IS NEWSOM’S PUTATIVE CAMPAIGN IN A BUMBLING PHASE?

 

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2025, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“IS NEWSOM’S PUTATIVE CAMPAIGN IN A BUMBLING PHASE?”

 

As California Gov. Gavin Newsom pursues the early phases of what looks like a 2028 presidential campaign, he’s running afoul of two realities about his present office:

 

One is that no California governor can hide for long from any issue affecting the state. It’s too big for that and governors – unlike U.S. senators – don’t get to pick and choose which issues they want to deal with. Everything eventually lands on the governor’s plate, from welfare to water, from budgets to the survival of bees.

 

The other unchanging reality is that Eastern pundits love analyzing the performance of California governors, since the sheer size of this state automatically propels whoever is governor into the status of a presidential possibility. So even though Newsom is mostly staying home, he gets as much national attention as Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who are campaigning widely.

 

Newsom can’t escape these realities of his office any more than Jerry Brown or Pete Wilson could. No matter what he does in the waning months of his second term in American’s most prominent state job, it will be analyzed in terms of his presidential chances.

 

That put Newsom’s every move during the January Los Angeles County firestorms under the microscope. So too his podcast and his budget manipulations.

 

Right now, all this does not look great for him. For one thing, the 2024 Joe Biden surrogate who loved to roast candidate Donald Trump has toned down his criticism in the face of threats to the funding of everything in this state from the Coastal Commission to the University of California. Why the Coastal Commission? Trump’s golf course on Southern California’s Palos Verdes Peninsula has had disputes with the Coastal Commission, from beach access to placement of a 70-foot flagpole that exceeded height limits.

 

Few California features are valued more by state residents than public access to beaches fronting on private property. While Newsom likes to say he stands up for California values, he’s had little to say about that one as Trump’s administration threatens to hold up wildfire recovery funds so long as the Coastal Commission exists.

 

Another so-called “California value” is giving Medi-Cal health coverage to undocumented immigrants. Newsom bragged for the last couple of years that California was the first state to provide government health care to all low-income people, regardless of immigration status. But the start of this year’s budget process revealed the program (the state’s version of Medicaid) was $6.2 billion (now $12 billion) in the red because of high drug costs and unexpectedly high Medi-Cal enrollments, among other factors.

 

So Newsom was forced to cut back one of his pride-and-joy programs considerably and national news outlets covered the process closely. At the same time, the governor had to admit he was spending more than $8 billion tax dollars a year to assist illegal immigrants. Other states like New York, Illinois and Oregon also provide some Medicaid coverage for the undocumented, but it’s generally reserved for the pregnant or the very young.

 

Then there’s Newsom’s podcast, where he has featured Trump loyalists like Joe Rogan and Steve Bannon. That’s also where he chose to reveal he opposes allowing transgender girls and women to compete in major sports. 

 

Some called this new stance a major move to the political center for Newsom, whose softer line toward Trump and his demands about some California institutions like the Coastal Commission – created via ballot initiative by a large majority of state voters – also was a move to the middle.

 

Here’s an open question: As Democrats’ anger simmers over some of Trump’s power-grabbing moves, how useful is a move toward the political center in a 2028 presidential campaign?

 

Candidates seeking that year’s nomination will surely need to create major contrasts with Trump and his potential successors like Vice President JD Vance rather than somehow blending in with them. So why make nice to the likes of Bannon, Rogan and conservative activist Charlie Kirk if Newsom wants to lead the opposition to them?

 

For sure, Newsom’s is a unique strategy, unless he’s merely bumbling along with hopes of becoming the de facto leader of the Trump opposition and the Democrats’ 2028 candidate.

-30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough, The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net

JUDGES MISS THE POINT IN ‘MANSON FAMILY’ PAROLE

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2023 OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

    “JUDGES MISS THE POINT IN ‘MANSON FAMILY’ PAROLE”

 

        Rarely have judges so widely missed the forest for the trees as in a late May decision by a panel of the state Second District Court of Appeal to overturn Gov. Gavin Newsom’s refusal of parole for a deadly former member of the notorious “Manson Family.”

 

        At issue is the freedom of Leslie Van Houten, a teenage member of the murderous Charles Manson gang when she helped in the 1969 murders of Los Angeles grocer Leno LaBianca and his wife Rosemary in their home, just one day after “family” members killed actress Sharon Tate and others in nearby Benedict Canyon.

 

        The three-judge panel held that Van Houten, now 73, no longer poses an “unreasonable risk of public safety,” essentially saying they believe she’s reformed after decades of “therapy, self help programming and reflection.”

 

        By a 2-1 margin, the judges overturned Newsom’s rejection of the state Parole Board’s recommendation to set Van Houten free.

 

        It is now incumbent upon Newsom to appeal this decision to the state Supreme Court.

 

        For the two judges in the majority here – Helen I. Bendix and Victoria Gerrard Chaney – badly missed the point.

 

        Imagine for a moment that their ruling prevails and Van Houten is on her own. She would instantly become one of the most sought-after potential guests in the history of talk shows. Hosts would want to put her through the paces of describing Manson Family life on the Spahn Movie Ranch in the Los Angeles district of Chatsworth, where scattered pieces of murdered stuntman Donald “Shorty” Shea were found eight years later.

 

        Even if parole authorities kept her off the air for awhile, hosts would eventually try to walk her through the drive to the LaBianca residence, query her on the racist rationale behind several Manson murders and the concept he called Helter Skelter. They would try to have Van Houten describe stabbing Rosemary LaBianca 14 times because – as Van Houten once said – she wasn’t sure the victim was really dead. They could also ask about slogans she scrawled on nearby walls using Rosemary’s blood.

 

        Then they’d likely let her talk about her claimed reform process.

 

        All this could eventually amount to “sowing the wind,” usually followed in the cliché by “reaping the whirlwind.” In an age of copycat crimes and repeated mass murders, Van Houten’s wide exposure could lead to just that kind of result from any public interview of her or other currently imprisoned Manson Family members.

 

        Parole officers could not ban such interviews forever. The sooner she’s out, the sooner they will occur.

 

        Fellow Mansonite Bruce Davis, who killed musician Gary Hinson and later helped carve up Shea, also wants parole and has been denied repeatedly by multiple governors. Charles “Tex” Watson, once Manson’s right-hand man and still in prison, is another who wants out.

 

        Their crimes, and Van Houten’s, were described this way by then-Gov. Jerry Brown when he denied Davis parole in 2016: "In rare circumstances, a murder is so heinous that it provides evidence of current dangerousness by itself. This is such a case."

 

        Brown believed the same when he also repeatedly reversed Parole Board decisions to free Van Houten, Watson and the late Susan Atkins, who – like Manson himself – died in prison.

 

 

        Newsom hasn’t spoken that way in his several reversals of recommended Manson-related paroles. Rather, he suggested Van Houten, for one, may not be as reformed as some think.

 

        In the current case, he noted inconsistencies between her recent statements and those she made soon after the killings. indicating “gaps in Ms. Van Houten’s insight or candor, or both.”

 

        The bottom line here is that the two judges wanting to set this killer free may believe she deserves mercy despite showing none to her victim. They may even be correct that she meets the letter of parole law.

 

        But they ignore the real danger here, which is the likelihood that others would seek equally lasting notoriety by attempting similar crimes if exposed to details of what Van Houten did. That probability, several governors have realized, far outweighs any public interest in seeing her freed.

       

    -30-

    Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net 

NO LIMIT TO STATE PARTIES’ MONEY LAUNDERING

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017, OR THEREAFTER


BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“NO LIMIT TO STATE PARTIES’ MONEY LAUNDERING”

          Just in case anyone wonders what the real issue was in the very close race between Eric Bauman and Kimberly Ellis over who would become the next chairperson of the California Democratic Party, it was money.

          No, not salary or other personal emoluments, although Bauman – the party’s longtime Los Angeles County leader – has received his share of payments from ballot initiative campaigns. This was really about who would control the purse strings of the nation’s most successful state party and thus decide who gets its many millions of laundered dollars in each election cycle.

          It’s all because the year-2000 Proposition 34 made party heads in California the state’s most powerful unpublicized political kingmakers, allowing huge contributions to party committees which then parcel funds out where they like. It’s a way for donors to circumvent campaign donation limits with identities partially concealed. This is money laundering, plain, simple and also legal.

          The current dicey system is now sure to continue at least another two years, too, as state legislators (about two-thirds of them Democrats) the other day killed a bill making gifts to political parties subject to the same limits imposed on donations to candidates.

          In 2014, for example, the state Democratic Party passed out $10.4 million, while also influencing where the party’s many county central committees funneled their millions. Republicans, meanwhile, doled out just a little more than half as much as Democrats, as billionaires, big unions and big business donors realize the GOP has little chance to retake control of state government anytime soon.

          The biggest recipients of party money that year included Democrat Luis Chavez, ranked No. 1 with $2.35 million in party money, who lost a tight Hanford/Fresno-area state Senate race to Republican Andy Vidak, the No. 5-ranked recipient of party money with $2.1 million. Over the years, the bigger-money recipients in close races have usually won.

          Yes, ideology also had a lot to do with the extremely close Bauman-Ellis contest, where establishment candidate Bauman eked out a 60-vote win over Richmond political organizer Ellis. (It’s sign of California’s times that Bauman, an openly gay man favoring gun controls, easy access to abortions and strong environmental protections, was considered the more conservative candidate.)

          This was essentially a re-run of last year’s Hillary Clinton-Bernard Sanders primary election contest, where the liberal feminist Clinton was not liberal enough for many Democrats. Ellis, a Sanders supporter, benefited from that faction’s strong turnouts at district meetings where many party convention delegates are chosen. Weeks after the state party convention, she still had not conceded the outcome of the convention vote.

          Bauman’s apparent win probably will see many more moderate Democrats get party backing and money than if Ellis had won. It means Sanders backers will at least have to bide their time before making another try at taking over the state party and being able to funnel party cash to ultra-liberals.

          But the Legislature’s refusal to clean up the current system is what really cries out for change. On the Republican side, for example, billionaire Charles Munger in 2014 gave $3.3 million to the party, with the ability to request privately where it would end up. This means there is no public record of who benefited from his largesse, while there would be if he’d given directly to candidates. Essentially, Munger and other big donors like the Service Employees International Union ($2.3 million), California Teachers Assn. ($676,000), Philip Morris USA and affiliates ($650,000) and PG&E Corp. ($526,000) can give to whoever they like without anyone holding the eventual winners’ feet to the fire over where they’re getting their funds and whether they later vote to benefit their benefactors.

          Among last year’s biggest donors were Indian casinos, utilities and healthcare companies, each interest having a huge stake in the makeup of the Legislature. As in 2014, there was no public accounting last year of where their money went.

          This disgraceful system is a major legacy of former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis, recalled in 2003 partly because of his own political fund-raising practices. Since Prop. 34 passed, one tally shows, the state Democratic Party has spent fully $401 million on candidates and campaigns.

          With that kind of money and commensurate influence at stake, it’s no wonder this spring’s contest to head that party was so hotly contested.  

     -30-       
Elias is author of the current book “The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government's Campaign to Squelch It,” now available in an updated third edition. His email address is tdelias@aol.com 

VOTERS WIN WITH TOP TWO PRIMARY

CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: FRIDAY, JUNE 20, 2014, OR THEREAFTER

BY THOMAS D. ELIAS

          “VOTERS WIN WITH TOP TWO PRIMARY”

      Results like those from this month’s primary cause detractors to call California’s four-year-old “top two” election system the “jungle primary” because it often features races with a dozen or more contestants and outcomes that can be completely unpredictable.

          For sure, that makes it a lot more fun both to vote and follow election returns – unless you are a prominent candidate or a boss of either major party.

          Focus on just one statewide race for a solid picture of what the top two system can do. This one came within a hair (and a recount might change things back) of absolutely assuring the Republican Party of one of California’s four leading political offices this fall, even though registered Democrats now outnumber Republicans by about 15 percent.

          That race pitted two established, well-funded Democratic candidates against two Republicans, with one more Democrat and a Green Party hopeful also in the field. Not as many prospects as in some other races, but still plenty to scramble some establishment eggs.

          For the 10.9 percent of the Election Day vote count won by virtually unknown Democrat Tammy D. Blair and Green Laura Wells knocked down the counts of former Democratic Assembly Speaker John Perez and state Board of Equalization member Betty Yee. And so, for much of Election Night night, it appeared Republicans Ashley Swearengin, the mayor of Fresno, and David Evans, a CPA and former mayor of tiny California City, would meet this fall with no Democratic opposition.

          In a state which has seen no statewide Republican officeholders for almost four years, that would have been remarkable.

          But Perez edged out Evans by a mere 2,436 votes, a 21.7 percent performance, when all the counting was done on Election Night, and appeared headed for a runoff with Swearengin (who herself had just 24.4 percent), pending the count of thousands of provisional and damaged ballots, not to mention a potential recall.

          Under the previous party primary system, there would have been little remarkable in those numbers – Swearengin would have been the GOP nominee and the Democratic winner would still be in the balance, but for sure a Democrat and a Republican would have faced off in the fall.

          If this kind of narrow race for an office whose occupant is the state’s chief check-writer doesn’t prove that every vote matters, it’s hard to see what could. Top two, then, will provide future motivation for two things: It will give voters more reason than ever to participate. And it will give parties reason to get organized well enough to avoid matchups between prominent party mates for the same office.

          There was no such organization in either party this time. The result is that in district after district, races will pit persons of the same parties in runoffs this fall. In runs for Congress alone, seven districts in all parts of the state will see Democrat vs. Democrat and Republican on Republican.

          In some of those contests, incumbents ran up large primary majorities, but still must run again in the fall, suggesting top two should be tweaked to make winning 50 percent of the primary vote sufficient for election. If that were the case now, Gov. Jerry Brown would already have a second term. Similarly, incumbent members of Congress like Xavier Becerra, Tom McClintock, Adam Schiff, Lucille Roybal-Allard and Mike Thompson must contest again in November, despite far outdistancing all who ran against them this spring.

          More interesting will be the same-party race pitting Republicans Tony Strickland and Steve Knight in a district stretching from Ventura County to the High Desert portion of Los Angeles County, and another matching first-term Democrat Eric Swalwell and state Senate majority leader Ellen Corbett in the East Bay suburbs of San Francisco. Silicon Valley gets a ballyhooed intraparty race between longtime incumbent Democrat Mike Honda and the well-funded Indian-American Ro Khanna. Members of the minority party in each of those districts can now decide the fall outcomes, exactly what top two intended.

          This primary also debunked the notion that top two allows only major party candidates onto runoffs. Incumbents Schiff and Thompson both face independents.

          It’s all different than after any previous California primary, with incumbents less secure than before, and voters with the power they sought when they created top two.

         

  -30-
     Email Thomas Elias at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It," is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, go to www.californiafocus.net