This is the result of the endorsement referenced in the article published earlier this week: Web Link

Thanks for care observation of the truth of what has been reported.

Timothy Gray, Candidate for Palo Alto City Council, and I am not accepting endorsements or contributions to avoid this Conflict of Interest.

Yes, I received the over-sized color glossy mailer today produced by the South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council.

It reminds me of the 2005 color mailer from the SEIU in support of the council candidacies of John Barton and Peter Drekmeier.

The key question for me though does not have do with seeking union endorsement or that of any other group or individual. I'm OK with that. Rather it has to do with campaign contributions as defined in California's Political Reform Act and the Fair Political Practices Commission it established.

If there were reasonable, agreed-upon limits for contributions, from both individuals and groups and which applied to both monetary contributions and "in-kind" contributions (e.g., services and mailings), things would be a lot better.

Over two years ago, then Council Member Ladoris Cordell and current Mayor Peter Drekmeier, brought this issue before the council, which unanimously agreed to the concept in principle. But when it came back to the council from the Policy & Services Committee with a concrete, very reasonable proposal of a voluntary $300 contribution limit and a $30,000 overall cap, and Fall campaigns looming, the other council members ran away from their pledges and voted it down. Why do you think that happened?

A mailer from an outside organization, such as the one people in town received today, is considered a reportable "in-kind" contribution for a candidate if there was cooperation between the candidate and the producer of the mailer. This was the case in the SEIU 2005 Barton-Drekmeier mailer, valued at over $3,300 per candidate, a significant chunk of each candidate's overall legally-reportable campaign fundraising.

However, if there is no communication or coordination between the candidate and the producer of the mailing, it is classified as an "independent expenditure" on the part of the producer and not a reportable campaign contribution for the candidate. In other words, it is seen as someone's right to independent free speech and advocacy in support of a candidate.

So, again for me, if today's mailer was an "in-kind" contribution with a value over a reasonable limit, I not in favor of it, just as I not in favor of cash contributions to candidates above that same reasonable limit.

We'll find out, together with the data on all other legally reportable contributions at the end of the next campaign-finance reporting period coming up soon. And this year, for the first time in Palo Alto, it will all be on-line with time for you to assess before election day, assuming you have not already voted.

Hopefully, after all is said and done and all the votes are counted, we can complete the important work of 2007 and institute reasonable, voluntary, city council campaign finance limits that apply to both monetary and in-kind contributions.

From the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC)Publication:

"Independent Expenditures -- The Giant Gorilla in Campaign Finance"

See the FPPC complete report: Web Link

"Independent expenditures" has thwarted the will of the people..."

The report goes on to say "Here's the theory behind "Independent expenditures." The people may enact laws limiting direct contributions to candidates in order to avoid the possibility or appearance of undue influence over candidates or office holders. But unlimited contributions to "independent expenditures" are okay -- the theory goes -- their is no possibility of undue influence. This theory defies logic. It presumes candidates and officeholders will remain blissfully ignorant of the special interest money that elected them."

This is not the opinion of Citizen Gray or Candidate Gray, .... this is the published position of the Fair Political Practices Commission that is charged with protecting us from this kind of fraudulent pretense of innocence.

See the report and see what this State agency has to say about this manipulation of democracy.

The Fair Political Practices Commission has declared that the Big Dollar Mailer has "thwarted the will of the people."

These are not my words... I am simply here to report the absolute fact. Please see the complete report. The following is an excerpt:

Here’s the theory behind “independent expenditures.” The people may enact laws limiting direct contributions to candidates in order to avoid the possibility or appearance of undue influence over the candidate or officeholder. But unlimited contributions to “independent expenditures” are okay—the theory goes—because even though the money is being spent to benefit a candidate, it isn’t being given directly to him or her. Therefore—again, according to theory — there is no possibility of undue influence. This theory defies logic. It presumes candidates and officeholders will remain blissfully ignorant of the special interest money that elected them.
Because big money independent expenditures unduly influence election outcomes, they inevitably influence the legislative process because quid pro quo or not, legislators can determine whose support they owe their elections to."
Derek Cressman, Assistant Director
of Election Reform"

We have an ethical responsibility to not reward (not vote for)those candidates that participate in this shady, but technically legal, practice. See the article about the candidates with conflict of interest: Web Link

We must beware of this Trojan horse.

Timothy Gray, Candidate for Palo Alto City Council (I am not accepting contributions or endorsements)

Mr. Gray:

100% agreement. I MUCH prefer open, transparent, individual contributions to a candidate to the less transparent "group donation", so much more easily manipulated and cajoled, of these silly "campaign refinances". First, I truly believe it gets in the way of our constitutional right to free speech, meaning I can support any individual I wish to for office. Second, it sets it up for tremendous abuse and the intervention of courts into deciding whether or not a contribution "follows the law". I don't like the courts getting between me and who I wish to support.

I opposed McCain's ( was it McCain-Feingold's bill?) similar bill at the national level for the same reasons. We are seeing the effects of Court intervention right now based on this silly bill re: the release of a movie of on Hilary Clinton in last year's campaign.

I don't like it nationally, nor locally.

Mr. Balin's Guest Opinion from 2007 is contained in the following link: Web Link

Read the details and let's get campaign spending limits back on the agenda.

As noted in the previous post, the Labor Council dresses up its Big Dollar Union endorsements and calls it "Independent" community education which is a loophole that allows them invest in favor with Palo Alto Candidates and the same loophole is used by the three Union Endorsed and Union Funded Gail Price, Corey Levens and Nancy Shepherd so they do not have to report this support.

This is not an attack on Gail, Corey or Nancy, but simply a reporting of what I see as a major conflict of interest. What if Waste Management had supported candidates with Big Dollar Mailers just before they were asking those same people to vote on a multi-million dollar contract? Just the opposite: Palo Alto actually asked those who would be involved in the Waste Management decision to not even meet with the contractors to prevent a conflict of interest.

Please connect the dotted lines and say no to special interests.

Timothy Gray (I am not accepting contributions or endorsements)

The union certainly got their money's worth with Barton and Drekmeier. Barton and Drekmeier have been the most consistent votes for development and construction on the council.
When the union endorses a candidate they aren't just looking for salaries. They are looking for JOBS, mostly jobs in construction.
The three Union Endorsed and funded are Gail Price, Corey Levens and Nancy Shepherd.