Howard Blume of the Los Angeles Times reports that a secret PAC assembled $2.3 million and funneled it to the political arm of the California Charter Schools Association, which used it to finance the campaigns of three pro-charter school candidates in the recent school board election. Two of the three won their seats, including Ref Rodriguez, who founded and runs a chain of charter schools. The names of the donors were not revealed until the election was over.
Those contributions — from philanthropist Eli Broad, heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune, former New York City Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and others — were made prior to the May 19 election to California Charter Schools Assn. Advocates, a political action committee in Sacramento. That group then forwarded campaign funds to a local affiliated committee.
The Los Angeles-based PAC was required by campaign laws only to identify the state charter group as the source of the funding, not the individual donors.
As a result, the donors remained anonymous in Los Angeles campaign filings. In September, the state charter group filed a required state report listing all its contributors.
While the practice appears to be within the law, state campaign regulators said they are concerned about how the contributions remained unreported for so long.
A spokesman for the Charter Association said it turns to outside backers because it would otherwise be outspent by the teachers union. In fact, the CCSA spent $2.7 million, compared to the union’s $1.6 million. So, follow the logic: funding provided from the salaries of teachers is comparable to funding from billionaires like the Waltons, Broad, and Bloomberg.
It’s sad that billionaires have no way to make their voices heard. So they feel compelled to try to buy the school board because they know more than the teachers who work there.
Among the charter donors not disclosed in L.A. filings was Bloomberg, who gave $350,000 in 2015. Bloomberg already had contributed $250,000 in 2014, an amount that was disclosed prior to the election because the funds arrived before the end of 2014.
Other donors from 2015 who were disclosed after the election included:
• Gap clothing co-founder Doris Fisher ($750,000). The longtime charter supporter also gave $550,000 in 2014.
• Wal-Mart Corp. heirs Carrie W. Penner ($150,000) and Jim Walton ($225,000). The two also gave a combined $620,000 in 2014.
• Grower Barbara Grimm ($500,000), owner of one of California’s largest farming operations, who started a charter school near Bakersfield. Grimm also gave $586,400 in 2014.
• Emerson Collective ($150,000), a corporation under the control of Laurene Powell Jobs, the widow of Apple founder Steve Jobs, which supports charitable and political causes.
• Investor John H. Scully ($100,000). He and his wife also gave $400,000 in 2014.
• Philanthropist Eli Broad ($50,000). He also gave $305,000 to the state charter PAC in 2014.
The issue of so-called “dark money” has touched Broad and the Fisher family before. In the 2012 election, the Fishers gave $9 million and Broad, $1 million, to groups that concealed the sources of these donations. The money was used to oppose a tax increase to fund education and in support of a ballot measure to limit union participation in political campaigns. The tax increase passed, the anti-union measure failed and the dark money maneuvering led to fines for some of the participants, although not the donors.
As in this year’s elections, the mega-donors have not always carried the day. In the 2013 elections, candidates backed by wealthy donors lost two of three contests, including one in which incumbent Steve Zimmer prevailed. He used the identity of the donors as an effective counterpunch to their resources.
“They’re truly funded by and accountable to the 1%,” Zimmer said of the charter advocacy group.
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Education.
Dear Colleagues and other readers….It is not a coincidence that the LA Times chose to publish this lead, front page, 4 column wide article, with another total 6 column half page inside, today…after the news from Rupert Murdoch only two days ago that Eli Broad had finally reached a deal and bought the LA Times. Whether that is true or not is of little consequence since Eli has a firm grip on this major newspaper and their editorial staff.
If he wants to write a self aggrandizing op-ed on what a fabulous philanthropist he is, and how we should all appreciate him, as he did some months ago (with Richard Riordan as co-author), the Times ‘hops to” and publishes it. That is why they published Diane’s op-ed a few months…to seem ‘fair and balanced’ in the words of their close cohort Murdoch. Is the public so stupid and lazy that they take this at face value?
Here is the disclaimer that they published with this article, and with all articles paid for by Broad and his profiteering group of billionaires who rule the listed non-profit partners (and these articles are believed to be vetted by his lawyers and his PR firm).
A word for word quote……………..
“The Times receives funding for its digital initiative Education Matters from the California Endowment, the Wasserman Foundation and the Baxter Family Foundation and United Way of Greater Los Angeles administer grants from the Broad Foundation to support this effort. Under terms of the grants. The Times retains complete control over editorial content.”
sic, unquote……………….
This paragraph appears almost daily, ending the consistently pro charter abd pro parent trigger articles. Today the two photos of children at clean charter schools who seem to be working diligently, clearly add to one more puff piece by Howard Blume. He, Torres, and other education ‘journalists’ write what they are told, and what they are allowed to write if they want to keep their jobs according to many reports from insiders.
Blume states that the billionaires essentially ‘had’ to pour $2.3 million, and CCSA ‘had’ to donate $2.7 million, to defeat the pro public school candidates in favor of their choices of pro charter school candidates. It implies that Refugio Rodriguez (a multi millionaire operator of 16 charter schools, and now under investigation by the district and the state for his mismanagement of finances, who won his seat on the LAUSD BoE not only with the billionaire cash, but also with Voteria, the cash payoff for Latino voters to vote) did not have enough money to compete with the unions donation of about $1.7.
In reality, and which I and others reported here during the last election, UTLA only came in with large donations late in the game after these billionaires donated these vast amounts of cash. Why would outsiders like Bloomberg and the Waltons want to influence a school board election in Los Angeles? For $$$$$$$$$ and power.
I know I posted a daily account here during the election, of the donations reported by the LA Ethics office…and as I remember, others did as well.
But still the Dems (including many in the Legislature, in this county and state, worship at the golden fountain of Emperor Eli Broad and his vast wealth.
Beware California voters of what will happen when Eli is the real Governor should the titular Villaraigosa win in the next election. Watch who donates to Tony as these oligarchs seek to take over California which alone, represents the 7th largest economy in the world.
So what else is new?
Ellen, I wonder if you could help me. Charter lobbyists in Ohio are running ads pushing for what’s called “the California method” for ranking charter schools. They don’t use this language in the ad of course. Ohio newspapers are saying the “California” system pushes charter rankings up and that’s why they’re lobbying for it. One Ohio state lawmaker said it’s an effort to weaken charter reform in Ohio.
Is that true? Does California have a special charter-friendly “accountability” measure?
Chiara…you ask an operant question that I cannot answer, but will see if I can find someone who can. Perhaps Cynthia Liu, Robert Skeels, or Karen Wolfe has that info. My old sources from CCSA no longer speak to me…not a surprise there.
Chiara, I do not understand your question.
karen@psconnectnow.org
@kwolfepack on twitter
Can you post an article where California’s system is portrayed this way?
I read a lot of ed reformers and it’s interesting to me that there’s so little discussion of Broad’s buying a public school district.
This must be huge news in ed reform circles, yet there’s no discussion of it among the lobbyists and former government employees who are (paid) ed reform movement “pundits”.
Do they think there’s some political risk to being associated with such a blatant power grab by Broad? I’m just curious why they aren’t all talking about what amounts to privatizing a huge district. This is like the fulfillment of dream for those folks. Why the silence?
Racketeers discuss their most important matters – and this is a significant one, as you state – only among themselves.
The public, seen by these Overclass grifters as rubes to be fleeced, is given the press release (tarted up via their media outlets to look like “news”) when it’s a fait accompli.
Michael hits it on the head. All of this is carried on in back rooms, or 40th story high rise offices, or Bel Air mansions. It is kept carefully under wraps….but some of us have been writing about the deformers secret meetings, mainly in private homes, for a very long time. When the huge Sony-hacked situation emerged, then then Wikileaks story about the Lyntons private emails to each other, became public knowledge many months, this most probably is what was going on.
BTW, the LA Times did a huge business article last week on Lynton.
Recently, only weeks ago, at a social gathering, a major charter owner replied to me with a laugh when I complained bitterly about Broad. She said everyone hated him so they would be using a different tack, but she left it at that. And then some days later, we heard about the new Greater Schools, ExEd, 501(C)(3) using his 50% takeover plan, but not with his name attached. This not very new news today seems to be the end result. Time will tell.
Ms. Ravitch–Please –keep your laser like focus on California and Eli Broad’s attempt to buy a whole school district. He will be siphoning off public money and profiteering from his initial investment–again using public tax payer money. These bored billionaires are hitting up both sides of our nation in an attempt to close in on the middle with their sweeping agenda of privatizing education through Charter Schools and unraveling democracy in the process all in the name “of the children”. How can we accomplish what Washington State just did-their gov’t is now refusing public monies for the funding of charter schools. This is what needs to be done in EVERY state to stop these megalomaniacs.
The exact same thing happened in the last LAUSD election. These PACs receive the money and spend it on the elections, but don’t report the donations until after the required deadline. The rule states that these donations must be reported by the end of June and the end of December. The question is……why not immediately? We know from the L.A. City Ethics office exactly how much is being spent on each candidate and from which source, so there is no doubt that the PAC receives the money well in advance of their reporting to the state.
What’s the point then if these donors can hide their contributions and not get a major penalty for doing so? Apparently, the state can assess a daily fine for not reporting on time. But, we’re looking at billionaires!!!! What do they care about a small fine? If that’s all that happens to them, they will continue to hide their contributions from the public as long as they can. Clearly, CCSA is doing this because it knows that the public is suspicious and outright against billionaires running roughshod on our economy and our public services, especially education. Look what Broad’s protegy, John Deasy, did to LAUSD?????
A pittance of a daily fine in rheephorm terms = the cost of doing business.
Yes, doing their business on us.
😱
Hope I haven’t overstepped the quite sensible “Rules of the Road” on this blog.
😎
Yes, Educator, they build the fines into the cost of doing business…and this is very big business. And they do not even get a wrist slap since so many of the California legislators are right there toeing the line for Broad and his group….because they all want in on the campaign donations…and on the charter school profits. it could not be more disgusting. Villaraigosa, who is running for Governor of California, is a major supporter of both charters, and of Eli Broad and Deasy.
“I pledge allegiance to Eli Broad”
Allegiance of the board
Is owned by Eli Broad
Who wields a dollar $word
And governs like a god
Your misspieled “goad” …
“… And governs like a God.”
But is nevertheless destined to wind up like Shelley’s “Ozymandias:”
I met a traveler from an antique land
Who said, “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that it’s sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings.
Look on my works, yet mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Or that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
In referring to that “sneer of cold command,” Shelly accurately anticipated Broad and his ilk, and the wasteland left in their wake.
No Jon…should have been…governs like a toad.
I know his name rhymes with toad (and that might actually be better — thanks!), but I have a poetic license and am not afraid to use it (in case you may not have noticed)
Your line, Mr. Rains …
Blume exposing this is not a great revelation since many suspected this all along. If this had been publicized before the election, it might have meant something. If this is an indication of la times new open investigation of LAUSD, it is so late and unsurprising. If l a times wants to be a relevant investigative body, expose all the politicians and educators in bed with public robbing charters.
This is from Blume’s twitter feed:
“Broad’s McGinity: “Unfortunate” that charter plan “leaked.” Foundation wanted to have “quiet conversations” about what to do in L.A.”
Broad is sorry that the public found out about the plans for their public schools before they could be put in “quietly” 🙂
Not just anti-democratic, but PROUDLY and PUBLICLY anti-democratic!
It’s soooo much easier when everything is done between a few business associates in a bar in the Cayman Islands.
“The Billionaire’s Beef”
Democracy’s inefficient
It takes so very long
I really am impatient
To sing my favorite song
So buy me politicians
And buy me think-tank wanks
To ram through my positions
And gain me many thank$
Poet-
You are a damn fine wordsmith, worthy of envy.
Thanks for the encouragement.
I’m not a real poet. Just someone who enjoys playing with words. Sometimes it works (I think), sometimes not (I know)
There’s many more where that came from, if you are interested.
A DAMthology of Deform, as it were.
Poet,
Thanks for the link.
Identifying Broad and Gates as philanthropists is inaccurate. They, like the Koch’s and Walton’s, are opportunistic thieves of democracy. It does not “help mankind” to rob people of their government of the people, by the people, and for the people. If the Walton’s cared about mankind, their influence in Arkansas, would have lifted the state’s population from its continued, pathetic ranking – the state with the 2nd poorest people in the nation.
The worker collective dues spent on California politics, reflect a huge number of employees who live and pay taxes in the communities that are affected.
The wealthiest 0.2% live on a different planet, where the “education dollars”, of the other planet, are only a means to further concentrate oligarch wealth and power.
The comments posted on the LA Times website are getting interesting. Here, the charter schools association attempts to defend itself –Nothing to see here folks. Move right along–
Calcharters
“This article is sadly misleading and disappointing. Unfortunately, the Times has decided to turn common and fully legal electoral practice into “gotcha” politics. CCSA Advocates has worked closely with the Times and its staff, including reporter Howard Blume, to ensure they have full knowledge of our contributions. We have directed them to all public reporting of the contributions that we have received. We are very proud of our compliance and transparency record. The Fair Political Practices Commission and our independent auditors have consistently found our reporting to be fully compliant. Our donors are long time education reformers who want nothing more than to see children receive better educational opportunities. They, and we, are certainly accustomed to having that support be public. We have never tried to shield anyone from anything. And we believe readers are more interested in examining the quality of the Los Angeles public education system along with the creative ideas and educational models, such as charter schools, that are delivering much-needed results and have the power to transform the system.”
-Gary Borden, Executive Director, CCSA Advocates
Karen Wolfe,
That is really funny. If the CCSA were fully transparent, why did it withheld the names of the big donors until after the school board election? As I read in Howard Blume’s article, the ethics law requires disclosure before the election. Will CCSA get a slap on the wrist?
Exactly, Diane. CCSA thinks that because they fed the LA Times the bare minimum information required under the law, that the free and fair (for now) press in Los Angeles should ignore the rest? If the CCSA donors really wanted to be transparent, they would have donated directly to the deceptively named Parent Teacher Alliance (PTA). But if they had, the more frequent City Ethics reports would have revealed before the election that the same Billionaire Boys Club that is trying to buy school districts across the country was at work in this one, too. That mattered in Steve Zimmer’s election when many of us rose up to fight that outside money. They learned from their experience that it’s better to hide until after the election.
The Supreme Court has decided that money is speech. They’re right; money talks. It’s a disgrace that election law allows that conversation to be hidden until it’s too late.
Actually, Diane, they were very clever. Donations to state PACs are disclosed less frequently than donations to local PACs. By donating to the STATE organization, they avoided disclosure before the election, even though the money ended up in local hands.
For academic reference nerds: “PAC Shielded L.A. Charter Backers: Donations not revealed until after board election” L.A. Times, 2 Dec 2015; online at http://www.latimes.com/includes/sectionfronts/A1.pdf