Hi all, See the forwarded note below for more info, tips and the email for Examiner editorials... From: Jeremy Pollock Subject: Re: responding to Examiner? Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 12:23:34 -0700 (PDT) I just did a little poking around. Here's a good summary of why Nathan Nayman and his Committee on Jobs suck so hard: http://www.sfbg.com/39/31/news_jobs.html I also found that PG&E gave the Committee on Jobs Government Reform Fund $25K in both 2005 and 2006. There's also a number of smaller donations going back to 1999. You can see for yourself by searching here: http://mission.sfgov.org/cfsearch/CommByIDS.aspx Put in these state IDs: 982683 and 990831 and then look for PG&E in the "Name" field. Here's the letter I just sent to the Examiner. Feel free to borrow or critique it as you see fit. Send letters to sfeditor@examiner.com and they say that letters under 150 words are more likely to be published. This is 141 words: I'm disappointed that Nathan Nayman failed to disclose the funding his organization has received from PG&E in his editorial on Community Choice Aggregation. In the last two years, Nayman’s Committee on Jobs has received $50,000 from PG&E. Maybe this explains why he also failed to mention that the voters already authorized bonds for renewable energy when they approved Prop H in 2001. Last year San Francisco reaffirmed its commitment to renewable energy by overwhelmingly supporting Prop 87, the tax on oil companies. Despite PG&E's ratepayer-funded "Let's Green This City" PR campaign, PG&E uses only 2% wind power and 0% solar. Nayman complains that renewable energy is more expensive. That is debatable, but by eliminating the need for corporate profits, lobbyists, and PR campaigns, Community Choice Aggregation will meet or beat PG&E's rates while also meeting San Francisco's demand for renewable energy. - Jeremy