“Every day you try to climb the mountain,” he said somewhat wearily, noting he’s been to about 30 California counties both to win endorsements and other support for his campaign and to push his AB 656, which would make the state Board of Equalization prepare an annual report on how much money California could raise by imposing (Ed. note – sorry, it was amended a few days ago to actually impose the tax rather than just study it) impose a 12.5 percent severance tax on all oil and natural gas taken from the state’s ground, with revenue to be shared 50 percent to the California State University system, 25 percent to the University of California system and 25 percent to the California Community Colleges system. In fact, he’ll be at a rally for AB 656 at noon tomorrow at Contra Costa College in San Pablo.

Torrico’s AG campaign is rooted in his advocacy for education, from preschools up through college, as a means of reducing California’s crime rates. But the Democratic primary field is crowded – other well-known candidates include San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris; former Facebook executive Chris Kelly; Assemblyman Ted Lieu, D-Torrance; Assemblyman Pedro Nava, D-Santa Barbara; and former Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo, as well the relatively unknown Mike Schmier, an Emeryville attorney.

But Torrico remains optimistic. He said his fundraising has been competitive with the other Democrats save Kelly, who put $2 million of his own money into his campaign. “It comes down to who runs the smartest campaign,” he said.

Torrico also has been rolling out labor and law enforcement endorsements on a regular basis. And, he noted, only he, Lieu, Nava and Schmier will have candidate statements in the official ballot pamphlet that’ll be mailed out to voters before June’s election, an important and influential showcase.

Harris, Kelly and Delgadillo chose not to accept the voluntary $5,178,000 campaign spending limit that’s required in order to get a spot in the ballot pamphlet, implying they’re leaving the option open to make massive advertising buys later on.

Torrico said he has been keeping an eye on what’s going on in the Republican primary field, where Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley; state Sen. Tom Harman, D-Huntington Beach; and former Chapman Law School Dean John Eastman are vying for the nomination.

Cooley, a relative moderate generally well-liked in Los Angeles, will be hard to beat in the GOP primary “just on sheer name ID,” he predicted, and in November would be “a real challenge for any Democrat” but perhaps especially for Harris – another big-city DA who doesn’t seem to be attracting as many law-enforcement endorsements.

Under the unique circumstances resulting from his actions as a former candidate for Governor in this same election, Mr. Newsom, who recently announced his candidacy for Lieutenant Governor, is violating the PRA by raising and spending money in contravention of the contribution and voluntary expenditure limits imposed on candidates for Lieutenant Governor.

The clear intent of Proposition 34, the voter approved initiative in 2000, is to limit the amount of money used to influence candidates. State law imposes a higher $25,900 limit on contributions to candidates for Governor, compared with the $6,500 limit on contributions to other statewide candidates. By raising and spending large contributions up to $25,900 through his gubernatorial committee, spending all of that money, dropping out of the race for Governor, and then raising additional contributions from the same contributors for a down ballot office in the same election, Gavin Newsom has flouted state law in an unprecedented manner.

It’ll be up to the FPPC to decide, but on its face this looks like a technical tactic for a candidate who’s running scared, and something that’s not going to matter a whit to most voters. Until Newsom got into the race last week, Hahn had seemed to have the edge in this race, raking in all the right endorsements and contributions over the other guy in the field, state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter. But polling last month (albeit a poll conducted by a Newsom ally) showed Newsom would lead the pack if he got in, and when he did so last week, Florez dropped out and endorsed him.

UPDATE @ 2:09 P.M.: Attorney Tom Willis responds on behalf of Newsom’s campaign:

Read Hahn’s letter in its entirety, after the jump…

March 17, 2010
VIA FACSIMILE & U.S. MAIL

Gary Winuk
Director of Enforcement
Enforcement Division
California Fair Political Practices Commission
428 J Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Verified Formal Complaint Against Gavin Newsom and Newsom for California – Lieutenant Governor 2010 (ID# 1325415)

Dear Mr. Winuk:

Pursuant to California Government Code section 83115, we are writing on behalf of the Janice Hahn Lieutenant Governor 2010 Committee to file a formal complaint against Gavin Newsom and the Newsom for California – Lieutenant Governor 2010 committee for violations of the California Political Reform Act (“PRA”). Under the unique circumstances resulting from his actions as a former candidate for Governor in this same election, Mr. Newsom, who recently announced his candidacy for Lieutenant Governor, is violating the PRA by raising and spending money in contravention of the contribution and voluntary expenditure limits imposed on candidates for Lieutenant Governor.

The clear intent of Proposition 34, the voter approved initiative in 2000, is to limit the amount of money used to influence candidates. State law imposes a higher $25,900 limit on contributions to candidates for Governor, compared with the $6,500 limit on contributions to other statewide candidates. By raising and spending large contributions up to $25,900 through his gubernatorial committee, spending all of that money, dropping out of the race for Governor, and then raising additional contributions from the same contributors for a down ballot office in the same election, Gavin Newsom has flouted state law in an unprecedented manner.

Violation of Contribution Limits

Under the PRA, a person, other than a small contributor committee, may not make to any candidate for Lieutenant Governor, and a candidate for Lieutenant Governor may not accept from any person other than a small contributor committee, any contribution totaling more than $6,500 per election. (Cal. Govt. Code § 85301(b), 83124; 2 CCR § 18545(a) (2).) Contributions from small contributor committees to candidates for Lieutenant Governor are limited to $12,900 per election. (Cal. Govt. Code § 85302(b), 83124; 2 CCR § 18545(a) (5).) An “election” is defined in the PRA as “any primary, general, special or recall election held in this state.” (Cal. Govt. Code § 82022.)

Mr. Newsom received up to $25,900 from contributors to his failed gubernatorial campaign during this same primary election – the maximum amount any person is allowed to contribute to a candidate for governor. (Cal. Govt. Code § 85301(c), 83124; 2 CCR § 18545(a) (6).) Mr. Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign committee, Newsom for California – Governor 2010 (ID# 1308175), reported raising approximately $3.4 million in contributions. As of December 31, 2009, the committee reported only $40,083.18 remaining in cash on hand, and $47,614.68 in debt. This means that Mr. Newsom’s campaign already has spent almost $3.4 million in contributions he received for the June 8, 2010 Democratic primary election.

Mr. Newsom’s latest campaign for Lieutenant Governor, now reports receiving maximum contributions for the same election from some of the largest contributors to his gubernatorial campaign. For example, on Friday March 11, 2010, Newsom for California – Lieutenant Governor 2010 (ID# 1325415) reported receiving a $6,500 contribution on March 10, 2010, from Susie Tompkins Buell, who previously contributed $25,900 to Mr. Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign on October 1, 2009. (See Semi-Annual Report, 7/1/09-12/31/09, Schedule E.) Mr. Newsom has thus effectively received $32,400 from Ms. Buell — and potentially other donors -in the same election, in violation of Government Code section 85301(b).

Potential Violation of Voluntary Expenditure Limit

Unlike other state candidates who have raised money during the same election cycle for multiple offices and then transferred funds from one committee to another using the transfer and attribution rules, Mr. Newsom raised and spent the funds he collected at the higher gubernatorial limit – which no doubt served to benefit his candidacy in the June 8 election. This distinguishes Mr. Newsom from other similarly situated candidates. Because Mr. Newsom is now raising additional money from the same maxed-out donors to be spent in the same election, he is using contributions totaling amounts well in excess of the $6,500 limit.

Moreover, under the PRA, candidates for Lieutenant Governor who accept the voluntary expenditure limit may not spend more than $5,178,000 for the primary election. (Cal. Govt. Code § 85400; 2 CCR. § 18545(b)(4).) Mr. Newsom filed a Candidate Intention Statement (FPPC Form 501) on February 17, 2010 indicating that he would abide by this spending limit, thereby enabling him to place a candidate statement in the state ballot pamphlet. (Cal. Govt. Code § 85601(a).) A copy of the Candidate Intention Statement is enclosed.

There is no question that the money spent by Gavin Newsom in his campaign for Governor has significant residual value in his race for Lieutenant Governor. Having already spent over $3 million in connection with the June 8 primary election from his gubernatorial committee, Mr. Newsom, unlike any other candidate, will be able to spend up to $8.5 million for the primary election, well in excess of the voluntary spending limit. The inequity of this situation, and its obvious affect in subverting the intent of Proposition 34, must be prevented.

The FPPC recently made clear that it will not sanction “candidate behaviors that seek loopholes and are potentially misleading to the public…” (Brown Adv. Ltr. No. A-09-276). For the unique reasons set forth above, Mr. Newsom’s campaign for Lieutenant Governor is impermissibly thwarting state law curbing the influence of contributors on candidates for public office. Therefore, the FPPC should take all necessary action to ensure that Mr. Newsom and his campaign abide by the applicable contribution and voluntary spending limits. Unless the FPPC takes immediate action to investigate these violations and enforce state law, the other candidates in this race will be severely prejudiced by Newsom’s ability to raise and spend money in excess of the limits.

Very truly yours,
Stephen J. Kaufman

Gibberish, yes. The Washington Post explains it better.

And Republican U.S. Senate candidate and former Congressman Tom Campbell says it’s bad, bad, bad.

“This approach is an outrage. It’s not too much to ask that our Representatives actually vote on measures they intend to make into law. That’s what the Constitution requires. That’s what personal accountability requires. I have a record on this: I forced the House to vote on whether President Clinton’s war in Yugoslavia should go ahead or not. The Constitution required Congress to make that decision. No less importantly, here, a bill with a $2.5 trillion price tag has to be voted on the merits, by the House and the Senate. To think that a bill with that kind of fiscal impact and social impact could be passed without even a vote cast in the House is absurd. This is a new low in Democrat Congressional tactics.”

But as Time’s Karen Tumulty noted Saturday, Donald Wolfensberger – director of the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Congress Project, and a former House Rules Committee chief of staff under GOP rule – made it clear years ago that this is hardly a “Democrat Congressional tactic.”

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26, [2006] the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

So Republicans eagerly used this tactic when it suited them, again and again. And Tom Campbell was there, representing the 12th Congressional District from 1989 to 1993 and the 15th Congressional District from 1995 to 2001.

“Fair question, and it’s true that both Democrats and Republicans have stretched the rules for their own purposes,” he told me today in an e-mail. “Never before, however, have I seen a ‘deeming’ rule used in this manner. The only thing close was on an adjournment resolution, where one house decided to leave town before the other was done. I never saw it done to avoid a vote on a substantive matter of this importance.”

The Congressional Research Service, however, recalls several examples in which self-executing rules were used “to enact significant substantive and sometimes controversial propositions” — including at least four during Campbell’s tenure:

— On March 19, 1996, the House adopted a rule (H.Res. 384) that incorporated a voluntary employee verification program — addressing the employment of illegal immigrants — into a committee substitute made in order as original text.
— H.Res. 239, agreed to on September 24, 1997, automatically incorporated into the base bill a provision to block the use of statistical sampling for the 2000 census until federal courts had an opportunity to rule on its constitutionality.
–A closed rule (H.Res. 303) on an IRS reform bill provided for automatic adoption of four amendments to the committee substitute made in order as original text. The rule was adopted on November 5, 1997, with bipartisan support.
— On May 7, 1998, an intelligence authorization bill was made in order by H.Res. 420. This self-executing rule dropped a section from the intelligence measure that would have permitted the CIA to offer their employees an early-out retirement program.

None of those are as far-reaching as health-care reform, but they sure weren’t just adjournment votes, either.

Campbell

Boxer

A new Rasmussen poll out this morning shows Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer and Republican challenger and former Congressman Tom Campbell in a dead heat and posting substantial leads over the other two GOP primary contestants, Carla Fiorina and Chuck DeVore.

Click here to read the full national independent polling firm’s report, but here are the first few paragraphs of what the pollster posted a few minutes ago:

Incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer is now in a virtual dead heat with former Congressman Tom Campbell in California’s U.S. Senate race.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely voters in the state finds Boxer leading Campbell 43% to 41%. Six percent (6%) prefer some other candidate, and 10% are undecided.

A month ago, Boxer posted a 45% to 41% lead over Campbell.

Two other Republican hopefuls, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina and State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, remain within striking distance, but their numbers worsened very slightly this month.

Boxer now leads both Fiorina and DeVore by 46% to 40% spreads. Four percent (4%) opt for another candidate, and roughly 10% are undecided.

Voters not affiliated with either major party give a slight edge to Boxer in two of the contests but break even when Fiorina is the GOP candidate in the race.

Manteca teacher Jeff Takada dropped out earlier this month and Lodi businessman Robert Beadles announced today that he would not file. Both men lacked the money to run serious campaigns. And Beadles remains under a cloud after he was accused by a competitor of stealing equipment and taken to the Sheriff’s Department for questioning. No charges have ever been filed.

The Republican primary cast is an interesting one.

Goehring

Harmer

Lodi winegrape grower Brad Goehring is the homegrown, San Joaquin County candidate, where more than half of the district’s voters live.  But he has never held public office and is largely unknown on the Bay Area side of the district, where he would still need votes to win.

Dougherty Valley attorney David Harmer is the guy who ran in the neighboring congressional district in last year’s special election against Democratic Rep. John Garamendi. Harmer doesn’t live in the district and has run unsuccessfully for Congress twice in two states. But a lot of Republicans think Harmer can raise more money than Goehring — his campaign co-chairmen are former Congressman Bill Baker and former Assemblyman and Board of Equalization member Dean Andal — and wage a far more viable challenge against incumbent Rep. Jerry McNerney, D-Pleasanton, in the general election.

Danville businesswoman and former autism research lobbyist Elizabeth Emken launched her campaign after she spoke with McNerney in Washington and found him wanting in his grasp of the health care reform proposals. But Goehring and Harmer have locked down most of the local Republican institutional support, and she may have trouble garnering sufficient momentum.

Amador

Emken

Tony Amador of Lodi has the best ballot designation of the four when it comes to a Republican primary: Former U.S. Marshal. But he is virtually unknown in District 11. He recently moved to Lodi from the Sacramento area and has not yet posted the big fund-raising numbers it would take to boost his name recognition.

As a political reporter, I’m used to hearing a lot of spin, but the dueling news releases sent out by the “Yes on 17” and “No on 17” camps were quite amazing in their differing accounts of what happened. Read them in their entirety, after the jump…

Yes on 17: Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates
For Immediate Release: March 12, 2010

Court Orders Changes to No on 17 Ballot Arguments to Strike False and Misleading Statements

At the Same Time, Judge Rejects All Challenges to Yes on 17 Ballot Arguments

Sacramento, CA – Today, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Allen Sumner ordered the No on 17 campaign to substantially change language in its ballot arguments which stated Prop. 17 punishes the military.

Throughout the campaign, No on 17 has repeatedly said that Prop. 17 will unfairly penalize, discriminate against, and/or negatively impact the military. The truth is that military personnel are better off under Prop. 17, but opponents are engaging in scare tactics.

Their ballot argument said, “NO ON 17: IT PUNISHES OUR TROOPS.” “THIS INITIATIVE RAISES RATES ON CALIFORNIANS WHO SERVE IN THE MILITARY AND STOP DRIVING WHILE LIVING STATESIDE. PENALIZING THESE SOLDIERS BY FORCING THEM TO PAY MORE WHEN THEY RESTART THEIR CAR INSURANCE IS WRONG.”

The judge found this statement in the No on 17 arguments to be false and misleading and originally ordered it omitted from the ballot pamphlet altogether. No on 17 attorneys immediately appealed this decision and asked the judge to instead allow them to submit new language. Yes on 17 agreed to this decision and rewrites are taking place now.

At the same time, the courts completely rejected No on 17’s frivolous counter-suit seeking changes to Yes on 17’s ballot arguments and rebuttals. In fact, the judge rejected each and every one of No on 17’s complaints, allowing the original Yes on 17 arguments to stand without modification.

“This ruling forcing opponents to strike false and misleading statements is a major win for California voters. Opponents of Prop. 17 have taken the anti-consumer position, trying to stop the extension of a discount for drivers who follow the law and maintain auto insurance,” said Mike D’Arelli, Executive Director, Alliance of Insurance Agents and Brokers. “They know they can’t win on the facts, so No on 17 has resorted to distortions and flat out lies to try to deceive the public. Today, the Court forced them to stop misleading the public through patently false arguments.”

Proposition 17 on the June 2010 ballot, makes an already-existing persistency or “continuous coverage” auto insurance discount portable, allowing customers to take their discount with them if they change auto insurance companies. Prop. 17 will mean more competition and choice in the auto insurance marketplace and will result in lower rates for drivers.

Ballot arguments and rebuttals appear in the Official Voter Information Guide compiled by the California Secretary of State and are distributed to every voter in California. Election law (Elec. Code § 9092, Gov. Code § 88006) states that information in the voter guide must not contain “false and misleading” statements.

Today, more than 80% of drivers maintain auto insurance and qualify for the persistency or continuous coverage discount, but can only get that discount from their current insurer. If a driver wants to switch to a new insurance company, he or she loses the discount and has to pay more.

And…

Stop Prop 17 News
For Immediate Release
March 12, 2010

Judge Rejects Mercury Insurance’s Lies; Voters Will Be Told of Prop 17 Car Insurance Surcharges

Sacramento – Judge Allen Sumner has upheld Attorney General Jerry Brown’s Official Title and Summary of Proposition 17, which warns the measure will allow car insurers to raise premiums. The ruling means voters will learn in the ballot pamphlet that Prop 17 will allow insurance companies to raise rates on California drivers based on their history of buying auto insurance.

Attorneys for Mercury Insurance failed as it tried to convince the court to remove any reference to the insurance surcharges that Prop 17 will create. Consumer advocates hailed the decision as a victory for voters, who will have the opportunity to cut through Mercury’s multi-million dollar campaign of lies and read a fair assessment of the insurance company’s initiative in the Voter Guide.

“When voters face the deceptive, multi-million dollar insurance company ad campaign for Prop 17, at least they’ll be able to turn to Attorney General Brown’s summary to learn the truth,” said consumer advocate Harvey Rosenfield who co-authored one of the ballot arguments against Prop 17. “Now that the Judge has made it clear that Prop 17 lets insurance companies raise car insurance premiums, will the insurance company backers of Prop 17 stop lying about it?”

With the ruling, voters will read the following in the Official Title and Summary of Prop 17:
“Will allow insurance companies to increase cost of insurance to drivers who do not have a history of continuous insurance coverage.”

The Judge rejected Mercury’s attempt to strike out much of Prop 17 opponents’ ballot arguments. He did require two cosmetic changes to the arguments, so the main argument against 17 now includes the statement:

“It punishes our troops, among others. This initiative raises rates on Californians who stop their insurance, including military serving stateside. Penalizing these drivers by forcing them to pay more when they restart their insurance is wrong.”

The rebuttal argument was amended to read: “you will get hit with surcharges of up to $1,000/year.”

Proposition 17, which has been funded with $3.5 million from Mercury Insurance, would surcharge drivers, including soldiers and seniors, who have had a lapse in car insurance coverage for virtually any reason during the past five years. Under the measure, people who stopped driving and didn’t need insurance for a time would be required to pay up to a thousand dollars more for insurance when they sought to restart coverage. Currently, insurance companies are prohibited from imposing the surcharge in California.

That leaves David Harmer, Brad Goehring, Elizabeth Emken, Robert Beadles and Tony Amador expected to finalize their paperwork today.

Here’s what Takada had to say:

Despite the outpouring of support from voters around the district for my Congressional campaign focusing on limited government, sound monetary policy and individual liberty and fighting for Delta water, I have reluctantly been forced to concede the fight to beat Jerry McNerney to another Republican. Campaign expenses piled up at a rate faster than our committee could contend with without entering into irresponsible debt, the bane of any true fiscal conservative.

I look forward to continuing to fight with a sharp voice for local control over Delta water and the values of limited government, sound money and individual liberty through the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Campaign for Liberty. I encourage all people who are concerned about the direction our republic is taking to get involved in the local Tea Party movement, educate yourself about the critical Delta water issues, and demand accountability and responsibility from our elected representatives and the candidates that seek to replace them.

The run-up to the convention saw a flurry of endorsement roll-outs, but perhaps nobody has had ‘em so hot and heavy as Attorney General candidate and Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley. This week he announced the endorsements of the California Police Chiefs Association (in the GOP primary – the CPCA picked Alberto Torrico in the Democratic primary); former governors Pete Wilson and George Deukmejian; and former state GOP chairmen Mike Antonovich, Dr. Tirso del Junco, Mike Montgomery and Frank Visco.

(UPDATE @ 12:19 P.M.: I’m now told that, in yet another case of multiple endorsement, the CPCA has endorsed Ted Lieu in the Democratic AG primary, too.)

Republican U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina announced her campaign’s regional grassroots co-chairs. In the Bay Area, one is Laurel Pathman of San Jose, who seems to be senior manager of commercial and government contracts at Sunnyvale-based Cepheid, which deals in genetic testing technology; I can’t find much else about Pathman online besides her signature (#86) on a 2008 petition supporting controversial evangelical pastor John Hagee. The other is Shahin Shabahang of Los Altos, an attorney at San Jose-based Pedersen, Eichenbaum, Lauderdale & Siehl, which is the in-house staff counsel of the Farmers Insurance Group of Companies.

Even as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom formally announces his bid for lieutenant governor (note the updated Web site!), the candidate who has been leading that Democratic primary so far, Los Angeles City Councilwoman Janice Hahn, is campaigning practically in his backyard. She’s keynoting the monthly luncheon of the National Women’s Political Caucus’ Marin Chapter at noon today in San Rafael. Hahn picked up the endorsement of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on Wednesday, but I’m sure Newsom’s entry into the race – in which Hahn had been seeming to trounce state Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter – made this week pretty grim at Hahn HQ.

On the local front, Alameda County Family Justice Center Executive Director Nadia Lockyer this week scored the endorsement of the Alameda Labor Council AFL-CIO in her bid for the Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 2 seat. But not every union member in the county will be behind her: One of her rivals, Hayward City Councilman Kevin Dowling, announced his endorsement by Hayward Firefighters Local 1909.

In other news, Oakland A’s co-owner and Los Angeles-based real-estate developer Lew Wolff is among several Bay Area-connected notables who’ve ponied up in the past week for the campaign supporting Proposition 14, the “top-two primary” ballot measure leveraged onto this June’s ballot by state Sen. Abel Maldonado, R-Santa Maria – now Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s nominee for lieutenant governor – as part of the deal he struck for his vote on the state budget last year.

Wolff gave $5,000 on Friday. Other recent contributions include $10,000 last Wednesday from Denise Watkins, a Pleasanton education activist and wife of former Seagate CEO Bill Watkins; $5,000 last Wednesday from former state Controller and 2006 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Steve Westly; $5,000 last Wednesday from Symantec Corp. Chairman John Thompson of Woodside; and $10,000 on Monday from Aart De Geus, Chairman and CEO of Mountain View-based Synopsys Inc. Though not from the Bay Area, the $20,000 that the California Chamber of Commerce gave yesterday ain’t chicken feed, either.

Eastman, who stepped down as dean of the Chapman University School of Law in Orange in order to launch this campaign a few weeks ago, has been trying to tack to the right of his GOP primary rivals; he won the endorsement of the California Republican Assembly, the conservative grassroots arm of the party, this past weekend.

The “Issues and Philosophy” section of Eastman’s Web site says “California’s Attorney General has a constitutional duty and obligation to defend the people, including defending ballot measures passed by the people. Jerry Brown failed his constitutional duty when he not only refused to defend Proposition 8 (traditional marriage), but worked to help to overturn it. John Eastman would reverse this policy and defend Proposition 8 and other voter enacted measures when challenged.”

The campaign Web sites of Republican AG primary candidates state Senator Tom Harman and Los Angeles District Attorney Steve Cooley make little mention of marriage or Proposition 8. A Feb. 24 news release on Harman’s site takes Cooley to task for having “polished his liberal credentials by coming to current Attorney General Jerry Brown’s defense for entering the legal battle against traditional marriage,” but doesn’t explicitly describe Harman’s own views.

NOM describes itself as “a nonprofit organization with a mission to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.” Activists claim it’s essentially a front group passing through enormous sums of money from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (commonly known as the Mormon Church) to fight same-sex marriage from coast to coast.

NOM Executive Director Brian Brown was among the co-hosts of a Feb. 22 fundraiser for Eastman in Washington, D.C. NOM’s direct contribution came March 2.