Thanks for another great article Scott.

Can we really legislate ethics? I think not. It's like trying to legislate campaign finance reform. We all saw how that worked in the last Supervisors race. Personally I think we try to legislate way too much. It's like term limits...My term limit is the electorate. I have faith in their ability to replace me when they believe I am not doing a good job.

Like most good intentioned laws it will be obeyed by the law abiding and ignored and/or gamed by everyone else. If you really want to put an end to unethical behavior with regards to campaign funding and make elected officials responsive to the voters then pass laws allowing only citizens to contribute to campaigns. That means unions, corporations, lobbies, special interests, foreign nationals and PACs could not finance campaigns...only people could.

GS:

The focus of the law offered by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights is more focused on the decision of the public official rather than the campaign finance element to it. For instance, if a public official receives a contribution into their campaign account, it doesn't preclude them from ruling over the decision that effects that contributor. The law above would make that illegal.

I'm absolutely opposed to the county campaign finance law in it's current form as I think it benefits self-financed candidates over candidates who raise funds from numerous sources. Condidate expenditure limitations have been found to be unconstitutional and the county gets around this by forcing a candidate to choose to do this to get a higher contribution limit. It also creates contribution caps well below any other race from city council to the state assembly.

A recent ruling last June by the Supreme Court stated that making contribution limits too low can undermine free speech of citizens. I think this is occurring within the county system now.

Of course, if public officials who receive contributions can no longer rule on the decisions of those contributors, one wonders if so many contributions would be given.

One other side note. Public officials are now required to take ethics training from the state.

I understand the purpose behind the mechanics of the proposed law ( and in theory its a good one) but I fear that those same mechanics will simply create a new brokerage business of donations & bankable "favors" as the law gets thwarted by those candidate and their supporters with the resources to use 3rd parties to make their contributions. In essence the sources of election monies will shift FURTHER away from public scrutiny and into the hands of those lobbying & consulting firms able to game the system.

We've already seen it happen when the VCRCC stepped in and provided a lot of late campaign money in this recent election. That's was a crude way of doing it but some of those firms that contributed that money are also in line for municipal contracts and their contributions through a straw man (the VCRCC) would easily evade the intentions of the proposed law. One the political fund raising pros start gaming this law the groudnd roots candidate will never have a chance of competing.

As to the Supreme Court ruling, I could be wrong but I dont believe it ever attempted to quantify the amounts in question and only made a global ruling as to whether or not contributions are a form of free speech. However, the CA supreme court, in the Nike Free Speech case, did rule that corporations and other entities acting as "legal individuals" DO indeed have some form of free speech rights but those rights are less than those of a human individual, especially with regards to commercialization or to convincing others to support that entity's positions. The ruling has not been overturned and has potential for establishing a basis for limiting contributions to "human individuals".

Scott,
Speaking of ethics, what do you think of the charge that the Ventura County Republican Party most likely violated campaign laws in spending money on Foy? Or the fact Foy had to spend a quarter million dollars to be elected in a heavily republican area? Also, what about the fact that Leslie Cornejo was kicked out because she has ethics and she would not pull her endorsement of Tennenbaum, unlike the Strickland's who endorsed Dantona and then pulled it after they were ordered to? What about the fact that Cornejo and Teague with help from Keith Richman have had to start their own group "The Centrists" because Osborn and his group will only back extremists like Mike Dunn in Conejo? It should also be examined whether or not it is true that if you don't make a big donation that you will not get the nod from the Ventura County Republican Central Committee. Why do you think it is Scott that most serious ethics violations were committed by republcians these past few years? Is it that they cannot win fair and square? Also since all the enforcement positions in Ventura County are held by extremely partisan conservatives should an outside agency be brought in?

I disagree with the statement by Doc that "all the enforcement positions in Ventura County are held by extremely partisan conservatives". As I recall, Greg Totten and Bob Brooks both worked hard to defeat Judy Mikels in 2002 after she opposed an increase in public safety pensions. It seems to me that law enforcement officials favor whoever is willing to throw more money their way, whether republican or democrat. In this case both Dantona and Foy were pandering to public safety. This is not a liberal vs. conservative issue, it is an influence peddling issue, and both sides are guilty of making big promises with taxpayer money.

Yeah right! I read Totten's long winded defense of Elton Gallegly who had recently been criticized by fellow republican Ed Jones for basically doing nothing since he has been in congress. I also noticed Brooks and Totten mainly endorsed far right extremists in this past campaign, even though they both hold "non-partisan" offices! Also, Bubba please notice that Doc was writing to Scott, not you. I'm also curious like Doc, to hear what Scott thinks of the fact that moderate republicans in Ventura County are no longer welcome by their own Central Committee? I guess this is why the California and national republican parties are in such bad shape because their tent is shrinking, not growing.

GS & All,

As a long time member of one of the oldest unit clubs of the CFRW (California Federation of Republican Women) in the area I wanted to make sure my party wasn't doing something wrong.

After looking up the regulations on the FPPC site, and checking the various codes it was clear that the VCRCC did nothing wrong. In fact, according to California law, the expenditures by the central committee don't even qualify as contributions. You can all check for yourselves, and if anyone can find anything wrong, please post it here.

As to the charge of extremism, I consider myself a moderate, the VCRCC endorsed many candidates that anyone would have a hard time calling extreme. For instance, Elton, Janice Parvin, Cristina Martin, Theresa Lawson, Dean Maulhardt, Joe DeVito, and Mike Plisky (Leslie Cornejo's Alternate) to name a few. The VCRCC spent money on all these cnadidates and most of them won.

I supported Peter Foy not because of his church or his position on social issues but because I think he'll make a better supervisor. On this I also did my homework. Many of you have been screaming about tax liens, did any of you bother to check Dantona's? He's got a number of them in this county, a simple check of the clerks office will turn them up. That was one of the reasons I stuck with Foy after Dantona brought up the issue, it struck me as disingenuous of him when his own house wasn't in order.

We should all take a breath, congratulate the candidates on a hard fought campaign and get on with the business of the county. And in case you all haven't noticed there's a fire in the 4th District, those of us who are physically able might want to think about volunteering some help. It'd be a much more productive use of your time.

I said it before, and I will say it again....I believe that a candidate should be able to receive however many dollars as someone is willing to donate...be it one thousand dollars or 500 thousand dollars...BUT, the candidate must report who those dollars are from, and must furnish a bank statement showing the deposits. The newspapers would be on that like flies on honey whereby alerting the public (kind of like when the Stricklands received the tribal $$).
If we keep is simple and report where the money is coming from, there would be no need for "loop holes" as we saw in the Sup race.

Voter,
If you are a member and proud of the CFRW why don't you tell us your real name so we can verify? In terms of the law the FPPC will determine if the law was broken, not CFRW. I also just read that the national republican party was fined $135,000 for jamming democratic phone lines in 2004 in Ohio. I seem to remember the republicans claiming that they had done nothing wrong at the time.

Yes, and I remember Democrats trading packs of cigarettes to get homeless people to vote in Wisconsin during the same election. What does that have to do with here?

As far as my name goes people who oppose the Cornejo separatists get savaged by her minions, I'm not up for that. But you can tell us your's since you brought it up.

To the important point, it's clear that you prefer to use innuendo and attack rather than research. Possibly because you already know that no laws were broken, but want to get yourself as much mileage out of the accusations as you can. That is before accusing the DA, Clerk, Sheriff and anyone else you can of favoritism when there are no real charges brought.

Your answer says it all Bubba or should I say "voter".

Bye, bye Bolton! Another neo-con bites the dust! What do you think Blough?

Voter: I never said the VCRCC did anything wrong in spending their money the way they did during the last few weeks of the election...others may have, I dd not. I believe what the VCRCC did was "game" the system, just as the Dems could have if they chose to, and I'm not making a judgement whether or not such gaming is wrong or illegal. I only used the third party/straw man analogy as an example of what could become common practice if the campaign law discussed earlier becomes the norm.

Voter,

Several of the officers of the CFRW (California Federated Republican Women) are involved in the recent Central Committee scandal - perhaps you are one of them. I resigned from the CFRW because of the unethical behavior of your officers as did other members. I also filed a complaint with both the California and the national director of CFRW.

Elton is not a "moderate" nor does he pretend to be so you shouldn't be putting labels on him. Not sure about the other candidates, but at least one of them you mentioned is grossly incompetent.

The VCRCC spent significant money only on the fringe candidates and ignored many of the more moderate Republicans. In fact, several central committee members helped develop material in races against these moderal Republicans and received money to do so. Complaints have been filed with both the FPPC and the DA's office because these fringe candidates did not file any reports regarding the large sums of money that exchanged hands.

I know the Conejo supporters (myself included) savaged no one. It isn't their or my style. We do tell the truth and that made some of the CC members very, very uncomfortable.

By the way, earmaking funds for a particular candidate and not reporting said funds is very illegal. Conspiring to cover up is also illegal. If you have concerns, talk to a lawyer.

Katie,
Do you know if it is true that the VCRCC only endorsed those who had given them large donations? Also, why do you think Ed Jones wrote that piece against Elton? Is Jones now with the Centrists?

Katie Teague,
How does one join the CAPC?

As the new Ventura County Republican Central Committee officers are elected tomorrow for the next two years, I will hope that the incoming officers will be dedicated to transparency where donor funds are concerned.
A county political party has the fiduciary responsibilty to follow the law in its intent, not just in its letter. As in any business in the post-Enron and Abramoff era, political parties should behave in a professional manner, operating within approved budgets, with full committee participation - as each member is personally responsible to act on behalf of their district constituents for the betterment of the party as a whole.
Earmarking, giving contracts to friends or committee members or voting on expenditures where one personally benefits without bid process are at the very least unethical, if not illegal.

Doc, although I was a member of the CC at the time of endorsements, I was deliberately not included in the endorsement process so am the wrong person to ask regarding the "purchasing" of endorsements. I doubt if this is true in our recent electionns. I do know Republican Central Committees are doing this in other counties - there was an article on it in the LA Times about two months ago. I can probably dig it up and e-mail to you if you like. But once again, I don't believe it is true but have no first hand knowledge of how the VCRCC endorsements were made this go around.

I read Ed Jones op-ed piece and felt he asked some very good questions, made some very valid points. I do not know his motivation for writing the piece.

Re: membership with CAPC - we keep membership with CAPC confidential unless a person serves on the Advisory Council. If you would like a copy of the CAPC business plan, membership form, etc., feel free to e-mail me at dteague1@adelphia.net.

Hope this helps.

Leslie and Katie,
Thanks for the info. Leslie, I really respect the fact that you stuck by Tenenbaum, it showed a lot of character on your part and I thought what they did to you in retaliation was petty and juvenile.

Katie,
Why is the membership confidential? If I am a member of something, or going to be a member, I certainly want to know who else is involved...

Barbra,
Maybe it is confidential so they do not suffer the retaliation that Leslie Cornejo received from the VCRCC.

Doc-
The Gallegly/Tenenbaum thing was just an excuse. The extremists have been itching for control of the committee since Jackie Rodgers resigned in January of 2002. First the Gallegly loyalists put the county in "lockdown" after Gallegly's admitted election mistake in April, then the right wing extremists won a majority of the Ex-Officio seats (candidates who now have a vote on the county party because they won in the primary), and the result was the county was handed to Mike Osborn on a platter.

Barbra,
Maybe it is confidential so they do not suffer the retaliation that Leslie Cornejo received from the VCRCC.

Leslie,
You really have to wonder if most republicans in Ventura County realize the VCRCC has been hijacked by extremists? I'm glad to see a centrist committee was formed to get the party back.

Barbra,

We keep it confidential out of courtesy. I believe most organizations do not publicize their membership lists, in fact, I can't think of one off the top of my head.

CAPC is open to all voters that believe in the CAPC mission statement and the philosophy of the organization. The Advisory Council is by invitation only and those names are listed publically on the letterhead.

We will be having speakers from time to time over the next year and will be inviting our members. We will also let our membership know about interesting events like the recent Keith Richman appearance at the Tower Club in Oxnard.

Wow! Pretty amazing blog today! Hey "Voter", now that we have the former head of the VCRCC saying right wing extremists have taken over in Ventura County what do you have to say for yourself?

Leslie,

Where is the meeting tomorrow for the swearing in of new officers/representatives for the Republican Central Committee? I don't see anything on the VCRCC website announcing the meeting and it is my understanding that these meetings are open to the public. I would like to attend and see how my interests are being represented.

Not Bubba Kidd,

If you are interested in membership, just send me an e-mail at dteague1@adelphia.net and I'll send you some information.

All,

CAPC is NOT a Republican organization. We support the broad middle represented by centrists of Dems and Reps and the fast growing Decline to States. We endorse Rep, Dem & DTS candidates. We do not support candidates that represent fringe special interest groups or ideology. Our Advisory Council consists of Republicans, Dems and DTS's. We recently endorsed close to a 50/50 mix of Republican/Dems in the last elections.

Not Bubba Kidd,

I suspect "Voter" is one of those extremists - nobody else would suggest that Elton was a moderate. It has to do with their frame of reference.

The last "Not Bubba Kidd" was a fake and not by me, the real Not BubbaKidd. It's pretty sad when someone cannot even come up with their own name! Katie, if the VCRCC was not controlled by extremists would there still be a need for the CAPC?

Dear Not BubbaKidd (I hope the real one!),
I'd like to answer that. Regardless of who is in control of the VCRCC, there is a systemic problem locally, statewide and nationally with the way the political system works. With the current gerrymandering (I hate that work because I hear eyes glazing over when I say it) of our districts which are designed to protect incumbents, there is literally no accountability to the voters. If an incumbent "re-ups," there is a circling of the wagons by the fellow assemblymen, congressment, etc. who will threaten challengers with complete political destruction. This happens in both parties. Therefore, the system is broken not only in Ventura County, but statewide as well. This is why we named our organization "California APC" - reform needs to happen statewide as well as locally.

That is really pathetic when people fake a fake screen name. Anyway, to answer your question - YES! The political system is broken and the populace is not being served. There's a reason why the DTS voting block is the fasting growing in the state. People can no longer identify with either party because they both have been taken over by fringe elements. CAPC supports the two party system but it isn't going to work without redistricting reform and open primaries and other governmental reform. That is the focus of our state advisory group.

Leslie,
Thanks for the explanation and thanks for standing up to the extremists.

P.S. While I love some of the inventive names people have when they blog, I never write unless I am giving my name, because the issues I am addressing are very important to the future of politics. And, I am always available to anyone that wants more information or clarification.

Hey Blough,
This is your guest blog, how come you're not blogging, this is great stuff!

To NotBubbaKidd,

First of all, I only make posts using a single name, unlike many others around here, including yourself. So accusing me of being "Voter", or anybody else, is simply untrue. But I get the feeling that the distinction between lies and truth gets blurred quite a bit by people like you.

Second, this is an open blog and I can respond to any post I wish. If you don't like it that is your problem. You don't seem to have any reservations about responding to any post, whether directed toward you or not, yet you expect a different standard from others. Get real.

Third, it is ridiculous listening to left-wing extremists, such as yourself, accuse everybody else of being right-wing extremists. Extremists from either side are dangerous, and you are one of them.

Doc:

I agree, it is great stuff and am very grateful to the people who feel passionate about this issue and the others that were brought up within this thread. However, I think you jinxed the thread by bringing me back into it. After you called me out, no one commented. I'm blaming you. :)

This is the people's blog and I'm just a guest.

Now, to your question. I'm against using party funds in non-partisan local races. While I do not know the legality question at all, I do know that if I was running in a non-partisan race and had the opportunity to have such help, I'd turn it down. This is probably why I'd lose.

Hiram Johnson established non-partisan races to free local politics from the party, and also keep people like Eugene Debs out of power with working class folks, but I won't go there. He did it because he wanted politics at the local level to be about issues and responsive to people's concerns not a state party apparatus or talking points or labels like liberal or conservative. It was a move of campaign and power decentralization, which I agree with.

Unfortunately, with the way the state assmebly lines and state senate lines are drawn, it's shut out the certain voices from the system.

The party used to work to get candidates elected to state assmebly and state senate along with the statewide tickets and propositions, but now because you can dial in the winners, they need to go elsewhere to spend their funds. Thus, they enter the non-partisan races.

And I believe this will continue to happen. It already has in San Diego and I belive San Bernardino and I think both parties are doing it.

Like I said, this is a by-product of the redistricting of 2000.

GS:

But, shadowy groups and independent expenditure committees are already involved in races. The law doesn't really address campaign contributions per se. It addresses and expands conflict of interest to include contributors to the campaign accuont. It's more about addressing the decisions being made in the room, rather than the contributions being made at the fundraisers.

Independent expenditure committees and PACS are more a result of contribution limitations than anything else, not conflict of interest law.

Barbra is right to say, let's have little or no contributions limitations and total transparency. I wouldn't mind that at all if conflict of interest was written in such a way to preclude decisions that resulted in awarding public benefits to campaign contributors.

How about the some of the Foy supporters? You've talked about ethics reform, how about this rule at the county?

I gave no contributions in the county races, so I wouldn't be violating my own argument to get your team to adopt it?

I welcome your thoughts on ethics reform.

There's a good possibility such a law would funnel virtually all contractor contributions through a few specialized firms, devoted to helping them avoid any potential for being denied future contracts. If you're ABC Highway Builders, a big contractor to the county, will you stop making contributions or will you find a firm that can launder your contribution?
We all know the answer. And wouldn't such a system tend to concentrate political power in the hands of those few firms that controlled such contributions? It wouldn't be long before those firms begin to eveolve into extensions of each Party and thus the corruption continues...in a different, maybe more concentrated form.

I hope it does funnel them to a few firms because then we know exactly who the public official cannot decide for or against. they would need to remove themselves from the discussion. All of this is disclosed to the FPPC, so they can consolidate give independently or whatever.

The point is if ABC Highway builders contributed campaign funds it would preclude the public official from making a decision on that matter. This would include any person or entity that gave funds that that PAC or independent expenditure.

They would stick out like a sore thumb and be easy for citizens to identify under the new conflict of interest law.

My apologies for not making it clearer. In my scenario ABC would cease making their contributions directly and instead channel those contributions through (for example's sake) a go-between, Abramoff Consulting. Since Abramoff Consulting has no intention of seeking county contracts and is only in the business of brokering favors & dollars between candidates and contractors, the law has no effect other than to make Abramoff a more powerful player in local politics due to their clients' need to get dollars to their chosen candidates without jeopardizing future contracts.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Let me do some research on lobbyist disclosure and I'll get back. This might be a good point to think about.

If the VCRCC is a "moderate" organization how come they didn't help Judy Mikels?

If they are so "moderate" why did they endorse the only far right candidate in the Simi Valley school race when there was many loyal Republicans running?

Why did they endorse Dunn in Thousand Oaks? They did endorse Dunn, right?

I really wish people like Mike Osborn/VCRCC would just say it:

They believe that Hiram Johnson, the most popular and reform minded governor in California, was wrong.

Mike Osborn: Was Hiram Johnson an idiot? What does the VCRCC know that he didn't?

Osborn might be a nice guy but they are wrong on this issue.

GS:

After looking at the Secretary of State's lobbyist disclosure website, I'm pretty sure the above mentioned could still be caught under the ethics rules as a lobbyist has to declare who is working on behalf of.

There appears to be a form 635, which ties both who these lobbying firms are lobbying on behalf and what campaign contributions are being made and to whom.

Since it's classified as a campaign contribution, it would fall under conflict of interest. In the interest of full disclosure I posted a link so you cna check for yourself.

This website also discloses what bills these lobbying firms were lobbying on behalf of.

GS:

In the case Randall v. Sorrell, the Supreme Court actually tried to quantify a contribution limit that would be too low. It was interesting to see Justice Breyer's majority opinion and he even uses opensecrets.org as part of the evidence.

I believe the pendulum is swinging the other way to at least entertain the idea of increasing campaign contribution limits.

Makes me wonder on the law we've been talking about. If there were no contribution limits for individuals and an expanded conflict of interest law we talked about above, why would an individual go through all the trouble to launder the money, when they can just write a big check themselves?

And for public officials. If they aren't giving public favors to their campaign contributors why would they be worried about the law? It's just reaffirming what they are already doing.

Maybe, the Foy team just need a guide on ethics reform.

Matthew 21 12-13

"And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves."

It's high time we turn government, especially at the county, back into the public's business.

Scott: Under traditional lobbyist/client rules here is already some transparency but the VCRCC's use of funds in this last elections shows how that can change very quickly. Suppose ABC Builders gives a new psuedo-political party, American Progressives, $100K with a tacit understanding that AP's to get Councilman Smith's vote on a highway contract. To the public and to the regulatory agencies it just seems that ABC donated $100K to their favorite political party and then that party simply endorsed and supported candidate Smith. Once elected Smith wouldn't have to list ABC Builder as a contributor. The only one that would be scrutinized or punished for any potential spending violation would be AP.

This is how it works in NY State and it's taken power away from the two parties and placed it in the hands of several small parties who's only purpose is to sell their endorsements to the highest bidders.

In short, ABC would never risk a potential contract by contributing to ANY candidate and would instead channel all their donations through one of the two Parties (or one of the new psuedo-parties), thus placing these parties in a much more powerful position as brokers of political favors. That could easily become a cure that's worse than the disease.

I don't know if we're looking for a civics lesson here, but if we're going to take a real look at this we have to start with a firm foundation, at least as far as the VCRCC is concerned.

Central Committees have historically worked in nonpartisan campaigns. A constitutional amendment was adopted by the people in 1986 which prohibited any political party or party central committee from endorsing, supporting, or opposing a candidate for a nonpartisan office (Article II, Section 6(b)). This provision, however, was later declared to be in violation of the federal constitution and was permanently prohibited from being enforced. That means that Central Committees have an absolute right to work in these elections, end of story. As to why we would want to, we (the Party) feel that the Republican philosophy is the best course to follow, and we are elected to work toward electing candidates from our party. (This is also true of the Dems, Libertarians, Greens, AI and every other qualified party.) Also, historically, down ticket, nonpartisan offices are where most partisan candidates evolve from.

As to the money, I personally believe that there should be no limits, period, and there should be strict reporting requirements. The current county ordinance is nothing more than an incumbent protection act set in place by incumbent Supervisors. The ordinance strangles the ability of challengers to achieve the level of public awareness necessary to mount an effective campaign, unless that candidate is wealthy and can self-fund. I think we would all agree that being rich should not be a pre-requisite for office.

As far as an earlier poster's question about the Simi Valley School Board is concerned, we endorsed two candidates, Lundstrom and Cruz, which one are you refering to? Our endorsements are first brought to the Committee by the District Caucus members, and then debated by the full Committee. We changed no District recommendations so the endorsements were the result of work done by the elected Committee members of each District. If you disagree with these endorsements you may, if you are a Republican, question your District Caucus member.

For GS, in order to qualify as a political party in California you have to capture a significant portion of the vote during a Primary Election. This precludes a group from doing what you propose might happen.

I'll be happy to talk about any of these things as long as we want to, so I'll try to answer any other questions any of you may have.

Understood, about qualifying a political party. But how much can a PAC or an individual spend on influencing an election now? And, if anyone could spend as much as they want to influence an election, under the campaign contribution changes that Scott's brought to our attention (and that's the context of my challenge) wouldn't that make it even easier for companies like ABC Builders to find a straw man to channel their monies?

I agree with you about the attempt by the Board to limit challenges to the office but you'll never convince me that applying unlimited funds to sway voter opinions is a form of Free Speech. And even with strict reporting requirements the voters would simply know who bought an election or not. If the playing field isn't leveled for voters somehow then the idea of one-person-one-vote is just a lot of feel-good rhetoric.

First of all Bubba, you and your opinions mean nothing to me, so keep them to yourself. Mr. Osborn, please tell us how much each candidate you endorsed gave to the VCRCC in the past 2 years? Did you endorse any candidate who did not send the VCRCC money? Easy enough for anyone to check since it is all public information. Also I feel sorry for our brave firefighters in Moorpark that they are stuck with Foy instead of the man they wanted Dantona. God Bless Them!

To Mr. NotBubbaKidd,

I will not keep my opinions to myself. This is a public blog and I have a right to express my thoughts just like everyone else around here, including yourself. If you don't like it that too bad. A fundamental principle of democracy is free speech, something which you don't seem entirely comfortable with.

For not bubba,

Beyond paying voluntary dues $60 per year, I believe four out of the forty or so of our endorsed candidates contributed to the County Party. Only one donation came to us before the endorsement process.

For GS,

Support for a candidate (volunteering, endorsing, money or any other positive activity) has always resulted in access. You supported Dantona because you felt Mikels didn't listen and didn't support your position on certain issues. If Dantona won you expected him to listen to your positions because he told you that he would prior to you giving him your support. There is always an expected return for an investment. In politics that return is access. There never is, or shouldn't be if the candidate is honest, an implied promise of support, but there is usually always a promise of a wider open door to supporters. Giving money is the easiest way to support a candidate, your time is the most precious thing most of us have and we would rather part with our money than walk a precinct, make a phone call or stuff an envelope. The ironic part is that volunteers often get the same, or better, treatment as large donors, plus they (the volunteers) are recognizable to the candidates. I have always felt that volunteers are the most valuable and important part of a campaign.

Excellent point, Mike.

Let's talk about the Conejo Valley School Board race.

Why did VCRCC choose to endorse Greg Lennox and John Anderson, over INCUMBENT Pat Phelps, who is also a Republican and highly respected in the community? She finished on top in the election. Peggy Buckles, a Republican, is well liked in the community, active in the PTA, and also finished better than Anderson and Lennox in the balloting. Your only endorsed candidate that won was Mike Dunn, also an incumbent, who finished in third place, behind Tim Stephens, even though he was listed first on the ballot. (the voters were sending a little message there)

It seems like your endorsements were mostly rejected by and out of sync with mainstream voters in this race.

Lennox has donated generously to the VCRCC. Is that why he got the endorsement? He has no background in education or working with kids, no experience on a school board.

Anderson has no background in education either. He is, so I've been told, a member of Mike Dunn's church. Is that why he got the endorsement? A shared religious agenda = endorsement preference?

How do you feel about Paul Finman and his full page attack ads agains Stephens, Phelps and others in the Acorn? He's also, if I'm not mistaken, a donor to VCRCC. I also understand that he doesn't even live in Ventura County anymore, he lives in Idaho! Is it appropriate for people who live in another state to get involved in our local school board race? It's legal of course, but it strikes many people as very odd. What could be driving his involvement? I'm sure people in Idaho would object if someone from California was meddling in one of their school board races.

So many questions...thank you Brian & the Star for hosting this forum!

Laura,

I stated our policy for arriving at endorsements previously here. If you disagree with how we do it you are free to change your party affiliation and come to our meetings. We have chosen to help our candidates, what did your party to help yours? I do find it amusing that you are critiquing our endorsements and how we run our Committee. Did your Committee endorse any of the people you mentioned? Phelps or Buckles? I don't think so. So how is it that the Vice-Chair of the Democrat Central Committee can criticize us?

And speaking of the election, in Ventura County we, the Republicans, won about 75 per cent of our races, much better than your party did. In fact we beat your candidate for Governor by over ten times the difference in registrations. 5 of the 8 down ticket State-wide races were won by Republicans in numbers many times the registration difference, proving that in Ventura County Democrats seem to prefer Republicans. Doesn't say much for your Committee Laura.

As far as the ad you mentioned, I don't know the person.

Too bad the VCRCC doesn't follow its policy for endorsements, but then it doesn't follow any of its other bylaws.

Lunstrom was not endorsed according to policy. John Alamillo was not endorsed until he protested. Cruz was recommended by a Strickland minion that lives in Camarillo of all places. Buckles and Phelps weren't contacted, neither were most of the people on the Simi school board. Charles Watson in Ventura wasn't contacted either.

Lennox donated 1K to the committee, Mike Berger paid for the recent BBQ and Kunicki's employer paid $5K to the Central COmmittee. All around endorsement time.

The only Republican candidates that were helped in this election were the right wingers, the rest were for the most part ignored. In fact, some of your members were involved in supporting people that weren't even Republicans like in the Pleasant Valley School board race and the Ventura County Board of Education race. Tsk, tsk, your bylaws say they should be removed for such activities.

Let's see your mettle Mike Osborn - how much money was sent to fellow Central COmmittee member Darrin M. Henry to process all the mailers? And is it true his business, DMH & Associates, operates with a suspended license?

I don't believe you answered Laura's questions regarding Finman - is he a donor?

Lies of ommission are still lies, How much lying did you do to get your position?

Maybe you can explain "Member Communications". Who exactly is a member? Are member communications just for members of the VCRCC? Or are all Republicans "members" - if so, shouldn't all Republicans receive notification of VCRCC meetings each month? I haven't received a one, but I sure got stuff on Foy and Kunicki. Some of them even had Darrin's home address on them.

Don't expect Osborn to really answer any questions here. Instead of answering Ms. Winchester's questions he attacked her! Of course after his vicious attack on Leslie Cornejo nothing surprises me with him! If he was being truthful he would just admit he and his ilk will only push the most extreme of his party in Ventura County. I'm still laughing over his statements about this past election and Ventura County. Prop 85 failed in VC! Jerry Brown got more votes in VC! Lockyer got more votes in VC! Tony Strickland barely won VC and then got crushed in LA County! What connection does Osborn have to the California Taxpayers Alliance? They put out a hit piece on Pat Phelps (rep) and Tim Stephens the day before the election and guess what, they both still won! I also just read that Osborn wants to spend a ton of money in the next election on "non-partisan" races in VC. Why? Because he is a rabid partisan who wants to make these "non-partisan" offices partisan and controlled by the extremists of his party! I urge all registered republicans in VC to go dem or at least DTS, that's what I just did!

Bubba,
You can say any silly, crazy, partisan comments you want. Just don't direct them to me, because your comments are not worth commenting on.

You guys attacking Mike Osborn are way off base. Can you even listen to an argument without coming up with some rediculious conspiracy. It pains me to read some of the well written, well put together, full of crap statements by most of you. Wyatt - you really aren't a republican. The meaning of is- (didnt use his name) because he is probably Dantona or something. And last Laura, Wow- Go run with Hillary and her pack of Wacko's because your claims are all over the place! You're a nut!

Outside looking in:

If your interested, the message from "the meaning is" appears to come from a Republican who knows the inside workings of the VCRCC politics and operations. Probably someone who does not like the way the group is representing his/her interests and spending its money.

"Outside looking in" you're the one full of crap! You start out by crying like a baby that people are attacking poor Mr. Osborn (Who attacked Leslie Cornejo JUST because she has ethics) and then you attack everyone who has blogged. Prove anything that has been said is untrue? I think you're just scared that republicans are catching on quickly as to what is really going on at the VCRCC. Most republicans are not extremists like you.

I love Doc Holiday's logic (or lack therof) when he states, "prove anything that has been said is untrue". It continually amazes how the left-wing cult members on this blog repeatedly make outrageous, unfounded accusations, and then demand that others prove them untrue.

FYI, an intelligent argument is one where you make an argument and back it up with evidence. It would be no different for me to accuse someone, without evidence, of being a child molester and then demand that they prove the charge untrue. Not only is that unfair, but even fourth grade students have better reasoning skills.

This is why guys like Doc Holiday and NotBubbaKidd have no credibility.

And to Mr. NotBubbaKidd,
If my comments are not worth commenting on, then why do you keep responding to them? And if you don't want me to direct comments toward you, then why do you keep directing comments toward me? In fact, you even go as far as to incorporate my pen name into your own. Based on that I think I have every right to comment on your posts, whether you like it or not.

...and now back to a more important question of ethics (and morality)!

What to do about Rocketdyne (Boy! That was forgotten quickly). How to handle the WMI expansion (now that LA's closed the door on the Sunshine Canyon expansion plans we'll be under MORE pressure). Do we need to rethink Growth in the East County? These are three issues that will be impacted by political contributions and considerations. How do they fit into the ehtics question?

What exactly is the issue with WMI? During the debate Peter Foy said he would oppose expansion of the landfill and that the CEO of WMI personally stated to him that he would not pursue an expansion. As far as outside garbage is concerned, we have existing contractual obligations that have to be honored, however Foy also stated that he was opposed to any further agreements to bring in additional LA garbage.

So assuming that Foy is telling the truth that he will oppose an additional expansion and will oppose bringing in additional outside garbage, what more do you want from him?

First, I'm not concerned with making Mr Foy do something about the issue. It's an issue for the Community to discuss. Our Suprevisor can lead that discussion or not. Second, I don't believe WMI's NOT going ahead with the planning process and the East County would be foolish to put off a discussion until its too late to have any meaningful impact.

Bubba,
You and your comments are a joke! If you are looking for your own credibilty look in the toilet you hypocrite! You are nothing but an extremist and right wing partisan. I've never seen anyone cry as much as you do. Of course after this last election neocons like you are hard to find, and the reason is because you are out of touch with reality! Why do you think more people in VC voted for Jerry Brown then for your boy? Maybe because you are in the minority, deal with it!

Inre the Supervisor's input into the issues that affect the East County, the playing field has changed dramatically. For years Supervisor Mikels and Congessman Gallegly refused to do their jobs and lead the discussion about Rocketdyne and it took a grass roots movement to force the State's hand and get an independent assessment of the risks this area faces. That effort enboldened a lot of nascent groups to start tackling similarly ignored issues like illegal grading and land use violations, the safety of our land use policies, the Somis Corridor mess and others. These groups have realized that discussions can move forward with or without the leadership of local officials and they're just getting started. I'd prefer our local officials to assume the leadership of these discussions but it seems no one's willing to step up and do so until they find themselves far behind the curve or on the front page of the STAR for failing to act.

Scott,

Congrats on your guest blogging - this one is quite the large discussion! Way to go!

Tim

Mike:

I have a couple of questions.

I was reading some background on the question related to central committees giving to non-partisan races and it is pretty common. Both parties are doing it within the state.

However, I came across an article in Capitol Weekly that the California Republican party mandates that local central committees adopt a mechanism for endorsing non-partisan races to receive funds for get-out-the-vote and registration bounty programs.

First, is it true? Second, how do you think this helps build a broad based party that can compete for a majority in the state?

Tim:

I think this has more to do with pent-up rivalries and overall differences of opinion than my topic. Feel free to way in on Ethics or anything else you may want to write about...

GS:

I researched a couple things on the issue we were writing about this morning. First, I'm going to leave some link to point out that not once has the "funneling" as you described occurred in either Pasadena or Santa Monica, or as some like to call it, the People's Republic of Santa Monica.

As a matter of fact both cities sued all the way to the state Supreme Court and lost on this one. Big time!!!

This law seperates the decision from the campaign benefits and incumbents in both Pasadena and Santa Monica hate it even though the measure passed by close to 60% and has serious voter appeal. Most would prefer we just keep paying attention to contribution limits or other incumbent protections that parade as reform.

I say we at least entertain an alternative that appears to be disdained by the governing class in a pretty bi-partisan way. So far, you've been pretty down on this proposal and I respect that, but I must ask, what's your proposal?

Scott: Don't be disheartened. I'm FOR the principle of arms length poltiics from our elected officials but the solution offered seems it'll simply divert the money into other, more unaccountable pathways, controlled by the few. If those alternative pathways could be shut down then maybe it would work.

Anyways, my proposal's a fantasy that would never fly. But if it could I'd limit contributions for candidates to registered voters ONLY! No corporations, no unions, no PACS nor special interests. I'd put a pretty high personal limit on total contributions but I'd peg it to income: if you can make more money, you can contribute more money. I'd also place a cut off on contributions that would force candidates to get their message out earlier and prevent last minute, big money injections from skewing the vote.

Scott

Do you actually think a proposal that doesn't allow politicians to give taxpayer benefits to their friends would be supported on a partisan blog like this one?

You need to understand, politics is about pointing out that the other politican or faction is more corrupt than than the candidate you support, not about cleaning the system up to disable such behavior.

This country is built on legalized corruption. Look at Washington, democrats are more charged up that corporations, PACS, and lobbyists have to pay them because they have a majority than they are about fixing anything.

Nice shootin', Wyatt.

Tammany:

I think it sounds like a great proposal. I am willing to be the first person to sign a petition. Would you be willing to help out?

I am publically in favor of a law that would stop people from handing out favors. Is anybody else willing to stand up for the principle of Blough's proposal?

I am sure that there could be flawed legislation and better legislation but the ideal is worthy.

GS:

Don't worry, I'm not disheartened...

I guess the question I have is based on your analysis of this rule, would you really support any campaign finance rule based on your criticism?

Let's say, for arguments sake, it is legal for politicians to personally accepts homes, cars, vacation trips and stacks of cash for their public decisions. Well, if someone came forward and said politicians should no longer be able to accept bribes for their decisions, you could make the same counter-argument, but it doesn't stop or even address the behavior.

You could just say, well it'll create just more unaccountable ways to bribe. To me, it really doesn't attack the heart of the argument just leads to a malaise and toleration of politicians getting funds from contributors who've benefitted from public decisions.

Remember, once there is less than zero tolerance of such behavior, the corrosion begins. It's really no different than allowing grafitti in your neighborhood. When it becomes the norm, it leads to more new norms like crime, assaults, and dangerous conditions that become even less desirable. Most importantly, faith in public safety and perception in personal safety for the citizen falls apart.

One lie leads to a series of more lies to cover up the first lie until the house of cards, ie. people's belief in fair, responsive government will eventually collapse on it's own hypocrisy.

In fact, the scenario you speak of is not happening in Pasadena and Santa Monica. There are no underground groups giving funds to hide the identity of contributors that I can find and I'm pretty sure the papers would report on such behavior as voters approved these measures in 2000 and 2001 and the papers have an interest in reporting unintended consequences.

Tammany, it is precisely because no one has worked to really fix the rules, that campaigns are always dominated by corruption charges and not issues. Plain and simple.

Hey Guys,

Whenever these kinds of converstions start we tend to get a little myopic, to avoid this we need to again get a good foundation.

GS, we have to realize what constitutes "special interest group" or things like "giving taxpayer benefits to their friends." Generally all of us take a world view of these definitions when, in fact, it's actually in the eye of the beholder.

Many of the groups I have addressed have asked what the purpose of politics is? Why be involved? What difference will it make? These seem to many of us to be simple questions, but, in fact, they are not. When asked we all have the politically correct answers ready, to make the world a better place, end suffering, etc. We all want these things and they sound good. However, when you distill it down the real answer to the question it's to "get what you want." For the vast, and I mean almost all, of the majority of citizens these are always good things, although a small fraction have used politics for personal gain, and this has tainted the system.

The reason I'm bringing this up is to highlight the essence of politics and political action.

For instance the Knolls group is by definition a "special interest group." Not a bad thing, just a fact. They have issues that they want addressed, and these issues are important. In order to get these issues in front of someone in power they perform political action, that is they volunteer, work for a candidate, contribute money and vote. The might even qualify, under a strict definition, as a PAC, again not a bad thing, just a fact. GS, I think you control a PAC, not an attack, just a question? But because the bulk of us want good things we don't think of ourselves as "special interest groups" or "PAC's" those are the other guys, the bad guys.

Anyhow, when we "get what we want," open space, parks, soccer fields, etc., we're pleased and feel we've done a good thing, and we have. However, if the government has kept a farmer from selling his land, or forced a developer to provide park space, those folks probably think government officials have "given taxpayer benefits to their friends."

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that everyone can be a "special interest," and that everything can be defined by someone as a "taxpayer benefit to a friend." I'm positive that if your candidate had won and given the Knolls folks what they wanted someone would have said that about you guys. We have to be careful about using a broad brush. We have to realize that we all want things and most of us want good things, however in government everything that happens usually has a negative effect on someone, who will then feel that they've been unfairly treated to help some politician "give taxpayer benefits to their friends."

This is a good thread, and I appreciate those who are using it for thoughtful discussion.

Doc Holiday is a pimplefaced nerd who lives at home with his mom and sits in front of his computer all day blogging and looking at porn sites cause he can't get a girlfriend. Prove anything I said is untrue.

Not Doc Holliday,
Everything you said about me is only true about yourself. Of course you should have signed BubbaKidd since that is who you really are. Face it punk, you're a nothing! Prove you are not BubbaKidd.

Well, semantics is everything and under your most broad definition of "special interest" groups there's no escaping the label..even the majority would be a special interest group. Yet there's a broad scale of special interests (from negative to positive) and most of us would tend to draw the line somewhere along that scale. For me that line is somewhere around the point where such a group tries to take more than they're willing to give (to the Community) and thus falls into the negative range of the scale). Subjective? Yes. But we all have to make the distinction somwehere. I fully understand that others' perception of certain special interests will be the opposite to mine and THAT's where the political battles should be fought. Rarely anywhere else.

As for the Knolls... I do help direct a PAC but the Knolls is not part of that PAC. We provided a field operation to a community that has felt itself under siege for many years and helped them organize a effort to gain attention to their problems. The Knolls is certainly a special interest but for me it's one that is higher on the scale than most. I'm sure that a developer and/or our Supervisor would place the Knolls' interest a lot lower on the scale and their own interests a lot higher on that scale. That's understandible. Yet its that margin of difference, the spread on the scale that needs to be addressed by all the parties involved. That's never happened in the Knolls. It needs to.

GS,
How will people in the Knolls and Moorpark feel when Foy unleashes his developer buddies on them and the hillsides?

Scott: In principle I agree with what your law would try to do. I just think the end result would be to ceate a new heirarchy of power broker elites with less accountability and more political power, and that could make for even MORE extreme politics. That bothers me more than politicians spending their political capital.

The problem we're really talking about is a lack of meaningful consequences for those politicians that do get caught taking bribes or repaying favors from contributors. Sure, there have been some high visibility cases recently for some egregious crimes but those are a rarity. And even so, those non-politicians that were complicit in those crimes will probably get slapped on the hand and given fines that are a small part of the cost of doing business. I don't know the answer to the problem.

Wyatt! Suprevisor Mikels unleashed developers on the Knolls and we fought back, successfully. We'll keep doing so. Back in July 2004 we gathered 2700 signatures from the east end of Simi alone, in 10 days. We generated hundreds of letters opposing the ranch development and managed to have 306 people show up at County chambers on a Tuessday morning to voice their opposition. bak then we fought a lot of local politicians. This time we have a lot more on our side. We'll keep fighting if need be.

Besides, we're prepared to take Mr Foy at his word. He's stated he is against development in the area until the Rocketdyne mess is cleaned up (the Knolls sits at the bottom of the largest arroyo running off of Roketdyne to the north) and he's made clear that he believe in a community's right to have a say in any rezoning issues (that's what the Knolls has been asking for for years). We'll see if we can work with our new Supervisor.

In addition, CalUnion is working on new state legislation that would add another layer of approvals to land use planning in particularly dangerous areas like the Knolls. These approvals would be used to address safety issues in such areas and we're making a determined effort to have the bill allow State officials to shut down any ongoing projects that are found to present a safety hazard.

GS,
Do you know if Keith Jajko is now on Foy's team? I know Jajko headed the failed campaign for North Park in Moorpark. Also do you know if there is a connection between the California Taxpayers Alliance and Strickland and Osborn?

Wyatt,

There is a direct connection between the California Taxpayers Alliance and the Stricklands.

Mike Osborn will be the first to tell you how tight he is with the Stricklands and Tony has gone on record on how much he supports Mike.

Why do you ask?

Wasn't Jajko on Tony Strickland's payroll?

Jajko was on Mikel's payroll, but it would not surprise me if he is also in with the Strickland's. What is the direct connection between the Strickland's and the California Taxpayers Alliance? During the Conejo School Board race I received a mailing from the California Taxpayers Alliance attacking republican board president Pat Phelps and pushing Dunn, Lennox and Andersen, all three had also been backed by the VCRCC. It seemed odd to me that a group based in Orange County CalTaxAlliance, would be spending thousands of dollars to mail an attack ad in a local non-partisan school board race.

Not to make Tony out to be the bad guy. It's Audra who is a major funder of the California Taxpayers Alliance. That probably why she got the "Tax Fighter of the Year" award by the California Taxpayers Alliance as touted by the "Ventura County Republican Leadership Voter Guide". Both pieces were processed by DMH & Associations - which is owned by Darrin M. Henry, member of the VCRCC Central Committee. Just look at the postage area to see which initials are there.

Money was spent on behalf of Janice Parvin and Louis Masry by the California Taxpayers Alliance - not sure if they claimed it or not because it was processed as a "Late Independent Expenditure".

All this information is available at the California Secretary of State website - http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1075935&session=1999&view=electronic.

Hope this clarifies your questions/concerns.

Wyatt, just so you know there is also a California Taxpayers Alliance Slate Mailer Organization and this has bigger money in from Tony Strickland and other candidates, Indian Tribes, etc. and money paid out to DMH, Brian Park, Lysa Ray, etc. I believe Brian Park does the California Club for Growth slate mailer, which of course is Tony's baby.

This seems like the part of the movie where the rival gunslingers meet on main street. Sheeesh!
How about a softball game instead? The FoyBoys against...?????? If no one else'll do it CalUnion will sponsor a team. The Community would love it.

GS:

You said you agree with me in principle? You must excuse me as I don't understand what you mean. If you agree with a principle and you ignore it, what does that mean?

If the law included more language demanding that all independent expenditure group or PAC involved in the a activity of arguing for or against a candidate were required to report all their donors to the jurisdictions clerk, of which all would be catalogued under the financing law, would you support it then?

Mike Osborn and Laura Winchester:

Are you both familiar with Michael Josephson? He writes a "character counts" article in the Star that I recommend. He also has an Institute that outlines ethical behavior for public officials. Here are his institute's five ethical principles for public officials.

1. Public office is a trust; use it only to advance public interests, not personal gain.
2. Make decisions on the merits, free from partiality, prejudice or conflicts of interest.
3. Conduct government openly, efficiently, equitably and honorably so the public can make informed judgments and hold public officials accountable.
4. Honor and respect democratic principles; observe the letter and spirit of laws.
5. Safeguard public confidence in the integrity of government by avoiding appearances of impropriety and conduct unbefitting a public official

Do you think Republican and Democrat candidates should follow these to the letter? Does the party that give endorsements require candidates to sign an ethics pledge?

If they violate such ethical principles, what actions can the parties take if violations occur?

Scott: I agree that there needs to be some mechanism to limit the brokering of political favors & paybacks but for me its a matter of diminishing returns: I just don't see the effort being paid off at level that would get me excited about it. Besides, we have an electorate, the Media and the Courts who are supposed to act as watchmen and if they'd do their jobs we could put an end to such shenangins. Maybe I'm just being overly pragmatic. That said, I'm open to seeing how such an effort could evolve into something I could get behind and some sort of oversight accounting is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Blough,
Do you think the Strickland's have acted ethically? Without redistricting is it possible to remove politicians like them when they receive millions from Indian Gaming, Intuit, big oil, etc, and then have their friends on the VCRCC pouring big bucks into their campaigns, and doing their printing, etc? Do you think Leslie Cornejo was treated fairly when she was removed and attacked for actually behaving ethically and bravely? How can the little guy or girl compete against that?

Re Mike Osborn's remarks on 12/5:

Touchy, touchy. Geez Osborn, I wasn't criticizing your endorsements, just posing a few questions that a lot of people have been asking.

I know I shouldn't worry my pretty little head about such things, but you know how uppity us women-folk can get with a little education and time off from birthin' babies. ;-)

You can, and I'm sure you will, continue to take your party further down the path to the hard right. Hey, I'm all for it. It makes my job easier to point out our differences, and pick off the moderates & DTS. In fact, I would encourage you to continue to build your farm team of ultra right religious extremists, who can rise to some level of prominence in our gerrymandered districts, secure nominations by throwing a ton of money into destroying your moderates (like Maldonado & Richman), and then go on to get their collective backsides handed to them by Democrats in statewide elections. How satisfying can it be to win those races in Ventura County, but lose the war?

But you do deserve credit. Your incumbent candidate for Governor, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, Dem snuggling Arnold, beat Phil Angelides quite easily. And liberal Republican Steve Poizner (also married to a Dem) beat Cruz Bustamante. Didn't need a crystal ball to predict that one.

I offer you my heartfelt congratulations on those two big victories. :-)

Meanwhile, without great expenditure but some concentrated volunteer effort, the Dem side in VC had a net gain of 3 non-partisan offices, and the Reps, who spent quite a bit, had a net loss of 4. I like those numbers.

Since Jan '04, Rep advantage in registration in the county has gone from 15,000 to 6,900. I like those numbers too.

Of course I can't resist once again praising Jim Dantona and his incredible performance in the 4th District race. 30% Dem registration, and he pulled 48.4% of the vote. Wow. We're gonna start calling him our Italian Stallion. I think it fits, don't you agree?

Wyatt:

When I started writing guest topics a few weeks ago, I made a promise to myself that I would try not to engage in writing negative things about anybody, just talk about issues. I intend to try and just stick to issues.

Check out the blog topic I wrote last night on redistricting. I absolutely agree that the districts need to be redrawn to make it more competitive.

The question is who should decide and how should the process work?

GS:

Thanks for explaining your position and at least seing my side of things.

Do you think parties should demand a level of integrity of their members as I asked above?

It sounds like they are getting involved in local races to require strict adherence to their party's principles, but what about ethical considerations? Should parties requires strict adherence to an ethical platform as well and should there be enforcement actions for violations?

Thank you for the great threads, Scott! I believe our Society has given up all pretenses of fostering good citizenship and until we can find a way to instill a sense of community ethics & morality and start turning out citizens rather than consumers, integrity in politics is a ver steep, uphill battle.

I DO feel everyone in public life should swear an oath of integrity, that parties should demand it of their candidates and elected officials and that the voters, the media and the Justice system should come down hard on any that violate that oath.

I'd love to see a point system in place whereby once an elected official racks up enough demerits, there's an automatic recall election. Those demerits could also be applied when a candidate has been found out to lie or cheat during his campaign. The problem though is that unless politics were ethical that point system would be used as a weapon by one's opponents.

Laura,

Your registration numbers are indeed correct. Under Leslie Cornejo's leadership the Republican Party in Ventura County has lost much ground but we're already working on turning that around.

And Jim Dantona did do well, but you don't respond to the fact that he did it by pretending to be a Republican. All over the country conservative Dems beat moderate Republicans. When you have folks like Conrgressman Harold Ford, liberal Democrat, going to the right (supporting gun rights, printing the Ten Commandments on his business cards), the message is clear that Republican family values win. You also overlook the overwhelming number of Dems in Ventura who voted for McClintock, Stricklands, McPherson & Gallegly, in fact when the districts were totally in Ventura county Dems voted for Republicans in numbers far outstripping registration.

And as far as any gains you claim, I've only been around for a couple of months and had to work on the important stuff first, we'll get to the mosquito abatement district next time.

However you and your party are certainly welcome to actually try and support your candidates, although I think your decision not to help Dantona was the right one. Any appearance by the Democrat Party in this race would only have driven down his numbers.

Scott & GS,

You guys are right and I agree with you that many of our elected officials, especially on a national level have lost their way. We, the voters, are responsible for holding our legislators to a high level of ethics and responsiblity. The internet and today's information technology, like these blogs, when used properly (info exchange, debating ideas, not attacks and name calling), are ways that the people can monitor government and hold those running it to account.

We're the ones responsible for putting people in office and ultimately it's our fault if those people fail. I agree with Scott's list, and think that our conversations show that we can accomplish much working together, even if we have some basic differences in philosophy.

Shame on you Mike Osborn. Don't even try to blame Leslie Cornejo for the voter registration numbers. You have spent the last five years trying to undermine any work done by the committee and when you did have a semblance of control in June, you told the Voter Registration Chair "that we aren't going to worry about Voter Registration until later."

Your district (1) was one of the poorest performing districts as far as voter registration and volunteer efforts. You did nothing to bring in any money, volunteers, etc. All you have done is brought shame.

In a matter of weeks you have driven the entire Central Committee into the ground and it is now facing numerous campaign finance and campaign ethics violations.

And you have the audacity to try to blame Leslie Cornejo? That is about as chicken$--t as it gets.

Clark Johnson (married to Elton's campaign manager) proudly nominated you for chair earlier this week and once again stepped up to be the treasurer. Don Yates and Dave Tennessen are also on the Executive Board as First and Second Vice Presidents. Tom McClintock's staffer Jason Spadaro is one of the Caucus chairs. These people are all standing with you Mike Osborn. That means they support you. Heaven help the Republicans in the county.

Instead of blowing smoke everywhere, how about answering some of the questions that have been put forth regarding the money laundering and your relationship with the Stricklands and DMH. And what's this I hear you want to ban me from the meetings and are trying to figure out a way to keep Leslie Cornejo from voting? She is the elected representative for District 5 and last time I checked we both lived in America.

Katie Teague, former VCRCC member and former Chairman for Volunteer Recruitment and Candidate Recruitment.

Katie,

Your problem is that in your world everyone's wrong except you. In your world it's everyone's fault but yours.

You've formed a new organization let's see you do something positive with it. Don't force other people to make you look worse than you have made yourself look.

Under Leslie Cornejo's VCRCC leadership we were credited with being the best county Central Committee, our voter registration coordination and numbers were outstanding, and morale was high. When Mike Osborn's group strong-armed their way into leadership, morale, organization and voter registration plummeted. I was no longer Voter Registration Chair after that takeover, and was told by Mike Osborn that it was no matter, he would be concentrating solely on fundraising and voter registration could wait until AFTER the election! Mike, don't try to drag the whole Central Committee in the toilet with you.

Powerful response Mike. Embraces all the leadership qualities you think you have. You are truly clueless.

I challenge you to answer the questions. Or maybe you can have your supporters go public with their support of your actions on this blog.

This blog is about ethics. Like candidates that sign "no new taxes" oaths, I like demanding that candidates be asked to sign a code of ethics. I know they swear to it when filing to be a candidate, but then there is not enough follow up. CAPC has as part of its mission statement the desire to identify and promote candidates with reputations for integrity and community service.

Osborn are you also a member of the CNP like Foy and Haggart and Strickland and McClintock and Moon and Robertson? Why did they stop releasing their membership roles in 1998? Are they ashamed of the CNP?

I am new to this blog, but it is clear to me that Winchester is like 10 times smarter than Osborn. Just an observation from the new guy.

It is my opinion that the liberal extremists on this site like to gang up on anybody who disagrees with them until they run them off this blog.

Funny, it appears to the critical thinkers on this blog that Winchester is a massage therapist, and you new guy are clueless.

Katie says, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, they're bad, blah, blah, I'm right, blah, blah, blah."

The one thing I know for certain is that when Katie leaves a room everybody cheers.

Voter,
Personal attacks without signing your name is gutless. Katie is extremely bright, a hard worker, and interested in transparency and integrity in government. What room were you in that Katie made you nervous?

Actually I've been quite entertained by all the posts from Mike and Katie. Hey, that sounds like a talk show! I'd love to see the two of them in the room duking it out, it would be good fun. Truthfully, even though they are mortal enemies I kind of like them both. Am I allowed to say that?

Bubba Kidd,

You are right - better than Jerry Springer. Shoud I pop us some popcorn?

Jim Dantona never pretended to be a Republican, he's always been a proud Democrat. We've been over this already -Democrats come in a variety of stripes, just like Republicans. I do find it odd that you single out gun rights and the ten commandments as representing Republican family values. I find family values to be so much more than packing firearms and quoting from the bible. I think most Democrats and Republicans feel that way.

I also find it odd that you disparagingly referred to some local offices as "mosquito abatement". Wow. I have a lot of respect for people that run for local office and serve at all levels, often at their own personal expense and giving up their free time. I would never make light of their contribution.

I do remember Ventura County being singled out as Republican County of the year under Leslie Cornejo. I remember it, because it irritated the hell out of me (go Leslie, lol), but these days I just spend a lot of time laughing and shaking my head at what's going on.

And well, well, well...interesting that "Voter" has evidently gone to some trouble to look into my personal life. (ain't google great!) You guys are so predictable. Well, since the number of keyword hits on my name at the Central Committee website have been going up in the past 3 months, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I know that anyone who speaks out against the majority party ends up being subjected to personal attacks.

So, let's get to it. While my personal business is no ones affair but my own, let me put it on out there for your consumption and amusement.

I assume you think there is something scandalous about my hobby of massage therapy? Really, could you be any more parochial and misinformed? Do you have hang-ups about the human body? Yes, I am a licensed massage therapist. I'm certified in Sports therapy and chronic illnesses. I consider myself very fortunate to have found a hobby that I enjoy tremendously, is very positive, helps people, and as a bonus, I get paid for it. I mostly get to work on middle aged people, like myself, who find that it helps reduce stress, prevents sports injuries, and helps new and chronic injuries to heal more quickly. I also volunteer my time at a hospice in LA, where I work on patients with Parkinsons disease and cancer. I also volunteer to work on the caregivers and family members of hospice patients, who are under tremendous stress. It's often the only 30 or 50 minutes out of their months where someone provides them with a little respite from their routine. A side benefit for me is, at 43, I have killer arms, back and shoulder muscles, and I don't have to do an upper boy workout at the gym anymore..hehe. Unfortunately, my butt hasn't gotten any smaller, but then I'd have to give up double-doubles to make that happen.

What you probably don't know about me, since I've not been too active for several years, is that I'm also an engineer, who spent 15+ years in the avionics industry - Quality Assurance and FAA compliance, to be precise. I've always been good with the details. It's not very exciting stuff, and not terribly rewarding, but I did ok financially. I decided to get out of the industry after 9/11 (can you blame me) and my divorce (exhubby is a nice guy, but we grew apart), and to spend more time with my family. Part of what brought me back to Thousand Oaks to live, and spend more time with my family, including taking care of my elderly mother, was the death of my 16 year old nephew in a car accident in 2001. But you should have been able to figure that out from Google too.

The loss of a child in a family tends to make one re-evaluate priorities. In recent years I had been trying to have my own family, but, due to having had cancer in my 20's (my life sounds like a soap opera, sheesh), and having undergone chemotherapy and radiation treatment at 25 (grateful for 18 years cancer free this past July), I've been unable to have children of my own, despite best medical efforts. Some things aren't meant to be, so I've focused my energy in other areas. I also volunteer time to counseling young adults with cancer and the newly diagnosed. It's my way of giving back to the community.

How unfortunate for the Republican Party. A woman with an education, a little money, no children and time on her hands. I guess that would almost make me a Hillary, except I'm really more of a John Edwards type. (though he is much prettier than I am)

My ex-husband is also an engineer, CEO of a division of a Fortune 500 company, and a Republican (oh the horror), whose father was an appointee of the Reagan administration, and very good buddies with Trent Lott (I spent more holiday's in the deep south than I care to remember). My ex-boyfriend (recent development -I'm officially single now - woo hoo!) is also a Republican and a pilot for Delta Airlines. What can I say- I'm working on that whole Republican guy thing. I catch a lot of hell for it within the Democratic Party. I'm checking voter registration before I fall in love next time.

Now you all know more than you ever wanted or needed to know about me. So if you want to attack me on a personal level for having beliefs that differ from you, there's all your ammunition. I watched what you did to Jim Dantona, and what happens to anyone, even in your own party, who dares to dissent. I guess even lowly Central Committee types like me are fair game. Disappointing, but not entirely surprising. But really, after surviving cancer, divorce, and the death of my nephew, I guess I can take it. After all, I'm a double threat -a nerd and a massage therapist. I can read a schematic AND get those knots out in your lumbar region. Oh yeah, I'm fluent in Italian too. Quick, someone call Homeland Security.

I think what Laura has discovered is that, although she would really love to date a democrat, republicans are much better in bed.

Personally I don't hold anything against you for being a massage therapist and if Voter has a problem with that it is his issue alone. I dig a woman who knows how to use her hands.

The only exception I will take with Laura's post is her portrayal of Dantona as a victim of personal attacks. Anybody with a brain knows that Dantona and the rest of the democrats were as good as anybody at slinging mud.

WOW Laura,

And you call me touchy?

Anyhow you still haven't addressed the huge number of Democrats in Ventura County voting Republican. Any thoughts?

I believe a fair number of Democratic and DTS women did vote for Judy Mikels in the primary because of her support for battered wives and children and some of the other good things she had accomplished, but that she really did not emphasize in her very boring, amateurish campaign pieces. (It would have helped her if more folks had known.) Instead, she chose to focus on the surplus the county was provided from the last two years of the housing boom.

In the runoff, it looked like more of those folks went for Dantona than Foy. Unfortunately, they were more than canceled out by the Republican Party campaign money that showed up for Foy at the very last minute - lest it show up on a campaign fund report that folks might see in advance of the election - to foil any chance that party automatons might show a bit of thoughtful independence. Still, a lot of Republicans did vote for Dantona because they still liked the notion of a full-time supervisor and, at least, they knew who he was and the good things he had done. So, warts and all, he had to have received the votes of a sizable number of them in order to make the election as close as it was.

Bubba Kidd, Voter and Not Doc are all the same guy, the same pathetic loser who has no life and no friends, he only has this blog and spends his sad life attacking others. I'm also betting that Holidork has seen Broke Back Mountain at least 15 times! Quit blogging punk and go find a life. We shall all pray for you.

I only post using a single pen name. It is people like "Not BubbaKidd" who use multiple names and do nothing but attack others, and then turn around and hypocritically accuse everyone else of the same thing.

And one more thing, I don't have any problem with gays or movies like BrokeBack Mountain, so if you are trying to use it as a juvenile insult you are wasting your time and exposing your own homophobia.

I can't verify any personal data about posters but I can tell you that "Voter" and "BubbaKidd" are not the same guy.

I believe in the "give a guy enough rope, and they will hang themselves theory". That is why I don't delete the stupid things people sometimes post. As an example, attackign Laura for helping cancer patients? I could delete it, but i think that would just erase the proof of how low her enemies will go.

But if someone ever posts something that goes too far about someone, send me an e-mail @ briandennert@yahoo.com

Thanks for all the posting.

Okay Bubba, you are off the hook and sorry for the slam. Voter and Not Doc and Osborn, in the spirit of the season, I say, "Go elf yourself!".

Osborn,

How do you figure a huge number of Democrats voted for Republicans in Ventura County? That's wishful thinking on your part.

Dem Registration in the County is 38.08%.

There were only two races where our candidates pulled less than the Dem base in VC - Phil Angelides and Cruz Bustamante, and as I already stated - your incumbent, RINO, Pro-Choice, Pro-Gay rights, big spending, Dem snuggling Ahnuld (or the Lib/Green) pulled from the Dem base, with Phil receiving just 34.18% of the vote. Cruz Bustamante, who I won't even waste any breath on, won 34.02%. Less than 4% of Dems in Phils race, and just over 4% of the Dem base voted for super liberal RINO Poizner...or then again, maybe those Dems who didn't vote for our guys, voted for the Libertarian or Green, who did surprisingly well in this race.

In ALL other races, the Dem candidates pulled OVER the Dem base, so those were either DTS or Reps boosting numbers for Dems OVER your candidates. In other words, NO DEMS were voting for your candidates like Strickland, McClintock, Poochigian, etc. You did pick up more DTS than we did.

Angelides: 34.18
Garamendi: 40.88
Bowen: 42.78
Chiang: 41.21
Brown: 51.49
Bustamante: 34.02
Lockyer: 48.53
Raboy: 41.1
Feinstein: 53.14

And as I have already stated: We had a net gain of 3 non-partisans, you had a net loss of 4.

Wow! Excellent research young lady! Who would have bet that Jerry Brown would carry VC and get so many republican votes. It really showed this past election was about the big issues and about the candidates themselves.

It's all good NBK. Happy Xmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Winter Solstice, or whatever.

Actually Bubba, I celebrate Festivus. It's a festivus for the rest of us. Happy Holidays.