[Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won!

[Eric Brooks]

That's an interesting approach. Might just work as a good fall back if 
outright bans don't fly.

David Fairley wrote:
> Isn't PG&E a "public utility", and a legally permitted monopoly? Even 
> if we couldn't stop all corporations from making political 
> contributions, we might be able to pass more limited legislation that 
> public utilities from backing or opposing propositions. I mean, 
> there's something egregious about getting screwed with rate money that 
> we are forced to pay. Aren't there limitations on using government 
> funds to support or oppose a proposition? If you're Mayor Newsom, you 
> can't use public $ for mailers backing Prop J or your other pet 
> propositions, right? Why should the CEO of PG&E use what are basically 
> public funds for political gain?
>
> David
>
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 13:34:32 -0800, Joe Lynn <joelynn114 at hotmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case before 
>> the
>> Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. I¹ve always seen the case as the flip 
>> side
>> of the Dred Scott decision. In the Southern Pacific case the rights of a
>> person were given to propert. In the Dred Scott case the rights of a 
>> person
>> were denied to a person because he was property. That said, the Southern
>> Pacific case blocks reform along these lines, at least with a 
>> Roberts/Alito
>> Suspreme Court.
>>
>> I am convinced that public financing is the only remedy that makes 
>> sense.
>> It may be possible to set up a public finance program to wage 
>> ballot-measure
>> campaigns. Public finance is an extension of Benjamin Franklin¹s 
>> principles
>> of a public library. In both cases, the public treasury may be used for
>> ideas not embraced by the majority under the principle that 
>> dissemination of
>> ideas to a free-thinking people is critical to democracy. There are a 
>> lot
>> of kinks to work out for such a program, but a reactionary Court has 
>> ruled
>> that regulation of money entails regulation of speech. This raises a
>> profound obstacle to reform efforts. In addition, administration of
>> regulatory schemes presumes administrators committed to the political
>> philosophy that gives rise to the regulation. As we have seen in San
>> Francisco, that presents an even more fundamental practical problem for
>> reformers. Along these lines, Oliver Luby, the Campaign Fines Officer at
>> the SF Ethics Commission, has an op-ed piece in Tuesday¹s Chronicle 
>> relating
>> Ethics decision to give major donors ($10,000 or more) a free ride on
>> disclosures.
>> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.DTL&h 
>>
>> w=luby&sn=001&sc=1000
>>
>>
>> On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It would be a gutsy and very difficult move, but I'm thinking we 
>>> might launch
>>> a campaign as CELDF has in smaller towns to pass a Charter amendment 
>>> striking
>>> down corporate 'personhood' in San Francisco County.
>>>
>>> On a more practical and doable level, we need to sit down with some 
>>> good
>>> attorney's and pass a Board ordinance with the strongest limits 
>>> possible on
>>> independent and corporate election expenditure behavior that we can 
>>> come up
>>> with. It will take some deep boiler room consensus meetings to make 
>>> it happen.
>>>
>>> Joe Lynn wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'd be very interested to hear your ideas on how to control PG&E type
>>>> spending on a ballot measure initiative. Particularly when the Supreme
>>>> Court is controlled by Roberts/Alito style thinking.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/5/08 11:42 AM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32 at aim.com>
>>>> <mailto:brookse32 at aim.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remember all, that though the vote itself was lost, we have 
>>>>> already won
>>>>>
>>>>> We have forced PG&E to spend more money than has -ever- been spent 
>>>>> on a
>>>>> San Francisco campaign. And, after both Lennar corporation's $7 
>>>>> million
>>>>> ballot deception to force toxic gentrification on the Southeast 
>>>>> side in
>>>>> the last election, and now PG&E's even more outrageous moves to 
>>>>> buy this
>>>>> election at an even higher (ludicrous) price, it is a -very- good bet
>>>>> that we will easily pass a strong corporate and independent 
>>>>> expenditure
>>>>> campaign finance reform measure in the next year.
>>>>>
>>>>> And we have now built a strong and angry coalition of progressives 
>>>>> and
>>>>> Supervisors who are -pissed- at PG&E.
>>>>>
>>>>> PG&E's days are numbered.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we have already won ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> But most importantly, the Community Choice renewable energy 
>>>>> project (the
>>>>> first 51% referred to in Prop H) is already moving forward 
>>>>> regardless of
>>>>> Prop H and PG&E is going to attack it as well. Our campaign has 
>>>>> helped
>>>>> strongly reveal all of the tactics that PG&E will use to attack
>>>>> Community Choice, and we will now be ready for them. And those 
>>>>> attacks
>>>>> will carry much less weight, both because Community Choice is much 
>>>>> less
>>>>> vulnerable to them in the way it is worded, because State law 
>>>>> actually
>>>>> forbids PG&E from attacking Community Choice, and because the 
>>>>> angry core
>>>>> of organizers that PG&E has just attacked on Prop H, are now 
>>>>> primed and
>>>>> ready to kick PG&E's ass on a much more level playing field with
>>>>> Community Choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will need all of you to help us win the Community Choice fight; 
>>>>> which
>>>>> will -absolutely- bring us that 100% clean energy by 2040 
>>>>> regardless of
>>>>> last night's outcome. Prop H simply would have made it easier too 
>>>>> get there.
>>>>>
>>>>> To see why Community Choice is so important and why it will need your
>>>>> help, go to:
>>>>> http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html
>>>>> and
>>>>> http://communitychoiceenergy.org/
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that Community Choice has already passed as law, and it is now
>>>>> going out for bids to contractors. The key fight will be to get
>>>>> customers to stick with Community Choice and not opt out for PG&E 
>>>>> over
>>>>> the next year. This is a fight that we definitely can win, if we 
>>>>> stay on
>>>>> it with a sharp focus.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we win this fight San Francisco -will- go 100% renewable and soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note also that there are two more appointments to be made to the SF
>>>>> Public Utilities Commission (which is overseeing Community Choice) 
>>>>> and
>>>>> the Supes now have the power to leverage those appointments and make
>>>>> sure that they will support Community Choice; and also support 
>>>>> closing
>>>>> down the city's remaining polluting power plants.
>>>>>
>>>>> So we have actually won our first battle by getting fully up in 
>>>>> PG&E's
>>>>> face! and forcing its bullshit out in to the light of day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now let's win the war for Community Choice which will kick PG&E 
>>>>> the hell
>>>>> out of the City, and lead the world to save the planet.
>>>>>
>>>>> peace
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric Brooks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

-- 
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." -- Che Guevara