Why I didn't Vote on May 19, 2009

Last Tuesday, for the first time since I was old enough to vote -- 1972 -- I didn't. Why? Because I'm sick and tired. Of a lot of things. Of doing the state legislature's work for them, for one. 

I'm sick of having to become a legislative analyst every six months and of trying to anticipate the blow-back lurking in the current ill-conceived proposal. State ballot initiatives almost invariably (except when they endorse discrimination against People Who Are Not Like Us) address transient problems with cast-in-concrete budget micromanagement -- for example, the hallowed Proposition 13 that keeps business real estate taxes at 1979 amounts in 2009. 

But the fundamental target of my disgust is California's tyranny-of-the-minority budgeting, its designed-to-run-amok  ballot initiative system, and its elected officials' knee-jerk refusal to raise taxes progressively, by increasing income tax, instead of regressively, through fees and sales taxes. 

Electing a new governor next year won't solve anything -- that's just another exercise in Titanic deck chair arrangement. As Jerry Brown observed recently, being governor of California is a "career terminator." 

It's time to grow up, California. We need to stop indulging our fairy tale of direct democracy and start living in the reality-based world, like responsible adults.  It's time to amend the state constitution to rein in ballot initiatives, let the state pass a budget and levy taxes with a simple majority, and -- dare I say it? -- repeal Proposition 13. That's one ballot initiative I'd vote for.

Who Shot JR?

In what could best be described as Santa Clara's own Theater of the Absurd, City Council Member Dominic Caserta proved that life can be stranger than fiction. Mr. Caserta placed on the agenda, Item 16C, "Request to authorize correction to Minutes of November 16, 2004 City Council meeting regarding abstention by Council Member Dominic Caserta from taking action on the Mills Act contract pertaining to his primary residence located at 936 Fremont Street, Santa Clara, CA". This was, one could surmise, Caserta's response to the FPPC investigation into whether or not Caserta recused himself when the Council voted to "...authorize the City Manager to execute a Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act)..." for Caserta's property at 936 Fremont Street. The Mills Act (Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program) "...is a state law allowing cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures. Such contracts require a reduction of property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of the property. "

Economic Benefits
The Mills Act reduces the property taxes paid on a historic property a tax break with the hopes the owner will use the tax savings to preserve the property. The savings can be substantial. According to the Santa Clara County Tax Collector's Office, in 2004, a total of $6,410.52 was paid in property taxes. After the Mills Act was approved, Caserta's 2006 property taxes were
$1,859.29, for a savings of $4,551.23 per year. And they will remain low every year he owns his house.

The Curtain Rises
Having finished giving the briefest of introductions on the item, Caserta recused himself and even stated so, including something to the effect of "I'm leaving the dais as I always do with items I'm involved with." This left introducing the matter to City Manager, Jennifer Sparacino. With some comments by City Attorney Helene Leichter as guidance, the Council Members joined the production.

Council Member Jamie McLeod stated she had been attending City Council meetings before she took office and remembered the meetings in question and that Caserta did not recuse himself and walk away from the dais. This led to a rebuke by Council Member Kevin Moore who asked McLeod in an accusatory fashion why she didn't report it to the City Attorney. Before things got too far out of hand with accusations and recriminations, Mayor Patricia Mahan tried to bring some sense of order back to the proceedings.

At some point in time, City Clerk, Rod Diridon, added the Council wouldn't actually be able to change or correct the minutes as they're a historical record of the proceedings. Rather, if the Council approved this request, it would create an amendment to the minutes. Diridon also stated that he was at the meeting and couldn't remember one way or another what Caserta had done.

The Public Speaks
When it was the public's turn to speak, Kirk Vartan gave a reasoned list of why the Council should not approve Caserta's request.

Does He or Doesn't He
Next up, was Steven Hazel, who in his 7th or 8th time speaking before Council, suggested that perhaps a video tape of the meeting did exist. With a flourish no doubt rehearsed for hours and hours at home, he pulled a VHS tape out of an envelope. Hazel, no shrinking violet from the podium, or the spotlight, assumed his role in the spotlight.

When asked, repeatedly, if that was actually a taped copy of the City Council meeting(s) in question, Hazel just sat in his seat and refused to answer any questions. Even when asked outside the Council Chambers, he refused to say whether or not it was the tape. Council Member Moore suggested it wasn't a tape of the meetings, but was instead Gone with the Wind. After Hazel finished speaking, he sat near Vartan. Based on Vartan's response and waving Hazel away, it could be safe to say Hazel was enjoying his 15 seconds of fame.

STOP THE PRESSES!
Steven Hazel, when given a chance to speak, didn't! Did the earth stopped rotating on its axis? Did Susan Lucci really win an Emmy? Given the chance to allow Council to watch the tape, or even state what was on the tape, Hazel chose to enjoy his time in the spotlight. Too bad there wasn't a spotlight in the Council Chambers, as Hazel surely would have run to it. Fortunately for Santa Clara residents, the cameras in the Council Chambers don't show members of the audience, as Hazel sat there, chin held high, clutching the envelope to his chest.

The Vote
The Council finally voted and passed a modified request to have the City Clerk provide amended minutes for the 2004 meeting with Council Members McLeod and Will Kennedy voting "no". Council Member Caserta was not present for the vote as he had walked away from the dais.

Prediction
Without having seen the news since yesterday afternoon, I wouldn't be surprised if a story comes out that either Hazel was attacked on his way home or that someone broke into his place and the mysterious tape was stolen.

A Disclaimer

As a disclaimer to my election rant, I think I should state for the record the owner of the Santa Clara Weekly paper is Miles Barber.

In response to the woman (wouldn't identify herself at the Final Word Forum) who stated, "You work for the paper and Miles gets money from the Gilmors so they tell you what to write" you couldn't be more wrong.

Miles has given me feedback on maybe 3 of my stories including my Tech Talk series on Comcast as an Internet Service Provider. He said the paper "isn't the I hate Comcast Weekly".

If you think my editor tells me what to write, you're wrong as well. My editor gives me feedback on the content of my articles. But never tells me what to write or what angle to take on a story.

An Election Who's Who

On the eve of the election, much has been learned about the candidates. But questions still remain. I've been avoiding doing this for far, far too long but finally felt compelled to do this on the eve of what could prove to be the biggest election Santa Clara has ever seen.

As a disclaimer, I'm sure there'll be lots of things in here various people in various groups won't like. Feel free to email or make comments. What I've got here (in a hopefully not too rambling style) is based on a candidates SmartVoter.Org statements, or from the candidate's forum. I've avoided using their websites since websites can change as the candidates gauge the public's sentiment about issues. I'm not looking for the chameleon candidate - that senses the group they're about to talk with is hot about a particular answer and then tailors their answer to suit that group. That, in my opinion is not the quality of a good or desirable candidate.

I also didn't call or ask the candidates any of the things I consider important here. I didn't really want to hear the answers they can make up on the spur of the moment for me. If it wasn't something they said on their SmartVoter.org page or said in public at a candidate forum, then it's not relevant.

In no particular order:

o City Council Seat No. 4

This race started off as a no-race with Kevin Moore running unopposed. Lots of rumors circulated about why no one was running against Moore but Carolyn Schuk delved pretty well into this - aroundsantaclara.blogspot.com/2008/10/mercury-dredges-dirt-but-doesnt-ask.html

Dispensing with that, here's the candidates as I see them:

Kevin Moore (incumbent):

Moore is one of those guys that I've found talking to people in Santa Clara (and being a reporter, people feel compelled to give me their opinion) that is either loved or not-so-loved. I voted for Moore in 2004, based entirely on how he presented himself at the Art & Wine Festival. I stopped and spoke with Gap Kim and asked "Why should I vote for you?". Kim had a table laden down with literature and gave me a flier that listed all the reasons. Right next to Kim's booth was Moore's. Moore sat there with his wife Julie on two folding chairs. No tables, no boxes of literature, nothing more than just the two of them sitting there. I asked the same question and Moore gave an impassioned speech on how he could give me a flier showing lots of endorsements but endorsements made him beholden to other people. Based on that speech, I voted for him.

When I started covering the City Council meetings in February 2005 and heard Moore speak, I thought, "Heaven help me, I voted for the village idiot." While Moore might not be the most eloquent speaker on the dias, talking to him one on one, shows his passion for all things Santa Clara. While I don't always agree with him on all issues, for the most part, he feels he's trying to "fight the good fight", although his detractors would argue the point.

Karen Hardy (Write-In Candidate):

Hardy says she decided to run when she saw no one was running against Moore. This is Hardy's 3rd shot at the Council. Hardy's claim to fame from is a past victory opposing a card room (Bay 101, I believe) from moving into Santa Clara. Hardy is hard to read. At times, she can be exasperating as neighbors of Martins Bar can attest. Also in her 2006 bid against Dominic Caserta, her "campaign consultant" published to many people some incorrect information about Caserta's development website. I contacted Hardy on this and our conversations seemed to go round and round. Maybe it was just her particular writing style at the time, as recent emails with Hardy have been straight and to the point. And I've actually found myself agreeing with her too.

Recommendation: Toss a coin


City Council Seat No. 6

Brian Lowery (Engineer/Business Owner):

Brian first came to City Council opposing a project at 1824 Market Street (at least that's when I recall him first appearing). When he ran for Council in 2006, I labeled him as a 1-issue candidate, as it was that one issue that spurred him to run. In talking with him since then, Lowery has grown and has learned how to see different sides of an issue. Lowery also earned the dubious distinction of being singled out by former Mayor Larry Fargher (in a "Concerned Citizens of Santa Clara" mailer) in 2006 as (paraphrasing) "not having enough experience to be an effective Council Member". Based on that one pompous statement, I thought Lowery was worth taking a look at as a possible Council Member. In talking with Lowery this year, he's learned quite a bit and had provided some interesting feedback about elections and Santa Clara in general.

Jamie Matthews (City Administrator/Father)

Matthews is a former Council Member who was termed out in 2006. At the time he was going to run for Mayor, but when Mayor Mahan decided to run for Mayor (after losing the Supervisors race to Ken Yeager), Matthews dropped out of the race. Matthews has maintained a low profile over the years - even when he was a Council Member. Matthews is one of those people that have his fans and detractors.

One thing that impressed me about Matthews is his turning down free press. After Hurricane Katrina hit, Matthews and several other Code Enforcement Officers went to New Orleans to help identify houses that were still habitable. Upon his return, I told him the paper could run a story on this, but to my surprise, he declined. He explained that he was just doing what he could to help the victims and didn't want to be in the spotlight. In starting his Council race this time, I offered to do a story on some website shenanigans committed by a former Council member and he declined. Both stories would have shown him to be an upstanding guy but he turned them down. Why tell the story now? I related these stories to a Santa Clara resident who said she felt they should be known.

Recommendation: Toss a coin


City Council Seat No. 3

Mario Bouza (Businessman)

This is Bouza's first attempt at Council (as far as I know). When he first filed, he didn't have a SmartVoter.Org statement so imagine my surprise when I realized he did. At the Candidate's Forum put on at City Hall, Bouza had troubles with the time limit. After being cut off at the 30 second mark (and other times), he appeared angry - one might even say pissed off based on his reaction. I can't imagine how the time limits weren't well known ahead of time and learning how to tailor your answer to the time limit is something that shouldn't be too difficult. Yeah, this might seem like nit-picking but it's not that hard to do, especially when there's a green, yellow and red light to let you know where about you stand with remaining time.

Bouza has a stated position of being against the 49ers stadium, limiting high density housing and economic development & job growth.

On high density housing:
At the candidate's forum, he indicated he was against all high density housing, which to me, seems a bit extreme, especially as he is in favor of economic development and job growth, which sort of implies a need for more housing.

He's also given some the impression he's "opposing the high density development that Santa Clara has become a proponent of in the last five years. He has pledged to speak out against these developments and to mitigate their impact on neighborhoods if they are built."
rd4sc.org/Responsible_Development_for_Santa_Clara/News/Entries/2008/9/20_Santa_Clara_City_Council_Candidates.html -

- or - tinyurl.com/5qnvog .

But he quite clearly states in his SmartVoter.org post, "I will work to ensure the development will not negatively impact our city services and the surrounding single family homes and townhomes. "
(www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/scl/vote/bouza_m/questions.html)

The vast difference in those bothers me. Could this be the workings of a chameleon candidate who changes his opinions to suit the group with which he's talking?

Mary Emerson (Business Operations Manager)

This is Emerson's first bid at Council. Emerson is pretty clear about her issues. Her appearance at the candidate's forum was well prepared. But she seems to be somewhat close-minded on the issues. When Will Kennedy (the incumbent for Seat 3) asked her if a stadium deal could be negotiated that would be beneficial to Santa Clara, Emerson had a golden opportunity to show she could be a centrist candidate, but she chose to dance around the issue.

Emerson also states that she wants to determine the needs of the North of Bayshore redevelopment area and to "work with the community and elicit proposals for projects that would meet those needs." That's highly desirable, but Emerson then states, "If there is no substantial need identified, then we should retire all debt and terminate the RDA early." - www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/scl/vote/emerson_m

That last statement shows a lack of understanding of how RDA funds work. I'm by no means an expert on that, but it might be impossible, for the City to just retire all debt. Payments for the RDA would come from, I believe, the General Fund. If the City doesn't have the money to pay this from the General Fund, then where would the money come from?

Will Kennedy (Santa Clara Councilmember/Attorney)

Will Kennedy is the incumbent in this race. On the dias, Kennedy can be someone easy to forget you saw. My first impressions of him when I first started to cover the City Council were that he was quiet in his approach, but quickly realized the quiet hides his intelligence and his perception. Unlike the boisterousness of some of the other candidates, Kennedy is the unassuming guy who grasps the meaning of what's going happening in a concise manner.

Kennedy is considered one of the two independent voices on the Council (along with Jamie McLeod). His independence has shown in votes when he hasn't gone along with the rest just because. Lawyer jokes don't quite apply to Kennedy as he represents people in cases involving the lemon law, inaccurate credit reports or fraud. Kennedy is also active in the non-profit community having started the local branch of Lawyers in the Library Program (providing free legal consultations at local libraries) and being active in Volunteers in Parole. (The program is made up of attorneys who mentor young offenders recently released from incarceration.) You can read about it at his SmartVoter.org page - www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/scl/vote/kennedy_w

On the 49ers stadium, Kennedy states the he will "only support a stadium deal which provides a better return on investment than current projections show."

Kennedy doesn't try to be a chameleon candidate. He's stated his positions time and again in different forums. He's a candidate who will do the right thing.

Recommendation: Will Kennedy


City Council Seat No. 7

Chuck Blair (Santa Clara Businessperson)

This is Chuck Blair's 2nd bid at Council. Chuck's main appeal seems to be his folksy, guy next door that you might wander down the street to talk with when something notable happens. His folksy attitude has come through in various campaign events.

Unfortunately, Blair's SmartVoter.org website (www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/scl/vote/blair_c) doesn't have much of his stated positions, other than:

o Economic Development
o Strengthen the best Core services in the State
o Open Government ( with fellow Santa Clarans)

Looking at his website (chuckblair.org/issues/financial-strength), yeah, I'm violating one of my tenets) raises some questions:

Under Economic Development, "Superior Public Education" is listed. Except Public Education is handled by the School District and funding comes from the state level (the last time I checked). Blair has been active in baseball for all ages of students in Santa Clara, so possibly this is what he's referring to?

Under Financial Strength, Blair has "Keep taxes low". That's reassuring to hear, but the last time I checked, the tax rate in Santa Clara was already relatively low, if non-existent, as Santa Clara doesn't have a tax residents pay for the pleasure of living here (as New York City does, for instance). Unless he's referring to fees charged for services, Sewer and water? Maybe electricity?

Reading each of his issues section of his website makes me wonder where the "A Chicken in Every Pot" is hiding.

His website, amazingly enough, doesn't even mention the 49ers stadium. At various forums, he's been in favor of the 49ers stadium.

Jamie McLeod (Councilwoman/Environmental Planner)

Jamie McLeod is the incumbent in this race. McLeod is also considered one of the two independent voices on the Council (along with Kennedy). McLeod has a speaking style that belies her confidence in her ability to do what she believes is the right thing. Even though she's been what seems to be on the opposite side from her colleagues on the dias, she's stuck to her positions and opinions.

McLeod has been interested to luke-warm on the stadium but still keeps an open mind about it. If a deal can be worked out that is beneficial to the general fund, Santa Clara and the South Bay in general, then it wouldn't be surprising to see her support behind it.

McLeod's SmartVoter.Org website (www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/scl/vote/mcleod_j) is similar to Blair's in that it only lists her stated positions:

o Maintain core services - public safety, libraries, and community centers
o Open and accountable government
o Safeguard Santa Clara's natural and historic resources

Her website however (yep, I figure if I break a basic tenent for her opponent, I can do the same here) - jamiemcleod.org/blog - tells a lot. The only changes to it during the campaign have been in response to some less than nice mailings by "independent groups" that seem to have gotten their hysterical influence from some of the cable network news shows.

McLeod has maintained a tradition of meeting residents on the first Sunday of each month between 8:30 and 9:30am at Mission Coffee (2221 The Alameda). It's impressive that she does and continues to do this.

Ciaran O'Donnell (Software Engineer)

This is O'Donnell's first foray into government. My first encounter with O'Donnell was curious. At issue was a discussion over Santa Clara Square. O'Donnell asked what it was and I responded that he needed to do his research. The conversation left me thinking he was either incredibly smart or incredibly stupid. Smart if he was planning on being a chameleon candidate - find out what each group thinks and tailor your answer accordingly. Stupid because maybe he just didn't know about it but had already indicated he was running for Council. To this date, I'm still not sure of the answer to that question.

At a candidate forum hosted by the PepperTree Neighborhood Association, O'Donnell presented an idea of having inmates do work on roads. He also suggested neighborhood residents should volunteer to work on making their streets look better, including doing things like putting planters in the street - akin to what's been done on Saratoga Avenue (although that work was done by people that are paid to know what they're doing). I'd hate to imagine the contractor that did some work for a friend's fence doing work on a city street.

O'Donnell comes across as someone trying to please everyone. His political philosophy page on the SmartVoter.org website -
www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/scl/vote/odonnell_c/philosophy.html states, "Our city staff is key to the success of our city. Every resident should respect staff and the city should promote their career as a public official including work training. Buckley, and Pope John Paul II."

I'm assuming the reference to Buckley and Pope John Paul II was a typo? This lack of attention to detail on something as important as SmartVoter.org is an issue for me.

On particular concerns,
o O'Donnell favors "high density housing".

o O'Donnell supports "fluoridization of the water supply, and flu shots as well as festivals downtown and in the Rivermark area to just have good clean fun."

From what I recall, Santa Clara doesn't have its own water supply so adding fluoride to the water (if it's not already being done) might not be in the City's control. Flu shots are provided at many institutions - Costco, Longs Drugs, and Kaiser Hospital. O'Donnell doesn't answer the question of where would the money for the (I'm assuming he means) free flu shots come from?"

o O'Donnell acknowledges the "significant loss of retail in Santa Clara, including the recent losses of Mervyns and K-mart as well as Albertsons. There has also been a significant loss of small business including bankruptcies. City staff should be more high tech savvy and have a more pro business attitude."

I don't quite get it. The connection between high tech savvy and a more pro business attitude and Albertsons/SaveMart deciding to close stores is beyond my comprehension. As for Mervyn's declaring bankruptcy, how would the city staff being "more high tech savvy" with a "more pro business attitude" have changed that?

o O'Donnell talks about energy: "Access to energy is critical both to get to work and for our businesses. Coal and oil will not last forever nor are renewable resources ideal. I support a natural gas fueling facility for delivery vehicles and promoting nuclear power through Silicon Valley Power."

While O'Donnell is the only candidate to talk about using nuclear power, I'm not sure if the implication is that Silicon Valley Power would own a nuclear power plant or use their position as a power company to promote the virtues of nuclear power.

O'Donnell might be a good candidate - in the future. For now, he needs to be less of a chameleon and learn to focus on the issues.

Recommendation:

This groups was the hardest.

Blair's SmartVoter.org page and his own website don't really make a strong stand on any issue. Except publicly he's said he supports the stadium.

So....

If you're a backer of the stadium and want it no matter what, you're already voting for Blair anyway.

If you think the stadium intrigues you but you want more information to make sure it is a good deal, then McLeod is your candidate.

O'Donnell? Skip him. Vote for one of the other two candidates.

Mercury Dishes the Dirt But Doesn't Ask the Obvious Question

You could say that the South Bay election season doesn't officially begin until the San Jose Mercury News launches its first attack on its favorite local politics bogeyman, Santa Clara. By that criterion, 2008's election began Sunday with the Mercury's Internal Affairs gossip column stoking them old Santa Clara election conspiracy flames with a "he said, she said" story about Kevin Moore's seat.

Moore is running unchallenged for reelection this year, which strikes some as strange when there are eight candidates running for the other three seats.

The story being retailed by Internal Affairs is that Moore asked Mario Bouza not to run against him and to, instead, run for another seat.  A "friend of Bouza's" told IA that he was present when this phone call was received. Bouza also says that Chuck Blair -- currently making a second run against Jamie McLeod, after losing in 2004 -- called him and, I am not making this up, even former Santa Clara mayor Eddie Souza rang Bouza up to lay on the persuasion.

Excuse me, Eddie Souza? 

Souza hasn't been involved in Santa Clara politics for more than 15 years. In my experience, if you want to make sure you never get a return call from Eddie Souza, ask to talk with him about politics. It took me years to persuade him to talk with me, and when we did finally talk it was about the non-profit he helped found, Parents Helping Parents.

Athlete that he is, Moore wasted no time in returning the ball, claiming that Bouza in fact called him.  Chuck Blair seconded Moore, says IA.

Now, I heard part of this tale second hand at least a month ago. Having wasted way too much time in the past chasing mirages of political scandals that existed only in the minds of their beholders, I asked if anyone was willing to a) go on the record, and b) show me proof. No surprise, I never heard any more.

There's more than one thing about these stories that doesn't add up.

Moore beat Bouza by a big margin in 2004 and, if anything, he's even less likely to lose to him this time around. So I have difficulty imagining Moore making such a phone call.

But it's just as hard to imagine Bouza calling Moore. To say exactly…what? Hi, I'm thinking of running against you and was wondering if you would mind?

There's a similar story going back to 2004 about Moore phoning an opponent, Gap Kim, and suggesting that Kim run against someone else. But in that case Kim had the voicemail to prove it. In this case it's just Bouza's word against Moore's.

Or is it? There's one way to verify at least which way the calls went, if not the content of them, and I'm surprised IA didn't ask for it. (On second thought, I'm not, given the Mercury's conspiracy theory approach to Santa Clara politics.)

Let's see the call records. If Moore called Bouza, that call will show up as an incoming call on Bouza's number and an outgoing call on Moore's number. If Bouza called Moore, the calls will show up the other way 'round.

I say: Put up or shut up. Send them to me at cschuk@earthlink.net and I'll publish them here. My guess? Let's put it this way. I'll be real surprised to see any call records.

(And for the betting folks among you, how long do you think it will be before the Woodward & Bernsteins at IA "discover" the long arm of Gary Gillmor somewhere in this?)

Mike Honda Blogs On the Issues

Santa Clara's fighting fireplug of a Congressman, Mike Honda, has a  new blog,  Congressman Mike Honda on the Issues, where you can engage with him on the issues of the day. There are plenty of podcasts and audio briefings as well as reading.  Check it out. 

22nd Assembly District Race: Plot Thickens with 11th Hour Slate Mailer

Like most Democrats in the 22nd Assembly district, my mailbox has been so crammed with campaign ads the past few weeks that I just toss them without even looking. Saturday was not different. 

I was about to send an Anna Song flier to join Caserta's and Fong's more elegant efforts -- sorry guys, putting it in an envelope still won't make me read it -- when something caught my eye on the cheesy slate mailer (one endorsing a 'slate' of candidates). It was not the portraits of Great Democratic Presidents that appeared to have been taken with the same camera that Brady used at Antietam. No, it was the following statement:

"Anna Song for State Assembly: Endorsed by Santa Clara Mayor Patricia Mahan...."

Say what?

Last time I heard Pat Mahan had endorsed Dominc Caserta. I have calls in to both Mahan and Song to clarify this for me. In the meantime, I did some research.

The mailer came from an outfit in Burbank called Democratic Voters Choice, which, in 2005, drew the attention of reporters at the Daily Kos political blog for a deceptive mailer about ballot propositions. 

Turns out that Democratic Voters Choice is a slate mailer house apparently run by "campaign finance consultants" Durkee & Associates, which sells space on campaign mailers to anyone ready to pay --including special interest groups in sheep's clothing. What makes these pieces insidious is that they appear to be official party communications. 

Another thing about them is that candidates don't have to give permission for their names to used on them. So the one I got on Saturday listed all the Democratic candidates from Mike Honda down. But who paid for the piece is a different story -- and it ain't the Democratic party. 

The big money behind this piece is No on 98/Yes on 99 (the ballot measures on eminent domain -- 98 has the hidden rent control abolition provision) . You can learn more about this confab here. The other two candidates who paid to be on this piece are Lane Liroff (running for judge) and Anna Song.

Liroff spent about $6,700 to be on this mailer. However, I couldn't find any campaign finance filings for Anna Song in the CalAccess database -- no contributions, no expenditures. In fact Song's campaign doesn't appear to have filed anything.

So stay tuned as we try to find out if Pat Mahan's name is being taken in vain, and, how a campaign with no contributions and no expenditures on record buys a presence on space-for-hire political mailer.