Closing the book a story that had caused some embarrassment for two local members of the Congress, the House Ethics Committee has concluded that no violations of law or standards of ethical conduct were violated by members who received so-called "Friends of Angelo" mortgages from Countrywide during the time Angelo Mozilo was chairman of the now-defunct lending institution.

Retiring Rep. Elton Gallegly of Simi Valley and Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of Santa Clarita, who now represents Simi Valley, were among the recipients of those loans. Both asserted that they not only did not receive special treatment, but were unaware that their loans were part of any special program initiated by Countrywide.

The Ethics Committee's report substantiates those assertions.

It reads, in part:

"It appears the V.I.P. Loan unit was initially established for the purposes of originating, processing, and funding home loans as a courtesy to senior-level employees and V.I.P. customers, but it increasingly grew in scope and size. A large subset of V.I.P. loans referred by Angelo Mozilo, former Countrywide C.E.O., were known as the "Friends of Angelo" or F.O.A.

"During the mortgage boom that occurred from late 2002 through 2004, the V.I.P loan unit handled thousands of loans worth billions of dollars for a very broad spectrum of individuals, large numbers of whom had never met, let alone befriended, Mr. Mozilo.
Overall it appears that V.I.P.s were often offered quicker, more efficient loan processing and some discounts. However, it also appears that all V.I.P. loans, including F.O.A. loans, were required to meet the same underwriting standards and conditions for resale on the secondary market as non-V.I.P. loans.

"Furthermore, there is evidence on the record that the discounts offered to V.I.P.s and F.O.A.s were not the best deals that were available at Countrywide or in the marketplace at large. In sum, participation in the V.I.P. or F.O.A. programs did not necessarily mean that borrowers received the best financial deal available either from Countrywide or other lenders.

"Therefore, mere inclusion in one of these programs is not, in and of itself, a violation of any rules, laws, or standards of conduct governing members, officers, or employees of the House of Representatives. In addition, insofar as the widely available and indisputable evidence indicates that loan 'discounts' or 'discount points' are labels applied to standard and publicly available terms in every day arms-length negotiations with commercial lenders, they are not the kind of 'gift' which would be, in and of itself, outside the realm of reasonable market rates for commercially available loans."

The issue created a bit of a political headache for McKeon this fall when his Democratic challenger Lee Rogers used it in campaign material designed to portray McKeon as corrupt. He was helped in that regard by statements that had been made about the loan program by Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who in media interviews had referred to the loans as "bribes."

McKeon's office today released a statement saying that the Ethics Committee report underscores what the congressman had said all along about the loan.

The statement notes that McKeon paid more than $2,500 in closing costs and paid an interest rate of 6.75 percent, which was about a quarter percentage-point above what was the national average at the time. "Congressman McKeon is pleased that the conclusions made by the Committee on Ethics confirm what he has always known to be true," the statement said.

It's clear that there are a political figures in Ventura County and who share President Barack Obama's assessment, expressed in his remarks at memorial service in Newton, CT, last night that, "We can't accept events like this as routine."

Democratic congressional candidate Lee Rogers, the Simi Valley podiatrist who lost his challenge against Rep. Buck McKeon last month, told voters during the campaign that among the things that distinguished him as a moderate Democrat was his support for the Second Amendment and gun rights, and that he was a member of the NRA.

After Friday, he no longer is. He shared on Facebook the resignation letter he wrote immediately after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School. Here is what he wrote:

"I am a proud gun owner and advocate for the Second Amendment. I grew up in the Midwest as a hunter and currently own guns for self-protection.

My thoughts are on the families of the victims in the multiple recent tragedies."

In a Sunday posting on his New York Times blog, columnist Paul Krugman quotes Ventura County Democratic Central Committee Chairman David Atkins, a Hullabaloo blogger, in arguing that Democratic elected officials needn't pay much heed to pro-gun fanatics because they are people who would not support Democrats under any circumstances. Atkins' blog post noted that other national tragedies have inspired government actions to prevent recurrences, but that fear of the gun lobby has prevented that from happening in the case of mass shootings.

.

Secretary of State Debra Bowen today released the certified results of the Nov. 6 election, which show that 72 percent of California's 18.2 million registered voters cast ballots, and that for the first time in a statewide general election a slight majority, 51 percent did so by mail. The turnout was somewhat below average for a presidential election, in which the average over the last 100 years has been 79 percent.

Not included in the official report was a volunteer survey Bowen sent county elections officials asking them to report the percentages of voters who registered during the final 34 days preceding the Oct. 22 deadline who actually cast ballots. The results show that, at least among the counties that responded, new registrants were much more likely to participate than those in the voter pool at large. In fact, in most responding counties, the turnout rate of the newly registered topped 80 percent.

Bowen's report breaks down new registrants into two categories -- those who registered online and those who completed traditional, paper registration forms. Following are some representative results:

Orange County: 82 percent of new web-initiated registrants, 81 percent of new paper-based registrants, 67 percent of all registrants countywide.

Corresponding numbers for:
Santa Barbara -- 86 percent, 86 percent, 81 percent.
San Francisco -- 84 percent, 81 percent, 73 percent.
San Luis Obispo -- 89 percent, 86 percent, 62 percent.
Alameda -- 85 percent, 81 percent, 74 percent.

That trend did not hold in every responding county. In Placer and Sonoma counties there was virtually no difference in the turnout of the newly registered and turnout overall.

More analysis will need to be done, both for this election and in future elections, to see if this phenomenon is a consistent, long-term trend. These preliminary numbers, however, suggest that political candidates, consultants and pollsters need to pay extreme attention to voters who signed up in the weeks before Election Day.

As pollster Mark DiCamillo of the Field Poll said in post-election remarks at the Sacramento Press Club, these results validate the sentiment of his former boss, legendary California pollster and Field Poll founder Mervin Field. DiCamillo said Field once told him that if someone makes the effort to register just a few weeks before Election Day, it's a pretty solid indicator that they actually intend to vote.

One might argue that such an observation simply reflects a common-sense understanding of human nature.

From Franklin Roosevelt's advice that the only thing Americans once had to fear "was fear itself," to Ronald Reagan's "morning in America" theme, to Bill Clinton's "the man from Hope," to Barack Obama's "hope and change," the overarching theme of American political campaigns has long been the triumph of hope over fear.

With that in mind, last week's Public Policy Institute of California's statewide survey of Californians offered some interesting insight as to why Republicans may have fared so poorly in this state in last month's elections. The party these days has what might be called a hope deficit.

Perhaps the most revealing question asked in the PPIC poll was one that gauged Californians' long-term views about the future of their state. Asked whether they felt California would be a better place to live in 2025 or a worse place to live, 42 percent of adults gave the optimistic answer, compared with 28 percent who said it would be a worse place. An additional 23 percent said there would be no change, and 8 percent offered no opinion.

By gender, by race and ethnicity, by region, by age group, by income category -- in every subgroup either a plurality of respondents felt better times are ahead for California or opinion was at least evenly divided. Women (44 percent), Latinos (47 percent), San Francisco Bay Area residents (45 percent), 18-34-year-olds (48 percent) and those with incomes between $40,000 and $80,000 a year (46 percent) were the most optimistic. Opinion among whites (37-37), those 55 and older (36-35) and with incomes above $80,000 (35-34) was divided.

But there was one breakdown by subgroup that showed a marked divide on the hope factor. By a 57-17 margin, Democrats felt California will be a better place a dozen years from now. Republicans, by a margin of 54-23, believe the state is headed downhill.

To some extent, these responses may reflect a chicken-or-the-egg situation. With Democrats in control of all the state's political offices and institutions, Democratic voters might naturally believe things are headed in the direction they believe is upward. The inverse is likely true among Republicans.

But no one wins elections by being dour.

As California Republicans regroup and consider a turnaround strategy that must include outreach to the minority and women voters they lost badly this fall, they might also consider taking on one other challenge. Instead of focusing so heavily on what they believe will be the inevitable negative consequences of Democratic policies, they need to begin framing their arguments on why they believe their policies will create a brighter, more hopeful future.

PETTY, PETTY, PETTY -- The Fair Political Practices Commission has announced settlements with two Ventura Democratic Party organizations in which the groups have agreed to pay fines of $1,500 and $1,250 for violations involving slate mailers.

You can read the FFPC staff findings against the Democratic Club of Ventura here and against the Ventura Blue Committee here.

Reading the factual analysis of the FPPC staff, one could conclude that one of the violations may have misled some voters because at least some of the mailers did not include an asterisk next to the names of candidates who paid money to have their names on the mailers.

There has been a problem in the past with slate mailer organizations that intentionally try to deceive voters by selling space to candidates and then including them on mailers that are inherently deceptive. A Democrat running for nonpartisan office, for instance, might pay to have his name included on a mailer that includes recommendations for a Republican presidential or senatorial candidate, or supporters of a conservative ballot measure might pay to have a Yes recommendation included on a mailer that also endorses top Democratic officeholders. There's a clear reason why the asterisk is required, and its absence, even if inadvertent, is an appropriate cause for an FPPC enforcement action.

But in the case of the Democratic Club of Ventura, it's impossible to say that any voter was misled in any way by its failure to properly include the required "notice to voters.". That violation occured because the disclosure of the source of the mailer wasn't expressed in precisely the manner prescribed by law. FPPC investigators note
that the mailers did in fact "have identifying information that would allow voters to identify the source of the mailer."

Why did the FPPC involve itself in such petty matters? Because it received a complaint and was required to follow up. And since there was a technical violation, a fine ensued.

Internal squabbling has gone on among Democratic activists in the county for years. Perhaps all those involved might want to take a deep breath now and ask themselves how the few precious dollars local Democratic organizations have would be better spent: on efforts to communicate with voters, or by paying fines to the FPPC for minor violations?

RULES, RULES, RULES -- Ventura County will be well represented in deciding the rules by which the Legislature operates this year. Democratic Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson of Santa Barbara has been appointed to the Senate Rules Committee and freshman Assemblyman Scott Wilk of Santa Clarita has been named vice-chairman of the Assembly Rules Committee.

Jackson represents western Ventura County, and Wilk's district includes Simi Valley.

Those committees are important because they decide which bills will be referred to which committees. They also grant rule waiters and handle the personnel matters of the two houses. In the Senate, the Rules Committee has added power because it is the panel that conducts hearings and makes recommendations on the confirmation of the governor's appointments to various boards and commissions.

The scenes on the floors of the Assembly and Senate today when the 2013-14 session of the Legislature convened for the swearing in of new members and the election of officers were as different as a college reunion and a chamber of commerce social mixer.

In the Senate, only one member was new the Legislature. The rest were either returning senators or people who had previously served in the Assembly. The atmosphere was one of happy familiarity, with hugs all around, even bipartisan hugs. Among those doing the hugging was Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, who was returning after an eight-year absence to represent western Ventura County's 19th Senate District. Jackson had served with a large number of her new Senate colleagues when they were in the Assembly together in the early 2000s.

Jackson was greeting so many old, familiar faces that she even stopped to give a hug to the veteran Associated Press news photographer who has covered the Capitol for decades.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the Rotunda in the Assembly, 38 first-time members were taking their oaths of offices. On the floor, members were approaching each other, introducing themselves and offering handshakes. In a less august environment, they would have been wearing name tags.

The day had a particularly poignant significance for Jackson, who returned to Sacramento after having perservered against both personal and political setbacks -- a bout with breast cancer in 2006 and a nail-biting loss in her 2008 Senate campaign.

At a celebatory luncheon for supporters this afternoon, I asked her if she ever expected to be here after that 2008 defeat.

She said she learned from surviving cancer to take life "each day and step at a time. After losing in '08, it was very disappointing. I didn't close off the option, but I didn't focus on it, either."

Then the Citizens Redistricting Committee created an opportunity by drawing the 19th District, which includes most of the area she represented in the Assembly, including her base in Santa Barbara, and was also home to no incumbent senator.

"I was quite surprised that the opportunity arose," she told me.

Once it did, she embraced it with her trademark tenacity, fending off entreaties from Democratic leaders to step aside as part of deal that would have had Sen. Fran Pavley running in the 19th and former Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg running as the Democratic candidate in the neighboring 27th District (in which Pavley ultimately ran and was re-elected).

"I felt very strongly that I understand this district as well as anyone, better than anyone," she said of her insistence on staying in the race.

Given what his wife had been through, Jackson's husband, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge George Eskin, said he choked up when a choral group performing at the ceremony sang the Louis Armstrong classic, "What a Wonderful World."