Part 5: The Battle for Progressive Hearts and Minds
Editors Note: Former Assemblywoman Lori Saldaña has an up close and personal story to tell about her dealings with former Mayor Bob Filner and the Democratic party establishment. This is the end of a five part series running this week at San Diego Free Press. Part one covers her early encounters with Filner, Part two describes the indifference she met when she tried to alert Democratic Party leadership, Part three talks about the pressures brought about to gain her endorsement of the Filner mayoral candidacy. Part four is about keeping the biggest secret.
By Lori Saldaña
As voters look ahead to the next campaign cycle, we increasingly hear of battles over how to fund these elections. These range from discussions over local races to arguments before the US Supreme Court over campaign financing.
The discussions range from proposals for setting up public financing for elections, to arguments in favor of allowing unlimited private contributions from the wealthiest 0.1% of people in the country.
If money is speech, a lot of people have no chance of ever being heard.
Unfortunately, regulators such as the San Diego Ethics Commission spend their time monitoring only who gives money, and how, yet devote no time to asking the question: is this system the best way to serve the needs of the voters and government?
Perhaps an important lesson to be learned from my primary outcome was this: there is a tremendous potential power within the grassroots community to overcome the monied, privileged, moderate, Big Business friendly interests that now dominate politics at every level.
As we are seeing at every level of government: Once those with money get into office, they consistently vote to maintain the corporate tax structures that benefit them in hugely disproportionate ways, and made their wealth accumulation possible.
Putting my loss into perspective: Peters won by 719 votes and spent thousands to earn each one.
He eventually put over $1.75 million of personal funds into his efforts. He never set up an online ActBlue-style fundraising page during the primary, in part because we would have seen how few people were giving him contributions.
As with many from the money class, transparency was not his strong suit: Peters refused requests to release his taxes and placed his family finances in a private trust.
In contrast, I raised and spent about $500,000, from nearly 15,000 contributors. I shared my meager income tax reports from my 2010 legislative salary, that had been cut by 20% in my final term during the state budget crisis. (Subsequent years on a part time teaching salary would be even more meager.)
Do people who come from modest backgrounds serve differently in office? I believe we do, but we are increasingly outnumbered and outspent by those with personal wealth and a desire to buy themselves a seat on (name that elected body).
Nonetheless, I’ve heard from many who believe our efforts to highlight these enormous financial differences in the 2012 primary election were part of the reason why, in the end, we stayed within 1% of the final vote tally. It also shows why Peters was then, and even today is, considered a weak candidate.Had we been able to continue to campaign into November, I can’t imagine how many more people might have been persuaded to join the general election battle and work on my behalf, thrilled by what my victory represented to underdogs, women, working families, Latinos, progressives, the “99%” concept, etc.
But too many of the people who profess to believe in “people powered politics” didn’t believe in their own power that spring. They let others tell them I couldn’t succeed.
I believe this is what keeps many home on Election Day, especially during mid-terms. It is also what discourages more diversity in candidates.
The most infuriating conversations I had immediately after the 2012 primary were from people who would call, or text, or email etc. and say: If I had known how close this election would have been I would recruited friends to help you, or I would have given your campaign money/given more money, or volunteered/volunteered more etc. to support your efforts.
Many had refused to support me during the campaign because the Party leaders had told them “She can’t win.”
I heard from them later- they were so distraught when they saw the final tally that they sent money to help close my (small) debts, with contrite notes asking for understanding, telling me that they had believed the naysayers and had no idea the race would be so close.
My response to them now is: don’t be fooled again. In order to change the system to be more fair, we need you to understand it better.
Take the time to learn about issues and candidates, then vote your conscience, vote your interests, and vote your heart- even if it means not voting with “your” party recommendations.´That is the most radical change voters could ever make to the two-party system.
Postscript
I wanted to add this to make sure people get a sense of how pervasive and permanent fundraising is to those in office, and also how routine background research and vetting– commonly done on all candidates-could have prevented Filner’s meltdown:
- Fundraising in politics is like breathing: it never ends. Some call money the “mother’s milk” of politics.
- If this is the case, early on, I developed lactose intolerance when it came to fundraising: the process upset my stomach. The current way we finance elections leads to many problems before a person ever arrives in public office, and continues as they serve.
- Once one campaign cycle concludes, another is on the horizon, either for yourself or colleagues. Funds are needed not only to spend during the campaign, but to curry favor with others by contributing to their efforts, even if you don’t have an election in the near future.
- These funds generate jobs for consultants, opposition researchers, campaign staff, advertisers… this list is lengthy, with little oversight or regulation. People can’t be promised jobs, or endorsements, or future support depending on their contributions and outcomes of elections, but…it happens every campaign cycle.
- Other expenses include polling to consider where to go next. Good, accurate polls cost from $25,000 on up, depending on method, number of questions, etc.
- (Prior to the San Diego mayor’s race, Scott Peters funded exploratory polling for at least one candidate who eventually didn’t run against Filner. Peter was rewarded with that person’s endorsement when he ran for Congress.)
- One lingering question remains: why wasn’t some of this money spent on hiring investigators and vetting Filner more thoroughly? He had a record of abusive behavior towards people in general, and women in particular. It would have been easy to find out more about him- unless people in power didn’t want it to become known until after the election.
- I have documents from my own campaigns, going back over 10 years, full of hundreds of pages of research done for and against various candidates.
- Very little about a person running for office stays secret for long: property records, media coverage, personal tax records… it is all available to be researched and bound into a lengthy report to be studied by people within and outside the campaign.
- A relatively simple investigation of Filner would have unearthed the allegations that eventually came out. Or- was it done, and the results withheld?
- Another example of fundraising for others is the necessity of “tithing” to the Speaker and other party leaders, to receive preferential Committee Chairmanship positions, or other perks of power. The Speaker in turn recycles that money into campaigns for others, up the chain of command.
- In this way, political money touches many, many others along its route from original contributor to wherever its final resting place may be.
How can people of modest means counter this?
Lori Saldaña
Latest posts by Lori Saldaña (see all)
- Lori Saldaña: Remembering the October 2007 Wildfires - October 20, 2017
- Faulconer’s Proposed Tourism Tax Increase: Perpetuating the Hourglass Economy - June 7, 2017
- Please Don’t Wish Me a “Happy” Memorial Day - May 29, 2017
The only way to end this legalized corruption is to get money out of politics. It doesn’t take a rocket scientists to figure out how to do this, but the prevailing powers that be are going in the opposite direction. They can’t wait to get more money into politics as evidenced by the Supreme Court decisions. There will probably be more to follow as long as conservatives have the majority on the Supreme Court. What a sick, sick system we have. Democracy? I don’t think so.
THIS is truly the core of your leadership, Lori — shining a light on the corruption of our democratic process by money and self-interest. Thank You once more.
Thank you for your frank commentary.
I admit to being more distrustful of candidates endorsed by any politicians nowadays, even of my own party, because they all seem like “players, ” trying to get other similar “players” into the arena with them to keep control of the game…
The Clean Elections initiative that I’ve been hearing about seems promising on many levels to give the people a low-fat political diet for a change…
As for Mr.Filner, and all the others with ill-manners, there are machos and bigots in the world because some body raised them like that… People, teach your children well.
Thank you for your comments. Now that this series has concluded I’ll begin to respond to these and previous day’s remarks.
As yard signs begin popping up for midterm elections, I hope people will consider many of the points raised here before contributing money or volunteering for a candidate and voting on election day.
I’ll never regret running for office and serving in the legislature. It was one of the most challenging and exciting opportunities anyone could hope to have.
But the reality of 21st century politics is it has become a culture dominated by big money and the desire for more, even as more people are living on fewer dollars. Often this is because of the recession and recent economic policies imposed by those with incredible personal wealth or access to those with wealth.
It’s a vicious cycle with unpleasant consequences and implications for the coming century.
Several people have asked about ways to increase candidate diversity and support Progressive candidates with good politics, such as in the Mayoral special collection. Perhaps in a future series I can describe more of my experiences with women’s organizations, Latino elected officials, and the San Diego Imperial County labor Council.
After all, you would think people and groups that represent women, Latinos and working families would be better on these issues, right?
(You would be wrong.)
Have you ever considered that the “money in politics” problem is a symptom of a government which does too much? If so, cut the size and scope of government
Let’s assume you reject that notion (most here probably will). Have you then considered that each elected office is too far removed from the actual voter? If so, increase the number of representatives and reduce the size of the districts so that a candidate can walk his/her District in a weekend (New Hampshire model).
Introducing a political process (publicly-funded campaigns) to a political process (electing representation) exacerbates the problem. At the end of the day, government is too big and controlled by too few people
I’m sure you mean too much regulation, not too much military spending.
But wouldn’t having more representitives mean having more guvmint? And wouldn’t that also mean more expense??
Brian, we’re not talking here about the costs of government. The subject
is the cost of elections. Maybe you could consider that question. Let’s
assume that because Ayn Rand is your goddess you figure there should
be no restrictions on wealth whatsoever, allowing billionaires to flood
the air with deceptive ads and to pay the unemployed to gather signatures
from hurried grocery shoppers, and spread endless glossy mailers through
the mails showing liberals photoshopped into snarls, blood dripping from
their chops.
It’s not government doing all that, it’s wealth, Brian. Consider that.
1-You’re never going to stop free speech, Bob. (I hope)
2- The size and scope of government does matter–that’s where the wealth is gravitating as government inserts itself more into the market.
As wealth creation gravitates towards crony capitalism, Wall Street and the unions are going to keep spending and spending to “get some”.
How about increasing the number of representatives and reducing the size of the districts? Eliminate the influence of mass media and make elections about one-on-one contact
Brian, do you lay awake nights trying to prevent Bob Dorn from
stealing your free speech? You needn’t worry; he looks forward
to fooling around with cultish minds when they show up here at
San Diego Free Press.
For example, let me ask you how wealth is somehow overcome by the
gravity of government. Is this a metaphysical, metaphorical, or
physical weakness in wealth that allows government to suck up
billionaire’s billions? I don’t understand this kind of stuff. See,
I’ve been thinking that money just sort of rises up from me to
heights many levels above my own, where the insurance companies
and banks and arms manufacturers and ACE Parking managers and
owners reside.
Some of it — probably not a great percentage of it — does seem to
filter down to political campaigns. I’ll bet none of it gets to San
Diego Free Press, where the speech is free.
As another person noted: if you add more representatives, you add more staff, more salaries, more office space, more bills to be managed (average cost in CA Legislature has been $20-30,000 per bill introduced, not sure of current range) for each new officeholder.
You also add more costs to elections, and those who contribute/raise money will just increase their efforts to cover more ground. Enforcement/regulation costs of elections will also expand, e.g. FPPC. Or not- and then fewer campaigns will be audited, resulting in more opportunity for illegal behavior not being detected.
I suppose once elected they could share some of these things: staff can do double-duty for more than one elected rep; double up on office space; limit # of bills introduced per session etc.
But in general, adding more people to an elected body will require additional funds (both public and private) to ensure they are elected “fairly” and are able to serve in an effective manner.
“As another person noted: if you add more representatives, you add more staff, more salaries, more office space, more bills to be managed (average cost in CA Legislature has been $20-30,000 per bill introduced, not sure of current range) for each new officeholder.”
That would be correct if you have a full-time Legislature. I’m thinking about a much more localized approach, along the lines of Councils/SANDAG form of government. A small r republican form, like they have in New Hampshire.
If anything, the staff costs would decline because you would have regional offices which reps shared. Citizen legislators would virtually wipe out the political class. Constituent communication would be at the public school rather than by email. We’d educate the populace because government would be closer to them.
Things would be slower, more deliberate, and thoughtful. Special interests would have a devil of a time doing their bidding.
It could work and work well but you have to have a strong belief in the pragmatism and wisdom of self government. I do. Call me a hopeless optimist
The model would definitely have to change. People would need to change their idea of political action from “sit on the sideline, maybe volunteer/contribute, and vote every now and again” to an active, informed, involved citizenry, more similar to what the nation’s founders may have envisioned.
I’ve often said: everyone should be required to run for an office, at some level, at least once, to better understand both what’s at stake and how the game is played by those who run, whether they are elected and serve or not.
There may be a “collective wisdom” with having more people involved, evaluating situations and making decisions. Better outcomes have been studied, for example, in stock markets, although in more “traditional” market settings. (This may be less so now, with hi-speed computerized trading going on by a few, and the majority always a few nanoseconds behind the trading curve.)
One of my students yesterday (Police academy applicant) told me of the “loss reduction” tactics his current retail employer uses to deter shop lifting. It’s an expensive and job-producing game: the thieves get caught, develop new tactics, steal more. Retailers create security jobs and employ technology to stay even with the thieves, and a whole new industry is created within the one we see.
Sort of like drug dealing…or political fundraising.
At times I feel the similar elements are at play in “retail politics” and stock markets: those who want to participate and personally benefit while cheating the system will always work hard to devise a method to do so, and it’s a constant battle of voters to stay informed, and regultors to stay one step ahead.
I”m not being smarmy when I say this. Bob but the U-T had absolutely no influence on my daughter’s student council election nor did it influence the local Rotary Club election.
Let’s move towards reducing the size of the districts so that representation is closer to the people in them
Brian- thank you for your question today, and for your insightful and helpful comments earlier this week.
I appreciate your remarks, and you sharing them on Rostra. I haven’t seen many responses there, but likewise, the Dem Party folks have been mostly silent on what I’ve written this week. I hope/suspect lots of conversations are taking place.
As I wrote to you last year when you wanted an explanation of my actions in regard to Filner: I have been working on writing about my experiences in the political arena as part of organizing my memoirs, before running for Congress. The campaign and its aftermath interrupted the process.
Most of that writing has been very personal, not examining the “what is the proper size and function of government” questions you bring up here.
I would offer this: presiding over the Assembly as Speaker Pro Tempore, and while sitting in caucus meetings, listening to debates over what to do as the financial house caved in on California (which always enters, and leaves, economic cycles before the rest of the US), I often marveled (and occasionally cringed) at what the legislators and state has managed to accomplish: in top 10 of global economies; hub of research, technology etc.. And I wondered why other states have not done as well.
I took copious notes during many of these meetings, and they will be part of my future writings.
Would a more representative form of elected government, a la New Hampshire, work in a state like CA? How would a larger Legislature (or a state split into more parts) organize itself? How would it allocate its resources and fund the basic needs of its citizens (health, safety, education) while allowing for ongoing economic growth in a global marketplace, planning for limited water and other natural resources, adjusting to fires, drought and other climate incidents that are predicted to increase, etc.?
Clearly we need MORE bright, hard working people to work on these issues, not fewer. More importantly, we need people who can focus on those issues, and not be playing musical chairs- looking for the next place to land due to term limits.
We also need a broader diversity of education and skill sets. “The staff” (a whole, separate and massive government sub-culture) is usually called upon to fill those knowledge gaps. They are the invaluable “institutional knowledge” of the Legislature, with decades of experience vs. a few terms (12 years max) as now allowed under current law.
As for other state legislative models: I met some of the reps from NH, and many other states, as part of my work on national organizations of state legislators. We often had this discussions after the PowerPoint presentations concluded. Most were “lifers” who had no term limits to worry about, but also had other professions/occupations since they are part-time legislators, unlike those of us in CA.
Most of us would agree during these meetings: California is different by every measure. I’ll leave it at that, for now, and hope you will stay tuned as I continue to write.
Good perspective..
Of course any one can, and is invited to, participate in their local sub-committee meetings, overview local planing groups and cities projects, and provide their valuable, and welcome, input of diversity with letters, and such, and one example of citizen input is this free press website which is admirable, and neighborly…
and most importantly of all,
Vote, and represent the issues you care about,
Thank you for your participation, “builds character…” said my mom…
I totally agree with Mr. Lawrence that “The only way to end this legalized corruption is to get money out of politics.”
But I disagree with Mr. Brady about how to do it. (Money is NOT speech.)
Here’s AN EXCERPT FROM my
MODEST PROPOSAL For Improving The Fairness Of Elections And
Making Our Governmental System More Responsive To Citizens.
(originally posted April 19, 2011)
## Number-one-with-a-bullet item to improve our imperfect representational government is very simple, but not at all easy:
GET THE MONEY OUT OF IT.
To do that needs two things:
~ A certain number/amount of political ads should be FREE – given to The People by the owners of OUR radio and television frequencies. Cable companies should also be included here; basically any business entity that gets paid for delivering political advertising to the voters. Print media, let’s face it, is becoming more and more marginalized, but wouldn’t it be nice if newspapers would join in the program by also contributing some political ads.
Obviously, this is no small thing. That is why I titled this essay “A Modest Proposal;” I know my Swift. In a land that wasn’t controlled from government on down by those corporate interests, this would be easy to do. In our US of A however, it’s virtually impossible. But, let us dream, shall we. Let us be Utopian and just imagine that this small thing could get done. And, it would operate in conjunction with:
~ A measure to limit the duration of political campaigns (like they have in un-enlightened Europe) to 90 days before Election Day.
Used to be, the “election season” lasted from the political conventions in August to Election Day in November: about 12 weeks. Or, to look at it another way: one tri-mester. Recently however, the time of political candidate news and ads seems never-ending. Remember, Barack Obama campaigned virtually non-stop for two solid years.
There’s more in the full essay, but that’s the pertinant section for this issue.
Thanks Michael- I agree that a limited campaign season and more access to PUBLIC airwaves (radio and TV braodcast) would be a good first step.
The “Fair use” of public airwaves changed tremendously in the 1990s, when the FCC regulations were changed, allowing single companies to own multiple broadcast stations. This was the incubator that hatched mega-broadcasting companies that now limit access to the airwaves unless you can pay top dollar.
As the local Ethics Committee ponders their role, these could be good suggestions: if a San Diego City candidate agrees to certain fundraising protocols (I don’t want to call them “limits” or “restrictions”) they would be eligible to receive additional space in the sample ballot, and to provide information on the city’s TV channel.
If other TV/radio stations would agree to be part of this, it would add to the appeal.
The length, style and content of the statements and broadcast ads would be determined by Commission members and consultants, in cooperation with professionals with experience in campaigns, advertising, etc.
I still believe it is in the public’s interest to have more transparency in elections, and ensure more candidates have ways to share their platforms, ideas, experience etc.
Many Thanks for this series! I feel it is the first step in how to eradicate the cabal that had all their hands in the ascent and demise of Bob Filner. Looking forward to hearing more investigation of our elected officials and political entities in San Diego that talk out of both sides of their mouths while choking on donations from special interests.
Thank you, Lori Saldana, for your very valuable series of articles on the insights that you gained in the campaigns you had for the offices you ran for. Your ideas and recommendations on public financing of campaigns I’m sure will be helpful to those who will pursue this important way of righting the present unequal system. You have certainly come a long way since 1989 when we were preparing for Earth Day and our community response to the Exxon Valdez oil spill. I, too, remember a gathering at the home of your friend Joan Bigge in the early days of your first primary campaign for the CA Assembly. Since no one had yet gotten into the subject of fund raising, I offered to pass the hat as we do at our peace gatherings, and made a big deal out of writing a check to kick it off. You thanked me for that afterward. Since then you have been very successful in getting many people to support your campaigns, and did commendably well against someone who threw $1.75 Million of his family’s personal wealth into the race against you. I do hope that this is not the last that we see of you in the political arena.
I hope Lori is feeling better, having taken a load off her mind by writing this series. She was a strong candidate for Congress — when she finally decided to run after several starts and stops — and the final tally was extremely close. Lori Saldana was my choice in the Primary.
That said, I have not appreciated Lori’s Joan of Arc stance vis a vis fallen Democratic Mayor Bob Filner and I also don’t like her sour grapes after losing to Scott Peters. I live in the 52nd Congressional District, and I believe wealthy moderate straight Democrat Scott Peters is the perfect representative for this area in every way and I predict Peters will triumph over his opponent — gay right-wing Carl DeMaio.
All the other stuff is fine food for thought and reform.
Fran- thank you for your generosity and support in the primary. I appreciated your help.
” I haven’t seen many responses there, but likewise, the Dem Party folks have been mostly silent on what I’ve written this week. I hope/suspect lots of conversations are taking place.
Astonishingly, I don’t think they are. One can hope, ma’am. You’ve done both parties a service with this series
Thanks to everyone for reading and for your comments.
Clearly, certain members the political “cabal” in both parties knew of, and tolerated, Filner’s actions until the timing to report his offenses suited their needs.
Based on private responses I’ve received about this series, not all activists and insiders were aware of what he had been doing. Or at least, not all were aware of the extent of his abuse- they just considered him “rude,” “condescending,” or “a tough boss.”
But other members of the “cabal” chose to act in ways that reflect the prevailing attitudes towards many women who report abuse: ignore it if the woman doesn’t fit a certain profile (“sympathetic victim”), or at least wait to act until it fits your needs to advance your own agenda. Then, at an advantageous time, take hi profile public action and hope no one questions why it took so long.
Some of Filner’s supporters in 2012 definitely used these particular tactics to their political advantage. In at least one case, they chose to ignore reports of abuse made by a woman who eventually left her job. Her employer not only didn’t support her, but went to extraordinary efforts to raise money for Filner’s campaign.
In another case, Bob acted inappropriately towards a young family member of a person supporting him, yet that too was not enough to merit a public response until after his election.
Part of what allowed him to continue his campaign is the sad fact that sexism and abuse of women is so pervasive in our lives, and that many people have become numb to its impact. Women are abused in their homes, in the workplace, schools, and in public- including by people in positions of authority.
As the recent sexual abuse lawsuits against the San Diego Police Department show, women who report these violations don’t always receive understanding and support, and their motives are often questioned (“she just wants a settlement…”).
Is it any wonder so many women need encouragement to speak up, or never come forward at all?
Lori is right: the continuing sexist ambivalence toward women and by women in public and private life is without doubt the most important take-home lesson from our season of ridicule and disgrace.
It’s no longer acceptable to do what Bob Filner did with impunity for years, but in this instance only political enemies made hay from his alleged improprieties.
When we all evolve more fully and apply a higher standard generally, we won’t have these situations anymore and it will be a better world. People like Bill Clinton will not be running his wife for President and the San Diego Police Department will be a law enforcement organization above reproach.
Once again Fran sums it up nicely.
Having now read all five installments, I give Lori credit for putting down her thoughts and feelings on what took place regarding Bob Filner. Mayor Filner not only conducted himself with disgrace, he allowed the very forces of big money and development he fought, to win back control of San Diego’s elected government.
I respect Lori for wanting to encourage discussion about the future ramifications of Filner’s behavior, though I suspect she was not loud enough on this issue earlier when it counted, due to her own future political calculations. And trying to somehow blame a good Democrat like Jess Durfee for not stopping Bob from running is sheer Monday-morning quarterbacking. Nothing kept Lori from getting the press attention she could have gotten if she’d come out publicly against Filner in 2011 or any time afterwards. Nobody stopped her from speaking out.
She was not brave like Donna Frye.
I also absolutely disagree with her assessments regarding Congressman Peters and further think she toys with encouraging his defeat and the election of Carl DeMaio – no doubt under the guise of allowing her another chance to run in 2016.
Her attitude towards those of us who are not so aesthetically liberal is also very short-sighted and problematic. It is the single biggest reason David Alvarez lost and Kevin Faulconer won: the notion that those who do not go along 100% with the hard left are somehow suspect as Democrats, or worse. Liberalism needs to expand and welcome voters to the Democratic Party, not conduct purity purges.
As I wrote: Making public accusations that could ruin a person’s professional and personal life are not steps that should ever be taken easily.
I respected Filner’s right to give his side of the story to a person he knew and presumably trusted, and I did not believe he would be forthcoming with me, or even willing to meet, given our past disagreements.
That’s why I went to Chairman Durfee. I believed as San Diego County Democratic Party Chair, Durfee had both the responsiblity and obligation to investigate and determine if Filner was fit to represent our party as Mayor of the country’s 8th largest city.
Durfee clearly saw it differently, and has never fully explained why hearing the concerns of two different elected Democrats did not raise an alarm.
Moreover, I had no personal, direct experience of Filner’s actions. The women Filner had harassed did not complain to me, nor ask me to take action on their behalf.
As for Durfee being a “good Democrat” – I don’t understand how you measure that. Hopefully not because he stood behind Rep. Filner, yet ignored me and another other woman who also spoke to him- with direct personal experience of Filner’s strange actions: Councilwoman Olga Diaz.
I sincerely hope you don’t believe being a “good Democrat” means supporting an abusive man who happens to be a Democrat, even while refusing to take women’s concerns seriously.
I did what I could in 2011 to prevent the abuse from continuing: I reported the stories the women told me, even though most were not willing to come forward.
On the other hand- Durfee and others he talked to after our reports still have not explained why they took Filner’s word over mine and Olga’s, and did nothing.
“We issued a terse, one-sentence statement of endorsement for Filner.”
Lori Saldana
Why don’t you reprint that endorsement and let others decide for themselves if it was “terse”?
As soon as Donna Frye learned the truth, she presented the facts to the public and called for Filner to resign without forcing the victims to reveal themselves. Her courage gave the victims courage to face their fears and remove a man who had us all fooled. Maybe – if the people who heard the truth before he was elected had been willing to come forward – we could have had a strong progressive Democrat enter in Bob’s place, such as Toni Atkins … or maybe even Lori Saldana. What Donna Frye, Cory Briggs and Marco Gonzales did took real courage and they had no other agenda then to protect the women who’d been harassed.
Thank you for demonstrating and reinforcing the very situation I’ve written about. It’s not easy to make public accusations about a person’s private behavior. Often others will make the accuser the problem rather than deal with what’s going on.
Have you forgotten that Donna Frye initially also kept her concerns to herself, and offered a pretense for her reason for leaving his office?
Just as with Durfee, you prefer to question my motives and criticize my behavior rather than answer the question I posed to you: why didn’t the reports from myself and another elected women merit further investigation at the onset? Why were so many people who knew of Bob’s boorish behavior willing to accept it and remain silent for years, while those of us who pointed it out were criticized?
It was Durfee who insisted other women come to him before he would take our concerns seriously. I hope you’re asking him the same questions you are now asking me.
Bob’s accusers took action in 2013 only after his abuse escalated against women working in his office and reached the point of being a criminal violation. I was not told of behavior at that level. By then it was clear he was not going to change his behavior.
Again, the women who reported to me we’re not his employees and did not believe what he had done merited that they take action. I told Durfee it appeared to be a personal, not a criminal problem, that was best dealt with early and privately.
Again, thank you for demonstrating how convenient it is to make the women who speak up become the problem.
You endorsed him!
You are correct Maxwell. I’ve never denied the endorsement.
That endorsement is a matter of public record, as you have pointed out elsewhere on the FreePress website.
One purpose for writing this series was to pull back the curtain on what happens in “traditional” political endorsement decisions: in 2011, Filner announced his intent early, courted support, cleared the field, and under the “traditional” political model, made himself the “only” viable Democrat running for Mayor.
Today, the slightest hint of sexual impropriety (see: allegations re: Ed Harris, made by Dem Party Chair Francine Busby last year) makes the San Diego County Democratic Party leadership flee in panic- the opposite (and equally useless) response to Filner.
(For the record: Busby’s concerns were baseless, and harmful, and impugned the reputation of a good man who is now a San Diego Councilmember.)
To summarize: Based on personal conversations with several women who did NOT want to go public about Filner’s actions, I withheld my endorsement as long as possible. When I finally endorsed Filner, 1 month before the 2012 election, it was based on the advice and encouragement of people who, I was led to believe, knew Filner better than I, and were convinced he had stopped the behavior and was in a committed relationship, planning to marry.
I don’t know who you supported in 2012, or if my endorsement of Filner made any difference to you or anyone else who supported Filner.
But if you voted for Filner based solely on my or other people’s endorsements, I hope, after reading all this, you will look differently at who earns political endorsements, and why, and will be skeptical enough to do your own research and due diligence in future elections before casting your vote.
You briefly touched upon what to me is the scariest thing to emerge from the Filner sexual harassment accusations. You say “today, the slightest hint of sexual impropriety … makes the San Diego County Democratic Party leadership flee in panic”.
The Filner case is important nationally because henceforth Party leaderships all over the country will “flee in panic” whenever women accuse male politicians of sexual harassment. What happened here in San Diego, which got national attention, has distorted the political process nationwide by handing a weapon to people who, by the simple expedient of lying, can achieve political leverage that rivals the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United case that made money free speech.
Today I read all five parts of your “up close and personal story to tell about your dealings with former Mayor Bob Filner and the Democratic Party establishment”.
In a further comment in Part 5 you say: “Clearly, certain members of the political “cabal” in both parties knew of, and tolerated, Filner’s actions until the timing to report his offenses suited their needs.”
In both Parties? Really?
To assert that the Republican U-T for example “knew of, and tolerated, Filner’s actions” but did not report them is simply not credible. This you seem to attribute to widespread and deep “sexist ambivalence” – in both Parties.
The big flaw in your argument Lori is Trent Siebert. The U-T hired him and other national top-notch dirt diggers, to get the goods on Filner BEFORE THE ELECTION. They failed. Jan Goldsmith also failed to get credible evidence BEFORE THE ELECTION. In desperation he hired a psychiatrist – after the election.
You now claim that this was all deliberate?
It was not the Republicans that brought down Democratic Mayor Filner. It was the petty Democratic jealousies you describe and admit to here. That pettiness has resulted in a Republican Mayor in a city with a Democratic majority.
Your five-part “up close and personal story” indicts your own Party.
Pat- I’m not trying to indict anyone, I’m simply reporting my experiences and perspectives. Sexism is as pervasive in both parties as in the rest of our culture.
when I 1st brought my concerns to Durfee I knew republicans had been photographing Filner in “compromising situations” with young women, in public places, for months. That, too, was common knowledge in both political circles.
The republican photographer provided the pictures to local media who basically said what Durfee said “he’s a single man…”
Unfortunately, many chose not to pursue this odd behavior, not understanding/believing it was a reflection of rude, reckless behavior with other women in more private and/or workplace settings. There were many early warning signs that were ignored and/or rationalized away.
Others believe, republicans thought it better to give Filner enough rope to hang himself, plus cast aspersions on the party in the process, and undermine/discourage/shame democrats, then have a better chance to win a special election after the Presidential cycle.
Either way, we all paid a high price.
Lori Saldana’s critics seem too eager to reduce her, and seem to be expressing their personal hatred. Lori needs no help defending her recollections; she’s doing quite well by herself. Even so, the level of dishonesty displayed by letter writers attacking her approaches heights exceeding San Diego’s normal politics.
The reason Republicans didn’t act on reports of his predations are that they didn’t know about them. “After all,” says one, Doug Manchester hired “top-notch dirt diggers, to get the goods on Filner” but they failed to find the story. It seems far more likely they were pretty successful, and their information was liberally shared at microphones. Another writer wants readers to know Saldana endorsed Filner, after she has reminded people that she did. Some who say they “give Lori credit for putting down her thoughts and feelings on what took place” then criticize her for not doing it sooner. The same person considers the county chairman who looked the other way a “good Democrat” and criticizes Saldana for reporting on the chairman’s indifference.
All this sounds like personal hatred.
Bob- there was lots of acrimony during the primary, and vestiges of that remain and are showing up here, even 2 years after the election.
In some cases, “progressives” who favored my opponent would loudly criticize me personally, while ignoring Peters’ record of anti-worker, anti-LGBT votes and conservative positions.
He has maintained some of these positions throughout his term in Congress. For example, siding with Republicans this month, to require a person work 40 hours/week to be eligible for benefits under the Affordable Care Act. That would shut out countless women and young people from receiving care- yet he supported the bill.
One reason I’m writing is to get my story out to an audience beyond the political insiders, and clearly, some still carry a grudge. I don’t expect them to agree with this. They have their own memories. Perhaps they are angry and upset that I would have the temerity to write about my own experience as a working class Latina running against someone very different.
I’ve been reminded that some people were angry that I did so well, despite being outspent, and despite their efforts to personally discredit and smear me.
Some didn’t want to simply defeat me: they wanted me to go away. After the June primary election Jess Durfee was worried I would challenge Busby as County Party Chair, and continued to undermine me to others well after the election ended.
None of this was a surprise- I experienced criticism in Sacramento for being a progressive in the face of a rising moderate Democrat tide. But with term limits, the campaign battles are different- people just wait for you to term out. In Congress, that’s not the case.
If you saw the recent Daily Show, when Elizabeth Warren was the guest, Jon Stewart pointed out this tactic of accusing women candidates, or women already in political office, of being too “emotional” to conduct themselves properly.
The media and others have a habit of characterizing women who ask tough questions as, well, you know the various adjectives.
Stewart summarized it well: Men are respected for being “tough” and taking courageous positions. Women are criticized for being “mean” or “too emotional.” Men in office who show their emotional side are “courageous.” Women are “falling apart.”
Again, it is politics reflecting the world at large, and the people commenting on this series are reflections of those attitudes as well.
Lori: I remember being told at the time of the second Donna/Cory/Marco press conference that you were present and had expressed private reservations about what was being done to Filner, that you felt that the three who were mounting the attack may be overstating the problem. I remember feeling impressed and reassured by your hesitancy, as it was transmitted to me by an impeccable source who also attended that press conference.
If my information was correct, what happened afterwards to change your mind? Did you in fact express such doubts at that press conference or around that critical time?
“Others believe, republicans thought it better to give Filner enough rope to hang himself, plus cast aspersions on the party in the process, and undermine/discourage/shame democrats, then have a better chance to win a special election after the Presidential cycle.”
Oh no you don’t, Ms.Saldaña. Republicans knew Filner was an explosive jerk but nobody knew he was a predator.
Pat-
I was at the 2nd news event at the Concourse, and remember it as a disturbing spectacle.
The accusers were playing on people’s emotions, while offering few facts or details. There were women there with signs asking for “Due Process.”
I don’t know if I told anyone that they were “overstating” the problem, but they were certainly adding a dramatic and theatrical component which I found disturbing and harmful to an eventual legal process.
The participants read from lurid accounts without identifying who had written them. When a reporter asked if the information they were presenting was from “sworn documents” (which was a fair question) and if any women would be available for answering follow-up questions, he was shouted down.
I had tried to raise these concerns and been ignored and dismissed for “lack of a complaining witness.” I saw little difference between what they were doing at City Hall that day, and what I had tried to do in private- except they were doing it louder, with props.
They made their accusations in front of a crowd, with TV cameras rolling, and a sound system broadcasting their outrage.
If that’s the level of production value needed to make people take accusations of sexual abuse seriously, our community is in deep trouble.
In the end, it was an absurd spectacle and more heat than light was cast on a terrible situation. The 2 attorneys further confused things by encouraging women to come forward, but given their high profile actions, I suspect the news conference did nothing to reassure women that they could proceed quietly, or that the attorneys had any concept of how to proceed in such a complicated legal case.
I predicted that Gloria Allred would appear soon, recognizing the women involved would need experienced representation. And a few days later, Allred arrived in San Diego.
Brian-
I’m glad you think so highly of your colleagues. You know them better than I.
However, people from both parties knew Filner was unstable, rude, and acting out in sexually aggressive ways. Clearly, one person’s “jerk” is another person’s predator.
Unfortunately, many people scoffed about Fiilner, and believed “boys will be boys.” Or- “he can date who he wants.”
I still believe a man who has a history of unapologetically and persistently harassing women is likely to escalate and create worse problems in the future. Olga and I did what we could to report it, and try to persuade those with more of a relationship and/or politiical leverage on the Congressman to take action.
Again, I hope others who have read this account will act differently in futue situations of a similar nature, and not ignore warning signs of sexual abuse.
Thanks Lori. That helps.
Many men and women wanted “due process”. They just wanted it in a courtroom, not in a media circus., with Marco calling Gloria Allred to help. Because this did to go to court, a lot of what would have had to be said, unless someone wanted to perjure themselves, may have reflected a bit of a different story. However, that never happened until Filner “gave up”. If all of the allegations against Filner were true, I still wonder why they were not reported until years later, when this whole thing went down? Just my two cents, and that’s about all it’s worth.
Should have said “since this did NOT” go to court, sorry.
Lori,
Having read some of the posts (not all) on this list I feel moved to make a comment.
My understanding of the system (voting) here in the US may be limited, but I have to say that the underlying premise seems to that voting is a ‘Right’. I find that abhorrent! I view voting as a ‘RESPONSIBILTY’!
If someone is discussing the results of a poll ( on Any level) and complains about the result, my question is always “Did you vote?”, and if the answer is in the negative then ‘there endeth the discussion’!
Best Regards,
Michael
Mr. Thomason:
Those folks are talking from a constitutional point of view, where voting is established as a legal “right”. You are absolutely correct that too many voters do not take their responsibility seriously enough. I’ve long thought that while voting should be a universal right, registering for that right should have some added tasks attached. For example, some sort of community service should be required of people before they are a “registered voter”.
Thank you.
Thank you Michael. I agree that voting is a responsibility, and with every responsibility comes some obligation. In this case: Voters need to educate themselves about who and what they are voting for.
One reason for writing this series was to educate people about what happens behind the scene in many elections.
Related: it’s outrageous to See efforts to not only decrease voter turnout with extremely negative advertising, but to make it more difficult for people to register to vote.
Thoughtful people should be concerned about declining voter turnout and legislative obstacles to registering voters. California does well on voter registration, but nationwide other states are making it more and more difficult.
Thank you again for taking the time to comment.