Is Marc Berman actually a minion of Voldemort? He is the director of the Silicon Valley Educational Foundation, which preaches curricular alignment. Is this a case of an education reform lobbyist not merely trying to beguile our state representatives but actually trying to become one? I need further information on his organization and sources of funding.

@Wayne,

Please forgive me for reposting this from another thread, but here is some information on Berman's "independent" funding sources, which he says are not coordinated with his campaign:

Our local Assembly race has been inundated with money from interest groups whose identity and motivation has been obscured. Specifically, I'm referring to the pro-Berman mailers that have been clogging my mailbox, also the anti-Vicki Veenker hit pieces from "Californians Allied for Patient Protection."

Here is the California Secretary of State's listing just for "late independent expenditures" benefiting Berman: Web Link

The Berman mailers (as well as pro-Berman Facebook advertising) have been funded mostly by "EdVoice," The California Dental Association, and the California Association of Realtors. Most of these mailers very generally tout his dedication to "the environment" and to schools, but none of the mailers have actually revealed why those particular groups are supporting his candidacy.

In the case of the Veenker hit pieces, they come from "Californians Allied for Patient Protection." Those mailers attack Veenker for not having previously held public office, but say nothing about the real reason why "Californians Allied for Patient Protection" would want to defeat her.

It's a dirty election, when the actual motivation for spending many hundreds of thousands of dollars is obscured. After a little digging around, and watching the candidate interviews provided by the Voice/PA Weekly, I have some idea of why these organizations are spending so much on this race.

Regarding the anti-Veenker hit pieces, a letter published in this week's Voice had this to say:

"Here is the reason this mailer was mailed out as I understand it. At a meeting with CAPP, she answered 'never say never' when asked if she was in favor of keeping the cap on malpractice compensation where it is now€, and where it's been for more than a decade. So even though she isn't proposing to change the MICRA legislation that is so sacrosanct to CAPP, that's not good enough for the group. It wants her to adopt a rigid position against any changes to the cap. I, for one, wouldn't want a representative who gave in to that sort of pressure."

This malpractice compensation issue may also explain the California Dental Association's $80,000 support for Berman.

Here is some information about "EdVoice": Web Link As nearly as I can tell, they advocate for charter schools, and oppose CTA positions on teacher evaluation. Nothing on their pro-Berman mailers reveals the actual reason for their support (approximately $750,000). However, Veenker stated in her interview that she had not been willing to make a firm statement opposing the present teacher tenure standards. Perhaps that explains the EdVoice money for Berman.

In the interviews, Berman stated that he would not be willing to release the contents of the interest-group questionnaires that candidates filled out, although he would answer the interviewer's question on any issue if asked. Candidates' questionnaire answers would have had a lot to do with interest groups' support or opposition. Veenker said she would have no problem releasing the questionnaires.

And the California Association of Realtors...I assume it has to do with Berman's vision for development, or his position on rent control. Again, his answers on their questionnaire would tell us a lot, and of course the mailers don't mention the actual issues that motivate their support (over $160,000 on polling, "research," and mailers).

Berman, Veenker, and Kasperzak are the only serious candidates in this race. I may not agree with every one of Veenker's positions, but I'll be voting for her. Berman's and Kasperzak's negatives are huge, for me. I have voted for Mike in earlier council elections, but I've been watching his votes more closely for the last few years (almost invariably in support of big money), and also his positions in favor of BRT dedicated lanes and HSR, and will never make that mistake again.

"In the case of the Veenker hit pieces, they come from "Californians Allied for Patient Protection." Those mailers attack Veenker for not having previously held public office, but say nothing about the real reason why "Californians Allied for Patient Protection" would want to defeat her."

Why is it an attack to point put out the obvious. Veenker lacks the experience and skill set available in the other candidates. Kasperzak is the most experienced , though I disagree with some of his postitions. If you don't care about electing poorly qualified candidates, then support Veenker or Chiang.

@"Your kidding" - Attack means attack. Let's not try to change the meaning of words. Those mailers were hit pieces by any definition. The organization that paid thousands for the mailers intentionally obscured the real reason for their attack. It was not because Veenker has never held elected office, but apparently because she would not take a pledge to continue the present limit on punitive damages for malpractice awards.

This is shaping up as the dirtiest, biggest-spending Assembly race I've ever seen, and it's only the primary. "Californians Allied for Patient Protection" comparing her "lack of experience" to Trump - that was particularly fragrant.

You can vote for whoever you like, for whatever reasons. I'll do the same.

" Attack means attack. Let's not try to change the meaning of words" .


These are your words, not the words stated in the ad. So in your opinion, Stating the truth is an attack . What nonsense. It's you who made the Trump comparison. Again, this is why we get poor candidates. People like you support inexperienced candidates that have no political skills. Veenker is arrogant to think she's qualified to run for assembly.

Kasperzak is promoting....desalinization plants? A concept that has proven to be economically unfeasible? Fits right in with his Council track record.

His recent VTA vote is disqualifying in my book.