Contact: Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Coordinator,  415-846-7758 (cell)

LOS ANGELES – Representatives of The Greenlining Institute, California Common Cause and the Center for Governmental Studies will be in Los Angeles today to brief advocates, policymakers and the media on new survey findings showing voters want better information on state ballot initiatives, including clearer disclosure of campaign funders. The results are a potential warning for legislators who defeated a measure to increase such disclosure earlier this week.

Concerned by the growing influence of special interest money and use of the initiative system to attack civil rights, Greenlining last year assembled a diverse, 33-person advisory board, commissioned a two-wave public opinion survey of a representative sample of California eligible voters and mounted a statewide listening tour that visited 14 California cities.

The full survey results are now available online here. Today’s briefing will cover these findings, feedback from the listening tour and ongoing efforts to return the initiative process to the ideal of “citizen democracy.” The briefing is co-hosted by Hispanas Organized for Political Equality.

WHAT: Policy briefing, A Community Perspective on Ballot Initiative Reform.

WHO: Kathay Feng, California Common Cause; Bob Stern, Center for Governmental Studies; Orson Aguilar and Michelle Romero, The Greenlining Institute.

WHEN: Friday, Feb. 3, 1:30-3 p.m.

WHERE: Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, Edison Room, 634 S. Spring St., downtown Los Angeles

###

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research and Advocacy Institute
www.greenlining.org

Concerns About Big Money, Attacks on Rights Will Propel Reform Efforts

Contact: Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Coordinator, 510-926-4022; 415-846-7758 (cell)

SACRAMENTO – New survey results released today show substantial voter concern about the influence of special interest money on ballot initiative campaigns and the use of the initiative system to attack people’s rights. Voters said they want greater transparency regarding funders behind ballot measure campaigns, greater review and oversight of initiatives, and more information to help make decisions when voting. The survey data and results from a statewide listening tour were released this morning at a state capitol briefing for policymakers and the media.

Full results of The Greenlining Institute’s survey are available here. Key findings include:

• 85 percent of voters felt it was important to know who funds initiative campaigns, with majorities saying it would help to have this information in campaign ads and in the state voter guide. 59 percent said they would be less likely to vote for a legislator who voted against a proposal to increase campaign funder disclosure (such as AB 1148, which failed on the Assembly floor Jan. 31).
• 73 percent believed that the rights of certain groups are often attacked via ballot initiatives, and 41 percent felt their own rights had been attacked.
• 81 percent favored greater review and oversight of initiatives to check for legal issues and drafting errors.
• Significant numbers of voters are ill-informed about the process, with 30 percent incorrectly thinking they must cast a yes or no vote on all propositions listed on the ballot. 42 percent of African American voters and 53 percent of Latino voters held this mistaken belief and did not know they could abstain on a measure.
• A majority expressed a desire for more and better information in the official state voter guide, such as data on the impact of a measure of the state’s unemployment rate, poverty rate, and environment.

“At The Greenlining Institute, we’ve seen the initiative process first-hand as both proponents trying to qualify an initiative with very little money, and then as opponents battling wealthy interests who could simply write a check to get their measure on the ballot,” said Michelle Romero, program manager for Greenlining’s Our Democracy program. “What was supposed to be about citizen democracy has turned into something very different, and to bring it back to that ideal we had to start by listening to real Californians.”

“Ballot initiatives and referenda have a tremendous impact on the lives of Californians and can be a wonderful tool for democratic action,” said Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley).  “However, the process has frequently been hijacked by corporate interests intent on misleading voters to benefit their own narrow interests.  The Greenlining Institute has written, ‘Corporations and other special interests now dominate what was supposed to be a vehicle for “people’s democracy.”‘ I share their concern and look forward to working with Greenlining on ways to improve the system.”

Romero also expressed concern that although the cost of qualifying a measure certainly restricts access to the initiative system, limited English proficient voters face additional challenges.  The federal Voting Rights Act guarantees limited English proficient voters the right to receive election materials in their own language, but this provision does not currently extend to initiative petitions which are not translated for voters. Limited English proficient voters are effectively cut out of the process and have no say in determining what qualifies for the ballot.

Assemblyman Paul Fong (D-Cupertino) echoed this concern. “California is the most diverse state in the nation, with millions of voters whose first language is not English,” Fong said. “Because much of our population is not proficient in English, they unfortunately have no involvement in what gets on the ballot. We need all our voters to be fully engaged in our democracy, and we need a system that encourages and allows them to do so.”

Romero said Greenlining is working with legislators and a broad coalition on a long-term agenda for reforming the state’s ballot initiative system. Immediate priorities include improving funder disclosure and transparency, introducing legislation to enable voters with limited English proficiency to more effectively participate in the initiative process, and surveying voters in this year’s election to assess opportunities to improve the state voter guide. Longer-term plans include exploring ways to remove the barriers to participation in the initiative process by ordinary citizens, balanced with the need for greater review & oversight of initiatives for the ballot.

A second briefing on the findings will be held in Los Angeles on Friday, Feb. 3 at 1:30 p.m. at the office of the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund, 634 S. Spring St. in downtown L.A. Local media are welcome to attend.

###

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research and Advocacy Institute
www.greenlining.org

In the words of housing consultant John Burns, bulk sales of REOs could be a “game changer” for the U.S. housing market.

The Obama administration this summer floated the idea of selling foreclosed homes to investors, who would agree to rent them out.

The interest in a REO-to-rental program was so high that interested parties flooded the government with nearly 4,000 RFIs — or requests for information — in September when the topic hit fever pitch.

The pool weighing in on the matter is vast.

It includes the requisite professors, consultants and think tanks.

But it also encompasses investors big and small, lenders, mortgage insurers, property management firms, out-of-work homebuilders, mortgage and real estate trade groups, entrepreneurs of all stripes and nonprofits.

“There is significant interest, and there is interest up and down the spectrum,” said Alon Cohen, a housing policy adviser for the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank, on noting keen interest among small to large nonprofits.

What’s not to like about a bulk REO rental initiative?

It could stabilize home prices and neighborhoods, improve REO asset recoveries, keep rental rates in check and reduce the shadow inventory, according to John Burns, chief executive of Irvine, Calif.-based John Burns Real Estate Consulting.

“I know that there were small mom-and-pops that submitted and there were billion-dollar hedge funds that submitted,” he said.

But Burns and others admit it’s not that simple. The challenges are many.

Will the government get an acceptable price by selling in bulk? Will investors make an acceptable return? Will managing a portfolio of single-family properties prove too difficult? Will investors reap a windfall and then leave neighborhoods in slum-like conditions?

“(Home) prices are already very low so the opportunities, and demand are already there,” notes Oliver Chang, U.S. housing strategist at Morgan Stanley.

“Even without government intervention, private capital is already beginning to flow in. With bulk REO sales, the industry moves from niche and cottaged to institutional,” Chang said.

ACCESSING THE PROBLEM

Housing has been in the doldrums for about five years now, and the Obama administration has struggled to give it a lift.

Home prices slumped again over the summer although sales gained traction in what is traditionally the busiest season for the industry.

The REO market continues to make life challenging for homebuilders as sales of new homes dropped another 2.3% in August for the fourth-straight monthly decline and the lowest level since February.

The inventory of new homes hit a new record low.

Growing in concern is the backlog of foreclosure cases and the glut of real estate owned properties held by major servicers and the GSEs.

The government currently owns about half of the REO inventory in the country. Fannie held more than 135,000 REO at the end of the second quarter, more than double the 61,000 owned by Freddie. The Federal Housing Administration had 43,856 REOs as of Sept. 15, with about 19,200 of those under contract.

About 4.25 million properties were at least 30-days delinquent but not yet in foreclosure in August, with 1.9 million of those at least 90 days past due, according to Lender Processing Services, suggesting the REO inventory is set to grow.

The home ownership rate, meanwhile, has fallen to its lowest level in 13 years to 65.9%, down from a peak of 69.2% in 2004. The overall decline, whether from foreclosures, short sales, an inability to get financing, or personal preference is pushing up the demand for rentals.

Illinois is just one example of this shift. One in four homeowners in the state is underwater on their mortgage, according to statistics from the Woodstock Institute, a housing group that advocates on behalf of minority neighborhoods in Chicago.

The rental market has gained steam over the last 12 months in the city as previous homeowners become renters, said Tom Feltner, vice president at Woodstock.

“We’ve seen rents rising in many neighborhoods. At the same time, we’ve seen an interest in homeownership decline. There is serious pressure on the affordable rent housing in Chicago. Renting REOs definitely is a step in the right direction to relieve some of the pressure on the affordable housing market.”

In August, the Obama administration — via the Federal Housing Finance Agency — put out its RFI seeking input on new options for selling single-family REO held by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Housing Administration.

REO sells at a steep discount. So reducing the overhang of distressed properties — and ultimately raising home prices and home sales — is a priority for many housing market participants, including two of the biggest trade groups in the nation, the Mortgage Bankers Association and the National Association of Realtors.

“Existing government programs should be modified to support financing and availability for local investment,” the MBA wrote in a letter supporting bulk REO sales. “Providing affordable, responsible financing options to investors not only eliminates REO properties, but also empowers neighborhoods by giving local residents an increased stake in its success.”

NAR wants any REO-to-rentals or a lease-to-own government program to be narrow in scope. The trade group, which has about 1.1 million members, is concerned properties might be expedited to foreclosure to enable a bulk sale.

“In any kid of lease-to-own joint venture program, it should be in small, specific geographical areas and not run by a large institution or administered by the government,” said Charlie Dawson, associate policy representative at NAR.

Instead, NAR wants to see local investors and local nonprofits.

“Keep this as local as possible so you have people who really understand the market and are more hands-on,” Dawson said.

NAR wonders if bulk deals would be too large, in the $50 million to $1 billion range.

THE NICHE INVESTOR

While the government may be interested in luring big national players, local and regional investors aren’t waiting for a bulk deal from the GSEs.

They are building their portfolios of REOs one at a time to rent or resell.

Orange County, Calif.-based G8 Capital is already in the game.

The investment firm supports the idea of finding ways to clear government inventory using mechanisms common to the private sector.

“About half of the buyers that we deal with are investors that are buying properties. In a lot of cases, they are buying properties as rental properties,” the company said.

Besides representing investor-clients, G8 also is investing on its own behalf.

“We have held onto about 350 properties — most of which are condos — in the past year and a half. We started building this rental portfolio, and we are seeing significant opportunity going forward.”

Salt Lake City-based Green River Capital, an REO asset management firm, announced plans recently to operate a national program to rent out previously foreclosed homes.

In March, the REO asset management company became one of three firms handling REO sales and upkeep for Freddie Mac.

Green River’s investment in a new rental program followed on the heels of the RFIs that flooded into the Obama administration on how to handle government-held REO properties.

The company said its rental program would be conducted on a regional basis and include single-family homes, duplexes, condominiums and town homes.

Green River plans to reach out to delinquent homeowners who might be able to stay in their homes as renters, as well as to new tenants.

“With the housing market’s continuing challenges and President Obama’s recent request for firms to propose alternative rental approaches, GRC’s enhanced, nontraditional servicing program allows our clients to conserve their properties and prevent losses,” said Joe D’Urso, president of Green River Capital.

Homebuilders have also diversified into REO to find new revenue sources for the dried-up new home market.

The MacDonald Cos., a small homebuilder from Kerrville, Texas, began buying up REO a couple years ago and providing a lease-to-own program.

“I can’t imagine why more people haven’t done it, especially when there are whole streets available in some markets,” said Granger MacDonald, president of the central Texas firm. (See more on homebuilders investing in REO in sidebar, page XX.)

Mom-and-pop shops are also at play.

Victor and Teresa Avramenko, a couple from Canada, bought their first American property two years ago. They now own five houses in the Phoenix area and they plan to buy another three to five.

One they use for their U.S. visits and the rest are rentals. Foreign investors pumped between $30 billion and $41 billion into the U.S. housing market for the 12 months that ended March 31.

WILL THE BIG BOYS PLAY?

Small investors see the value of investing in REO, but will big hedge funds and investment firms feel the same way?

Dain Ehring, founder of CoreLogic Dorado, said motivating private capital to buy REO makes the most sense of the various options being floated by the administration.

“That’s one extremely viable way to get through all the shadow inventory that the market hasn’t gone through,” he said. Ehring is especially interested because he believes CoreLogic Dorado’s cloud computing tools may be able to help make the transfer of those REOs to private investors more efficient.

“We’re looking at ways we can automate the purchase of those houses and do it in a way that (investors) can understand and have a clean asset.”

But money could be a hurdle, he noted.

“Right now it’s onesies-twosies. You’ve got to do it in a big, big way and bring in some big money. So when you do that, then you’ve kind of got to institutionalize it.”

The big-money players — hedge funds and private equity funds — still have too much fear and uncertainty to step in, Ehring believes.

Investor Ron D’Vari, co-founder and chief executive of NewOak Capital, sees challenges on the seller and buyer side.

“Most institutions are not in favor of bulk sales, but I am sure they are doing mini-bulk or asset-by-asset bid,” he said.

“Bulk auctions are typically very challenging as the buyers are not going to be able to do their homework, which is super expensive, for a (bid) that they may lose. Many institutional buyers actually stay away or bid very low due to their light due diligence,” D’Vari said.

WHY DO ANYTHING?

“I don’t see a problem moving the inventory right now,” said Todd Mobraten, president and COO of Res.Net, an online real estate tracking system used by real estate agents, servicers and homebuyers.

“I don’t see any issue liquidating REO. We are connected with every REO player in the industry. We have 160 companies that use our software on a daily basis to liquidate REO. None of them are having a problem moving that inventory.”

It’s not unusual for local investors to go to a delinquent borrower in a house that is listed for a foreclosure auction and offer to buy the house and lease it back. But Mobraten is skeptical about whether that could work on a mass scale.

Christopher Thornberg, founding partner with Los Angeles-based Beacon Economics, also questions the administration’s proposal.

It’s definitely a bad idea if you are a multifamily landlord, he notes.

“If you want a bunch of people buying up these REOs, it’s going to cause a bunch of vacancies in the apartment stock.  I guess if you prefer to have the single family tight and the multifamily loose, maybe that’s OK.”

Still, Thornberg questions whether the administration “should be favoring one part of the market and not the other. In any case, I don’t understand what the purpose of this is. If investors want to go out and buy and rent, they’ll go out and buy and rent. Are we supposed to subsidize people to do that? I don’t think we need to subsidize people to do that. Just let prices fall further.”

Plenty of bright entrepreneurs have seen opportunities with REO and have already bought them up, he contends.

MAKING IT WORK

Tom Eggleston is one of those entrepreneurs who figured out how to make an REO rental program work.

A former homebuilder now with real estate firm called RENU Management, he has some ideas for both big and small players.

The Indianapolis-based entrepreneur envisions a national pool auction in about 40 markets with 400 REOs in each portfolio for large institutional investors and hedge funds, and local pool auctions in about 10 markets with 100 properties in each portfolio for local and regional investors.

All would be subject to a five-year hold and rent, with limited exceptions.

“The savings are that you don’t have institutional or branded marketing like multifamily does, so the marketing is limited to asset-specific marketing. Our method of marketing is to utilize about 50 websites — high-traffic sites where renters are looking for single-family properties, including duplexes and quads.”

As a management firm, the company receives favorable rates for the ads, which generate a tremendous response. The firm pays on commission for showings and as leases are signed, which is similar to how multifamily works.

The savings come from not having to do upfront brand marketing, such as maintaining a website or advertising locally to draw traffic.

The firm pays licensed real estate agents on a commission basis to lease the REO it manages. On the capital expenditure side of things, single-family residences will likely be more expensive in terms of repair costs, Eggleston said.

“With the volume of repairs that our units generate, we do achieve very favorable cost arrangements with our contractors.” RENU offers 24/7 repair to its tenants, similar to multifamily properties.

“I think we have some upfront savings on the marketing side and some higher repair and maintenance costs under the scattered-site model, but generally similar in terms of financial performance, which I think would surprise people,” Eggleston said.

“I think they assume there is a huge premium in the expense structure to manage single-family (properties). We find with the right processes, it is very comparable.”

Richard Green, professor at the University of Southern California’s Lusk Center for Real Estate, compares bulk REO sales to “essentially what we did with the Resolution Trust Corp. after the savings and loans blew up in the late ’80s and early ’90s.”

Going that route “imposes lot of pain in the short run but it gets it over with. I think there are places in the country where it probably would be helpful just to clear the decks.”

NONPROFITS SEEK CONSIDERATION

Greenlining Institute’s constituents are concerned about whether absentee investors will adequately maintain properties, so bulk sales raise the specter of neighborhood disinvestment and decay.

“The folks we’re working with are dealing with homes that are left abandoned, or not properly maintained, or not even brought up to the appropriate standards that then make tenants suffer from health and other issues,” said Orson Aguilar, executive director of the Berkeley, Calif.-based public policy research firm. ”There need to be rigid standards when it comes to the rehab and maintenance of the properties that are sold to investors.”

Any effort to dispose of these REOs should further Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s mission to preserve affordable housing and help first time homebuyers, he said.

“We think it would be really unfair to help enrich a group of investors who are lucky to have enough cash to buy these bulk (properties) but don’t invest in the communities where these properties are located,” Aguilar said.

Any national plan to facilitate mass sales of foreclosed homes should require the investors purchasing those properties to partner with local nonprofit groups, according to the Greenlining Institute.

“We’re talking about a huge transfer of wealth to a group of investors in the name of stabilizing the market,” according to Aguilar.

Cohen of the Center for American Progress said there could be some monetary benefit for the GSEs to work with nonprofits.

That might be more viable then selling to investors, who may have a hard time making competitive returns on REO and may demand a significant discount on the front end to make it work.

“A mission-driven nonprofit doesn’t need to make the numbers work and should, as a result, be able to offer a higher price. A nonprofit also is likely to spend more money on the rehab. What if mission-driven organizations can offer more money, thereby giving the GSEs the short-term maximum value they are seeking?”

If the GSEs and the FHA provide cash-strapped nonprofits access to capital to buy up REO, then they could, in return, achieve short-term high returns on their REO combined with long-term neighborhood stabilization.

“We know there is a track record of investors coming in from outside and just flipping properties. You buy it for 20 cents on the dollar and you flip it for 30 cents on the dollar and you make out like a bandit. That’s not helpful if you are trying for housing stabilization,” Cohen said.

“Look, we don’t need to vilify anybody. If you are an investor and you say my investment term is five years, then you’ll do a five-year investment.”

Nonprofits, however, are interested in holding the properties longer and thus will invest more in rehab on the front end, he said.

For John Burns, it all boils down to two key issues.

“We need to keep the distressed transactions off the market,” he said, “and we need to make sure people don’t go homeless. Rental REO solves the problem.”

– Liz Enochs, Jacob Gaffney, Kerri Panchuk, Jon Prior and Jason Philyaw contributed to this report.

California Clean Money Campaign

Last week, the California Assembly Appropriations Committee voted AB 1148, the California DISCLOSE Act, to the Assembly floor for a full vote next Tuesday, January 31st.  Coming two days before the second anniversary of the Supreme Court’s infamous Citizens United decision that unleashed unlimited anonymous spending on campaigns across the country, the vote moves forward a bill that would shine a spotlight on political spending so voters know who is behind the ads they’re seeing.

Over $235 million was spent on ballot measures in 2010, almost all of it by veiled actors hiding behind innocuous-sounding names that deliberately mislead voters about who is paying for them.  Independent expenditures have increased more than 6,000% since 2000.  It will come as no surprise that a recent study by the New York City Public Advocate showed that such anonymous spending groups are significantly more likely to fund negative advertisements.

Assemblymember Julia Brownley, author of AB 1148, said it best when she said that Californians need to know who is paying for political ads when millions of dollars by special interests and wealthy donors are influencing the direction of our state.

Sponsored by the California Clean Money Campaign, AB 1148 will make sure that voters know who is paying for political ads by requiring television, radio, and print ads to clearly identify their three largest funders with their names and logos.  These requirements will apply to both ads for or against ballot measures and independent expenditure ads for or against state and local candidates.

The difference in clarity to the voters would be immense.  In 2010, the largest-spending ballot measure committees had names like “Californians to Protect Our Right to Vote”, “Stop Hidden Taxes”, “Californians for Fair Auto Insurance Rates”, “Citizens for an On-Time Budget”, and the ”California Jobs Initiative Committee”.  Most voters had no idea who the largest funders of those committees actually were.  With AB 1148, they would.

The state’s budget likely would benefit dramatically from this kind of increased disclosure.  Much of the state’s budgetary problems are due to legislators being handcuffed by ballot box budgeting and other limitations passed by special interests whose ads don’t reveal who they are.  Voters who can make more informed decisions will make better decisions.

These are all part of the reasons why AB 1148 is endorsed by nearly 300 statewide and local organizations and leaders, including the League of Women Voters of California, the California Alliance for Retired Americans, California Common Cause, California Church IMPACT, CALPIRG, the Greenlining Institute, the Green Chamber of Commerce, the Planning and Conservation League, Sierra Club California, and taxpayer advocates like Ted Costa.  Two of the three largest cities in the state, Los Angeles and San Jose, just unanimously endorsed AB 1148, and its endorsers include both Democratic and Republican local elected officials.

As an amendment to the Political Reform Act of 1974, AB 1148 will require a 2/3 vote in both the Assembly and State Senate to go into effect, or passage by the voters if the legislature puts it on the ballot by a majority vote.

Though it can be difficult to achieve a 2/3 vote in the legislature, AB 1148 already has substantial support in the legislature.  We are particularly excited that Assembly Speaker John Pérez has joined on as a co-author of AB 1148 in the fight for real transparency and disclosure in political advertising – making a total of 34 co-authors in the Assembly.   Assembly Appropriations Chair Felipe Fuentes (D-Los Sylmar) and Assemblymembers Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), Bob Blumenfield (D-Woodland Hills), Steven Bradford (D-Gardena), Charles Calderon (D-Whittier), Nora Campos (D- San José), Wes Chesbro (D-Arcata), Mike Gatto (D-Glendale), Isadore Hall (D-Compton), Jerry Hill (D-San Mateo), Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), and Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) all voted Yes on AB 1148 in the Appropriations Committee.

Most importantly, support for increased disclosure is one of the rare issues in which there is nearly universal public support across the board:  86% of Democrats, 78% of Republicans, and 88% of Independents favored increasing public disclosure requirements of initiatives in the October 13, 2011 California Field Poll.

Disclosure isn’t just an issue that voters say they support but would forget about come election time.  As the nearly 300 endorsing organizations and 20,000 people who’ve signed petitions for AB 1148 testify, people across the state are paying attention.  And in a January poll commissioned by the Greenlining Institute, 59% of voters said they’d be less likely to vote for an elected official who had voted against improving funder disclosure on political ads.

Of course, AB 1148 has already engendered the kind of opposition you’d expect from organizations representing the biggest special interests in the state who would rather continue being able to hide from voters when they pay for political ads.  But with overwhelming bipartisan support from a public that is engaged and cares deeply about transparency and disclosure, we’re hopeful that enough Democrats and Republicans will come together to do the right thing and pass it on Tuesday.

Contact: Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Coordinator, 510-926-4022; 415-846-7758 (cell)

SACRAMENTO – California officials and politicos have long been talking about the ballot initiative system and possible reforms. Last year, concerned by the growing influence of special interest money and use of the initiative system to attack civil rights, The Greenlining Institute decided to take up the issue and to start by finding out what real Californians think. After assembling a diverse, 33-person advisory board, Greenlining commissioned a two-wave public opinion survey of a representative sample of state voters and mounted a statewide listening tour that visited 14 California cities.

This Wednesday, Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), Asm. Paul Fong (D-Cupertino), and Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation will join Greenlining representatives to present the results of this research and discuss efforts to return the initiative process to the ideal of “citizen democracy” at a lunch briefing for policymakers and the media.

WHAT: Policy briefing, A Community Perspective on Ballot Initiative Reform.

WHO: Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley); Asm. Paul Fong (D-Cupertino); Kim Alexander, California Voter Foundation; Orson Aguilar and Michelle Romero, The Greenlining Institute.

WHEN: Wednesday, Feb. 1, from 11:30am-1pm. A box lunch will be provided for attendees who RSVP.

WHERE: State Capitol, Room 2040.

RSVP to brucem@greenlining.org or micheller@greenlining.org or call (408) 550-3121. Be sure to include any dietary restrictions.

###

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research and Advocacy Institute
www.greenlining.org

Culver City Patch
by Kelly Hartog

On Jan. 18, the 14-member California Citizens Redistricting Commission held a public input meeting at Culver City Council Chambers to hear possible amendments to the California Government Code sections 8251-8253.6.

A group presentation was submitted by California Common Cause; the Asian Pacific American Legal Center; California Forward; Claiming Our Democracy; The Greenlining Institute California; the California Citizens Redistricting Commission; the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO) and the League of Women Voters of California.

The main focus of the group’s suggested changes centered on budget and timing issues, including ensuring the public has adequate time to comment on the process and that transparency remain key.

Read the full article here.

La Opinion
by: Araceli Martinez Ortega

SACRAMENTO.— Catherine Sandoval, quien creció en el este de Los Ángeles se convirtió ayer en la primera mujer latina en ser confirmada como miembro de la Comisión de Servicios Públicos de California (CPUC) por el Comité de Reglas del Senado.

Aunque será hasta hoy cuando se lleve a cabo la confirmación por el pleno del Senado, se da por un hecho que no tendrá problemas para recibir los votos y convertirse en uno de los 5 comisionados de la CPUC, además de la única mujer.

Sandoval de 51 años, fue designada al cargo por el gobernador Jerry Brown en enero de 2011, tiempo en el cual ha estado ya en pleno ejercicio de su cargo, pendiente de su confirmación, que debe hacerse un año más tarde.”Este puesto es tan importante porque todos pagamos por la electricidad, agua, teléfono y nuestra meta es que los precios no suban tanto y haya competencia e innovación en el mercado”, dijo Sandoval en entrevista con La Opinión antes de entrar a la audiencia de confirmación en el Comité de Reglas del Senado, a la que se hizo acompañar por toda su familia.

Ser la primera mujer latina en convertirse en miembro de la CPUC, aseguró es un gran honor y una gran oportunidad para servir a la gente de California sobre también a quienes no hablan inglés y enfrentan barreras adicionales para acceder a los servicios públicos.

Sandoval, de 51 años, se graduó en Artes de la Universidad de Yale; estudió jurisprudencia en la Escuela de Derecho de Stanford; e hizo maestría en Ciencias Políticas en la Universidad Oxford donde se convirtió en la primera latina en recibir la reconocida beca Rhodes.

Al cargo trae su experiencia como asesora en vivienda para la Agencia de Negocios, Transporte y Vivienda; su trabajo en la Comisión Federal de Comunicaciones; y como litigante en la firma de abogados Munger, Tolles y Olson así como profesora de Derecho de la Universidad de Santa Clara.

Como miembro de la CPUC, tiene un sueldo de 128,109 dólares al año y el cargo dura seis años.

Samuel Kang, abogado general del Instituto Greenlining, con sede en Oakland, dijo que podría decirse que la CPUC es la agencia es la más poderosa y estrechamente escudriñada en el estado., “por lo que cualquier nombramiento en un ambiente tan demandante necesita una combinación inusual de intelecto, integridad y liderazgo, y bajo esas medidas, el gobernador no pudo encontrar mejor selección que Sandoval”.

La abogada latina fue cuestionada durante horas por los legisladores sobre el trabajo y las políticas de la CPUC sobre todo porque la confirmación viene en momentos en que la confianza pública en la CPUC ha sufrido una serie de problemas incluyendo la falta de prevención en desastres. como la explosión de gas en San Bruno en 2010, una desgracia que ocurrió antes de que Sandoval llegara al cargo

Contact:
Samuel S. Kang, Greenlining Institute General Counsel, 415-317-5946 (cell)
Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Coordinator, 510-926-4022; 415-846-7758 (cell)

SACRAMENTO – With the Senate Rules Committee preparing to hold a hearing this afternoon on the nominations of Catherine J.K. Sandoval and Michel P. Florio to the California Public Utilities Commission, The Greenlining Institute strongly urged confirmation of these two consumer-friendly nominees.

“The CPUC is arguably the most powerful and closely scrutinized regulatory agency in California,” said Greenlining General Counsel Samuel S. Kang. “Anyone appointed to this demanding environment needs an unusual combination of intellect, integrity, and leadership, and by those measures, you could not find better picks than Commissioners Sandoval and Florio.”

Sandoval, California’s first Latina Rhodes Scholar, was a law professor and expert on telecommunications law at Santa Clara University and previously served as undersecretary for housing with the state’s Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. Florio was a senior attorney for The Utility Reform Network for over 30 years and was a member of the board of governors of the California Independent System Operator from 1997 to 2005.

Kang noted that consideration of these commissioners comes at a time when public trust in the CPUC has suffered and a series of critical issues loom in the next few years, including how to prevent disasters like the San Bruno gas pipeline explosion, overhauling the electrical delivery system, and dwindling competition in the wireless and broadband industries.

“They’ll have to convince families, small businesses and underserved communities that the CPUC won’t leave them behind when making these critical decisions,” said Kang. ”Fortunately, this year, transparency has been a hallmark for Commissioners Sandoval and Florio, who both spent their entire professional lives working to empower communities. They must stay committed to this principle if they are going to win back the public’s trust.”

Sandoval and Florio were appointed by Governor Jerry Brown on January 25, 2011. CPUC Commissioners are appointed by the Governor to serve six-year terms and must be confirmed by the state Senate within a year of their appointment.

###

THE GREENLINING INSTITUTE
A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research and Advocacy Institute
www.greenlining.org

With the upcoming anniversary of the Citizens United decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions, California Assembly member Julia Brownley (D-Santa Monica) is pushing a bill to ensure that corporate entities making political donations are required to at least disclose those contributions.

The California Disclose Act, AB 1148, specifically addresses accountability in election campaign ads, forcing corporate sponsors to step out from behind cryptic political action committee (PAC) names when they fund political advertisements.

“Currently the top two donors must be disclosed on political ads, usually behind meaningless campaign committee ads,” said Michelle Romero, manager of the Our Democracy program at the Greenlining Institute, which is supporting the legislation. “We hope to really pierce through the committee names to the top three donors behind ballot measure expenditure campaigns.”

Romero’s ideal realization of this bill would be to require political ads to list donors by the name of the corporation, rather than just its made-up PAC name. “Instead of saying, ‘This ad was paid for by the Committee for Responsible California,’ the ad would list the logos and names of top donors,” said Romero. “For example: the donors are Chevron, Comcast, etc.”

Yet other states have taken even bolder steps to counteract the Citizens United decision. The Montana Supreme Court recently affirmed a ban on unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns, seemingly defying the U.S. Supreme Court. But the Montana judges said that due to the rural state’s low-budget elections and the ability of a few large corporations (particularly mining interests) to drown out everyone else, the Citizens United case did not apply to Montana’s Corrupt Practices Law, which bars corporations from using company resources to make political contributions.

“The government is supposed to represent the people,” Romero said, “not corporate interests.” said Romero.