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

[Cal Broomhead]

I don't think they used ratepayer money, the CPUC would not allow that. 
But the shareholders have pretty deep pockets, so it would come out of
their corporate marketing budget, which is probably plenty big.  I wonder
if they get to count it as a business expense under their Federal and State
tax filings?  Would be good to discuss with a tax attorney.  Know any?


Cal Broomhead and Kathleen Ribeiro
broomhead at igc.org



> [Original Message]
> From: Eric Brooks <brookse32 at aim.com>
> Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability at sfgreens.org>;
Green Active list <active at sfgreens.org>
> Date: 11/5/2008 6:18:43 PM
> Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We
HaveAlready Won!
>
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Sustainability mailing list
> Sustainability at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability