Skip to comments.
TOM MCCLINTOCK DAILY - 8/14/03
Posted on 08/14/2003 7:55:09 AM PDT by Rabid Dog
Please post any news and published views from your local area or national here. No RINO ARNIE/UNELECTABLE TOM rants please.
TOPICS: Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: calgov2002; mcclintock; misterfourpercent; mrmarginalized
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
To: Hostage
From his website www.mcclintock.com:
California's Corrupted Contracts
At the height of Californias electricity purchases in March 2001, the Wall Street Journal quoted a trading floor manager for the Bonneville Power Administration. The expert was incredulous as he watched California traders bid on electricity, at times offer(ing) to pay $50 to $100 per megawatt hour more than the available market price. He said, They agree to prices that make you wonder. Youd at least think theyd check to see what the prevailing price is before throwing out their offer.
At the same time, California officials were also committing consumers to long-term energy contracts at unprecedented prices. Californians are now paying an estimated $14 billion above the market price for this power unnecessarily adding about $1,400 to an average consumers electricity bill.
How could the interests of California consumers be so completely compromised? The answer to that question may free them from the contracts.
In the winter of 2000-01, Southern California Edison and other utility monopolies tottered on brink of bankruptcy. Caught in a vortex of bad policy, they were losing billions of dollars and were desperate to be relieved of their burdens.
In January, the Governor declared that a cornerstone of his energy policy was to prevent utility bankruptcies. To do so, he substituted taxpayer funds for the utilities capital plunging the state into the power-buying business on behalf of those utilities.
Davis hired Vikram Budhraja, a former senior vice president with Southern California Edison, to oversee the purchases. Budhraja and his colleagues ignored state law that requires public officials to disclose outside sources of income, and began a frenzied and reckless buying binge that stunned veteran traders.
Southern California Edisons finances improved dramatically, with the utility posting a profit of $121 million last quarter. Californias state finances were devastated, and consumers electricity rates soared.
It was not until July 12, 2001 that Budhraja finally filed the required financial disclosures, revealing that he had received over $100,000, from Southern California Edisons parent company while overseeing Californias negotiations. (He also purchased between $10,000 and $100,000 of Edison stocks just four days after signing his contract with the state, selling them eleven days later for a 44 percent profit.)
Shouldnt there be a law against that kind of conflict of interest? There already is. Government Code section 1090 is unambiguous: (State) employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity. Specifically, if that public official has received more than five percent of his income from an entity affected by that contract, the contract is void.
The Davis administration defends Budhrajas conduct by contending that he never negotiated directly with his financial benefactor. State Schools Superintendent Bill Honig unsuccessfully tried the same defense against conflict of interest charges in 1992. California courts have consistently ruled that the financial interest may be direct or indirect and even include the contingent possibility of benefit. In Budhrajas case, the very purpose of the contracts was to shore up Edisons finances.
There is no question that Budhraja was involved in the long term power contracts, that the contracts affected Edisons finances and that Budhraja received over $100,000 from Edison while he was involved. The only question remaining is, did Budhrajas Edison payments exceed five percent of his total income? If they did, the contracts are void.
The two parties who know for sure Budhraja and Edison arent talking. The Davis administration isnt asking. And the Attorney General, responsible under the state constitution for enforcing the law, isnt acting.
Last week, a non-profit legal group, the U.S. Justice Foundation, filed suit in superior court seeking to do what the Administration hasnt: to enforce Californias existing anti-corruption law.
Will Californians be locked into sky-high electricity prices for years to come? Without a fundamental change in Californias current regime, the laws last line of defense is again the courts.
To: Rabid Republican
His senate website also has a lot of info. I won't bore you with any more stuff other than this overview of the lawsuite he filed. It's dated back in May 2002 I believe:
(Senator Tom McClintock today filed a lawsuit to void Californias costly long-term energy contracts. The suit, McClintock v. Budhraja, was filed this morning in Pasadena Superior Court. Senator McClintock is asking the Court to void the long-term energy contracts under Government Code Section 1090, conflict of interest law. Attached are Senator McClintocks remarks on the filing of the lawsuit.)
This is a simple and clear-cut issue involving an estimated $14 billion in electricity overcharges that are now borne by 10 million California consumers as a result of the long-term electricity contracts approved last year by this administration.
Under the California Government Code, public contracts may not be negotiated by individuals who have a direct or indirect financial interest in those contracts. If that interest amounts to five percent of the officials total income, the mere presence of the conflict voids the contract.
On January 18th, 2001, Mr. Vikram Budhraja signed an agreement with the state of California to oversee electricity purchases for the state of California, the declared purpose of which was to avert the bankruptcy of Californias Investor-Owned Utilities, including Southern California Edison.
In that capacity, Mr. Budhraja was involved in the negotiation and approval of the long-term power contracts that now obligate consumers. While Mr. Budhraja acted in this capacity, he failed to file financial disclosure statements as required by law.
When those financial disclosure statements were finally filed, they revealed that Mr. Budhraja received over $100,000 from Southern California Edisons parent company during this period while he was also acting in an official capacity on public contracts that relieved Edison of its financial losses.
It is therefore necessary to prove just three things.
First, that Mr. Budhraja was involved in any way in the negotiation or approval of the contracts. This is obvious under the terms of his own agreement with the state, as well as repeated statements made by the governor and other state officials.
Second, that Southern California Edison had either a direct or indirect financial interest in the contracts, the declared purpose of which was to prevent its bankruptcy. This question is self-evident.
Third, that the more than $100,000 payment Mr. Budhraja received from Edison constituted at least five percent of his income.
If these three conditions are met, then under state law, the contracts are void. We believe that these three conditions have been met. We believe that the high prices now being paid by California consumers are the product of financial conflicts of interest that are forbidden by state law, and that the contracts are accordingly null and void.
California consumers are paying an estimated $14 billion more than they should be for electricity or $1,400 in overcharges that the average ratepayer is paying for precisely nothing. These consumers have a right to the protections of state law that forbid public contracts from being tainted by any financial entanglements of their public officials. And we now ask the court to invoke that law.
This suit is being filed with the legal assistance of the U.S. Justice Foundation, a private non-profit legal firm.
# # #
The lawsuit challenging the energy contracts can be read at:
http://www.usjf.net/html/energycomplaint.html
To: Mr. Mojo; Wolfstar
Tom on Fox or MSNBC confirmed that he is very PRO 2nd Amendment and that he will see that ALL laws regarding immigration are applied and adhered to...
doing much beyond that will draw out the racist claims by the anti-conservative media. He also told the CRA endorsing convention that he believes the 187 did NOT get
a reasonable hearing in the courts and thinks he can go
back to be judged in an appeals process and is in favor of
it getting another hearing!
Sounds pretty strong on guns and borders to me!
43
posted on
08/14/2003 10:24:27 AM PDT
by
christynsoldier
(Facta non verba! (deeds, not words...))
To: christynsoldier; kellynla
That's my guy!! I believe this is the interview you were talking about kellnyla.
To: Hostage
A sincere thank you for your concise and easily understood analysis of the California energy problem. It's not a subject I'm well versed in, so having it explained to me in a nutshell as you did is very useful.
45
posted on
08/14/2003 10:35:44 AM PDT
by
Wolfstar
(And an angel rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
To: Rabid Republican
Davis is scared sh!tless over that. The bills are being sent out at a rate of 600,000 per week, now for four or five weeks, so Davis has lost 3 million "NO" votes already.
To: Sabertooth
Ping to #43
Tom on Fox or MSNBC confirmed that he is very PRO 2nd Amendment and that he will see that ALL laws regarding immigration are applied and adhered to... doing much beyond that will draw out the racist claims by the anti-conservative media. He also told the CRA endorsing convention that he believes the 187 did NOT get a reasonable hearing in the courts and thinks he can go back to be judged in an appeals process and is in favor of it getting another hearing! Sounds pretty strong on guns and borders to me!
43 posted on 08/14/2003 10:24 AM PDT by christynsoldier (Facta non verba! (deeds, not words...))
47
posted on
08/14/2003 10:43:57 AM PDT
by
Canticle_of_Deborah
(The 12th Republican Commandment: "Thou shalt not alienate thy base")
To: Rabid Republican
This is the single most egregious blob of bovine excrement that anyone could lay on the ignorant. It is paid for yellow journalism.
The piece you lay up confuses the spot market with the individual longterm contracts negotiated with each individual energy company.
The spot market was spiked by the onslaught of Califoria's bids. It's the same as if a hostile takeover had been attempted of a particular stock on a market. Those spot market purchases were for short term patching of the rolling brownouts that California put itself through. They were desperate. Who caused that desperation? California's desperation caused desperation in Washington State as well as the BPA shipped power to California for a higher price, leaving Washingtonians with an energy supply shortage, i.e. California's shortage spread to nearby states.
The longterm contracts are completely separate. FERC has already decided that these contracts are legitimate and are separate from spot market dynamics.
The original litigation started with claims over the $3B remaining in accounts of the bankrupt purchsing agencies. It expanded to $9B last year as California's political expansion found it convenient to scapegoat energy companies. It was expanded again this year to $14B as California went back further in time to seek more contracts they thought should be abrogated. They are out of luck. They will get no abrogation of contracts because Federal judges with expert stafs have already determined that the contracts were separate from the spot market activities.
A contract is a contract. They were signed eagerly and willingly by Davis.
If your candidate believes this garbage from his campaign's website, then he is a loser and should not hold any office. I suspect he is allowing people to tell him what to do here, i.e. he's a lemming.
48
posted on
08/14/2003 11:26:36 AM PDT
by
Hostage
To: Wolfstar
My pleasure. The reason that most people dont the true details behind this debacle is because our media is inept. They focus on scandal, mystery and intrigue.
Enron was their focal point and they decided to follow the political winds at the time and paint the energy industry with the Enron brush. Politicians such as Davis thought that was a great way to avoid responsibility. But Enron was an accounting scandal, not an energy scandal. Journalists, if they can be called that, blurred the distinction.
49
posted on
08/14/2003 11:35:51 AM PDT
by
Hostage
To: Hostage
(State) employees shall not be financially interested in any contract made by them in their official capacity. Specifically, if that public official has received more than five percent of his income from an entity affected by that contract, the contract is void." Government Code 1090 And where did you say you graduated from law school?
50
posted on
08/14/2003 11:40:43 AM PDT
by
kellynla
("C" 1/5 1st Mar. Div. An Hoa, Viet Nam '69 & '70 Semper Fi)
To: kellynla
It's a red herring. They are confusing longterm contracts with shortterm spot market purchases. They won't get anywhere with it.
If McClintock's supporters try to fly the energy crisis from that angle, not only will they crash, they will forever be branded as political dunderheads.
Whatever people think of McClintock, the discussion on this forum leaves no doubt that he is either politically dim or his supporters are misguided.
51
posted on
08/14/2003 11:44:21 AM PDT
by
Hostage
To: Hostage
I still haven't heard where you graduated from law school?
52
posted on
08/14/2003 11:46:49 AM PDT
by
kellynla
("C" 1/5 1st Mar. Div. An Hoa, Viet Nam '69 & '70 Semper Fi)
To: kellynla
You're asking me about my business? I am not at issue here. The issue is the probable cluelessness of McClintock with respect to Energy.
Ask a question of fact related to the California's energy debacle. Probe into individual posters and you will get nowhere.
53
posted on
08/14/2003 11:50:01 AM PDT
by
Hostage
To: Hostage
I didn't think you graduated from law school. That's why I asked. Have a good day.
54
posted on
08/14/2003 11:51:29 AM PDT
by
kellynla
("C" 1/5 1st Mar. Div. An Hoa, Viet Nam '69 & '70 Semper Fi)
To: christynsoldier
Sounds pretty strong on guns and borders to me! Then why didn't he address either of these issues in his policy paper?
55
posted on
08/14/2003 12:33:34 PM PDT
by
Mr. Mojo
To: Rabid Republican; heleny; Ernest_at_the_Beach; NormsRevenge; GrandMoM
ping! Tom McClintock @ 2:15PM MSNBC Lester Holt Live. Ernest please ping the usual suspects, thanks!
56
posted on
08/14/2003 1:51:29 PM PDT
by
kellynla
("C" 1/5 1st Mar. Div. An Hoa, Viet Nam '69 & '70 Semper Fi)
To: kellynla; *calgov2002; fooman; PeoplesRep_of_LA; Canticle_of_Deborah; NormsRevenge; snopercod; ...
57
posted on
08/14/2003 4:03:25 PM PDT
by
Ernest_at_the_Beach
(All we need from a Governor is a VETO PEN!!!)
To: kellynla; Hostage
I didn't think you graduated from law school. That's why I asked. Have a good day. Kellynla, way to totally punk out another know-it-all Out-Of-Stater trying to lecture all of us on McClintock/our issues. They can't seem to stay away when his name is on here.
Keep up the good work. This Buffet appt is a loud alarm bell, we're turning the tide.
58
posted on
08/14/2003 4:13:51 PM PDT
by
PeoplesRep_of_LA
(Governor McClintock on October 7, 2003!)
To: PeoplesRep_of_LA
I lived in California for most of my life. It's people like you that have hosed that state to near bankruptcy because you think attacking individuals will solve problems.
Your McClintock and his supporters don't seem to have a clue as to what caused the energy mess. For that reason alone he will lose.
If Californian's like you two toadies can't take the grey matter out of your posterior and see what has to be done to straighten out energy by dealing sanely with energy companies, there won't be any worthwhile movement of returning California back to pragmatic conservatives.
Listening to you, it appears McClintock has no vision. If that is accurate then it is easy to see that
McClintock will be no Reagan. He's would not even be up to par with Pete Wilson.
59
posted on
08/14/2003 8:14:27 PM PDT
by
Hostage
To: Hostage; kellynla
It's people like you that have hosed that state to near bankruptcy because you think attacking individuals will solve problems. Don't even try to flame me, you don't even know me any more than you have a clue about the legality of the long term Energy contracts. You're just some loudmouth know-it-all blowhard from the Outside looking in that likes to put optimists down. How do I know that? You launch into a multitopical tirade, linking your baseless attack to McClintock "having no vision" which I found particuarly funny thank you, after I accurately pointed out that kellynla unmasked your facade of knowing the "issues" and edumacating us "toades". I particuarly enjoyed the hypocracy of saying I drove the state to bankruptcy because I attack individuals, then proceed to do NOTHING BUT PERSONALLY ATTACK ME AND MCCLINTOCK'S SUPPORTERS! Are you trying to be silly or are you always this emotional?
60
posted on
08/14/2003 8:34:29 PM PDT
by
PeoplesRep_of_LA
(Governor McClintock on October 7, 2003!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-83 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson