Dear Editor:

During a debate with Assemblymember Susan Bonilla on KQED Forum, last week, State Senate candidate Steve Glazer claimed:

“I have not sent out any mail. And I’ve not put on any radio ads or TV ads.”

That’s quite unusual for any campaign – even one for City Council or a Water Board, never mind a State Senate campaign in a competitive district.

How can Glazer not spend a dime on voter communication that’s part and parcel to nearly all political campaigns?

Because he relies exclusively on independent expenditures by special interests in a too-cute-by-half strategy that flirts with the law.

Those interests are shattering all records. As of last night, they have spent a record $4 million on his campaign:

– LA Republican developer Bill Bloomfield has now spent $ $1,771,013.95 [$596,000 in the first election, $8,400 in direct contributions from Bloomfield and his wife and $ $1,119,149.36since the March 17 election]

– JobsPAC, described by the Sacramento Bee as a political committee funded by tobacco, drug, and oil companies, has spent $1,242,322.85 [$376,476.53 in the first election and $865,846.32 since March 17]

– Charter Schools IE has spent $856,375.39 [$175,207.09 in the first election and $681,168.30 since March 17]

– EdVoice has spent $710,685.79  [$36,794.93 in the first election and $673,890.86 since March 17]

– Govern for CA Action Committee has spent $11,549.84, all since April 29

– Koch Brothers affiliated Independent Women’s Voice has spent $8,600 since May 6.

Meanwhile, as for the candidates:

– Glazer has raised $255,500.00 since March 17.

– Susan Bonilla reported $749,501.69 since March 17.

So how does the Glazer strategy work? Simple. Glazer posts information on his Facebook page and website. And bingo – they instantly become mail pieces and TV ads. In the last few weeks, this has included “letters” from his wife, his daughter, and even Glazer himself that turned into direct mail pieces. This is a far cry from the days when IE’s typically took images off a candidate’s website; Glazer knowingly posts this information directly for IE use since he admits his campaign has no direct mail, TV or radio effort.

(Glazer’s patron saint, GOP LA developer Bill Bloomfield, even owns and operates the website www.steveglazer.com).

So don’t believe Glazer’s consultant-talk about “special interests.” Without them, he’d have no campaign. And he knows it.

Steven Maviglio, Spokesman, Working Families Opposing Glazer for Senate 2015

Working Families Opposing Glazer for Senate 2015 is sponsored by labor organizations.  Major funding by California State Council of Service Employees Political Committee and California Teachers Association Independent Expenditure Committee.  Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate. 

Dear Editor:

Smashing state spending records, as of today, Los Angeles businessman Bill Bloomfield has now spent $799,597.04 to elect Steve Glazer to the California State Senate.

That includes $195,197.04 since the March 17th election. And it includes $596,000 in the first round of the election plus the maximum $8400 in direct donations to Glazer (including $4,200 from his wife).

Who is Bloomfield? A long-time Republican who made a convenient switch to being a decline-to-state voter when he unsuccessfully ran against LA Democrat Henry Waxman for Congress, Bloomfield has a huge backer of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger along with President George W. Bush and John McCain. Bloomfield also is an Obamacare critic www.billbloomfield.com/credibility.

This special interest money is on top of the $493,805.02 JobsPAC has spent for Glazer and $223,496.78 from the Charter Schools IE.

What are all these wealthy interests putting their money behind Glazer? Because he doesn’t support increasing the minimum wage? Because he favors tax breaks for millionaires? Because he hasn’t have a word about income inequality on his website or campaign materials?

No one knows for sure. But as Bloomfield’s support of Glazer reaches the million dollar mark, it’s time to begin asking those questions.

Steve Maviglio

Forza Communications

Sacramento

Maviglio represents and is a spokesman for unions in California

Dear Editor:

Steven Glazer is no environmentalist; I did some research. He’s an experienced pitchman who can help a developer distort a land grab by labeling it “creating open space.” A “communications expert” he helped turn a local forest into a golf course when he won approval of a luxury Novato housing project known as Black Point over objections of the Sierra Club. He opposed environmentalists again to defend a developer on the Humboldt Bay Waterfront. These aren’t the only times he helped a developer suppress public protests; ask Orinda residents where he’s mayor.

Glazer claims that his environmental leadership has been recognized by the Trust for Public Land and Save to Bay. Glazer was asked to advise on a finance handbook produced by the Trust. I suppose that could be seen as recognition of his leadership. He made a monetary contribution to Save the Bay that was recognized in the Annual Report. I couldn’t find proof that “Steve led efforts that raised hundreds of millions of dollars to permanently protect open space in California and 25 other states.”

He’s successfully repackaged land deals, propositions, and politicians. Now he’s selling himself the same way.

Carol Weed, Walnut Creek

Dear Editor:

I’ve experienced break-ins. I’ve even had a car stolen off my driveway. This did not happen in Antioch, but at my previous home in Bay Point. Since the last letter writer has made brutal honesty the order of the day, I live in Antioch now because it looked like the nicest place not too far from work I could afford. Some high-walled paradise of absolute safety is a thing few of us can afford these days.

I’ve been over here a couple years, long enough for an election cycle. And I will take perhaps a more controversial position, a frankly socialist one. I am wary of candidates who lead their campaigns proposing brute force crackdowns on stranger-on-stranger crimes, the great majority of which are born of economic desperation. And I think we’ve seen enough this past year, from places far off to right in San Francisco, to know that quality of police officers is at least as important as quantity.

I for one am very heartened to see news of this working group on housing and community services, and look forward to seeing their work progress. Poverty objectively drives people violently mad, and the bite of our taxes to keep such petty thieves caged in advanced criminal training schools for years often turns out to be greater than what we’d lose just giving a fellow citizen some aid before the madness goes toxic.

There is no escape from the question of the people whose poverty leaves them with so little freedom to deal with their issues. That is why when the most recent letter writer spoke of moving to some tiny town in Montana, my first reaction was, “You mean a place with no police department, and a couple of hair-trigger deputies standing between you and a trailer park full of meth labs? Yes, do write back and tell us how that works out for you.”

Avery Ray Colter, Antioch

Dear Editor:

Educators work hard for many years to earn their credentials. Educators spend thousands of dollars and begin their profession saddled with debts just to legitimately call themselves educators.

Ironically, educators will be hosted at Barnes and Noble on Educators Appreciation Day by Jeff Belle, a felon who falsifies his credentials mocking the profession as nothing but letters randomly chosen and strategically placed after his last name. www.jeffbelleconman.com.

Barnes and Noble was made aware of Belle’s lies to the community but has chosen to continue with this event. Is Barnes and Noble encouraging our youth to take the easy route; to blatantly falsify credentials instead of going to school and to claim honor when it is not deserved?

This is insensitive to our community.

Cynthia Ruehlig

Belle beat Ruehlig for County School Board in last fall’s election.

Dear Editor:

Susan Bonilla must come out to voters on her gay rights record.

As a member of the LGBT community, I am appalled by Assemblywoman Bonilla’s muddled record on gay rights. Not once in her candidacy for the 7th State Senate seat has she explained why as Supervisor she voted for Contra Costa not to stand up against Proposition 8.

Bonilla’s deciding vote made us the only county in the Bay Area to not join the fight against Proposition 8, even though her district voted overwhelmingly against it. And while today she claims to be a support of gay rights, her endorsement of pro-life, anti-gay candidates flies in the face of her newly formulated positions.

There’s only one candidate on the ballot who’s consistently supported marriage equality since her first day in office, and that’s Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan. Joan opposed Proposition 8 when it was politically unpopular, and has a zero-tolerance policy for endorsing candidates who do not support equal rights.

Please join me in supporting Joan Buchanan for State Senate on March 17, 2015.

Robert D. Camacho, Concord

Camacho was a candidate for the Concord City Council in 2012 and a 2008 Hillary Rodham Clinton Delegate from the 10^th Congressional District to the National Democratic Convention.

Dear Editor:

While both candidates for the upcoming State Senate special election are very much in alignment on paper and in their votes on the issues, one of the best reasons to vote for Joan Buchanan on March 17th is that if the current Assembly Member Susan Bonilla wins, it will trigger yet another special election, thus costing our great county over one million dollars; money that could well be spent on other programs and services.

The next step is for Assembly Member Susan Bonilla to finish up her just recently elected two-year term and let’s send Joan Buchanan back to Sacramento to continue to protect seniors, make college more affordable, and keep our budgets balanced. It is a win-win.

Ken Richard, Walnut Creek