Hedge Clippers, a group of political activists who work to reveal the unprincipled use of hedge fund money to influence politics and education, have posted the names of the billionaires (and millionaires) who have sunk large sums into the Los Angeles school board race in hopes of electing their favorites, Nick Melvoin and Kelly Fitzpatrick-Gonez.
Many of their financial backers are major Republican donors and allies of Trump and DeVos.
The California Charter School Association (CCSA), directly and through its network of entities, has been the biggest spender in the 2017 election for Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) school board members to represent Districts 4 and 6, having spent over $4 million to-date. Nearly all of CCSA’s political campaign funding comes from millionaires and billionaires. Out-of-town billionaires make up the bulk of this funding.
Between July 2016 – December 2016, out-of-town billionaires like Doris Fisher, Co-Founder of The Gap, Alice Walton, heiress to the WalMart fortune, and Michael Bloomberg, New York financier and former Mayor, all made big political contributions to the California Charter School Association Advocates (CCSAA) Independent Expenditure Committee.
The combined net worth of these three out-of-town billionaires is $125.5 BILLION. Doris Fisher lives in San Francisco, Alice Walton lives in Bentonville, Arkansas and Michael Bloomberg lives in New York City.
Additionally, numerous contributors to the CCSAA political fund are Trump supporters, a position that puts them out-of-sync with the majority of Los Angeles voters.
Alice Walton and the WalMart family, for example, donated to the Super PAC that worked to elect Trump, donated to Mike Pence, Jeff Sessions, and to the Alliance for School Choice, an organization that Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos helped to lead. Richard Riordan, who gave $1 milion to CCSAA to then launch an independent expenditure committee working to elect Melvoin and Gonez, is a Trump supporter and donor. [i] Many other CCSAA donors are as well.
CCSA has poured money into these school board races directly through its Independent Expenditure Committee, [ii] and has also acting as a pass through for three other independent expenditure committees that are involved in the race.
CCSAA sponsors and funds[iii] the deceptively named Parent Teacher Alliance (PTA), also a big electoral spender.
The PTA, CCSAA helps fund[iv] the Students for Education Reform (SFER) Action Network, which also spent money on this election.
LA Students for Change Opposing Steve Zimmer for School Board 2017 is funded by a $1,000,000 donation[v] from former LA Mayor Richard Riordan that was received through CCSAA
According to available filings,[vi] CCSAA and the groups it funds have provided almost all the independent electoral spending on behalf of Nick Melvoin and Kelly Gonez in the hotly contested District 4 and 6 races.
To see the footnotes and the specific contributions attributed to donors, as well as their political affiliations, read the link.
It is shocking to see the combination of rightwing Republicans and Democrats-in-name-only who have gathered behind Melvoin solely to advance the cause of privatizing public school students and funding.
The only way to stop them is to be informed, inform your friends and neighbors, and if you live in the contested districts in Los Angeles, get out and vote for Steve Zimmer and Imelda Padilla. Bring your friends and neighbors out to vote. Stop the hijacking of the LAUSD.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
This is almost the same as the Rotten Boroughs in England before 1832.
I will continue to insist that we establish geographical boundaries for political contributions. Why should anyone outside of the state of California be able to influence school board elections in that state. In fact, why should people who live outside of that school district be able to influence that election. We have free speech. Speechify all you want but donating money to political campaigns that do not directly affect you or your family should not be allowed.
Why should anyone outside of a state have anything to do with the selection of that state’s representatives? Why should anyone outside of a congressional district be able to donate funds to a candidate for that representative office? Putting geographical limits on political money would put limits of outsiders controlling our own affairs. The only office that should allow donations of political money from everyone id the presidency. That is the only office that represents everyone. In the current system, a few rich people can decide who our representatives are by providing huge resources to candidates they approve of.
We have a name for trying to affect elections and votes that involve people who do not represent you; it is called influence peddling and is illegal.
Stop the corruption at district and state lines. Stop the influence peddling.
While I agree with you wholeheartedly, to really solve the problem we probably have to move toward some form of public funding. Disallowing outside funding certainly is an important first step.
LOVE the name…hedge clippers….my chuckle for today!
What is WRONG with these people? Answer: GREED!
This is worth noting.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is active in funding the destruction of public schools in California. A recent target is Los Angeles with the usual propaganda of supporting “high-quality public schools.”
In November 2016, the Gates Foundation sent $24,985,965 to “Great Public Schools Now,“ to be used “to replicate the number of high-quality public schools in Los Angeles, increase the quality and retention teachers and leaders, engage families and communities, and remove barriers to facilities.” This is in addition to $6.5 million over multiple years to the California Charter School Association, including grants for operating support.
The Great Public Schools Now (GPSN) website shows that it is a non-profit set up to “invest in “four core grant-making areas:
Community Engagement across Los Angeles
Supporting Teachers and Leaders
Replication & Expansion of High Quality Schools – Charter and District-Governed
Facilities Support for High Quality Charters that are expanding or adding schools.”
This year, the website publihed a request for proposals (rfp)” for L.A. Unified High-Quality School Replication and Expansion.” The deadline was March 8, 2017 for “five implementation grants ranging from $50,000 to $250,000 annually for up to three years, based on meeting annual outcomes.” Ten neighborhoods were targeted for these grants.
For these neighbords, here is the operational definition of a “high quality school” worthy of replication/expansion.
School academic performance: GPSN will invest in replicating high quality public schools that, at a minimum, meet the following achievement thresholds:
(a) 50% of the students in the existing school met or exceeded proficiency in ELA or Math in the latest CAASPP school wide results,
or
(b) The existing school scored significantly better than charter and district-operated public schools that the students would otherwise attend in both Math and ELA,
but
(c) no fewer than 25% of its students are performing at proficient levels.
Student Demographics: GPSN will focus on investing in schools where the majority of students are socioeconomically disadvantaged as measured by the percentage who qualify for a free or reduced price lunch (FRL). Schools that serve 80% or more frl-eligible populations will receive priority consideration.” (P.4)
GPSN is agnostic about any particular model of governance, programmatic design or labor agreement. For this RFP, district-governed magnets, pilots, and traditional campuses are all welcome to apply. Even so, “GPSN will establish separate processes to support charter public schools, in recognition of the very different regulatory processes and logistical hurdles required to open charters, and to ensure equitable access to resources.” p. 5
There can be no doubt that union busting is one of the aims of this grant program. Among the criteria for evaluating proposals the applicant must answer this question “Will the school leader have autonomy over staffing and performance management? Please provide supporting evidence (waivers, letters of commitment, etc.)
On page 18 the priorities for the GPSN grants turns out to be marketing: “They are intended to support costs specifically related to school replication or expansion. Therefore, start-up or one-time costs related to expansion or replication (marketing, community outreach, consulting capacity, temporary positions, etc.) will receive priority.“
A rubric for rating each proposal, pages 23-24 shows that the whole program of grants is built on a factory model of replication and a franchise model of “expansion.” http://www.greatpublicschoolsnow.org/vision
If you cut through the hype, you can see that Great Public Schools Now is not about improving public schools.The contributors to it are intent on promoting test scores in one or two subjects and keeping high poverty schools in place, with any associated segregation.
Moreover, the 2015 990 form reveals that Great Public Schools Now operates as a slush fund for Great Public Schools Los Angeles, sharing staff and resources worth about $82,500 with a PAC that “supports political candidates “who set a sustainable course for great public schools.” And judging from the 990 form the Gates cash infusion was really needed for the current round of grants and political activity.
You can learn more about this “dark money” operation at http://scribd-download.com/great-public-schools-los-angeles-dark-money-superpac-articles-of-incorporation_58c9f403ee34352a775cf841_pdf.html
Laura,
“Great Public Schools Now” is integral to Eli Broad’s plan to get half of L.A.’s students into privately run schools and cripple the public schools.