Chevron spending $1.6 million to control Richmond city elections

"Chevron pouring money into Richmond election"
2014-08-22 by Chip Johnson for "San Francisco Chronicle"[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Chevron-pouring-money-into-Richmond-election-5704673.php]:
The biggest political campaign war chest in Richmond doesn't belong to a candidate, it belongs to a corporation that hopes to steer the city's November municipal election in its favor.
Chevron, the city's main employer and taxpayer, is also the biggest spender on political campaigns - it set aside $1.6 million in a political action committee called Moving Forward that supports the oil giant's favorite City Council and mayoral candidates.
Let me repeat: $1.6 million. For local elections in a city of a little over 106,000 residents.
The campaign contribution limit in Richmond for both individuals and companies is $2,500, but political action committees can spend unlimited amounts of money on "in-kind" support - money not given directly to a candidate but spent on that candidate's behalf.
Moving Forward calls itself a coalition of "labor unions, small businesses and public safety and firefighters associations." But the money for the PAC comes largely, if not solely, from Chevron.
So who are the beneficiaries of Chevron's generous contribution? Richmond City Councilman Nat Bates, who's running for mayor and Donna Powers, Charles Ramsey and Al Martinez, all candidates vying for seats on the City Council.
What this means is Richmond voters will be showered with glossy campaign mailers, billboards and other political advertising - perhaps TV, radio and newspaper ads - all supporting these candidates. Chevron's PAC can pay for canvassers and phone banks and just about any resource that can be bought.
But there is a catch to this pot o' gold: The candidates must acknowledge where the money came from - and that could present a problem for some Richmond voters.
"The curse is that they will also become, for the next two months, the 'Chevron candidates,' a moniker that impresses some and scares the hell out of others," wrote Richmond City Councilman Tom Butt in his newsletter. Butt, a longtime councilman, is running for mayor.
Bates has been on the receiving end of catcalls referring to him as "Chevron's boy" and much, much worse, for years, Butt said in a recent interview.
His campaign headquarters share a building on the 3100 block of Macdonald Avenue used by a nonprofit organization funded by Chevron.
Richmond voters have seen it before - Chevron spent $1.2 million in 2012 to support council candidates Bates, the late Gary Bell and Bea Roberson, who failed to get elected.
Despite all the money thrown around by this corporate giant, it's clear not all of Richmond's residents are so easily swayed by swag. But that's not stopping Chevron from trying to influence the outcome of a city election.
Change is coming to Richmond, slow but steady. Crime is way down, development is on the way up, and the city needs to shed its historical reputation as a "company" town.
Its largest political organization, the Richmond Progressive Alliance, requires applicants to pledge not to take corporate contributions as a condition of membership.
It must be striking a chord with residents because the city's two-term mayor, Gayle McLaughlin, is a founding member.
Richmond is emerging as a city with promise, and part of the process has involved more and more of its politicians distancing themselves from Chevron's enormous financial influence.
It's disappointing to see it brought in by the truckload into another Richmond municipal election.

"Chevron running slick campaign to control Richmond"

by David Helvarg, posted 2014-07-18 at [www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Chevron-running-slick-campaign-to-control-Richmond-5631486.php]:
David Helvarg is executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean conservation and policy group. His latest book is "The Golden Shore - California's Love Affair with the Sea."
---
If the Supreme Court is right that corporations are people and money is free speech, then Chevron is the biggest loudmouth in Richmond, where I live.
When people think of unlimited campaign spending, they tend to think of national elections, but the most insidious impacts may be taking place at the state and municipal levels. I know Chevron contributes to our local economy because it disbursed more than $2 million in city election campaign money since 2010, or roughly $50 each on me and every other registered voter in our small city of 106,000. The company provides jobs not only at its sprawling Richmond oil refinery but also for public relations, printers and a private detective who was hired a few years ago to smear the mayor.
Chevron wants to get rid of our Green Party mayor and progressive City Council majority because they've challenged the company on property taxes and pollution. That's why in 2012 Chevron spent $422,000 backing a single candidate for one of the seven council seats that pays $16,830 a year. The company wants to return to the days when the council majority was known as the "Chevron 5."
In August 2012, there was a fire at the refinery. I took pictures of the billowing black column of smoke while 15,000 other people went to local hospitals complaining of burning eyes, nausea and trouble breathing. Cal-OSHA fined the company close to $1 million for safety violations, and it pleaded no contest to a series of misdemeanor criminal charges. That is what corporations now do in lieu of anyone going to jail. I'll agree with the conservative majority of the U.S. Supreme Court that corporations are people when Texas places one of them on death row.
Now Chevron wants to assure me that things are better, and we should all be "Richmond Proud." That's the name it's given a multimillion-dollar PR campaign of billboards, T-shirts, tote bags, mailers, robo-calls, highly publicized charitable contributions, a local newspaper it created, and TV ads. Phase one of the campaign was all about being proud of our parks and waterfront and youth opportunities, which all expanded under the progressive City Council that Chevron wants to get rid of.
Then I attended a Richmond Planning Commission meeting on the company's billion-dollar refinery modernization plan, which the City Council could vote on this month. A contingent of folks showed up in blue and white T-shirts reading "A Modernized Refinery. Another Reason to be Richmond Proud." I couldn't help noticing that while 80 percent of the folks in the pro-Chevron shirts were white, 69 percent of Richmond's population is not.
Now in PR phase two, the billboards, TV ads and mailers are telling us how good this plant modernization will be for Richmond. Unfortunately, the $1 billion for the refinery upgrade will not be spent in the part of the facility that caught fire but on a hydrogen plant that will allow the company to burn higher-sulfur-content petroleum from places like Iraq. This could increase air pollutants 24 percent and greenhouse gas emissions 16 percent, by one reading of the company's environmental impact report.
Chevron, which will probably make barrels of extra money burning this "sour" oil, insists there will be no net increase in pollution, thanks to new and innovative approaches like carbon trading. But even reducing greenhouse gas emissions from an oil refinery is like reducing gun violence at the Colt firearms factory. It misses the point.
Richmond has double the childhood asthma rate of Marin County just across the bay. California is experiencing a historic drought and forest fires linked to climate change brought about by carbon pollution. It's become a product liability issue. Chevron's product, used as directed, overheats our planet.
When I asked the company how much it planned to spend in this fall's city elections (that would include phase three of their media blitz), I was told the company hadn't decided yet but would support candidates committed to public safety, job creation and other boilerplate.
Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin didn't mince her words, however. "We get all their pollution not only in the air, but they pollute our elections, too. If they'd reduce their emissions and withdraw from our elections, they'd be respecting our health and democracy."
Of course, if they'd do that, then I'd be Richmond Proud of them, but I'm not holding my breath, although, living 2 miles from the refinery, I probably should.