Correa for Congress in CD-46


Greg Diamond has a lengthy post on the Orange Juice Blog last week effectively endorsing Joe Dunn for Congress in CD-46.

Congresswoman Sanchez Presenting OCYD Clinton Award to Senator Lou Correa

Congresswoman Sanchez Presenting OCYD Clinton Award to Senator Lou Correa

Democrats in Orange County are fortunate to have three strong candidates to replace Loretta Sanchez in the district that includes Anaheim, Orange and Santa Ana.  Any one of the Democrats running is a better option than any one of the Republicans running.  That’s just a plain and simple fact.

And there are several items about both former Senator Dunn and Garden Grove Mayor Bao Nguyen in Diamond’s post that I agree with. But Mr. Diamond sells former Senator Lou Correa short on a number of fronts and demonstrates a disconnect with the voters of the congressional district these candidates seek to represent.

This blog has been accused of being unfair to Senator Dunn by his supporters and members of his campaign. I don’t think that is the case.  I’ve met with him personally, we exchange emails regularly about issues in cybersecurity, and I like Senator Dunn.  He’s a smart, nice guy.  This blog runs every press release his campaign issues and we appreciate the text message from his team about a release they’ve sent so I can go looking for it, because many times, the email has gone to spam and not my in box.  There is a standing invitation to discuss voting records over coffee that the campaign has yet to fulfill with a date, time and place.

For clarity, we’ll refer to each Democratic candidate by their first names moving forward: Bao, Joe and Lou.

In examining voting records, it’s the opinion of this blog that Lou’s record on the issues is one that best reflects the values and interests of the voters of CD-46 over that of every other candidate.  We’ll get to the details shortly.

Lou served in the State Assembly in the 69th Assembly District for three terms starting in 1998. This was followed by two years on the Orange County Board of Supervisors, representing the 1st District, and then Lou succeeded Joe in the California State Senate, representing the 34th District, in 2006 and again in 2010, leaving office in 2014.

Lou’s record reflects advances in healthcare for children, mental healthcare services, autism services, and lowering the cost of higher education for all California students. Lou’s been accused of voting against a middle class scholarship bill by various Joe supporters in social media and in blog comments; what these same supporters fail to mention is that there were *two* middle class scholarship bills – the one Lou voted against had a huge carve out that favored Big Tobacco which is why he voted against it.  Lou voted for the second, much cleaner, Middle Class Scholarship Bill.

Critics often point to Lou’s vote against single payer healthcare in California, neglecting to mention that was, essentially, no public oversight for this measure and there was another exemption for Big Tobacco to not to pay into the plan. Lou has been a consistent supporter for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) often called “ObamaCare.”

Lou instituted programs such as Operation Kid Prints, that reached out to local schools to provide free finger printing and child safety packet information in case of an emergency for more than 50,000 kids in OC. Lou’s Young Senators Program, adopted by the California Senate Statewide, taught thousands of teenagers, from all walks of life about community service, teamwork, and leadership.

“I’ve never considered myself 100 percent on any issue,” said Lou in a short interview with TheLiberalOC. “I’m a proud Catholic and proud to see Pope Frances advocating for the poor, immigrants, equality and social justice. I was particularly proud of the Pope when he went to visit the wall that separates the US and Mexico.”

I attended April DPOC meeting and Joe’s campaign manager Carina Franck-Patone made a short speech about protecting reproductive choice and reminded DPOC members that Joe Dunn has a 100 percent record on reproductive choice. Nice speech, and hard to disagree with Joe’s clear record on that issue.  But it’s one that’s shared with the other Democrats running for Congress in CD-46.

“I am Pro-Choice and I have always been Pro-Choice.  I also support Planned Parenthood and believe in the importance of education birth control, and cancer screenings,” said Lou.  “I would not support any attempts in Congress to defund Planned Parenthood, as long as they keep providing health education and providing birth control. Beyond women’s healthcare, I believe government has a role to play in protecting women’s rights and expanding equality for women, including on pay equity and paid family leave.”

Now, there are a lot of things I agree with Mr. Diamond about Joe. He’d be a fantastic congressional investigator.  I think most voters in CD-46 would be hard pressed to provide a correct answer to what exactly Joe did in investigating Enron in the late 1990s or how his investigation affected their lives in a meaningful way.  I’m almost certain millennial voters don’t even know what the Enron case was all about.  But that Congressional investigative skill isn’t what the residents of CD-46 want or need most from their Congressional representative.  What they need is someone with a strong track record of working across party lines to get stuff done.

The House of Representatives is likely to remain Republican after November’s election. And Lou is the only candidate with a track record of working effectively across party lines as he did with Republicans when California faced the worst recession since the Great Depression along with record budget deficits; Lou cast votes for a temporary two-year tax increase, to keep California afloat.

What voters in CD-46 need is someone with a record towards supporting comprehensive immigration reform, access to higher education and keeping taxes on working families low.

Sorry, but Joe’s record on these issues doesn’t reflect the priorities of the District.

Joe opposed a drive for Voter Registration on Election Day in 2002. At the behest of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Joe voted to repeal the Driver’s License Law for Undocumented Immigrants in 2003.   And he failed to support creating a “Living Wage Standard” in 2002 which could have helped many workers in his district.  In that last example, Joe is more closely aligned with Republican Lynn Schott, who voted to repeal the Irvine Living Wage Ordinance last year, than with progressive Democrats.

When it comes to the Driver’s license issue, this comment in the LA Times in November 2003, “These are hate, wedge issues,” said Dolores Huerta, co-founder of the United Farm Workers union and a member of the University of California Board of Regents, her voice cracking with emotion during a Senate Transportation Committee hearing where the Democratic retreat unfolded earlier in the afternoon. “I just want to ask Democrats to stand up for the people who stood up for you.” Lou was a “no” vote on repealing the driver’s licenses for the undocumented and stood up for immigrants here.

Since Mr. Diamond brought it up, Lou is not in favor of a fine for undocumented immigrants seeking citizenship. Bao isn’t either.  Joe spoke in favor of a fine.

Additionally, Joe abstained on a vote for legislation to implement employment non-discrimination requirements which would affect policies for Latinos, Asians, Muslims, and LGBTQ workers. This is the same as a “no” vote and it was a bill supported by Lou in the state assembly.  In supporting this bill, MALDEF stated, “we firmly believe that the citizens of California including protected classes would benefit greatly from the removal of discrepancies among protected classes in the statutes.  Creating uniformity in the definition of protected classes will remove deficiencies in protection as well as any current confusion in the application and compliance of the relevant statutes.”

But even out of office, Joe’s record seems to be at odds with the voters of the 46th district.  Here’s what we’ve got:

As CEO of the California Medical Association (CMA) Joe oversaw significant campaign contributions spent by CMA in support of Republicans over Democrats.  Joe also personally campaigned for another conservative Republican over Democratic candidates for several offices.

  • Joe supported Jack Sieglock, the Republican candidate for the 10th Assembly District. Alyson Huber, the Democrat in the race, won by less than 450 votes. Sieglock was a vocal proponent for building a new border wall, as “the first order of business” in very Trump-like fashion. While Joe was Executive Director of CMA, more than $50,000 in IEs was spent in a losing effort to elect Sieglock in 2008 in a race that was a top target for the Assembly Democrats. Joe was on the other side.
  • Under Joe’s leadership, CMA spent nearly $60,000 supporting John McCann in the 2008 election. McCann opposed driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants and advocated for English-only standards for public high school graduation.  Joe was on the side of the Republicans.
  • Under Joe’s leadership, CMA spent $25,000 on IEs backing Bill Berryhill, a Republican, who beat Democrat John Eisenhut by 4,000 votes out of over 136,000 cast.  Berryhill opposed legislation to allow undocumented residents to apply for college financial aid.
  • In 2008, Joe was an official member of Republican Kermit Marsh’s campaign committee along with Republicans Scott Baugh (former OC GOP Chair), Mark Bucher (co-author of the paycheck deception initiative Prop. 226) and Van Tran (former Assembly member in Little Saigon who ran against Loretta Sanchez in 2010).  Marsh was seeking a seat as an OC trial court judge.  Marsh was defeated and subsequently fined over $31,000 by the FPPC for failing to disclose campaign contributors.  Marsh lost a race against Lou for OC Supervisor in 2004.
  • Joe backed weak penalties for fraudulent immigration attorneys, which hurt residents of the district who have limited funds to get legal help to begin with.

We asked Joe’s campaign for details on Joe’s authority over these expenditures, and do not have a response.

Diamond’s take on Joe’s lawsuit against the California State Bar is a simple refile of the suit, and it’s really not that simple at all. Most of the suit has been dismissed and at best, Joe might achieve a partial victory on some points.  But that is at best and will be decided after the primary is over.

On the issue of the “he is currently helping to form the most comprehensive institute on cybersecurity in the nation to protect individuals and companies from the increased threat of internet-based crimes and terrorism while ensuring individual privacy,” I’ve had this conversation with Joe myself. And it’s a topic I have considerable knowledge of through my business. The UCI endeavor, while laudable, is at least 10 years too late and is not unique in any sense. 

There are considerable university-based cybersecurity initiatives at George Washington University, George Mason University, Boston University, Cal Poly Pomona, Carnegie Mellon, FIT, Fordham, Utica College, Johns Hopkins and others. The only thing I see is the UCI program seems more focused on policy rather than technology when it comes from distinctions of security and privacy.  You cannot separate policy from the technology here.  So when we talked about this last fall, I asked Joe if he knew what the Stuxnet virus was.  He didn’t.  Lou knew and so did Jordan Brandman while he was a candidate for Congress.  I wasn’t expecting a comprehensive technical explanation, just an idea of if he knew what it was.  Google it.  Joe is aware of what Ransomware is and about a case where a police department actually paid criminal hackers to regain access to their network. 

Mr. Diamond is far too generous about Joe’s role in exposing the sexual abuse by Catholic priests. The movie “Spotlight” was entirely about the Archdiocese of Boston and the story was first broken by The Patriot Ledger in Quincy with the Globe picking up the story and running with it afterwards.  The Stockton case was likely listed in the end credits where similar cases came to the public light after the series was developed by the Globe’s investigative team but it’s not prominent in the movie at all.   “Spotlight” was not about any case Joe was involved in, and most of the work Joe started on this issue was handed off to other attorneys after Joe was elected to the State Senate. 

I’ll note, I did text Joe’s campaign Thursday midday asking for a phone call. They wrote back on Friday night and I responded Saturday with a question about Joe’s role within the CMA.  I still haven’t heard back.  We’re not exactly on the rapid response cycle with the campaign.

Additionally, I believe some members of Joe’s staff are ethically challenged for issuing an announcement in October 2015 claiming an additional $120,000 in donations received from October 1 through October 15 to claim an “overwhelming financial advantage” when the following reporting period fell short of that number. But I don’t know who to blame for this exactly.  It was a move designed to scare off candidates.  The claim that was announced wasn’t true and it was unethical to issue that news when they did.  I asked Joe for the list when we met in October and he said I’d get in January; I told him then it was unethical to make that announcement.  We moved to a different topic after that.  To date, Joe trails Lou in fundraising and the vast majority of Dunn for Congress contributions are from lawyers from all over the country, not from voters in the District.

I’ll note I followed the Dunn campaign’s insistence to look at voting records, and, as Mr. Diamond points out, about there’s a part of a legislators jobthat does not always show up in votes: he does a lousy job of putting his constituents’ interests first.  Floor votes are by and large the show that is put on for the public at the end of the production; the real fighting comes earlier, both in committees and not-yet-even-in-committees.”  In the case of Joe, as the head of CMA, the organization under his leadership significantly contributed to IEs benefitting candidates who advocate against things that might actually help voters and residents of CD-46 and the Democratic Party.

CD-46 is a district that is Democratic-majority. It is not essentially a progressive majority district or a liberal one, but’s it’s a blue one and the focus needs to be on keeping it Democratic.  Loretta Sanchez has a solid reputation in her 20 years in Congress as a moderate Blue Dog Democrat who’s been right on issues like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.  She’s been on the right side of the fight for equality, wage issues, and immigration.  We need someone like her in Congress.

It is the opinion of this writer that the candidate who best exemplifies the legacy of Loretta Sanchez, and who’s record reflects the needs and wants of the people of CD-46 is Lou Correa.

  36 comments for “Correa for Congress in CD-46

  1. Coco Puff Doesn't Speak For Dem's/Progressives
    May 9, 2016 at 7:36 pm

    I wouldn’t worry about Coco-Puff’s post. Most, including Joe Dunn feel the sameway everyone else does about the bloviator.

    They are just too politically interested to say it out loud.

  2. Pinky
    May 10, 2016 at 12:46 pm

    Joe was a aye vote on drivers license. Then s no vote to repeal it. Where wasLou? Out of the legislature. Joe was there for another 3 years. Where was Joe on bringing it back? Nowhere.

  3. Commenting Gnome
    May 10, 2016 at 1:19 pm

    Much of the loudest vitriol is from people who do not live in the 46th CD. They are all Irvine and South OC residents acting like they can dictate to the “DUMB LATINOS” of Santa Ana what is best for them. Go and change SOuth OC then come bug us.

    The loudest ring leader is mortgage banker Brian Carson, a guy who looks like the ultimate blonde hair blue eyes aryan. He lives in Laguna Niguel and moved here from Ohio. Would love to see this fresa walk in the deepest darkest neighborhoods of Santa Ana. Gabacho go home!

  4. Pinky
    May 10, 2016 at 5:25 pm

    Dunn will say it’s all lies

  5. May 10, 2016 at 9:47 pm

    You and I will never agree, but a few things have to be noted here:

    “CD-46 is a district that is Democratic-majority. It is not essentially a progressive majority district or a liberal one…”

    That’s the bs that Solorio, Daly and Correa have always told us to justify their Republican-lite voting records which pleased their funders. The fact is the staunchly progressive Dunn was re-elected by a wider margin than any of them ever were. Ask your old friend Prevatt, he wrote a great piece blowing that myth out of the water (which I wish I could find.)

    “Loretta Sanchez has a solid reputation in her 20 years in Congress as a moderate Blue Dog Democrat who’s been right on issues like the Iraq War and the Patriot Act.”

    Loretta has always been a pro-civil liberties progressive masquerading as a Blue Dog, she’s always been progressive at the most important times. Once she told me only half-jokingly, “Don’t tell anyone, but I’m just in the Blue Dogs to be a spy for Nancy Pelosi!”

    “…the candidate who best exemplifies the legacy of Loretta Sanchez, and who’s [sic] record reflects the needs and wants of the people of CD-46 is Lou Correa.”

    1. Lou Correa would NEVER oppose trade deals like NAFTA and TPP as Loretta did; in fact he voted aye on resolutions supporting NAFTA and other horrible trade deals, while Joe opposed them. Lou would never have pushed for a strong public option in Obamacare as Loretta did, he is way too sympathetic to the insurance industry whom that would have endangered. And I’m don’t know about the Iraq War, whether or not he would have seen through that, but he CERTAINLY wouldn’t have opposed the PATRIOT Act – he’s always pushed for law enforcement to have MORE power over our lives. The good parts of Loretta’s record are reflected much more in Joe and Bao, not Lou at all.

    and 2. Lou has only SECONDARILY reflected the needs and wants of the people of this area; primarily he has reflected the needs and wants of big insurance, pharma, hospitals, police and prison guards.

    Vern out.

    • Commenting Gnome
      May 10, 2016 at 11:22 pm

      What are you all going to do when Lou wins and Joe gets 4th or even 5th place?

      • May 12, 2016 at 11:37 am

        Well, we would be disappointed, and then carry on.

        What did you think, we’d jump off a bridge?

        • Pinky
          May 12, 2016 at 1:36 pm

          Could you please jump off a bridge? Please?

    • May 11, 2016 at 9:40 am

      You’re right; we aren’t going to agree. And much of your comments here about how Lou might vote or not vote is speculation and frankly not that relevant. But lets discuss something you said that demonstrates your inability to offer factual information or do basic research.

      This statement: “….fact is the staunchly progressive Dunn was re-elected by a wider margin than any of them ever were.” In 1998, Dunn got 62,063 votes in beating his Republican challenger winning with a little over 51% of the vote. In 2002, Dunn did better — 63,485 votes soundly beating his Republican opponent who got 39,025 votes — a margin of 24,460.

      Correa edged Lynn Daucher in 2006 56,534 to 55,142; a less than 3% margin of victory; but in 2010, running for re-election, Correa beat Lucille Kring 88,892 to 46,377. No I’m no PhD in math Vern, but that 25,000 more votes than Joe got in 2002 and has a margin of 44,515 over Kring which is a full 20,000 more votes than the margin Joe won by in 2002. Do you need a calculator?

      BTW, NAFTA was passed in 1994; Joe wasn’t in even in OC then. Lou wasn’t in office. The folks at The Economist and Wharton School of Business generally give NAFTA a thumbs up for economic benefits to this country. Yes, jobs were lost to Mexico but the experts who know something about economic actions say those jobs likely would have gone to China if not for NAFTA. The US runs trade deficits with like 90% of our global trading partners which kind of makes most of our trade deals awful but favorable trading status with certain nations gives us leverage in some areas of diplomacy and human rights. It doesn’t always work of course, but in many countries it does.

      Obamacare was a gift to the Insurance Industry; it created millions of new customers for them.

      • May 13, 2016 at 10:13 am

        “Obamacare was a gift to the Insurance Industry; it created millions of new customers for them.”

        That’s gotta be the densest, most clueless thing you’ve written in this comment section. Leave aside the breaking news that YOU are suddenly against Obamacare; you don’t seem to realize that you’re making my point that Loretta at her best is more like Joe Dunn and the polar opposite of Lour Correa.

        Try to focus. You’re right that, among other things, Obamacare was a gift to the insurance industry. A “robust puplic option” would have made it MUCH LESS that, as it would have given private insurance companies a lot of competition, and possibly many of us hoped lead to the ultimate goal of a single-payer system. For this reason the insurance companies and DINOs like Joe Lieberman fought hard against it, and for this reason Loretta the progressive fought FOR it. She and Jane Harman wrote a great editorial called “Blue Dogs For the Public Option,” and then Loretta played chicken with the bill until the last minute when it was clear that there wouldn’t be a public option and the whole bill would fail without her, voting reluctantly for it.

        This is something Joe Dunn, champion of single payer, would have done.

        This is something insurance-funded Lou Correa, who has voted against single payer and indeed most other healthcare reform whenever he could, would NEVER have done.

        Again, proving my point: Loretta at her best did things Joe Dunn would do and Lou Correa would not do.

        I’m sure all of that went over your head and you’ll have some snotty clueless comeback, but at least a few of your readers might appreciate the little dash of truth and logic here.

        • May 13, 2016 at 11:58 am

          I’m not against Obamacare. But recognize it was a gift to the insurance industry by creating millions of new customers. Single payer is the way to go on a federal level and was knocked out of ACA by Republicans. Do you really want the headache 50 different states might have on single payer or should we have a national standard?

          • May 13, 2016 at 12:05 pm

            Admission of error and defeat accepted.

            Go Joe!

          • May 13, 2016 at 12:09 pm

            Oh – and don’t just blame the Republicans either. There were plenty of insurance-owned Democrats who killed the public option. I named Lieberman, there were others. And Lou Correa would be one of them, he killed single payer in California every time he could.

            • May 13, 2016 at 1:50 pm

              spend some time reading about the state audit of the State Bar Association mess; let me know how Joe’s masterful investigative skills could get to the bottom of that.

    • Pinky
      May 11, 2016 at 12:21 pm

      OJ blog says Don Wagner is a Democrat. Bastions of accuracy

      • May 13, 2016 at 11:42 am

        Nobody thinks that weenie is a Democrat. So you found a typo somewhere in one of Greg’s 2000-word tomes? Congrats.

  6. Pinky
    May 11, 2016 at 2:40 pm

    Is it my imagination or does Joe take credit for the sunnsettingvevery night?

  7. Justin Case
    May 12, 2016 at 6:50 am

    Hmm, where to begin?

    This article and endorsement reflects the sad state of politics which causes voters to be fed up with politicians and distrust the media. It is full of blatant lies and misleading half-truths which are used to turn day into night and night into day. Dan is lying about Joe Dunn’s record and Lou’s record. Blatantly. The fundamental question, whether Dan is intentionally misrepresenting the record or simply taking the Correa campaign and Lou at his word will never be answered. However, the lies are easily exposed, which I will do here. Those readers with an interest in the truth can make up their own mind as to who to trust.

    Dan’s first major error, distortion, lie is about Lou Correa’s opposition to the Middle Class Scholarship Act. You do not need to take my word about it: You can take the word of the author, Assembly Speaker John Perez.


    John Perez’s Middle Class Scholarship Act (AB 1500 and 1501) was to be his crowning achievement as speaker. It would have guaranteed coverage of 60% of the mandatory fees and tuition for in-state undergraduate and teaching certificate students at CSU and UC schools, as well as underwriting CCC (California Community College) students. All students in households under $150,000.00 were eligible for the full scholarship.

    The Middle Class Scholarship Act would have covered over 92% of the households in the 46th Congressional District. According to the US Census, 30% of all children under 18 years of age in the 46th Congressional District live below the poverty line. Given that Lou Correa trumpets education as the ladder out of poverty, his derailment of the Middle Class Scholarship Act is particularly disturbing. It reveals not only his fundamental lack of fidelity to Democratic Party values and the party itself, but also exemplifies Lou’s tendency to put the needs and desires of Corporate Donors over the needs of his constituents. This disconnect between Lou Correa’s “supporting the needs of my community” rhetoric was similarly exhibited in his inexcusable failure to support raising the minimum wage to $11 in 2014 (SB 935 (Leno)

    As to who is to blame for the defeat of the Middle Class Scholarship Act, you can believe Dan and Lou, or you can believe John Perez, the leader of the Assembly Democrats, Speaker, and primary author of the bill. It is unprecedented for a Democratic Speaker to single out a fellow Democrat to blame for a defeat of a bill, let alone a Latino Democratic Speaker calling out a fellow member of the Latino Democratic caucus. Yet that is exactly what Speaker Perez did: laid the defeat of the Middle Class Scholarship Act squarely at the feet of Lou Correa, loudly and publicly:

    Correa “voted against the bill because he wanted a $300 million (tax) carve out (for out-of state corporations).”

    “Today was an opportunity for the State Senate to join the Assembly in approving tax fairness for California businesses and college opportunity for middle class families,” the speaker said in the prepared statement. “Unfortunately, even though most Senate Democrats supported the Middle Class Scholarship Act, we could not reach agreement with Senator Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) or Senate Republicans that would achieve the two-thirds vote necessary.“

    “It is disturbing that Senator Correa and so many Republicans would refuse to stand up for the middle class and instead continue to support a tax giveaway that favors out-of-state companies over our own.”

    It is well documented that Correa sought to use the bill to leverage a $300 million tax carve out for large corporations. This was reported in the Orange County Register following the bill’s defeat when Speaker Perez laid the defeat of the bill at Lou Correa’s feet. In the article, Lou Correa admitted he was seeking a $300 million dollar tax carve out for large out-of-state corporations. He admitted to being “especially concerned” about International Paper, a corporate campaign donor who, coincidentally, was also identified as an actively lobbying opponent of the Middle Class Scholarship Act in the Senate’s Bill Analysis. ( Lou was the architect and the instigator of the $300 million tax carve out.

    International Paper also just happened to be a long time contributor to Lou Correa, and also just coincidentally happened to contribute to Lou’s “Lou Correa for Board of Equalization 2014” campaign fund 10 days before Lou’s vote against the Middle Class Scholarship Act and again 21 days after Lou’s vote against the bill.

    Can you say Quid Pro Quo? By the way, International Paper had revenue of over 24 billion dollars in 2014 and is one of the largest paper companies in the world.

    Perez’s Middle Class Scholarship Act was co-sponsored by the 63 fellow Democrats in the Senate and the Assembly. Lou worked with the Republican Caucus against his own party (he was the sole Democrat to vote against the bill) and against the educational and financial well-being of 92% of the households in his district trying to create a massive $300 million tax exemption of the funding mechanism for the Middle Class Scholarship Act to benefit large out-of-state corporations and campaign donors.

    The “Big Tobacco” lie contained in Dan’s article: This is likely an invention of Correa’s campaign team fed to Dan. Remember, Lou was the architect of the tax carve out (See the OC Register article, above). But this “Big Tobacco” issue certainly was not on Lou’s plate of excuses when he was confronted by reporters and students over his killing of the Middle Class Scholarship Act. It is certainly absent from all of the many articles in which Lou attempted to forge an excuse for his vote against the bill. For example, to the Daily Titan, Lou tried to claim that he simply knew nothing about the bill: “ I had no idea what I was voting on. They had brought up a bill – 100 plus (pages) and they asked us to vote “Yea” or “Nay” in five minutes. We didn’t know, so we voted ‘No.’”

    As there were 63 Democratic co-sponsors to the bill, this is more than a bit hard to swallow.

    Finally – AB94, which Dan disingenuously refers to as the “Middle Class Scholarship Act” (it is not) does not vaguely resemble AB 1500 and 1501, Perez’s Middle Class Scholarship Act. It provides approximately 1/10 of the annual funding for scholarships, is limited to 40% of total fees, is capped in amount per year to fund the scholarships, and provides no support for community colleges. It also funds from the General Fund as opposed to separately funded through closing the out-of-state corporate tax loophole which AB 1500 would have closed.


    This is a classic slimy and dishonest hit by Lou Correa which Dan purposely covers.

    The fact is that Joe Dunn consistently supported driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants throughout his time in Senate. Here is the proof.

    The primary legislative architect of the Driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants was Gil Cedillo. Cedillo presented the legislation in multiple bills while Joe Dunn was in Senate from 1998-2006: AB 1463 (Cedillo- 1999), AB 60 (Cedillo – 2000), and SB 60 (Cedillo -2003). Joe Dunn supported and voted for each and every one of these bills.

    It was not until 2003 when Cedillo was able to get a bill, SB 60, to clear both houses get signed into law. SB 60 (Cedillo – 2003) Joe Dunn, as always, voted for the bill, Lou Correa voted against the bill long with the Republican Assembly caucus! Here are the passage votes in Assembly and Senate:

    Wow. Correa votes with the GOP Caucus against the bill, Dunn votes for it. Get that? Now Correa and Dan lie and say that it was Joe Dunn who opposed it. Does anyone else feel they need a shower?

    Now here comes the doozy: Dan tries to hide the entire history of the Drivers’ license bill, and Lou’s opposition to the bill, with this disingenuous nugget:

    “Lou was a “no” vote on repealing the driver’s licenses for the undocumented and stood up for immigrants here.”

    Wow. Correa voted against repealing the very bill he voted against passing in the first place! This is confusing . . . no it is not.

    AB 60 was passed at a time when public sentiment and GOP opposition to the bill was at a fever pitch. This is why Lou did not vote for the bill in the first place. He was preparing to run for OC Supervisor because he was termed out of the Assembly. He knew he would need GOP and independent support, so he voted against the controversial bill.

    The GOP was threatening an initiative for a voter repeal of the bill. At the time, public sentiment was running at 2:1 favoring repeal of the bill. If repealed by the voters, it would have closed the door on the legislature’s ability to revisit the issue permanently. So Gil Cedillo, the author of the bill, cut a deal with the Governor to have the bill repealed, to keep his dream of providing the licenses to undocumented immigrants alive. Here is Correa’s political chutzpah: Correa opposed repealing SB 60 only after having voted against its passage, knowing that keeping the bill alive would have resulted in its permanent defeat – result consistent with his September 2, 2003 vote. That way, Lou gets to say he opposed repealing it while the very proponents of the bill, including its chief architect Gil Cedillo, voted for the repeal to keep the vision of the bill alive. It also allowed him to return to Orange County for his Supervisorial race claiming to Democrats he opposed the repeal and to Republicans that he had voted against the bill and opposed the repeal to allow the initiative to bar these licenses forever.

    So when Dan writes “At the behest of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Joe voted to repeal the Driver’s License Law for Undocumented Immigrants in 2003” that is a blatant falsehood: It was at the behest of Gil Cedillo, the primary architect of the bill, trying to prevent his vision (100% supported by Joe, not Lou) from being killed through repeal by initiative. To understand exactly how slimy Dan is on this, he (mis)cites Dolores Huerta from the very Los Angeles Times article which explains Cedillo’s choice:

    Earlier, Sen. Gil Cedillo (D-Los Angeles), the author of SB 60, set in motion the Democratic reversal when he announced his support for a Republican-crafted bill to repeal the license law, a move that Cedillo depicted as a tactical retreat rather than surrender.

    “I’m placing my confidence and trust with the governor as we go through the process,” Cedillo said before the Transportation Committee voted 9 to 2 to repeal the law.

    Cedillo, who met with Schwarzenegger on Friday in Los Angeles, told reporters after the committee hearing that the Republican governor had expressed support for the concept of giving driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

    Monday’s retreat by Cedillo and other Democrats was motivated in part by the threat of a March referendum aimed at scrapping the law, which opinion polls show is opposed by about two-thirds of Californians. Opponents have been circulating petitions to meet a Dec. 7 deadline for turning in the 373,816 signatures needed to put the issue to a statewide vote.

    Wow. Feel like you have to shower again? That is the kind of career politician calculus that makes people hate politicians and distrust the media.


    Lou’s claim to being pro-choice a whopper. That Dan lets this go by without comment just further defines his lack of credibility.

    Here is Lou Correa’s 2009 Planned Parenthood of California’s Scorecard rating:

    “Lou Correa (34th SD) (D) 0% -Anti-Choice.”

    Lou Correa was the only Democrat that did not receive a 100% rating in Senate in 2009, and joined the entire GOP caucus in being completely anti-choice. To earn his 0% rating anti-choice rating, Lou Correa (1) voted to prohibit state funding of family planning service providers; (2) limit state funding for abortion services; (3) ban certain abortion procedures, (4) require parental consent before a minor can access abortion care, and (5) provide biased information to women before they can access abortion care.

    And that was just in 1 year.

    Nice research there, Dan.


    Joe Dunn was CEO of the California Medical Association. CALPAC is a completely separate, affiliated Political Action Committee. CALPAC membership is separate from CMA, requires separate application from CMA, and is under separate leadership. CMA is a tax exempt entity, barred from participating in lobbying and campaign activities.

    Dan goes on an extensive tirade trying to attribute the acts of CALPAC to CMA, and specifically to Joe Dunn as CEO of CMA. This ignores the fact that these are entirely separate legal entities, under separate governance and leadership, and, well, reality. Of course, Dan relies upon the ignorance of his readers to pass this lie onto the public. Dan relies on the same mentality in his readers that spread the belief that Obama was a Kenyan born Muslim with a forged birth certificate. There literally is no limit to the how low Dan will stoop.

    This was obviously planted by Lou Correa’s campaign through their opposition research. How do can we know this? Because Dan obviously doesn’t spend any time to the most basic of fact checking, as exhibited above – and below. He could have just called CMA and confirmed the falsity of these claims. That would require integrity, however.


    If Joe Dunn was the anti-immigrant politician Dan claims, he would not be endorsed for the 46th Congressional District while running against Lou Correa. Period.


    In 2014, Lou Correa failed to support SB 935, which would have raised the minimum wage to $11.00 an hour in 2015, $12.00 an hour in 2016, and $13 an hour in 2017.

    In 2003, Joe Dunn supported SB 996 (Alarcon), which sought a feasibility and economic impact study of passing a living wage. It was opposed by the California Chamber of Commerce, Irvine Chamber of Commerce, and the California Manufacturers and Technology Association – Lou’s people. Lou Correa voted to kill the bill in the Assembly Banking and Finance Committee he chaired. Here is the vote:

    Yeah – Lou Correa, champion of the oppressed, and Dan Chemielewski, champion of the truth. Need another shower, Dear Reader?


    Lou Correa voted against closing the Bullet Button Loophole (SB 374), a loophole in the law which allows assault-style weapons to be legally sold in California with easily changeable ammunition magazines. This allows shooters to quickly change magazines to be able to inflict maximum casualties in minimal time, the very purpose of semi-automatic assault rifles.

    Instead of supporting common sense gun laws to protect California citizens from gun violence, Lou Correa has offered platitudes and condolences to victims of gun violence while following the NRA lobbyist’s agenda.

    Lou Correa:

    – OPPOSED Banning high capacity ammunition magazines and conversion kits (AB 48)

    – OPPOSED making it illegal to knowingly store loaded firearms that are accessible to minors (AB 231).

    – OPPOSED extending the waiting period for gun purchases when the background check reveals potential criminal and/or mental health history requiring further investigation to determine eligibility to purchase weapons (AB 500).

    – OPPOSED making it illegal to store firearms where they are accessible to felons, the mentally unstable, and others who are not legally allowed to possess a firearm and living under the roof as the legal gun owner (AB 500).

    – OPPOSED requiring registration of homemade guns and assault rifles, AKA “Ghost Guns” (SB 808). and

    – OPPOSED restrictions on ownership of Assault Weapons and .50 Caliber Browning Machine Guns (“BMG”) (AB 170).

    – OPPOSED requiring a valid Firearm Safety Certificate in order to purchase a firearm (AB 683). Lou opposes license requirements for purchase of guns, despite overwhelming public support, even among gun owners.

    Our community needs someone in Congress who will stand up to the NRA, not someone who has a B+ lifetime voting record from NRA.


    Lou Correa voted against SB 685, the Human Right to Water Act, in 2012. He also voted to hide the source of vended drinking water, whether that water was from a public or private source, and the county from which the water came. AB 301 would have required water sellers to disclose this information: Lou Correa voted to keep such information hidden from the public.

    Large corporations have been bottling California’s public water supply for years, bottling public source water. This water is bottled and sold back to the public at an extreme profit: Our public water as a private commodity. That is right: Privatization of our public water source.

    How bad is the problem? Nestle has been bottling millions of gallons a year from San Bernardino’s forests under a permit that expired over 25 years ago. When the permit was in effect, the annual cost for the permit was $525.00. Nestle bottles over 700 MILLION gallons of water to sell back to the public each year. As the public is ordered to cut back on water during the drought, with significant penalties at risk, corporations like Nestle bottle California’s water to sell back to them.

    Lou Correa voted to keep this exploitation of public resources a secret from the public to protect big corporate profits. Corporate profit over the public welfare: That is Lou Correa’s sad record, which Dan is endorsing.

    In 2009, California League of Conservation Voters (CLCV) scored Lou Correa’s environmental voting record at 29%. The Senate Democrat average was 82%, 53 points higher.

    In 2010, CLCV scored Lou Correa’s environmental voting record at 30%, 61 points lower than the average Senate Democrat.

    In 2011, Lou Correa scored 29%, 57 points lower than the average Senate Democrat.

    Lou has consistently placed corporate profits, tax breaks, and special interests over the needs of his constituents, chasing money for his next run. Which brings us to Lou Correa and Lobbyists.


    Here is a partial list of the Rogue’s Gallery of lobbyists who are bankrolling Lou Correa’s Congressional Campaign:

    Afrack Vargas – K Street Consulting;

    Amador Dean Aguillen – Ogilvy Governmental Relations

    Moses Mercado – Ogilvy Governmental Relations

    Gordon Taylor – Ogilvy Governmental Relations

    Richard Polanco – Tres Es

    Mickey Ibarra – Ibarra & Associates

    Jeffrey Leacox – Greenburg Traurig

    Darius Anderson – Platinum Advisors. Anderson paid $500,000.00 fine to the New York Attorney General following the AG’s investigation into pay-for-play involving public pension investments.

    Julie Anderson – wife of Platinum Advisors principal Darius Anderson.

    Julie Green Sloat (Wife of Sloat Higgins Jensen founder/Principal Kevin Sloat): Mr. Sloat received the highest fine in FPPC history ($133,500) for undisclosed contributions to Sacramento politicians, including Lou Correa. Lou Correa received a formal letter of warning from the FPPC.

    Kelly Jensen – Sloat Higgins Jensen

    Jose Cornejo

    Roger Faubel – Faubel Public Affairs (GOP Lobbyist, Major GOP Donor)

    Joseph Sinkule (Lobbyist for Kimberly Clarke Corp). Remember the $300 Million carve out for corporations Correa sought when he opposed and killed John Perez’s Middle Class Scholarship Act? International Paper and Kimberly Clark were the two companies he admitted to being concerned about.

    Correa has also received money from Kimberly Clarke PAC in addition to its lobbyist, Mr. Sinkule.

    He also received money from International Paper PAC. What a surprise.

    So, to set the record straight, when Dan says Lou Correa represents “the interests of the community” more than Joe Dunn, Now you know which community.

    • May 12, 2016 at 8:11 am

      Nicely written Jim Pantone. I stand by my research into the record and have the links to document each claim. And thanks for insulting our readers here to suggest the entire Obama is a Muslim line. The underlying message being “if you don’t support Joe Dunn, you’re Dumb.” Classic. Don’t forget to give Joe credit for the sun coming up this morning

      • Justin Case
        May 12, 2016 at 10:19 am

        Last time I looked in the mirror, I did not see Jim Pantone looking back at me. I hope your readers check out the links I presented. You have not submitted links for us to review. I hope you are not suggesting that your readers a so dumb as to take you on your word. That dog won’t hunt.

        • May 12, 2016 at 10:25 am

          well, Justin, perhaps you ought to write your own comments instead of cutting and pasting someone else’s that found its way to the spam filer with a different IP address. I’ve published it because I do know you, but these aren’t your words. They belong to someone who collects a check from the Dunn campaign. Give me a little credit here.

          • Justin Case
            May 12, 2016 at 10:41 am

            You have yet to point out any errors in fact presented. Changing the subject to who you consider the author of the comment is, distracts from the core fact that much of what you stated as fact is conflicts with verifiable evidence.

            • May 12, 2016 at 12:29 pm

              Ok, I’ll start with a few since I waiting for a long meeting to start.

              Easy ones. Joe voted to repeal driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants and did nothing to bring the issue back for his final three years in the senate. To make him a champion of this issue is false.

              Both Joe AND Lou are endorsed by the United Farm Workers, not just Joe. The CEO on any organization is responsible for big decisions organizations make. If Joe had nothing to do with the PAC, well he wasn’t an effective CEO. he couldn’t have influenced the Republicans on the PAC? Sure.

              I’ll add the attachments on bills later that back everything else up, but I’m out of pocket for a few hours. To say I’m lying is bull. I haven’t drunk the koolaid.

            • May 12, 2016 at 12:33 pm

              I know who the author is and I know the ghost writer. Man up fellas.

    • May 12, 2016 at 11:44 am

      Wow. I didn’t even know most of that. This comment deserves a wider audience than this blog. Please contact me, I know you can figure out how.

      • Justin Case
        May 12, 2016 at 11:54 am

        Feel free to copy and paste. It would annoy Dan, but that possibility is likely an enticement rather than deterrence.

        • May 12, 2016 at 12:11 pm

          Thanks. You have done some great research, whoever you are.

  8. Jeff LeTourneau
    May 12, 2016 at 10:11 am

    While both sides can spend countless hours debating this specific bill or that contribution, the following two things remain true in this classic battle between business Democrats and progressive Democrats: Senator Dunn was a 100% or near 100% vote for LGBTQ, labor, environment, education and reproductive choice for each of the eight years he held office. On a good day, Lou approaches 65 % to 70% (0% on reproductive freedom in 2009)and he was consistently unreliable for any legislation that offended his Catholic faith or his business contributors. In his own words he is “not 100% on any issue.” Second, an argument that Lou is best prepared to get things done by working with Republicans, while representing the only solidly Democratic Congressional District in OC, totally underscores the reason why this district needs a loud progressive voice like Joe Dunn and not another keep my head down and my powder dry right of center politician like Lou Correa!

    • May 12, 2016 at 10:21 am

      You must have missed this Jeff. “Joe abstained on a vote for legislation to implement employment non-discrimination requirements which would affect policies for Latinos, Asians, Muslims, and LGBTQ workers. This is the same as a “no” vote and it was a bill supported by Lou in the state assembly.”

      • May 12, 2016 at 10:26 am

        and while the Tait/Smith anti-reproductive choice ballot measure failed for lack of signatures, I’ll note Jeff not a word of criticism from you on that because of Tait. Odd for you to be a champion of that now.

    • May 12, 2016 at 10:32 am

      aren’t you a Bao guy? Or did you break your promise to support him if he came out and ran?

  9. Scipio
    May 13, 2016 at 12:59 pm

    To Justin Case, you should demand a refund from the person you paid to conduct the oppo research on Lou. Your “facts” border on malpractice.

    Former lobbyist Joe Dunn voted to take away drivers licenses from undocumented immigrants, and Lou opposed that bill. Here is the vote:

    Here is the analysis, that identifies the extreme right-wing CA Republican Assembly as a supporter of the bill:

    Here is the text of the bill if you are still confused:

    To quote Forrest, “That’s all I have to say about that.”

    Regarding Dunn’s time at CMA as its CEO / Executive Director: Dunn was intimately involved in the operations of the CMA Political Action Committee. While you did correctly note that the California Medical Association and the California Medical Association Political Action Committees are separate legal entities, Dunn actively participated in both. Dunn was at the helm of CMA and for anyone to suggest that the head of CMA is not intimately involved in their political action decisions needs to avail themselves of the varied services provided by the dues paying members of the organization. Justin, if you’re still confused, call up Mr. Corcoran at the CMA and ask him if he too is uninvolved in the decisions of the CMA PACs. With Dunn in charge, CMA gave hundreds of thousands to Republicans and even gave the Schwarzenegger ballot campaign committee $25,000! ‘Nuff said.

    Middle Class Scholarship – Lou voted in favor of AB 1501, the Middle Class Scholarship program in 2013. Lou did not support a separate $300 million tax measure, AB 1500. It appears that Justin Time is either confused about how legislation is passed in the Capitol or he is intentionally misleading readers. Of course, he may be simply repeating flawed research conducted by a third party. Justin, you really need to get your money back.

    In regards to your inaccurate claim that Lou opposed a study bill on a living wage, you could not be more WRONG. When the bill was in the Senate, SB 996 (Alarcon) would have required a fiscal study regarding the implementation of a living wage and here’s what Dunn voted for:
    The bill passed both the Senate Labor Committee and the Senate Floor. However, when the bill arrived in the Assembly, Senator Alarcon implemented a “gut-and-amend” of his legislation, changing the bill to a business regulation and certification bill. Here is the gut-and-amend:
    This is why the bill was sent to the Assembly Banking & Finance Committee instead of the Assembly Labor Committee, as was done in the Senate.
    The amended bill which bore no resemblance to the senate version was rejected by Correa and seven other democrats. Just two assembly members out of the 13 on the committee supported this extremely flawed bill. Here is the vote:

    Next up, SB 808 (De Leon) Licensing “Ghost” Gun Equipment. This is truly a stupid bill. Lou voted NO and it was such a worthless bill that it was vetoed by anti-gun Governor Brown. Only extremely expensive equipment can create the gun parts that make up “ghost guns.” Bad guys aren’t running around with this equipment – it’s too expensive for gangsters and much easier for them to illegally buy guns on the street or steal them. Here’s the Governor’s veto message:

    Next up: Dunn’s HORRIBLE voting record and other misdeeds…

    • Justin Case
      May 13, 2016 at 5:42 pm

      You must really think I’m stupid. Well, I’m not. Your first response demonstrates your ignorance.

      Yes, Joe Dunn voted, along with the sponsor of SB 60 to repeal that legislation. Here is Senator Cedillo’s position, as co-sponsor of the bill repealing SB60. I found it by looking on page 3 of the legislative analysis found via the link you posted.

      Senator Cedillo, the author of SB 60 and the principal coauthor of this bill, requests passage of SB 1 (3x) in order to reinitiate policy discussions regarding driver licensing for undocumented immigrants. Governor Schwarzenegger has expressed an interest in such discussions in 2004, but only if the provisions of SB 60 are repealed.

      I’m pretty sure I can effectively rebut each point of deception you have presented. But really, why should I bother when your first response is disproven by your own link?

      That’s all I have to say about that.

      • May 13, 2016 at 8:11 pm

        In fairness, if you don’t refute each point. You have surrendered it. Go ahead. Fact check him. You cannot ask for documentation of points provided, get them and dismiss them. Burden is on you. I’m sure Mr. Pantone won’t mind billing the Dunn campaign for his work that you can repost

        Dunn had 3 years left in the state senate after that vote and did nothing to give drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. His last word on that issue was to deny them the document. #wherewasjoe

  10. Pinky
    May 13, 2016 at 3:34 pm

    Did Joe put Luis Contrerras up to run? When the question got asked Sunday, Joe became a contortionist.

  11. Scipio
    May 13, 2016 at 9:05 pm

    Mr. Case, I wholeheartedly agree with the first sentence of your latest post. I also agree that Cedillo hoped to get the law re-authorized. HOWEVER, just because someone else supports taking drivers’ licenses away from undocumented folks in hopes of a compromise doesn’t change Dunn’s vote to support such a repeal. As Dan stated, Joe had three more years in the legislature and never did anything about it. Correa cast his vote in favor of restoring the drivers licenses, and guess what? The bill Correa voted for became law. AB 60 (Alejo). The vote is here:

    Scipio out. Mike drop.

Comments are closed.