The Field Poll is at it again.

We have talked on this site before about how the way that the Field Poll determines the folks that they survey is skewed to produce a more left-of-center response than other surveys…

Today, Field released numbers showing that Proposition 8 – the initiative to protect marriage – is gaining among likely voters. The Poll also shows that advocates of same-sex marriage are losing ground, down from 54% according to the Field Poll on May 28.

But while the Field Poll shows gains for Proposition 8, it continues to understate the support to uphold the definition of marriage.

“The Field Poll is an outlier among all of the publicly published polling on this initiative,” said Frank Schubert, Campaign Manager for Proposition 8. “The figures appear to be understated by a minimum of 10 percent.”

This isn’t the first time the Field Poll has underestimated support for the issue.

During Proposition 22 in the year 2000, the Field Poll consistently reported support to uphold marriage at around 50%, when in fact the measure won with a substantial 61% of votes at the ballot box on Election Day.

FR… Read More

Oh boy. This the second time in just a couple of weeks that I have agreed with something said by lame-duck Senate President Pro-Tem Don Perata. The first time we agreed was when he said that we need to resolve the state budget issue before we turn our sights to the water crisis and a massive bond measure proposed by Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Feinstein.

It’s being reported over on the SacBee’s Capitol Alert website (registration required) that Perata says the he is opposed to borrowing more money in order to deal with the budget crisis. I couldn’t agree more with that particular sentiment. Now we have a huge chasm of disagreement from there. Perata doesn’t want borrowing, he wants a massive increase in taxes on Californians to allow for a permanently bigger and fatter state government. I, on the other hand, want to see real and deep cuts to government agencies and programs, rolling back the unprecidented growth in California government over the past few years.

If I end up agreeing with Perata any more, we may have to invite him to blog for… Read More

I’ve been meaning to add a word here on the decision by the California Supreme Court rejecting, by a narrow, 4-3 vote,a pre-election challenge to the Marriage Amendment on this November’s ballot. Readers will recall that I predicted on June 23 that the Courts would allow the measure to go to the ballot. I said "(w)hile some readers may be disappointed in the Court’s decision earlier over-ruling the ban on same-sex marriages in California, this lawyer predicts the Court will not take the marriage amendment initiative off the November ballot before a vote — at least not yet."

My prediction was based on the strong deference California courts must give to the validity of ballot measures to qualify for the ballot.The right to initiative is a fundamental constitutional right in California.

Now, supporters of the Marriage Amendment need to kick into gear and show the Los Angeles Times and their other liberal opponents thatthe double-digit lead for this measure in the polls is not the "smallmajority" the Times would like it to be.… Read More

I couldn’t believe it. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis are worried about the impartiality of our court system. They testified recently in front of the Steering Committee of the Statewide Commission for Impartial Courts.

The Committee Chair Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin is concerned that ‘unfair political attacks” on the courts are undermining our democracy.

All three need to look in the mirror before worrying about the courts. Pete Wilson was clear that he would appoint law and order type judges.

Nothing wrong with that?

Gray Davis took it a little further. He actually told a bunch of Governor’s that this:

"They are not there to be independent agents…They are there to reflect the sentiments that I expressed during the campaign.”

If they arrive at a conclusion that differs from the governor, he said, "They shouldn’t be a judge. They should resign."

Then his administration had a pro-abortion, pro-death penalty litmus test for judicial nominees.

Nothing wrong with that?

Judge Chin when first appointed to the bench immediately… Read More

We have spent a considerable amount of electronic ink on this page criticizing California Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis (pictured) for embracing the "culture of big spending" that we believe played a large role in the eventual collapse of Congressional Republicans into minority status. Lewis, who served as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and now serves as the top Republican, has a very unsavory attititude about even the most egregious pork earmarks dished up on Capitol Hill — I’ll vote for yours if you vote for mine. That, combined with a rather imperious attitude when in comes to the primacy of "Appropriators" as the dominant class in Congress, make him the kind of Republican that is indistinguishable, most of the time, from a Democrat. (Check out this startling CNN video on Lewis). … Read More

We have spent a considerable amount of electronic ink on this page criticizing California Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis (pictured) for embracing the "culture of big spending" that we believe played a large role in the eventual collapse of Congressional Republicans into minority status. Lewis, who served as Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and now serves as the top Republican, has a very unsavory attititude about even the most egregious pork earmarks dished up on Capitol Hill — I’ll vote for yours if you vote for mine. That, combined with a rather imperious attitude when in comes to the primacy of "Appropriators" as the dominant class in Congress, make him the kind of Republican that is indistinguishable, most of the time, from a Democrat. (Check out this startling CNN video on Lewis). … Read More

Today, I alongside Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) announced that we will actively oppose and challenge any attempt to earmark more federal dollars to Chairman Charlie Rangel’s ‘Monument to Me’.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Chairman Rangel has secured a total of three earmarks for the City College of New York’s proposed Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service, totaling close to $3 million.

Last year I offered an amendment to strike the largest earmark worth $1.95 million for the Charles B. Rangel School Center for Public Service. 316 members voted to allow this earmark to stand. I am interested to see, in the current anti-earmark climate how many of my colleagues will continue to side with this egregious use of taxpayer dollars.

It also should be known that Chairman Rangel has been soliciting donations throughout the business community, touting his status as Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, which has broad jurisdiction over tax policy, trade, Social Security and Medicare.… Read More

There are a few very good political treasurers in CA. I work with Dana Reed and Lysa Ray and John Ramirez with various clients. But my treasurer is Betty Presley and she sends email updates every time a major deadline is approaching or with any big updates in campaign finance law.

I thought this one was interesting enough to post since so many good people get into trouble with the nuances of campaign finance restrictions. (Full document attached in .pdf format below).

Federal law limits contributions to party organizations to just over $100,000 per contributor. This is a terribly stupid law. It not only restricts political speech, but it also forces political dollars into the shadows of 527s and other independent efforts not tracked as well as direct political contributions.

Some other fun facts courtesy of Betty Presley:

I. $2,300 to a candidate committee per election. II. $5,000 per year to a non-candidate controlled Federal PAC. III. $10,000 per year in each state to all state, district, and local political… Read More