No, I'm not giving out any personal endorsements here. But in reviewing some of the state slate mailer financial reports today, I was struck again what a bizarre business these outfits are that send mailers to voters listing a slate of "recommended" candidates when the only basis for that recommendation is cold, hard cash.

That's how the slate listed above got grouped together. Each of those individuals has purchased space on the Republican-leaning slate mailer the "California Voter Guide." That guide will list endorsements for such individuals as GOP U.S. Senate candidate Carly Fiorina, Republican Assembly candidate Jeff Gorell, Republican Assemblywoman Audra Strickland (running for supervisor), Republican state Sen. Tony Strickland (running for controller), more than a half-dozen individuals running for seats on the Ventura County Republican Central Committee (including Chairman Mike Osborn and his wife, Mary) ... and Jim Dantona, a Democrat running for county clerk.

The cost to Dantona to have his name listed among all these Republicans: $17,250.

On the other side of the aisle, it cost sheriff's candidate Dennis Carpenter, a Republican, $6,000 to have his name included on the "Democratic Voters Choice" slate mailer, where he will be listed alongside such prominent Democrats as insurance commissioner candidate Dave Jones and attorney general candidate Pedro Nava.

And then there's the deceptively (and ungrammatically) named "Californian's (cq) Vote Green" slate mailer. It accepted $40,000 from the Pacific Gas & Electric Co.-funded Proposition 16 campaign to recommend a yes vote -- despite the fact that most state environmental groups oppose the initiative because they believe its passage would depress the demand for renewable energy. Audra Strickland, whose campaign asserts that opponent Linda Parks, the incumbent, is a radical environmentalist, paid $1,000 to have her name listed on the "Vote Green" slate.

This can't be said often enough: If you receive one of these slate mailers, no matter how official and principled it may look, no matter how boldly it displays the American flag, no matter how warm-and-fuzzy its environmental message, it is nothing more than a paid advertisement. Ignore it -- and look for some other source of information upon which to base your voting decisions.

Given the extent of the economic collapse that began in December 2007 and continued throughout 2008, it should be no surprise that a record number of Americans earned too little income to incur an income-tax liability in 2008.

This is a very bad thing, according to a study released today by the conservative Tax Foundation -- not because of the difficulties that middle-class American families are experiencing in making ends meet, but because it leaves the rich to pay a higher percentage of all income taxes.

The percentage of tax filers in 2008 who had no income-tax liability varied from a high of 45 percent in Mississippi to a low of 21 percent in Alaska. California -- still a relatively rich state, despite all the talk of the state's economic woes -- ranked 16th, with 37 percent of California filers owing no income taxes.

What this means, according to the Tax Foundation's Scott Hodge, is that there is "a growing population of Americans who have no skin in the game" when it comes to financing the federal government.

What it also means, of course, is that there is a growing population of Americans who would like nothing more than for their economic conditions to improve to the point where they can afford the day-to-day costs of supporting their families and actually have enough left over to pay for some other things, including taxes.

As I reported in my column this week, Pacific Gas & Electric seems to be getting a little desperate as it feels the perhaps unexpected backlash over its heavy-handed attempt to subvert the initiative process by trying to pass a measure conceived, written, bought and paid for by itself expressly for the purpose of protecting its monopoly.

On Friday, the company kicked in another $6.5 million to the campaign, bringing its total costs to date to $44 million. Clearly, the company's internal polling must be showing that the initiative is in serious trouble. It could be that the cynical idea that they could promote this little deceit as "taxpayer's right to vote act" just isn't working out the way it had hoped.

California voters have a history of seeing through ballot measures that aren't what they seem. We'll see if another $6.5 million in deceptive advertising can change that.

Santa Barbara City Councilman Das Williams, running in a tough campaign for the Democratic nomination in the 35th Assembly District, issued a press release today calling for a moratorium on offshore drilling. Under ordinary circumstances, a Santa Barbara politician calling for an oil-drilling moratorium would be about as newsworthy as a Las Vegas politician speaking out against a proposal to ban casino gambling. But these aren't ordinary circumstances.

It's evident that Williams, in the wake of the ongoing Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico, finds himself on the wrong side, politically, of the great debate in Santa Barbara over the proposed Tranquillon Ridge drilling project. To shorten and simplify a long story, Williams supports a deal struck between the PXP oil company and Santa Barbara environmental groups that would allow PXP to drill into state waters from its existing federal platform in exchange for promising to shut down all its drilling activities in 14 years. His opponent, coastal advocate Susan Jordan, has led the opposition to the PXP proposal.

Given the horror of the widening oil spill in the Gulf, don't expect Democratic voters in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties to have much sympathy for anything having to do with offshore oil drilling these days. They are not likely to take the time to understand the complexities and nuances of the proposed PXP deal, which Williams and other supporters back because they believe it will hasten the eventual end of drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel.

It didn't take long for Jordan to respond to Williams' press release. She called it a "desperate ploy" on the part of her opponent. "It's unclear to me," Jordan said, "how Das can call for a moratorium on new offshore oil leasing while he continues to support the PXP deal."

This post is going up at 5 seconds after 9 tonight, just after the embargo is lifted on a new Public Policy Institute of California poll that will make some major news in state politics -- a poll that shows the GOP race for governor tightening to the point where Steve Poizner is within single digits of Meg Whitman and the Republican Senate primary is a two-way dead heat with the third candidate, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, closing fast.

My story on this, as well as another on the poll's first measurement of public opinion on the coming fall initiative to legalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, should be going up on VCStar.com shortly if they're not already there.

But lost in these headlines might be the poll's surprising findings on Proposition 14, the constitutional amendment to do away with traditional partisan primaries.

Despite the fact that Democratic and Republican party leaders have made the defeat of Prop. 14 a major rallying cry, majorities of voters in both parties are asserting their desire to break the partisan paradigm that defines California politics.

The poll finds 60 percent of likely voters in support of Prop. 14, with just 27 percent opposed. That includes 67 percent of independents, 61 percent of Democrats and 54 percent of Republicans.

So while the rest of the nation is reading the Beltway conventional wisdom about how primary elections in Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Arkansas show a rise in voters asserting ideological extremes, the California poll reflects what is probably the more accurate story. Discount the relatively small percentages of hyper-partisan voters who are asserting their zeal for ideological purity in Kentucky and Arkansas, and pay attention to the broad middle in California that hungers for political reform that will make them more relevant.

In partisan primaries, 50 percent is a good voter turnout. That means 25 percent of voters can create headlines by ousting a moderate by voting in a more liberal or conservative challenger. But what would happen if primaries, instead of being partisan nominating processes, were simply miniature versions of the general election in which the field of candidates is winnowed to the two who have the broadest appeal? That's what Proposition 14 is going to create in California, and its prospect for passage now seems strong.

That should be a far more significant national story than a handful of Utah party loyalists who gathered in a room several days ago to oust an incumbent Utah senator.

In a campaign finance report filed last week, the Ventura County Republican Central Committee provides a glimpse into the financing of the blitz of campaign mail promoting Assemblywoman Audra Strickland's campaign for county supervisor that has been hitting Republican households in Thousand Oaks of late.

The report shows expenses of $133,000 on Strickland's behalf through May 8. The two biggest contributors that made these expenditures possible were the California Republican Party, which gave $100,000, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, whcih gave $25,000. It also shows various contributions from real estate development interests.

The Republican spending essentially leaves incumbent Linda Parks without a party to try to counteract this in any way. Parks is also a Republican. While many county Democrats individually support Parks, largely because of her record on conservation and environmental issues, the party itself is prohibited by its bylaws from publicly supporting a Republican.

Within seconds after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger released his revised budget proposal today, the predictable responses started pouring in.

The SEIU called it "a wrecking ball to the state's economic foundation."

The Manufacturers and Technology Association said it puts the focus away from "extracting" taxes from folks and on to creating jobs.

The state PTA called it "brutal."

Republican lawmakers applauded. Democrats jeered.

And then there was Assemblyman Cameron Smyth, the Republican from Santa Clarita who represents much of Simi Valley. His response sounded, well, a little more like that of a grown-up.

Here's a portion of the statement issued by Smyth's office:

"The May Revise released by the governor today continues to demonstrate just how much challenging work we have to do between now and June 30. Last year I voted against cuts to health and human service programs and supported the maintenance factor to ensure that education received full funding. I am frustrated that cuts to vital social programs have formed the bedrock of the governor's May Revise, but I also recognize the situation we find ourselves in and remain committed to working with my colleagues to find solutions that protect essential priorities like job creation, classroom funding, public safety and social services."

Speculation that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is using his leverage to threaten or punish legislators with paycuts grew a little stronger today when the governor-appointed Citizens Compensation Commission scheduled its annual meeting for June 16.

The commission dramatically cut lawmakers' pay last year, immediately after Schwarzenegger filled a couple vacancies with folks who favored that idea. This year, some lawmakers accused Schwarzenegger of covertly threatening another paycut if they did not confirm his nominee for lieutenant governor, Abel Maldonado.

And now the commission has scheduled its meeting for June 16 -- the after the seldom-met constiutional deadline of June 15 for the Legislature to pass a budget. The commission has to act by July 1 so that its legislator-pay decision can be factored in by the beginning of the fiscal year on that date.

Now, lawmakers have got to be thinking that if there is no budget by June 15 they will be facing another paycut the following day. The same commission, by the way, also sets the governor's pay -- something that is of no concern to this multimillionaire governor, who accepts no salary for his state job.

What a system. President Obama must look upon it with great envy. Wouldn't he love to be in a position to appoint people who punish members of Congress by taking money out of their wallets whenever they didn't do as he pleased?

Over on our "Vote" blog, we've embedded You Tube videos of a televised discussion of the June ballot initiatives I did with the League of Women Voters' David Maron.

They're broken into three, 10-minute videos. Half an hour to cover the five initiatives. Although the videos reveal that I've got, as they say in broadcast, radio looks and a TV voice, my highly biased view is that they do a pretty fair job of summarizing the substance and subtext of Props. 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. I urge you to check them out.

Amid the noise of blaring TV ads and hyperpartisan babble, where's a conscientious voter to turn for straightforward, nonpartisan information about the coming California primary election. I mean, of course, other than VCStar.com .

Here's one place I recommend: The California Voter Foundation's voter guide. This nonprofit, nonpartisan organization does a terrific job of placing all the research information a voter needs at a single location. Its section on the ballot measures features a useful "follow the money" feature that lists the top five contributors in support and opposition to each measure.

When you think of politics and tea parties these days, the image of a dainty hand with raised pinky lifting a China teacup is not exactly what comes to mind.

But that's the image the Ventura County chapter of the National Women's Political Caucus evokes in announcing its event next Saturday at the Dudley House in Ventura. They're calling in, "Politics, Tea & Thee."

Among the guests will be former Santa Barbara County Supervisor Susan Rose.

On the day that former Republican state Sen. Abel Maldonado conducted his formal swearing-in ceremony and is hosting Capitol-area receptions to celebrate his taking the office of lieutenant governor, he received a not-so-pleasant greeting today from his former colleague, Sen. Tony Strickland.

The campaign of Sen. Sam Aanestad, who is running against Maldonado in the GOP primary for lieutenant governor, issued a press release announcing Strickland's endorsement. In the statement, Strickland calls Aanestad "a principled conservative that voters can trust."

As opposed, perhaps, to Maldonado, who competed against and lost to Strickland four years ago in the GOP primary for controller.

Strickland joins his former boss and Senate seat predecessor Tom McClintock in endorsing Aanestad in a classic Republican Party matchup pitting a conservative against a moderate.