The issue is how do you stop free labor from political groups such as the Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, and the California League of Conservation Voters? These groups provide free labor to walk your campaign flyer, printer your campaign flyer, send unofficial emails to support their candidate, etc.

STOPPING free labor would be un-American, but assigning a monetary value to various types of labor and requiring disclosure (by any group using "free" labor) of the value of the labor would level the playing field.

Oddest news about Gary Kremen was his own comments after the election that he "didn't think it would get so personal with all of the campaign finance stuff. I got pummeled." Web Link

Evidently Kremen thought that if you buy an elected office by outspending a respected incumbent 24:1, supported by dark-money attack ads ("say no to toilet water"), even then barely achieving a majority of votes, people will respect and admire you for it!

Kremon spent nt his own money. Did he really buy your vote or just convince people he was the best candidate. Who cares how much personal money a candidate spends.

Kremen's buying the election wasn't the point of my post, just the background. Rationalize it any way you like, but the "tsunami" of outspending Web Link aided by the "most vile attack mailer ever seen in Mountain View" leading to a narrow election victory is a textbook example of how people legally buy offices in this country.

But all that was beside the point of my post above: the remarkable thing was Kremen's reaction of record. Being surprised that anyone would mind!

Nothing wrong with someone spending their own money, and it's about time we had a fresh face representing the Water District. Schmidt didn't do much of anything -- we were never prepared for the drought, and when it hit big time, what we were to do? Just conserve water, limit watering our lawnns, and pay increased rates? We can do better than that!

Agree with Old Timer. Schmidt did not do anything, Kremen seems to have shaken up the board already.

I also agree with Old Timer and Jose. Schmidt also let us down in addressing creek flood issues and the retention basin. I read somewhere he collected over $200,000 dollars (can someone verify this figure?) by attending all sorts of meetings, yet never accomplished the aforementioned objectives. I'm glad a "doer" like Kremen is in rather than the institutional, hand-picked favorite.

@ Cocerned: The League of Women Voters NEVER endorses or campaigns for a political candidate. We do hold Candidate Forums wherein all candidates are invited and asked questions submitted by the audience. The League of Women Voters is NOT a political organization but we do advocate for certain ballot measures based on positions the League has developed after study and input from the membership. If we do not have a position related to a certain area, we do not advocate for it. Please visit the LWVC website to view our state wide positions ( LWVC.org).

Disagree with Interested Observer BIG TIME.

Although they may not mention LWVC, look who is a member and who speaks at meetings?

"The League of Women Voters NEVER endorses or campaigns for a political candidate."

That claim is both wrong on record (Wikipedia on LWV candidate attack ads Web Link ) and annoying to the intelligence of those of us accustomed to seeing voting recommendations from the LWV for years.

Very sadly for its credibility, the League of Women Voters plays a bizarre double game. It constantly takes political sides: not just the CANDIDATE ads documented in the link above, but on many controversial issues Web Link , which the person above called "advocat[ing] for certain ballot measures based on positions the League has developed." Yet simultaneously, people in the League insist against all normal logic that it's "NOT a political organization."

Maintaining two such fundamentally contradictory positions at once, with a straight face, implies a sort of Orwellian self-deception. That is the most prominent feature the LWV presents to "interested observers" who look at the organization without buying into the logical contortionism.

he spent the money convincing Anna Eshoo through Pelosi to endorse him, despite Brian Schmidt's perfectly reasonable performance on the job....

Since voters know very little about either, endorsement in this case is everything

this is corruption, because it's not convincing voters, but party hacks with direct payments