With the crowded race to succeed Assemblyman Rich Gordon in the 24th District heading into the final stretch, independent political action committees are throwing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the contest in hopes of influencing the outcome.
Palo Alto City Councilman Marc Berman has been the chief beneficiary of these political action committees, with groups funded by dentists, Realtors, car dealers, poultry farmers and pawnbrokers collectively contributing thousands of dollars to his campaign in the month leading up to the June 7 primary.
Berman, an attorney who until last fall worked as development director at the Silicon Valley Education Foundation, benefited from huge infusion of cash from EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee, the political arm of the Sacramento-based education-policy nonprofit. Last week, the committee made a series of expenditures totaling $368,291 to support Berman's bid for the Assembly.
The group paid for several flyers, one touting Berman as "one of our region's innovative leaders" and crediting him for "(leading) the charge to transition Palo Alto toward cleaner energy" and for helping to close the achievement gap in public schools.
Berman said the EdVoice expenditures were made completely independently from his campaign.
"We had no coordination with (EdVoice) whatsoever," Berman said.
The California Real Estate Independent Expenditure Committee, based in Los Angeles, is also backing Berman with fliers and contributions. Last week, the group issued several fliers urging voters to support Berman, one touting his "proven record of fighting for us" and another referring to him as a "progressive focused on fiscal responsibility."
Meanwhile, another independent group, Californians Allied For Patient Protection Independent Expenditure Account, paid for an ad that takes a swing at Vicki Veenker, who is also vying for the Assembly seat. The flier criticizes Veenker for not having held an elected office and for having "never been seen at council meetings." In an obvious allusion to Donald Trump, the flier states that Veenker "sounds like someone we know running for President, doesn't it."
The attack ad drew an immediate rebuke from the California chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus of California, which has endorsed Veenker. Angelica Ramos, president of the group's local chapter, issued a statement that blasted the ad for implying to Peninsula women and girls that "despite all the hard work they do behind the scenes, like Vicki, they are unqualified for advancement as well.
"This is the kind of institutional sexism that discourages other qualified women from running for office, and it shows," the statement read.
Berman told the Voice's sister paper the Palo Alto Weekly that his campaign had nothing to do with the mailer and that negative attacks have no place in the race.
Veenker is also backed by numerous political action committees, though she lags far behind Berman in contributions from these groups. Last week she received one $4,200 contribution from the Women's Political Committee and another $4,200 contribution from the Women In Power Political Action Committee. And last month, she received $8,500 from the California Nurses Association Political Action Committee; $2,500 from the Mountain View Professional Firefighters Political Action Committee; and $1,000 from D.R.I.V.E., a political action committee of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters.
Earlier this year, Veenker also benefited from an $8,500 contribution from the California Teachers Association, one of her top backers.
Veenker is also the only candidate in California who is being directly opposed by the Californians Allied For Patient Protection Independent Expenditure Account. The group has raised money to support numerous candidates for the state Assembly, including Joaquin Arambula in District 31; Matt Dababheh in District 45; Bill Dodd in District 3; and Raul Bocanegra in District 39. It has also raised $32,501 specifically to oppose Veenker, according to its campaign statement.
Political action committees have largely refrained from contributing to the campaigns of Mountain View council members Mike Kasperzak and John Inks; or to Menlo Park Councilman Peter Ohtaki, the sole Republican in the race. And Cupertino Mayor Barry Chang, who has raised close to $300,000, did so largely by relying on contributions from individuals and area companies (the sole exception was the $2,250 that Chang received from the Associated Builders and Contractors Northern California Chapter PAC).
In a campaign statement filed earlier this month, Chang listed dozens of major contributions that collectively totaled $289,000. Many of these contributions were in the form of $4,200 and $8,500 checks from companies that are based outside the district and that gave more than once. Tropicana Russell, Inc., based in San Mateo, contributed a pair of $4,200 checks. So did Tiptoe Properties, LLC; Marina Brothers, Inc.; and Bayca Inc. -- all companies based in San Jose. According to Chang's statement, he received two more $4,200 contributions from Caixing Xie, owner of Bayca. Similarly, Chang received donations totaling $42,000 from Campbell-based firm South Bay Construction, in addition to separate contributions from the company's partners.
Chang's tendency of getting separate contributions from a business and from its owners is unusual, given that the city's campaign finance laws treat donations from a firm's controlling partner as an individual donation and that many of his donors had already made the maximum allowed contribution in their capacity as individuals. And while Chang only reported these contributions in his "late contributions" filing earlier this month, many of them were made last year (in some cases, going back to last July).
When asked about this irregularity by the Mountain View Voice, Chang explained that he had made an extra effort this campaign cycle to adhere to elections rules, which he described as "complicated." He pointed out that these large donations had been included in his committee's standard campaign-finance report submitted last month.
Chang, who was sanctioned by the Federal Political Practice Commission for his failing to disclose 160 contributions to his 2014 campaign for the City Council, also told the Voice that he had recently retained a Sacramento accounting firm to serve as his treasurer. He was notified only then that he should file additional paperwork for the large donations.
"I'm glad I had (my accountant) because she's the expert," Chang said. "To the best of my knowledge I filed them, and I filed them correctly. But she said we had to file them again."
The two remaining candidates, retired engineer Seelam Reddy and community activist Jay Cabrera, are running low-budget campaigns and have not formed committees for their respective Assembly bids.
Mountain View Voice staff writer Mark Noack contributed to this report
Comments
Another Mountain View Neighborhood
on May 23, 2016 at 9:48 pm
on May 23, 2016 at 9:48 pm
Berman has sent me five fliers now, FIVE. I got the message the first time. I don't see what good the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th do, except tell me he has no idea how to spend money wisely. Well, he won't be spending the public's if I have anything to say about it.
Old Mountain View
on May 24, 2016 at 11:37 am
on May 24, 2016 at 11:37 am
The reporting here is really incomplete. Berman has received not "thousands" but rather many hundreds of thousands of dollars from PACs. The California Secretary of State website (Web Link shows $616,265 in "late expenditures" on behalf of Berman by outside groups, just between 5/9/16 and 5/20/16. All of this $616,265 comes from just three sources: the California Association of Realtors, something called EdVoice, and the California Dental Association. This is on top of a few more hundreds of thousands that Berman has received from other sources in other time periods.
What do these groups have to gain from spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on Berman? Could the MV Voice/PA Weekly reporters give us some information on this? Could you perhaps even ask Berman exactly what his positions are, that makes these groups eager to spend so much to elect him?
Martens-Carmelita
on May 24, 2016 at 2:44 pm
on May 24, 2016 at 2:44 pm
When I received the first mailer from Berman, I read it. Then came FOUR MORE. I think he's getting a great deal more in "contributions" than the Voice is listing here, because these mailings are a very expensive over-kill. I'd suggest Berman should wake up to the negative reaction, but it's too late for that now. If a candidate had this amount to spend on mailers (and does it) it tells me he's for sale to the highest bidder, and he's not the candidate I want.
Another poster said it shows he doesn't spend money wisely, and I totally agree. The multiple mailings only make me suspicious about Berman's backers and what they are buying in return. Berman will NOT get my vote.
Regarding another candidate - the hit piece on Veenker infuriated me. What group is so afraid of her that they stoop to this slimy level? They are getting the opposite reaction they hoped for in this case, because their hate mailer made me curious to see what they feared. I read about her, like her views and respect her backers. Veenker gets my vote.
St. Francis Acres
on May 24, 2016 at 3:18 pm
on May 24, 2016 at 3:18 pm
I received mailers from Veenker, Berman and Chang - but not from Kasperzak or Inks or the others. Then again, when candidates have nothing to say about why they are running, they should just save their money.
Monta Loma
on May 24, 2016 at 4:13 pm
on May 24, 2016 at 4:13 pm
After receiving frequent expensive mailers in support of Berman, I began to wonder just how many entrenched interests expected him to do their bidding! Then I received the hit piece on Veenker. Anyone who is sufficiently independent to be the subject of that level of attack will be an outstanding, independent Assembly member. I will vote for Vicki Veenker.
Monta Loma
on May 24, 2016 at 4:55 pm
on May 24, 2016 at 4:55 pm
I began keeping track the day I received three mailers promoting Marc Berman. So far I have an even dozen. The days I don't find one in my mailbox I feel neglected.
Cuesta Park
on May 24, 2016 at 5:16 pm
on May 24, 2016 at 5:16 pm
Makes one wonder what Berman and Chang will be doing for these donors.
Old Mountain View
on May 26, 2016 at 2:10 pm
on May 26, 2016 at 2:10 pm
Two more Berman mailers in my mailbox today.
Both of them hype Berman's efforts to promote clean energy. One was paid for by the California Association of Realtors, the other by "EdVoice."
Somehow I don't think that clean energy is the Realtors' motivation for spending hundreds of thousands trying to get Berman elected. My best guess is that it has something to do with development and/or rent control. In the candidate interview by the Voice/PA Weekly, Berman refused to provide copies of the questionnaires that he filled out for various interest groups in an effort to get their endorsements. That might have shed a little light on this, but he won't release them.
The other one of today's mailers, also focusing on clean energy, was from "EdVoice." I don't think this group wants him elected for clean energy, either. As nearly as I can tell, this group is interested in promoting charter schools, which generally come at the expense of public schools. Is there a reason that EdVoice would expect Berman to advance their agenda? I'd really like to see those questionnaires.
Gemello
on May 26, 2016 at 7:01 pm
on May 26, 2016 at 7:01 pm
Have you ever listened to Chang. He is crazy. Veenker is just plain unqualified to run for office. She needs to get some political experience in group decision. Making. Perhaps a commission role.
another community
on May 31, 2016 at 7:30 pm
on May 31, 2016 at 7:30 pm
It's not an accident that Chang can't get endorsements - he is a nightmare to work with - erratic, poor communicator, and a publicity hound. After losing the Assembly race where he lives, he's now "renting" an apartment to run in this one. Having seen him in action for many years, please don't be fooled by his many high-budget mailers.
Old Mountain View
on Jun 1, 2016 at 10:00 am
on Jun 1, 2016 at 10:00 am
Incredible. FOUR Berman mailers in yesterday's mail alone. (All the same large format, like 9x12 inches, on slick card paper.)
I complained earlier about getting one to three of them DAILY, but now it's four. One from Berman himself, the other three from PACs who liked whatever Berman won't share publicly in his answers to their questionnaires.
WHY does that candidate evidently not realize:
1. Sending his own mailings is unnecessary (and even annoying), when his shadowy PAC supporters already send many more;
2. This phenomenon of mailbox blizzard is, by itself, alienating people from the candidate.
In case anyone is wondering, no I am not a partisan of some other competitor for the office (which plausibly and even sometimes explicitly explains some anti-Berman posts on these public forums). It's just that his way-way-overdone avalanche of postal advertising is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.
Old Mountain View
on Jun 1, 2016 at 10:34 pm
on Jun 1, 2016 at 10:34 pm
Got a mailer today from a new Berman sponsor, "Cooperative of American Physicians Independent Expenditure Committee." Here's an article explaining who they are: Web Link
From the article:
"Cooperative Of American Physicians Independent Expenditure Committee" is the political action committee of the medical malpractice insurer known as Mutual Protection Trust. This committee has spent more than $385,000 in Assembly Districts 20 (in support of candidate Garrett Yee) and 53 (against candidate Betsy Butler and in favor of candidate James Lau).
The article doesn't mention Berman and our Assembly District 24, but it's the same outfit that is funding this mailer. The mailer of course doesn't say a word about a Berman position on malpractice awards, the obvious motivation for this mailer - just a lot of words about what a fine "progressive" Berman is - how he's in favor of motherhood and apple pie.
This article also mentions CAPP, the insurer-funded group that sent out the two hit-piece mailers targeting Vicki Veenker:
"Californians Allied For Patient Protection Independent Expenditure Account" is the political action committee of CAPP, a group largely funded by medical malpractice insurance companies that focuses on the state's malpractice laws. It has spent more than $317,000 in Assembly Districts 20 (in support of candidate Garrett Yee and in opposition to candidate Bob Wieckowski) and 53 (all against candidate Betsy Butler).
This is really a sterling test case of whether massive amounts of outside money can actually buy an election. These groups are betting over $800,000 that it will.
Old Mountain View
on Jun 1, 2016 at 10:41 pm
on Jun 1, 2016 at 10:41 pm
Note - the article is from 2010. I guess these groups have been doing this for a while.
Old Mountain View
on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:14 am
on Jun 4, 2016 at 12:14 am
Here's a "follow the money" update:
The California Secretary of State website (Web Link has listings for "late independent expenditures" on behalf of Berman. Just in the period from 5/9/16 - 6/1/16, these include:
EdVoice (pro-charter school, anti-CTA) over $823,000
California Real Estate Association: over $160,000
Cooperative of American Physicians (lobbies for limits on malpractice awards) $30,000
California Dental Association (this is probably about malpractice awards as well): $108,000
Total for just these groups, just for this time period: over $1,100,000 for mailers, polling, online ads, "data," etc.
We also have a couple of new anti-Vicki Veenker mailers, real stinkers. The latest one is from the "California Apartment Association Independent Expenditure Committee." This is the same group that hid $90,000 in dark-money contributions to three pro-developer MV city council candidates in the last election by routing the money through a shell organization, cynically named the "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition."Check this MV Voice article: Web Link Previous anti-Veenker hit pieces were brought to you by "Californians Allied for Patient Protection," another malpractice insurer's front.
It's actually pretty clear what these groups think they are buying, and what voting positions they are expecting from Berman if he's elected: accelerate development, minimize malpractice awards, promote charter schools at the expense of public schools, preserve the state law that says apartments built after 1995 are exempt from rent control.
Cuernavaca
on Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 pm
on Jun 21, 2016 at 12:47 pm
Other than making the political connections to get hidden special interest money on his side, what has Berman accomplished as a first-term member of the 9-member Palo Alto City Council or in any other capacity?
Old Mountain View
on Jul 24, 2017 at 3:31 pm
on Jul 24, 2017 at 3:31 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Martens-Carmelita
on Jul 29, 2017 at 5:49 pm
on Jul 29, 2017 at 5:49 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
North Whisman
on Aug 10, 2017 at 10:05 am
on Aug 10, 2017 at 10:05 am
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
North Whisman
on Aug 13, 2017 at 1:17 pm
on Aug 13, 2017 at 1:17 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
North Bayshore
on Aug 14, 2017 at 8:19 am
on Aug 14, 2017 at 8:19 am
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?