From Barry:
2) Eric the K's Negative IEC. This nearly knocked me off from supporting you. This has been highly distasteful, especially the bit about not attending coastal meetings. You need to disavow that accusation and the whole No-no-noreen campaign and it's website and messaging in general. Can you publicly say you didn't ask for it and don't want it's "help"?
From Lynda Hopkins:
Let's talk about Independent Expenditure Committees, or IECs.
I learned to dislike IECs early on... when SEIU dumped $82,000 into the final three weeks of the primary election. The hit pieces they ran online and sent out to 5th District mailboxes definitely hurt us in the primary. I was proud, however, that we were still able to earn the most votes -- even with hits going out against us, and without any independent expenditures that favored us -- just by sticking to our positive, policy-based message and by working hard.
Then came the general election. As you all know, it has devolved into an all-out mailbox and media war. Those who don't listen to the radio or Pandora might not realize that tens of thousands of dollars have been spent on radio attack ads claiming that I'm going to pave over paradise -- complete with the sound of bulldozers and chainsaws. Coalition for a Better Sonoma County sent out a couple of mailbox hit pieces against me, and Noreen has as well. (To be clear, I don't consider fact-based discussions of campaign funding to be an attack. But when Noreen purposefully and willfully misrepresents my policies -- and she knows better, having sat through 20 candidate forums with me -- and purposefully and willfully misrepresents my campaign finances, that's a hit piece, period.)
And then, of course, there's the elephant in the room (or maybe it's more like a box of rabid lemmings): the anti-Noreen mailers that seem to come at a rate of one per day. I'd like to be very clear that I do not have anything to do with the Independent Expenditure Committee opposing Noreen. By law, I have no control over what they do. In fact, I can't even tell them to knock it off, because that would represent "collaboration" between my campaign and the IEC. So -- I'm not speaking to or communicating with anyone listed as a principal on the IEC paperwork.
Do I approve of these ads? No. Do I support them? No. All along, I've urged my supporters to maintain a positive, policy-based discussion. All along, I have strongly denounced negative campaigning. In fact, of the five entities involved in the Fifth District race -- my campaign, Noreen's campaign, SEIU PAC, Coalition for a Better Sonoma County PAC, and the Small Farmers PAC -- my campaign is the only one that has not gone negative. The closest we came was in the form of the bull$#*! video, in which I criticized Noreen for misleading people about who I am and twisting facts. I consider this self-defense, which became necessary because of the constant misleading attacks coming directly from her campaign.
To be perfectly honest, there are things about Noreen's record at State that bother me. Things that bothered me as a voter, back in the day, and things that bother me as someone running against her now. I could have put out factual compare-and-contrast pieces -- pieces consisting entirely of excerpted press coverage -- that would have cast me in a favorable light, and cast her in a negative light. But I didn't. And I haven't made these things an issue in the campaign because I fundamentally don't want you to vote against Noreen; fundamentally, I want you to vote for me.
Noreen's strategy has been very different. She went on the attack early on. She has taken every opportunity to undermine my credibility, to paint me as naive, beholden, manipulated, and poised to rape and pillage West County. She takes cheap shots at some of my policy ideas that she really should, philosophically speaking, agree with -- but she happily throws my ideas under the bus if doing so can make me look bad. (One example of intellectual inconsistency for political purposes was at the primary forum in Roseland, which La Prensa captured on video. There, I introduced the concept of a soda tax to fund early childhood education. Noreen immediately decried this proposal as a regressive sales tax -- which I'd admitted in my statement -- and pointed out that it disproportionately affects poor people. She then pivoted to describe her "pot for potholes" program, which will apparently also manage to fund Early Childhood Education... Ignoring the fact that a tax on cannabis is a sales tax that is assessed precisely the same way a soda tax is assessed. Which means it's also regressive. And frankly, I think that taxing diabetes-inducing soda makes more sense than taxing medicine... but that's another story.)
Anyway, I don't want to be the kind of leader who throws someone else under the bus for the sake of getting ahead. That's not who I am. And that's the main reason why the IECs are deeply frustrating. But you know what? I honestly think that the IECs against Noreen have hurt us. We have received numerous calls from people who voted for me in the primary who are sick of the attacks, and switching their votes. After painstakingly running a positive, policy-based campaign, it's very frustrating. But there just isn't anything I can do about it -- besides try to get elected, and get to work on campaign finance reform.
[Lynda did not address the assertion by Eric's IEC that Noreen was negligent in her duties as part of the oversight committee for the California Coastal Conservancy. I have reached out to her for comment. ~ Barry ]