Adachi video attacks public financing


This is odd: An eight-minute video narrated by Matt Gonzalez in support of Jeff Adachi devotes a considerable amount of time to attacking public campaign financing -- something Gonzalez always supported as a supervisor.

The video claims that the $4 million that "politicians" are taking to pay for their mayoral campaigns could have helped the city avoid cancelling summer school and cutting school bus routes.

Actually, the city doesn't pay for summer school or for school buses; the school district does. But I suppose the city could have scrapped public financing and given the money to SFUSD. Unlikely, but possible. (The city actually does share some money with SFUDS, under a measure that Gonzalez opposed.)

The thing about public financing, of course, is that it allows candidates like John Avalos, who won't get big business support, to run a competitive campaign. If it prevents special interests from buying elections, it saves the city far more than it costs. Public financing has always been a central part of the progressive agenda, nationally and locally.

The rest of the message is about what you'd expect -- pension reform, Recology's franchise fee, giveaways to the police and fire unions. All stuff that Adachi has made part of his campaign. It's nicely (if inexpensively) produced, and, as always, Gonzalez is a great presenter.

But what's up with the attack on public finance?

(UPDATE: Gonzalez emailed me to say that Adachi doesn't oppose public financing but thinks this is a bad year to accept it. He also said when he chaired the Budget Commitee the city sent a lot of money to the schools. But he did oppose the measure that guarantees some city funding to SFUSD.)


the fact that he has gaiend the support of the only Progressive to ever have a chance of winning a Mayoral election - Matt - is further evidence of that.

Most of that much-needed City money that was spent on subsidizing the campaigns of marginal candidiates, and which could have been spent on real needs, has been spent on attack ad's and throwing dirt. I've hardly see any ad for Yee that was about policy - it's all negative campaigning.

It's a disgrace. I'm voting the clean slate - Adachi, Chui and Dufty,

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 4:17 pm

He must be running scared when it comes to Avalos, or he wouldn't have launched such a vicious attack. Adachi and Gonzalez must be really desperate to go after Avalos for accepting public financing.

Look, every penny we invest in public financing is an investment in our democracy. The alternative is to have billionaires buying our elections. This is exactly what they're attempting with Prop C, Prop D and the Ed Lee campaign.

Tell the 1% that our democracy is not for sale!

Vote NO on Prop C!
Vote NO on Prop D!

John Avalos for Mayor!!

Every penny we invest in public financing is an investment in our democracy. The alternative is to have billionaires buying our elections. This is exactly what they're attempting with Prop C, Prop D and the Ed Lee campaign.

Tell the 1% that our democracy is not for sale!

Vote NO on Prop C!
Vote NO on Prop D!

John Avalos for Mayor!!

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 5:37 pm

LOL......the absurdly high city worker pay/benefits are crushing the middle and upper middle classes of SF. You know, us morons who work in the private setcor? Memba us?

The city workers are paid very high salaries. The current pension might make sense if the average city worker salary were 60K instead of nearly 100K. Yes, nearly 100K base salary and with OT, many are making 200K, 300K.

A person in the private sector would have to accumulate millions of dollars to even get a 50K pa annuity.

Avalos is a city work pimp and illegal alien pimp. Fuck him.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 9:27 am

Saves me the trouble. John Avalos is a third generation Mexican-American with a long and distinguished record of public service. If you care to educate yourself, instead of spouting hate, check his site~

John Avalos "passed the nation’s strongest local hiring legislation, which provides thousands of employment opportunities for San Francisco residents on city-funded construction projects. He has passed protections for tenants in foreclosed properties and need-based rental assistance to low-income families at risk of becoming homeless. He also crafted the real estate transfer tax increase on high-end commercial buildings which has brought in $50 million in new revenue this year alone.

"In his two-and-a-half year tenure as a San Francisco Supervisor, John has developed a reputation as an effective legislator with firm principles and values, strong work ethic, and a collaborative and unifying approach to getting the City’s work done."

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 1:11 pm

he has made ZERO effort to engage the majority of the City, preferring to cling to his dated socialist ideology comfort zone.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

"The incumbent is falling fast in the polls, and it's actually possible for Avalos to win.",2

Posted by Tina Modotti on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 6:12 pm

George Bush says the other George Bush was a great president.

The Bay Guardian says John Avalos can win.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 7:28 pm

point out the bigotry.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 1:27 pm

...and she didn't here.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 1:56 pm

and so the anonymous coward who refered to John Avalos as an " illegal alien pimp" is the one making sense? I'm afraid your credibility, as trolls cowering behind the "Guest" handle, is shot. Go peddle your offensive stereotypes elsewhere.

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

Use your full name, if you want any credibility here.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 2:59 pm

I have been posting here long enough for people to recognize me.

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

@"Guest", who never once had the courage to post under his/her real name, now challenging my credibility. Amazing!

Listen, I have been posting at SFBG long enough for people to recognize who I am. For much of that time, I did so under my full name, Lisa Pelletier. Now that most folks know who I am, I just post as Lisa...just as Tim Redmond posts as "Tim" and Greg K. posts as "Greg".

Your turn Guest. If you have the guts. Are you the coward who referred to John Avalos as an "illegal alien pimp"? Fess up!

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

See the problem now?

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 3:53 pm

Anyone not agreeing with the opinions as fact of progressives like Lisa are racists.

The George Wallace like racialism of progressives is so interesting.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 3:36 pm


Posted by 'anonymous' on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 9:44 pm

It's easy for Adachi to critize other candidates for taking public financing when Adachi has been bought and paid for by Billionaires Michael Moritz and George Hume. Adachi is working for the 1% attacking the 99%!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:38 pm

from both the left and the right is a good thing. If everyone in Sf hates you, you're probably doing something right.

1. Chui
2. Adachi
3. Lee

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 12:50 pm

Morale must be pretty low in the PD's office, so I guess Jeff decided to sweeten the pot. From the Chron:

"Prop. C* would eliminate a city match for an annuity accrued by city employees who work five years but don't stay long enough to qualify for a regular pension - under Prop. D, high-paid workers, such as lawyers, would actually receive a windfall with a guaranteed match of their elevated contributions."

(*I am opposed to both measures)

Tell the lawyers and their billionaire friends to take a hike!

NO on Prop C
NO on Prop D

John Avalos for Mayor!!!

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 6:59 pm

It was an omission. Adachi was looking for general fund savings (this is the point of reform) and those dollars are insignificant.

The idea that Adachi wrote in a provision to specifically exempt his own department - is just stupid.

Trust me, no one at the Chronicle understands the details of Props C and D.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 11:16 pm

Did you somehow fail to notice this is a negative ad? By contrast, John Avalos "is running the cleanest, most effective campaign in the cycle. With the highest percentage of donations from SF and no IE's to speak of, he's shot up into second place." ~word from his biggest supporter

Posted by Guest on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 6:20 pm

I believe that is among the such a lot vital info for
me. And i am satisfied studying your article. However
wanna observation on some general issues, The web site taste is wonderful, the articles is
truly great : D. Good task, cheers

Posted by get paid to take surveys on Aug. 02, 2012 @ 2:22 am

Where - in the Mission and the Haight? I live on Twin Peaks and there's not a single sign near my home for Avalos. The only place I can recall seeing an Avalos sign is near his HQ on Market. I've never received a single mailing from his campaign (and I'm a registered Democrat who's voted in every election since 2004). Nor have I seen or heard one Avalos TV or radio ad.

"Viable campaign" is laughable. "Progressive sacrificial lamb" is more like it. And if The Guardian keeps mentioning Avalos favorably in every article (not editorials either - articles) then I think I'm going to file a complaint with the ethics commission accusing The Guardian of collusion and acting as an unnamed contributor to the Avalos campaign. It's clear this doesn't happen only with the right (like Lee) but also, as in your case, between campaigns like Avalos and rags like the SFBG.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 4:31 pm

He just sticks to his little power bases and hopes wistfully that it will carry him home. That's why his poll ratings have consistently put him only in the middle of the field.

He doesn't even sound like he thinks he is going to win, preferring to melt into the background. A classic fringe candidate.

Adachi has deftly balanced his liberal ideals with pragmatic policies on the deficit. He has a chance, even though it looks like Lee is strolling home.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 4:45 pm

until the poor thing's skin is literally falling off its bones. That dead horse is the Avalos campaign and the continual cheerleading is coming dangerously close to violating the law against illegal campaign contributions.

There's absolutely no doubt almost everyone on the SFBG's staff have close ties to Avalos' campaign and it's interesting how those same people crank out article after article praising Avalos and talking up his dim mayoral prospects. However if they're collaborating with his campaign then that's against the law. And maybe it's time to push the issue because every election season we're treated to the same thing on behalf of whomever The Guardian considers to be "the progressive candidate" for whatever office.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 5:00 pm

for decades and it's had zero effect. PG&E still supplies the power to drive Bruce's LazyBoy recliner.

They'll be droning on about the Occupy camp long after everyone else has forgotten them. Which will be some time next week the way thigns are going.

Posted by Anonymous on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

I love to hear these anonymous conservatives desperately writing post after post trying to belittle us at the Guardian around election time, even recycling silly accusations about collusion with campaigns. It's gotten so predictible after watching this tactic in election after election, but it's never terribly effective. Just ask any pollster or political scientist in town and they'll let you know that the Guardian endorsement is one of the most impactful in town because we've been an independent paper for 45 years and people trust us to provide progressive yet fair assessment of the election. And I really don't think our readers will be swayed by the transparent tactics of conservative commenters and consultants. But thanks for spending so much time and effort on this site because it simply reinforces that downtown is still worried about the Guardian and its readers.

Posted by steven on Nov. 04, 2011 @ 10:55 am

...relative to Avalos, then why is Adachi taking the huge risk of running a negative ad attacking Herrera and Avalos, with content that will piss off progressive voters?

Makes no sense unless Adachi's campaign is in trouble, and Avalos is on the move.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 5:11 pm

Thinking that "progressive" voters are the majority of the city's electorate - when in fact they aren't. Were they the "progressive" candidates for supervisor would be sitting on the Board and the ballot measures opposed by progressives would be the law of the land.

Avalos can't win by appealing to a small minority of voters.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 5:35 pm

I didn't say any such thing. The point is that for Adachi to have a prayer of winning, he needs to keep his historic progressive supporters in his camp (or he simply won't be able to get enough votes to win) and now he has foolishly pissed off that progressive base.

The fact that he pulled such a foolish maneuver shows that he thinks he is losing and is desperately grabbing for some new life preserver to save himself.

And the fact that he directed his maneuver toward Herrera and Avalos shows why he is losing. Because they are pulling ahead of him.

It's not surprising really, because Adachi's core message is diametrically at odds with the Occupy movement's message, the latter which has suddenly ignited the imaginations of a vast majority of voters.

Adachi is now on the wrong side of history.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

Face facts. You are, as usual, spouting conjecture and feverishly wishing for it to come true.

It won't.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 7:36 pm

Nope. I'm a realist. If I thought Avalos wasn't gaining I wouldn't be posting about it, I would just stay silent. The Occupy Movement has energized a new group of volunteers and voters, and it is starting to show in the way at least one of the other candidates is reacting to Avalos.

Something is up.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:25 pm

and it ain't Avalos' poll numbers.

I support the Occupy movement but I'm not voting for the mayor of the Occupy Movement. I'm voting for the mayor of San Francisco. And trust me - most voters feel the same way I do. No one is voting for Avalos on the basis of a visit he paid to the camp or some dumb resolution he sponsored - that's not how the average voter makes decisions.

You often mistake the way you look at politics with how average voters do. It's called "living in an echo chamber" and it's really no different than how most Republicans view voters. You're engaging in mirror imaging again Eric.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:46 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 8:59 pm

You are clearly paid by someone to post discouraging messages on these blogs in an attempt to dim the power of the new movement that has just triggered a wave of people closing their accounts at Wall Street banks and switching to local credit unions.

This backlash has become so strong that the big banks are suddenly canceling the usurious bank card fees they were planning on gouging us with in order to keep customers from rebelling and leaving.

Those angry customers are looking for a mayor that resonates with their anger and new vision, and that person is clearly Avalos.

The bastards paying your salary are sweating bullets, mr. mini consultant.

And that is a very good thing.

I'll be toasting your loss after election day ;)

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 9:07 pm

Strange for you to accuse others of what you do on a daily, hour-by-hour basis yourself.

We'll see who's mayor in 7 days. In may not be Lee but I don't think it's gonna be Avalos. Perhaps if you close your eyes and repeat, over and over: "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can" it'll happen.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 9:50 pm

I get paid to do community outreach, grassroots organizing, coalition coordinating, media work, and to occasionally work as a sort of grassroots whip and nonprofit lobbyist in City Hall (and at other agencies).

I visit the Guardian blog periodically throughout the day, when I need to take a break from work.

It's arguable that it is a small part of my job, but not very substantially.

It's a great way to keep writing and messaging skills sharp, and keep a thick skin though ;)

On the mayor's race, I'm certainly not presuming to say who is going to win. But I am certainly convinced that Avalos is one of the candidates who can. His forward momentum seems to be more accelerated now than any of the other candidates.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:16 pm

As of late, you have taken on a tone that borders on absolutely delusional.

Here's the thing with you. I think, as I do with many hardline progressives, that in the end you truly have good intentions. I can't say the same for your counterparts on the extreme right.

With that being said, you seem to have *zero f--king idea* about what it takes to actually win in this game. Either that, or you really don't want to win, as this sideline complaining has become your comfortzone (which is a longtime critique of the far left - they can't handle power, but love feeling marginalized).

Ok, in short - your team is getting utterly smashed here. Dude, it is... Your guy's BEST showing was 7%, while Lee polled at 35%. It takes a special type of nutty to ignore what is taking place here. But somehow, you are. And your retort to the facts continues to be these very obscure, self created proclamations about what's really going on. Basically, you continue to debate fact with opinion - and that's what freaks do.

STEP IT UP if you want to be serious here. Because honestly, it doesn't look like you have any interest whatsoever in actually winning. Just talking about what it might feel like if it actually once happened for you..

Posted by Longtime-Lurker on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:19 pm

I am not working for any of the mayoral campaigns (aside from being a volunteer consultant for Baum on environmental/energy issues). This is because I'm so busy with legislative work (which is just as important as the election) that I don't have time to also work on the mayoral campaign. In fact I rarely work on elections.

As I noted above, this blog stuff is just a pastime I engage in to relax, regenerate, and sharpen my rhetoric. (And to help lend some progressive morale and education against dismal poseurs like you.)

But I've closely watched enough campaigns to know that your blustering surety is complete crap. You know as well as I do that this mayor's race is a complete toss up and that Lee's numbers are not any where near as strong as you are ludicrously claiming.

You're the one walking in lotus land brother.

Avalos really is gaining.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:44 pm

Anyone who deviates from your own POV, in even the slightest manner - is "ammoral," "dismal poseurs," a Republican or some other insult.

Deep down you're a Stalinist. I've dealt with a few in my time and what is the spookiest about them is their zealot-like assurance in the righteousness of their positions. No deviation from the party line is ever acceptable, they have ZERO sense of humor and it was always easy to see them slipping across the line into violence in an instant.

Sorta like you.

Posted by guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:59 pm

I am a radical eco-anarchist, about as far from Stalinism as it gets. I despise centralized state hierarchy and champion grassroots consensus, and so have no party line.

And I have a great sense of humor, I just don't use it with people like you and Lurker because you are assholes.

Posted by Eric Brooks on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 11:36 pm

there is zero evidence that Avalos will get more than 5%-7% of the votes. Talk him up all you want but don't go mistaking that for reality.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 7:25 am

Judea Popular Front and the Popular Front of Judea. Why does the left always fragment itself into dozens of sub-groups?

Posted by Guest on Nov. 02, 2011 @ 10:02 am

think that their revealed world view is so obvious that once exposed to it everyone will agree.

Avalos heading down to occupy SF and getting in the paper is all that any moron voter should need to vote correctly, it seems in the minds of our local sect.

I think the occupy group should be left alone, just as if a bunch of right to lifers did same down there. In no way is Avalos's idiocy going to make me vote for him, after his history of endless petty laws and scummy scheming.

That he enacts endless petty laws and then whines that the occupy folks are getting subjected to petty laws makes me hate him even more.

He's an opportunistic amoral douche.

Posted by matlock on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 10:30 pm

It was an IE - I assume you understand the difference. "Gonzales video" is what it is.

"Actually, the city doesn't pay for summer school or for school buses; the school district does."

Actually this is factually incorrect. The City has transferred money from the rainy day fund to SFUSD in the past precisely to fund stuff like summer school.

Why is it that everything your website publishes about Adachi is so fundamentally dishonest?

Have you just dropped any pretense of being a journalist...maybe so. Opinion only...?

The public financing system is flawed including but not limited to, candidates like Ting continuing to waste taxpayer money because he can't get out of the race. If you don't think the law needs to be amended, then you are not thinking enough.

Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 5:07 pm

You know what?

I had nothing to do with it or it would have been all puppies and babies for the last week and when I got a copy along with the rest of the world (serious fuck up) I told him that I thought it sucked because it painted Avalos in a bad light and that Jeff really needed those seconds as does John from Jeff. I told Matt that and, by the way, the piece was done for free by volunteers so it wasn't any kind of expenditure, I.E. or otherwise.

So, I said this was a mistake and they should prostrate themselves at the feet of John Avalos.

But, Oh no!

Unlike Eric and Steve and Tim, nobody with any power ever listens to me around here.

Yeah, Eric, the video sucked but I certainly know that Matt isn't opposed to Public Campaign Financing. He invented it. He hasn't answered my message but I'm guessing it's something Jack Davis tossed into the script.

Nevertheless, there is no contest ...

Baum for Mayor!

Adachi for Mayor!

Avalos for Mayor!

Hall for Mayor!

That's the Bulldog way.

And, Eric, I'm banned from Daly's so I'll send in money for a pint of your favorite on election nite regardless of the outcome.

Go Niners!


Posted by h. brown on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 5:37 pm
Posted by Guest on Nov. 01, 2011 @ 9:39 pm

I agree that the video sucks because it demonizes Avalos by insinuating that he's taking money from school children by accepting public financing. It's despicable.

Furthermore, his attack on public financing is just outrageous. If you follow that through to its logical conclusion, it means that only those with a truckload of money could afford to run for office.

You claim that it "wasn't any kind of expenditure, I.E. or otherwise", and that it was done for free by volunteers. Who the hell are these "volunteers"??

Listen, it costs money to put out something this slick. So, fess up...who paid for it? There are three people listed at the end of the ad with only a single initial before their names~ K. Imperial, L. Strong, C. Magrane. Who are these folks??

Tell Matt that the voters have an absolute right to know who's behind this negative ad. We shouldn't have to wait until the election is over to find out that Moritz or someone like that "volunteered" the big bucks to fund this hit piece. And yes, he should apologize to John Avalos.

Shame, shame, shame on you Matt Gonzalez!!!

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 03, 2011 @ 5:29 pm

The video was made for free in a couple of days by Matt & Isiah Flores, an Academy of Art graduate in his mid-20s.

This is what he wrote when I emailed him asking how it was financed:

"The video was an idea matt and I had that turned into a weekend project. It was made with only our donated time and efforts. Just my laptop and lunch. We both wrote the script. Was a fun collaboration."

But since then, Adachi has embraced it sending out an email from Matt paid for by the campaign promoting the video. One of the Adachi visibility people even had a sign with the website which has a short message from Matt & the video

I do think it is sad both Adachi and Matt to attack candidates for taking public financing. Matt would have had a better chance of winning in 2003 if he had access to public financing.

Adachi had only raised $161,000 by the last filing deadline, so he wouldn't be getting anywhere near $900,000 if he had accepted it.

The only campaigns that might get to that level are Herrera, Yee, Chiu, and Dufty.

Posted by Steve Rhodes on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 1:45 am

It costs money to buy air time. How are they distributing the video? And where will the funds come from to pay for this? Which stations/ forums have aired the ad thus far? I appreciate the info.

Posted by Lisa on Nov. 07, 2011 @ 4:45 pm