Date: Fri, 3 Jun 1994 19:15:39 -0700 From: Jim Warren Subject: GovAccess.039: Online election-night results; more on Cal poli-dregs Jun.03, 1994 Hot off the fax machine! -- A FIRST! [?]: JUNE 7th CALIF. PRIMARY-ELECTION RESULTS AVAILABLE ONLINE California's Acting Secretary of State Tony Miller has arranged for what I think is a "first" in the nation - global public access via gopher servers across the Internet to election-night voting results. To access the results on June 7th (and, presumably, for some time thereafter), or to test it beginning Saturday, June 4th: Gopher directly to caelections.advantis.com and select from the menu. If you need to set up the gopher connection, access the Univ. of Minnesota, select "Other Gopher and Information Servers" (Menu B), then select all the world's gopher servers (Menu C), and select the Advantis Global Network Services (Menu D) and you should see the California Election Night gopher server. For this primary, given that it's a first try, they will only be giving the results of the state-wide races. But for the general elections in November, their plan [hope!] is to provide online reporting of *all* the state races. Neat! For more information, call the Secretary of State's Legislative and Constituent Services Office at 916-445-6375. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& [Thank gawd! - this is the last GovAccess posting on this stuff, except perhaps to howl about the results after next Tuesday's June 7th elections.] MORE MUCK FROM THE SACRAMENTO POLITICAL SWAMP In GovAccess.038, I offered extensive/inflammatory recommendations and information regarding some of the candidates in the California Governor's and Secretary-of-State's campaigns, that will be decided next Tuesday (6/7). Ahhh, but there's more! THE FBI RECORDED GWEN MOORE'S NOW-IMPRISONED SENIOR STAFFER In the '80s, Gwen Moore's hand-picked, personally-supervised representative was Tyrone Netters. Gwen Moore was *author* of what came to be called the "shrimpscam" special-interest legislation sought and paid for by agents posing as legislation buyers. As reported in the May 19, 1994, issue of Sacramento News & Review Weekly: Netters - Moore's chosen staffer - was recorded by the FBI telling an under- cover agent, "Deal with me on the money ...my responsibility as a staffer, I take care of my member [Moore] and I don't want you fuckin' around with, with her at all, and she don't even wanna talk to you ... I don't have any time for any petty bullshit like this, man, you ain't waving enough money. I mean we deal with big money around here all the time ... I mean that special-interest bill ain't no problem." And it wasn't. Netters was convicted of corruption and sentenced to four years. There wasn't enough evidence to indict Moore. If Moore becomes Secy of State, I can hardly wait to see who she appoints to key positions - staff appointees who to deal with *numerous* big-bucks politicians and wealthy corporations. GWEN MOORE MISSED HER MOST-CRUCIAL CAMPAIGN-FINANCE FILING DEADLINE Gwen Moore has been running for state offices since at least 1978. She certainly knows how to run a campaign and how to file required disclosures. Moore wants to be the Secy of State. The Secy of State is the recipient and archivist of all campaign-finance disclosures. But Moore didn't file her latest-required campaign-finance disclosure by its May 26th deadline - only a minimum-information summary sheet. The details of her campaign-finance receipts that were due May 26th, were not filed until Thursday, June 2nd - just two days and a weekend before the polls open on June 7th, precluding weekday political reporters from reviewing and reporting on her finances before the election. Although her report was generated by a computer, and she was explicitly asked in writing to voluntarily also-file her disclosures in computer form, she has not yet done so as of now (Friday afternoon). FOOTNOTE ON PETE WILSON'S OPPONENT, RON UNZ In #038, I recommended supporting Unz *AND* sending email to Wilson telling him [PeteWilson@delphi.com] that, since he refused to offer his campaign- finance disclosures in computerized form, as some other gubernatorial candidates *have* been willing to do, you were supporting opponent Unz. But, I *only* made this recommendation given that Unz doesn't have a chance of winning - and his loosership can thus be used to make a point with Wilson. Personally, *I* would NOT support Unz if I thought he had a prayer of winning; I strongly disagree with *many* of his major positions. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& USE GOVERNOR'S RACE TO DELIVER MESSAGE THAT CAMPAIGN-FINANCES ARE IMPORTANT EMAIL TO PETE WILSON [Send your own, or put your name on this and send it.] To: PeteWilson@delphi.com Subject: Your refusal to provide modern disclosures is unacceptable Dear Governor Wilson, (1) You accepted massive donations from special interests. (2) But, you have steadfastly refused to voluntarily file campaign-finance disclosures in computerized form, as repeatedly requested by the Secretary of State. (3) Campaign-finance reform is *THE* most-important reform needed in government, and your actions indicate that you just don't get it. Therefore, I am urging everyone I know to vote for Ron Unz, or at least not vote for you - especially since you have such a lead. If you cannot even make your already-computerized campaign-finance records available to the public in their modern, computerized form, than you do not deserve to be Governor of the nation's largest high-tech state. RE DEMOCRATS: There are three major Demo candidates: Kathleen Brown, John Garamendi and Tom Hayden. Brown's machine continues to suck in far more special-interest loot than Hayden (who limits contributions to $94 per donor) or Garamendi (who, incidentally, was the first to voluntarily file disclosures in digital form). The Hayden and Brown campaigns are online. Therefore, EMAIL TO KATHLEEN BROWN [Send your own, or put your name on this and send it.] To: katbrown@netcom.com Subject: Last year, I almost volunteered to set up your online campaign Dear Treasurer Brown, After using the nets to help push through AB 1624 last year, mandating online access to legislative information, I seriously considered volunteering for your campaign. But then, and since, I found out more: (1) You accepted massive donations from special interests including $800,000 from bonds-houses and brokerages seeking state funds you invested. (2) You steadfastly refuse to volunteer your campaign-finance disclosures in computerized form, as repeatedly requested by the Secretary of State - which becomes understandable, considering your $800,000 "pay-to-play" collections. (3) Campaign-finance reform is *THE* most-important reform needed in government, and your actions indicate that you just don't get it. Therefore, I am urging everyone I know to vote for Tom Hayden, or at least not vote for you - especially since you have such a lead. If you cannot even make your already-computerized campaign-finance records available to the public in their modern, computerized form, than you do not deserve to be Governor of the nation's largest high-tech state. MY EMAIL TO TOM HAYDEN [Send your own, or add your name to mine and send it.] To: reform94@delphi.com Subject: Your self-imposed limits on donations & SB 758 earned my support Dear Senator Hayden, I agree with you that the single most-important reform needed in government is campaign-finance reform. Without it, government cannot be of, by or for the People. Thus, I am urging everyone I know to vote for you, and urging them to tell your leading opponent why (Treasurer Kathleen Brown, who took $800,000 "pay-to-play" "contributions" from the bond houses and investment firms with which she placed California's massive bonds investments). We need to deliver the message that candidates who can't resist functional bribes from well-funded special interests will loose votes. However: I strongly *oppose* campaign-spending limits or tax-funded campaign- financing. They are simply incumbency-guarantee mechanisms - since an incumbent can always raise the limit more easily and then milk their incumbency for much greater publicity. Voluntary *self*-limits, such as you have adopted, plus MANDATES assuring that voters are fully-informed as to the sources and amounts of large donations are the key. Your SB 758 requiring computerized disclosures is one good step. More importantly, disclosures detailing all major contributors should be *required* to be included in every political mailing-piece and radio and TV ad, just as the name and address of their Treasurer is required. It would assure that the electorate is *finally* fully-informed about who buying whom, and it would constitutional. Mandate that voters be fully and timely informed - and in the process, degrade the propaganda power of political advertising. Then, trust us to vote responsibly. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. -- P. J. O'Rourke [from rlm@helen.surfcty.com] Mo' as it Is. --jim Jim Warren, columnist for MicroTimes, Government Technology, BoardWatch, etc. 345 Swett Rd., Woodside CA 94062; voice/415-851-7075; fax/415-851-2814 >> To join or drop the GovAccess list, email to jwarren@well.com . << >> Permission herewith granted for unlimited reposting and recirculation. <<