Kamala Harris, Loretta Sanchez agree to one Senate debate

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez, the Democrats running to succeed U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, have agreed to hold one general election debate.

The Sanchez campaign and debate sponsors confirmed Wednesday that the Oct. 5 debate from Los Angeles would proceed after weeks of wrangling over the fall schedule. Harris, the frontrunner, came out first in agreeing to the Los Angeles debate, as well as a planned Sept. 20 TV debate in Sacramento.

Sanchez, said two head-to-head debates would not suffice, and refused to participate in the Sacramento event. On Tuesday, she challenged Harris to a series of four debates, all in Los Angeles. Harris’ camp has maintained that if Sanchez wanted more than one meeting she should have agreed to appear in Sacramento for the debate proposed by The Sacramento Bee, KUVS Univision 19, KVIE, Capital Public Radio and California State University, Sacramento. …

Golden State Democrats Divide Over Race

The California Republican Party—an institution accustomed to embarrassment—suffered a novel and stinging indignity in the June 7 Golden State primary. Once the votes were tallied, it was revealed that the GOP’s candidate for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Barbara Boxer in the November election would be . . . nobody. It’s not that Republicans failed to recruit any contenders. Two former (and relatively obscure) state party chairmen, Tom Del Beccaro and Duf Sundheim, competed in the primary, as did activist businessman and one-time gubernatorial candidate Ron Unz. Rocky Chavez, a state assemblyman from San Diego County who led the GOP field in early polling, had also been in the mix before abruptly withdrawing—at the beginning of a debate, no less—in February. So how does a party enter a race with four candidates and still emerge without a nominee?

Like most riddles associated with California politics, the answer is direct democracy. In 2010, voters approved Proposition 14, a ballot measure that abolished conventional party primaries for statewide and congressional races. Instead, the initiative created a system wherein primary voters get to cast their ballot for any candidate, regardless of party—but where only the top two finishers compete in the general election. This year, that process yielded a U.S. Senate contest between two Democrats: Attorney General Kamala Harris and Orange County congresswoman Loretta Sanchez.

Among California’s political and media elite, the result is being discussed mainly as a sign of the GOP’s irrelevance in the nation’s most populous state—a reading with plenty of evidence to support it. Higher office has now been out of the party’s grasp for a decade, with Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2006 reelection as governor marking the last time that a Republican won any statewide contest.

Democrat DonkeyYet, while public attention is focused on the GOP’s deathbed vigil, another equally consequential trend is unfolding largely under the radar: California Democrats, far from enjoying a frictionless ascendancy, are finding themselves sharply divided along racial lines. The breakneck demographic shifts in the state over the past few decades partly explain the tension. In 1990, California was more than 57 percent white, while Latinos made up just over a quarter of the state’s population. By 2014, however, Latinos had surpassed whites as the state’s largest ethnic group. At the same time, the state’s Asian population (the nation’s largest) had grown to 14.4 percent, more than double the number of California’s African-Americans. In a minority-majority state dominated by a party that practices identity politics, each group now finds itself in a zero-sum competition for a handful of positions at the commanding heights of Golden State politics.

Those spots don’t come open very often, making competition that much fiercer. Boxer and her Senate colleague Dianne Feinstein were both first elected to the upper chamber in 1992, a time when California was, in demographic terms, an entirely different place. They’re not the only members of California’s governing class who seem like relics of a bygone era. While the state’s population is ethnically diverse and young (in 2014 the median age was 36, sixth-lowest in the nation), its most visible political figures—Boxer, Feinstein, Governor Jerry Brown, and House minority leader Nancy Pelosi—are lily white and have an average age of nearly 78.

When Boxer announced her retirement in early 2015, it unleashed a frenzy of activity among California Democrats aiming to make their leadership more reflective of the party’s diversity. The problem was that no one could agree on exactly how to fulfill that mandate. Certainly Harris, born to a Jamaican father and an Indian mother, represented a break from the past. But the swiftness with which she attracted endorsements led to a backlash from Latinos, who felt they were being taken for granted. When the attorney general garnered near-instant backing from influential national Democrats such as Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker, California State Senate president pro tem Kevin de Leon told Politico,“National figures should slow their roll a bit.” Arturo Vargas, head of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, cautioned, “Hispanic leaders are concerned about some kind of coronation, as opposed to a real electoral campaign.”

The coronation, however, largely proceeded apace. Harris’s substantial war chest and stack of endorsements deterred some of the state’s most prominent Latinos—namely former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and House Democratic Caucus chairman Xavier Becerra—from mounting a challenge. Sanchez, previously more of a comic figure than a serious political force (her main contribution to California politics has been a series of increasingly bizarre Christmas cards featuring her cat), exploited the vacuum for a Latino alternative, riding the discontent all the way to a spot on the November ballot.

Most observers—though not all—expect Harris to prevail in November, but the underlying tensions show little sign of abating. In May, Texas Democratic congressman Filemon Vela blasted the California Democratic Party for endorsing Harris, calling the act “insulting to Latinos all throughout this country” and “a disrespectful example of wayward institutional leadership which on the one hand ‘wants our vote’ but on the other hand wants to ‘spit us out.’” California Hispanics may share that sentiment. Though Harris won 40.3 percent of the vote to Sanchez’s 18.5 percent in the primary, a USC/Los Angeles Times poll released shortly before the contest showed 43 percent of Hispanics supporting Sanchez to just 16 percent for Harris.

Status anxiety is now pervasive among the racial caucuses within California’s Democratic Party. Hispanics worry that their votes will be taken for granted, while their elected officials are passed over for higher office. African-Americans, outnumbered two-to-one by Asians and six-to-one by Hispanics, fret that they’ll be relegated to junior-partner status within the party. Asians, meanwhile, chafe at certain liberal orthodoxies—a tension that became public in 2014 when a small band of Asian Democrats in the legislature blocked their black and Hispanic colleagues’ efforts to revive racial preferences in California college admissions.

Intra-party friction, of course, isn’t exclusive to California. However, with the Republican Party in steep decline in the state and the top-two primary system as the law of the land, the situation in California is particularly combustible. California Democrats have long dreamed of the unfettered power that would accompany vanquishing the state’s rump Republican Party. Few, however, seemed to anticipate the stress fractures that inevitably emerge in a political monoculture. With no worlds left to conquer, they’re now left warily circling each other. And no one seems inclined to slow his roll.

Conservative Free Speech Survives Attack by AG Harris

Photo courtesy of Steve Rhodes, flickr

Photo courtesy of Steve Rhodes, flickr

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, in an attempt to burnish her credentials as the liberal successor to Senator Barbara Boxer, has continued the Left’s long tradition of harassment of private citizens when their political views are not aligned with the progressive agenda. Since 2013, Ms. Harris has demanded that national nonprofits turn over their IRS Form 990 Schedule B lists, which gives the names and addresses of donors who contribute $5,000 or more per year. This assault on free speech and democracy was thwarted last Thursday, when a federal judge issued a permanent injunction against Ms. Harris’ order that the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a well-known nonprofit dedicated to free market principles, turn over its list of major donors or stop soliciting contributions in California.

Under current law, nonprofits like the AFP Foundation, are required to file the Form 990 Schedule B identifying major donors with the IRS. The IRS, in turn, is supposed to keep that form confidential. Anyone familiar with the machinations of President Obama’s politicized IRS and the actions of Lois Lerner are well aware of how seriously the IRS considers the confidentiality of private citizens. These nonprofits are also required to register with the state of California, but never before have they been required to submit the IRS forms in California. The AFP Foundation, along with numerous other nonprofit groups, challenged Ms. Harris’ demands in court, and won a significant victory for the First Amendment principles of free speech and free association.

U.S. District Court Judge Manuel L. Real, in his 12-page ruling, stated that “setting aside the Attorney General failure to establish a substantial relationship between her demand for AFP’s Schedule B and a compelling government interest, AFP would independently prevail… because it has proven that disclosing its Schedule B to the Attorney General would create a burden on its First Amendment rights.” In other words, notwithstanding Ms. Harris’ inability to adequately explain why the government needs these records, the resultant chilling effect on free speech that the records demand would ensure, were enough to convince the judge that a permanent injunction against the Attorney General’s order was necessary to protect AFP’s First Amendment rights.

Ms. Harris’ office maintained that the information was required for compliance with California tax law. However, California law already provides the power to obtain donor information via subpoena – in the event that the nonprofit is being investigated for wrongdoing. Nowhere in Ms. Harris’ demands for this donor information was there an indication that any wrongdoing occurred; rather Ms. Harris was advancing the Democrats’ tactic of publicly outing political opponents so that they can be subject to intimidation and retaliation by government officials and the liberal media, to the point where renouncing their views or shrinking away from the public debate are the only available options.

Not so long ago, dissent was considered “the highest form of patriotism.” Now, Democrats are no longer satisfied with personal attacks in the vein of comparing climate change skeptics to Holocaust deniers, or forcing the resignation of business executives for holding unfashionable social views (regardless of their adoption of corporate policies that run counter to those personal views). The latest strategy is to criminalize dissent – witness the actions of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, joined by other Democratic attorneys general, who is attempting to coerce certain energy firms to submit to the current climate change consensus through the threat of investigations and possible fraud and racketeering charges. In another time (and under Republican administrations), the use of prosecutorial powers as a political cudgel would send liberals into convulsions of rage, intoning about dark, Nixonian tactics or vague insinuations of the impending theocracy.

Now, while these maneuvers by Democratic attorneys general will likely not end in prosecution for those energy firms, they do fall in line with what Ms. Harris is attempting here in California, specifically an attempt to suppress and silence their political opponents. That is why the decision last week in federal court was so important to not only AFP, but to the preservation of a free and robust political debate in California and across America. Private citizens should be emboldened to participate in public policy debates, and if their preferred method of civic engagement is a financial donation to an organization with the time and resources to advance certain policies, then those citizens should be able to exercise that right without fear of retribution from government officials.

Kamala Harris will no doubt continue to attempt to curtail the First Amendment should she succeed Barbara Boxer in the Senate – that is where Harry Reid spends his time trying to police political speech, when he is not busy getting into, and losing, fights with exercise equipment. But last Thursday’s decision should serve as a reminder to Ms. Harris that politicians should strive to protect the First Amendment rights of the citizens that they serve, not attempt to intimidate them into silence. Hopefully, AFP and other civic-minded organizations will use this resounding victory to continue to remind her and others of that fact.

Alexander Tomescu is an associate attorney at Wewer & Lacy, LLP, focusing in the practice of election and campaign law.

CA U.S. Senate candidates quarrel over illegal immigration

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

Democrats Loretta Sanchez and Kamala Harris, as they’ve campaigned for U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer’s seat, have time and again advocated for a federal immigration overhaul – with Sanchez calling it a “moral imperative,” and Harris arguing it’s the civil rights issue of the current age.

There was little distance between the rivals’ broader immigration policy pronouncements at Monday night’s televised debate in Stockton, but there were clear differences on the finer points.

Sanchez, a congresswoman for nearly two decades, opted for the GOP-favorite phrase “family values” to assert families with mixed immigration status should not be separated. She blames Republicans for the morass.

Harris agreed that those in the shadows need a pathway to citizenship, yet she …

Fiorina: The Falling Star

The rapid rise and equally rapid fall of Carly Fiorina deserves our attention.

Before the most recent GOP debate, she was languishing in the polls at only 4 percent of the vote, according to a Sept. 9-Sept. 13 CBS survey. After a smashing performance at the event, she soared into second place with 15 percent (CNN, Sept. 17-Sept. 19). Now the most recent polls have her falling back into the pack with only 6 percent support (CBS, Oct. 4-Oct. 8).

What happened?

Her initial rise was partially due to her headline-stealing riposte to Donald Trump for his ill-considered comments demeaning her physical appearance. By linking her cause to that of all women, she effectively played off the GOP front-runner’s publicity and vaulted to the top of the field.

But the deeper reason for her climb was that Republicans want to nominate a woman to counter Hillary Clinton; they found Fiorina, a self-made woman, a far more authentic model of female advancement than they did the former first lady. Here was a woman who did not depend on her husband’s career to move ahead and who did not have the baggage of scandal and secrecy that burdens Clinton’s candidacy.

Fiorina showed an eclectic knowledge of national affairs and fluently recited key facts about our weakened defense posture. The former Hewlett-Packard CEO seemed like a non-ascorbic, scandal-free alternative to Clinton.

There has been no major scandal or faux pas to bring Fiorina down. While the impact of her debate performance may have worn off over time, why is she suffering this fate while Trump, Ben Carson and Marco Rubio have continued to gain from their debating styles?

While The New York Times contributed to her fall with a front-page article chronicling — and bashing — her record at HP, it was the bloggers who brought Fiorina down. The Times story regaled the saga of how Fiorina had induced HP to buy Compaq despite evidence of its declining clout and emphasized the 30,000 layoffs under her tenure as CEO.

But the bloggers really did a number on her conservative credentials. They quoted her 2010 comment during her contest with Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer of California that Roe v. Wade is “settled law” and noted her endorsement of Rubio’s (R-Fla.) plan for amnesty for illegal immigrants, as well as her support for Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court and her willingness to weaken Proposition 13, which holds down property taxes in California.

The blogs left Fiorina bleeding.

For rest of article click here.

Originally published on TheHill.com on October 13, 2015

 

Loretta Sanchez Will Challenge Kamala Harris for U.S. Senate Seat

Loretta Sanchez1Flanked by a group of supporters at the Santa Ana train station, Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez, D-Garden Grove, officially launched her campaign to succeed retiring U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer.

Thursday’s announcement, one day before the California Democratic Party’s spring convention, sets up a Democratic women showdown between Sanchez and Attorney General Kamala Harris. Under California’s Top 2 Primary, both Democrats could make it past the June primary and into a November 2016 general election run-off.

“I’m running to give a voice to every Californian,” said Sanchez, a moderate Democrat from Orange County. “I’m running for Senate because I bring national security and military experience in these critical times.”

Sanchez’s record in Congress

Sanchez brings to the race an impressive campaign resume that began with an improbable upset of six-term GOP Rep. Bob Dornan in 1996, an election she won by fewer than 1,000 votes. During her 10 terms in Washington, D.C., Sanchez has served on the House Armed Services Committee and the House Homeland Security Committee as well as been an influential member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.

“There are two kinds of candidates,” Sanchez said at her campaign kick-off. “Those who want to be something and those who want to do something. I am running for Senate because I am a doer.”

If Sanchez prevails in her first statewide campaign, she’ll become the the first Latina ever elected to the U.S. Senate. Before she can make history, she’ll need to overcome demographic challenges with her key voting blocs: Southern Californians and Latinos. Both groups represent a large number of raw voters, who traditionally turn out in lower numbers than the statewide average.

No coronation for Kamala Harris

In January, Boxer announced that she would retire after four terms in the U.S. Senate. Although Harris quickly entered the race, other big-name Democrats seemed uninterested in challenging the state’s top law enforcement officer.

For months, it looked like Harris might simply take over the seat without a challenge from any of the next generation of Democratic leaders. In quick succession, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Treasurer John Chiang, billionaire climate-change activist Tom Steyer and former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa each announced that they would forgo the race.

Kamala HarrisEarlier this week, Sanchez appeared to be latest Democrat to pass on the race. Sanchez’s team released a draft email announcing her campaign kick-off, but then quickly retracted the announcement, saying that she was still undecided.

That indecision caused the Los Angeles Times to complain that Harris’ coronation was bad for the democratic process.

“An unopposed candidacy is great for political parties, not for voters or democracy,” the Times wrote in its May 14 editorial. “A strong field of Democratic candidates is more likely to ensure that campaign debates cover topics Democrats care about, and elicit authentic answers instead of canned responses. Without such a vigorous vetting, Harris would be able to script her communication so carefully as to be meaningless.”

Harris campaign jabs “culture of dysfunction”

Harris’ campaign wasted no time in welcoming Sanchez to the race with a subtle jab at Washington’s “culture of dysfunction.”

“The attorney general looks forward to a lively discussion about who is best equipped to help change the culture of dysfunction in Washington, D.C. and make a difference in the lives of Californians,” said Nathan Click, spokesman for the Harris campaign.

In addition to hailing from opposite ends of the state, the two Democratic women bring remarkably different styles, backgrounds and personalities to the campaign. The differences were evidenced in their campaign kick-offs: Sanchez with a traditional campaign rally, Harris an email announcement.

They’ve also risen through the political ranks in different ways. Sanchez fought her way into elected office after losing a 1994 campaign for Anaheim City Council. Harris benefited from an early political appointment by her longtime benefactor, former Assembly Speaker Willie Brown.

Sanchez’s greatest asset might be her blunt, straight-talking demeanor, which could further expose Harris as a controlled and calculating politician. With a more direct style and off-the-cuff remarks that occasionally get her into trouble, Sanchez has managed to create a cult following with her annual Christmas card. In contrast, even Harris’ backers have described her as “too cautious,” a trait that could hamper her in a contested statewide primary.

Possibility of all Democrat run-off

Some political analysts say that there’s a strong chance that both Harris and Sanchez could both make the November run-off. On the Republican side, Assemblyman Rocky Chavez of Carlsbad has raised just $12,030 – a fundraising haul more befitting of a city council race. The only other announced Republican candidate, former California Republican Party chairman Tom Del Beccaro, has never won elected office.

“Lots of Republicans will end up on the ballot which means that we could see two Dems if it is just the two of them,” said Matt Rexroad, one of the state’s top Republican political consultants and a Yolo County Supervisor.

Rexroad, who does not have a client in the U.S. Senate race, gives the edge to Harris.

“In the end I think Harris has an impressive team that has shown a tremendous amount of discipline while Sanchez has been a side show,” said Rexroad, a partner at Meridian Pacific, a Sacramento-based consulting firm. “Advantage Harris on name ID, resume, and institutional support. The one thing Sanchez has going for her is the Latino surname.”

Other Democratic candidates are still considering the race, including Rep. Xavier Becerra of Los Angeles and former Secretary of the Army Louis Caldera.

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Despite draft announcement, Sanchez says she’s undecided on Senate

As reported by Politico:

Rep. Loretta Sanchez says she has made no decision about whether to jump into the California Senate race to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer, despite a leaked draft announcement obtained by POLITICO saying she would enter the race Thursday.

In the draft announcement dated Tuesday, Sanchez, a Democrat, said she would officially announce her candidacy at the Santa Ana train station alongside her “husband, family, and friends” at 11 a.m. Thursday.

Several Democratic congressional sources independently confirmed Sanchez’s decision.

But hours after …

Click here to read the full story

Republican Tom Del Beccaro announces U.S. Senate run

As reported by the Sacramento Bee:

Tom Del Beccaro, a former chairman of the California Republican Party, announced his campaign for the U.S. Senate on Sunday, promising to focus on the state’s uneven economic recovery and punishing drought in his bid to succeed Democrat Barbara Boxer.

Del Beccaro, an attorney and published author who will pair his run with an upcoming book tour, said he plans to advocate for a nationwide flat tax. He also will campaign to make California a water-technology leader.

“I support a flat tax nationwide, the repeal of California’s high-speed rail bond and a comprehensive water infrastructure and acquisition program for California,” Del Beccaro said in a statement. “California, which historically has been a high-tech leader, should be the world leader in water technology to meet the challenges of tomorrow, and we need a new generation of leaders who will champion the policies necessary to foster that.”

Rep. Loretta Sanchez on verge of entering California Senate race

As reported by Politico:

Rep. Loretta Sanchez is on the verge of entering the California Senate race to replace Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Multiple congressional sources said Sanchez is laying plans to enter the race after Easter, although it’s still possible that the Orange County Democrat won’t enter the hotly contested fight.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris has already declared her intent to run and is considered a strong frontrunner.

Click here to read the full article

 

Kevin McCarthy: Bipartisan effort needed to deal with drought

The current drought in California is devastating. The order from the governor should not only alarm Californians, but the entire nation should take notice that the most productive agriculture state in the country has entered uncharted territory. We have experienced extreme drought conditions in years past but thanks to the most sophisticated water system in the country that captured and stored water during the wet years for use during the dry years, our communities and farmers survived.‎ Unfortunately, state officials have turned their back on this proven infrastructure system.

The order is the culmination of failed federal and state policies that have exacerbated the current drought into a man-made water crisis. Sacramento and Washington have chosen to put the well-being of fish above the well-being of people by refusing to capture millions of acre-feet of water during wet years for use during dry years.

These policies imposed on us now, and during wet seasons of the past, are leaving our families, businesses, communities, and state high and dry. These rules and regulations must be changed.

My House colleagues and I have acted aggressively to enact legislation that would have helped protect us from the current situation. In 2011, and again in early 2014, the House passed comprehensive water legislation to increase the amount of water we could capture and store. Unfortunately, the Obama and Brown Administrations and Senators Boxer and Feinstein opposed these proposals. As the drought continued to worsen, the House passed emergency drought legislation in December of 2014 to allow us to capture storm and rainwater from early season storms. That too was blocked by the Senate.

I’m from the Central Valley and we know that we cannot conserve or ration our way out of this drought. It is time for action, and House Republicans are developing another legislative proposal to help put California water policy back on the path to commonsense. Given the announcement, this time I hope Governor Brown, Senator Boxer, and Senator Feinstein will join my colleagues and me in this effort.

Kevin McCarthy is the Majority Leader, United States Congress

Originally published on Fox and Hounds Daily