the endorsement to have Standriff on her staff. Kerns did not address the question, saying simply, “He was free to consult with any campaign once he departed the CRP.”

Said Standriff in a phone interview, “The only thing it helped is that I am a professional communications director and somebody who has worked on campaigns for years and was able to put together a comprehensive package. I contacted no board members. Frankly, I wish I had that kind of power.”

Standriff said Emken’s experience two years ago in one district’s partisan Republican primary is not relevant to today’s statewide, top-two primary.

“You have to take everything that happened pre-Prop. 14 and throw it out the window,” he said. “All of these other candidates seem to think this is still a partisan primary, and it’s not. It’s open to everybody. That’s why you will see 24 different names on the ballot. So the Republican Party said, ‘Who do we think is the most electable, who has the best chance to get through June 5th and take on Dianne Feinstein?’ Everybody had the chance to present their financial package and show how much money they will be able to raise and present their positions. She’s the only one who has ever gone to Washington D.C. and stood up and said, ‘Enough is enough.’ And that’s a big thing.”

Kerns said Emken’s experience as an autism lobbyist was a major factor in her endorsement.

That was echoed by Jeff Corless, Emken’s campaign manager. He said, “She, unlike the rest of the candidates, not only has business experience and experience helping those truly in need, but also understands the legislative process from day one when she goes back to the Senate, because of her experience in advocacy for autism.”

Endorsement process

Perhaps it’s a case of sour grapes, but several Republican candidates who did not get the endorsement or chose not to participate in the endorsement process, with its $500 buy-in for consideration, have harsh words for the way things went down.

“I believe the Republican Party has committed fraud in its endorsement of Elizabeth Emken by doing so without providing an opportunity for all candidates to be heard,” said Dennis Jackson, an aerospace general manager from Rancho Cucamonga. “Due to the open primary, there were no party debates or any type of debate that was televised.

“I have been a voting Republican since 1968 and would destroy Elizabeth Emken in a debate or in a comparison of backgrounds that would best serve this nation. However, I was never contacted by the Republican Party about any meeting to review my candidacy, policies or background. In making the endorsement in such a manner, the party is playing king-maker and insulting the intelligence of the voters as well as attempting to silence the voice of the candidates that they never even took the time to meet. The party politics seem more in line with the Bolsheviks than the Founding Fathers.”

Disappointment

Also ticked off in Rancho Cucamonga is MBA student Dirk Allen Konopik, who said, “The California Republican Party’s leadership, to include Chairman Tom Del Beccaro, has been a constant disappointment; from their continuous failure to support viable candidates, to the unethical decision to charge U.S. Senate candidates $500 just to consider them for the CRP endorsement. I chose not to pay. It is now very clear to me, after ramping up our U.S. Senate campaign since January 2011, why the Democratic Party controls California. It’s because the CRP is inefficient, ineffective and corrupt. In my opinion, I would rather have the California Federation of Republican Women lead the CRP.”

Also critical is Orly Taitz, the Laguna Niguel attorney who has become known for challenging President Obama’s citizenship.

“The nomination process was a complete fraud, and a number of the candidates are considering suing the corrupt 24 board members,” said Taitz. “Two candidates … talked to the Chair of the Board Tom Del Beccarro and another board member, who told them that the meeting and discussion was just a formality, the decision was already made. So, the Board has collected several thousand dollars from candidates under false pretenses. They used this money to have a nice weekend at a nice hotel and announced the predetermined decision. They defrauded the candidates and the voters.”

Another unhappy candidate is Rick Williams, a Los Angeles attorney.

“I believe the California Republican Party acted improperly by engaging in a process to endorse one candidate in the United States Senate race from a field of 14 good Republicans running for the seat,” he said. “I declined to participate in their disgraceful process. I realized it was a sham and wanted nothing to do with it. The decision as to which candidate should represent the Republican Party against Dianne Feinstein is for voters to make — not a tiny group of insider political operatives at the state party who were trying to tilt the playing field.”

Nachum Shifren, a Santa Monica rabbi, believes the state party snub of his campaign may be an asset: “My chances are helped, since the GOP mafia and good ol’ boys club will never nominate or support a true conservative that threatens the status quo,” he said. “I am having success in precisely distinguishing myself from the other RINO candidates and those that simply won’t take on the difficult issues.”

Kerns dismissed the criticism of the endorsement process, saying, “We provided every candidate the opportunity to be heard, in writing, by phone, and in person. This was to ensure the fairest process.”

If party officials had decided to base their endorsement on the candidate with the best electoral experience, they would have chosen Greg Conlon, a Burlingame CPA.

“I probably have the best chance because I ran statewide in 2002 for state treasurer and received over one million votes in the primary and three million votes in the general election against Phil Angelides, an incumbent,” said Conlon. “Therefore, even though it was 10 years ago, some will remember the name and vote for me now.”

The GOP endorsement may ultimately be irrelevant to the outcome of this year’s election. It’s likely that whoever wins the primary from among the 14 largely unknown and inexperienced Republican candidates will become a sacrificial lamb led to the Feinstein slaughter in November.

Whatever else it’s done, Carly Fiorina’s “Demon Sheep” ad against rival Tom Campbell has sparked the first widespread interest in the campaign for Republican nominee to replace Barbara Boxer in the U.S. Senate.

The ad, which has generated a lot of ridicule against Fiorina, dramatizes what Carly writes on her Web site about Campbell backing state increases in taxes, and support for too much state spending, both when he was a finance director under Gov. Schwarzenegger and during last year’s budget struggle, when he was a civilian. The ad brands Tom a FCINO — fiscal conservative in name only — and advertises a Web site: FCINO.com. The site, at least as of today, features a scary/funny picture of the Demon Sheep.

Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, also running for the nomination, has made similar charges against Campbell.

Frugal man of the House

So, what is Campbell: spendthrift tax-increaser or fiscal conservative?

In the U.S. House of Representatives, he certainly was the latter. He also led opposition to Bill Clinton’s 1999 Kosovo War, which vastly expanded the U.S. military presence in that region that now has lasted more than a decade and cost billions of dollars.

Yet we shouldn’t overlook that he definitely was not a fiscal conservative when he was state finance director, nor in his comments since then about the state budget. In his biography on his campaign Web site, he boasts, “During Tom’s tenure as State Finance Director, California’s budget was balanced with no tax increases, no new borrowing, and no accounting gimmicks.” True enough. But that was at the height of the housing boom mania, when the state’s coffers were overflowing with tax money.

But just like when Gov. Gray Davis enjoyed a similar excess tax take during the dot-com boom half a decade earlier, the money was not saved, but was used for new spending. Tax revenues soared from $82.2 billion in fiscal 2004-05 to $93.5 billion in fiscal 2005-06, the only year in which Campbell had full involvement in the budget process (before he left the post).  That’s an increase of $11.3 billion in just one year. Who couldn’t balance a budget with that kind of revenue?

Spending problem

The problem was on the spending side, which he let get out of control. It went from $79.8 billion in fiscal 2004-05 to $91.6 billion in 2005-06, a whopping $11.8 billion increase. The spending increase even outstripped the taxing increase by $0.5 billion.

At the time the budget was being enacted, back on June 16, 2005, Campbell explained in a statement still up on the governor’s Web site:

Since this time last year, because of our recovering economy, our state has generated more than $12 billion new dollars in revenue, in the current year and estimated for the budget year. That’s a 16-percent increase in revenue over the two years. Those who wanted to increase taxes even more were saying, ‘we just can’t make ends meet with $12 billion new dollars. We have to have $15 billion.’ Or, ‘we just can’t make do with a 16-percent increase in revenue; we need 20 percent.’

The message that kind of action would send is clear: we’re addicted to spending, and we can’t stop. And employers, with jobs to offer, will steer away from a state that announces that it has such a huge spending problem. Why sink foundations and pour concrete in a state that can’t learn to live within its means?

So, within two very important principles, the Governor and the Legislature can work toward a budget for our state. Those principles remain: don’t use one-time money on permanent spending, and don’t try to tax your way out of a spending problem.

Yet, Campbell and Schwarzenegger still went on to craft a budget with all that excess spending. So, as his last sentence indicated, Campbell knew what was going on, yet went along with it anyway, instead of resigning his office in protest against the wild spending.

He left, and soon the roof caved in on housing boom, the economy and the state budget.

Opponents’ own fiscal problems

Of course, it’s easy for Carly to criticize Tom because she’s never held an elective office. Yet she was a senior economic adviser to John McCain in 2008, even though he supported Bush’s $700 billion bailout spending bill. She backed the bailout bill herself. (Although she now denies it, the evidence for her support of the bailout is here.) The federal bailout dwarfed whatever waste Tom Campbell presided over in California.

Yet if McCain had led the fight against the bailout of Wall Street paid for by Main Street, he might have beaten Obama.

Chuck DeVore definitely is a fiscal conservative in the the state Assembly, and certainly would be so in the U.S. Senate — except on the biggest spending item of all, war. He’s a big supporter of the Iraq War, which Nobel economist George Stigler estimates already will cost us — when you include all the hidden costs — from $3 billion to $5 billion.  President Obama just called for increasing overall military spending even more.

The federal budget — and the whole U.S. economy — are buckling under the wasteful weight of what Eisenhower called the military-industrial complex. Something has to give. Campbell, whatever his other sins, most likely would vote for cutting military spending.

Where that leaves us, I don’t know. But here’s Ike — five-star general, defeater of Hitler, president — warning us almost 50 years ago about what we’re suffering now, what he called “the disastrous rise of misplaced power”:

-John Seiler