PDA

View Full Version : Big Money Influence....



Darian
12-06-2009, 09:44 PM
In today's SF Chronicle, there's a lengthy article about the potential influence of donors of large amounts of money to politicians have over whatever process is of interest. The article is titled, "Big donor got help from Feinstein on Delta Plan." In this case, the donor was Stuart and Linda Resnick, LA Billionaires, big time political players and owners of Roll International which, in turns owns Paramount Farms. Paramount is owner of a 48% interest in the Kern County Aquifer (originally funded by taxpayers $$$ and a major grower of Fruits/nuts in the southern San Joaquin.... :cool:

Among other things, the article asserts that Resnick (who has made many, large donations to Feinstein campaigns) wrote to Feinstein who, in turn, wrote to Ken Salazar (Interior Secretary) to ask for a review of the situation. Her idea of a review is to have the National Academy of Sciences look to see if prior biological opinions and/or studies were done correctly.... The overt purpose of this is to verify the science. The covert purpose is to determine if increased pumping from the Delta can be resumed.... For more, see the thread titled, Senators Response, further down this Forum. IMHO, this review is an unnecessary intrusion into the planning process for Delta recovery. :confused:

It's been reported that Senator Feinstein is considering running for Governor when the office is vacated by the Schwartz.... :eek:

The article was written for the Chron by an organization called California Watch. :cool:

OceanSunfish
12-06-2009, 11:54 PM
And the "hits" just keep on coming.......

Sadly, politicians, especially long time career politicians, forgot their true constituents a long time ago and instead believe that it's about playing a 'game' between party lines and special interests (donors). It's all about a 'game'. I don't even think they hear a peep or see a single face from 'we the people'.

Someone earlier stated that DiFi and others should be wearing suits with patches representing their 'backers' just like NASCAR drivers. I agree.

Those in the 'know' feel powerless to stop this trash while a great many of the voters are too ignorant or just not smart enough (yes, I said it, so there... ) to understand the issues. After all, "we" voted them into office..... ugh.

Mrs.Finsallaround
12-07-2009, 10:02 AM
There is a similar story in the Sacramento Bee this morning:

http://www.sacbee.com/capitolandcalifornia/story/2375052.html

full story available here: http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/projects/californiawatch

sacbee.com

This story is taken from Sacbee / Capitol and California

Feinstein heeded donor, sought Delta study
California Watch
Published Monday, Dec. 07, 2009

Wealthy corporate farmer Stewart Resnick has written check after check to U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein's political campaigns. He's hosted a party in her honor at his Beverly Hills mansion, and he's entertained her at his second home in Aspen, Colo.

In September, when Resnick asked Feinstein to weigh in on the side of agribusiness in a drought-fueled environmental dispute over the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the wealthy grower and political donor got quick results, documents show.

On Sept. 4, Resnick wrote to Feinstein, complaining that the latest federal plan to rescue the Delta's endangered salmon and shad fisheries was "exacerbating the state's severe drought" because it cut back on water available to irrigate crops. "Sloppy science" by federal wildlife agencies had led to "regulatory-induced water shortages," he claimed.

"I really appreciate your involvement in this issue," he wrote to Feinstein.

One week later, Feinstein forwarded Resnick's letter to two U.S. Cabinet secretaries. In her own letter, she referred specifically to Resnick's plea and urged the administration to spend $750,000 for a sweeping re-examination of the science behind the entire Delta environmental protection plan.

The Obama administration quickly agreed, authorizing another review of whether restrictions on pumping irrigation water were necessary to save the Delta's fish. The results could delay or change the course of the protection effort.

To environmentalists concerned with protecting the Delta, it was a dispiriting display of the political clout wielded by Resnick, who is among California's biggest growers and among its biggest political donors.

Resnick's Paramount Farms owns 118,000 acres of heavily irrigated California orchards. "Paramount Farms is a huge player," said Gerald Meral, former director of the Planning and Conservation League environmental lobby.

Since he began buying farmland 25 years ago, Resnick, his wife, and executives of his companies have donated $3.97 million to candidates and political committees, mostly in the Golden State, a California Watch review of public records shows.

They have given $29,000 to Feinstein and $246,000 more to Democratic political committees during years when she has sought re-election.

"It is very disappointing that one person can make this kind of request, and all of a sudden he has a senator on the phone, calling up (U.S. Interior Secretary Ken) Salazar," said Jim Metropulos, senior advocate for the Sierra Club.

Feinstein's letter was "based on what she believes to be the best policy for California and the nation," spokesman Gil Duran said in a statement. "No other factors play a role in her decisions."

With the Valley's economy battered by recession and drought, Feinstein believed it was important to reconsider the restrictions on pumping Delta water for irrigation, he said. Many farmers have urged such a review, he added.

In an interview, Resnick said he didn't leverage his relationship with Feinstein to persuade her to intervene.

"Honestly, I'm not saying we could not have done that, but I don't think that's the way it happened," he said. Feinstein long has had an interest in water issues, and "she just wanted to get to the bottom of this," Resnick said.

Early on, records show, Resnick began contributing to politicians with power over the bureaucracies that make decisions affecting farming's financial bottom line.

Since 1993, the Resnicks gave $1.6 million to California governors, key players in determining state water policy. Their donation pattern seems nonpartisan, with the money following who's in power.

In the 1990s, they gave $238,000 to Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, records show. The Resnicks also backed the Democrat who replaced Wilson, Gray Davis. They gave Davis $643,000. They gave $91,500 more to oppose Davis' 2003 recall.

With Davis gone, Resnick began donating to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger – $221,000, records show – plus $50,000 to a foundation that pays for the governor's foreign travel.

During Wilson's administration Paramount Farms gained part ownership of what was to have been a state-owned storage bank for surplus water.

As recounted in a report by the advocacy group Public Citizen, in the 1980s state water officials devised a plan to ease the impact of future droughts by collecting excess water during rainy years and storing it underground.

The water was to be pumped south via the California Aqueduct, then put into a vast aquifer in Kern County that could hold a year's water supply for 1 million homes.

The state spent about $75 million to buy a 20,000- acre site and to design the water bank. But in 1994, state water officials transferred the water bank site to the local Kern County Water Agency in exchange for significant water rights, Resnick said. The water agency developed the water bank in partnership with four other public agencies and one private business – a subsidiary of Paramount Farms. Paramount wound up controlling a 48 percent share of the bank.

Resnick said the state had been unable to develop the water bank and gave up on the project. The local agencies and his company spent about $50 million to engineer the project and make the bank a success, he said.

Paramount's control of the bank continues to infuriate some environmentalists. In recent dry years, the bank sold some of its stored water back to the state at a premium, Public Citizen reported.

"Resnick likes to call himself a farmer, but he is in the business of selling public water, with none of the profits returned to the taxpayers," said Walter Shubin, a director of the Revive the San Joaquin environmental group in Fresno.

The Resnicks began backing Feinstein in 1994 with a $4,000 contribution for her reelection campaign. When she ran again in 2000, they gave her $7,000, and Resnick also donated $225,000 to Democratic political committees that were active in key Democratic races.

In August 2000, when the Democratic National convention was in Los Angeles, the Resnicks hosted a cocktail party for Feinstein in their home.

In 2007, they gave $10,000 to the Fund for the Majority, Feinstein's political action committee. In June, another committee to which Resnick has contributed, the California Citrus Mutual PAC, spent $2,500 to host a fundraiser for Feinstein, records show.

Feinstein also socializes with the Resnicks. Arianna Huffington, a blog editor and former candidate for governor, told the New York Observer in 2006 that she had spent New Year's with Feinstein at the Resnicks' home in Aspen.

On Aug. 26, Feinstein met with growers and water agency officials in Coalinga. While there, she told The Fresno Bee that she wanted the U.S. Interior Department to reconsider the biological opinions underlying the Delta protection plan.

The following week, she received the letter from Resnick, which was first reported by the Contra Costa Times. She then sent her own letters to Interior Secretary Salazar and U.S. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. Days later, the administration agreed to pay $750,000 to have the National Academy of Sciences restudy the scientific issues underlying the Delta protection plan.

Darian
12-07-2009, 12:41 PM
IMHO, Politicians haven't forgotten who their constituency is. They're very attentive to voting/voter trends and those trends indicate that most people who are eligible to do so, do not participate in the voting process. That means that politicians only need a majority of those who do participate to vote for them to be elected or re-elected. :nod:

People who do vote tend to vote in identifiable/predictable patterns, regardless of party affiliation. This is compounded by creation of voting districts that tend to support election of candidates from a particular party; protecting incumbents in office. It allows a targeted campaign to be successful or in some cases, no campaign at all. :rolleyes:

Politicians can and do take monetary and other types of "gratuities" that they characterize as the price of gaining "access" to the process. Access can be as innocent as meeting to discuss a particular interest or as intrusive as the lobbyist drafting proposed legislation and providing monetary support. Of course, donations are never supposed to be to gain the favor of a legislator.... :-\" :-\"

Knowledgeable special interests understand this very. They employ lobbyists that're usually ex-legislators (from all levels of government) and who're able to spread the benefits/information around in an attempt to influence decisions on behalf of their clients through their personal contacts. There're armies of them.... So, special interests have become the real constituency of the current crop of politicians. :nod:

Due to the lack of participation on the part of the public who are eligible to vote (e.g. Christy Whitman, offered as an example of how high up the food chain lack of participation goes) and the lack of regulation, most politicians will never be held accountable for their actions or lack thereof. $%#$, with the exception of Gray Davis. We don't even try to vote them out of office.... ](*,)

In short, we get the level of government we deserve. :confused:

OceanSunfish
12-07-2009, 10:15 PM
Well said.

Mike O
12-09-2009, 11:39 AM
IMHO, Politicians haven't forgotten who their constituency is. They're very attentive to voting/voter trends and those trends indicate that most people who are eligible to do so, do not participate in the voting process. <<<snip>>

We don't even try to vote them out of office.... ](*,)

In short, we get the level of government we deserve. :confused:

Worse than that...those of us who do vote...we forget what the screwballs did last week.

And even worse than that???

Those who vote the party, not the person. Dems who wouldn't even consider a Repub, and vicey versy

Want more on the way Resnick does business...check out how his company Fiji water operates:

http://motherjones.com/politics/2009/09/fiji-spin-bottle

Maodiver

Darian
12-09-2009, 01:31 PM
Interesting article. I've been doing some research on the Resnicks and their holdings for some time now and have found that they and the executives of their companies are routinely tight lipped about their activities in spite of what Lynda Resnick says in her book. :-$

Of course, they're very successful as a result of the obvious effort to remain out of the spotlight while operating behind the scenes. :nod: If I recall correctly, IRS was directed to investigate "off-shore tax shelters" similar to those used by the Resnicks. If there actually was an investigation, it would be interesting to be able to access the files and see what the outcome was.... :smirk:

At the risk of sounding like a 70's radical, this type of corporate behavior is nothing new. A couple of shining examples might be the oil and/or diamond industries. :nod: :nod:

Mike O
12-09-2009, 04:51 PM
now we gonna water robber-barons? Oh wait, we already do, we call them Southern Californians LOL ;)

Darian
12-09-2009, 10:22 PM
Senator Feinstein has sent a response to the SF Chron for the article that started this thread. It's similar to the response she made to my written inquiry and the subject of another thread, "Senators Response" further down this Forum. :cool:

The response tries to characterize the situation as resulting in economic hardship on small farmers and workers. Business as usual. [-X

The key in my mind is the statement that Feinstein believes that a "....review...." (costing $750,000.00) of the biological opinion that's apparently the basis for restrictions on pumping is necessary to determine if it's OK to resume increased pumping because she asked growers and they said the only science they respected was from the National Academy of Science. :confused: In this article, Feinstein asserts that the Guv supports the review.... :-s

This article raises some interesting questions:

Was the request for a review appropriate (given the timing of Resnick's letter) and prior studies at all levels of government :question:

Why is a special interest group (growers) still given credibility when they can pick and choose what science they will accept/respect :question:

If the review concludes that increased pumping will not endanger Delta resources, will that information tend to support the outcome of the 13 lawsuits cited :question:

What happens if the outcome confirms the biological opinion is correct :question: Will the 13 lawsuits cited go away or another effort result :question:

At any rate, It's my belief that Feinstein has made a strategic error by trying to defend her request for a review and I'm underwhelmed that the Guv supports it. ](*,) ](*,)