The race for state superintendent in California cost over $26 million, far more than the governor’s race. Tom Torlakson, the incumbent, was supported by the California Teachers Association. Marshall Tuck, the charter school executive, received large sums from billionaires. The key issue between them was teacher due process rights. Torlakson appealed the Vergara decision; Tuck prouded not to do do.
The Network for Phblic Education, which endorsed Torlakson, analyzed the spending behind Tuck’s campaign.
“Heavy hitters in the “education reform” movement, namely Broad, Walton and Fisher, really stepped up to the plate for Tuck by donating millions to multiple Independent Expenditure Committees, (AKA Super PACs) as well as smaller direct contributions to Tuck’s campaign. The biggest Super PAC contributing to Tuck was the deceptively named “Parents and Teachers for Tuck for State Superintendent, 2014.” The Super PAC’s funding came from no less than a baker’s dozen of privatization focused billionaires, and assorted elites from the financial and technology sectors, with a net contribution of almost 10 million dollars.
“Parents and Teachers for Tuck also received contributions from a host of other Super PACs with names like Parents and Teachers for Putting Students First, Education Matters, EDVOICE, and Great Public Schools for Los Angeles. A closer look at these Super PACs tells us that they too are funded by essentially the same cast of characters behind Parents and Teachers for Tuck, with additional millions from the Broad, Fisher and Walton families lining the coffers of each of the Super PACs.
“But you’d be hard pressed to find a public school parent or teacher who contributed to any of the Super PACs for Tuck.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Great piece explaining the “what” and the “who”. If you want to know the “how”, take a look at this cringe-worthy fluff piece showing a slice of life of one of those billionaires, Bill Bloomfield. http://www.latimes.com/local/politics/la-me-pol-bill-bloomfield-20141207-story.html#page=1
LikeLike
Karen,
Thanks for the link. Bloomfield calls support for charter schools and attempts to deny worker associations, a voice, “leveling the playing field”. Either he’s delusional or has the same problem that the View’s Nicole Wallace and David Brooks have, no filter to prevent lying.
LikeLike
To Reformers, some playing fields are more level than others.
LikeLike
This carpet bombing of money is exactly what Chicago is going to see if we are successful in electing a mayor who supports an elected school board that actually listens to the parents and voters and students. Our advantage is that we have many well established parent lead organizations who can get the truth out to the people, we can bypass the Citizens United effect as was done in California. Too bad the deformer money won’t be widely distributed across the city, that’s the only way they can do any good for Chicagoans.
LikeLike
A haunting history of that was something I thought of when I attended the Ferguson Commission meeting in St. Louis, Monday night…the tv cameras emphasized demonstrators giving the chief of police a hard time as he filibustered to avoid real issues, but the darker news of the day was out of Jefferson City. The SAME STATE BOARD CHAIRMAN from 2006, when people who displeased the mayor and billionaire charter and voucher and deny due process to teachers champion Rex sinquefield were elected, THAT STATE BOARD CHAIRMAN helped them disenfranchise st. Louis voters…they have had an easy to control appointed board since 2008. He was jumping up and down with joy as he announced the final five outstate white people in the running to become the new state commissioner, all of them committed to his inspirational motto….Missouri in the top ten by 2020!. By God, our kids are going to learn how to take tests! If we cannot improve schools in St. Louis and surrounding areas of high rates of poverty………..we will reorganize them as charters which do not interfere with our ability to make the top ten.
Please…..put up a fight against these jerks when they start the carpet bombing…..and make no mistake…..your are right. they will.
LikeLike
by the way…at the Ferguson commission meeting Monday night….two of the most impressive speakers were members of the slps elected board…..the appointed members were nowhere to be found.
LikeLike
When you wish to gain access to propagandize our children, our future, corporations can find the money. It is an investment, not an expense.
LikeLike
Tuck’s donors may have spent the money, but they LOST the election. I have faith that
we-the-people are wising up.
LikeLike
Yes. I got a call from “singer John Legend” telling ME California teachers support Marshall Tuck, so vote for Marshall Tuck. It made me really angry. I can’t believe how many supposed democratic leaning celebrities march themselves out there and endorse candidates or positions espoused by billionaire, anti-union corporatists. I guess they are like many others. They shoot off their mouths before doing the barest of educating themselves. Tuck lost because teachers organized and campaigned, but it is hard to constantly counter the monied interests.
LikeLike
The article never says how much CTA/NEA/AFT spent in supporting Torlakson. It has details of money spent by PACs supporting Marshal Tuck. I believe CTA/NEA/AFT spent similar amount to support Torlakson. Some one can verify this info. Very one sided article indeed.
LikeLike
Raj, not that I’m doubting you but maybe you should find evidence to support your claim. Doing that will save you a lot of grief on any message board.
LikeLike
The unions spent over $10 million to support Torlakson. The facts were published in Washington Post, LA Times etc and other reputable newspapers. Data is easily available on line. I am not questioning the right of the unions (or anyone else) to spend their money any way they wish.
But an analysis should consider all the facts, not just the ones they like. The Network for Public Education is a great name and one should not be taken by the name alone.
On the other hand a blog can say anything they feel like, half truth, truth or out right lies. Reporting only the money spent on Marshal Tuck’s campaign is just half truth and is one sided. It misleads the consumer.
LikeLike
Total money spent in supporting Torlakson or against Marshal Tuck was $17,590,730 on November 3rd, day before the election.
Total money spent supporting Marshal Tuck or against Torlakson was 14,081,912 on November 3rd, day before the election.
Direct contributions to the candidates are almost identical ($2.536,633 for Torlakson and $2.428,927 to Tuck).
Direct spending being almost equal other spending (independent or advocacy) is tilted toward Torlakson ($3,233,194).
Unions contributed more than the super PACs to the election spending. They helped elect a state official with almost no real power.
Still complaining using poor data is one sided thinking or blogging indeed. Half truths are never a good way to argue ones position.
LikeLike
@raj, do you really not see the difference between union contributions, which in the case of the CTA represent the contributions and interests of over 325,000 members across the state who work with children in over 1,000 districts, and the contributions of a handful of billionaires who represent, um, well, a handful of billionaires and their privatization agenda?
I for one am glad unions outspent billionaires in an election about public education.
But the fact remains that the majority of big donors in the race were billionaires with no true stake in the race. Six of the top 10 donors are billionaires (Broad appears twice) and a seventh is an uber rich California businessman and entrepreneur. Only two of the top 10 spots go to unions, and one is not even a teachers union, it is a service employee union.
http://edsource.org/2014/a-look-at-whos-funding-torlakson-and-tuck/69036#.VGy1SZPF_fd?utm_source=BIG+money+donors+lose+BIG+in+California+State+Superintendent+Race&utm_campaign=June+24&utm_medium=email
And your statement that the unions “helped elect a state official with almost no real power” is odd considering the official in question is the educational leader of the state. Here’s how his role is defined:
“responsible for enforcing education law and regulations; and for continuing to reform and improve public elementary school programs, secondary school programs, adult education, some preschool programs, and child care programs”
http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/mn/rr/
Sure doesn’t sound like the office has no real power, especially when you consider that more than a dozen billionaires were willing to lose millions to get their own Broad trained guy into that top spot.
LikeLike
@Raj Acharya “One sided” because it doesn’t mistakenly conflate the obscene amounts of money invested by a handful of wealthy white plutocrats to advance their vile neoliberal agenda with the tens of thousands of working class teachers (many POC) that collectively provide the funding for the working class organizations you mention? If anything is one sided, it’s your commentary.
LikeLike
Raj,
The members of worker organizations, LIVE AND PAY TAXES, in our communities. The 6 Waltons heirs who have money equivalent to over 40,000,000 Americans combined, reportedly spend $160,000,000 a year to subvert public education, They don’t live with us, their stores bleed money from our communities, in both profits and food assistance for their employees, and their children/grandchildren don’t attend our schools. Your false comparison of the political spending of billionaires, who answer to no one, to dues of middle class workers, who democratically elect their representatives, is contemptible.
LikeLike
Raj,
Even if you leave out the $ spent on either side, you must ask yourself WHY are the corporate giants interested in ‘reforming’ public education. Rip your blinders off and admit that this is a business decision. As a public school parent and volunteer, I would much rather see their big money serve the public they are shredding in the name of future profit centers.
LikeLike
I have a three word response to this article… “Campaign Finance Reform”!
No democracy without this!
LikeLike