relating to eureka coalition for jobs

◼ Alone, Measure T would increase dirty campaigning

My Word by Andrew Bird
POSTED: 05/19/2006 04:27:35 AM PDT0 COMMENTS
UPDATED: 05/19/2006 04:27:35 AM PDT

Measure T has a major problem: Without an accompanying legislative fix, the measure is likely to encourage more of a particularly sleazy type of campaign ad that it seeks to ban.

Measure T is the initiative that Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights qualified for the June ballot. It seeks to ban non-local companies and organizations from contributing to local campaigns.

The ballot argument for Measure T cites a series of cloak-and-dagger hit ads that targeted Chris Kerrigan in the 2004 Eureka City Council race as a reason to vote yes.

The sad fact is, because of a particularly onerous state appellate court ruling that the Legislature has failed to correct, if Measure T passes we are likely to see more of these ads in local campaigns. And local authorities would be powerless to stop them.

This is because the court ruling, which allows such campaigners to remain secret, would usurp any local law.

Late in the 2004 Eureka City Council campaign, a series of very negative ads -- slick mailbox brochures and television spots -- targeted Chris Kerrigan, blaming him for just about every problem Humboldt County faces.

The ads were signed by “Eureka Coalition for Jobs.” No individual names were signed to any of them.

I was a reporter for this newspaper at the time. We quickly learned that Eureka Coalition for Jobs was not a registered campaign committee. Next, we tracked the ads to an influential Sacramento lobbyist -- Wayne Ordos, a former executive director of the Fair Political Practices Commission, or FPPC, the state agency that enforces California campaign law.

Ordos had been paid to hire a San Francisco agency to create and place the ads. However, Ordos refused to reveal who had paid him.

Full of vim and vinegar, I demanded of Ordos how he figured he could get away with violating California's Political Reform act, the law that requires campaign committees to register with the secretary of state.

Ordos, a polite man, gave me a crash course in the current state of campaign law in California.

In 2001, an out-of-state group calling itself “American Taxpayers Alliance” started running a series of television ads sharply critical of Gov. Gray Davis. The ads blamed Davis for the state's energy crisis, and coined the term “grayouts.”

As it was a year before Davis was up for re-election, the ads did not advocate a vote for or against Davis. Nevertheless, the Davis campaign sued in an attempt to force the group to reveal its backers. A San Francisco Superior Court judge sided with the Davis campaign.

But the California Court of Appeals, 1st District, sided with the American Taxpayers Alliance, in a ruling that opined so-called “issue advocacy” ads are protected by the First Amendment and that forcing the group to reveal itself would have a chilling effect on free speech. (The Governor Gray Davis Committee v. American Taxpayers Alliance, A096658.)

Ordos used this ruling to justify keeping “Eureka Coalition for Jobs” under a cloak. To this day, the cloak has never been lifted.

Indeed, the Eureka Coalition for Jobs ads did not advise a vote for or against Kerrigan. But they were exceedingly deceitful, mendaciously accusing Kerrigan of being responsible for the North Coast's economic woes.

This newspaper filed a complaint with the FPPC, seeking to force Ordos to register “Eureka Coalition for Jobs” as a campaign committee, thereby revealing those who paid for the ads. The complaint pointed out a huge difference between Davis in 2001 and Kerrigan in 2004: Kerrigan was a candidate and the election was less than a week away when the ads first appeared.

But the FPPC sided with Ordos, refusing to act on the complaint.

Also in 2004, State Sen. Dean Florez, a Democrat from Shafter who'd had an experience similar to Kerrigan's, introduced Senate Bill 36, which sought to close this loophole.

At this newspaper's request, North Coast Assemblywoman Patty Berg signed onto the bill as principal coauthor. However, SB 36 was drafted as an “urgency” measure, which would have made it effective immediately, and it failed to muster the required two-thirds vote in the Senate last summer.

I understand what the supporters of Measure T are trying to accomplish. But without a legislative fix that has passed court muster, Measure T would encourage those who are shut out of open campaigning to hide behind a front man and sling the sleaze, like the Eureka Coalition for Jobs did against Kerrigan.

I am for more local control in local elections, too. But not at the risk of more of this most vulgar type of campaigning in Humboldt County.

Andrew Bird, a former Times-Standard reporter, is a Eureka resident.

The opinions expressed in My Word pieces do not necessarily reflect the editorial viewpoint of the Times-Standard.

__________________
NO mention of course of all Richard Salzman's groups - Alliance for Ethical Business, etc. No mention of Humboldt Watershed Council's "Fraud is not a victimless crime" ads... Richard knows how to play this game, and it is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

"They all do it" What are you upset about?

TS - The ongoing struggle for the right to self-government

Forget the Constitution...

The ongoing struggle for the right to self-government
My Word Op-Ed
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap/For the Times-Standard
Posted: 12/01/2008 01:27:15 AM PST

”We the People.” Those are hallowed words in this country. They begin the Preamble to the United States Constitution. Those words remind us that in this country, we are supposed to be the government.

That is a staggeringly profound idea. Before this country was founded, kings ruled over subjects by “divine right.” But the American revolutionaries rejected that idea as repugnant to a free and sovereign people. They had the audacity to believe that ordinary people are capable of true self-governance.

The Declaration of Independence asserts that the only legitimate government is government which has the consent of the people. So it is a fair statement to say that the principle of self-government is a core American ideal.

It is against this backdrop that I ask readers to consider the case of Measure T. First, let us remember that Measure T was passed using the citizen's initiative process. In other words, it was not merely elected officials purporting to speak for the people of Humboldt County. We the People spoke for ourselves.

The effort had the support of the local Democratic Party, the Green Party, organized labor, peace and justice groups, elected officials, local business owners, and farmers and ranchers. It truly was an example of people from a wide spectrum coming together to exercise our fundamental right to self-governance.

And “We the People” explicitly and unambiguously stated that corporate money in local elections was undermining our electoral system. Because of the corrupting influence of corporate donations, we stated that we were losing confidence in the integrity of our own democracy.

The law not only forbade non-local corporate contributions in local elections, it also included an intentional and strategic challenge to legal doctrine of “corporate personhood.” The law specifically stated that:

”Courts have illegitimately defined corporations as persons, allegedly vesting corporations with constitutional protections and rights. Corporate Personhood illegitimately denies the people of Humboldt County the ability to exercise our fundamental political rights.”

And Measure T passed by over 55 percent of the vote here in 2006, passing in every single district in Humboldt County!
So when Pacific Legal Foundation sued Humboldt County over Measure T, they were alleging that “We the People” do not have the right to make the decision how to best protect our own elections.

And just who is the Pacific Legal Foundation? A far right-wing group funded by tobacco corporations and oil corporations. They have been at the forefront of efforts to overturn health, safety and environmental laws that attempt to control the abuses of large corporations.

So these corporatists made Measure T not merely about campaign finance reform efforts. It became a fight over whether “We the People” are truly self-governing people.

And so I was so very proud when over 50 citizens appeared at the last meeting of the Board of Supervisors to express their disapproval that the county had decided not to defend Measure T in court. Speaker after speaker spoke not only of the need for campaign finance reform, but of their commitment to be part of a movement to challenge the legal doctrine of “corporate personhood.”

It may seem like a daunting task, but consider this -- where would we be if the American revolutionaries had been unwilling to challenge the “legal authority” of the king?

If women had not challenged laws that prevented them from voting? If trade unionists had not violated unjust laws claiming efforts to organize workers for better conditions and pay were a “criminal conspiracy”? If civil rights activists had not sparked a movement to challenge court-sanctioned Jim Crow segregation laws?

And the issue of corporate personhood is already becoming a local campaign issue. Over half of the candidates for office in Humboldt County in the last election pledged to refuse corporate campaign contributions regardless of the outcome of the court case. Nineteen of those candidates went even further, pledging to oppose corporate personhood if elected. Most of those signing the pledge won their contests!

So we at Democracy Unlimited share the disappointment of our fellow citizens. In an example of “judicial activism” run amok, Pacific Legal Foundation was able to use the court system to overturn the express will of the people.

But we are encouraged that people of Humboldt County are not giving up. We are also encouraged that the Board of Supervisors has expressed a willingness to work with us to pass laws to curb corporate power. We look forward to that prospect.

In addition, we will continue to educate, agitate and organize until we have built a movement powerful enough to overturn the ridiculous legal doctrine that allows a corporation to overturn democratically enacted laws that attempt to control their conduct.

We invite you to join us in that joyful celebration of the power of the “We the People.”

Check us out on the web at www.duhc.org and contact us at 269-0984 or info@duhc.org
Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap is director of Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County. She lives in Eureka and can be reached at kaitlin@duhc.org.

And don't forget to DONATE NOW :)

Wonder who wrote this for him?

'Cause it ssssure doesn't read like anything else he has written.
Paul Gallegos Statement from the Measure T site...

Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights (ahem, Democracy Unlimited in disguise) Press Conference
10:00AM - January 20, 2006

First, I want to express my sincere gratitude to the hundreds of unpaid local volunteers who participated in this effort. Many actually spent their holidays petitioning in the rains to ensure that this initiative will be on the ballot in June. Such a demonstration of civic determination truly reflects the best spirit of Humboldt County. It is worth repeating that every person working on this campaign is a local unpaid volunteer--in marked contrast to the Recall effort, when outside corporations spent $8 per signature in an effort to overturn an election.

It is with great pride and pleasure that I offer my full endorsement and support of this important campaign. Out-of-county corporate political donations are a real and persistent problem in Humboldt elections, and the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights is providing a clear and straightforward solution.

Some have questioned whether the citizens of Humboldt County have the legal authority to pass such a law. Of course we do! The ability to protect the integrity of our elections is not merely our right - it is our responsibility.

In this respect I agree with former U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist's opinion in the case of Citizens Against Rent Control vs. Berkley when he wrote:

"The Supreme Court has always recognized that preserving the integrity of the electoral process, preventing actual or perceived corruption, and preserving citizen confidence in government is an interest of the highest importance in ballot measure elections."

As a lawyer, I am acutely aware that there are times when the courts have been wrong. And on those occasions, it is the responsibility of citizens to engage in the process to change such laws. Remember that the courts once held that indigenous people were not legally "persons," that Africans could be held in slavery, that women had "lesser" legal rights than men, that trade unions were a criminal conspiracy, and that Jim Crow segregation did not violate the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Courts and judges were profoundly wrong in each of those instances, and thank goodness engaged and active citizens challenged those legal doctrines.

As an active and engaged citizen of Humboldt County myself, I am honored to be part of the Humboldt Coalition for Community Rights. I look forward to working with them to pass this much-needed reform to protect our right to fair elections and local democracy.

Paul Gallegos is the District Attorney of Humboldt County.

Return to News
***

Gallegos quotes, and the Measure T/Democracy Unlimited in diguise people quote the "Belotti" case as a basis for their initiative
They quote Rehnquist.
No one questions it.

They should.

Rehnquist was the DISSENTING opinion.

It DOES NOT SUPPORT THEIR POSITION - they take it out of context

435 US 765 a 1978 case
It is settled law

Essentially he says that while contributions may affect or influence a candidate, where there might be a quid-pro-quo, it does not have the same effect on a measure.

Measure T Injunction issued - The Opinion - TEXT

United States District Court For the Northern District of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MERCER, FRASER CO. et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, CALIFORNIA,
Defendant.
/
No. C 08-4098 SI
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND
PRELIMINARILY ENJOINING
ENFORCEMENT OF MEASURE T
OnSeptember 22, 2008, this Court heard argument on plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunctionenjoiningHumboldtCountyfromenforcingMeasureT,aninitiativeordinanceadoptedby
HumboldtCountyvotersin2006. Measure T prohibits non-local corporations, labor organizations, and
non-profit groups from making campaign contributions and expenditures in Humboldt County local
elections. After carefully reviewing the parties’ briefs and the record, the Court hereby GRANTS
plaintiffs’ motion.
LEGAL STANDARD
Requests for preliminary injunctive relief require the movant to demonstrate either (1) a
combination of probable success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or (2) that
serious questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in his favor. See Bernhardt v. Los
Angeles County, 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir.2003). The irreparable harm requirement can be met by
demonstrating the existence of a colorable First Amendment claim. See Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347,
373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably
constitutes irreparable injury.”); see also Sammartano v. First Judicial District Court, 303 F.3d 959,
973 (9th Cir. 2002).
Case 3:08-cv-04098-SI Document 32 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 1 of 4
2
DISCUSSION
The Court finds that plaintiffs have demonstrated a colorable claim that Measure T violates the
First and Fourteenth Amendments.
Plaintiffs have demonstrated that Measure T likely violates the First Amendment because it
burdens corporations’ First Amendment right to make political expenditures and campaign
contributions, yet it is neither narrowly tailored nor closely drawn as the case law requires. The
ordinance is not narrowly tailored because, unlike the Michigan law at issue in Austin v. Michigan State
Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), it does not allow for corporate expenditures through
segregated funds. Even if Measure T did allow corporations to form segregated funds, it may also be
unconstitutionally underinclusive: Measure T regulates non-local corporations more stringently than
non-local incorporated unions. See§ 11. At the same time, Measure T is likely overinclusive: it
regulates corporations based on their status as “local,” incorporating its own peculiar definition of
“local,” see§ 5, but this distinction does not further the compelling goal of “preventing corruption,
avoiding the appearance of corruption, and averting the circumvention of provisions intended to combat
corruption.” See Jacobus v. Alaska, 338 F.3d 1095, 1110 (9th Cir. 2003). Finally, Measure T allows
no exemption for political corporations or for corporate speech on ballot initiatives. See§ 5. Nor is
Measure T likely to be found closely drawn, in accordance with the case law, because unlike the federal
law at issue in F.E.C. v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146, 157 (2003), it does not allow corporations to form
political action committees.
At oral argument, defendant urged that the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Jacobus would save at
least the ban on contributions, if not the ban on expenditures. This Court is not persuaded. The court
in Jacobus examined the constitutionality of an Alaska statute restricting various types of campaign
spending by corporations, unions, other business associations and individuals. The portion of Jacobus
on which defendant relies is its discussion of “soft money contributions” to political parties by
individuals, corporations, business associations, and unions. Jacobus, 338 F.3d at 1100. The court
labored to define “soft money contributions,” as opposed to other “hard money” contributions,
ultimately settling on “all money contributed to a political party not expressly earmarked to influence
the nomination or election of a candidate.” Id., at 1098. In this context, the court in Jacobus approved
Case 3:08-cv-04098-SI Document 32 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 2 of 4
1
Nor did the Alaska statute distinguish “local” from “non-local” corporations, labor
organizations and non-profits, as does Measure T. As already noted, these idiosyncratic distinctions
may independently cause constitutional infirmity.
3
Alaska’s ban on “soft money contributions” by corporations. However, the provisions of Measure T
are not limited to such “soft money contributions,” but rather apply across the board to all contributions,
including contributions going directly to candidates. Jacobus neither discussed nor approved such a
sweeping ban.1
Measure T is also likely to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
because it burdens corporations’ right to engage in political expression but, as described above, it is not
narrowly tailored.
Measure T contains a severability clause (§ 14), but this Court finds no way to render the
challenged prohibitions (§§5, 5(a), 5(b)) constitutional.
Accordingly, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 and 65 and Local Civil Rule 65.1, the Court hereby
ORDERS as follows:
Defendant, and its agents, officer, representatives and employees, are ENJOINED from
enforcing or giving legal effect to Measure T, until further order of the Court. The Court finds that the
preliminary injunction will require defendant to incur little or no monetary costs and that the injunction
is sought to vindicate constitutional rights and the public interest, so no bond or security will be imposed
under Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 22, 2008
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge
Case 3:08-cv-04098-SI Document 32 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 3 of 4
4
Case 3:08-cv-04098-SI Document 32 Filed 09/22/2008 Page 4 of 4

Related:
☛ The Complaint
☛ Case Summary
☛ The Decision
☛ (POS) Measure T

☛ ER Judge rules for Injunction on Measure T
☛ TS Federal judge puts injunction on Measure T
☛ The Journal Fed Judge Issues Injunction against Measure T

BLOGS
☛ NCJ Blogthing Fed Judge Issues Injunction against Measure T
☛ Fred has it Breaking news!

McK Press - On Measure T

A McKinleyville couple has accused the McKinleyville Union School District Board of Trustees of corruption and has asked them to invalidate Measure C, the recently passed school bond.

David Elsebusch stated at the Wednesday, Aug. 13, meeting of the MUSD Board of Trustees, that “the political process involved in Measure C has been corrupted by illegal campaign contributions that provided 90 percent of the campaign funds, without which the bond measure would surely have failed.”

Elsebuschs’ allegations were based on the fact that the school district had hired several consulting firms which contributed money toward the passage of Measure C, and which also benefited, or will benefit financially from the bond’s passage.

One of the firms in question is Kelling, Northcross and Nobriga (KNN), an Oakland financing firm. MUSD approved a contract with KNN at its Jan. 9 meeting. KNN performs the bond sales, and will be making about $80,000, which will be paid from the bond’s proceeds. If the bond had not passed, KNN would not receive any money. KNN contributed $7,000 on April 16, and an additional $1,500 on May 23 to Citizens in Favor of Measure C, the group which ran the political campaign.

Another firm in question is Jones Hall, a San Francisco financial consultant, which serves as the district’s bond counsel, advising them on legal issues, which will be getting about $45,000 from MUSD. Jones Hall contributed $5,000 to the campaign on April 16, and an additional $1,500 on May 23.

A third firm, Godbe Research, a consultant from Half Moon Bay, hired by the district in 2007, evaluated the community to see if the bond would be acceptable. Superintendent Dena McCullough said that this company has already been paid a fee of approximately $14,000. Godbe contributed $250 to the campaign on April 8.

A fourth firm, Siskiyou Design from Yreka, has been hired as MUSD’s architect. According to Dena McCullough, they will get between 11% and 14% of the project cost. Siskiyou Design contributed $1,500 on April 18.

The contributions of these four firms totaled $16,750, about 90% of the $18,600 raised by Citizens in Favor of Measure C. Most of the remaining contributions were made by top MUSD administrators, or their family members.

Details about the financial contributions were obtained from forms filed with the County Elections Office.

During an earlier MUSD board meeting held on Jan. 8, McCullough had pointed out that because the schools are not allowed to use public funds for campaigning, the money would have to be raised by a committee of volunteers. “Various groups would donate to this campaign, such as KNN, and other corporations that want to see the bonds passed,” she commented at that time.

At the Wednesday, Aug. 13, meeting, fiery exchanges erupted between David Elsebusch and Terrie Smith, the president of the Board of Trustees. Elsebusch asked who was personally involved with requests for campaign contributions from these firms, and asked, under the public records law, to inspect all documents related to communications with them.

He also told the board that he had requested the District Attorney to enforce the county’s ordinance, Measure T, which prohibits out-of-county corporations from contributing to local political campaigns, and to collect 10 times the amount of the contributions for the county’s coffers.

“I deplore that these people were solicited to provide a lot of money, because they knew that they were going to make a lot of money out of it. That is totally corrupt,” he told the board.

“Every person that made calls, that set signs out, that walked precincts, was a person who lived here. There was no outside influence as far as anybody else running the campaign.” replied Terrie Smith.

“Your board should recognize the fact that the process was totally freaking corrupt,” said Elsebusch. “If 90% of the funds received were illegal, that is corruption per se.”

Trustee Brian Mitchell asked if the penalties for violating Measure T included the invalidation of the election. Terrie Smith said that it did not.

“I don’t know how you can even think... ‘let’s go for the funds because we technically and legally can do it,’ when you know darn well that without that infusion of all that money… that you would not have gotten that 55.44%,” Elsebusch said.
Measure C needed a 55% majority to pass, and 55.44% of those who voted approved it.

“Every single person that campaigned are local community members, that were in it for all the right reasons,” countered Terrie Smith. “To better our community and to help our students have better facilities.

“Measure T – no one caught that,” she added. “None of the attorneys caught that. It was something that just slipped through. No, I don’t feel good about that. But do I feel we should backtrack all the hard work that we’ve done, and undo things? I don’t think so... I don’t feel that any member of that campaign committee did anything knowingly illegal, corrupt, wrong in any sense.”

The board unanimously voted to adopt a resolution certifying the election results to the Board of Supervisors.

Elsebusch and his wife Penny also took issue with the board over the formation of a facilities advisory committee, which Superintendent Dena McCullough said would not have to conform to California’s Brown Act. which requires public agencies to hold open meetings.

“This is not going to be an official appointment from the board,” said Superintendent Dena McCullough. “We’re going to establish an additional committee to review upcoming projects, prioritize those projects with the architect, as well as set up the phases for the project. This committee will be made up of Terrie, board members, as well as maintenance, transportation, operations, a business person, and myself.”

“Your architect has a serious conflict of interest,” said Penny Elsebusch, “because of his donations for the campaign contributions. The architect is going to make quite a bit of money. So it was in his best interest to contribute to push this through. Just like your bonding attorney, your financier ... they all have conflicts of interest now.”

“That may come under a RICO law,” she added.

“That’s racketeering?” asked Brian Mitchell.

“That’s correct,” said Penny. “You ask for money. You get it. That’s corruption and that’s RICO. That’s racketeering.”

“There’s no board member here that asked for any money,” Smith said.

“They just did it out of the goodness of their little hearts because they’re all going to make big mega-bucks, and they’re used to throwing the money at campaigns,” said Penny Elesuch.

“You said ‘no board member,’” said David Elsebusch. “You didn’t say ‘staff’ or ‘superintendent.’”

“I have another question about the Facility Advisory Committee,” he added. “Who selects them? How are they selected? On what basis? And will that be a standing committee that is subject to the Brown Act?”

“This is not a mandatory facility committee. This is an additional committee that we are putting place,” said Terrie Smith. “They’re not subject to the Brown Act. ”

The Brown Act, which requires that most governmental meetings be open to the public, does include advisory committees in its definition of governmental bodies, and only grants exemptions for advisory committees that are composed solely of members of the legislative body, provided that the numbers of the members is too small to constitute a quorum. Based on the description of the committee’s membership given by Dena McCullough, the Brown Act would seem to apply to the group.

Aug. 19

By Elaine Weinreb
Press Staff Writer

Gallegos and Measure T joined at the hip.

Yet another potential conflict of interest for District Attorney Paul Gallegos. He is the poster child for Measure T - a Measure which bans "non-local" campaign contributions. It is about to be challenged. In fact a complaint has now been filed, and Gallegos will have to file suit over it. Against the McKinleyville Union School District for the campaign for a Bond Measure that would pay for renovation and construction of facilities.

What will he do? It is a lose-lose for him, as it pits him against teachers and parents on the one hand, and the "equal" dispensation of justice on the other.

Here's material from his campaign website:

FRIENDS OF PAUL GALLEGOS CAMPAIGN UPDATE
11 DAYS LEFT TILL JUNE 6th!
WE HAVE SIGNS TO DISTRIBUTE!
Friday, May 26th 4-6 pm (and lots of afternoons next week!)
Eureka Sign Party! Come to FOPG Headquarters (226 F Street in Old Town) at 4 pm TODAY Join our Sign Team to cover the streets of Eureka with Gallegos and Measure T Yard Signs.

ALSO, NOW IS THE TIME TO BUY MEDIA!
DIKEMAN has 40k in the bank for media for the next 11 days. We DON'T. Paul's major expense now is TV, Radio and Print Ads for the last 11 days. We need to raise $20,000 by Tuesday, May 30th to counter opposition hit pieces and negative ads that are coming now from Mr. Dikeman. Now is the time to come forward and make the media happen!
Television: $7,300.00 Radio: $7,500.00 Print Ads $2,300.00
200 CONTRIBUTORS @ $100 EACH WILL MEET OUR GOAL. PLEASE call me at 476.0552 to commit your pledge today, and then stop by our FOPG headquarters at 226 F Street in Old Town Eureka!
June 1st: Thursday Night Talk:
Paul and Dikeman at 7:30 pm, Thursday, June 1st on KHSU, 90.3 FM Please call in questions to this important show - help Paul set the record straight on Dikeman's misinformation campaign!
June 3rd - Arts Alive!
at FOPG Headquarters - 226 F Street in Old Town Eureka
June 6th: Election Day and Get Out The Vote (GOTV)!
The campaign is asking us all to take Tuesday, June 6th off ALL DAY to help GET OUT THE VOTE (GOTV)! Call Jaime at FOPG headquarters (476.0552) to schedule yourself for this CRITICAL day of involvement. Early morning and drive time sign waving at key intersections on Election Day (50 volunteers) Calling and reminding our supporters to go to the polls (25 volunteers) Providing rides to the polls to our supporters (10 volunteers) Poll checking with related campaigns (25 volunteers) Go-fers and helpers (10 volunteers)

ELECTION NIGHT VICTORY PARTY WITH THE MEASURE T CAMPAIGN!
Lost Coast Brewery in Eureka - June 6th after the polls close! (8pm) Join Paul, campaign staff and volunteers, Measure T volunteers, and progressives of all flavors. Call FOPG campaign headquarters at 476-0552 for more information, and please come CELEBRATE with us!