Eric Garcetti Challenges Wendy Greuel To Donate Half Of SuperPAC Funds To Charity

City Councilman Eric Garcetti challenged rival Controller Wendy Greuel to donate half of the outside funds spent on their respective L.A. mayoral campaigns to charity at a Sherman Oaks debate on Wednesday.

Garcetti says he wants to lessen special interests' influence in the 2013 mayor's race. Greuel is his closest rival in the race.

Independent expenditure committees and SuperPACs aren't governed by contribution limits, and can spend lavishly on candidates. The committees are forbidden from coordinating with the candidates campaigns, but they hold huge influence since they can buy advertising, mailers and radio spots.

Greuel looked taken aback by Garcetti's question. She called it "gimmicky" and said she'd "look at" his proposal.

The challenge came during a lively stretch of the debate, when the participating candidates, which included Greuel, Garcetti, Councilwoman Jan Perry and attorney Kevin James, asked one another questions.

All are vying to succeed Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who is termed out in June.

The debate, moderated by L.A. Weekly reporter Gene Maddaus, was hosted by the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association. It was attended by a few hundred people, who applauded at certain points for each of the four candidates.

In raising the issue of campaign financing, Garcetti pointed to Massachusetts, where Sen. Scott Brown (R) and his Democratic rival, Elizabeth Warren opted to keep SuperPACs, funds raised by outsiders, out of their race.

"Will you agree to do the following..to pledge to spend half of whatever they do, and give it to a charity of the other person's choice," he asked Greuel. "Will you make that pledge, too?"

Greuel responded that most of her campaign donations come in small amounts.

"Tonight is the first I have heard about it...so I appreciate the somewhat gimmicky suggestion that you're suggesting tonight," Greuel said. "But I think what the public wants is to make sure is that we're talking about the issues that are important to our community and to our neighborhoods."

The question came two days after a political consultant said Greuel received the backing of the powerful Department of Water and Power union IBEW, which is promising to spend money on an extensive television campaign for Greuel.

Garcetti's proposal also came on the day that the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents rank and file officers, endorsed Greuel. The league reportedly spent more than $700,000 on Carmen Trutanich's run for city attorney in 2009.

But it was the DWP union's pledge to fund Greuel that became a theme throughout the night.

"I do believe that if people spend a lot of money on you in an election, they aren't doing it just because they love you. They want something from you," Garcetti said at one point. He said he supports elections that only rely on public financing.

An ABC7/Survey USA poll released Wednesday found that Garcetti is leading the race.

Garcetti garnered 26 percent of the vote, while Greuel took in 18 percent of the vote. James and Perry both tied for third with 12 percent each.

The poll, conducted by phone, and online, interviewed 1,000 people. The poll didn't list the margin of error, but James' campaign said the margin of error was 4.3 percent.

dakota.smith@dailynews.com

213-978-0390

twitter.com/dakotacdsmith ___

Also on HuffPost:

View the original article here

California Prison Population: Jerry Brown Challenges Inmate Cap

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Reducing California's inmate population further to meet a federal order would endanger public safety and require the state to ignore its own sentencing laws, Gov. Jerry Brown warned Tuesday as he challenged judges to reject those options.

After years of changes, the Democratic governor said California would have to grant shorter sentences to inmates convicted of violent or serious felonies to meet the court's mandate.

He also called for restoring the state's authority over its prison system, vowing to take that battle to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.

The prison population cap was imposed in 2009 after federal judges blamed crowding for dismal conditions that violated inmates' constitutional rights and resulted in the death of an average of one inmate a week due to neglect or poor care.

The judges gave the state until June to reduce the population of California's 33 adult prisons by about 33,000 inmates, to a total of 110,000 inmates.

"Under protest we're offering some options for further release. But make no mistake about it: Releasing prisoners who were convicted of serious and dangerous crimes is not in the public interest," Brown said at a Capitol news conference where he called for the judges to rescind the population cap order.

California already is sending thousands of less-serious offenders to local jails instead of state prisons under a 14-month-old state law designed to reduce crowding and prison spending. But the state is still set to fall short of the court-imposed population cap.

"It's not a smart idea or a sound idea to add further to the burden of the counties," Brown said.

Brown's administration said in court documents filed overnight Monday that it could comply with the court's current population cap only if the federal court waives numerous state laws and "orders the outright early release of inmates serving prison terms for serious and violent felonies."

The plan includes granting early release credits to "second strike" inmates who have serious prior convictions, the state said. State sentencing laws would also have to be changed, and inmates who would normally serve nine months or less in state prison would have to spend their time in county jails.

The state also could lower the threshold for sending inmates to firefighting camps, expand work furlough, restitution centers and alternative custody programs, and keep more inmates in private prisons in other states.

Attorneys representing inmates' welfare said the state could adopt those changes without endangering the public, while saving money.

"Incarceration is the most expensive of all the options for taking care of people in the criminal justice system," said Michael Bien, one of the lead attorneys for inmates.

Attorneys also argued in their court filing that, while conditions have improved, inmates still are needlessly dying of neglect and mentally ill inmates go untreated.

Brown's reasoning also drew swift criticism from reform groups.

"Rather than implement the kinds of sentencing reforms that would significantly reduce the number of people needlessly behind bars in California, Gov. Brown has instead committed to business as usual," said Allen Hopper, director of criminal justice and drug policy for the American Civil Liberties Union of California.

Spending more money on prisons means less money for other needs such as public schools, he said in an email.

Brown argued that the conditions that led to the court oversight – extremely poor medical and mental health care for inmates – have been solved and prisoners now receive care exceeding constitutional levels.

Brown ended a 2006 emergency proclamation by former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that let the state send thousands of inmates to private prisons in other states. Brown's move cleared the way for them to be returned to California starting in July.

"California is a powerful state. We can run our own prisons. And by God, let those judges give us our prisons back. We'll run them right," Brown said.

Get Alerts

View the original article here