OC Political

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

Posts Tagged ‘Allan Mansoor’

Carchio in the Mail for 2nd Supervisorial – Beats Mansoor

Posted by Marion Morrison on May 29, 2014

Interestingly we received a small postcard in the mail today with all 75 pieces of typical campaign literature.  For some reason, this little guy actually stood out amongst the rest.  One would really have to read into it – but to reach a large audience, this late in the game and for a smaller price tag, Joe Carchio actually gets an A for effort.  While I personally don’t think this will help propel Carchio into November, it may steal away enough votes and prevent Michelle Steel from walking away with the clean sweep.  Allan Mansoor still has yet to put out one piece of traditional campaign mail.  Tick tock, tick tock…

Carchio Postcard 2 of 2 Carchio Postcard 1 of 2

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, Mail | Tagged: , , | 3 Comments »

2nd Supervisorial – Steel Receives 4th IE Mailer from AOCDS and Hits Mansoor Twice

Posted by Marion Morrison on May 29, 2014

Today’s mail was literally coming out of my ears.  AOCDS has sent out their 4th mailer supporting Michelle Steel.  This is a straight public safety piece which even includes the AOCDS logo.  Also in the mail were two hit pieces on Allan Mansoor, one of which mentions his previous support for pension increases and one talks about the government pension he’ll receive from being a former Sheriff.  Hmmmm…

Steel IE 2 of 2 Steel IE 1 of 2

Steel Hit 2 2 of 2 Steel Hit 2 1 of 2

Steel Hit 2 of 2 Steel Hit 1 of 2

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, Mail | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Michelle Steel Comparison Piece

Posted by Marion Morrison on May 28, 2014

With the Memorial Day break in postal activity, the Morrison household received a total of five pieces of political mail.  Here is the second of three pieces in favor of Michelle Steel (the other was a duplicate of a previous mailer).  This is a comparison piece attacking Allan Mansoor’s lack of any significant contributions in the State Assembly.


Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, Mail | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Michelle Steel Receives First IE – AOCDS Delivers, While Mansoor Appeals to Facebook Friends

Posted by Marion Morrison on May 22, 2014

The first IE for the 2nd Supervisorial District has hit mailboxes today.  The Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs has come out in support of Michelle Steel with this positive piece.

Steel IE 2 of 2 Steel IE 1 of 2

Meanwhile, Allan Mansoor appeals to friends on Facebook to let people know what has transpired:

Public Employee Unions Rally for Michelle Steel

Friends,

Over the weekend, I received notice that the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs union will be sending out its first mailer on behalf of Michelle Steel sometime in the next 24 hours. The union endorsement, shown below, is the most important part.

Given Michelle’s history, it’s not surprising. I’ve known it was only a matter of time before public employee unions started lining up to support her.

In 2006, public employee unions spent hundreds of thousands of dollars opposing my reelection to City Council. That same year, Michelle received multiple $1000+ union contributions to her campaign for BOE. (see attached photo below)

Given that independent expenditures rarely seem “independent” this probably isn’t a surprise for Steel either. Perhaps it’s why she refused to rule out immediate raises for county employees to offset increased employee pension contributions.

Have trouble believing that Michelle Steel, self-proclaimed “taxpayer advocate”, would undermine pension reform? Her comments starting at the 12:30 mark of the Feet to the Fire Forum speak for themselves.

What do union endorsements like this mean? It means that a candidate can be trusted by union bosses to help increase their power. It doesn’t mean that rank and file membership support the candidate.

I continue to have strong support from my former colleagues – rank and file Deputy Sheriffs – who know that pension reform is the only way to save our pensions. Everyone who has worked in law enforcement and is expecting a pension – myself included – depends on sustainable pensions. A bankrupt pension system might leave us with nothing.

This isn’t the only time union leaders have been out of touch with the membership. In 2006, when convicted-Sheriff Mike Carona was running for reelection, I joined many of my fellow Deputies in standing up against Mike Carona and supported Lt. Bill Hunt.

We knew then that Mike Carona was corrupt and that it was only a matter of time before he went to prison. But then we watched with disappointment as our “leadership” fell over themselves to undermine Lt. Hunt’s campaign and continue supporting Carona until the bitter end.

Not much has changed since the days of Carona. Union bosses still prefer candidates who will engage in backroom dealmaking and are more interested in holding office than serving the community.

My desire to make Orange County a better place to live is shared by rank and file members, many of whom have my sign in their yards. It’s the union bosses and other special interests that oppose me because I will always stand up for what is right, regardless of the political consequences.

We’re in the final stretch of the campaign, and I need your help. With your help, we can keep the public employee union bosses from buying a seat on the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

Please contribute here and together we can help keep this seat for the residents of Orange County’s 2nd District.

Thank you for your continued friendship and support.

Allan

http://www.facebook.com/allanmansoor/posts/10201131476609410

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, Independent Expenditures, Mail | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Handicapping The Races: OC Board of Supervisors 2nd District (June 2014)

Posted by Former Blogger Chris Emami on May 21, 2014

Whenever I write my posts handicapping races, Chris Nguyen gets really angry and stops just short of throwing things at me. With this in mind, I am not going to handicap all races in Orange County. I will select a few races that I find to be a bit more interesting and predict the winners.

We are going to start this season off with a look at the 2nd Supervisorial District race, which features the following candidates:

  • Jim Moreno – Governing Board Member, Coast Community College District
  • Allan Mansoor – California Assemblyman
  • Joe Carchio – Councilman/Retired Businessowner
  • Michelle Steel – Board of Equalization Member

Voter registration heavily favors Republicans, with Republicans having 44% of registered voters in District 2, compared to Democrats who hold just 29% of voter registration. With that being said, party affiliation matters very little in a race for Orange County Supervisor since the candidates’ parties are not listed on the ballot, so that will definitely help spare Jim Moreno, the lone Democrat in the race. The 2nd Supervisorial District currently has the following cities within its boundaries:

  • Costa Mesa
  • Cypress
  • Huntington Beach
  • La Palma
  • Los Alamitos
  • Newport Beach
  • Seal Beach
  • Stanton
  • Buena Park (Portion)
  • Fountain Valley (Portion)

Also, it is important to explain that the way a race for Orange County Supervisor works is that the top two vote getters will advance to November, unless the top vote getter finishes with over 50% of the vote.

Jim Moreno

Jim Moreno is the lone Democrat in the race and the lone candidate with an education-related ballot designation. His political career is limited to his time on the Coast Community College District Board (since 2006). Let’s take a look at his electoral history.

Results from 2010 (General Election):

COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Governing Board Member, Trustee Area 1
Completed Precincts: 507 of 507
Vote Count Percentage
* JIM MORENO 101,092 63.5%
SHANA CHRISTINA JENKINS 58,068 36.5%

Results from 2006 (General Election):

COAST COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Governing Board Member Trustee Area 1
Completed Precincts: 497 of 497
Vote Count Percentage
JIM MORENO 61696 46.0%
CARL A. HENDON 25916 19.3%
LU TUAN NGUYEN 25711 19.2%
TOM HERMSTAD 20837 15.5%

Moreno does have some name ID through the two elections he has been on the ballot for Coast Community College District.

Moreno has the weakest fundraising numbers as of the last report (under $22,000 cash on hand) and does not appear to have the funds to run a very comprehensive campaign. No direct mail has been sent out at this point, no campaign signs are up, and only a few slates have him on it. I have not gotten any feedback on much of a ground game up to this point which is what he would have needed to have done to be more competitive.

He actually came across very well at the Feet to the Fire candidate debate a few weeks ago, and he was, in my opinion, the second-most impressive candidate at the forum.

Based on the factors above, I think Moreno has a slight chance of advancing to November.

Allan Mansoor

Allan Mansoor beat the odds, if you listened to most predictions back in 2012, when he defeated Leslie Daigle in his re-election bid for the 74th Assembly District. I made the accurate prediction of Mansoor advancing to November with Democrat Bob Rush.

Mansoor spent a number of years as a Costa Mesa Councilmember and then went on to serve as the Assemblymember from the 68th Assembly District in 2010. In 2012 after redistricting, the seat he represents became the 74th Assembly District. Let’s take a brief look at his electoral history.

Results from 2012 (Open Primary):

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 74th District
Completed Precincts: 392 of 392
Vote Count Percentage
ALLAN R. MANSOOR 33,319 43.5%
ROBERT RUSH 25,120 32.8%
LESLIE DAIGLE 18,207 23.8%

Results from 2010 (Republican Primary):

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY 68th District – Republican
Completed Precincts: 291 of 291
Vote Count Percentage
ALLAN R. MANSOOR (REP) 22,063 69.3%
LONG PHAM (REP) 9,777 30.7%

Results from 2006 (General Election):

CITY OF COSTA MESA Member, City Council
Number To Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts: 70 of 70
Vote Count Percentage
ALLAN R. MANSOOR 10122 25.9%
WENDY BROOKS LEECE 9524 24.4%
BRUCE GARLICH 8280 21.2%
MIKE SCHEAFER 7255 18.6%
MIRNA BURCIAGA 2717 7.0%
CHRIS BUNYAN 1190 3.0%

Finally, the results from 2002

City of Costa Mesa Member, City Council
Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts: 81 of 81
Vote Count Percentage
Gary Monahan 10,739 31.0%
Allan R. Mansoor 7,617 22.0%
Linda Dixon 7,092 20.5%
Katrina Foley 5,690 16.4%
William Perkins 3,520 10.2%

As you can see from the election results, Mansoor has a history of winning elections and has some good name ID in the 2nd Supervisorial District (especially in Costa Mesa). Costa Mesa has the third-most voters of any city in the 2nd Supervisorial District, behind Newport Beach and Huntington Beach.

However, Mansoor has had abysmal fundraising numbers as of the last report (less than $62,000 cash-on-hand) and has not run a very impressive campaign. According to our blogger, Marion Morrison, Mansoor went negative in his very first piece of mail in this race. It is a basic rule in campaigning that you have to go positive at least twice before you can go negative. Also, Mansoor has some of the worst campaign signs that I have ever seen with his name appearing in very small letters on the sign. I have not heard of him appearing on any slates at this point. His campaign appears to be focused mostly on going to lots of events.

I will give him a break on his performance at the Feet to the Fire candidate forum, since the debate is an absolute circus (if I was prepping a client for this debate, it would include people with vuvuzelas and other noisemakers to try and create as many distractions as possible).

All of this, combined with a late start to the campaign, in my book, make it a large uphill battle for Mansoor.

Joe Carchio

Joe Carchio might be the most interesting of the candidates running for this seat who are not named Michelle Steel. Carchio is currently a Councilmember from Huntington Beach, which is the largest city in the 2nd Supervisorial District. Prior to his time on the council, he owned the popular restaurant, “Jersey Joe’s” in Huntington Beach.

Carchio has been a consistent winner in both elections that he participated in for Huntington Beach City Council. Let’s take a brief look at his electoral history.

Results from 2010 (General Election):

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Member, City Council
Number To Vote For: 4
Completed Precincts: 152 of 152
Vote Count Percentage
CONNIE BOARDMAN 20,019 9.4%
* JOE CARCHIO 18,523 8.7%
MATTHEW HARPER 15,886 7.5%
JOE SHAW 14,585 6.9%
BARBARA DELGLEIZE 14,171 6.7%
BLAIR FARLEY 13,932 6.5%
BILLY O’CONNELL 13,175 6.2%
JIM KATAPODIS 13,100 6.2%
FRED J. SPEAKER 11,183 5.3%
DAN KALMICK 10,775 5.1%
NORM WESTWELL 10,187 4.8%
BILL RORICK 9,835 4.6%
HEATHER GROW 9,624 4.5%
SHAWN ROSELIUS 7,628 3.6%
ERIK PETERSON 7,137 3.4%
BRUCE J. BRANDT 7,125 3.3%
LANDON FICHTNER 4,654 2.2%
ANDRISSA DOMINGUEZ 4,440 2.1%
WILLIAM GRUNWALD 3,652 1.7%
JOHN VON HOLLE 3,209 1.5%
BLAKE ROSE (W) 50 0.0%

Results from 2006 (General Election):

CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Member, City Council
Number To Vote For: 4
Completed Precincts: 155 of 155
Vote Count Percentage
CATHY GREEN 31172 18.6%
JILL HARDY 28582 17.0%
GIL COERPER 24895 14.8%
JOE “JERSEY JOE” CARCHIO 24573 14.6%
FLORENCE “FLOSSIE” HORGAN 23709 14.1%
JOE SHAW 20632 12.3%
NORM “FIRECRACKER” WESTWELL 14282 8.5%

Carchio finished a great deal stronger in 2010 than he did in 2006 as evidenced by the above results. With Huntington Beach being the largest city in the district, it will make for a very interesting election night depending on voter turnout, considering Carchio does have a strong base of support in Huntington Beach.

Impressively, Carchio has the second-highest amount money, as of the last campaign finance report (over $67,000 cash on hand) but has not spent it on anything tangible from what I have seen. I have not heard about any direct mail, slate mail, signs, or large amount of precinct walking.

At one point during the Feet to the Fire candidate debate, I could have sworn that Carchio was ignored for 30 minutes straight, without saying a word. If he starts to spend his money on voter contact, it will make things very interesting.

I believe that Carchio will be extremely close to Mansoor on election night.

Michelle Steel

Calling Michelle Steel the front-runner would be an understatement. Steel, who is currently on the State Board of Equalization, leads in about every category that I have seen and has run an extremely efficient and well-organized campaign.

Steel has been elected twice to the California State Board of Equalization. Let’s take a brief look at her electoral history.

Results from 2010 (Republican Primary):

Member, State Board of Equalization 3rd District – Republican
Completed Precincts: 2084 of 2084
Vote Count Percentage
* MICHELLE STEEL (REP) 167,669 70.3%
VIC BAKER (REP) 70,852 29.7%

Results from 2006 (Republican Primary):

Member, State Board of Equalization 3rd District – Republican
Completed Precincts: 2076 of 2076
Vote Count Percentage
MICHELLE STEEL (REP) 77757 41.4%
RAY HAYNES (REP) 59023 31.4%
STEVE PETRUZZO (REP) 27788 14.8%
HAL “JIMBO” STYLES (REP) 12155 6.5%
LEWIS A. DA SILVA (REP) 11040 5.9%

It is first and foremost, important to note that Steel has appeared on the ballot twice to the entire 2nd Supervisorial District (and all of Orange County for that matter) thanks to complete overlap by her State Board of Equalization seat. Steel was impressive with both her margin of victory in 2010 as an incumbent and her victory over well-known Assemblyman Ray Haynes in 2006.

Steel has an impressive fundraising lead over all of her opponents combined (over $500,000 cash on hand) and has dominated the campaign when it comes to voter contact. I have seen at least 8 mailers that have arrived from her campaign, and it is clear that she is trying to end this thing in June by breaking 50% in the primary. She has also dominated slate mail, signs, endorsements, and precinct walking. Most impressively, she received the endorsement of the OC Register, which should move the needle a few points on election night.

Based on my opinion of the Feet to the Fire candidate debate, I would say Steel has a great knowledge of the issues that exist at the County of Orange, and she came across very well to voters. I was actually quite impressed with her accuracy when I fact-checked some of the numbers that she threw out to the audience at the candidate debate.


Prediction Time

Based on all of the above factors and analysis, I predict the winner will be

Michelle Steel (in June) – I think she is going to clear 50% of the vote.

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »

Steel Finally Goes Negative

Posted by Marion Morrison on May 19, 2014

After nine pieces of fluff, Michelle Steel finally goes on the attack.  Steel hits Allan Mansoor for his “fee” creation and increase record during his time on the Costa Mesa City Council.  Using her official endorsement of the California Republican Assembly, Steel highlights that Mansoor failed to receive the support of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer’s Association in his bid for Orange County Supervisor.  We’ll see if Mansoor cares to respond in the next couple days.  So far this household has yet to receive one piece of mail from him, aside from the letter I posted last week: https://ocpolitical.com/2014/05/11/mansoor-first-to-go-negative/

Stay tuned…

Steel Hit 2 of 2 Steel Hit 1 of 2

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, Mail | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Mansoor First to Go Negative

Posted by Marion Morrison on May 11, 2014

After receiving several pieces of positive mail at my household from Michelle Steel, Allan Mansoor decided to go negative and mail out his first voter contact – an envelope sealed letter to Absentee Voters.  Using his underdog status, Mansoor attempts to attack Steel on the fact that she is an experienced fundraiser. Mansoor also highlights Steel’s ballot designation controversy in her first election to the Board of Equalization and some inside baseball regarding a cozy relationship with a “consultant.”  It will be interesting to see if Assemblyman Mansoor invests any further financial resources in the next several weeks or if he is feels confident enough that he makes it to the November run-off.

ImageImage

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, Mail | Tagged: , | 3 Comments »

Live from the 2nd Supervisorial District Feet to the Fire Forum

Posted by Chris Nguyen on April 28, 2014

We’re live from the Feet to the Fire Forum for the Second Supervisorial District. Yours truly got promoted to the media table.

The candidates are seated in this order from left to right: Board of Equalization Member Michelle Steel, Coast Community College District Trustee Jim Moreno, Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, and Huntington Beach Councilman Joe Carchio. Moreno is a Democrat while the rest are Republicans.

The media panelists are Norberto Santana of the Voice of OC, Alicia Lopez of the Daily Pilot, Jack Wu of the OC Register, John Canalis of the Daily Pilot, and Barbara Venezia of the Daily Pilot/OC Register.

(7:02 PM): Canalis asks if the candidates would forego a Supervisorial pension.

Steel would forego the pension.

Moreno would donate the pension to an account to fund nonprofit organizations. He would do the same with his commission stipends.

Mansoor says he would take the pension because he is not independently wealthy and does not have a home in Rancho Palos Verdes (referencing Steel). He says he would take the lower of two pension formulas offered at the County (Editor’s Note: the voters approved a June 2012 ballot measure mandating Supervisors pick the lower pension formula.)

Carchio says he did not accept a pension in Huntington Beach and would not accept one at the County.

Canalis asks if the candidates would vote to outright ban Supervisorial pensions.

Moreno says he would not.

Wu asks Moreno about pension reform.

Moreno says pension management would need to be examined.

Venezia says all the candidates’ Web sites abstractly speak of pension reform without details.

Mansoor says he would lead by example.

Steel says unfunded liabilities are a problem and notes the County was 100% funded in 2000. She says economic growth and demographic shifts combined with rates of return must be accounted for. She speaks about the recent amortization changes at OCERS.

Mansoor says he left the Sheriff’s Department to go to the Assembly where he has no pension.

Carchio speaks of the need for employees to pay for their entire employee pension contribution.

Lopez asks Steel about her endorsement from Sheriff Hutchens. She asks about offering a raise to deputies in exchange for them paying their entire employee contribution.

Steel points to the example of OCEA. She says she wants to look at the numbers to be sure of what solution she would pursue.

Mansoor opposes the pay raise because it would increase the pension obligation.

Santana asks Mansoor about the risk of deputies being poached by neighboring agencies.

Mansoor says these are difficult times and difficult decisions need to be made to make the County solvent.

Wu asks Mansoor about leading by example by refusing the pension.

Mansoor says it would be irresponsible to ask employees to entirely give up their pensions.

Santana asks how would spending more to pay down the pension liability affect spending on other County programs and services.

Steel points to waste, fraud, and abuse. She gives an example of verifying welfare eligibility, modeling after a San Diego County program that saved $500,000. Steel says the OCERS investment returns should improve to reduce unfunded pension liability.

(Santana interjects several times demanding specifics.)

Moreno speaks about asking college employees to tell his college board about waste, and they found $10 million in waste.

Lopez asks Steel about how to fix CalOptima.

Steel says there needs to be more transparency and points to the appointment of two Supervisors at CalOptima.

Moreno says experts need to be brought in to fix the problems. He says the Board must have experts managing CalOptima.

Carchio says in Huntington Beach that they got employees to retire early, implement a 4/10 schedule, and other creativd ideas related to balance the budget after the loss of Redevelopment Agencies. (Editor’s Note: What does this have to do with CalOptima?) He says that all we heard about was RDA abuses, but RDAs did good things. He says creativity with RDAs shows how to solve these problems.

Venezia speaks about the 2012 election for Assembly. She asks about the criticism that Mansoor is leaving his Assembly seat early since he’s not termed out.

Mansoor said he supported Don Hansen and jumped in when Hansen dropped out. He criticizes Steel for moving to Orange County to run for Supervisor as a platform to run for Congress.

Venezia asks him to answer the original question.

Mansoor again points to Hansen dropping out.

Venezia and Wu ask if he will jump ship if elected Supervisor.

Mansoor starts to say that he wants a resident of Orange County to be Supervisor.

Wu interrupts to ask how long does someone need to be an Orange County resident. He points to Mansoor’s endorsement of Jim Righeimer for Costa Mesa City Council after Righeimer moved from Fountain Valley.

There’s crosstalk between Mansoor and Wu.

Steel jumps in to point out she’s lived in Orange County since 2011. She speaks about immigrating from Korea. She asks if she needs to be born here.

Carchio speaks about living in OC for 35 years and serving on numerous OC boards.

Steel asks if it’s so important to have a long-term Mansoor why he doesn’t support Carchio who’s lived in OC for decades.

Mansoor says he supported Hansen.

Lopez asks Mansoor what legislation he’s passed in Sacramento.

He points to various pending pieces of legislation.

Lopez asks if he’s accomplished something as a legislator.

Mansoor points to the challenges of being in the minority when there’s a supermajority.

Wu asks Steel about her accomplishments as a member of the Board of Equalization minority party.

Steel points to several items, including: *returning 1/2 of $267,000,000 to taxpayers
*switching late payment interest from monthly rates to daily rates, so taxpayers who are one day late only pay a day’s interest rather than a month’s interest

Steel lists several other items that this blogger can’t keep up with. She says she is a consensus builder who can get things done.

Moreno interjects that he has worked in the private sector, worked for an LA County Supervisor, served on the College Board, and been a father.

Venezia asks about Diane Harkey’s husband’s investment litigation since Steel has endorsed Harkey for Steel’s own Board of Equalization seat.

Steel says the courts already ruled that Diane Harkey was not part of this issue. She points to Harkey’s accomplishments in the Assembly.

Mansoor points to his track record in the Assembly. He says he was willing to stand up to the Mike Carona machine.

Santana asks who is part of the Carona machine now since Carona is in prison.

Mansoor says Steel is backed by a lot of people who backed Carona.

Santana repeatedly asks Mansoor to name names while Mansoor declines to do so each time.

Santana then asks what each candidate views is the role of a County Supervisor.

Moreno says the County is an arm of the state. He says the County takes care of social welfare, public health, and public safety issues. He says experts need to be running the agencies.

Santana asks for specifics.

Moreno speaks about solving constituent problems (i.e. casework).

Mansoor points to OCTA and the 405 toll lanes.

Wu and Santana ask Mansoor about other agencies.

Mansoor says they need to let him finish his answer. He speaks about public pressure forcing OCTA’s hand on the 405.

Santana asks about OCFA.

Mansoor says he would have a hands on approach.

Santana asks what that means.

Mansoor says he would audit the OCFA and points to his service on the Assembly Audit Committee.

Carchio says the OCFA board is too large and needs to be reduced in size from 25, pointing to his experience on the 35-member Vector Control Board.

Santana asks what size the OCFA Board should be.

Carchio says he doesn’t have enough information to determine an exact number.

Carchio argues he sits on more boards than Supervisors or Assembly members do.

Venezia asks how much each candidate has raised for their campaign to get their message out.

Wu says the candidates should exclude loans from their numbers.

Carchio says $75,000.

Mansoor says $100,000.

Moreno says $40,000.

Steel says $550,000.

Steel says raising money is hard work.

Mansoor speaks about issues mattering more and says he has a history of beating better funded candidates. He points to his endorsements from outgoing Supervisor John Moorlach and several district mayors.

Lopez asks Mansoor about his reputation on immigration and the Latino vote.

Mansoor says he is not anti-immigrant. He says he supports legal immigration and is the son of two immigrants. He says his actions in Costa Mesa only related to illegal immigrants who committed other crimes. He says Steel has said different things to different people, telling some that she opposes the Lincoln Club plan and telling others that she supports aspects of it. He says he supports eVerify, but Steel opposes it.

Steel says she is an immigrant. She supports a guest worker program. She supports the Lincoln Club plan. She opposes eVerify.

Wu asks Mansoor about the legislative letter he signed that got sent to members of Congress.

Mansoor says the published portion was out of context from the letter he signed.

Moreno speaks about the DREAM Act. He says these students are indistinguishable from kids born in the United States. He calls for prevailing wage in any guest worker program. He says LAX is where illegal immigrants come from. He points to the deportation of Australians.

Carchio says he went to a Sacramento press conference with Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez and his bill on human trafficking. Carchio speaks about high levels of human trafficking from China and Vietnam. He wants an equitable settlement where everyone is treated like a human being.

Venezia asks why she should vote for each of the candidates.

Steel speaks of her BOE track record and her efforts on behalf of taxpayers.

Moreno points to his experience working for an LA County Supervisor and his service on the Coast Community College Board.

Mansoor says he will stand up to special interests and political machines. He says he has an open door policy and will always listen to constituents.

Carchio points to his lengthy time as an OC resident. He speaks about his business owner experience, his experience on the City Council, and his experience on regional and state boards.

Despite starting slightly late, the forum ends right on time at 8 PM.

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »

Auditor-Controller Race: Frank Davies Loses “Deputy Auditor-Controller” Ballot Designation, Will Use “Property Tax Director” Instead

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 31, 2014

There have been five lawsuits related to the June Primary election ballot for Orange County. The meat of this article is after the bullet list. The bullet list just recaps the prior cases.

  • In the Second Supervisorial District, Allan Mansoor successfully sued the Registrar of Voters to change Michelle Steel‘s ballot designation of “Taxpayer Advocate/Businesswoman” and she is now required to use “Board of Equalization Member” instead. This case was covered here on OC Political, in an article in the OC Register, and in an article in the Daily Pilot.
  • In the Clerk-Recorder’s race, Troy Edgar‘s lawsuit against the Registrar of Voters to get on the ballot was rejected by the Orange County Superior Court. Edgar’s lawsuit against the Registrar of Voters also sought to toss Assessor Webster Guillory and Superintendent of Schools Al Mijares from the ballot, and this effort was also rejected by the Superior Court. Consequently, Edgar fails to make the ballot while Guillory and Mijares stay on the ballot. Here’s OC Political’s coverage, including the only online copy of the full text of the judge’s ruling. The judge’s sweeping ruling used “failed” or “fails” six times in reference to Edgar and even uses “without merit” in reference to one of Edgar’s arguments.
  • In the 73rd Assembly District, Mission Viejo resident Dale Tyler sued the Secretary of State to challenge a sentence in AD-73 Candidate Anna Bryson‘s ballot statement, “On the school board, I returned $59 million to taxpayers.” Tyler sought to have the sentence struck entirely, but the Sacramento County Superior Court judge issued a compromise, so it now reads, “On the school board, I voted to save taxpayers approximately $59 million.” Here’s OC Political’s coverage, and here’s the text of the judge’s ruling.
  • In the Auditor-Controller’s race, candidate John Wayne Willard sued the Registrar of Voters in an unsuccessful effort to challenge Eric Woolery‘s “Orange Treasurer/CPA” ballot designation. Consequently, Woolery remains “Orange Treasurer/CPA” on the ballot. Here’s OC Political’s coverage, including the only online copy of the full text of the judge’s ruling. When the judge includes strong language along the lines of “The evidence is undisputed that Woolery was appointed to the position of Treasurer…” you know it’s a sweeping ruling.
  • Oddly, the fifth lawsuit has yet to have any coverage anywhere despite being the first case to be completed, having been resolved way back on Tuesday, and it’s also likely the most significant case in terms of impact on a race. That case will be the focus of this article.
Auditor-Controller Candidates Eric Woolery, John Wayne Willard, Frank Davies, and Mike "Mike" Dalati.  OC Political was unable to find a photo of James T. Benuzzi.

Auditor-Controller Candidates Eric Woolery, John Wayne Willard, Frank Davies, and Mike “Mike” Dalati.
OC Political was unable to find a photo of James T. Benuzzi.

Laguna Niguel resident Todd Nugent challenged the ballot designation of Auditor-Controller candidate Frank Davies. Davies requested the ballot designation of “Deputy Auditor-Controller” for his bid for Auditor-Controller.

Nugent challenged it on the grounds that this was an effort by Davies to game the system by playing working title musical chairs, as he was not the Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller. Denise Steckler held both the job classification and working title of “Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller” before the candidate filing period. Frank Davies held the job classification of “Administrative Manager III” and the working title of “Director, Property Tax” during that time. Then in the middle of candidate filing, after Davies had pulled papers for Auditor-Controller and shortly before he filed them, all four Directors at the Administrative Manager III level in the Auditor-Controller’s office had their working titles switched from “Director” to “Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller” instead (while still remaining in the job classification of “Administrative Manager III”). Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller Denise Steckler then switched to the working title of “Chief of Staff” (while still remaining in the job classification of “Chief Deputy Auditor-Controller”).

Nugent filed suit in Superior Court and succeeded in having “Deputy Auditor-Controller” dumped as Davies’s ballot designation. Consequently, Davies is now “Property Tax Director” on the ballot.

In an obscure down-ticket race like Auditor-Controller, having a ballot designation of “Deputy Auditor-Controller” would have made Davies the frontrunner. Nugent’s challenge was critical in putting Orange Treasurer/CPA Eric Woolery back in the driver’s seat for the Auditor-Controller’s seat. Defeating Willard’s challenge was also critical for Woolery’s frontrunner position.

Here’s how the candidates will appear on the ballot:

(No, that’s not a mistake. Mike “Mike” Dalati is how he requested to be on the ballot. His fiancée, Karina “Karina” Onofre, is a Democratic candidate for AD-74. I have no idea why this couple decided to double-state their first names on the ballot.)

The three strongest ballot designations belong to Woolery, Benuzzi, and Dalati while the two weakest ballot designations belong to Willard and Davies. However, Benuzzi and Dalati failed to obtain ballot statements. Woolery is the only one of the five to wield both a ballot statement and a good ballot designation.

Woolery also bought up most of the slate mailers and wields the most aggressive online presence. He also has the highest name ID having been a former member of the Orange County Board of Education and the current Orange Treasurer. Additionally, he has residual name ID from his wife, Lisa Woolery, a former member of the Rancho Santiago Community College District Board. Eric Woolery also dominates the endorsement arena, wielding the endorsements of the Orange County Taxpayers Association, the California Republican Assembly, and numerous elected officials.

With tens of thousands of dollars, Woolery also has a larger warchest than all of his opponents combined with $50,200. He spent $38,701, on a combination of the ballot statement, candidate filing fee, slate mailers, campaign literature, and consulting fees.

Davies spent his entire $16,476 on the ballot statement and candidate filing fee.

Willard has $16,438, which was presumably spent on the ballot statement and candidate filing fee (he filed a Form 497, but not a Form 460); presumably the other $38 was wiped out by signatures-in-lieu.

Benuzzi raised $2,400 from Anthony Benuzzi and Ronald Benuzzi but had to refund $200 to Anthony Benuzzi when they discovered they had exceeded the campaign contribution limit; with his remaining $2,200, he paid the candidate filing fee and $280 of campaign literature.

Dalati did not file a campaign finance report for the January 1-March 17 reporting period.

In the interest of full disclosure, Woolery is a client of Custom Campaigns, the consulting firm that owns this blog.

Posted in 2nd Supervisorial District, 73rd Assembly District, Orange County Auditor-Controller, Orange County Clerk-Recorder | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

AD-74: Curry Dominates Fundraising, Patrascu Distant Second, Harper Spends All on Slates

Posted by Chris Nguyen on March 26, 2014

Well, it’s that time of the election cycle again: campaign finance reports are out. OC Political will be doing our in-depth analysis to help you get past the campaigns’ spin on the numbers.  First on the docket is the race for AD-74 to replace Allan Mansoor, who is leaving the Assembly to run for the 2nd District Supervisor’s seat, being vacated by the termed out John Moorlach.  AD-74 consists of Costa Mesa, Laguna Beach, Laguna Woods, Newport Beach, the southern half of Huntington Beach, and portions of Irvine.

Harper, Curry, Patrascu

The three Republican candidates in AD-74: Matthew Harper, Keith D. Curry, and Emanuel Patrascu.

There are three declared Republican candidates in AD-74: Huntington Beach Mayor Matthew Harper, Businessman/Newport Beach Councilman Keith D. Curry, and Assemblyman Travis Allen’s District Director Emanuel Patrascu, an Orange County business owner.  H&R Block Franchise Associate Karina Onofre pulled papers as a Republican but filed them as a Democrat, so she’s on the ballot as a Democrat. Middle School Teacher Anila Ali, who has been a Democrat since she became a U.S. citizen in 2008, will also be on the ballot.  (For those wondering, Onofre was a Republican for 20 months, from July 2012-March 2014.  She has been a Democrat for years, other than during those 20 months.)

When OC Political analyzed the numbers for the end of the 2013 reporting, AD-74 was called the “Land of Small Warchests” in the post. Since then, Curry put his foot on the gas, and Patrascu stepped it up a bit, so those two are posting much stronger numbers (though still far behind races in other Assembly districts, but at the end of the day, to win this race, AD-74 only needs to worry about AD-74).  The other three candidates’ warchests remain rather small, however.

Before I start in on the numbers, it’s time to attack the $100,000 paper tiger loans.  We’ve been attacking the fiction of the $100,000 loans for months on OC Political.  (This July post is probably the seminal post on the issue, though it wasn’t until this August post that the paper tiger name was attached.)  In essence, these $100,000 paper tiger loans are loans candidates make to artificially inflate their campaign finance numbers to impress donors and scare opponents.  The reason $100,000 is the figure used is that’s the most a candidate can loan their own campaign and still get the money back.  Any amount the candidate gives above $100,000 is forever donated to the campaign under state law.  In AD-74, Republican Curry and Democrat Onofre gave their own campaigns $100,000 paper tiger loans.  It also appears Republican Patrascu gave his campaign a smaller paper tiger loan of $29,700.  Republican Harper has actually spent his negligible $4,100 loan.

Curry had a slow start to 2013, but of course he declared his entry in the race just three weeks before Christmas.  In the prior post on AD-74 warchests, I asked, ” If Curry can continue his pace of $21,200 per month, he will quickly amass the largest warchest in AD-74.  However, many candidates find their fundraising slows down after an initial burst after their campaigns launch when they pick up their low-hanging fruit donors; can Curry defy the odds?”  The answer is yes, he defied the odds.  In this latest reporting period, Curry raised $32,871 per month.

Curry added $83,768 this reporting period to his $21,200 from 2013, making him the first AD-74 candidate to break the $100,000 barrier in funds raised, with $104,968 in the course of his campaign.  Curry transferred a negligible $6,490 from his city council campaign account in 2013, but transferred nothing this reporting period.  He also gave himself one of those $100,000 paper tiger loans that we expect he won’t spend.  Curry spent $32,271 on a healthy mix of items, including campaign literature, slate mailers, fundraising, ballot filing fees, and consultant fees.  He has no unpaid bills.  Even after subtracting out his loans, Curry still has $78,506 cash-on-hand.

Patrascu added $25,679 in this reporting period to his $35,395 haul from 2013, bringing his total contributions to $60,974.  He made no transfers.  He has $29,700 in loans.  He was incredibly tight-fisted with his expenditures, spending only $5,098, all of went to fundraising expenses, campaign treasurer expenses, and ballot filing fees.  He has no unpaid bills.  After subtracting out his loans, Patrascu still has $54,021 cash-on-hand.

Harper only raised $2,150 in this reporting period ($1,900 from Rainbow Disposal and $250 from attorney Dave Bartels), adding to the $4,100 he raised in 2013 from Karen Harper last year, leaving Harper with $6,250 raised.  He transferred in $11,150 from his City Council account into his Assembly account, all during this reporting period.  He loaned himself $4,100.  He spent $15,674, with $13,700 going to Jim Lacy’s Landslide Communications slates, $1,906 going to his treasurer Dave Bauer for either campaign literature or treasurer fees, and $68 in small unitemized expenditures.  He has $17,763 in unpaid bills, with $13,700 on his credit card to pay for Lacy’s Landslide slates, $4,028 on his credit card to pay ballot filing fees, another $1,927 in small unitemized unpaid bills, and $35 on his credit card to pay for small office expenses.  After subtracting out the loans and accounting for his unpaid bills, Harper is $19,940 in debt.

The Democrats are easy to summarize.  Ali has not yet hit the $25,000 mark to require online campaign finance filing.  Onofre gave herself a $100,000 paper tiger loan.  She spent nothing and transferred nothing.  She has a single $100 contribution from Republican CD-45 candidate Greg Raths; from the date of the contribution, Onofre was still a Republican at the time.  I imagine Raths will be asking for his $100 back since Onofre has become a Democrat.

For visual learners:

Candidate 2013
Contributions
1/1/14-3/17/14
Contributions
Total
Contributions
Transfers Candidate
Loans
Unpaid
Bills
Expenditures Cash on Hand
(COH)
COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
& Loans
Harper $4,100 $2,150 $6,250 $11,150 $4,100 $17,763 $15,674 $1,923 -($15,840) -($19,940)
Curry $21,200 $83,768 $104,968 $6,490 $100,000 $0 $32,271 $178,506 $178,506 $78,506
Patrascu $35,295 $25,679 $60,974 $0 $29,700 $0 $5,098 $83,721 $83,721 $54,021
Onofre $100 N/A $100 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $100,100 $100,100 $100
Ali N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Notes: Figures may be off by one dollar due to rounding.

Campaign finance reports for January 1-March 17, 2014 were due Monday.

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