The silence is deafening. Today’s news that State Senator Leland Yee was arrested makes for an electoral trinity for Republicans and nobody in the Caucus is taking advantage of it. Look at what’s happened:
- State Senator Wright was convicted of perjury and refused to resign his seat in the State Senate.
- State Senator Ron Calderon was charged with bribery and corruption
- State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today for corruption and arms trafficking
Over 10 percent of the Democratic Caucus in the California State Senate may be facing hard time and the Republican Senate Caucus is not framing the conversation. This is an extraordinary opportunity for Republican Senators to help colleagues and candidates and their counterparts in Assembly races. Campaign on this message:
Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
State Senator Mark Wyland is termed out and not seeking public office; he can lead the charge.
Leave Sacramento now. When the media ask you why you won’t stay in Sacramento, answer that it’s a cesspool of corruption and, until you change the make up of the Legislature, your presence lends tacit support for the corruption. Go home until the June elections. Reconvene afterwards and announce that you won’t be voting on Democratic sponsored bills. Sponsor all sorts of repeal legislation and ask why the Democrats wont permit people to have more freedom. Then come home after Labor Day and campaign for Republican candidates in their districts.
Go on strike. Opportunities like this won’t come but once a decade or so.
# # #
Comments 27
Where’s the “like” button on this page?
With Rankin on this one. Nice B.
Pretty sure that nobody in the California Senate has “absolute power.”
Fun meaningless catchphrase, though.
Pretty sure the Dems do hold the power in Sacramento and they are showing their corruption. So, not entirely a meaningless catchphrase, is it now?
Is this a serious call to shutdown the government? I don’t remember that playing well when the Republicans did that in Washington. Or is this just a call to have Republicans desert the job they were elected to do?
Just an aside, if they take the advice given, should they still be paid?
I used to tell my clients: “Don’t get too holy” I have the same advice for my fellow Republicans now. Don’t get too holy
Author
Mr Kern,
If three Republican elected officials are arrested for corruption, with one of them accused of illegal trafficking in weapons, I’ll scream just as loud.
I”m hardly perfect and I expect that nobody is but is it too much to ask that elected officials don’t peddle their position to the highest bidder?
Whether going on permanent strike is the right move is open to debate, I suppose, but there’s precedent for it, what with Democratic legislators in Wisconsin and Ohio fleeing the scene over legislation they didn’t like. There’s also precedent for taking over state houses with shouting mobs dressed in matching colored t-shirts or tennis shoes in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Texas. But that’s a progressive tactic because they have union members available as handy rent a mobs. I’m not a parliamentarian, so I don’t know the answer. But there’s got to be something available between doing nothing and completely leaving town to highlight the corruption and to monkeywrench the system until these three corrupt guys are booted out or forced to resign.
Author
“Is this a serious call to shutdown the government?”
Of course not and it wouldn’t shut down the CA state government at all. The bureaucracy runs the CA government.
“I don’t remember that playing well when the Republicans did that in Washington.”
You have it backwards. House republicans sent dozens of bills to fund the federal government to the Democratic-controlled Senate where they all died.
“Or is this just a call to have Republicans desert the job they were elected to do?”
You can call it “deserting” if it makes you happy.
Q: “would you be deserting your job if you refused to participate in in corruption, be your participation active or passive?:
A: Absolutely not. I’d go so far as to say that you have an obligation to expose the systemic corruption and subsequent cover-ups.
“Just an aside, if they take the advice given, should they still be paid?”
They should be paid as much as Senators Calderon and Wright are paid for their “extended leave”
Brian,
Three members were charged with crimes that we can all agree are inexcusable, if proven true. None of the three have been convicted. Perhaps more importantly, 37 members of the State Senate and all 80 members of the Assembly have not been charged with any crimes. I will ask again. Do you really think this warrants any of the actions you are suggesting?
Maybe you would understand my point better if I asked the question this way: Should the entire gun industry be shut down because some of its users decided to commit mass murder?
Author
“None of the three have been convicted”
Wright was and Steinberg is running cover for these three, to retain power. Read Anderson’s Op-Ed in the UT
Brian,
On another thread, Barry Jantz pointed out that Wright was convicted and I agreed that he should be removed from office. As for the other two, the choice should be theirs until and unless they are convicted.
As for Steinberg being worried about losing power (I assume you mean a supermajority because the Democrats will still have a majority even if all three resign), all three represent districts that would easily elect a Democratic replacement.
“all three represent districts that would easily elect a Democratic replacement.”
This is my point. Republicans should swarm on those districts to explain why that is a rotten idea.
Why exactly is that a “rotten idea?”
Do you believe every corrupt politician should be replaced by someone from the opposite party? If so, I assume you supported Francine Busby over Brian Bilbray when they ran to replace the disgraced Duke Cunningham.
Or do you just think super-majorities are always a bad idea? If that is the case, I expect that you make quite a few campaign contributions to Democrats in the South and Midwest.
Or is there a third, more partisan reason?
“Do you believe every corrupt politician should be replaced by someone from the opposite party?”
No but I would say that a pattern is emerging here in California just like there was a pattern in Alaska until Sarah Palin cleaned house there. Can you point to a Palin-esque figure in the CDP? Gloria Romero comes to mind but she became persona non-grata by the CDP’s master; the public-sector unions.
“Or do you just think super-majorities are always a bad idea?”
I do but I live in San Diego. I try not to intervene in Massachusetts and Mississippi state politics. I will admit to sending money to Christie’s primary opponent but I know the man and lived in NJ once.
“Or is there a third, more partisan reason?”
Of course there is. I”m open-minded about Democrats but I’m a lifelong Republican. Give me the option of Gloria Romero and I’ll listen but the CDP continues to field and support corrupt public officials: three in the State Senate (with 1-2 more rumored to going down) and a Mayor of a major California city.
Do you see this as a problem or will you continue to scream “due process” while the thieves plunder, the moochers loot, and the rent-seeking cronies profit on the backs of the people of California?
The Senate is given the power by the California Constitution to judge the qualifications of its members and to expel any member on 2/3 vote. (Section 4, Article 5.) That power is plenary. The last time Senators were expelled was in 1905. After expulsion they sued to get their positions back because they hadn’t been convicted of the bribery charges the Senate charged them with. The CA Supreme Court said too bad in French v. Senate of the State of CA (1905) 146 Cal.604 because the Senate has the power to do it and that power is absolute and the expelled Senators did not have a right to their seats. So, legally, it’s not the Senators’ choice whether they get to keep their seats; it’s the Senate’s choice.
It’s true the Senate’s power could be abused but the fact that it hasn’t been exercised in over 100 years suggests there’s not much risk of that. Also, the people of California at the next election can exercise a check on a runaway Senate that might start abusing the power to expel members by voting out Senators who abuse their power or by amending the Constitution.
As to Senator Wright there is absolutely no reason he shouldn’t be expelled. He’s been convicted. His conviction might not be final because it’s on appeal, but there are inmates all over California serving time in prison whose convictions aren’t final because their appeals aren’t over. There’s no reason at all that Wright should not be expelled.
As to the other two who haven’t been convicted, they should be expelled, too. The presumption of innocence is an evidentiary presumption that applies in court. There are people presumed innocent all over California who are sitting in jail awaiting trial or being tried. As it stands now, the constituents of the accused Senators have no representation and they get to pay the salaries of their suspended representatives. That may be just to the two accused Senators who get to keep their salaries while not doing the work they were elected to do but it’s not just to their constituents.
The Senate should do what the California Constitution authorizes them to do and expel these three members now. Again, it’s the Senate’s choice to make not the accused Senators. If it takes monkey-wrenching the system or going on strike to get the Senate to expel these three Senators, I agree with Brian, that’s what should be done.
Brian,
I am not “screaming due process” because I want to see these senators remain in office. I am screaming due process because that is one of the (many) things that makes this country great. My preference would be for all three to resign, but short of that, I am not in favor of taking away someone’s job based on what is still an accusation.
As for whether or not I see this a problem, I do. I see it as three individual problems and since there have been and probably will be corrupt individuals on both sides of the aisle, I think it is wise not to taint an entire political party because of the actions of a few. Remember, what goes around inevitably comes around.
Brian,
One other question for you since you are a San Diegan. How concerned were you with the Martin Garrick’s drunk driving and Joel Anderson’s money laundering of campaign contributions? I may be wrong, but I do not remember you calling for either of their resignations.
” I am screaming due process because that is one of the (many) things that makes this country great.”
…and I’ll scream right alongside you. If Yee is hauled off to Gitmo to stand in front of a military tribunal, we’ll be side by side, screaming. I don’t expect our public officials to be perfect but I do expect them not to enrich themselves on the backs of hard-working Californians.
“How concerned were you with the Martin Garrick’s drunk driving and Joel Anderson’s money laundering of campaign contributions? :
Tu quoque fallacies.
Brian,
“Tu quoque fallacies.”
I am not belittling your position or excusing the actions of the Senators involved. I am simply pointing out that your outrage is more partisan than you may be willing to admit, and bad or even criminal behavior is not limited to one side of the aisle. In fact two Republican senators is higher percentage of the caucus than three Democratic senators is.
You’re comparing an Assemblyman’s DUI to public corruption charges from three Senators (covered up by their Caucus boss)…
Keep trying.
DUI is not a problem? Do you seriously want to go with that? How about DUI, lying to the police and evading arrest?
How about laundering campaign contributions through a third party to avoid contribution limits?
I guess, on the other hand, that a Democrat not having legal residency in the district he represents is much worse and further means that all Democrats are corrupt.
Keep telling us that you would be outraged if the Parties were reversed. Maybe someone will actually believe you.