Understandably, the Meg Whitman campaign distributed to reporters today polling memos from two private firms showing the face between her and Jerry Brown to be in a "dead heat." This comes on a day when the Field Poll -- the gold standard of polling in California -- released its final poll on the race, showing Brown up by 10 points.

If you're running for governor, if that final Field Poll shows you trailing, it's very bad news indeed.

The Field Poll, which operates exclusively in California, has been around since 1947. In the 53 top-of-the-ticket (president, governor, U.S. senator) contests it has polled, its final poll has showed the winner leading 49 times. It's been 23 of 23 since 1984.

Here's its recent history in governor's races:

2006: Final poll, Schwarzenegger up by 16 points; actual result, Schwarzenegger by 17.
2003: Final poll, recall wins by 8; actual result, recall wins by 10.
2002: Final poll, Davis up by 7; actual result, Davis by 5.
1998: Final poll, Davis up by 14; actual result, Davis by 19.
1994: Final poll, Wilson up by 10; actual result, Wilson by 14.
1990: Final poll, Wilson up by 10; actual result, Wilson by 3.

Here's an indication that 35th Assembly candidate Das Williams' private polling shows that he's in very good shape heading into the final days of his campaign against Republican Mike Stoker:

On Oct. 21 and again on Monday, Williams' campaign made separate contributions to the state Democratic Party totalling $39,000.

In an earlier post, I had reported that the party contributed the money to Williams. In fact, in further researching the reports today, I discovered that the party received the money from Williams. Huge difference. What it shows it that Williams is now confident enough of victory that he has been able to help the party by giving it money that can be spent in other, more closely contested races around the state.

If he does in fact win, those contributions will put him in good standing with Assembly
Speaker John Perez and the rest of the Assembly Democratic caucus.

(Updated with comments from Tony Strickland campaign, Oct. 27, 2:45)

The campaign of Democratic state Controller John Chiang today is accusing Republican opponent Tony Strickland of being "shameless" in a new political mailer in which he takes credit for a reform bill that was in fact sponsored by Chiang and state Treasurer Bill Lockyer.

The details: Following revelations that so-called "placement agents," advocates for investment companies that sought to persuade CalPERS to invest some of its billions with them, had been treating CalPERS board members and officers to trips, golf outings and other favors.

Chiang and Lockyer, as the state's top elected fiscal officers, have ex-officio positions on CalPERS' board of directors. Last November, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, they got together to draft legislation to require placement agents to conform to the same ethics and reporting regulations that apply to lobbyists. In February, Assemblyman Ed Hernandez, D-Baldwin Park, introduced the bill in the Legislature. In June, the bill was amended to add Sens, Strickland and Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley as co-authors. It was passed in August and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger last month.

In the mailer, Strickland raises the placement-agent issue and says, "John Chiang should have done something about it -- but didn't." In contrast, the mailer asserts, "Tony Strickland authored the law to require anyone who has a connection with any potential investment made by CalPERS be registered with, and disclose their activities, to the secretary of state."

In other words, Strickland -- who added onto the bill as a co-author four months after it was introduced by another lawmaker -- takes credit for a bill that was drafted by Chiang late last year in response to the revelations.

Joe Justin, consultant to the Strickland campaign, acknowedges Chiang's role in promoting the legislation, but said the assertion that he did nothing about the placement agent is based on the fact that Chiang acted only after the activities were prominently reported in the press. "He was aware that millions of dollars were trading hands, and it didn't come to him that there was anything unethical about it until the story broke," Justin said.

A group calling itself the "California Senior Advocates League PAC" has made its presence felt in the 35th Assembly District campaign, reporting over the weekend that it had spent $67,000 on two mailers attacking Democrat Das Williams , running in the coastal Ventura-Santa Barbara counties district against Republican Mike Stoker.

Never heard of them? Well, the group exists only at election time. Who are they? The money comes from three sources which combined to contribute $121,500 on Friday to the deceptively named group. Those sources are: The California Chamber of Commerce PAC ($50,000), the California Republican Party ($50,000) and the San Diego County Republican Party ($21,500.)

The leading contributors to the Chamber of Commerce PAC are oil and insurance companies. It is not at all clear what specific interest these big-spenders have in advocating for seniors.

Given the specific timing of the contributions and the first two mailings attacking Williams, it's probably a good bet that there is at least one more on the way.

The state Democratic Party has contributed $39,000 directly to the Williams campaign. So, if you're keeping score, the Republican big wheels in Sacramento have now spent more on this race than their Democratic counterparts.

With two recent public polls showing support collapsing for Proposition 19, the measure to legalize the adult possession of small amounts of marijuana, the initiative's proponents this afternoon are putting forth a novel argument: Voters are lying to pollsters about how they really intend to vote on the issue.

The Proposition 19 camp contends that automated polls -- those in which respondents don't have to talk to a real person -- show the measure continuing to lead.

Quoting from the group's press release:

"As the polling shows, there still seems to be somewhat of a social stigma attached to marijuana and the politics surrounding it," said Dan Newman, a political strategist working with the Yes On 19 campaign. "We're confident that when Californians find themselves in the privacy of voting booths on Nov. 2, they will vote to end decades of failed and harmful marijuana policies. Very few people think the current policy is working."

Others have suggested this measure creates what pollsters are calling a "reverse Bradley effect." The reference is to polling in 1982 that showed the late Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who was seeking to become California's first black governor, leading in the polls. But Bradley lost to George Deukmejian, and some claimed it was evidence that a portion of the electorate was reluctant to tell pollsters that they would not vote for a black candidate.

Making absolutely clear that local government officials are divided over the Proposition 22 -- the ballot initiative that bills itself as a measure "to protect local services" -- Ventura County Supervisor Kathy Long this week joined with other county supervisors from around the state to denounce Proposition 22.

The ballot measure, sponsored by the League of California Cities, has been officially opposed by the Urban Counties Caucus, an organization that includes the state's largest counties, representing 80 percent of the California population. Long has been an active member in the group.

In a conference call with reporters, Long said Proposition 22 would protect certain local services -- namely, redevelopment agencies and transportation -- at the expense of other local services, such as public safety and human services.

The measure would constitutionally protect all the property taxes that now go to redevelopment agencies -- about 12 percent of property taxes paid by Californians. It would prevent the state from diverting any of those taxes for other uses, such as education or public safety.

Long was critical of the way cities have created and maintained redevelopment agencies for purposes other than improving blighted areas. In practice, she said, many current redevelopment agencies serve little function other than to carve out property tax revenue. "Cities have learned to live off them," she said of redevelopment agencies.

In separate e-mails to news reporters around the world, one at midnight and the other at noon today, an environmental group has attempted an elaborate hoax in an attempt to spoof an advertising campaign launched today by Chevron Corp.

The first e-mail announced the "We Agree" advertising campaign and included a link to a fake website that purported to show Chevron admitting to environmental abuses in Ecuador. The press release included a quote, purportedly from a print adverstisement, saying: "For decades, oil companies like ours have worked in disadvantaged areas, influencing policy in order to do there what we can't do at home. It's time this changed."

Twelve hours later, a separate e-mail was sent, again purporting to be from Chevron, decrying the original hoax. "While such a campaign does exist, its official URL is Chevron.com/weagree. The advertisements released earlier today, at Chevron-weagree.com, were an elaborate subterfuge and must not be mistaken as real."

The hoax, by a group called Yes Men, was so elaborate that it included a link to a look-alike Chevron press web page, which itself included a link to a fake Advertising Age page, which purported to show that the advertising industry trade magazine was spoofed by the original hoax.

When I called an actual Chevron representative to check this out, he sent me the company's actual press release on the incident. It reads: "Chevron's new advertising campaign is meant to identify and highlight common ground on key energy issues so we can move forward safely, intelligently and collaboratively. Unfortunately, there are some that are not interested in engaging in a constructive dialogue, and instead have resorted to rhetoric and stunts. Today, activist groups have attempted to interrupt the conversation by issuing a fake press release and establishing a counterfeit website, which are not affiliated with Chevron."

To learn more about the actual advertising campaign -- in which the company attempts to directly address public concerns about oil companies, which have been heightened by the fallout from the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico -- click here.

That's the real deal. I think.

With the election just 20 days away, the emails are flooding in from the campaigns, some noteworthy enough to share. Today's tidbits:

* The Proposition 19 campaign reports that its Facebook page now has 200,000 fans of the initiative to legalize marijuana. By comparison, Meg Whitman has 155,000 and Jerry Brown has 88,000.

* The Proposition 21 campaign is launching a contest inviting people to produce "fun" videos to highlight their support for state parks, and the initiative that would establish an $18 vehicle license fee surcharge to support them. Winner gets a $5,000 prize. Information at the campaign website.

* Ventura County Democrats are hosting a fundraising Halloween party Oct. 30 at a Camarillo estate they describe as "spooky." Complete with costumes and rock-blues band.

* The insurance industry has contributed $1.1 million in recent days to the California Chamber of Commerce's PAC, which in turn is funding an independent expenditure campaign on behalf of Republican insurance commissioner candidate Mike Villines.

The nonpartisan California Voter Foundation has posted its 2010 Proposition Song on YouTube. It's probably not going to compete favorably with cute kitten videos, but the lyrics are clever and the garage-band, bang-pickin' delivery is fun to watch. You can familiarize yourself with the Nov. 2 ballot measures, tap your feet and maybe even smile a bit by checking it out here.

While waiting for tonight's gubernatorial debate between Jerry Brown and Meg Whitman to begin, I just checked out the scene outside the debate hall on the Dominican University campus.

There was the usual crowd of supporters, for both sides, all waving signs, some chanting. Perhaps the most powerful sign: "Yo soy Nicky." Handwritten, it was raised from among a crowd of Spanish-speaking union workers. It referred, of course, to Nicky Santillan Diaz, the undocumented housekeeper employed for nine years by Whitman before she was terminated after informing Whitman last summer of her immigration status. Santillan Diaz, in making public her story, tearfully told the media of being informed by Whitman, "You don't know me," after the firing.

Briefly leading the cheers from union workers before entering the hall was Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. Pulaski had told me over the summer that labor had put together the most aggressive micro-targeting campaign in its history in preparation for the fall campaign. The effort targets pre-identified, non-union voters that labor believes are sympathetic to their arguments. How's it going? Pulaski reports that the targeted list has proven to be even more accurate than organizers had hoped: Among voters contacted, he said, 77 percent have said they are voting for Brown.

That may be true. But the real test is whether organizers follow through and make certain those contacts actually vote. If that effort is successful, it may have more of an effect on the outcome than all those anti-Whitman TV commercials that organized labor put on television over the summer.

The Fair Political Practices Commission, which has taken an aggressive posture in recent election cycles to call attention to the mind-boggling flow of money spent on influencing California elections, yesterday issued this update on ballot proposition spending: $84.25 million has been contributed so far, just in contributions of $100,000 or more.

The biggest spenders:

Charles T. Munger Jr., son of the Berkshire Hathaway executive, has contributed $7.4 million to Proposition 20, designed to remove congressional redistricting authority from the Legislature.

Oil and petrochemical industies have contributed $7.25 million to promote Proposition 23, designed to block implementation of California's climate change law.

Investment banker Thomas Steyer, hedge fund manager of Farallon Capital Management, has chipped in $5 million to defeat Proposition 23.

The California Teachers Association has contributed $6.5 million to promote Proposition 24, which would overturn three corporate tax breaks that were included in budget deals agreed to by the Legislature in 2008 and 2009.

The League of California Cities, through varies accounts, has spent $2.2 million to promote Proposition 22, which would prohibit the Legislature from diverting property tax money to schools that now goes to cities and redevelopment agencies.

The only measure that even resembles a grassroots effort is Proposition 21, the initiative to establish an $18 vehicle license surcharge to provide funding for state parks and in turn allow cars with California license plates free day-use and parking at state parks. That campaign has raised more than $6 million without relying on any contributions in excess of $100,000.

The complete report is here.

In an unusual move, the campaign of Reublican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman dispatched to reporters today a summary of its nightly tracking polls from Sunday and Monday, purporting to show Whitman trailing Democrat Jerry Brown, but only by 2 points.

The action was a clear response to two blogs, at Huffington Post and Calbuzz out today that cited private polls showing that Brown had opened up a lead in the high single digits in the wake of last week's revelation of the undocumented housekeeper Whitman employed, then fired after learning of her immigration status.

The poll also apparently asked respondents' opinions of celebrity attorney Gloria Allred, who is representing Whitman's former housekeeper. The Whitman campaign memo says Allred's unfavorable rating was 68 percent, but did not mention how Allred was described by the pollsters. One suspects that merely the use of the word "attorney" would produce an unfavorable rating of at least 50 percent.

For all the energy that candidates for local office expend this time of year on yard signs, there is considerable disagreement about their effectiveness. My own view is that they are valuble because their visibility can help to create a sense that a given candidate has a broad base of support -- and few voters want to cast their ballots for someone they don't believe has enough support to have a chance at winning.

But Oxnard Harbor Commission candidate Florencia Ramirez has come to a different conclusion. She writes me saying that she's decided that yard signs aren't worth the water that it takes to make the paper. She's decided to keep the "water footprint" of her campaign at a minimum, which means forgoing yard signs.

"I calculated that the water footprint of an average size yard sign is 116 gallons of fresh water, using data I found from the National Geographic water footprint calculator," she writes. "I cannot support a practice that is not proven to be effective and is incredibly wasteful of natural and financial resources"

It is an issue of great concern to Ramirez, who is writing a book with the working title, "Eat Less Water."

In addition, Ramirez said an unscientific survey of people she's approached about the issue suggests to her that yard signs don't influence votes.

"Some people who I spoke with did say that the yard signs help them to know a candidate's name that they may not have known otherwise. When I asked if that would cause them to vote for that person every person I asked said no," she writes.

So think about that if you live in the district: If she wins, other candidates might decide yard signs aren't worth the effort. A vote for Ramirez in this election might mean fewer yard signs in future elections. There are worse reasons to support a candidate.