Television producer (“Alias,” “Lost”) and movie director (“Cloverfield,” “Star Trek”) J.J. Abrams of Pacific Palisades gave $25,000 Tuesday to state Attorney General Jerry Brown’s gubernatorial exploratory committee. His wife, actress Katie McGrath, gave another $25,000.

A day earlier, producer Kathleen Kennedy – who with director Steven Spielberg and her husband Frank Marshall has made films such as the “Jurassic Park” series and “E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial” – gave Brown’s campaign $5,000.

And former Warner Bros. and CBS executive Robert Daly, now president of investment consulting firm Rulemaker Inc., gave $25,000 to Brown’s campaign, also Monday.

Other big-ticket, non-Hollywood contributions to Brown’s campaign in the past week include $50,000 on Monday from Los Angeles billionaire businessman Stewart Resnick and his wife, Lynda; $38,000 last Friday from Los Angeles real estate development mogul Curtis Tamkin, plus $5,000 on Monday from his son, Comerica Entertainment Group corporate banker Curtis Tamkin Jr.; and $25,000 on Monday from designer Diane Von Furstenberg plus $10,000 the same day from her son, Arrow Capital Management chief investment officer Alex Von Furstenberg.

S.K. Seymour LLC, the partnership that runs Oakstersdam University and its related “cannabusinesses,” last Tuesday gave $10,000 to Hope 2010, a ballot measure committee (formerly known as Leadership California) controlled by former state Senate President Pro Tem and 2010 Oakland mayoral candidate Don Perata. Perata in September publicly endorsed the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act of 2010,” the marijuana legalization ballot measure co-proposed by S.K. Seymour LLC partner and Oaksterdam University President Richard Lee. Hope 2010 is supporting the California Cancer Research Act, a proposed ballot measure that would raise the state’s tobacco tax to fund grants and loans for reaearch; to create, staff and equip California’s research facilities; and to boost efforts to reduce tobacco use. The measure is now awaiting preparation of its title and summary by the state Attorney General’s office; it looks like the campaign has a Web site being built but not yet ready for public viewing.

In other news, Palo Alto physicist Charles T. Munger Jr., son of Warren Buffett’s billionaire investor partner, last week put another $701,260 into his “Voters First Act for Congress” ballot measure, bringing his total so far to $1,003,030. The measure would remove authority for setting California’s 53 Congressional district boundaries from the state Legislature, and would give that authority instead to the same Citizens Redistricting Commission that will soon be setting state Legislative boundaries (as required by last year’s successful Proposition 11).

Pacific Gas & Electric on Friday put another $500,000 into its somewhat euphemistically named “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote” committee, pushing a ballot measure which would require local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of their voters (rather than just a simple majority) before providing electricity to new customers or expanding such service to new territories if any public funds or bonds are involved, or before providing electricity through a community choice program if any public funds or bonds are involved. Critics say PG&E is playing on populist themes in order to block local governments from abandoning the utility giant in favor of power contracts with smaller, greener energy producers – a movement that’s been gaining steam in recent years. The proponents have until Dec. 21 to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place this on the ballot next year. This contribution brings PG&E’s stake as the committee’s sole donor to $3.5 million so far.

And Livermore optometrist Scott Kamena on Friday put $23,000 into his own Kamena for Assembly 2008 committee, which had indicated in its mid-year report having $60,749.39 in outstanding debts. Kamena ran in the June 2008 Republican primary for the 15th Assembly District, coming in fourth behind nominee Abram Wilson and candidates Robert Rao and Judy Lloyd.

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission has cleared former Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles, of accusations that he illegally lived high on the hog using campaign funds and funneled contributions through a nonprofit organization.

One FPPC letter to Nunez dated Oct. 14 deals with a complaint the commission received two years ago alleging that his and his committee’s spending “appeared inappropriate and were in violation of the personal use provisions of the Political Reform Act.” That complaint had included detailed listings of more than $155,000 in spending between January 2005 and June 2007.

Several days before this complaint was filed, the Los Angeles Times had run an article detailing some of Nunez’ spending at high-end restaurants, hotels and boutiques around the world.

The letter says the FPPC reviewed the complaint’s information, and notes that the Franchise Tax Board had audited Nunez’ campaign statements for January 2004 through December 2006, making no findings of impropriety.

“Based on our review, it appeared likely that the expenditures identified in the complaint were legitimate and would not violate the personal use laws,” the letter says. “Expenditures for items such as florists, food, gifts, meetings, fundraising and travel are routinely made by many candidates and officeholders using campaign funds, and these expenditures are reasonably related to a political, legislative or governmental purpose. For expenditures that may have conferred a substantial personal benefit on you, we determined that it appeared likely or that you would be able to establish that these expenditures were directly related to a political, legislative or governmental purpose.”

Based on that, the letter says, the FPPC didn’t conduct an in-depth investigation and has now closed its file on the matter.

In another Oct. 14 letter, the FPPC said it also has closed its file on a 2008 complaint that Nunez violated the Political Reform Act’s contribution-limit provisions in 2005 and 2006 with payments made through a nonprofit called Collective Space Inc. The complaint claimed some contributors who’d already maxed out their legal contributions to Nunez gave more money through the nonprofit for charitable events featuring Nunez and benefiting him politically.

This letter says the FPPC’s review found payments were made to Collective Space at Nunez’ behest even while he and his staff were involved with its events, but “this is not prohibited, and the Speaker’s or his staff’s involvement in the event, or the inclusion of the Speaker’s name in a charity event or its advertising, would not violate the Act or cause the payments to Collective Space to qualify as contributions.”

Nearly two-thirds of likely California voters support a June 2010 ballot measure that would create a pilot public campaign financing system for candidates running for Secretary of State.

A new poll released this morning shows that 63 percent would vote for the California Fair Elections Act, while 22 percent oppose it and 16 percent are undecided.

Topping the 60 percent threshold is usually good news for statewide ballot measures. It provides a cushion in the face of opposition, a near certainty in the controversial question about whether taxpayers should directly fund campaigns.

The findings run counter to Field Poll findings last week that found voters in favor of reform but opposed to most of the specific reforms under discussion.

Critics view public financing of campaigns as an inappropriate use of tax dollars. But voters appear to be asking whether it might be worth it, given the heavy influence of special interest money in the selection of who wins and stays in office.

Lake Research Partners conducted the telephone survey of 800 likely voters last week. The survey has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percent.

“This survey really encourages me,” said Common Cause regional director Derek Cressman, a longtime advocate for reforms of campaign finance. “While voters have been frustrated for a while, they haven’t been willing to embrace a lot of specific reforms over the past five or six years … But people are starting to believe not only that change is necessary but possible.”

In other survey findings, Lake Research found strong support for the bill among both major parties and decline-to-state voters — 65 percent of Democrats and nonpartisans would vote yes along with 59 percent of Republicans.

Lake Research partner David Mermin also reported that support for the measure grew overall to 69 percent after survey participants heard both the arguments in favor and against the measure.

“That is not the usual pattern,” Mermin said.

The California Legislature, with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signature, last year placed the measure on the ballot.

Written by now Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley, Assembly Bill 583 allows Secretary of State candidates in 2014 and 2018 to voluntarily apply for up to $1 million of public campaign funding in the primary and $1.3 in the general elections. Candidates must adhere to strict spending and outside fundraising caps and disclosure rules, and to qualify, they must obtain 7,600 signatures and $5 contributions from registered voters.

If a non-participating candidate or an outside group outspends a participating candidate, he or she can receive up to four times that expense in what is called “fair fight” money. Click here to read the full measure.

The California Fair Political Practices Commission announced today the official formation of a sub-committee to examine whether or not it adequately regulates campaign committees’ use of the Internet.

The FPPC, the state’s top watchdog over campaign finance law, intends to hold public hearings on the issue and has opened a Web site dedicated to the subject, where residents may submit comments on the subject and suggest rules.

“Political campaigning has changed a great deal since the creation of the Political Reform Act, in 1974,” said FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson in a press release. “We created this subcommittee to help the Commission determine if we should be doing more to help inform the public of who is paying to send out political messages. The subcommittee will focus its efforts on examining the use of electronic political communication by those groups already regulated by the FPPC and required to file campaign disclosure forms.”

FPPC spokesman Roman Porter stressed that the agency is not interested in regulating individual political speech on blogs, emails or social networking sites. Instead, the agency will examine whether or not it needs rules that reflect the growing reliance of campaign committees on the use of electronic electioneering. Much of this activity does not fall under the same disclosure rules as printed campaign materials.

Ross announced plans several months ago that he intended to form the Subcommittee on the Political Reform Act & Internet Political Activity. The FPPC will have public hearings early next year to take comments from residents and experts.

The California Republican Party took an instant dislike to the concept, however.

“The Internet remains largely free of government regulation, and I’m skeptical of any attempt by government to start regulating online content in the name of campaign finance,” said California GOP Chairman Ron Nehring in a press release. “An attempt by government to impose restrictions on Facebook pages, tweets, websites hosted on servers elsewhere on the globe, and the like promises to be an exercise in futility.  Government will never be able to keep up with changes in online communications, and its attempt to do so will only have a chilling effect on political discourse.”

(UPDATE 10:58 AM TUESDAY. A reader told me the Gavin Newsom flap was about Twitter, not Facebook. Another reader had told me it was Facebook. My apologies for the confusion. I’ve deleted the reference until I have a chance to sort out the details. LAV)

(UPDATE 2:19 P.M. FRIDAY. I tracked down the Gavin Newsom reference, which was about Twitter: http://iloveyougavinnewsom.com/2009/10/newsom-violating-campaign-law/)

Assembly Majority Leader and Democratic candidate for state Attorney General Alberto Torrico of Newark announced today that the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) voted Saturday to endorse him.

PORAC, a federation of local, state and federal law enforcement associations, claims about 62,000 members statewide. In Torrico’s news release, PORAC President Ron Cottingham said Torrico “has made protecting the public his top priority. He is the best choice for California’s top law enforcement official.” Said Torrico: “I can think of no more important backing than the support of front-line law enforcement personnel.”

I don’t usually spend much time noting endorsements here — and I hear Torrico has hit PORAC chapter meetings around the state in the run-up to this endorsement, so it’s not so surprising — but this one might indicate a trend in the race between Torrico and another Bay Area Democrat who wants to be state Attorney General, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris. In money and endorsements, law enforcement seems to be gravitating more toward Torrico – a labor lawyer turned elected politico – than toward Harris, a career prosecutor.

Torrico reported raising almost $992,000 in the year’s first half – including $610,000 transferred from his other campaign committees – and having more than $910,000 on hand as of June 30; it doesn’t look as if he’s done much big-ticket ($5,000 and up) fundraising since then. Torrico’s money seems to come from a wide array of business, labor and gaming – both Indian and non-Indian – gaming interests, as well as at least $28,000 from at least 10 California law enforcement PACs. Besides PORAC, a few law enforcement organizations are listed on his Web site as endorsements, too.

Harris – tapping into some of the same donors she’d helped wrangle last year for Barack Obama (note the Obama-esque logo at the top of her home page) – reported raising $1.2 million in the year’s first half and having almost $752,000 on hand as of June 30; it looks as if she has banked $142,500 in big-ticket donations since then, including some from Hollywood notables such as Steven Spielberg and Rob Reiner. Harris’ contributions seem heavy on well-heeled individuals, as opposed to businesses or unions, but I see no contributions from law enforcement organizations (though I notice her former boss, now-former Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff, anted up $500). I also see no law enforcement organizations among the endorsements listed on her Web site.

Harris has taken heat from law enforcement in her own back yard for her refusal to seek the death penalty in cases including a cop killer in 2004 to – earlier this month – an illegal immigrant gang member accused of killing three.

But Harris campaign manager Brian Brokaw didn’t seem worried this afternoon, noting his candidate “is proud to have earned the support of law enforcement leaders across the state, from San Diego Police Chief William Lansdowne in the south to the San Francisco Sheriff Michael Hennsessey, East Palo Alto Chief Ron Davis, and the San Francisco Officers for Justice POA here in her own backyard. When California voters go to the polls to elect our next Attorney General, they’ll favor a career prosecutor who has spent her entire professional life in a courtroom.”

Do law enforcement endorsements and contributions have much impact on how people vote, even in the race to be California’s “top cop?” Time will tell.

More on how law enforcement is or isn’t backing four other Democrats in the AG’s race, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »

Now comes the serious money. Pacific Gas & Electric Co. on Friday contributed $1.5 million to its somewhat euphemistically named “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote,” doubling the $1.5 million with which it already had seeded the committee in July and August. As reported here at the times of the earlier contributions, the “Taxpayers Right to Vote Act” that this committee is pushing would require local governments to obtain the approval of two-thirds of their voters before providing electricity to new customers or expanding such service to new territories if any public funds or bonds are involved, or before providing electricity through a community choice program if any public funds or bonds are involved. Critics say PG&E is playing on populist themes in order to block local governments from abandoning the utility giant in favor of power contracts with smaller, greener energy producers – a movement that’s been gaining steam in recent years. The proponents have until Dec. 21 to gather the 694,354 signatures needed to place this on the ballot next year.

Other sizeable chunks of change contributed in recent days include $25,900 from Oracle heiress and real estate agent Nicola Miner of San Francisco to Gavin Newsom’s gubernatorial campaign; $25,900 from former FTD Group CEO Michael Soenen of Chicago to Meg Whitman’s gubernatorial campaign; $25,000 from the Mercury Trust (apparently controlled by financier Saul Fox) in Foster City to Tom Campbell’s gubernatorial campaign; and $10,000 each to Whitman’s campaign from venture capitalist and former Motorola Chairman and CEO Christopher Galvin of Winnetka, Ill., and from retired investment banker James Love of Healdsburg, all last Thursday.

Los Angeles-based insurer Mercury General Corp. on Tuesday put another $500,000 into Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates, the same sum it had put down at the end of June. The committee supports the Continuous Coverage Auto Insurance Discount Act, which according to the state Attorney General’s summary would alllow “insurance companies to increase or decrease the cost of auto insurance based on a driver’s coverage history” – that is, whether the driver has been insured before, with better rates available to those who’ve continuously maintained coverage even if they switch insurers. It also would allow insurers to consider “claims experience” when calculating the amount of such a reduction or when determining who’ll be eligible for it.

Critics say the measure would penalize people who miss one payment or who decide not to drive and let their insurance lapse but later change their mind, and would let insurers penalize drivers simply because they file a claim, even if they are not at fault; currently only accidents where a driver is at fault can be used to increase his or her premium. The proposed measure’s proponents have until Jan. 11 to gather the 433,971 signatures required to put the measure on the ballot.

UPDATE @ 9:15 A.M. THURSDAY: Looks as if the proponents have revised the proposed measure’s language to try to address critics’ concerns.

In other campaign finance news this week, Change to Win – the progressive public policy coalition of the Teamsters, Laborer’ International Union of North America, Service Employees International Union United Farm Workes, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and UNITE HERE – on Monday put an inaugural $1 million into the United Farm Workers’ Committee to Oppose Statewide Water Bonds, said bonds being pushed predominately by agribusiness concerns, Gov. Schwarzenegger and legislative Republicans.

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission today posted on its website all warning letters issued between July 1 and August 24; starting tomorrow, it’ll post all advisory, warning and ‘no violation’ letters on its website one week after the letter is issued by the Enforcement Division.

“The issuance of these letters by our Enforcement Division is a function that many just don’t know about,” FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson said in a news release. “The public and media should have access to this information, which details not only those that have violated the Political Reform Act and not received a fine, but instances where the FPPC has found no evidence of wrongdoing.”

I took a quick spin through the lists posted today and one recipient’s name immediately caught me eye: Kenneth Starr. According to the FPPC’s July 16 letter – from which the recipient’s address has been redacted – Mr. Starr “failed to comply with the campaign reporting requirements when you contributed $10,000 in 2006 to Westly for Governor.”

Has the world gone mad? Could Kenneth Starr – the antagonist of President Bill Clinton, and lead counsel before the California Supreme Court last year for the pro-Proposition 8, anti-gay-marriage folks – have been a big-time donor to a Democratic gubernatorial candidate in 2006?

Actually, no. A glance into the Secretary of State’s database shows the Kenneth Starr who gave money to Westly is actually a New York City-based financial adviser and accountant to the stars.

To make things right, that Starr must immediately file the appropriate papers with the Secretary of State, the Registrar-Recorder of Los Angeles County, and the San Francisco Department of Elections. Although it’s a violation of the law, “we are closing this matter with a written warning to you,” the FPPC wrote, adding future conduct or newly discovered information could lead it to reopen the case later.

California’s Fair Political Practices Commission issued a news release Tuesday saying state lawmakers so far had held more than 250 political fundraisers in Sacramento during 2009, according to information the FPPC culled from items listed in the Daily Bread section of the Capitol Morning Report.

“If a deep-pocket interest provided the maximum solicited contribution to every one of these fundraisers, they would have spent as much as $1,014,270 to attend the events,” FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson said in the release. “And this list does not include any district fundraising events or golf tournaments held by incumbent legislators.”

Most of the events were for 2010 elections but a significant number were for 2012 or 2014 races, he noted. “This trend of seeing contributions made for elections years in the future allows incumbent officeholders to enjoy a tremendous advantage by continually maintaining sizeable war chests — scaring off potential opponents.”

But the spreadsheet accompanying the release didn’t have the incumbents’ names, just the type of accounts for which they were raising money, and the event’s type, date and maximum solicited contribution. So I filed a Public Records Act request for an unredacted spreadsheet including the incumbents’ names, and I received it today.

It shows that, of all the lawmakers in the Bay Area, Assemblyman Sandre Swanson, D-Alameda, seems to have kept up the most aggressive fundraising schedule since Jan. 1, all for his 2010 Assembly re-election campaign. He held a Jan. 27 reception asking up to $3,900 a head; a Feb. 26 breakfast asking up to $1,900 a head; a March 16 breakfast asking up to $3,900 a head; an April 24 Pebble Beach golf fundraiser asking up to $3,900 a head; and a June 17th reception asking up to $3,900 a head.

Actually, I think the FPPC might’ve missed a few; I see Swanson held a May 5 luncheon asking $1,000 a head. And perhaps his most ambitious event is yet to come: his annual, two-day “East Coast/West Coast Golf Challenge,” scheduled for Sept. 4-5 at the Paiute Golf Resort in Las Vegas for up to $3,900 a head. Swanson is expecting as many as 70 participants from Washington, D.C. and all over California.

Swanson’s midyear campaign finance report shows he started 2009 with $8,657.79 in his campaign account, and raised $267,594.57 and spent $113,448.32 in the year’s first six months, leaving him with $164,809.49 cash on hand and $19,056.61 in unpaid debts as of June 30.

Swanson in November was re-elected to his 16th Assembly District seat with 87.9 percent of the vote, and 65.5 percent of his district’s registered voters are Democrats compared to 8.3 percent who are Republicans. It’s not as if he’s likely to face a strong challenge in 2010.

He readily acknowledged that when we spoke this afternoon: Although no incumbent should ever take anything for granted, he said, much of the money he spends so much time raising isn’t actually used for his re-election campaign.

“With the state cutbacks, they allow us to use our campaign accounts … to supplement our office budget for supplies and other kinds of things,” he said. “We also use it to contribute to community based organizations – like, for instance, I gave $1,500 to the Chinese Chamber of Commerce event that they did this year to help with their scholarships and community activities.”

Swanson also said he said he wants a big war chest on hand to combat ballot measures he finds objectionable. Next year will see a measure that would create an open-primary election system that Swanson said “challenges the core of democracy,” and there’s talk of measures that would cut the Legislature back to part-time and deny benefits to elected office holders; he’ll spend against all of ‘em, he said.

Of course, that’s not all he spends it on. I dinged him last November for 2007-08 cycle spending that included 128 “meetings and appearances” tabs at East Bay and Sacramento restaurants totaling $7,956.26. A glance at his spending in the first half of this year, though, seems to show less of that sort of thing.

See all the Bay Area lawmakers’ 2009 Sacramento fundraisers as listed by the FPPC, after the jump…
Read the rest of this entry »