The choice of Democratic Party power brokers (Berman) will finish first with 28% and the only woman in the field (Veenker) will make the November top two runoff with 21%. The only candidate who admitted to being a Republican (Ohtaki) got third -probably with Republican votes. Veenker will likely win in November - riding Hillary Clinton's coattails..

Berman, the candidate with lots of outside money, won the selection. It looks like money from outside the District can buy the election. I'm sorry to see that. He may be the best candidate for the job, but receiving 4 flyers in the mail from him in one day could have resulted in a negative for Berman.

There’s a very big story here, if only the Voice/PA Weekly will cover it.

Berman received over a million dollars in outside support. This is unprecedented in a local Assembly primary, and I don’t think it is an exaggeration to say that this massive expenditure had a corrupting effect on the election.

Here are some questions that have not been addressed in any election coverage:

1) Who precisely are the funders behind the "Independent Expenditure Committees" that funded the Berman mailers, polling, internet ads, and anti-Veenker hit pieces? These IEC’s were "EdVoice," "Cooperative of American Physicians," "Californians Allied for Patient Protection," and the California Apartment Association. A little internet followup indicated to me that EdVoice is a pro-charter school, anti-CTA entity funded by right-wingers, and the two medical-sounding groups are fronts for malpractice insurance companies.

The California Apartment Association, you may recall, sent $90,000 through the shell cynically named "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition," in support of three pro-development candidates in the 2014 MV council election.

I’d really like to see a real reporter dig a lot deeper than I could. Who exactly are the individuals or corporations behind these IEC'c?

2) Exactly why were these groups convinced it was worth a million plus to get Berman elected? I watched the candidate interviews that the Voice/PA Weekly provided; it seemed that their answers on questionnaires given to them by various interest groups determined whether they would be supported or attacked.

So, exactly what were the answers or issues that motivated support or attack?

3) Berman said that there was "no coordination" between his campaign and these special-interest groups. I see no reason to doubt that he followed the letter of the law. HOWEVER, was there coordination between the various interest groups? The timing of the mailers tells me that there may have been. If so, exactly who arranged it?

This was an infusion of dark money on a scale that we have not seen before. I sincerely hope that the Voice/PA Weekly is willing to help drag some of this information into the light.

It's obvious that Berman bought his win in this election. I agree with all of those who objected to the money wasted on two to four flyers a day in my mail from Berman. I hope that there is someone out there who will dig deeper into how his election was funded and by whom.

At last count, Berman was at 27% while Veenker had risen to 23%. Ohtaki 18% and Kasperzak barely beating Chang for 4th place at 12%. Inks was a solid 6th with less the 5% but an ethusiastic following! Voter turnout was pathetic as usual.