Wednesday, October 18, 2006

New Levels Of Hypocrisy From The Chuck Reed Campaign

Chuck Reed has gone on rampant campaign of hypocrisy sinking to new lows over the past week showing the public how truly desperate he has become. Reed is claiming that Chavez accepted donations from parties who "sought or won contracts" from the Santa Clara Valley Tansportation Authority.

Reed asserts that these companies donated money in excess of contribution limits. He supports this claim by pointing to the fact that the officers or spouses of officers from these companies made donations to Chavez. The insinuation is that these were artificial donors.

Besides being blatantly circumstantial and baseless, does Chuck not know that his campaign has been built on the same practices? Remember Dennis Fong? Fong:

"donated $500 to Chuck Reed's campaign, Jennie Fong - the property manager at
Tropicana - donated her $500. Gloria Walker - the office manager at Fong
Enterprises - donated her $500 as well."

I think it's time to get sleuthing into Chuck's disclosures to count up how many husband and wife combinations from companies donated to him as well. (Remember the case of mistaken identity that occured with John Salah?

"He donated $100 to Reed's campaign. (12/31/2005)

Dan Salah donated $500
to Reed's campaign. (1/10/2006)

Janet Salah donated $150 to Reed's
campaign. (3/17/2006)"

Point is that trying to insinuate that Cindy broke campaign finance restrictions by receiving money from officers of companies and/or their spouses is reediculous... and hypocritical.

The crux of Reed's position is that it was unethical for Cindy to accept money from groups that she had voted on the past. Well, what did Karen Getman, an attorney and a former chair of the FPPC say:

"I'm not at all sure that there's any problem,'' Getman said.

Another interesting sleight of hand by the Reed camp comes in the form of the "sought or won" distinction. So Chuck is upset that Cindy received donations from companies that "sought" contracts from the VTA but that she voted against? Somehow... that shows... bias?

Wasn't Reed the one only weeks ago complaining about whisper campaigns and baseless accusations? Well, why didn't he sit back, check with an attorney, check with Chavez, etc. before going on a crusade against Cindy?

Chavez countered that Reed - in all his moral outrage about gambling money being contributed to the Democratic Party (not to Cindy, for the record) - accepted donations from "two investors in a limited partnership called Game Too, which was pursuing a possible Indian casino south of Gilroy in 2004. " Reed's response? He says he had no idea of their intentions "he had never been approached by anyone identifying himself as a representative of Game Too." [But don't forget about his quote only a week ago that "(H)e said he once got a phone call from a representative inquiring whether he'd be supportive" - and we're all confident that Chuck - who has already demonstrating questionable integrity when it comes to political contributions - wasn't referring to Game Too???]

Take a step back: Reed's allegation is that Cindy helped companies receive contracts and then later received contributions from these companies. His implication is that she scratched their back and now they're scratching hers. But the fact that some companies who LOST these contracts donated to her as well suggests that maybe these bidders were just confident in the process that she conducted in the first place. Why would winners and losers donate to her?

Chuck adroitly plays on people's repulsion to a political/ethical norm opposing receiving money and then supporting such donors' interests. But recall that here, the sequence of events was the reverse: she happened to support some people's interests and later received financial support from these groups. Chuck's claim is that this is circumstantial evidence that Cindy will be bought in the future.

It is ironic that this contention comes from Reed. Reed is the one who followed the reverse (and more reprehensible) chain of events:

1) Reed received money from Los Esteros - a client represented by Reed.
2) Reed then voted on proposals that financially benefited Los Esteros.

While Chuck's claim is that her acceptance of such contributions suggests Cindy may act in their interest in the future, Reed's track record shows that he has been bought and sold in the past.

And what ever happened to Los Esteros? One thing we do know is that the shopping center that the gas stations that Chuck represented are inside of or adjacent to later donated $500 to Reed's campaign. That's right: McCarthy Ranch has donated $500 to Reed's campaign.

Explain that one away, Reed.


At 11:36 AM, Anonymous Larry hughes said...

This smells of desperation within the Reed campaign.

I like how yesterday the SJI'ers commented about how they hoped Chuck wouldn't go below the belt...(when he already had)

Are they going to apply the same verbal wrath they applied to Cindy for "going negative"?

Probably not. Hypocrites.

At 1:05 PM, Anonymous SJ voter said...

Wow, you really can't read can you. The complaint was not that husbands and wives could not make contributions it was that companies doing business with the VTA were giving money to Cindy and she was voting on their projects which is against the law.

If you want to be taken seriously and not look like a hack for the Chavez campaign you should try understanding the issues you are attempting to write about.

At 1:09 PM, Anonymous SJ voter said...

Oh and by the way the shopping center and gas station you refer to are still vacant lots.

At 1:45 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No one leaves posts on your site because the race is done (see

Good news, the electorate knows something. Restore the Pride with Reed!

At 1:56 PM, Blogger Mr. 408 said...

Hey SJ Voter:

I actually can read. It is ironic that as you make your complaint about my alleged inability to read, you write with run-on sentences lacking punctuation. Very classy!

Reed made a number of allegations against Cindy. One of which appears to be that donors artificially channelled money through husbands/wives/officers in order to exceed campaign finance restrictions. I don't think anybody thought that Chuck was claiming that there was a prohibition on spousal contributions.

Our response to Chuck? That Dennis Fong - one of Chuck's biggest supporters has already done this. Fong, a man bent on bringing down Chavez, is trying to find any and every way of buying influence.

I am well aware that this was not the only point that Chuck made. This was but one of the many reasons that Chuck was being hypocritical.

Chuck claims he's Mr. Ethical. He's not. That was the general thesis of the post.

At 12:08 PM, Anonymous City Insider said...

"Well, why didn't he sit back, check with an attorney, check with Chavez, etc. before going on a crusade against Cindy?"

This is a statment that Cindy should have embraced before going on a crusade against Reed for his reimbursements. She first embarrased him in public and then asked the City Attorney and Finance Department if he had done something wrong. They clarified that he HADN'T! Still, numerous mailers went out, phone calls were made and ads in the Merc and Metro claiming he robbed the public.

There seems to be no desperation on Reed's part. The polls show he still has a good lead (only the Merc poll deamed the election a "dead heat." All others, including CBS, show he is 10+ points ahead).

I know personally and respect both Reed and Chavez. However, Chavez attacked first and at a very low level. Reed has no choice but to fight back and this might be a fight Cindy wished she had never started.


Post a Comment

<< Home