OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Author Archive

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

OC Couple Placed on Child Abuse Index for Punishing Daughter with Haircut

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 16, 2012

Potential Child Abuser?I wish the headline I just wrote was out of context, but from reading both this OC Register article and its LA Times counterpart, it is clear that in the case of the McFetridges of Irvine that nanny government ran amok, a social worker lost all common sense, and the law provided inadequate recourse for the parents.

In a nutshell: OC Deputy District Attorney George McFetridge and his wife Bette were in the process of adopting a teenaged girl, Holly.  In 2008, Holly ran away from the McFetridge’s Irvine home to the Huntington Beach Youth Shelter, where she accused Bette of shoving her into a towel rack.  The shelter called the Orange County Social Services Agency.  Social worker Bridget Hannegan investigated the allegations and found Holly’s accusation “unfounded.”  However, Hannegan then investigated Holly’s hair and found “inconclusive” evidence of emotional abuse due to the haircut.

The McFetridges were then placed on the child abuse central index due to the “inconclusive” finding of emotional abuse.  It took them 11 months to get themselves off the child abuse central index.  The McFetridges then sued for $28,011.  The $28,000 was for the costs charged to the McFetridges of housing Holly in a residential program, and the $11 is $1 for each month the McFetridges were on the list.

Putting aside the residential program costs, the law really should have had provisions to allow the McFetridges to win the $11 for this disturbing loss of common sense by social worker Hannegan.  Unfortunately, to win their lawsuit, the McFetridges needed to show that Hannegan had lied or acted maliciously, but what happened here was Hannegan was incapable of using common sense and was blinded by her love of bureaucratic procedure.

The law has since been changed so that only “substantiated” child abuse allegations result in parents ending up on the child abuse central index, so “inconclusive” ones do not.  However, that still doesn’t change the fact that Hannegan’s bizarre worldview that cutting a child’s hair oddly constituted “inconclusive” child abuse.  The haircut should have been deemed an “unfounded” abuse allegation; an allegation we should all recall that was not made by Holly the alleged victim or by the youth shelter, but rather an allegation that social worker Hannegan created all on her own.  In our society, we rely on the policy makers create the laws and regulations, and the front-line employees, like the social workers, are supposed to use their discretion to carry out those laws and regulations, but this is clearly a case where that discretion was horribly abused.

The quotes from Hannegan are disturbing – not disturbing because of horrible abuse, but disturbing because of Hannegan’s thought process.  Here’s an excerpt from the OC Register article that shows social worker Hannegan’s idiocy:

Hannegan, a senior investigative social worker, visited Holly at Woodbridge High School and was shocked at what she saw. “Immediately I noticed her hair,” Hannegan told the jury. “It looked like she got hazed.”

While Holly’s bangs looked normal, her hair was “cut severely uneven to the back” at about one inch in length, Hannegan said. She lifted up the back of Holly’s hair and saw three circular, silver-dollar sized bald spots, Hannegan testified.

Holly said that George McFetridge had restrained her while Bette cut her hair as punishment for lying, Hannegan testified.

Then George McFetridge got something most parents never do: the chance to cross-examine a social worker.

He questioned Hannegan’s investigative techniques, asking if she had spoken to any of Holly’s friends or teachers to try to corroborate her story (answer: no) or had taken a photograph to document Holly’s severe haircut.

Hannegan replied that she is not “trained” to use a camera. “It’s not part of my job description,” she said.

In her report about the family, Hannegan determined that Holly’s allegation of physical abuse by Bette McFetridge was “unfounded,” but she added an “inconclusive” finding of alleged emotional abuse based on the hair-cutting incident. The inconclusive finding landed the McFetridges on the state’s Child Abuse Central Index without them having a chance to see Hannegan’s report or challenge it in a hearing.

Clearly, I should have called the Orange County Social Services Agency and Bridget Hannegan when I was a child for that bowl cut my mom gave me in elementary school and that buzzcut in middle school.  It’s amazing that I survived such stunning abuse.

Posted in Orange County | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

CD-45: Durkee Embezzlement Case Freezes 40% of Sukhee Kang’s Warchest; John Campbell’s Warchest = $1.1 Million

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 15, 2012

Compared to most Democrats who had Kinde Durkee as their treasurer, Irvine Mayor Sukhee Kang actually fared pretty well (Irvine is the largest city in the new 45th Congressional District, and Kang is a directly-elected mayor).  Kang raised $289,398 and spent $35,715 (for those looking at the FEC summary sheet, please note these figures account for a $1,000 refund), only $188,523 was frozen by the LA County Superior Court, pending resolution of the Kinde Durkee case.  He reports $189,559 cash on hand.  (I realize the math doesn’t seem to add up, but this is what’s on his FEC report.)  Kang’s best case scenario is he has all his money.  His worst case scenario is he gets none of the cash back, but that’s only 40% of what he’s raised compared to the wipe-out Jose Solorio and Lou Correa suffered.

Unfortunately, for Kang, even if he gets all of that money back, incumbent Republican Congressman John Campbell‘s $1,096,043 warchest still dwarfs Kang’s.  Not only that, Congressional finance disclosures indicate Campbell is California’s fourth wealthiest member of the House (behind only Darrell Issa, Nancy Pelosi, and Gary Miller), with a net worth between $8-$33 million.  (Including both houses of Congress, Senator Dianne Feinstein comes in ahead of Pelosi but behind Issa).  When Durkee embezzled $4.6 million from Feinstein’s re-election, the Senator loaned her campaign $5 million.  Needless to say, fantastically wealthy members of Congress can easily drop millions into their campaigns if they feel the need.

In the comparison of remarkably similar warchests, Todd Spitzer has $2,988 more cash on hand than John Campbell.

Republican challenger John Webb raised $23,047 and loaned himself an additional $3,200, but has already spent $23,786, leaving himself $2,460 cash on hand before accounting for debts (I assume the $1 differential on the math is due to rounding on his report).

For people wondering, the Registrar of Voters reports a 16.9% Republican registration advantage in this district.  Despite a challenge from the right and a challenge by the mayor of the district’s largest city from the left, John Campbell will still cruise to re-election.

Posted in 45th Congressional District, Fundraising | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Battle for a Judgeship: Looks Like We’ve Got a Race for OC Superior Court

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 14, 2012

Judge Deborah Chuang and Challenger Eugene JizhakJudicial elections are usually quiet affairs, particularly when it’s an incumbent judge running for re-election.  With only a few exceptions (like the 1986 Supreme Court retention election, the re-election bid of child porn-collecting OC Judge Ronald Kline in 2002, or the re-election bid of San Bernardino County Judge Robert Lemkau who was targeted by KFI’s John & Ken for his role in a ruling that failed to prevent the death of a child), these usually get little attention.  Indeed, rarely are sitting judges challenged, and in recent memory, only Kline in 2002 and Judge John Nho Trong Nguyen in 2008 have been challenged for seats on the OC Superior Court.

In 2002, a write-in campaign by John Adams put him in first place ahead of Kline, Gay Sandoval, and various other attorneys.  The run-off was to be between Adams and Kline, but Kline saw the writing on the wall and withdrew from the run-off, which then pitted the eventually victorious Adams and Sandoval against each other.  In 2007, Kline was sentenced to 27 months in federal prison over the child porgnography.

In 2008, Judge John Nho Trong Nguyen was inexplicably challenged by Timothy Sy Nguyen in a race that Frank Mickadeit at the OC Register dubbed “The Other Nguyen vs. Nguyen” (it was on the ballot at the same time as the supervisorial race between Supervisor Janet Nguyen and Garden Grove Councilwoman Dina Nguyen).  It seemed Tim Nguyen felt Judge Nguyen had discriminated against him because of their common ethnicity, yet Mickadeit found no other Vietnamese-American lawyer who agreed with Tim Nguyen.  Judge Nguyen, endorsed by numerous politicians from both major parties and virtually every judge known to man, went on to stomp Tim Nguyen with an astounding 80.5% of the vote.  (For the record, I am not related to any of the four Nguyens in this blog post.  Nguyen is an exceedingly common last name, encompassing 36% of Vietnamese people.)

This year, Judge Deborah Chuang is being challenged by attorney Eugene Jizhak.  Jizhak is an Irvine attorney who graduated from UCLA for his undergrad and some place called the Newport School of Law, which appears to be defunct.  Judge Chuang graduated from Duke for her undergrad and the UC Berkeley School of Law, was hired as a Deputy Attorney General in 1997 when Dan Lungren was Attorney General and continued there under Attorneys General Bill Lockyer and Jerry Brown until her appointment to the bench in 2009 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

As a sitting judge, Chuang’s bar records are not disclosed, per the State Constitution, though her official biography indicates she was admitted to the bar in 1995.  Jizhak’s bar records indicate he was admitted to the bar in 1994 and has been a member in good standing continuously since then, though he did voluntarily go inactive for 3.5 years between December 2003 and June 2007 (that just means he wasn’t practicing law during that period and wanted to pay lower dues; Jerry Brown did the same thing during his first term as Mayor of Oakland).

The disparity between the incumbent Chuang and novice Jizhak is telling.  Jizhak hasn’t formed a campaign committee (which is easy to do: just fill out this short form), and his web site is an embarassingly short one-pager at http://sites.google.com (it’s neither hard nor expensive to buy your own domain name, like jizhak.com: they’re $9.99/year here [on sale for $8.99 for new customers] and $12.99/year here [on sale for $9.99 this month]).  Chuang has already formed the committee (ID# 1343919), has a complete campaign web site, hired eminent campaign treasurer Lysa Ray, has numerous endorsements, and already held a fundraiser.

Judge Chuang’s bevy of endorsements ranges from Republican politicians like Senator Mimi Walters, Assemblyman Don Wagner, Supervisors Bill Campbell and Shawn Nelson, DA Tony Rackauckas, Sheriff Sandra Hutchens, and Irvine Councilman Steven Choi to Democrats like Senator Lou Correa, former Senator Joe Dunn, Irvine Mayor Sukhee Kang, and major donor Wylie Aitken.  She is endorsed by numerous judges, including a number of appointees of governors from both sides of the aisle, Federal Judge Josephine Tucker (who was appointed by  President Obama), and Superior Court Judge Jim Rogan (who you’ll recall is a Republican former Congressman who was one of the House Managers in the impeachment of Bill Clinton and who George W. Bush attempted to appoint to the federal bench but got spiked by Barbara Boxer).

Held at the home of former Senator Joe Dunn (D-Santa Ana), Chuang’s January 25th fundraiser weirdly had on the invitation the headline: “‘SOLIDARITY’ is back.” The host committee included Dunn, former Senate Republican Leader Dick Ackerman, DA Rackauckas, Sheriff Hutchens, Aitken, Frank Barbaro, and Ben De Mayo, among others.  Oddly, two labor unions, the Orange County Professional Firefighters and the Orange County Employees Association, were also listed as members of the host committee.

2010’s Judge Deborah Chuang v. Eugene Jizhak looks like it’ll be another stomping reminscient of 2008’s Judge John Nguyen v. Tim Nguyen.

Posted in Orange County | Tagged: , | 9 Comments »

OCEA Robocall Targeting Anaheim Council’s Murray, Eastman, and Sidhu

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 13, 2012

Anaheim Councilmembers Kris Murray, Gail Eastman, and Harry Sidhu

At 5:16 PM yesterday, either my father, sister, or both received this robocall from the OCEA targeting Anaheim Councilmembers Kris Murray, Gail Eastman, and Harry Sidhu.  Click here to listen to the robocall or read the transcript below:

Hello, I’m Larry Larsen, your Anaheim neighbor and local businessman.

City Council Members Murray, Eastman, and Sidhu just voted to give away 158 million of our tax dollars to a hotel developer and campaign donor, instead of funding public safety, libraries, and parks.

Tell them they’re wrong.  Join us at KABC Channel 7’s town hall meeting tomorrow, Monday, 6 PM at St. Anthony’s Church, 1450 East La Palma Avenue.

Paid for by the Orange County Employees Association (714) 835-3355 HeartofAnaheim.com

Essentially, the Anaheim City Council voted 3-2 for a $158 million tax incentive for GardenWalk Hotel I, LCC on January 24.  How the plan works in a nutshell is that GardenWalk Hotel I, LCC will retain 80% of the Transient Occupancy Tax money from the GardenWalk Hotel for the next 15 years.  (The Transient Occupancy Tax is known colloquially as the hotel bed tax.)

Some opponents dislike the plan on the basis that it unfairly discriminates against other hotel operators in Anaheim who do not get the same tax incentive.  Other opponents dislike the plan on the basis that the $158 million could be spent on city government functions.  Some proponents of the plan argue that it will bring jobs to the city.  Other proponents argue that it will bring increased sales tax revenue and ensure future hotel bed tax revenue once the 15 years expires.

Mayor Tom Tait and Mayor Pro Tem Lorri Galloway voted against the plan while Councilmembers Eastman, Murray, and Sidhu voted for the plan.  Here is the City of Anaheim’s staff report, which recommended the Council oppose the tax incentive plan; Eastman, Murray, and Sidhu bucked the staff recommendation.  Here is the actual text of the new agreement between the City of Anaheim and GardenWalk Hotel I, LLC.

In 2004, OCEA made contributions to Galloway ($500 before the election and $500 after the election) and Sidhu ($500 after the election).  In 2005, OCEA made a $500 contribution to Galloway.  In 2008, OCEA made contributions to both Galloway and Sidhu’s re-election campaigns; they also made IEs on behalf of Galloway ($10,124.28) and Sidhu ($17,999.64).  In 2010, OCEA made contributions to Galloway’s Supervisorial campaign and to John Leos‘s City Council campaign; they also made IEs on behalf of Leos’s City Council campaign ($198,044.31) and against Shawn Nelson‘s Supervisorial campaign ($317,190.60; implicitly aiding Galloway and Sidhu’s Supervisorial campaigns).  Leos is running for Council in 2012.

Here is a January 24 OC Register article previewing the vote on the tax incentive plan.  Here’s a January 25 Voice of OC article describing the council vote.  Here’s a February 7 OC Register editorial arguing: “We don’t make a habit of begrudging lawmakers for cutting taxes, in most cases we welcome it, but only in instances where it is applied fairly – across the board. By approving a tax benefit that only applies to select hotels, the city puts other hotels at a competitive disadvantage. It’s political favoritism with severe economic consequences.”

I’m assuming the narrator of the robocall is the same Larry Larsen of Anaheim Hills who’s quoted in this January 31 OC Register article about the plan.

The robocall showed up on my father’s answering machine from what his caller ID deemed an “out of area” phone number.  My sister is in the Peace Corps in Africa, so the phone number on her voter registration is the same as my father’s.  Both of them are registered as “No Party Preference” (or “Decline-to-State” in the pre-Prop 14 parlance).  They each voted in 3 of the last 5 elections (2 generals and a special for my sister; 2 generals and a primary for my father).

Fellow OC Political Editor Chris Emami informs me he also received the phone call but did not get a recording.  I’m glad my father never answers his phone.  Emami also received a mailer similar to this phone call.

Not sure if I’m getting missed or intentionally outside their phone universe.  I’ve been registered as a Republican since I’ve been 18 and have voted 5 of the last 5 elections.  (Actually, it’s way more than 5 of 5, as I’ve voted in every single primary, general, special, and recall election since I turned 18, but I’m not going to sit down and count how many elections that’s been.)

Posted in Anaheim | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments »

Putting Yesterday’s Prop 8 Ruling in Perspective: It Means Nothing Until We Hear from Anthony Kennedy

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 8, 2012

After yesterday’s ruling from the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Prop 8 supporters jeered, and Prop 8 opponents cheered.  The news showed jubliant same-sex marriage supporters celebrating the ruling and resolute traditional marriage supporters vowing to appeal.

In the May 2009 California Supreme Court ruling in Strauss v. Horton, the result was the opposite, with Prop 8 upheld.  The August 2010 U.S. District Court ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger struck down Prop 8.  Yesterday’s ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Perry v. Brown upheld the District Court.  Prop 8 proponents have 90 days (well, technically, 89 as of this morning) to decide whether to appeal to an 11-judge en banc panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or to appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If there’s any lesson to be learned from all the court battles involving Prop 8, it’s that it doesn’t matter what a particular court rules, the side that wins hails the ruling as a historic victory in defense of the legal concepts they support while the side that loses vows to go to another court.  The only way this cycle ends is to take this to the highest court in the land: only the United States Supreme Court can decide this issue once and for all.

In all likelihood, U.S. Supreme Court Justices John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito will vote to uphold Prop 8 while Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan will vote to strike down Prop 8.  This means that whether marriage means one man and one woman or whether it means two people of any sex in California and in America rests in the hands of one man: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.

There’s a certain irony that Kennedy will be the key to this issue, since Prop 8 comes from California, and Kennedy is a native Californian who spent the majority of his life in this state and was appointed to the Supreme Court by fellow Californian Ronald Reagan.  A Catholic educated at Stanford University and Harvard Law School, Kennedy was a lawyer in private practice and has been a law professor at McGeorge School of Law during his time as a lawyer and continuing to the present day.

Kennedy’s judicial track record does not make it clear how he’d come down on this issue.

In Beller v. Middendorf (1980), Kennedy (a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Judge back then) wrote the decision that upheld the ability of the U.S. Navy to discharge sailors for “engaging in homosexual acts.”  In Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), he joined a unanimous Supreme Court opinion allowing the St. Patrick’s Day Parade to exclude an Irish gay group.

In Romer v. Evans (1996), Kennedy wrote the decision invalidating a Colorado ballot measure prohibiting sexual orientation from becoming a protected class (protected classes include race, religion, etc.).  In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), Kennedy voted to uphold the right of the Boy Scouts of America as a private organization to exclude gay men from being scoutmasters.

Both sides of the issue can find favorable parts of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), where Kennedy wrote, “the Texas [anti-sodomy] statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual” but also wrote that the case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.”  So Lawrence v. Texas tells us that Kennedy opposed attempts to regulate the conduct of consenting adults but also wanted to make clear that the decision did not affect marriage.

In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), Kennedy joined a court decision that allowed a public school to refuse recognition to a student group that wished to exclude gay members.

Kennedy’s dizzying array of court decisions leaves little clarity as to how he will rule.  However, there is little doubt that the fate of Proposition 8 and of the definition of marriage in California and America rests in the hands of one Californian above all others: Anthony Kennedy.

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Who is Anthony Stewart Pinkston, and Why is He Carpetbagging into the AD-72 Race?

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 7, 2012

Yesterday, a fellow by the name of Anthony Stewart Pinkston pulled a signature-in-lieu petition for the 72nd Assembly District.  While obscure candidates often pull papers and even file, Pinkston’s candidacy seems a bit odd.

He has pinkstonforcal.com as his web site on the Registrar of Voters’s Candidate Filing Log, and the whois search on his web site’s domain name reveals that he registered pinkstonforcal.com on January 18, 2012, but it’s registered to a residence in Newport Beach, which is squarely in the 74th Assembly District.  Furthermore, Pinkston’s Facebook profile indicates that he lives in Newport Beach.  Why is a Newport Beach resident running for the 72nd District, which includes Westminster, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, Midway City, most of Garden Grove, half of Huntington Beach, and a sliver of Santa Ana?

I can’t recall a carpetbagging candidate who wasn’t at least a viable candidate.  We’ve all seen candidates with zero chance of winning run for office, but how often do we see them carpetbag?  Is Pinkston just a crazy carpetbagger, or is he someone’s carpetbagging stalking horse?

Posted in 72nd Assembly District | Tagged: | 4 Comments »

Total Durkee Embezzlement: $1.4-$1.7 Million from Correa & Solorio; Combined Cash on Hand Far Less Than Nguyen

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 2, 2012

It had been well-reported in the Fall that Kinde Durkee is charged with embezzling “hundreds of thousands of dollars” from Senator Lou Correa and over $677,000 from Assemblyman Jose Solorio.  Well, now we know the totals: over $1.7 million between the two.

According to Solorio’s campaign finance filings from his four accounts, he lost $721,176, and another $154,053 is being held by the LA Superior Court pending resolution of the Durkee case.  This means Solorio’s losses could be as much as $875,229.  This leaves Solorio with $124,820 cash on hand.  However, he has $13,489 in unpaid bills, which leaves him with just $111,331.

From Correa’s campaign finance filings from his two accounts, he lost $795,739, and another $68,744 is being held by the LA Superior Court pending resolution of the Durkee case.  This means Correa’s losses could be as much as $864,483.  This leaves Correa with $52,683 cash on hand.  However, he has $2,346 in unpaid bills, which leaves him with $50,337. (He did set up a third account, which was a legal defense fund, in September after Durkee was charged, but that account only has a $200 personal loan from Correa).

The unintentional big winner in this is Supervisor Janet Nguyen.  Correa and Solorio are Nguyen’s two most formidable potential challengers.

Nguyen has $282,577 cash on hand and $11,826 in unpaid bills, leaving her with $270,751.  Solorio and Correa have $161,668 combined.

For visual learners:

Embezzled Held By
Court		 Cash on
Hand		 Unpaid
Bills
Solorio $721,176 $154,053 $124,820 $13,489
Correa $795,739 $68,744 $52,683 $2,346
Nguyen $0 $0 $282,577 $11,826

For the record, I am not related to Supervisor Nguyen. The last name Nguyen is held by 36% of Vietnamese people.

Posted in 1st Supervisorial District, 34th Senate District, Fundraising | Tagged: , , , | 6 Comments »

3rd Supervisorial District: No Surprises in Spitzer vs. Pauly Cash Race

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 2, 2012

Former Supervisor/Assemblyman Todd Spitzer entered the race for 3rd District Supervisor in early March while Villa Park Councilwoman Deborah Pauly entered the race in mid-October.  About a week ago, Pauly told Frank Mickadeit she had about $3,000 while Spitzer told Mickadeit that he had between $1-$1.5 million.  The numbers in their campaign finance filings should surprise no one.

In the first 2.5 months after entering the race, Pauly raised $2,810, of which she spent $1,637.  That was split between a $74 nonmonetary contribution and two payments: one for campaign literature and the other for her web site.  Pauly had $1,247 cash on hand at the end of 2011.

During 2011, Spitzer transferred $1,011,583 from his DA and Central Committee accounts.  On top of that, he raised $126,229, raising his warchest to $1,137,812.  He spent $154,395 and has outstanding bills of $29,401, for a total of $183,796.  His spending was scattered across virtually anything you can think of: consultants, treasurer, fundraiser, slate mailers, web work, printing, and even civic donations.  Spitzer had $1,099,031 cash on hand at the end of 2011.

For visual learners:

Raised Transferred Spent Cash on
Hand		 Unpaid Bills
Pauly $2,810 $0 $1,637 $1,247 $0
Spitzer $126,229 $1,011,583 $154,395 $1,099,031 $29,401

The new 3rd District consists of 336,640 voters in Anaheim Hills, Orange, Tustin, Villa Park, Yorba Linda, and most of Irvine.  The new district includes the 4,600 voters in Villa Park who elected Deborah Pauly to two terms on the Council, but those voters (along with 44,000 voters in Yorba Linda) also elected Todd Spitzer to two terms on the Board of Supervisors in the 1990s version of the 3rd District.  Substantial portions of the 73,000 voters in Orange elected Spitzer to two terms on the Board of Supervisors and three terms in the State Assembly.  The 36,000 voters in Tustin elected Spitzer to three terms in the State Assembly.

Posted in 3rd Supervisorial District, Fundraising | Tagged: , | 4 Comments »

AD-72: Diep Takes Early Cash Lead Over Harper

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 1, 2012

In the race for the new 72nd Assembly District, Westminster Councilman Tyler Diep hopped in the race in late June while Huntington Beach Councilman Matt Harper jumped in the race in mid-October.  Thus far, the money race has proved decidedly lopsided, with Diep raising nearly nine times what Harper has raised and holding nearly sixteen times the amount of cash on hand.

In the 2.5 months after he entered the race, Harper raised $15,353 and had $7,887 cash on hand (excluding $7,500 in candidate loans), as of the close of 2011.

In the first three days after he entered the race, Diep raised $50,399 and had all of it on hand, with no loans.  By the end of 2011, he had raised $137,049 and still had $129,604 cash on hand.  He had no candidate loans.

Both candidates spent remarkably similar amounts just under $7,500, though Harper spent mostly on slate mailers while Diep spent mostly on his campaign consultants at Revolvis and his treasurer, Lysa Ray.  (I’m counting a $1,350 nonmonetary contribution to Diep from the New Santa Ana Blog as part of his spending.)  However, Harper also has $14,111 in unpaid bills to his campaign consultants at Gilliard Blanning and his treasurer, David Bauer.  If those unpaid bills are included and Harper spends the money he loaned to his campaign, Harper would have $1,276 cash on hand.

For visual learners:

Raised Spent Cash on
Hand		 Unpaid
Bills		 Candidate
Loans
Harper $15,353 $7,466 $7,887 $14,111 $7,500
Diep $137,049 $7,446 $129,604 $0 $0

The two candidates’ non-Assembly accounts (Harper’s council account, Diep’s council and sanitary district accounts) are superfluous, as those accounts have a combined $800, so it doesn’t really matter if they transfer that into their accounts.

Diep currently works for Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel and previously worked for then-Assemblyman Van Tran.  Harper currently works for OC Waste & Recycling and previously worked for Supervisor Janet Nguyen.  Harper is also a fellow blogger for OC Political.

Excluding his own contribution of $10 and a $100,000 loan to himself, Orange County Board of Education Member Long Pham raised $5.  He had $13,370 in expenses ($9,530 paid plus another $3,840 in unpaid bills), all of which are going to financial services or to his consultant, Premiere Strategies.

The two Democrats who pulled papers in this race, Albert Ayala and Joe Dovinh, did not raise enough to trigger electronic filing requirements.

The new AD-72 consists of Westminster, Fountain Valley, Seal Beach, Los Alamitos, Rossmoor, Midway City, most of Garden Grove, half of Huntington Beach, and a sliver of Santa Ana.  AD-72 includes about 63,000 voters from Harper’s city and the 47,000 voters of Diep’s city.  It also includes 131,000 voters from the Huntington Beach Union High School District, where Harper was elected to three terms, and 52,000 voters from the Midway City Sanitary District, where Diep was elected to two terms.

Posted in 72nd Assembly District, Fundraising | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

AD-74: Mansoor Raised More, Daigle Has More Cash on Hand

Posted by Chris Nguyen on February 1, 2012

In the race for the new 74th District, Assemblyman Allan Mansoor raised more, but Newport Beach Councilwoman Leslie Daigle has more cash on hand, according to the latest campaign finance filings.

Mansoor raised $207,247 in 2011 between his two Assembly campaign accounts (2010 and 2012).  He has not yet transferred money into his 2012 account, which I assume he will do at some point in 2012.  Of that nearly quarter-million dollars, Mansoor has $60,875 cash on hand.  The bulk of the money was spent on loan/debt repayment and payments to The Bovee Company, AimPoint, and Visteva.

Daigle transferred $23,250 from her Council account and raised an additional $111,818 in 2011 for her Assembly campaign.  She spent $15,365, most of which went to polling company Wilson Perkins Allen (formerly Wilson Research Strategies).  Interestingly, she spent $230 on Kenny the Printer, who many will recall is the favored printer of Democrat Larry Agran’s machine in Irvine.

For visual learners:

Raised Transferred Spent Cash on Hand Unpaid Bills Candidate Loans
Mansoor $207,247 $0 $117,312 $60,875 $4,060 $25,000
Daigle $111,818 $23,250 $15,365 $119,703 $0 $0

Huntington Beach Councilman Joe Carchio entered the race just two weeks ago, so no campaign finance filings will be available from him until March.

An independent by the name of Paul Vann has not yet reached the $1,000 threshold required to file a campaign committee with the Secretary of State.

No Democrats have pulled papers to run in this race.

The new AD-74 consists of Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Newport Beach, most of Irvine, and half of Huntington Beach.  AD-74 includes about 67,000 voters from Huntington Beach, where voters elected Carchio to two terms on the City Council; the 63,000 voters from Newport Beach, where voters elected Daigle to two terms on the City Council; and the 58,000 voters of Mansoor’s hometown of Costa Mesa, where voters have elected Mansoor to office three times (two terms on the City Council and one term in the Assembly).

Posted in 74th Assembly District, Fundraising | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »