I’m not sure what the young man at THC (The Humboldt Consequential) is smoking, but it has to be good.
And, frustratingly, he references this blog to make his arguments.
The argument goes like this. Mr. THC says he was on the fence on Measure P until he read Pam Service’s letter to the editor which rightfully argues that one of the great benefits of Eureka’s Measure P, which would return Eureka to a True Ward system, is that it reduces the bar substantially in terms of what it would cost to run for office.
Somehow this cogent point about True Ward’s benefit in lowering a local candidate’s election costs led THC to *begin dark music* think back to the old subject of Democrats shuffling of national and state union dollars to a couple of battleground races for California’s Legislature, through local Central Committees including HCDCC.
Here is commenter Sam’s take-away this weekend:
“the HCDCC is big money in politics.” Thank you for saying that in writing and publishing it. Everyone knows it and it is really nice to see it acknowledged. So much for them that whine about developers.”
Democrats Aren’t Big Money, They Are A Conduit:
The reality is, when the big money comes, it quickly goes supporting competitive California Legislative contests with only administrative courtesies left in it’s wake for the HCDCC to spend in Humboldt elections.
We will find out shortly with required campaign finance rules where the nearly quarter of a million dollars will end up this year. I am not a fan of this process because this becomes a liability in local political debates. It doesn’t matter that the right wing will be completely disingenuous, because in these discussions, logic will not matter. What matters is any deflection of the actual mechanics of politics helps to tell the story of a rigged left-wing government/political process that is making life tough for the little guy.
Sadly, the evidence really is the opposite. The local Democrats generally are left with about 7% of this money. This amounts upwards of a third of the HCDCC’s annual budget of about $50,000 a year. Most of the Democrats spending money is made via two fundraisers meals – Chicken By the Sea and Democrat of the Year.
So the Democrats in Humboldt are not big-money, but more of a conduit. By the way, that conduit is set up specifically because unions and those working for working people will otherwise be outspent by those fighting against labor.
The ultimate financial result of the local Democrats’ endorsement of Austin Allison for Eureka’s Fourth Ward, Measure P (True Ward), and Measure V (Rent Stabilization for unincorporated Humboldt) was the following $1,000 to Measure V, $500 to Measure P and $500 to Austin Allison. Is that big money?
What about comparing a local $1,000 donation to a grand sum of $135,000? That is the current treasure chest for the opponents to the Yes on V folks, who are simply trying to stabilize rent increases in mobile home parks and allow mobile home owners in these parks a more democratic say in their future. Yes, you read that right, that is $135,000 against the Democrats $1,000. Where is our crusader against big money in politics when you need him, or her, as the case may be for the anonymous THC?
Thanks to Patti Rose of the Yes on V campaign you can see for yourself the 497’s that detail the type of money that will pay for the ads that are about to inundate Humboldt’s 150,000 residents. Here are the donors and amounts summarized:
This is the reality of big money in local politics and thanks to campaign finance rules we now get a chance to set the record straight in real time. For those counting, the Democrats’ $1,000 donation is 0.7% of the $135,000 those wishing to raise rents on their terms to those, often on fixed income, who can least afford it.
Modern politics is not difficult to get. The modern conservative is focused on his finances. That is the heart of the power of conservative movement that has only recently been overtaken by a billionaire who is also selling out-and-out nativism. The goal of the modern conservative is very similar to his business goals: a) reduce spending (taxes) and b) increase revenues (non-labor profits).
How do you pass that kind of political agenda when this means you have to get 51 % of the vote? You do this by telling disingenuous stories about big bad unions, big bad Democrats, and the big bad regressives. (Not to mention those people who don’t look like you and don’t share your religion or culture.)
And this tactic tends to work in the most economically vulnerable regions of our country which we all should understand, includes Humboldt. THC and many other local right-of-center pundits get this. They want their readers to view the movement that fights for a public sector that works for all citizens, as the bad guys.
A: $135,000. You all did great. THC see me after class.