<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I'm not sure that PG&E is not culpable for violating election laws.
But it's definitely a judgment call, and even if we won, what's another
big fine to them when they just spent $12 million against us.<br>
<br>
I'd rather, as you suggest, codify new law that really has teeth and
can keep them from pulling this again.<br>
<br>
Cal Broomhead wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:380-220081121144658578@igc.org" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It appears you have already discussed whether PG&E was in violation of
campaign laws or not, and that the answer was 'not'. I agree that we need
a stronger campaign financing law to stop this crap. Then, before the
election, an injunction against them to prevent them from doing anything
during the election...and then pay the fine afterwards...which they see as
just part of the cost of doing business or the campaign.
Cal Broomhead
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:broomhead@igc.org">broomhead@igc.org</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">[Original Message]
From: Joe Lynn <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com"><joelynn114@hotmail.com></a>
To: David Fairley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pamndave@speakeasy.net"><pamndave@speakeasy.net></a>; Eric Brooks
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com"><brookse32@aim.com></a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org"><sustainability@sfgreens.org></a>;
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Green Active list <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:active@sfgreens.org"><active@sfgreens.org></a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Date: 11/7/2008 11:24:12 AM
Subject: Re: [Sustain] [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->HaveAlready Won!
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I should have said that it has come to stand for the principle of
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->corporate
personhood.
On 11/7/08 7:31 AM, "David Fairley" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pamndave@speakeasy.net"><pamndave@speakeasy.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In the Southern Pacific case, the Supreme Court did not set a precedent
that ruled corporations are persons. There's a short Wikipedia article on
this:
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County_v._Southern_Pacific_Railroad</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Here's what it says:
'Although the question of whether corporations were persons within the
meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment had been argued in the lower courts
and briefed for the Supreme Court, the Court did not base its decision on
this issue. However, before oral argument took place, Chief Justice
Morrison R. Waite announced: "The court does not wish to hear argument on
the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the
Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these
corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." This quotation was
printed by the court reporter in the syllabus and case history above the
opinion, but was not in the opinion itself. As such, it did not have any
legal precedential value. Nonetheless, the persuasive value of Waite's
essentially ultra vires statement did influence later courts, becoming
part of American corporate law without ever actually being enacted by
statute or formal judicial decision.'
On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 22:11:00 -0800, Joe Lynn <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com"><joelynn114@hotmail.com></a>
wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">I©öve mentioned the resonance between the Dred Scott decision and the
Southern Pacific case, which granted to corporations the personal rights
guaranteed by the Constitution. In his debates with Sen. Douglass,
Lincoln
addressed the role of the public in confronting the Dred Scott
decision. He
believed the Constitution invested the other branches of government a
role
in challenging antidemocratic Supreme Court decisionson questions
involving
personhood. Perhaps a challenge to Southern Pacific would draw on his
savvy lawyering. There©ös plenty of recent precedent with right wing
movements attempting to overrule a Supreme Court decision.
On 11/6/08 8:31 PM, "Eric Brooks" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com"><brookse32@aim.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">It's already happened in individual communities. That's the whole
point. To
challenge corporate personhood on the local level because states and
the Feds
won't do it..
Rita Goldberger wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Ending corporate personhood is one of Ralph Nader's
chief proposals. I don't think it can be done on a local
or even state level.? I think it requires a constitutional
amendment on the national level.? On a local level,
however, we could pass a non-binding resolution
calling on Congress and the Senate to pass such an
amendment.
?
Rita Goldberger
--- On Thu, 11/6/08, Susan King <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:funking@mindspring.com"><funking@mindspring.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:funking@mindspring.com"><mailto:funking@mindspring.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">From: Susan King <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:funking@mindspring.com"><funking@mindspring.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:funking@mindspring.com"><mailto:funking@mindspring.com></a>
Subject: Re: [SFGP-A] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have
Already
Won!
To: "Joe Lynn" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com"><joelynn114@hotmail.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com"><mailto:joelynn114@hotmail.com></a>
Cc: "GPSF Sustainability Working Group" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org"><sustainability@sfgreens.org></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org"><mailto:sustainability@sfgreens.org></a> , "Green Active list"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:active@sfgreens.org"><active@sfgreens.org></a> <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:active@sfgreens.org"><mailto:active@sfgreens.org></a>
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2008, 9:03 AM
I'm interested in taking part of this discussion. Let me know if
something
is set up for further discussion/action.
peace
susan
On Nov 5, 2008, at 1:34 PM, Joe Lynn wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case
before the
Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. ?I©öve 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
Franklin©ös principles of a public library. ?In both cases, the
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->public
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
Tuesday©ös Chronicle relating Ethics decision to give major donors
($10,000
or more) a free ride on disclosures.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->?<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">TL
&hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!----><<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.D</a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">TL
&hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000>
On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com"><brookse32@aim.com></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com"><brookse32@aim.com></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:brookse32@aim.com"><mailto:brookse32@aim.com></a> ?wrote:
??
?
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html">http://our-city.org/campaigns/communitychoice.html</a>
and
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://communitychoiceenergy.org/">http://communitychoiceenergy.org/</a>
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
????
?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
??
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""> _______________________________________________
San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
San Francisco Green Party Active Members List
To unsubscribe or edit your options, go here:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/active</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
_______________________________________________
Sustainability mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Sustainability@sfgreens.org">Sustainability@sfgreens.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability">https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"I am not a liberator. Liberators do not exist. The people liberate themselves." – Che Guevara</pre>
</body>
</html>