Hasta La Gadget!

Are you following the Democrat versus Democrat California State Senate election in District 26, Ben Allen vs. Sandra Fluke? If so, then you probably read recent press about Bill Bloomfield’s more than $1 million spent to support Ben Allen’s candidacy. These recent articles underscore much larger issues that have little to do with the actual political caliber of Ben or Sandra as representatives of this district. Instead these articles address the greater need for campaign finance reform.

I am a resident of Senate District 26. I, along with Ben Allen, Sandra Fluke, and Seth Stodder, was one of the eight candidates in the primary election for this race. My prior Huffington Post piece explores the roles of financial and political capital and some of the key complications with campaign finance. Ben and Sandra emerged as the first and second place vote-getters after the primary. After careful deliberation, I chose to endorse Ben for State Senate. I believed then, as I do now, that he is genuinely concerned with the current and historical problems of the hard-working families in our District; he shares my values, my connection to California, and my vision for the future. I wanted to post this piece to disclose the complexities of campaign finance and show how level the playing field actually is between these two candidates.

How Is a Campaign Funded?

Generally, political campaigns can be funded directly by a candidate’s personal contribution(s), individual donors, or special interest groups. Independent expenditures (IEs) can also be made by a third-party who is not permitted to coordinate the spending with the campaign.

What Are the Roles of Name ID and Personal Wealth?

In order for people to vote for you, they need to know who you are and why you are running for office. Money is needed to pay for literature and staff to contact voters and tell them your story. A candidate can choose to limit the influence of personal wealth when she/he accepts a voluntary expenditure limit at the time of filing nomination documents to run for office (see Section 1, Chapter 4 of the Los Angeles Country Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk Candidate Handbook & Resource Guide). According to government-issued voter guides, Ben Allen accepted the limit; Sandra Fluke did not.

Regarding actual contributions to their campaigns according to the California Secretary of State, Ben contributed $50,000 as a loan to his campaign early in the primary. Sandra has contributed almost three times as much in loans, monetary, and non-monetary contributions as recently as mid-October.

At an October 12th debate in Brentwood, both Ben and Sandra admitted that they are not currently working. How then can two unemployed under-40 year olds afford to spend in one campaign more money than a minimum wage earner who works full-time earns in one year? By looking at the Form 700 Statement of Economic Interest filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC), I discovered that each candidate’s access to capital is not equal. The Form 700 requires disclosure in ranges (i.e., $10,001 – $100,000; $100,001 – $1,000,000, etc.). Because these ranges are so broad, I cannot accurately estimate the net worth of either candidate without a possible distortion of true values. I want to shed light on the inaccuracies, not add to the confusion.

National name ID has provided Sandra an opportunity to speak on cable and network television news interview shows about a myriad of issues relevant to Los Angeles voters. In every interview since she announced her candidacy, these speaking requests are turned into free advertising time for her campaign platform. However, the FCC does not require equal airtime for candidates on “news interview” shows. I applaud Sandra and her team for getting her access to our important media market but I am disappointed that news programs have not provided equal time, or in the alternative, have not excluded campaign conversations from the program. Most recently, Sandra spoke on The Ed Show on Thursday, October 30 for approximately four minutes about her campaign. Sandra has been on various MSNBC shows no fewer than six times during this campaign for two to four minutes per appearance. The Ed Show is shown on MSNBC, owned by NBCUniversal Media LLC but her appearance is considered a news interview on a news interview show. It is not considered a contribution and is not required to be disclosed as such to the FPPC. Unfortunately, the piece included many misrepresentations and Ben was not provided an opportunity to go on air. If Ben wanted to pay for equal time on air, he would spend upwards of $40,000 for one thirty-second spot, based on current media market buys.

Who can Contribute to a Candidate’s State Senate Campaign?

In addition to personal contributions, a candidate can receive funding from any individual donor who is a U.S. citizen, but no individual can give more than $4,100 each in the primary and in the general election. In addition, corporations, Political Action Committees, unions, and other advocacy and interest groups can contribute. A Los Angeles County-native, Ben Allen has focused on running a local race for a local position with the bulk of his fundraising efforts on raising money in and from California. According to the non-partisan website MapLight in collaboration with Voter’s Edge, 93.9 percent of Ben’s donations have come from in-state contributions. Meanwhile, more than a third, or 38 percent, of the funding Sandra has received during the campaign has come from outside of California. If you remove her aforementioned personal contributions, 48 percent of her contributions of the remaining funds are from out-of-state.

What about Independent Expenditures?

Independent expenditures (IEs) are defined by the FPPC as “an expenditure for a communication that expressly advocates the nomination, election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or ballot measure that is not made to — or at the behest of — an officeholder, candidate, or committee.” The funder is not permitted to coordinate the IE with the candidate. Bill Bloomfield’s spending to support Ben or oppose Sandra fall under this category. But while recent ads may imply otherwise, Sandra has also received support from third-party IEs. So has Governor Jerry Brown and Attorney General Kamala Harris and the majority of candidates running for a state or federal office.

Both Sandra and Ben, two young, progressive candidates, have made it clear that they want to remove money out of politics and overturn Citizens United. Both support supplementing small, individual donations with public financing. But until campaign finance reforms at both the national and state level are enacted, what should be the criteria for judging the financial purity of each candidate? Has Ben been “bought” by Bill Bloomfield? Has Sandra been “bought” by NBCUniversal? The answer to both of these questions is “No.” Having debated alongside both candidates, I respect them for wanting to bring progressive change and integrity to Sacramento. I am optimistic that the voters can see through the fear mongering and compare the candidates on their legislative records and policy initiatives so that true campaign finance reform can prevail.

The folks over at Blaster Labs managed to get some surprisingly advanced info on a couple of new dart guns that Zuru will be adding to its X-Shot line in the fall of 2015—a full year ahead of their official release.

Read more…

Instagram has a few core themes: Things we buy. Trips we go on. Food we eat. But the systems that made all those things possible—engines, electricity, long-haul trains, shipping containers—have their own place on Instagram too. And it’s wonderful.

Read more…

As I sit here rifling through my kids’ pumpkin buckets, sneaking a Snickers here and a couple Kit Kats there, I am pleased that Halloween, 2014, is officially in the books. However, as with any holiday celebrated in the company of hyperactive children, there were some takeaways:

1. Trick-or-treating with a beverage in a red Solo cup is permissible, as long as you are accompanied by kids. Trick-or-treating with a beverage in a red Solo cup is suspect if you are A) a single man dressed up as a mammogram machine, or B) all alone.

2. There is a candy hierarchy. Like it or not, neighbors judge you based on what you hand out. Want to blend in? Tootsie Rolls are fine. M&M’s or any product in the Hershey’s genre will get you there. But Smarties? Smarties were a crap candy in 1974 and they are a crap candy today. Dum Dums are not much better. If the candy is available for free at a local bank, it is best not to distribute it. But to the fellow on Sycamore Street who handed out the whole Twix bars: you are a Golden God.

3. Scented candles, particularly lavender or pine, may soothe guests in a massage parlor or spa, but they are disconcerting choices inside of jack-o-lanterns. For reasons unknown to science, they pretty much smell like pee.

4. The teeniest, dumbest kids get the most candy. Deal with it. My two-year-old son yelled “Trick or Treat” at shrubbery, birdfeeders, and several mailboxes. But when he reached the front porch of every house, he went silent. He did not say “Please.” He did not say “Thank you.” But because he is only three feet tall, folks gave him handfuls of goodies again and again and again.

5. To the kiddos: 364 days of the year, when a strange man invites you into the haunted voodoo tent in his garage, say NO. In fact, call the police. On Halloween, go on in. It turns out the shrunken heads are actually licorice flavored.

6. To the parents: 364 days of the year, when your kids ask if they can eat more candy, say NO. But on Halloween, say YES. Actually say the words: “Eat more candy.” The shock alone will probably cause the kids to eat less than they would have had you argued about it. Plus, for about forty-five minutes anyway, they will think you are awesome.

7. And finally, when the sugar crash hits, whether the kid falls to the sidewalk in a full-on tantrum, or merely falls asleep with his face in a pile of Milk Duds, it’s all right. The kids are not evil; the parents are not ineffectual. It’s Halloween. Despite how scary things may look, no real harm has been done. It is just time to call it a night.

Read Part 1, “Separation of Church and State,” here.

The Founding Fathers believed that religion was and must remain a private matter, because bringing the volatility of “religious enthusiasm” into politics would destabilize our new nation. They feared the political effects of interdenominational hostility, the polarization caused by doctrinal differences, and the demonization of dissenters.

But there was a second reason why the Founders feared that bringing religion into politics would have a divisive effect on our young nation — the rise of political and religious opportunists, who would inflame political issues to further themselves. Religion would become both a theatrical performance and a political tool as charlatans hypocritically showboated their piety to manipulate the crowd for political gain.

Religious hypocrites would disguise their lack of convictions by putting their finger in their mouth, holding it high in the air to determine which way the political wind was blowing, and telling their audience what it wanted to hear. These individuals well understood the art of inciting “enthusiasm” or hysteria toward some plan of action and labeling it “the Will of God.”

The Founders would have blanched at a government official returning to constituents and pandering to their religious prejudices to gain a following or court popularity. Not that an official couldn’t take part in a religious service, but only as a private citizen and not as a member of government, lest people think that he were lending the power and prestige of his office to their church or religion.

The jury is still out as to whether the Founders were deists, Christians, or a little of both; whether they were believers of either persuasion from conviction or prudence; whether they themselves knew their degree of commitment, or the extent to which over time their beliefs may have changed.

However, they all knew their Bible because it played such an important role in their 18^th-century world. They knew of Christ’s admonition in Matthew 6 about not playing the hypocrite by standing on the street corner and making a public display of oneself by praying to God, for one would already have received one’s reward by the praise of the crowd. Instead, one should withdraw to one’s room, close the door, and in privacy pray to God.

As experienced men of the world, the Founding Fathers also knew how some politicians or government agencies might use religion on an impressionable audience to seek power, votes, or advancement. Some of the Founders were also highly educated, even erudite, men, especially Thomas Jefferson, whose library contained a Who’s Who of great authors, one of whom was the French playwright Moliere, and one of whose plays was Tartuffe, the incarnation of religious hypocrisy.

It is both an uproarious romp into the icy regions of a terrible inner emptiness devoid of conviction, as well as a manual for observing the bobbings and weavings of unctuous sanctimony raised to high art.

In that great patrician school of Parisian sophistication, it was thought that the only way to effect moral reform was not by sermons, but by being laughed at, since few can survive the acid of ridicule. Many don’t mind being thought a scoundrel, but no one a fool! Castigat ridendo mores (“Comedy corrects manners”) was the essence of Moliere’s art that skewered human folly in its many guises.

The caustic mockery at his characters and the gales of laughter that broke forth from his audience were much more effective in laying bare human absurdity than any sermon in Notre Dame. Moliere was and always has been a moral institution for the French, as they see and laugh at themselves in his characters, and go away chastened.

Jefferson and his colleagues well understood that some members of government might be tempted to play Tartuffe with their constituencies. One Tartuffe or a group of them could do untold harm to the nation by abusing religion for political ends. The 18^th century was an age of taste and decorum, moderation and dignity, with everything in its proper place. Religion especially could not be allowed to be cheapened and vulgarized, manipulated and manhandled by demagogues toying with people’s religious convictions.

But what would the Founders have made of the Separation of Church and State as politicians today shamelessly pander to the Religious Right with its toxic brew of pressure politics and fire and brimstone? Of politicians who prostitute themselves to corporate lobbyists from whom they should be protecting the people? Of those who betray their oath by making common cause with the nation’s exploiters? Of those who forsake the ideals on which our nation was founded? Of those who come to Washington not to help the sick and the hungry, but to make their plight even more tragic?

Gone are the days when political giants, statesmen, and demigods walked the earth and held our nation’s destiny in their adult and capable hands. We are now at the mercy of political pygmies, charlatans, and buffoons who plunder the treasury for the rich and powerful.

There is no limit to their unbridled ambition in saying whatever must be said for ingratiating themselves into the good graces of an audience. So profound is their religion of being re-elected that they would wax rhapsodic on the metaphysical subtleties of Hottentot theology if they thought it would gain them the votes on the south side of town or a district of the rich and powerful.

Even some Supreme Court Justices, who should be above the political fray, are beholden to the golden palaces of their sovereign Liege Lords and Ladies, whose dark money funds their convictions.

The internal affairs of religion are the concern of religion and not of the state. Government should never meddle in church matters, but once a pastor uses the pulpit to deliver a political speech or “suggest” how a congregation should vote, it is no longer a house of God but a political rally.

The clergy by and large honor this church/state distinction and don’t abuse their position by endorsing candidates or issues, but some most decidedly do. As if God were a Democrat or Republican, a Libertarian or Socialist, a Green or Tea Partier, when a place of worship has only one purpose: “My House shall be a house of prayer!”

The fact that pastors are not permitted by the U.S. Government to use their churches for political rallies or discuss upcoming bills would suggest that they are flouting both the letter and spirit of the principle of Separation of Church and State.

What are sermons in some churches are hate speeches in others. Pastors who preach against anti-discrimination ordinances designed to protect the civil rights of gay and transgender residents may or may not be protected by the Separation Clause, but clearly such speech is about hating, bullying, and demonizing these residents, as well as denying them their civil rights. This is behavior more in keeping with a Klan meeting, but shocking on the part of pastors in what purports to be a religious service.

This is really what is going on in Houston, and not the hullabaloo created to distract public attention from the underlying moral issues — discrimination and denial of civil rights by pastors, who cunningly recast themselves from victimizers to victims.

A hate fest is an insult to God and a disgrace in a church. Pastors should be role models who show their people a better way, not be Good Ol’ Boys who sanctify the prejudices of their congregations or be taken captive by the very mentality from which they should be setting them free. Making people feel good about their hate and wallow in self-righteousness while doing it is not what a pastor should be about, for as the pastor, so the flock!

Pastors can say whatever they want within their church, but if they cross the line between Church and State, they no longer qualify for tax-exempt status. Everyone should abide by the rules of political discourse and avoid the stealth of gradualism and the slippery slope, where things become murky with no clear demarcation between what is and isn’t protected speech.

Distinctions dissolve and each sphere comingles, and people one day wake up to a religious theocracy, when it is no longer the rule of man, but the rule of some men’s image of “God,” a creation of one denomination, which seeks to impose its theology on everyone in a religious dictatorship. History will have then come full circle and create the very conditions the Founders sought to avoid.

The beginning of wisdom is calling things by their right names, said Confucius. The name the Founders had for theocracy was “religious enthusiasm,” the fear of which led them to include the Separation Clause in Article One of the Bill of Rights. They were concerned not only for their own time, but for our time as well, and therein lies their timeless and timely wisdom.

“We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.”

— T. S. Eliot, Four Quartets