By Geoff Page
New San Diego, the political action committee that is sending out hit mailers specifically targeting Lori Saldaña, received a big influx of cash from January 1 to May 21, 2022, according to its filing with the city. New San Diego received $156,000 in monetary contributions and $5,456.57 in “non-monetary” contributions.
As reported previously here in The Rag, New San Diego reported $105,850 in contributions in 2021. This means that $261,850 in donations alone have flowed into New San Diego since late last year. In fact, much of the $156,000 came in during three weeks of May.
The list of contributors in 2022 was just filed and here it is:
Here’s a larger shot of contributors:
Four contributors threw in $25,000 each making up two thirds of the $156,000 in contributions. Three of the four are union PACs. Three of the four all donated in less than two weeks of May.
It is not logical to think that all the donors oppose Saldaña or even have an interest in the city council race. But, New San Diego’s expenditures tell the story.
New San Diego listed 17 expenditures in its filing. Two were to the San Diego Democratic Party, one for $10,000 and one for $5,000. The other 15 were for gathering data, designing, printing, and handling the attack mailers. The total was $82,123.
Beyond its expenditures, New San Diego reported “Itemized Payments.” This included things like campaign consultants, fund raising events, and professional services bringing total expenses to $147,590.35. The ending cash balance was $118,051.02.
The only activity of the PAC so far appears to be its effort to attack Saldaña. The PAC was filed as a general purpose committee, meaning it was not formed to favor or oppose any specific candidate. That clearly does not comport with the PAC’s behavior to date.
The mailers keep coming with the same debunked falsehoods and distortions. The question is do the donors on the list here in The Rag condone the kind of thing that Cabrera’s PAC is doing? Some people are reacting badly to this kind of campaigning indicating that there is a sense of decency out there that is lacking in this council race.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
Wow. So. Budweiser the corporate monarch of rice-based beer headquartered in, I want to say, a castle (?) in Leuven, Belgium is floating this Dem-MAGA gaslighting assault on Lori Saldaña from Clairemont, Madison High, and SDSU. This is a foreign-based global corporation that, if you want an expert in gaslighting, has the malevolence to call it’s insipid rice drink “beer.” Hey, this is San Diego-we got Karl Strauss, Stone, Ballast Point, and et cetera. Good luck, Michelobers.
This just raises so many questions. Who is Bud’s bud? What is the quid to this pro quo? And which of these local pols-Gloria, Fletcher (AB likes the GOP, utopian know), Jacobs, Peters-is paying back the swill king for his help in funding these Trump-style attacks on our Lori? Why couldn’t they get enough support from San Diegans for their campaign to fully, in consonance with their degenerate transactional vision, displace the will of voters in our City, delegitimize a San Diego election?
All the questions have one answer: do not reward this attack on our elections but punish the perpetrators so hard that they never attempt the MAGA strategy again in San Diego. Crush them at the polls and urge them contemplate retirement from their self-seeking attempts to shut voters out and run riot over our institutions of democracy and freedom. Vote for Lori and make them pay.
Well said, Mike.
Yes, the mailers are indecent and represent an ugly new, or at least another, low in local politics. The perpetrators should be ashamed of themselves.
The last time my mailbox was so littered with anything was when Mike Bloomberg made his little run for the presidency. I’ve heard Lori speak now on several occasions and am quite impressed with what she has to say. Go Lori!
Excellent reporting Geoff . I have always been somewhat embarrassed that I enjoy Budweiser Beer . Now I have an excuse to quit drinking it and at the same time maybe lessen this beer belly a little .
My deep apologies, Jan, as a beer lover myself, I would never want to cause a problem between a man and his beer. Luckily, none of my beer folks are on the list.
Another wrinkle in all this: Geoff rightly shows that “Re-Elect Senator Atkins 2020” financially underwrote this sleaze-fest just a few weeks ago. But the 2020 General Election was over 18 months ago.
FPPC Section 18525(b) specifically says it “shall not be construed to permit an incumbent elected officer to make expenditures from any campaign bank account for expenses other than those associated with the officer’s election to the specific office for which the account was established and expenses associated with holding that office,” https://casetext.com/regulation/california-code-of-regulations/title-2-administration/division-6-fair-political-practices-commission/chapter-5-campaign-finance-reform/section-18525-incumbent-candidates-election-expenses-and-officeholder-expenses.
Exactly how does a city council election meet that requirement? It’s all just so corrupt at every level; and law enforcement at every level is failing us.
Great question. I guess I’d like to hear the answer but I wouldn’t hold my breath and I’d be prepared to lose my lunch.
“It’s all just so corrupt at every level; and law enforcement at every level is failing us.” Yes, and with the exceptions of Geoff Page and Frank Gormlie, I’d say you can add journalism to the list of offenders and casual co-conspirators.
That is interesting, Mat. Another thread to pull…
Thank you for shining some light in this. The
mailers have actually backfired as there is such negativity I am giving Lori additional sway in my decisions. My theory is her name recognition makes her a threat and so enough folks might then veer to setup desirable runoff for ‘their’ candidate.
I filed an ethics complaint against the CEO of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority for misrepresenting data in the recent FAA Part 150 Study. SDIA Airport Authority falsified input data to the FAA AEDT software that resulted in a 2018 65 dB CNEL noise contour of 4 square miles. At the same time Becker signed off on a Title 21 report for 2018 that included a square mile 65 dB CNEL noise contour. The response to the complaint, while in one sense was non-sensical, effectively concurred with the wrong Part 150 data. Interestingly, a complaint filed with the FAA, resulted in a second non-sensical response. The response stated that the FAA is only concerned by the correctness of the process; the quality of the data is not their concern. So, no one of these organizations has taken issue with my claim. My point here is that ethics is not a priority at these organizations, so an ethics complaint does not seem to mean anything to these folks.