Part of the Bay Area News Group

SD10: Unions do IE attack mailer vs. Hayashi

By Josh Richman
Wednesday, May 7th, 2014 at 12:14 pm in 2014 primary, Bob Wieckowski, California State Senate, Mary Hayashi.

A new attack mailer targeting Democrat Mary Hayashi, sent by a labor-backed independent expenditure committee, is hitting the mailboxes of the 10th State Senate District’s likely voters this week.

The mailer uses the former Assemblywoman’s 2012 shoplifting conviction as a jumping-off point for other ethical allegations including using campaign funds to pay her defense team, being warned by the state’s political watchdog agency for holding a political fundraiser in a lobbyist’s home, and seeming to hold three full-time jobs at once, according to tax records.

Click to enlarge:
Hayashi IE mailer 1

Hayashi IE mailer 2

The mailer comes from “Californians for Integrity in Government Opposed to Hayashi for Senate 2014, Sponsored by Peace Officers, Nurses and Labor Organizations.” The committee’s mailing address is that of the California Nurses Association, and the mailer discloses the committee receives “major funding by California State Council of Service Employees Political Committee.”

Another Democrat in this race, Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski, is a longtime labor ally.

“Mary Hayashi knows she made a mistake, accepted responsibility and apologized,” Josh Pulliam, her campaign manager, said Wednesday. “What this race is really coming down to is a choice between a true champion for working families and women for 26 years, or a bully who built his career on protecting the trial attorney agenda, even when that meant standing up for attorneys and convicted rapists instead of protecting victims.”

Hayashi has insisted she was distracted and inadvertently left San Francisco’s Neiman Marcus store with $2,450 worth of clothes in a store-branded shopping bag she had brought with her that day. In a deal with prosecutors, the felony grand theft charge against her was reduced to a misdemeanor; she’s still on probation now.

Wieckowski went negative recently by launching a MugShotMary.com website to remind voters of the details of Hayashi’s shoplifting incident.

Hayashi shot back late last week by launching BobProtectedRapists.com, which informs voters that Wieckowski was the lone vote against a bill – AB 1522 of 2012 – to protect people sexually assaulted by their spouses. The bill required that if a spouse is convicted of a violent sexual felony against the other spouse and the couple divorces within five years, the injured spouse can’t be made to pay any spousal support or attorney’s fees, and is entitled to keep all of his/her own retirement and pension benefits.

Legislative records show Wieckowski voted against the bill in the Assembly Judiciary Committee, but several months later voted for it in the final Assembly floor vote, after it had been amended. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill into law in September 2012.

“That website is way over the top,” Wieckowski campaign consultant Lisa Tucker said Wednesday. She said Wieckowski voted against the bill in committee because he had concerns about mixing criminal and civil court cases, but those concerns were addressed by the time of the final floor vote.

Also in the 10th State Senate District race are Republican Peter Kuo of Santa Clara, Democrat Roman Reed of Fremont and independent Audie Bock of Hayward.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Marga

    Mary Hayashi told the San Francisco Chronicle that she did not shoplift. And I actually believe she believes it.

    But given all the money that Hayashi has, and the fact that there is no line she won’t cross, I’m actually very impressed that the *only* thing her campaign has been able to get against Wieckowski is that he originally voted against a badly written bill which removed judicial discretion in dividing assets during a divorce. After listening to Wieckowski’s questions about the bill – which Mary very helpfully included in her anti-Wieckowski website – my respect for Wieckowski grew by leaps and bounds. This is a smart legislator who understand how badly drafted laws can have real injurious consequences and that taking away judicial discretion is a recipe for injustice.

    BTW, I found it very amusing that the only “family” that Hayashi could get to appear on her mailers is that of former San Leandro Councilwoman Joyce Starosciak. Starosciak was Mary’s protegee and heir apparent – until she came out 3rd in the race for Mayor of San Leandro. Not being able to deal with the pain and shame of being rejected by the voters (I am not exaggerating, she said as much in her farewell speech), Starosciak quit her post as Councilmember and moved to somewhere near Sacramento. I was not aware that she had moved back to anywhere in SD 10.

  • http://www.historyfactory.com Company Historian

    So funny.

    Go figure. Hayashi has one set of tricks she always turns to: lies and deception. Everyhing she does is intended to deceive people.

    Her website about rape is absurd. As you pointed out, she includes enough about what really happened that it’s easy to read between the lines and figure out the really story she’s avoiding. Bob stuck up for himself, had an issue with part of a bill, the issue was later addressed, and Bob supported the amended version of the bill. Sounds like the type of thing lawmakers are supposed to do.

    I agree that Hayashi’s rape website is amusing since it includes videos, like the one that you pointed out, that show that she’s only telling a small part about what actually happened. I saw the video of Bob and saw a nerdy lawyer–the type of guy you want making laws and sticking up for himself to address potential loopholes in laws.

  • Guest

    The climate couldn’t be worse for Hayashi to make a comeback, you have two State Senators under indictment for corruption – Yee and Caledron – and you have another Senator already convicted of felony perjury. Many voters consider the Senate a cesspool of corruption now – polls show this – so it’s ludicrous for Hayashi and her campaign consultants to think Hayashi can win this seat.
    I just don’t see voters going to the polls saying to themselves, “hey, with all this corruption going on in Senate it’s the perfect time to send Hayashi – a convicted shoplifter – to the Senate”. I think they will conclude this guy from the Assembly – Wiekowski – is the right choice, that body hasn’t been subject to weekly FBI raids. Wiekowski has a solid record – no corruption problems in his back round I see him winning this seat easily. However, I am glad Hayashi ran because it’s been fun telling Hayashi jokes around the water cooler at work.

  • Marga

    Mary is counting that voters have forgotten – or, because they are from the South Bay, never knew – about her conviction. And she may be right, I’ve no idea.

    I’ve heard that Mary’s vindictive reputation and Bob’s rather upright one has made it very difficult for him to fundraise. Without $, letting voters know about Mary’s shoplifting is difficult.

  • Willis James

    This mailer is OK, but I think the inclusion of the standard campaign fodder regarding 1. holding a campaign fundraiser in a lobbyist’s house and 2. holding three full time jobs, — only serves to dilute the impact of the main issue which is her arrest and conviction for shoplifting as well as then using campaign funds to pay for her defense (yes I know that is legal but it still smells bad and is related to the main issue, her crime)

    Remember, folks only spend 30 seconds reading these mailers.
    Too many issues, and you get dilution of your strongest point.

    I think they could have included her recent quote that
    “I did not shoplift $2,500 worth of goods”

    I like their use of the shopping bags… but they left out that she brought the very bag she used with her into the store from home.
    Everyone can understand that proves it was intentional, not some absentminded mistake.

    Hopefully they have enough money to do 2 or 3 more mailers wherein they further prove she is FULLY guilty and juxtapose that against her continuing denials.

  • Willis James

    ” And I actually believe she believes it.”

    Yes Marga I’m starting to think that is the case, and she may have told everyone including her husband that it was all unintentional.

    I wish…. I wish one journalist would, in a interview, have her give a good explanation of why she brought the Nieman Marcus shopping bag from home. That is so strange I think even she would have a hard time coming up with a plausible explanation. (though by now she must have one at the ready)

    Perhaps in some interview or some forum, she will be forced to explain her “bag” problem.
    The Chronicle did a fairly good job of following up on the brain tumor excuse line of questioning.

  • Guest

    Good point Willis, I was unaware Hayashi had brought a bag into the store with her. I thought she had some bags from other stores at the mall. That piece of information just destroys her denials, that’s classic shoplifting behavior, the perp “sneaks” a bag into the store and loads up the goodies when they believe nobody is looking. One thing I noticed in her mugshot is Hayashi doesn’t have her normal 10 pounds of make-up on, nor is she dressed to kill like she normally is. She apparently “dresses down” when making her rounds at malls, almost if she is trying to disguise herself. This has led me to believe that possibly Hayashi has long led a “double life”, as criminals often do. In the day Hayashi was the immaculately groomed assembly women – but at night and on the weekend – apparently – she was the shabbily dressed shoplifter. I’m no expert in criminal behavior but it looks like maybe you have a classic a Jekyl and Hyde case here. There’s the good Mary, and the “bad” Mary, apparently.

  • Willis James

    From the police report made during the arrest of Mary Hayashi

    ” Hayashi dropped the hanger and at the same time concealed the items that were on the ottoman into a Neiman Marcus shopping bag that she had in her possession.”

    So it was not just any shopping bag she brought with her, it was a Neiman Marcus shopping bag into which she placed the soon to be stolen items.
    (no, she was not returning any items to Neiman Marcus, and no, she had not made any earlier purchases from Neiman Marcus that day. No explanation of why she had that bag has ever been given)

  • Pingback: SD10: Of polls, endorsements and mailers - Political Blotter - Politics in the Bay Area and beyond