Ad Watch: Ad accurately assesses Galgiani’s role in murder case

Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani’s senatorial campaign is running a 30-second television ad that credits her for breakthroughs in the “Speed Freak Killers” mass murder case. The ad is a testimonial by John Vanderheiden, father of homicide victim Cyndi Vanderheiden, who was 25 when she was killed in 1998.

Galgiani, D-Stockton, is running against Assemblyman Bill Berryhill, R-Ceres, for the 5th District Senate seat in San Joaquin, Stanislaus and a sliver of Sacramento counties. The following is a text of the TV ad and an analysis by The Bee’s Jim Sanders:

Vanderheiden: When my daughter Cyndi went missing, it was torture. Cathleen Galgiani helped us find her and bury her. Cathleen stopped one of the killers from getting loose. She got the reward money to find the victims. Then she got the killer’s map to where the victims were. Please vote for Cathleen. She means the world to us.

Analysis

Although voters should not infer that Galgiani alone reopened the case, obtained maps or stopped a parole release, the ad is correct that Galgiani was a driving force in matters involving the Speed Freak Killers. Galgiani has an intensely personal interest: For years, she has had a nagging suspicion, never proved, that the duo killed her cousin Dena McHan in 1981.

Vanderheiden is referring to events surrounding Loren Herzog and Wesley Shermantine, who terrorized San Joaquin and Calaveras counties years ago. Shermantine was convicted of four killings, Herzog three, but the latter’s convictions were overturned on appeal.

Herzog ultimately pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was paroled last year to a trailer at a Susanville prison, where he hanged himself in January.

Stockton Record reporter Scott Smith, local bounty hunter Leonard Padilla and retired FBI agent Jeff Rinek played key roles in obtaining cooperation and maps from Shermantine that broke the case open anew, launching a search for more bodies last winter that turned up the remains of Vanderheiden, four other adults and one fetus.

Galgiani’s efforts helped pave the way for their success, however. She received letters from Shermantine and obtained copies of his maps. She arranged a pivotal interview between Rinek and Shermantine. She helped find Vanderheiden’s body by relaying information from Shermantine’s sister about the site of a torn-down fence that was vital to following a burial map.

Galgiani was not the only person to fight the notion of paroling Herzog into a community, but she helped lead that effort. She also pushed successfully for the state to offer reward money for tips leading to additional convictions in the case. And she carried legislation authorizing Shermantine to be taken from prison to identify burial sites.

Thursday, Nov. 01, 2012

Beware late-flying mud in campaigns

Ad Watch: Anti-Galgiani ad misleads about salary, perks

 PUBLISHED THURSDAY, OCT. 25, 2012

Democratic Assemblywoman Cathleen Galgiani’s state Senate campaign has been attacked in recent weeks by a radio ad from a secretive web of campaign committees. The Stockton assemblywoman and a Republican colleague, Bill Berryhill, are butting heads in a closely watched 5th Senate District race, based in San Joaquin County. The following is a text of the ad and an analysis by The Bee’s Jim Sanders:

Narrator: And the gifts? $14,000 worth. Life’s pretty good for Cathleen Galgiani. The Ford Mustang taxpayers gave Cathleen? We’ve paid for every drop of gas, too – $26,000 worth. Cathleen’s salary? $180,000 tax-free, yet she voted to raise our income taxes. Galgiani raised our taxes to pay for her spending. No wonder Cathleen refused to support limiting state spending and creating a budget reserve to protect taxpayers. Instead, Galgiani voted for fatter pensions and weaker welfare reform. Cathleen Galgiani. Wasting our money, raising our taxes. Tell her the party’s over. Paid for by the California Senior Advocates League. Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate (another version of the ad cites the “Citizens for California Reform”).

Analysis

Most of the assertions in the ad are untrue or exaggerated, and its overall implication – that Galgiani enjoyed perks of office beyond those afforded other lawmakers – is also false. 

The ad is dead wrong about Galgiani’s salary. It’s not $180,000 tax-free – it’s a taxable $95,291, plus about $30,000 in tax-free per diem. Gifts? She reported $13,722 over five years.

Galgiani once drove a 2011 Ford Mustang leased largely at state expense, but since November 2011, legislators have driven their personal cars and have been reimbursed for mileage. The ad fails to mention that the $26,000 in gas costs are cumulative over six years.

By comparison, Berryhill, of Ceres, receives the same annual salary and drove a taxpayer-subsidized 2009 Ford Escape Hybrid until the program ended. He accepted per diem until May 1, a month before the primary election. He reported receiving $7,065 in gifts over three years.

The ad is funded by oil, tobacco and drug companies, among other corporate donors, but the money was routed through shell committees and no specific donors are identified in the ad.

Galgiani did vote for a tax increase, in 2009, when she supported $12.8 billion in temporary hikes to ease a $40 billion budget shortfall.

Specifics are not cited for claims that she voted for “fatter pensions” and “weaker welfare reform,” the latter raising the question: Weaker than what?

Galgiani has supported some welfare bills, not others. She voted to cut the number of months a CalWORKs welfare-to-work participant can receive aid, for example, but she favored eliminating a fingerprint requirement for food stamp recipients.

As part of a 2009 budget deal, Galgiani voted to place on the ballot a proposal to boost the state’s reserve fund. Voters rejected it. She later abstained from voting on a similar plan.

Galgiani abstained in 2010 from voting on a bill to roll back pension increases adopted in 1999. The bill died, but the net result was to maintain the status quo – not to create “fatter pensions.”

© Copyright The Sacramento Bee. All rights reserved.

Cathleen Galgiani, July 24, 2008. Assemblywoman Galgiani who represents all of Merced County and parts of Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties is running for re-election this fall. (Steve Kosko / The Modesto Bee) – Modesto Bee – Steve Kosko

In some political races, it is difficult to identify the best choice in a field of weak candidates. In other races, it is easy to separate the strong from the weak.

Then there are those races where both choices are intelligent, engaged and experienced. Such is the case with the 5th Senate District contest between Republican Bill Berryhill and Democrat Cathleen Galgiani.

Both Galgiani and Berryhill are moderates within their respective parties and have avoided most of the highly partisan rhetoric of party leaders in Sacramento.

Galgiani has served three terms representing the 17th Assembly District, which includes all of Merced County, the west side of Stanislaus and a portion of San Joaquin County. Berryhill is finishing his his second term representing the 26th Assembly District, which includes a large portion of Stanislaus and San Joaquin counties.

We think either one of them would do a good job in the Senate, but we give the edge — and our endorsement — to Galgiani. The breadth of issues and the passion she has displayed during her six years in the Assembly makes her an impressive and qualified representative for our area.

Galgiani has been a dogged advocate for a number of initiatives including the University of California at Merced, a UCM medical school and for telemedicine as a way to improve access and reduce medical costs in rural areas. While she has most recently been known as one of the leading proponents of high-speed rail — a plan we no longer support in its current form — her heart is in the right place in fighting for a major infrastructure project that is expected to support the struggling economy in the valley with money and jobs. Galgiani has also been focused on making sure that money is also spent on improving regional commuter lines like the Altamont Commuter Express, another indication of her big-picture perspective.

A former legislative staffer, Galgiani is an ardent student of public policy and government budgets. An example of her determination is evident today in the G Street underpass in the city of Merced. Until the project was completed late last year, traffic in the city — including ambulances and fire engines — could be blocked by trains for five, 10, 20 minutes or even more. Galgiani was instrumental in getting the money for the underpass.

Galgiani has chaired the Assembly Agriculture Committee and is knowledgeable on farm issues, including water.

Berryhill has put much of his emphasis on water issues and has put forward alternatives to the peripheral canal, which he adamantly opposes. He hasn’t been as successful in advancing his bills, however. Berryhill is a former Ceres school board member who knows well the challenges facing public schools, yet he sticks with the Republican argument that school funding is just a matter of state priorities rather than real need.

Galgiani and Berryhill have worked together on bills, such as a 2011 effort to reduce the negative bailout for Stanislaus County, and seem to like each other. Unfortunately this campaign has gotten mean, with the worst of the ads paid for by the independent expenditure committees, which are not under the direct control of the candidates.

As Assembly members, they earn exactly the same salary — $95,291 — and are eligible for the same benefits and car allowance, which was reduced to $300 per month. State legislators had their pay and benefits cut 18 percent in 2009, and the Citizens Compensation Commission cut them an additional 5 percent effective at the end of this year. Senators are paid the same as Assembly members, so this position will pay $90,526 shortly after the winner takes office. We point this out because an attack mailer piece on Galgiani claimed her salary is tax free. That’s simply not true.

Residents of the 5th Senate District cannot lose in this election. We recommend Galgiani as the stronger of two capable people.

WHERE DO 5TH SENATE DISTRICT VOTERS LIVE?

• Sacramento County: 10,930

• San Joaquin County: 273,444

• Stanislaus County: 108,057

This is not my column. I didn’t approve it, even though I probably agree with most everything in it. What a coincidence.

Consider this the not-so-subliminal work of the Columnists’ Alibi Committee (CAC) bearing the nifty acronym SMUTT, which stands for Spewing Mud Under The Table.

I cannot be held accountable for its content because I claim no connection to this group. Don’t know who belongs, don’t care. They can trash anybody I don’t happen to like. When beneficial — or there’s a TV camera rolling — I can feign shock and disgust as well as anyone.

But do I demand they cease the cheap shots?

Uh, no. How could I? I don’t know whom to call. Remember, I’m not privy to the membership list. In theory — and I’m not admitting this happened — I could have ridden an elevator with some of them and wouldn’t have known it.

If this little ruse seems hauntingly familiar, it’s because you are a registered voter with a mailbox that keeps filling up with campaign hit pieces. Or perhaps you spend ample time parked in front of the TV, mesmerized by political attack ads and “The Colbert Report.”

Attack ads are standard fare in American politics. They’re not about what a candidate can do for you. It’s what the candidate’s opponent will do to you: Sell you into bondage to Russia or China, outlaw water pistols or outsource your job to Antarctica, etc. This encompasses campaigns from the presidency down to state office elections.

While study after study suggests that voters are supposedly turned off by negative campaigning, these ads have become an industry that pumps millions upon millions of dollars into the media coffers. They also work, which is why they dominate the campaigns. Little things such as truth or accuracy don’t matter. And because of the way the system is structured, these ads air without the official blessing, or even mentioning the name, of their preferred candidate.

Political action committees fund and produce these ads, which are charted under the category of “independent expenditures,” meaning those independent of a candidate’s campaign.

Political goon squads is a more fitting description.

IE cash has infected the 10th Congressional District race pitting Republican Jeff Denham against Democrat Jose Hernandez, with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee funding hit pieces on Denham.

In fact, PACs have spent about $2 million over the past couple of weeks, with $540,000 worth of anti-Hernandez TV ads coming from the American Action Network, which, as a nonprofit, isn’t required to disclose individual donors. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also put out a Hernandez hit piece.

Of course, neither candidate needs to claim any ownership of the PAC hit pieces. Each does plenty of bashing within his own campaign.

In the state Senate’s 5th District race between Bill Berryhill and Cathleen Galgiani, the California Senior Advocates League PAC recently spent $232,588 on an elaborate hit piece against Galgiani, a Democrat.

Of course, the PAC’s disclaimer on the Galgiani mailer reads “Not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate.”

Its Web site, calsal.org, states that it is nonpartisan, yet the PAC spent $187,000 on a similar hit piece on a Southern California Democratic Senate hopeful.

While visiting Wednesday with The Bee’s editorial board, Galgiani responded to a question about the attack ad by refuting it. No, she doesn’t earn $180,000 in tax-free salary, as it claimed. She bought her car from the state and said she doesn’t charge taxpayers for her gas.

Berryhill pointed out that he and Galgiani get along well even when campaigning. “The IEs (independent expenditures) are what they are,” he said.

Indeed. They do the candidates’ dirty work for them while the PACs’ contributors remain for the most part under the radar.

Hence, embracing the mood of the time, the Columnists’ Alibi Committee SMUTT — Spewing Mud Under The Table — deserves responsibility for this missive.

I can’t approve it. I have no comment about it. Our DNA only looks the same.

Jeff Jardine’s column appears Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays. He can be reached atjjardine@modbee.com, @jeffjardine57 on Twitter or at (209) 578-2383.

While reading Rough & Tumble (rtumble.com) this morning,* I came across a story in theVentura County Star by Timm Herdt about a group, the California Senior Advocates League PAC (ID#1327236), which had released an ad in San Diego attacking Fran Pavley (D). Pavley is seeking reelection in State Senate District 27. The ad implies that as a member of the state government, Pavley has been enriching herself at the taxpayers’ expense. It doesn’t mention her opponent. So far, nothing new or unusual.

The add, though, contains a bald-faced lie. It says that Sen. Pavley earns $261,000 in tax-free salary each year. This statement is wrong on so many levels its incredible. First, the annual salary for a State Senator is $90,526 not $261,000. Second, like everyone else’s salary, hers is taxed by both the state and the federal governments. There are additional benefits that legislators receive, such as a per diem for travel expenses (she lives in Agoura Hills in SoCal but the legislature is in Sacramento), which might get you up to an annual “salary” of $261,000, but, again, she pays taxes on the money she makes.**

Then I checked yesterday’s pile of mail. In it was a campaign flyer from the California Senior Advocates League PAC attacking the Democratic candidate in my local State Senate district,Cathleen Galgiani. It has the same basic lie in bold print in multiple places. The lie is a little different because Galgiani is a member of the Assembly, so it says she makes $180,000 a year in tax-free salary. It’s a lie none the less.

So who is the California Senior Advocates League PAC? The name implies that it is a group looking out for the interests of seniors in California, right? Mr. Herdt tried to find out who they really were by calling their offices, but was rebuffed. Electiontrack.com shows all of the donors and amounts given to the League. The lion’s share of its money this cycle ($563,500 of $616,630) comes from the California Now Independent Expenditure Committee. (The California State Republican Party was a big contributor in the past, which should give you a clue about the organization and why it is targeting Democrats.) What is the California Now Independent Expenditure Committee? Mr. Herdt did the leg work here: It’s basically Chevron and Philip Morris by way of the California Chamber of Commerce.

So here we have at least two corporations seemingly funneling money through an ambiguously named organization to run ads that lie about candidates seeking office. Is it any wonder that most people hate the current campaign finance system? Wouldn’t it be better if Chevron and Philip Morris could spend the money directly–and we all knew about it–rather than having this byzantine labyrinth to navigate?

* Rough & Tumble aggregates California politics news stories from the major papers in California as well as some from out of state. If you at all care about California politics, Rough & Tumble should be on your morning reading list.

** There is a separate conversation to be had about the per diem that legislators receive. Personally, I think the legislature tends to abuse the per diem by gaming the system to continue receiving the benefit when it is clearly not in session. That would be a conversation worth having. The ad, though, conflates the two things in a way that is intentionally deceiving.