Campaign finance disclosure statements from Feinstein state that her husband receives fees and income from CBRE, and has $250,000 and $500,000 in investment holdings.
Feinstein's spokesperson, Scott Gerber, said there was no conflict of interest. But Citizens for Responsibility in Ethics spokesperson Naomi Seligman added, "The ethics rules are so incredibly narrow that unless Senator Feinstein was pushing or voting for something that would impact only Mr. Blum, it doesn't count as a conflict."
Still: Feinstein's getting cash directly from PG&E, and then doing the company's political bidding.
NEWSOM'S PG&E PARTY
Newsom, who has won campaigns with PG&E's financial support in the past, is hosting a party called "Unconventional '08" in Denver this week.
Guess who's one of the three listed sponsors? PG&E. (The other two are AT&T and the carpenter's union.) And, of course, the person running Newsom's campaign for governor is PG&E's main man, Eric Jaye.
Sups. Alioto-Pier and Elsbernd? Both had PG&E money shunted through independent expenditure committees. Sup. Chu is currently running to keep her seat in District 4.
Former Mayor Willie Brown tops the list of endorsers on Committee to Stop the Blank Check's Web site. PG&E paid Brown $200,000 in consulting fees during 2007.
Neither Brown nor PG&E returned calls for comment and clarification on what exactly Brown's consulting involves, or how much he's getting this year.
Of the 30 paid ballot arguments that will be listed in November's Voter Information Pamphlet, PG&E bought 22 of them — many for well-funded organizations like the Bay Area Council, Golden Gate Restaurant Association, and the Republican Party that could presumably pay for their own $2-per-word screeds against the measure.
The arguments all make the same points and parrot the same PG&E lines.
Jaye said that ballot arguments were routinely paid for by other entities, and of the groups that have healthy bank accounts, he said, "We'd rather those groups invest their money in capacity building for November."
The San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, the Building Owners and Managers Association, and Plan C all paid for their own ballot arguments. In 2007 the Chamber received more than $350,000 from PG&E in the form of dues and grants. BOMA got a $26,500 grant from the utility company, which also hired the outfit for almost $100,000 worth of consulting work. Plan C's Political Action Committee regularly receives deposits from PG&E during election season.
Other entities that signed arguments paid for by PG&E include: the San Francisco police and firefighter unions, which are constantly asking the city for more money (and now oppose a potential revenue source); the Asian Pacific Democratic Club; the Small Business Network; the Rev. Amos Brown, and the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce.
Paying for their own No on H arguments: former San Francisco Public Defender and California Public Utilities ...
This is really a Measure backed by the same racist Supervisors who are trying to kill the residents of Bay View Hunters Point with there proposed SF Peakers project 3 gas fired combustion turbines that nobody but these racists support. It is so bad even PG&E doesn't support this project and the racist double speak the sol-called clean energy measure. It should properly named the Racist Energy Measure.
5. The City has repeatedly stated its preference for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and transmission over fossil-fueled resources and, consistent with the State's energy policies, has stated that any fossil-fueled resources that are required should be clean, efficient, and flexible in order to promote environmental justice, reduce emissions, and complement increasing reliance on renewable resources.
6. Additional zoning controls will promote the pursuit and exploration of non fossilfueled energy resources by requiring certain findings regarding the availability of alternative energy resources prior to authorizing steam or fossil-fueled power plants.
7. Additional zoning controls will encourage cessation of nonconforming uses and prevent expansion, intensification, and extension of such uses.
Section 3. The San Francisco Planning Code is hereby amended by amending Section
226 to read as follows:
(p) Steam or fossil-fueled power plant, if permitted
consistent with Planning Code Section 226.1. A " power plant"
shall mean each power generation unit capable of independent
operation, but shall not include generation units less than fivemegawatts in size serving only on-site load.
Comment on: PG&E's blank check
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
