Clinton set to speak in SF; Obama headed to Bay Area
By lvorderbrueggen
Wednesday, July 30th, 2008 at 12:04 pm in 2008 presidential election.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., will speak Thursday morning in person while presumed Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama will speak live via satellite to nearly 6,000 delegates and activists expected to attend the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) convention at San Francisco’s Moscone Center.
Expect considerable press coverage, including that of my Oakland Tribune colleague Josh Richman. He’ll be there in person; no satellite feed for Josh!
While Obama won’t show up in person on Thursday, he’s scheduled to arrive in San Francisco for a fund-raiser on Aug. 17.
Obama will attend a cocktail reception and a dinner at either the Masonic Hall or the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco. Per the invitation, the event will set you back $2,300 per person for the cocktail party and $14,250 per person for the dinner.
If you’re feeling flush and want to go, send an email to the event co-chair Jeremiah Hallisey (he’s an Alamo guy) at jfhallisey@halliseyandjohnsonlaw.com.
Addition at 2:28 p.m.: A reader asked about the origins of the numbers, $2,300 and $14,250. The invite says: “For those who have not exceeded the allowable contribution to the Obama campaign, you can contribute up to $2,300 for the primary, $2,300 for the general election and $28,500 to the Obama Victory Fund.”
The $14,250 figure is exactly half that of the maximum contribution allowed to the Obama Victory Fund but you’ll note that it is well in excess of the individual limits. It’s permissible because the Obama Victory Fund is a joint fund formed with other entities and they are allowed to combine the limits. McCain has a similar fund with a contribution cap of $70,000. Politico.com has a good story on the subject here.
[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]
bangblogadmin
cpmyers
asoglin
kkirkwood
sgeissinger
moliver
lvorderbrueggen
jrichman
mmaitre
alindsey
cburt
hmacdonald
tdrummond
mreynolds
July 30th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Your commentators have been especially quite four articles on your blog and no comments, how boring….
July 30th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Your commentators have been especially quite four articles on your blog and no comments, how boring….
July 30th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
How did they come up with the 14k figure?
July 30th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
I wasn’t sure so I checked it out. Thanks for the question. I’ve posted my findings in the post above.
July 30th, 2008 at 7:34 pm
The most important politial happening is the budget struggle in Sacramento. Are your reporters covering this? Seems like everyone has their head in the sand. We are seeing a major blow out happening in slow motion. Seriously, the State is about to drop off a cliff and, it seems, no one really cares.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I totally agree with Ted Ford! Let’s address the budget woes in our state and then address the national nightmare. One tragedy at a time, please!
California health care providers are NOT being reimbursed by the state’s own “insurance” – how long can nonprofits continue to float the state? What happens when we have to take out 8% interest rate loans to pay our health care workers and the state doesn’t reimburse that cost? What happens to the elderly and disabled we care for when we close our doors because we can no longer bear the burden of the state’s inability to pass a budget? Increased emergency room waits, increased tax dollars to acute care facilities, increased nursing home placements at significantly higher cost to taxpayers and a completely ethically and morally bankrupt government.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
I totally agree with Ted Ford! Let’s address the budget woes in our state and then address the national nightmare. One tragedy at a time, please!
California health care providers are NOT being reimbursed by the state’s own “insurance” – how long can nonprofits continue to float the state? What happens when we have to take out 8% interest rate loans to pay our health care workers and the state doesn’t reimburse that cost? What happens to the elderly and disabled we care for when we close our doors because we can no longer bear the burden of the state’s inability to pass a budget? Increased emergency room waits, increased tax dollars to acute care facilities, increased nursing home placements at significantly higher cost to taxpayers and a completely ethically and morally bankrupt government.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:49 am
I think the salary cut of all state employees to the minimum wage was a brilliant move. It is clear that the budget impasse is unsolvable without radical political upheaval, which is something most voters recognize we need. The highest priority of the Democratic Party’s movers movers and shakers seems to be gay marriage and the ideological manifesto of the Party’s liberal clique. Meanwhile, the public sector unions seem grab any dollars left sitting on the table. They care about nothing but themselves. The firefighters, police, prison guards, and CHP are the worst. The general public is actually quite aware that we are headed for a train wreck and think it is both justified and needed. We cannot continue with the status quo. Cutting all employees to $6.55 an hour allows the State to continue to function, at least from a fiscal perspective, indefinitely. Otherwise we’ll be shutting down the Universities and other public institutions. It’s time to knock some heads together and get serious. Let the pot boil.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:49 am
I think the salary cut of all state employees to the minimum wage was a brilliant move. It is clear that the budget impasse is unsolvable without radical political upheaval, which is something most voters recognize we need. The highest priority of the Democratic Party’s movers movers and shakers seems to be gay marriage and the ideological manifesto of the Party’s liberal clique. Meanwhile, the public sector unions seem grab any dollars left sitting on the table. They care about nothing but themselves. The firefighters, police, prison guards, and CHP are the worst. The general public is actually quite aware that we are headed for a train wreck and think it is both justified and needed. We cannot continue with the status quo. Cutting all employees to $6.55 an hour allows the State to continue to function, at least from a fiscal perspective, indefinitely. Otherwise we’ll be shutting down the Universities and other public institutions. It’s time to knock some heads together and get serious. Let the pot boil.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:26 am
How can anyone justify cutting state employees salaries when they are not the ones making the decision or holding up the budget? This is just another strong arm tactic of Schwarzeneggers’ to try and flex his muscles. If he had done his job the way he should have we wouldn’t be in the mess and the deficit wouldn’t be larger than it was when they recalled Davis? It’s so typical to always say its”public employees” instead of accepting responsibility for your actions. “Public employees” work just as hard and pay just as many taxes as everyone else and yet they are always the target. ” Public employees salaries would not be so large if the State had not made so many cuts and now people do the jobs of 4 people instead of 1. Talk about getting your head out of the sand, you are as bad as Dan Borenstein who always uses the “public employee copout” to rationalize his own measly salary. The color “green” comes to mind.
July 31st, 2008 at 10:26 am
How can anyone justify cutting state employees salaries when they are not the ones making the decision or holding up the budget? This is just another strong arm tactic of Schwarzeneggers’ to try and flex his muscles. If he had done his job the way he should have we wouldn’t be in the mess and the deficit wouldn’t be larger than it was when they recalled Davis? It’s so typical to always say its”public employees” instead of accepting responsibility for your actions. “Public employees” work just as hard and pay just as many taxes as everyone else and yet they are always the target. ” Public employees salaries would not be so large if the State had not made so many cuts and now people do the jobs of 4 people instead of 1. Talk about getting your head out of the sand, you are as bad as Dan Borenstein who always uses the “public employee copout” to rationalize his own measly salary. The color “green” comes to mind.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:05 am
the 6.55 per hour is obviously a short term tactic to turn up the heat. My problem is not with public sector salaries which are largely in line, but with the totally out of line pension deals. Police and fire can retire at age 51 with a six-figure pension. That’s absurd. By the way, I’m honored you would classify me with Dan Borenstein, one of the best newspapermen in Northern California.
July 31st, 2008 at 11:05 am
the 6.55 per hour is obviously a short term tactic to turn up the heat. My problem is not with public sector salaries which are largely in line, but with the totally out of line pension deals. Police and fire can retire at age 51 with a six-figure pension. That’s absurd. By the way, I’m honored you would classify me with Dan Borenstein, one of the best newspapermen in Northern California.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
I agree with Ted Ford about the salary cuts — really it’s a salary deferral. I don’t like seeing employees getting caught in the middle, but it may be the only way to get the unions to put pressure on the legislature. It also preserves cash. The Controller’s opposition annoys me, even though I voted for him. As the Controller, he is the state’s chief accounting officer. In that capacity, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the state, not to the employees. My understanding of the court ruling on this matter is that the state is not allowed to pay employees when there is no budget. But they allowed an exception for hourly employees to be paid federal minimum wage. So, it seems to me that Arnold is in compliance with the law; while the Controller is violating his fiduciary duties and grandstanding to the state employees. Yes, Ted deserves favorable comparison with Dan Borenstein and should run again for public office.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
I agree with Ted Ford about the salary cuts — really it’s a salary deferral. I don’t like seeing employees getting caught in the middle, but it may be the only way to get the unions to put pressure on the legislature. It also preserves cash. The Controller’s opposition annoys me, even though I voted for him. As the Controller, he is the state’s chief accounting officer. In that capacity, he has a fiduciary responsibility to the state, not to the employees. My understanding of the court ruling on this matter is that the state is not allowed to pay employees when there is no budget. But they allowed an exception for hourly employees to be paid federal minimum wage. So, it seems to me that Arnold is in compliance with the law; while the Controller is violating his fiduciary duties and grandstanding to the state employees. Yes, Ted deserves favorable comparison with Dan Borenstein and should run again for public office.