…and please don’t let anyone make you believe we don’t have the power and responsibility to be a part of a fair, equitable and sustainable future – together.
Exhibit A: Brius/Rockport.
More on Brius/Rockport in the Times Standard today. Here is this lovely quote from a spokesperson:
“We understand the National Union of Healthcare Workers is struggling for relevance after being rejected by workers at our facilities, but their ‘facts’ are simply wrong,” Rockport spokesman Stefan Friedman wrote in an email to the Times-Standard.
Exhibit B: The No On V Campaign.
We now have the latest financial reports from the luxuriously funded No On V campaign. I hope these reports give you some idea of the veracity of the 30 second ads you are surely being subjected to right now.
These are links to the financial statements. The 460 was received by Humboldt County Elections on October 28th. It is a comprehensive financial statement for the No On V campaign through October 22nd.
As if to avoid the comprehensive report, there are continuing contributions. These are on reports numbered “497”. These are reports required by 24 hrs for any activity over $1,000.
These two 497s are not necessarily comprehensive. The one 497 I found with $40,000 in late contributions on October 24th. The Times Standard is reporting that this number is $70,000.
I summarized these reports for you below. You can find the spreadsheet here.
Table One: 460 and Known late contributions.
Table Two: Expenditures
Table Three: The Mysterious Schedule G (from the 460)
Today’s reporting is not particularly helpful. I expect LoCO to come out with a helpful article soon as they have previously reviewed Eureka’s 460 reports.
Here are some points.
a) I’m missing about $10,000 in expenditures that were reported, but I can make add up. This could be on me as I’m rushing through this.
b) Schedule G on 460s is something I am not familiar with. I believe this is off-budget spending on No On V’s behalf. In other words, we have to add this amount to the total contribution and expenditures to get a sense of what is really happening. This means it’s likely No On V has 270,000 to spend with a total of $160,000 already spent.
c) I didn’t list the contributors, but you can find them here and on the 460 and 497 reports above. It’s basically the land owners and their business associations seeking the freedom to set rents where they see fit. Even if they spent too much money to buy the land and have to make their renters foot the bill, or if they are principally using this land as an investment or commodity. (ie, only secondarily land a home is happens to be on)
d) People who are campaigning for V on salary as representatives of business association groups such as blog commenter Doug Johnson, a representative of Northern California and Bay Area Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association are completely off the budget
Finally, for a little perspective on those 30 second ads. This PBS News report from January shows those fighting for rent stabilization in mobile home parks are fighting against an ongoing national crisis. It’s been happening in Humboldt too and its time we the people stand up and say large financial interests should not control our economy. The economy and our society is required to serve all of us, not just those who have the money to invest and earn a living from their investments.