People’s Politics
The Latest on T-Ridge, the Gov’s Race, and the Supreme Court’s Big Campaign Ruling
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Another county heard from: Hannah-Beth Jackson is the latest local Democratic pol to jump into the fray over the Tranquillon Ridge offshore proposal, signing on as a paid consultant for the Environmental Defense Center (EDC), a sponsor of the project.
The former Democratic assemblymember, who said she recently started “a little consulting” operation, got a call from EDC’s Linda Krop, seeking help in navigating the increasingly bumpy politics surrounding T-Ridge, which has grown from a local environmental concern into a major statewide issue.
Capitol Letters
“I’m helping with the Sacramento piece, and with the strategy piece,” Jackson said in an interview. “I’m trying to help them through this conflagration.”
With environmentalists split on the issue—sometimes bitterly—Jackson said she is trying to refocus attention on what she called “the win-win aspect” of the project. The Houston-based PXP oil company is promising a future, permanent end to oil drilling from four platforms in federal waters off the coast of Santa Barbara, plus hundreds of millions of dollars in new state revenue, in exchange for a lease to slant drill into state waters from its Platform Irene operation.
Governor Schwarzenegger strongly supports T-Ridge, and his new budget proposal counts on $140 million in revenue from it to backfill cuts he said he plans to make in the state parks department. Calling Schwarzenegger a “bully,” Jackson said that EDC does not support the oil/parks budget swap, but that its only goal is to get a rehearing for T-Ridge before the State Lands Commission.
“This is the best opportunity we have to get rid of” offshore drilling operations, she said.
Dialing for dollars: Meg Whitman, the Republican frontrunner for governor, has poured another $20 million of her own fortune into her bid for the GOP nomination, bringing the total of her own contributions to $40 million. More than five months before the June 7 primary, the former eBay CEO already has spent as much as airline executive Al Checchi (the previous record holder for self-funding candidates) did when he won 12.5 percent of the 1998 Democratic primary vote.
Whitman, at least at this stage, appears to be getting something for her money. A new Field Poll shows her leading Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner 45-17 percent among Republicans, and gaining against Attorney General and presumptive Democratic nominee Jerry Brown, who leads her 44-32.
Interestingly, Brown runs stronger among women only, trouncing Whitman 48-33 percent; overall, women surveyed have an unfavorable view of the Republican frontrunner, 19-20, with a large majority saying they don’t know enough about her to form an opinion.
Brown’s biggest challenge is among younger voters, who form the core of the 24 percent overall who say they don’t know enough about him to have an opinion, despite his four decades of activity in California politics. Statewide, Brown is viewed favorably, 44-32; but six in 10 of those younger than 30, who can be forgiven for not remembering the last time he was governor, have no opinion. Of those who do, only 24 percent have a favorable impression, while 17 percent hold an unfavorable view.
What the Supreme Court has wrought: The best line about last week’s big U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing corporations to donate to federal campaigns came in the New York Times editorial bashing the decision:
“The ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.”
Beyond its national partisan tilt, however, the impact of the ruling in California is likely to be limited this year to Barbara Boxer’s U.S. Senate race.
“There’s no impact on state races,” said Karen Getman, a prominent campaign law attorney in San Francisco. “But in House races and the U.S. Senate race, the dynamic has changed.”
With most of the state’s congressional districts currently gerrymandered, the ruling is unlikely to cause major swings in state House races this cycle. But incumbent Boxer, facing a tough political environment for Democrats, could become a test case for how the new court decision affects a big, expensive Senate race. Of course, Boxer could get a boost from organized labor, which is also allowed to contribute freely to independent expenditure campaigns on behalf of candidates.
Bottom line is that the big winners will be campaign media buyers and TV stations throughout the state, which could find special interests and campaigns road blocking available ad times.
–
Since no less an authority than the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that corporations are people too, at least company is now taking the next logical step.
Related Links
Comments
I haven't really heard that PXP is a "win-win" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXKa6w...
It is a win though.
greensoftshell (anonymous profile)
January 27, 2010 at 6:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This article from January 15th really makes you wonder about whether or not the cartoon in my previous post (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXKa6w...) has it really right.
http://www.counterpunch.org/bond01152...
greensoftshell (anonymous profile)
January 27, 2010 at 8:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
So who's paying HBJ here? EDC or PXP? Or both? Beware of greenwashes, HBJ, that's how you lost your race to Strickland. Phony enviro creds worked for your opponent but we're on to PXP's little game.
surfsteve (anonymous profile)
January 27, 2010 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Pretty obvious that Jackson is being paid by PXP through EDC. It says so in the agreement. PXP can request "that EDC make representations to other governmental agencies with entitlement jurisdicition", which obviously includes the legislature, "in which event PXP shall pay EDC's reasonable fees". So now Jackson and EDC are being paid as lobbyists for an oil company! Has Jackson registered as a lobbyist and how can a
501(c)(3) be legally entitled to be paid to act as a lobbyist?
GOOfy (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2010 at 7:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
GOOfy Please.
Honestly, it is starting to sound like you are working for the oil companies...perhaps the same OIL COMPANIES that Pedro Nava and Susan Jordan were working with last year to try and PUSH NEW ONSHORE DRILLING as a preferable option to the PXP approach. Remember?
Please also remember that Platform Irene is CURRENTLY LEGALLY DRAINING CALIFORNIA STATE OIL with wells that are located right at the State line. They can continue to do so for the next 100 years without paying California diddly-squat if we don't do something.
If you don't like people draining State Oil, then please come up with a better way to stop them....or just keep doing the Oil Companies a big favor with your nasty remarks.
GetOverOil (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2010 at 7:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
HBJ isn't doing this due to money (although she might be getting some on the side). She is doing this on behalf of her surrogate son, Das Williams, who "decided to run for the Assembly seat because of this deal" - or because he refuses to not live on taxpayer dollars and get a non-elected job - and after the news of the $100,000 paid by PXP to EDC, Das as well as EDC and many other groups and electeds who backed the deal now have egg on their face. This is where HBJ decides to weigh in, and save the day with her chastising- or will she?
windows (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2010 at 9:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Dear Windows,
It would help if you knew a little more about non-profit law firms. When there is a settlement in favor of the clients of such a firm, there are generally provisions to pay for the legal fees of the prevailing party. In the PXP case, GOO and CPA ran up some hefty legal fees fighting PXP's efforts to start drilling in to State Waters at Platform Irene. When PXP made a settlement with GOO and CPA, the settlement (following tradition) called for payment of reasonable attorney's fees. 3 years of legal negotiations costs serious money. $100K was not even enough to cover the costs. If this work had been performed by private attorneys it would have been closer to $500K, but GOO and CPA don't have that kind of dough...never have. If environmental groups didn't recover attorney fees in settlements, they couldn't engage in the legal battles that protect California.
Think about it.
GetOverOil (anonymous profile)
January 28, 2010 at 4:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Here is a thought. EDC to not only return the $100,000 paid to them by PXP to support their project, but to agree to not accept any monies in the future to support projects that allow for oil exploration and exploitation from any oil company. It kills me that folks still try to defend a closed door deal for money that EDC was in on with Big Oil on an agreement that had no teeth when it came to enforcement. They use the argument that the debate among environ's is splitting the movement. Well, I don't want to be part of any movement that involves a group that supports shady deals and makes money off it. Anyone that tells you $100,000 isn't a big deal is either a tremendous idiot or loaded. How many small businesses in Santa Barbara that have recently closed could still be open if they had $100,000? How many folks in Santa Maria will not have lost their homes to foreclosures if they had $100,000? Would the emergency pet clinic that closed recently still be open if it had this money? How many meals could be served to the homeless for $100,000?
BeachFan (anonymous profile)
January 29, 2010 at 11:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Sorry, Jerry, but the best line about this horrendous Supreme Court decision came from Justice Stevens' dissent:
"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
JoeHill (anonymous profile)
January 29, 2010 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)
EDC, for its entire 33 year history, has been a leader in the fight to end oil drilling off California’s coast. This is our only purpose in proposing a settlement with PXP regarding their application to drill into Tranquillon Ridge.
We suggest that interested readers learn about the project and the proposed settlement before jumping to conclusions about it based on inflamed rhetoric. Much useful information is collected on our website at: www.environmentaldefensecenter.org/tr....
A brief explanation of why EDC believes the agreement we negotiated will end, rather than expand offshore oil development can be found at: http://www.environmentaldefensecenter....
Our comments about concerns regarding our recovery of attorney fees from PXP is posted at: http://www.environmentaldefensecenter....
We encourage interested readers to check out these links and browse other information they will find on our site and elsewhere. Sound bites and blog posts cannot substitute for an understanding of the issues and concerns that led to this proposal. Thank you.
David Landecker, Executive Director
Environmental Defense Center
DavidLandecker (anonymous profile)
January 29, 2010 at 4:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)