Election Ruminations and Regrets

So last night I watched the election results roll in like all of you and I was of course disappointed in the national change in power in Congress.  Our fellow Americans appear to have a very short historical memory.  They are blaming Democrats for the problems caused by the guys who were in power before they were elected. But I am preaching to the choir here.

In any case,  last night and this morning I was following local election results at acgov, and was pleased that several of the candidates and state propositions I supported won.  Some did not, but in all races, even ones where I spent a lot of time volunteering (like the Rebecca Kaplan for Mayor campaign), the tone was positive and upbeat.  So yay for local voters!

This is where the post gets grimmer.  I've taken some time to gather information about national election results and reflect on what happened in general.  Beyond the issue with voters having no memory and no patience, we have a sad phenomenon which is the growing influence (and spending) of money in politics (Newsweek.com.)  This election cycle, campaign spending is projected to exceed $3.7 billion, up 30% over the last election.

I am first of all saddened that we are spending all this money on politics.  Just think what this country could be if that money were instead spent educating kids, or supporting our public schools, parks, and transportation.  Second, I am curious just how such a drastic increase in spending could happen in such a short time.  No doubt the recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision ("Citizens United") has had an impact.  In fact, according to Public Citizen, the undisclosed expenditures by independent groups influenced the election in in 58 of 74 "party-shifting contests" this cycle.

Beyond this disappointment with national trends and ever more increase spending, however, I have to be honest and confess that I have contributed to the "big money" mid term election this year through my own giving habits.  I compiled a quick list of my giving for political races this year.  Below I have tallied it:

Candidate Amount  Won Election?
Barbara Boxer $150  Y
Democratic Party $500  N
Democratic Party CA $100  N
Jesse Arreguin $50   Y
Kriss Worthington $125  Y
Progressive Major'y  $200  N
Rebecca Kaplan $100  N*
Robert Raburn BART $250  Y
Russ Feingold Senate   $100  N
Steve Kagan Congress $250  N
Vinnie Bacon Fremont  $50   N
Total: $1,875

* Oakland Mayor will not be decided till Friday, but it's looking unlikely that Rebecca will win.

I did not realize it until I compiled this list, but I spent a hell of a lot of money this year.  Part of it has to do with my impulsively generous streak.  I am not trying to boast here.  My giving made a difference in some races, and in others made no difference at all.  The point is, I am only one of millions of Americans who made a decision to give significant chunks of money to political candidates and/ or parties this year.  I represent one end of the political spectrum.  There are lots of people like me who gave to progressive causes.  And there are lots more who gave to conservative causes.  And then there are the corporations and "independent expenditure groups" that I mentioned above.  And where does that leave us?  With lots and LOTS of political ads.

Regrettably, I should have given more money to charity and less to political campaigns.  I supported public financing of elections this spring - which our own "enlightened" electorate in California defeated.  Perhaps that's the only thing truly worth supporting with money anymore?

Sigh.

2010 Oakland Mayor's Race

Here are my thoughts on the Oakland mayoral race.  Realistically, there are 3 candidates with the name recognition, experience, and connections to possibly win: Don Perata, Jean Quan, and Rebecca Kaplan.  A fourth candidate, Joe Tuman, is working hard to reach voters and appears to be benefiting from the general anti-incumbent mood (as well as his base among long time friends in Oakland.)  Then there are another 6 candidates, all well-meaning citizens, but who lack the campaign staff and infrastructure needed to make a serious run.  I believe all these candidates should be thanked for giving up months out of their lives to put themselves and their ideas out there..

As many of you know, I am active with the Sierra Club locally.  We conducted interviews to determine our endorsement in this race in late August.  I participated in all the interviews.  We endorsed Kaplan #1, Quan #2 and Perata #3.  Rebecca Kaplan (click for questionnaire) presented in superior vision and  for how to "fix Oakland" in a sustainable fashion.  She has an excellent plan to make Oakland a more transit and pedestrian (and bicycle) friendly city.  She knows who the key people are in the city to get things done, and admits that the next mayor will have a major role to play in appointing department heads over the next 4-6 years (many city employees are set to retire.)  Rebecca has excellent grasp of fiscal policy, as well.  Jean Quan, meanwhile, has very good "green credentials."  She is quick to mention the help she provided to the Sierra Club for our tree planting campaign (which is much appreciated), and I know she is passionate about watershed protection.  Don Perata had a good environmental voting record during his time as a state senator in Sacramento.  He won an award from the Sierra Club California for his work defending AB32 from Republican attacks.  So each has something to champion in terms of the environment and the things the Sierra Club cares about.

In terms of the campaigns, Rebecca appears to be hitting the phones hard, is making appearances all over the city and appears to have a base among the artist / progressive / Oakland black chamber of commerce and younger environmentalist crowd.  Jean Quan meanwhile has a lot of neighborhood activists wearing "Taking Oakland Block by Block" shirts, and also counts many environmentalists among her supporters.  She has basically been campaigning for over a year and I think a lot of her hard work cultivating supporters and volunteers is paying off.  Don Perata, meanwhile, has the best campaign ads and videos.  He also has people walking the streets for him.  When I saw his ad showing him sweeping the street in East Oakland the first time, I had to laugh.  However, Don is allowing his friends the Prison Guards to try and influence the campaign with negative attacks on Jean Quan.

In summary, all three of the top candidates I mentioned could be a good mayor.  But who will win?  And how will they succeed in addressing some of Oakland's problems, such as the looming $589 million budget deficit?  I cannot predict it.  But the next mayor will need to work hard at getting their colleagues on the council to work together.  During the 5 years I have lived here and observed the city council, it has unfortunately been marred by a lot of divisiveness.  The missing element, in my opinion, is a mayor who can bring the warring council members together and get them to agree on important issues.  Will Don Perata be able to bring together the council?  He appears to have his favorites picked out already.  How will he get the rest of the council to work with him, if they do not agree?  What about Jean Quan?  I could see her getting the council to work together.  But there is pretty visible personal animosity between her and some other council members.  So I see Rebecca Kaplan as the best "coach" and "facilitator".  She is a fresh face, positive, enjoys good relations with other elected officials - but she's not inexperienced, either.  I am confident she is the best choice for mayor.

Come Nov. 2nd, I think Oakland voters will vote according to what they believe is best for the city.  America as a whole seems to only accept short term solutions, but Oaklanders in this respect appear to know better.  Maybe that's because they've been through long hard times as a city before.