[Sustain] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won!
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
Two priorities strike me in the development of a Next Steps Strategy: One is to establish a legislative agenda that presents our party's priorities for the next session of Congress; The other is to establish a focused state electoral strategy for 2010 that includes targeted campaigns for victory. To begin this process states should submit summaries of the most recent election campaigns so that the discussion can be zeroed in. California will be having a meeting in January to discuss a state electoral strategy in January. The issue of public infrastructure has been raised in the campaign and inevitably raises issues of energy transition. See below for a plan posted prior that focuses on working models of renewable energy. As a foreign policy proposal there should include a mapped proposal for withdrawal and recognition of Kurdistan and Palestine that includes diplomatic status, foreign aid and economic assistance and implementation of Kirkuk Referendum in the Kurdish Autonomous Region. As a social justice program there should be reconstruction of brownfield urban areas using green models for local integration of economies of scale. The energy transition agenda includes the following: A. Establish the highest percentages for renewable energy production and alternative transportation systems that require the introduction of alternative energies in a twenty year period; http://www.earth-policy.org/Books/PlanB_contents.htm B. Economic compensation packages that address workers impacted by the transition http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/studies_cleanenergyandjobs ; C. Monitoring systems to evaluate the changes in greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/ghg_home_e.cfm ; D. Incentives for the development of alternatives to petroleum-based products http://www.greenbiz.com/toolbox/essentials_third.cfm?LinkAdvID=4151 ; "Petroleum is also the raw material for many chemical products, including solvents, fertilizers, pesticides, and plastics; the 16% not used for energy production is converted into these other materials." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum E. Reduction in the production of single-user modes of transportation http://www.worldwatch.org/node/808 , increase in public investment in mass transit operated with renewable energy http://lrta.info/Facts/facts130.html ; F. Transition of investment of public utility companies in solar and wind technology, decreasing proportion of energy provided by coal, nuclear and oil http://www.energybulletin.net/5000.html ; G. Establishment of stakeholder boards for oversight and review http://maineghg.raabassociates.org/member.asp?sort=other , Public Utilities Commissions elected by energy users and represented by qualified advocates including environmental, residential, municipal, and rural; H. Congressional budgetary commitments through carbon taxes http://www.carbontax.org/ that transition from military expenditures to energy conversion research and development, implementing Swenson's Law :" To avoid deprivation resulting from the exhaustion of non-renewable resources, humanity must employ conservation and renewable resource substitutes sufficient to match depletion." http://www.hubbertpeak.com/swenson/ I. Establishment of Green Building codes; http://www.smartcommunities.ncat.org/buildings/gbcodtoc.shtml J. Revamping of commercial railroad system and increasing mileage of track- increase requirement for piggy-backing of trailers across states; http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2229 Martin ZehrGPSF
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 11:42:44 -0800> From: brookse32@aim.com> To: active@sfgreens.org; sustainability@sfgreens.org> Subject: [Sustain] Prop H: Regardless Of The Final Vote We Have Already Won!> > 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@sfgreens.org> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability
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@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
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@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
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@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@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@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 understand all of that, but there are communities that have defied the previous court rulings and passed measures outlawing corporate 'personhood' and 'rights' within their boundaries. They have used such ordinances to block factory pig farms and other such nonsense. See: http://celdf.org/ Joe Lynn wrote:
Corporate personhood is enshrined in the Southern Pacific case before the Supreme Court circa 1870-1880. I've 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's 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 Tuesday's 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... <http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/04/ED2813T8OR.DTL&hw=luby&sn=001&sc=1000>
On 11/5/08 12:41 PM, "Eric Brooks" <brookse32@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@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@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
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@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@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@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@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
-- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
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@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@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@aim.com> <mailto:brookse32@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
participants (4)
-
David Fairley -
Eric Brooks -
Joe Lynn -
Martin Zehr