Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Learn more about ads.

About Us

David Greenwald, Editor. (Contact David.)
CFC Education Foundation, Publisher. (Contact us.)

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column?
Contact David here.

About California Progress Report.

Founded by Frank D. Russo (Publisher and Editor, 2006-08).

Sponsors

Books

Presidential Politics and Net Neutrality Big Topics at California Democratic Party Executive Board Meeting

randy-bayne.gif

By Randy Bayne
THE BAYNE OF BLOG'S CALIFORNIA NOTES

The Executive Board of the Californian Democratic Party began their weekend meeting in Sacramento today with a meet and greet social hour followed by several caucus meetings. During the social hour hosted by CDP Chairman Art Torres attendees heard from State Controller John Chiang and Board of Equalization member Betty Yee.

At the Progressive Caucus three issues, immigration, how delegates to the national convention will be selected, and net neutrality dominated the attention of caucus members.

During the discussion on immigration, DNC member Steve Ybarra told the caucus that the question before them "must be solved in Latin America." He wasn't saying it's not our problem. Quite the opposite. It is our problem, but the solutions will not be found in the United States.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that when the average wage to the south is three dollars a day, people are going to want to go north and find work that will pay much, much more. To solve the problem, says Ybarra, all American companies doing business and hiring workers in foreign countries must be required to pay a minimum living wage and provide health care benefits.

While it won't completely solve the immigration problem, requiring companies to provide decent wages and living conditions will cut a primary motive illegal immigration.

Next up was the state party's plan for selection of delegates. This subject, which will be discussed more fully during a meeting on Saturday, brought the largest number of speakers to the microphone. Most members are opposed to the CDP's current plan, but DNC member Ybarra did a good job of explaining the rationale behind it. He noted that what was being discussed had nothing to do with the process of delegate selection, but about timing.

Still it didn't help lessen strong feelings about the plan. "The proposal for changing the procedure is retarded," said one member as he ended his comments.

In a nutshell, the plan is to hold delegate selection caucuses in California's 53 congressional districts in April, well after the February primary. Many party members feel this opens the process up to unfair abuse as delegate candidates change their commitments to particular presidential candidates after the results of the primary vote. The concern is that delegate candidates who had shown a strong commitment to a presidential candidate may be displaced by candidates having a change of heart after the primary results are tallied.

The early February presidential primary is being blamed.

There are several suggestions to fixing the problem. The one most often floated would be to require candidates for delegate positions to file before the February 5 locking in their commitment to a particular presidential candidate. This would also require moving up the caucus meetings to early March.

The issue will be taken up more fully tomorrow when the Executive Board holds a hearing to take input and suggestions before a vote on a final plan on Sunday.

The final major issue addressed by the Progressive Caucus was net neutrality. Nearly everyone agreed that nearly everyone, regardless of political party or philosophy, is for net neutrality, "except the telecoms." The caucus is determined to "not allow the Internet to be privatized." To not allow "toll booths" to be put on the information super-highway and to keep an "open, free, and accessible Internet."

There is opposition to net neutrality within the party, however. It comes from the Labor Caucus, which meets tomorrow morning, particularly the Communication Workers of America (CWA) who believe they may realize some gain in jobs if the Internet becomes more restricted.

At the end of the meeting an informal, show-of-hands straw poll was taken on presidential preferences of those in attendance. John Edwards was the clear choice of the getting 47 votes. Next was Al Gore, who is not a declared candidate with 27, followed by Dennis Kucinich (17), Barack Obama and Bill Richardson with 12 each, Hillary Clinton (2), and Joe Biden (1). Six were undecided, and neither Chris Dodd nor Mike Gravel received any votes.

As the meeting came to a close an announcement was made that Elizabeth Edwards will be addressing the General Session tomorrow morning.

This article originally appeared in The Bayne of Blogs and is published with the permission of the author.

Posted on July 14, 2007

Comments

That is a bizzare schedule for delegate selection. I was a candidate last time to be a delegate for Kucinich.
So, under this plan, well placed folks, like the Capitol staffers, etc., could support anyone in the primary.
Then, if Clinton or Obama won the primary, these individuals could compete to be Cinton or Obama delegates - even though they had not campaigned for them. This seems like a way to give delegate votes to insiders, not people who worked for a canidate.
Now, the major candidates already have a pool of super delegates to assign to the political insiders and elected officials.
Another problem created by the early primary.

Posted by: Duane Campbell at July 15, 2007 02:12 PM

I'm surprised that there wasn't more opposition to net neutrality in light of the recent FTC report that said the possible effects of net neutrality are widely unknown. They also said competition is current growing which is what we would want, and not creating new government regulations. What I understand from doing some work with Hands Off The Internet is that while the net neutrality sounds good in theory it actually is a very anti free market practice whose long term effects are potentially more harmful than beneficial.

Posted by: Nkeys at July 15, 2007 08:30 PM

Sorry, comments are temporarily disabled. We're doing a bit of server maintenance on the commenting area. We'll be back up and running shortly. Thank you for your patience.

Get email updates!

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.



© 2008 California Progress Report Our copyright and fair use policy.
Powered by Mandate Media. Logo design by Jane Norling.

RSS

Stat tracker