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@igc.org

[Original Message] From: Eric Brooks <brookse32@aim.com> Cc: GPSF Sustainability Working Group <sustainability@sfgreens.org>; Green Active list <active@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@hotmail.com> 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

...

...

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

_______________________________________________ Sustainability mailing list Sustainability@sfgreens.org https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainability