Gallegly is Against Healthcare Reform…here’s why

Here  is Gallegly’s 2010 campaign contributions:

Industry	Total	Indivs	PACs
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$9,000	$1,000	$8,000
Telephone Utilities	$4,000	$0	$4,000
Defense Electronics	$4,765	$1,765	$3,000
Commercial Banks	$3,000	$0	$3,000
Health Professionals	$5,665	$2,665	$3,000
Electronics Mfg & Services	$3,330	$830	$2,500
Real Estate	$8,562	$6,062	$2,500
Misc Issues	$2,000	$0	$2,000
Home Builders	$2,000	$0	$2,000
Computers/Internet	$2,265	$1,265	$1,000
TV/Movies/Music	$3,000	$2,000	$1,000
Lawyers/Law Firms	$10,999	$9,999	$1,000
Insurance	$2,000	$1,000	$1,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing	$4,650	$4,350	$300
Livestock	$5,514	$5,514	$0
Building Materials & Equipment	$4,600	$4,600	$0
Casinos/Gambling	$2,000	$2,000	$0
Retired	$16,711	$16,711	$0
Trucking	$2,065	$2,065	$0
Business Services	$2,665	$2,665	$0

Here are Gallegly’s campaign contributions for the 2008 cycle:

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products	$36,500	$17,000	$19,500
Telephone Utilities	$11,000	$0	$11,000
Real Estate	$48,244	$37,444	$10,800
Automotive	$18,800	$8,800	$10,000
Public Sector Unions	$9,000	$0	$9,000
Home Builders	$10,000	$2,000	$8,000
Defense Electronics	$10,000	$3,000	$7,000
TV/Movies/Music	$10,600	$4,600	$6,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing	$16,448	$10,648	$5,800
Health Professionals	$10,795	$7,648	$3,147
Securities & Investment	$9,800	$7,300	$2,500
Building Materials & Equipment	$16,250	$13,750	$2,500
Lawyers/Law Firms	$22,120	$19,870	$2,250
General Contractors	$9,050	$7,050	$2,000
Lobbyists	$9,150	$7,150	$2,000
Republican/Conservative	$10,410	$9,410	$1,000
Misc Finance	$9,900	$9,400	$500
Livestock	$14,200	$14,200	$0
Retired	$40,849	$40,849	$0
Casinos/Gambling	$10,600	$10,600	$0

A break down of the later demonstrates this:

Sector	Total	PACs	Indivs
Agribusiness	$46,898	$17,800	$29,098
Communications/Electronics	$29,489	$21,000	$8,489
Construction	$38,949	$12,500	$26,449
Defense	$15,250	$12,000	$3,250
Energy & Natural Resources	$12,750	$12,500	$250
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$89,444	$26,200	$63,244
Health	$48,995	$23,147	$25,848
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$31,270	$4,250	$27,020
Transportation	$24,800	$13,000	$11,800
Misc Business	$41,202	$12,564	$28,638
Labor	$12,000	$12,000	$0
Ideological/Single-Issue	$23,861	$11,401	$12,460
Other	$48,499	$0	$48,499

Insurance and Health contributions combined make up for his main campaign contributions. If you want to include Lobbyists, that includes another $31,000.

Add to this misery, Gallegly won’t hold town hall meetings and won’t debate campaign challengers.  Probably because he doesn’t care what his constituents have to say and doesn’t want to be challenged with the facts.

Data provided by Opensecrets.org

Go play with the yearly data there, and you’ll see he’s always been a favorite of the insurance/pharma industries.

Over the course of Gallegly’s Congressional career, here are his totals:

Sector	Total	PACs	Indivs
Agribusiness	$335,074	$120,211	$214,863
Communications/Electronics	$263,672	$192,112	$71,560
Construction	$308,391	$105,050	$203,341
Defense	$156,868	$135,557	$21,311
Energy & Natural Resources	$161,076	$131,018	$30,058
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate	$756,363	$319,949	$436,414
Health	$401,417	$205,322	$196,095
Lawyers & Lobbyists	$219,363	$39,525	$179,838
Transportation	$218,316	$135,120	$83,196
Misc Business	$352,147	$139,545	$212,602
Labor	$58,025	$57,525	$500
Ideological/Single-Issue	$192,638	$127,618	$65,020
Other	$284,506	$500	$284,006

hmmmmm

Jackson leading at 10:40 pm

Update at 10:40 pm

	Hannah-Beth Jackson (Dem)	73,391	53.2%
	Tony Strickland (Rep)	64,562	46.8%

California’s Prop 8 is hateful and unethical

It is unbelievable that California voters must take time to vote on who has the right to marry.  Isn’t this a little too much meddling in personal privacy?  Isn’t this legalizing prejudice and hate?  Just where will this type of focus end?

We can’t allow our Constitution to dictate our personal lives or legalize prejudice.

Vote NO on 8

Update on Strickland brawl from the summer

Many will remember the brawl involving Audra Strickland’s Chief of Staff, Joel Angeles, with demonstrators over the summer. As an update, it appears that Angeles has battery charges that are being referred to the California State Attorney General. Read more of the story here.

Ew

The Stricklands need to go.  Their behavior and who they associate with is unbelieveable.

Strickland and the Truth Squad

Strickland claims he is a alternative energy executive, however his history doesn’t support that.  Check his voting history, it’s awful for the environment.

Poor Environmental Record

• Strickland voted against legislation created by Hannah-Beth Jackson (his upcoming Democratic opponent), which enabled further restrictions to be placed on pesticide use near schools and other vulnerable sites. (AB 947, vote passed, 8/22/2002)

• Strickland’s lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters is near zero, largely due to his poor voting record on several environmental issues.

• Strickland lists himself as an “alternative energy executive” on the upcoming ballot, despite the fact that his company has so far been denied a permit by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and has generated no revenue. ^[1]

Project VoteSmart indicates the following poor environmental record:

2003 Strickland supported the interests of the California League of Conservation Voters 5 percent in 2003.

2002 Strickland supported the interests of the California League of Conservation Voters 5 percent in 2002.

2001-2002 Strickland supported the interests of the California Park and Recreation Society 25 percent in 2001-2002.

2001 Strickland supported the interests of the California League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2001.

2000 Strickland supported the interests of the California League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 2000.

1999 Strickland supported the interests of the California League of Conservation Voters 0 percent in 1999.

Questionable Finances

In his failed run for state controller, Strickland was primarily funded by software giant Intuit and a group of Southern California Indian tribes with large stakes in the casino gambling business. He accepted over $1 million from these two groups alone, which raised concerns that this was an attempt to influence the controller’s ability to alter state tax policies.^[2]

In 2005, Ventura County Prosecutors investigated the campaign practices of Tony Strickland and his wife, Audra Strickland, who is also a legislator, for adding to their personal incomes by transferring political funds to consulting firms they each own and operate. This seemed to hurt Strickland’s 2006 run for state controller, which would have given him the responsibility of managing the state’s finances.^{[3] Oh Gosh.}

On women’s rights

Clearly Strickland’s environmental record doesn’t support his ballot designation claim.  His voting on women’s, children, and health issues is quite extreme.  It seems to me quite archaic too.  Hannah-Beth Jackson appears better able to steer us through the upcoming years in a more balanced way.

Strickland sends out mailer trying to trick voters

There seems to be no end to the Strickland dishonesty.  Most recently he has sent out a mailer that does not declare from where it came, which may suggest it was sent by Hannah-Beth Jackson. By failing to clearly indicate from what campaign the mailer was sent, this broke the law.

Haven’t we had enough of politicians who think they can violate the law and get away with it.  For ethical reasons alone, Strickland needs to go.  Jackson clearly appears to have stronger ethics.  We need to wash this nation clean of law breaking politicians to move forward as a success instead of control by corporate greed and the politicians that support them instead of their constituency.

See more of the story and comments here

Kucinich to present impeachment to House Judiciary Committee

Elton Gallegly has responded to impeachment requests that he will keep our views in mind if the issue of impeachment comes before him. Now he has his chance. Read below, this may be exciting news:

Kucinich to Present Impeachment Case to Panel

By Molly K. Hooper, CQ

Democratic leaders have agreed to give Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich a day before the House Judiciary Committee to make his case that President Bush ought to be impeached for allegedly lying to Congress in order to get approval to invade Iraq.

Kucinich, D-Ohio, has introduced three impeachment resolutions — one against Bush, HRes 1258, and two against Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res 333, H Res 799) — all of which have been referred to committee and then ignored.

On Thursday, Kucinich complied with a rule requiring him to give notice before filing another article of impeachment, which he intends to do on July 14. Earlier Thursday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., said Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. , D-Mich., likely would review the matter before his committee.

Kucinich contends that Pelosi’s blessing demonstrates the desire on Capitol Hill to hold the administration accountable for allegedly lying to Congress.

“When Congress is reminded that a case for war was made based on information that has been categorically proven to be untrue, Congress will then want to reflect on its power and responsibility,” Kucinich said.

But Democratic House leaders downplayed the possibility of actual impeachment proceedings. “It is my expectation that there will be some review of it in the committee,” Pelosi said. “Not necessarily taking up the articles of impeachment, because that would have to be voted on the floor, but to have some hearings on the subject.”

“The chairman may be holding hearings. Whether he holds impeachment hearings would be another question,” Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer , D-Md., said Thursday.

A good follow-up action would be to fax in to the House Judiciary members directly telling them your thoughts. Here are their names and fax numbers:

MEMBERS WHO VOTED TO IMPEACH CLINTON FOR ORAL SEX:
Fax them this
Ranking Member: Hon. Lamar Smith (TX) Phone 202-225-4236 . *Fax: 202-225-8628
Hon. James Sensenbrenner (WI) Phone (202) 225-5101
Hon. Howard Coble (NC) Phone (202) 225-3065 . *Fax: (202) 225-8611
Hon. Elton Gallegly (CA) Phone (202) 225-5811 . *Fax (202) 225-1100
Hon. Bob Goodlatte (VA) Phone (202) 225-5431 . *Fax (202) 225-9681
Hon. Steve Chabot (OH) Phone (202) 225-2216 . *(202) 225-3012
Hon. Chris Cannon (UT) Phone (202) 225-7751 . *Fax (202) 225-5629

Others on the Judiciary Committee:

Baldwin (202) 2256942 has supported impeachment hearings.
Berman (202) 2253196
Boucher (202) 2250442
Cohen (202) 2255663
Conyers (202) 2250072
Davis (202) 2269567
Delahunt (202) 2255658
Ellison (202) 2254886
Fenney (202) 2266299
Forbes (202) 2261170
Franks (202) 2256328
Gohmert (202) 2261230
Gutierrez (202) 2257810
Issa (202) 2253303
Jackson Lee (202) 2253317
Johnson (202) 2260961
Jordan (202) 2260577
Keller (202) 2250999
King (202) 2253193
Lofgrin (202) 2253336
Lungren (202) 2261298
Nadler (202) 2256923
Nadler brooklyn 718- 9960039
Pence (202) 2253382
Sanchez (202) 2261012
Schiff (202) 2255828
Scott (202) 2258354
Sherman (202) 2255879
Sutton (202) 2252266
Wasserman Schultz (202) 2262052
Waters (202) 2257854 has supported impeachment hearings.
Watt (202) 2251512
Weiner (202) 2267253
Wexler (202) 2255974 has supported impeachment hearings.

FISA, Bush, Republicans, and telecom immunity

Found this over at Brian Dennert’s blog at the Star. Certainly puts this issue in a plain and simple manner. I wonder what our local Congressional Representative Elton Gallegly will do to protect our rights now. Any thoughts on his concern for the Constitution?

Seven Republican Members of House Judiciary Call for Impeachment out of Duty to the Constitution

From Cheryl Biren-Wright on OpEd:

GOP Reps. Smith, Sensenbrenner, Coble, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Chabot, and Cannon after much deliberation put the Constitution and rule of law before politics. Rep. Lamar Smith stated, “As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The president’s actions must be evaluated for one simple reason: the truth counts.” Read their statements below.

[note: please read full article for a complete understanding. short on time? skim ’til you get to the end]

Hon. Lamar Smith (TX) Phone 202-225-4236 . Fax: 202-225-8628 We should not underestimate the gravity of the case against the president. When he put his hand on the Bible and recited his oath of office, he swore to faithfully uphold the laws of the United States – not some laws, all laws.

As to the uniqueness of the office the president holds, he is a person in a position of immense authority and influence. He influences the lives of millions of Americans. When he took the oath of office, he swore to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States and to take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

When someone is elected president, they receive the greatest gift possible from the American people, their trust. To violate that trust is to raise questions about fitness for office. My constituents often remind me that if anyone else in a position of authority – for example, a business executive, a military officer or a professional educator – had acted as the evidence indicates the president did, their career would be over. The rules under which President Nixon would have been tried for impeachment had he not resigned contain this statement: “The office of the president is such that it calls for a higher level of conduct than the average citizen in the United States.”

This will not be an easy task. In fact, it is a difficult ordeal for all Americans, but we will get through it. We are a great nation and a strong people. Our country will endure because our Constitution works and has worked for over 200 years. As much as one might wish to avoid this process, we must resist the temptation to close our eyes and pass by. The president’s actions must be evaluated for one simple reason: the truth counts.

As the process goes forward, some good lessons can be reaffirmed. No one is above the law, actions have consequences, always tell the truth. We the people should insist on these high ideals. That the president has fallen short of the standard doesn’t mean we should lower it. If we keep excusing away the president’s actions we as a nation will never climb upwards because there will be no firm rungs.

Hon. James Sensenbrenner (WI) Phone (202) 225-5101

…being a poor example isn’t grounds for impeachment; undermining the rule of law is.

When Americans come to Washington, they see the words “equal justice under law” carved in the facade of the Supreme Court building. Those words mean that the weak and the poor have an equal right to justice, as do the rich and the powerful.

The framers of the Constitution devised an elaborate system of checks and balances to ensure our liberty by making sure that no person, institution or branch of government became so powerful that a tyranny could be established in the United States of America. Impeachment is one of the checks the framers gave the Congress to prevent the executive or judicial branches from becoming corrupt or tyrannical…..

Hon. Elton Gallegly (CA) Phone (202) 225-5811 . Fax (202) 225-1100 This has been a very trying time. In a democracy, there are few more serious acts than to consider the possible impeachment of a president. I can tell you in true conscience it has caused me many sleepless nights.

I wanted to hear the evidence that would prove the charges were false. I believed that was the only fair way to proceed, and it was also my solemn constitutional duty and immense responsibility. I waited, I read, and I listened.

Mr. Chairman, I’m not a lawyer — one of the few on this committee — however, everyone that knows me knows I believe in the rule of law — believe the rule of law is fundamental to our society. A society without laws is anarchy. Societies that ignore the laws are condemned to violence and chaos.

That bothers me. My district is considered among the safest communities in the nation. We have fine police officers, which certainly helps, but every officer from the chief to the beat officer will tell you a low crime rate begins with citizens who obey the law. Every citizen must obey the law, every law.

He violated the Constitution. To condone this would be to condemn our society to anarchy. Mr. Chairman, I cannot and will not condone such action…

more

John McCain will be in Santa Barbara on June 24, Tuesday

John McCain will attend an energy and environment panel discussion on Tuesday, June 24, 2008 in Santa Barbara. The doors open at 7:30am

What: Environmental Briefing in Santa Barbara, CA

When: June 24, 2008

Where: Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History

2559 Puesta del Sol Road

Santa Barbara, CA 93105

Wonder if he’ll change his mind.

Joel Angeles on leave since Romney – Strickland fundraiser brawl

In what appears more show than punishment, Audra Strickland put her chief of staff, Joel Angeles, on a one month unpaid leave of absence. See Ventura County Star.

Readers will remember that Joel Angeles was described as shoving anti-tobacco donation protestors that were located on the sidewalk in front of the Hyatt in Westlake Village. The Hyatt was the site of a fundraiser for Tony Strickland, which used Mitt Romney as a draw for campaign donations. The folks on the side walk were protesting Strickland’s acceptance of large tobacco corporation donations.

But one has to consider what a “leave of absence” really means and whether merely a leave of absence is all that is warranted for being a member of an elected official’s office.

Joel Angeles appears to be quite intertwined in the Strickland’s campainging machine, having lived in their home and sharing a business with Audra Strickland as reported in the LA Times. Does his one month leave merely mean a vacation from public viewing?

Wouldn’t being removed from their offices altogether be more appropriate given accusations of his participation in a physical altercation and racial name-calling outside their fund raising event?

Big Box Retailers and economic power to influence government

From Corporate Abuse:

Over the last two decades, Big Box retailers have changed everything from the looks of our communities to the labor standards that protect us as workers. There is a high cost to low prices: small businesses continue to disappear, traffic grows more snarled, local manufacturing jobs disappear as these powerful retailers demand ever lower prices from suppliers. Five Big Box retailers–Wal-Mart, Home Depot, Costco, Target and Sears–are among the 40 largest corporations on the Fortune 500 list. With their growing economic power, comes a dangerous growth of political power.

Nowhere is the abuse of political power more clear than with Wal-Mart. As the nation’s largest–and one of the most politically mighty corporations–Wal-Mart has invested millions of dollars to defeat citizen initiatives seeking to maintain community zoning standards, held fundraisers for and made gifts to politicians who later vetoed employee health care legislation that Wal-Mart opposed, and pitted communities against one another in gaining more than $1 billion in corporate tax breaks and subsidies; including $200 million in the last three years according to Walmart Subsidy Watch.

Corporate Accountability International believes that dangerous concentrations of political power in the hands of unaccountable corporations lie at the foundation of many of the campaigns challenging Wal-Mart.

Corporations boost profits at the expense of people’s health and environment by using campaign contributions, aggressive lobbying, deceptive public relations and influence over global trade talks to write the rules that govern our economy and society to their advantage.

As corporations grow richer and more powerful than many countries, it becomes even more important to challenge the undue influence they use to weaken government policies that should protect people.