Pictures From Newsom Fundraiser: The SF Oligarchs Divide Their Spoils

You realize that these images might symbolize some great master plan of evil in your mind with the captioning that demonizes them for their political stance might seem like a clear message, but I read it as a lack of certain parties to raise the issues and address them clearly and concisely (while staying on message) in a public forum. While not a SF resident, I can see that Newsom has a clear focus (you may not like it, but he has one and is articulating it to his supporters) while this post does nothing of the sort (some may not like that either, but you gotta call them as you read them). May I suggest moving beyond attacking those who fund campaigns or take a less liberal stance because it is going to happen, and bring up some issues, the Newsom stance, and it repercussions for the City. Sure this can be hard, as it takes clear thinking and some research, but how else are you going to have a meaning ful debate? Prancing in the street only works once or twice, and effective argument gets picked up and talked about long after.

Even before Gavin Newsom decided that scapegoating the homeless was his ticket to political power, he was one of the more conservative forces in SF politics:

NEWSOM'S VOTES

2001 - 2002

n.b. RBA = Residential Builders Association, headed by Joe O'Donoghue
October 7, 2002. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Maxwell) to rubber-stamp all of Willie Brown's nominations for the Planning Commission and Board of Appeal.

September 30, 2002. One of four Supervisors (Hall, Sandoval, Yee) who cast repeated votes against the residents and surrounding neighbors of 1598 Dolores Street who are opposing a monster development sponsored by the Residential Builders Association (RBA) in their neighborhood. Supervisor Newsom even voted to take away the four foot setback offered by the developer.

August 19, 2002. ONLY SUPERVISOR to vote against saving the historic Geneva Car Barn.

August 12, 2002. ONLY SUPERVISOR to vote against a continuance on behalf of the neighbors at 1598 Dolores Street (RBA project).

July 29, 2002. One of three Supervisors to vote against improving the emergency response system.

July 22, 2002. Voted against adding an environmental specialist to the Department of the Environment.

July 15, 2002. Opposed the Safety and Livable Street Ordinance.

- One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against interim controls which would give neighborhoods additional notice on conditional use hearings in the Mission (heavily opposed by the RBA).

July 8, 2002. Cast repeated votes against the neighborhood opposing a fourth story monster development at 3130-3154 Noriega Avenue.

July 1, 2002. One of two Supervisors (Hall) who opposed a resolution urging Bechtel Corporation to withdraw its punitive legal claims against the Country of Bolivia and its people.

June 24, 2002. Voted against the neighbors opposing the addition of a fourth story at 2455 Bush Street.

April 29, 2002. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Sandoval) voting against the neighbors and surrounding residents opposing the placement of multiple antennas on St. John’s Church.

April 15, 2002. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Maxwell) voting against interim controls which would require additional neighborhood notice and approval for the construction of big box retail outlets in our neighborhoods.

March 18, 2002. Opposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance for the poor which would require developers to include more affordable housing in their projects. (Ordinance heavily opposed by the RBA).

February 11, 2002. One of two Supervisors (Hall) to vote against additional protections for tenants, especially senior tenants from evictions and pass-through of capital improvements.

January 11, 2002. One of two Supervisors (Hall) to vote against cleaner air in San Francisco and to require that installation of new fireplaces be “approved” for environmental safety. (Ordinance opposed by the RBA).

December 17, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Yee) who opposed Proposition D, which reformed the appointment process for the Planning Commission and Board of Appeal and which was passed overwhelmingly by voters and which ended corruption at the Planning Commission (opposed by RBA).

December 3, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against requiring the Mayor to submit his budget to the Supervisors at an earlier date.

November 19, 2001. Opposed Proposition D with Supervisor Hall.

August 20, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against a resolution to the Planning Department and Planning Commission encouraging them to require greater affordable housing in larger projects.

July 23, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting to prevent the voters from deciding on the ballot whether or not San Francisco should have public power and a municipal utility district.

July 9, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) to vote in support of the Mayor’s Veto of Tenant Protection Legislation.

June 11, 2001. Voted against Tenant Protection Legislation which would prevent evictions.

May 29, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Yee) voting against formation of the Election Task Force.

May 22, 2001. One of two Supervisors (Hall) to oppose providing easier access for appeals of Conditional Use Permits to surrounding neighbors.

April 30, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting to permit the destruction of a sound, affordable Victorian home at 696 DeHaro Street over the objection of the entire neighborhood and neighborhood associations, including the Protrero Boosters’. (RBA in favor).

April 2, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting against a resolution urging the State Legislature to amend the Ellis Act to prevent evictions of tenants.

February 20, 2001. One of three Supervisors (Hall, Yee) voting against tenant protections and a temporary moratorium on non-seismic capital improvement pass throughs.

- One of two Supervisors (Hall) voting against the formation of a municipal utility district to permit public power.

Newsom's money matrix
Who's spending $2 million to elect Gavin Newsom mayor? Hint: City contractors and lobbyists – many with close ties to Willie Brown. Click here to view PDF charts.

By Tali Woodward and Rachel Brahinsky
GAVIN NEWSOM SELLS himself as a squeaky-clean pragmatist, a moderate liberal who's made money and built a political career with pluck and perseverance and intends to clean up the corrupt, inbred world of San Francisco politics.

That's central to his mayoral campaign – again and again he insists he doesn't belong to any machine or faction, that his political agenda is independent. But a simple perusal of his voluminous donor list leaves a very different impression.

Newsom, the money trail shows, is every bit the candidate of high society and big downtown business. A harder look reveals even greater contradictions with his campaign pitch: Much of Newsom's financial support since 1998 has come from the very people who've bankrolled Mayor Willie Brown and pulled the strings in Brown's administration. And if Newsom is really planning to clean up city hall, why are so many city contractors who've grown accustomed to favoritism lining up to give him their support?

A detailed Bay Guardian examination of campaign filings dating back to Newsom's first race in 1998, along with city contracting databases and other public records, shows:

• City contractors and people who work for them have made hundreds of donations to Newsom. The breadth of those donations implies an expectation that the pay-to-play system that many say has flourished under Brown will persist if Newsom is elected.

• An overwhelming number of the lobbyists and political appointees who rose to power during the Brown years have already lined up behind Newsom.

• A significant chunk of Newsom's support has come from industries that have direct financial interests in city hall decisions and frequently require city approval for their projects. Chief among these are the real estate, development, and hospitality industries, which account for at least a quarter of Newsom's money (see chart, page 20).

• Newsom's campaign filings include almost the entire roster of San Francisco's old-money establishment – including a couple of prominent Republican donors. In general his donors are quite well off: a full 75 percent of the money he has raised for his mayoral campaign has come in $500 checks, which is the maximum donation that, by law, individuals and businesses are allowed to make.

Paying to play?
During his quick political rise, Gavin Newsom has established himself as a formidable fundraiser. He has collected a healthy sum each time he has run for supervisor, even when unopposed. And with less than three months to go before the Nov. 4 election, he has raised more than $2 million – twice as much as all of his competitors combined. It's a notable feat: with the city's $500 cap, more than 4,000 individuals, businesses, and organizations have had to contribute to reach that level.

A fair number of Newsom for Mayor donors are city contractors.

The Bay Guardian has identified at least 63 donors to Newsom who have had city contracts during the past four years. They worked on contracts worth at least $3 billion. (A list of these contractors and further details about donors are available online at sfbg.com.)

Among those companies are Obayashi, which has a piece of the Third Street Light Rail project, and architecture firm Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill, which is helping design the new $400 million cruise ship terminal.

Treadwell and Rollo, an engineering firm with expertise in seismic upgrades, has done work on the new Asian Art Museum, Yerba Buena Gardens, the California Palace of the Legion of Honor, and the new San Francisco Ferry Terminal. According to databases from the city controller – which are not 100 percent complete – the city paid Treadwell and Rollo and two partnerships in which the firm was involved $2.2 million during the past four years. The firm and engineer Frank Rollo each gave the $500 maximum to the Newsom for Mayor campaign.

Olivia Chen Consulting manages construction projects for numerous city departments, including the Department of Public Works, the Public Utilities Commission, and San Francisco International Airport. The firm, which made at least $3 million working for the PUC in 2001 through 2003, and Olivia Chen herself together gave Newsom $1,000 this year.

Several law firms that provide outside counsel to the San Francisco City Attorney's Office have donated to Newsom. These include Leif, Cabraser, Heimann, and Bernstein; Moscone, Emblidge, and Quadra; and Orrick, Herrington, and Sutcliffe. Other frequent donors are employed by firms such as Morrison and Foerster, which did $500,000 worth of work for the airport last year, and Cotchett, Pitre, and Simon, which has at least one large contract with the San Francisco Unified School District. Cotchett employees have contributed at least $8,600 to Newsom's mayoral campaign, largely in $500 donations.

Other donors may be looking not so much for city contract money, but for city approval of their private-sector projects; this is particularly true of development and construction interests. Law firm Reuben and Alter is managing at least 32 permit applications now pending approval of the Planning Commission, which is made up partly of mayoral appointees.

A review of the Planning Department's permit-application database shows that these projects have a total worth of more than $324 million. Employees of Reuben and Alter, which includes among its clients downtown office buildings, Home Depot, and Blockbuster, have given $4,250 to Newsom since 1998. (Attorney James Reuben also donated $500 to mayoral candidate Angela Alioto.)

Peckar and Abramson, a New Jersey law firm that specializes in representing construction firms, has also showered Newsom with donations. The firm and its attorneys have given him at least $8,400 since 1998. They directed another $1,500 to Care Not Cash, the welfare reform ballot measure Newsom drafted and promoted.

Newsom spokesperson John Shanley insists these donations shouldn't raise concerns. "Newsom's campaign represents a large grass roots movement," Shanley told us in an e-mail. "All of the individuals who have contributed to the campaign are part of our movement for change." In accordance with city law, Shanley wrote, no donations were accepted "from individuals who have benefited from Supervisor Newsom's votes."

Newsom opponents told us these sorts of donors are clearly after access to the mayor. "In many ways it's old school," mayoral candidate Tom Ammiano said. "They're trying to reestablish that you can buy an office."

Alioto said that donating to Newsom "will give all these developers security for their contracts. I think this guy is going to make Willie look like a slow-growth mayor."

Friends of Willie
Newsom has taken pains to distance himself from Mayor Brown and the specter of corruption that has lingered over his administration.

But the campaign-finance figures suggest the two have a fair amount in common. One of the most striking revelations is that nearly all of the major lobbyists who have worked closely with Brown are behind Newsom. And only one of those lobbyists has given to another mayoral candidate, suggesting the lobbying crew views Newsom as the safest bet for moving forward the largely pro-development agenda of their clients.

Among the key firms backing Newsom since his 1998 run for supervisor:

• Solem and Associates, whose client list includes Pacific Gas and Electric Co., Sprint PCS, and Arco. Solem and its employees have given $1,500 to Newsom and $5,360 to Care Not Cash.

• Barnes Mosher Whitehurst Lauter and Partners – which represents Clear Channel Outdoor and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association – and its employees have given Newsom $2,200.

• HMS Associates, run by Marcia Smolens, which lobbies on behalf of AT&T, Catellus, Sony, and Kaiser, has given Newsom $1,000 and Care Not Cash $1,000.

• The Platinum Advisors, with offices in Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and San Francisco and with various ties to Brown, gave (including employee contributions) $5,400 to Care Not Cash and has donated $2,400 to Newsom's mayoral campaign. On the firm's lengthy client roster are Clear Channel Adshel International, Lennar, PG&E, and Sutter Health.

A few of Brown's department heads, including Department of Public Health director Mitchell Katz, have donated to Newsom. They have been joined by a longer list of Brown-appointed commissioners – such as Ann Moller Caen of the PUC, police commissioner Victor Makras, redevelopment commissioner Benny Yee, and airport commissioners Michael Strunsky and Theresa Lee.

Marivic Bamba – who was chair of the Human Rights Commission when it refused, allegedly at the mayor's request, to investigate charges of racism and illegal contracting practices by Hensel Phelps Construction – is a Newsom donor. Hensel Phelps also contributed.

Other key supporters of Brown and Newsom include Norcal Waste Systems and its subsidiaries, financier Warren Hellman (who also gave to candidate Susan Leal), North Point Investors, PG&E, and the Emerald Fund.

In the 1999 mayor's race, a massive onslaught of last-minute soft-money expenditures on behalf of Brown helped launch him to victory in the runoff against Ammiano. Several organizations responsible for that flood of money are already throwing their support behind Newsom. The Committee on Jobs, a pro-business lobbying group, and the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, which spent more than $200,000 on Brown's behalf, have already given big chunks of change to Newsom. Although Newsom's campaign literature discourages donors from contributing soft money, there's no telling what expenditures these groups may orchestrate for him.

Who's in, who's out
The people and groups that have chosen to give to Newsom is telling – but it's also worth noting who's steering clear of the candidate, and who's giving money to his competitors.

What stands out the most is Newsom's lack of labor support.

The San Francisco Labor Council was unable to procure a majority vote among its members for any single candidate and is not expected to endorse anyone for mayor unless there's a runoff election. That means the significant time and resources generally wielded by its Labor to Neighbor program won't be behind Newsom or any of the other candidates. It's one factor that distinguishes him significantly from Brown, who built relationships with labor over his years in the state assembly that continued when he moved into City Hall Room 200.

The candidate with the strongest labor support is Alioto, whose contribution reports show donations from at least 25 union locals from around the country, many affiliated with Service Employees International Union, Local 250, the massive health care workers union, and the plumbers, steamfitters, and pipe fitters unions. In Newsom's entire political career, we could only identify 19 contributions from labor organizations, including the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 1245 (the PG&E employees union), maritime workers, and firefighters. His most reliable support comes from cops: 24 San Francisco police officers and the Police Officers Association are Newsom donors.

Brown has also had the political backing of major nonprofit directors, but Newsom has received only a few donations.

Newsom's support is, by local standards, politically conservative. In this generally pro-tenant town, for example, he's got the backing of the San Francisco Apartment Association, a powerful landlord group. And while Newsom claims to represent the average San Franciscan, a full 75 percent of his money came from donors who could afford to write single $500 checks. (And that doesn't even account for donors who gave the maximum in smaller installments.)

It's also worth noting that Newsom has received the support of a couple of people who, even by more narrow national standards, are considered well to the right of center.

One of his most reliable – and, if dollar amounts are any indication, enthusiastic – sources of support is the family of Gap founder and local Republican powerhouse Donald Fisher. Fisher, his wife, Doris, and their sons and spouses, have pumped $8,750 into Newsom's campaigns. They also anted up $3,150 for Care Not Cash.

There's also John Bowes, the CEO of Kransco – the San Francisco-based toy manufacturer that opened one of Tijuana's first sweatshops in the 1970s. This major Republican donor has given to Newsom at nearly every opportunity and together with his wife has supplied $2,950 to Newsom's campaign chest.

http://www.sfbg.com/37/46/cover_newsom.html

Wehn people say that Newsom is "conservative by San Francisco" standards, what exactly does that mean?

Newsom opposes rent control and opposes aid to the homeless (he even opposed prop O that would have provided the care potion of his cash not care program). Hes also taken a solidly rightwing stand on issues from Bechtel's policies in Bolivia to the right for protesters to march down city street.

Does he make up for this on other issues? Well hes for "gay marriage", medical marijuana, and is prochoice. But that doesnt differentiate him from many California Republicans (including Arnold).

Gavin Newsom is a one trick pony whose only issue is bashing the homeless. That is conservative by any standard and puts him to the right of people like Arnold Schwarzenegger. Looking at how Gavin has been organizing his campaign one guesses that he aims higher than the mayors office. The only question is whether he will run as a moderate Republican or conservative Democrat when he is older and able to run for higher office.

http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/10/1539039.php

Ross worked on the PR campaign against public power, then brought us cuts in funding to the homeless and now is working to bring us a mayor to the right of our Republican governor.

Read about Ann Getty's marvelous hands, which have apparently touched dirt, and her antiques@: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/10/26/CM127228.DTL

i love you!
-gina

Must admit that I am not up on the latest hip gadgets the hipsters wear but the long hair in 5_hipsters_without_souls.jpg, image seems to have an earpice similar to the ones the Secret Service wears in his right ear.

More than just a hipster or overly paranoid?

"seems to have an earpice similar to the ones the Secret Service wears in his right ear. "

At most events organizers have com equipment. In this case that could even just be a wireless cellphone accesorry (note the microphone clipped to the front shirt...)

There was a certain rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and fared sumptuously every day. But there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, full of sores, who was laid at his gate, desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.

So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died and was buried. And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Then he cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.'

But Abraham said, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.

All religions have honored the beggar. For he proves that in a matter at the same time as prosaic and holy, banal and regenerative as the giving of alms, intellect and morality, consistency and principles are miserably inadequate.
-Walter Benjamin

3,000 miles away during a snowstorm, I'm watchin you SF! Let's make sure this fuggin' skeeze don't get into city hall! I'm rootin and I know you can hold it down! You got my blessings! -j.a.

3,000 miles away during a snowstorm, I'm watchin you SF! Let's make sure this fuggin' skeeze don't get into city hall! I'm rootin and I know you can hold it down! You got my blessings! -j.a.

Who is this guy? I was there as a legal observer thru the sfnlg and i identified myself. I asked him who he was but he refused to identify himself.

what drugs are those people on? Particularly pictures #4 and #5