I’m glad the Chron took on the big money going into the state Senate race, and got it ahead of me (while I was distracted trying to correct Scott Wiener’s misleading Bay Guardian mailer).
And it’s a fine story in terms of accuracy and detail, and a nice chart.
But I think there’s a bit of a false equivalency here.
Scott Wiener is getting a vast amount of money from a wide range of players who have interests in San Francisco and Sacramento, and pretty much represent all the of the bad guys in politics.
Jane Kim is getting support from the soda industry, which opposes Prop. V. Kim opposes it too, and (wrongly, in my opinion, but at least consistently) has always opposed the idea of taxing soda because she says it’s regressive.
But the money going to slate cards supporting her is far, far less, and only from one source, than Wiener is getting from pretty much everyone we don’t want deciding who our next state Senator is.
It’s hard to track since these days, big interests run their money through several different committees to try to launder it so the voters don’t know who is paying for what.
But with a little digging, you can find some trails.
In the case of Kim, the money is pretty simple. It’s public-employee unions, who traditionally support progressive candidates, and the soda money.
In the case of Wiener, it’s much bigger.
There was a time when Equality California was a fairly modest Political Action Committee that raised a little money and gave a little money to LGBT candidates and worked on issues like same-sex marriage.
But this race has turned EQCA into a giant slush fund, a place for some truly nasty interests to launder money that winds up going to support Wiener.
The Chron focused on Doris Fisher, the widow of GAP founder (and prominent Republican) Don Fisher, who gave $3.35 million to the California Charter Schools Association, which then funneled $420,000 to EQCA.
Fisher gives a lot of money to some pretty awful causes, including the campaign of the hard-rightwing Sam Brownback of Kansas, the New Republican Majority Fund, Mike DeWine, Rudy Giuliani, Frank Murkowski, and Chuck Grassley. She’s a GOP stalwart, who now apparently is sending money to Wiener.
Kim was never a big charter school fan when she was on the School Board. But there’s more than charters at issue here – Fisher supports bad right-wing candidates and causes, people who have been awful on LGBT rights (among other things). And her money is going to Wiener.
But let’s look at what’s going into the EQCA PAC, which is spending more than $800,000 (to date) promoting Wiener.
The Chron didn’t get into any detail on the real-estate money going into that PAC, but it’s particularly relevant since one of the biggest issues in the state Legislature is the Ellis Act. That state law allows landlords to evict all their tenants for no reason. Incumbent Senator Mark Leno (who has endorsed Wiener) made a great effort to modify the law, but the landlord-friendly Legislature failed to pass it.
The biggest opponents of Ellis Act reform were the California Association of Realtors and the California Apartment Association.
The Realtors put $120,000 into the ECQA PAC. The Apartment Association put up $180,000. That money is going to help elect Scott Wiener.
There’s also, oddly, a lot of money from the dentists, who seem to like Wiener. Not sure why, but I can tell you from past experience that the dentists in CA are a pretty conservative group.
There’s money going to support Wiener from Chevron ($100K), from the cops, and from Big Pharma.
So: I’m not a big fan of the soda industry, and bad money is bad money – but let’s have a little perspective here. On the Bad Money Scale – and on the question of real-estate money, which is perhaps the biggest issue in the race – there’s really no comparison.
BTW, there are LGBT activists in SF who are really unhappy about EQCA. Here’s a Facebook post from our friend Tommi Avicolli Mecca:
I am outraged that your organization is exploiting the homeless issue, an issue all too real to a lot of LGBT people, to elect Scott Wiener to the state senate. It’s especially offensive since your organization has done NOTHING to help the poor and the homeless, the most vulnerable among us.
EQCA did nothing when reports came out that up to 40% of homeless youth are queer or trans, or when the city’s homeless count showed that 29% of the homeless identify as LGBT. Or when two Williams Institute studies revealed that our community is as poor as, and in some instances poorer than, other communities. Had those reports been about the LGBT middle class, I’m sure EQCA would have beat down the doors of politicians to demand that something be done.
Your organization has not spoken out against sit/lie, which continues to hurt LGBT homeless individuals, making it more difficult for them to find housing. Are you even aware that a previous incarnation of that law was used against gay men in the Castro in the 70s? Harvey Milk opposed sit/lie. I guess that part of his legacy isn’t important to EQCA.
 Do you know that your candidate, Scott Wiener, is co-sponsoring two mean-spirited, anti-homeless measures (props Q&R) on the November ballot that will make life more difficult for homeless queer and trans people and that will result in them being pushed from one neighborhood to another, as they are now?
Wiener has a long history of being anti-homeless. In addition to backing sit/lie, he pushed to close the parks at night to keep out the homeless, like queer and trans folks who find them safer than the city’s shelters, which a report from the Coalition on Homeless showed are not safe for our community. He calls for housing for the middle class, but has not worked to build a single unit of affordable housing in the Castro for the homeless. The only affordable housing coming online in his district (at 55 Laguna) is due to the efforts of Open House and a community coalition spearheaded by Brian Basinger and myself.
EQCA, where is the equality for homeless queer and trans people?
I knew I didn’t like Wiener from what I saw during his original campaign for Board of Sups.
First off, he had the whole establishment endorsing him. People (and organizations) don’t get involved in trying to elect someone if they don’t share the same values (aka won’t personally benefit or hope to benefit).
Secondly, I was wary about his name and him running for the Castro BoS seat. I told myself, he better not use that as some sort of cheesy slogan to get votes. And, sure enough, what happened? The night of the election his campaigners were at Castro and Market, above the MUNI underground exit chanting, “Come on, this is the Castro! We know you want Wiener!” Once I saw and heard that happening for myself, I was convinced he would have no qualms about using our community to advance his career and his agenda.
He did do one really awesome thing, I have to admit. Full disclosure. He held the first ever fundraiser out of a Supervisor’s office (and Harvey Milk’s old office, no less) and it benefited The Sisters. I was, and am, certainly grateful for that, but I was still skeptical of his motives.
Then, one of the first legislations he got passed was to ban nudity in San Francisco.
I’d had no idea people could legally walk around naked before that. And, I was very unlikely to ever take advantage of its legality, but taking the option away from me left me feeling betrayed and stigmatized. We weren’t born wearing clothes, you know. They are a invention of humanity. Any perceived morality (or lack there of) around leaving the house sans-clothing is just an artificial creation of the human imagination and is subject to evolution, just like everything else. How could it be wrong to not wear clothes? I mean God, if you believe in that sort of thing, didn’t bother clothing us before our birth and (so-called) Adam and Eve weren’t “sinners” because they walked around naked. It was only after they’d fucked up that people started wearing clothes, allegedly. And, by the way, banning nudity implies that people’s bodies are bad, ugly, and/or immoral and that produces shame and stigma, two things humanity can live much better without.
Then, when Wiener went on a truly hate-filled FB rant against the homeless and it turned out he inadvertantly demonized and embarassed one of his own constituents and FB friends who was being Ellis Acted I was tickled because hundreds of people got to see him for what he really is. But then he ran in a state-wide election and nonlocals had no idea.
Wiener sparsely sprinkles in worthy causes amongst his ocean of wrongness and the bad usually outweighs the good when compared side-by-side. But that, of course, is purely my opinion. And, like the Buddha advised, never take anybody’s word for it! Investigate for yourself and draw your own conclusions.
WE NEED MONEY OUT OF POLITICS—NOW!!!
Senator Wiener yes preference of gentrifying politicians,Scott abuse trust. Using LGBTQ defeated fair housing looking next election of mayoral office battle chosen candidates. Whom? London Breed,Jane Kim,Bevan Dufty and David Chui whom succeed Ed Lee? You decide whom,representing needs of residents not “cartels” I favor ACRE,NAIOP and BOMA S.F help Scott win the senate race. Scott for governorship soon never stopped Ellis act evictions district 8 creep! LGBTQ only identity your impartial politicians using others for self glory!
Dentists in California are a pretty conservative group? If you haven’t got anything relevant to say, don’t say anything at all. I appreciate your position on the candidates and the work you have done tracking down the source of Wiener’s funding, but writing a line like that is just plain reactionary. Unworthy of a journalist with your chops.
Wiener’s the one holding press conferences about ethics investigations into campaign funds.
I think they are both far too entrenched in special money interests especially considering the time they’ve spent in their political careers.
He’s rah-rah for Hillary, and firmly Democrat, while taking Conway money.
Seen by “some?” Some, being those people who have no idea what a Marxist really is.
That neither will be a fighter for progressive issues may speak well for both of them, but I think Kim is seen by some as Marxist which may hurt her in the Citywide plus some of San Mateo election.
I have noticed many are going out of their way to paint Wiener as a conservative. Since SF citywide and parts of San Mateo are not the same District 5 or 9, that may actually help Wiener. The seems to be anti liberal movement in most of the world that has not taken effect in SF yet, but it is on the way.
I bet the dentists are taking sides based on support or opposition to the soda tax. Dentists hate soda.
Is PG&E giving money to both, or just Kim? The former would be bad enough -if PG&E is fine with both, it indicates that neither will really be a fighter for progressive issues. If they’re giving money to Kim preferentially, that’s an even worse signal.
Thanks for drawing attention to the California Charter Schools Association. Charter schools are inherently elite and should be abolished in San Francisco.
They steal money from traditional schools. I’m glad that Kim is not a supporter.
Honestly, Tim, do you really think there’s going to be that much difference between Kim and Weiner in Sacramento? Neither is going to be much of a fighter for progressive issues, both will suck up to cops, and both will be good on budgets. In short, they’ll be sort of like Leno, who the progressive establishment seems to adore even though he spits in their face time and time again, and has never been much of a fighter for anything other than LGBT issues (which incidentally both will be just fine on). Kim might endorse local progressives once in a while, whereas Weiner, like his buddy Leno, will never endorse a progressive where a conserva-Dem has a shot of winning. Other than that, there will be little air between them in Sacramento.
In San Francisco, it’s a different story. They answer to different pet constituencies in San Francisco. But in Sacramento, both will be answering to the same constituencies of Tech, Unions, Developers, and Cops. Because that’s who has the campaign cash. Perhaps that’s a reason for keeping Kim in San Francisco where she can actually do some good.
I will say this much… at least she opposes stupid regressive soda taxes! That’s a positive.
This is absolute bollocks. The best you can do is quote Tommi Avicolli Mecca whose advice to an elderly tenant is unethical and near criminal. No mention of PGE money going to Kim? Also you point out Weiners money is from many sources that is surely better than one or two bad sources like Kim. Finally the disingenuous tie of Weiner to the GOP this all coming from a Non-Profit set up to avoid taxes and paying a fair share, shame on you