Kevin De Leon’s Campaign for US Senate is Dead – and He Knows It.

Berniecrat Pat Harris May Be the the Breakthrough Progressive to Take on Feinstein

Kevin De Leon

It’s hard to ignore the facts:  Kevin De Leon’s insurgent campaign for US Senate is in serious trouble. He is  polling at only 17% among likely voters, a decline of 4% since December,  and has struggled to raise money – his fundraising totals by the end of the filing period were under $450K.  In contrast, incumbent Dianne Feinstein is polling at 46% and has $10 million in her war chest.

De Leon’s troubles are not at all surprising.  He announced that he was running for Senator in October, hoping to capitalize on Feinstein’s growing unpopularity, discomfort about her age (she would be 91 by the end of her next term) and the disconnect between her right-of-center policies and California’s leftward political shift.  The  difficulties of challenging Feinstein were obvious from the beginning,  but it was his political miscalculations that doomed the campaign.

De Leon was  unfortunate in announcing his bid for the US Senate just as the  #MeToo movement  started in earnest.   Two days after his announcement, women who worked for or with California legislators issued a scathing public letter detailing the spread and the viciousness of sexual harassment  at the Capitol.  While the original letter did not name names, some victims have started to make their accusations public, leading to the resignation of several legislators.   Among those publicly accused is Tony Mendoza, one of De Leon’s close friends and roommates in Sacramento.  He has been accused, among other misdeeds, of repeatedly inviting a prospective employee to the apartment he shared with De Leon and then firing staffers who reported this conduct to the Rules Committee.  While De Leon denies knowledge of Mendoza’s offensive conduct, activists have noted how De Leon had helped kill a whistle blower protection bill and have criticized the hiring of private law firms to investigate these allegations.  His proximity to these sexual harassment scandals helped dull enthusiasm from his candidacy from the start.

Just as serious a problem is that Kevin De Leon apparently failed to anticipate how forcibly Feinstein would try to shut down his campaign.   Reportedly, the Feinstein camp leaned heavily on campaign professionals statewide with the message “dump Kevin or you will never work in politics again”.  What is certain is that within a fortnight of announcing, two of his long-time consultants, election lawyer Stephen Kaufman and fundraiser Stephanie Daily, distanced themselves from De Leon.  His sources of campaign talent became significantly limited.  Endorsements, too, dried up: his website does not even include an endorsement page listing his supporters.

Kevin De Leon has always been a prolific fundraiser and had relied heavily on donations from corporations and from labor.  He apparently felt he could continue to rely on these contributors for his Senate race.  He even opened a Super PAC to help with this plan.  But openly contributing to De Leon or a PAC associated with him represents quite a risk for corporations wanting to remain in good standing with Feinstein and her political network.  Indeed, his SuperPAC lays empty.  De Leon had also hoped that he would be able to transfer the money laying on his state campaign accounts to a PAC that would then support his campaign for US Senate, something that experts doubted would be legal.  He did, indeed, transfer $477K from his Lieutenant Governor campaign account and  $723K from his State Senate account to the “Golden State Progress” PAC a couple of days before announcing his run for US Senate.  These funds, however, were recently returned to the original state campaign accounts.

Meanwhile, De Leon’s reliance on donations from corporations has raised distrust with many in the anti-corporate/Berniecrat wing of the Democratic Party, not eager to replace a corporate senator like Feinstein with another one.

If De Leon continues his campaign, he has an even larger problem brewing.  Several years ago, De Leon was caught in a corruption scandal that led to the conviction and incarceration  of his close friend and  ally Senator Ron Calderon.  According to the FBI, in exchange for Calderon not seeking the chairmanship of the California Latino Legislative Caucus (so that Ricardo Lara – now running for Insurance Commissioner – could retain it), De Leon arranged for the Latino Caucus to transfer $25,000 to a consultancy firm owned by Tom Calderon, a former legislator and Ron Calderon’s brother.  Tom Calderon himself later plead guilty to  money laundering charges.  De Leon also promised Ron Calderon that he would offer him a paid appointment after his Senate term was over.  De Leon was never charged for corruption, but he did testify against Calderon before the grand jury and was slotted to testify against him if his case had gone to trial.

This scandal has been mostly forgotten, but the word in political and legal circles is that there is additional material that incriminates De Leon.   Political insiders believe that the Feinstein camp is waiting until the end of the filing period before releasing such material to the media, if they have indeed acquired it.  Of course, at this point it’s only speculation that the material exists and that it will be leaked.

Even if he manages to avoid this scandal from spilling over, Kevin De Leon’s best, and perhaps only, hope of keeping his campaign alive is to obtain the endorsement of the California Democratic Party (CDP), which is meeting for a statewide endorsing convention in San Diego at the end of February.   As the endorsed candidate,  De Leon’s could ask his corporate and labor donors to make financial contributions to the CDP.   instead of De Leon’s  campaign.  De Leon could dictate how the money would be spent, including on mailers and TV ads for himself.   These contributions would be reported as contributions to the Party, and mixed in with the contributions earmarked for many dozens other endorsees, making it practically impossible to tie any particular donor to De Leon.  While this is not strictly legal, there are few paper trails and the Party has managed to escape serious sanctions for these actions election after election.

Unfortunately for De Leon, he seems unlikely to gain the Party’s endorsement.  While he will have the votes of many labor activists, left-leaning party insiders and  some Berniecrats eager to see anyone but Feinstein in that Senate seat, he simply does not have enough internal support within the Party to get the 60% of the delegate vote needed to secure the endorsement.  Despite being the President of the Senate, De Leon is not particularly well known among Party activists, he has only started making efforts to reach out to delegates recently, and establishment party activists are usually reluctant to vote for candidates they don’t see as being viable.

To his credit, Kevin De Leon has read the tea leaves and he has started to telegraph the de facto end of his campaign.  In a recent interview with the progressive magazine The Nation, he answered the question of why he was running by saying

I think that we are long overdue for a debate on the issues, the values, and the priorities that we care about. It’s been more than a quarter of a century since we’ve had that debate.

That is the language of a protest candidate, one that is running as a symbolic choice or to push the leading candidate in a particular direction.  It is not the language of a real contender,  who would speak of action rather than debate.    De Leon didn’t start this race as a protest candidate, his change in rhetoric thus indicates his acceptance of this role.  This should help him maintain the goodwill of Feinstein voters, who constitute 67% of registered Democrats, according to the most recent poll.

Given the current scenario, it is possible that De Leon will remain in the race until after the Party’s Convention in late February,  in order to  deny Feinstein the Party’s endorsement  – which would justify  his candidacy in the first place – and then he exit the race.  This is particularly likely if a big-name Republican enters the race, as they could consolidate the 30% or so of the vote that goes to Republican candidates in statewide primaries, and thus advance to the general.  Republicans are eager to find a serious candidate to run for the US Senate, fearing that without one Republican voters will stay at home and not vote for down ballot races.  Still, none have shown up so far and the deadline for submitting a candidate statement to run for US Senate is February 14th.

If De Leon does decide to end his campaign, and provided that he  is swift and gets a sympathetic ear at the Secretary of State’s office, he might still enter the race for Lieutenant Governor.  De Leon had originally opened a campaign committee to run for that office which has $2.7 million at his disposal, were he to run for that office.  His State Senate campaign has another $800K.  The current three Democratic candidates for the office are unknowns, and only one of them holds elective office.  De Leon has gained some name recognition and press from running for Senate and he would have a very good chance of winning that race.

The conventional wisdom is that if Kevin De Leon remains in the ballot, he will gather the second largest amount of votes at the primary and make it to the general election, even if forced by his fundraising to wage a low-key campaign.  However, he may not be so fortunate.    The second place spot is just as likely to go to civil rights attorney Pat Harris, a Berniecrat who has quietly been waging a grassroots campaign for months.

Like many others in the Berniecrat movement, Pat Harris got into politics to fight the corrupting power of dark money in politics, which he understands as the “greatest threat to our democracy”.

A long time progressive, also running on a platform of single-payer healthcare, strong environmental regulations and criminal justice reform,  Harris has been crisscrossing California in a solar powered bus, talking directly to voters.  His campaign is mostly self-funded – Harris has been very successful in his legal practice – and he will not take any corporate donations.

As commendable as a grassroots approach to campaigning is, it’s unlikely to be successful in  a statewide race in a state as large as California.  However, probably unbeknownst to him, Pat Harris has an ace on the hole that could propel him to November: his name.

To understand why,  you need to remember David Evans.

“Who is David Evans?” you ask. Beats me. To this day all I know about David Evans is his name, his ballot designation of “chief financial officer” and the fact that he got over 21% of the vote in the 2014 race for California Controller. He came within a point of beating John Perez, the then Speaker of the California Assembly, and Betty Yee, a member of the Board of Equalization that would go on to win the seat.   Evans was not only a complete unknown, but he spent pennies on his campaign.  He won 21% of the vote – a greater percentage than what De Leon is currently polling at – on account of his generic name and his  ballot designation alone.

This example, and many others from local races, accentuate the often ignored importance of name familiarity.   You might not quite remember who David Evans, or Helen Foster or Dan Jones is – but if you see their name on a ballot, chances are the name will sound familiar.    Pat Harris‘ is not only a generic name, but it also happens to be rather similar to Kamala Harris, the name of the last candidate to be elected as the US Senator from California . Kamala ran as Attorney General, Pat Harris will run as some sort of Attorney.  And while “Kevin De Leon” is a clearly masculine name, “Pat Harris” is far more androgynous, which might lead voters who don’t want to vote for Feinstein but want to vote for a female candidate, to unwittingly vote for him.

It is truly impossible to know how many voters will support Pat Harris based on his name alone. – or on any other factors.  He was not included in either of the polls that measured Kevin De Leon versus Dianne Feinstein. The Controller’s race was very different as it lacked an incumbent, David Evans ran as a Republican, rather than a Democrat, and many voters don’t even know what the Controller does.  Still, it does suggest that at least  22% of primary voters are willing to vote based on the name of the candidate and their ballot designation alone.

(an early draft of this article was previously posted)

California Democrats Likely to Endorse Sexual Predators

Senator Tony Mendoza has been accused of sexual harassment by staffers. He is running for re-election and seeking the Democratic Party endorsement.

Party Activists Must Object to the Automatic-Endorsement of Incumbents to Prevent This.

California Democrats have a big problem.  Two sitting Assemblymembers, Raúl Bocanegra and Matt Dababneh, resigned after they were accused of sexually harassing and committing other improprieties against women.   But these two are the tip of the iceberg.  According to rumors circulating within party activists and legislators, the Los Angeles Times has a list of twelve legislators with credible complaints of sexual harassment against them.  Two of those legislators are said to be Republicans, which leaves ten Democrats.  One of the Democratic legislators included in the list I was given, Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, recently resigned citing health reasons.  Another, Senator Tony Mendoza, has been publicly accused of luring a 19 year old intern to his hotel room and giving her alcohol, and inviting a potential employee to his apartment to “review her and other resumes” and then firing the staffers that reported this.  Mendoza has taken a forced leave of absence, but he is still running for re-election and seeking the Democratic endorsement. He has been calling party delegates to demand they support him.

Chances are both Mendoza, and the other six still publicly unnamed Democrats supposedly in the list of accused sexual harassers – some of whom may even be rapists -, will receive the California Democratic Party’s endorsement.  That’s because of recently passed rules that make it almost automatic for incumbent Democrats to get the Party’s endorsement and impossible to challenge them once they are placed in the consent calendar.  In trying to protect its incumbents, the California Democratic Party is taking the risk of being known as the Party that  endorses sexual harassment.

As the rules stand, an incumbent Congressmember, Assemblymember or State Senator will be automatically placed in the Party’s endorsement consent calendar, unless 20% of the voters at a pre-endorsement conference file an objection by January 17th.  These voters are mostly composed of party delegates , county central committee members living in the district and representatives from democratic clubs based in the district.   Incumbents themselves are delegates and they get to appoint another 5 or 6 delegates, depending on the office.  Incumbents also often endorse and fund slates of candidates for elected delegate and central committee spots, thus controlling a considerable percentage of the votes at pre-endorsement conferences.   Even when incumbents do not control voters, it’s very difficult for Democratic Party activists to sign a formal objection like it’s required.  The incumbents are still in office and will be for at least another year, and they could easily retaliate by voting against bills activists support or sabotaging the activists’ incipient political careers.  Fears of retaliation run rampant within the Democratic Party and with good reason.

Still, if the California Democratic Party is going to retain any dignity and credibility for the 2018 elections,  Party members must put those fears aside and file objections against incumbents.  They must do it in the case of Tony Mendoza, but they must also do it at the very least against all the incumbents rumored to be in the list  – and perhaps against all incumbents altogether as an insurance against any abhorrent information about them that may appear between now and the Convention in late February.  Challenging an incumbent does not mean that the incumbents will not get the party’s endorsement – rather, it means that there will be opportunities to remove them from the endorsement consent calendar in the future, if negative information comes to light.  But if they are not challenged now, they cannot be removed later if that occurs.

There are, of course, other reasons to challenge incumbents.  It is healthy in any democracy to have representatives periodically have to make their case for re-election and endorsement before the voters.    Just as we don’t automatically elect incumbents to their next terms, we shouldn’t automatically endorse them either.

I therefore urge my fellow delegates, central committee members and club reps throughout the state, to file objections to the automatic endorsement of incumbent legislators in their districts.

If this is not done, and any sexual harasser makes it to the consent calendar without the possibility of being removed – then CDP delegates will only have one choice to prevent sexual harassers from receiving the Party’s endorsement and making the CDP the party that endorses sexual harassment: to vote down the whole consent calendar.   There will be no possibility to vote on the individual endorsements of Democratic candidates in the consent calendar – they must all be approved together.  The consent calendar will includes all the Democratic Assemblymembers, State Senators and Congressmembers that have been recommended for the endorsement – up to over 180 candidates.  It seems, on its face, unfair to punish so many good Democrats by denying them the party’s endorsement simply because it’d be the only way to deny it to sexual harassers.  But if it’s a choice between that and endorsing sexual harassers, I believe we should vote to not endorse anyone.  Let’s hope we don’t have to make that choice.