Sen. Leland Yee arrested on public corruption charges

[Adam]

Sen. Leland Yee arrested on public corruption charges

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (KCRA) —State Sen. Leland Yee was escorted into San Francisco's Federal Building wearing handcuffs after he was arrested Wednesday morning during a series of raids in the Bay Area and Sacramento.

NBC Bay Area was first to report that Yee, a Democrat, was detained by federal agents on charges that include public corruption.

A second man, Raymond Chow, was also arrested, according to the FBI.

[....]

The report of Yee's arrest comes just one month after Los Angeles-area Democrat Ron Calderon pleaded not guilty to charges that he accepted $100,000 in bribes in return for pushing legislation, charges that could send him to federal prison for years.

Earlier in the year, Sen. Rod Wright, D-Inglewood, was convicted in a perjury and voter fraud case.

---

Sheesh! They're going to run out of politicians in Sacramento if they keep this up.

And then there's this:

Yee is best known publicly for his efforts to strengthen open records, government transparency and whistleblower protection laws, including legislation to close a loophole in state public records laws after the CSU Stanislaus Foundation refused to release its $75,000 speaking contract with former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin in 2010.

For his efforts to uphold the California Public Records Act, Yee was honored last week by the Northern California chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists, which awarded him its public official citation for his efforts last year to maintain the requirements of the California Public Records Act.

Oh, the irony!

I'm guessing those guys are feeling kinda stupid about that award now...

[Gramps]

I'm guessing those guys are feeling kinda stupid about that award now...

Seriously?

From the party that celebrates voter fraud?

The corruption of the individual politician does not effect the decision to remain 'loyal' to the 'cause' from the mindless.

That applies to both sides of the aisle for the majority of the converted.
The converted majority from the left, hugely outnumbers the converted majority of the right. That is why they win elections.

The means are always justified by the goal and the transgressions of those who espouse the goal will not be scalded by contempt from the lock step non thinkers.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

I hope this is a mistake, although the FBI's mistakes usually tend to involve really bad judgment about who to shoot, not so much who to arrest. Well, and there is that serial-killer profiling problem....

I worked on Leland Yee's campaigns for School Board and Board of Supervisors in SF back in the day. He seemed like a decent guy, had some good ideas, cared about his constituency but also about the city and state as a whole. He reached out to do coalitions with the Black, Latino and GLBT Democratic clubs before it was politically expedient to do that; yes, the Chinese-American commmunity in SF tends to vote Democratic, but they also tend (or tended in the '80s and early '90s) to be socially conservative.

If it turns out he really was dirty, I'll be very disappointed in him. "Machine politics" is a fact of life in both parties. Dirty politics shouldn't be.

[Adam]

Somehow, despite some pretty overwhelming evidence that Yee was taking bribes and running guns, and indeed actually dropped out of the race two months ago, he still got ten percent of the vote in the primary yesterday, more than a quarter of a million votes.



For all of you folks out there who shout "everyone should be able to vote (as many times as they want to, whether they're alive or not)," this is a wonderful example of why you are so incredibly wrong. The Founders limited who could vote to those who actually had an interest at stake for a damn good reason: because those are the people who are actually paying attention and give a damn.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Somehow, despite some pretty overwhelming evidence that Yee was taking bribes and running guns, and indeed actually dropped out of the race two months ago, he still got ten percent of the vote in the primary yesterday, more than a quarter of a million votes.



For all of you folks out there who shout "everyone should be able to vote (as many times as they want to, whether they're alive or not)," this is a wonderful example of why you are so incredibly wrong. The Founders limited who could vote to those who actually had an interest at stake for a damn good reason: because those are the people who are actually paying attention and give a damn.

Do you have some evidence that the people who voted for him were not entitled to vote?

Leland Yee was a popular politician. Some people remain loyal even when it's not justified. Yee has, so far, only been arrested and charged. In New Jersey, a convicted felon could get 10% of the vote if he was popular in his own neighborhood.

[Adam]

Do you have some evidence that the people who voted for him were not entitled to vote?

No, nor did I claim that.

The point is that this absolutist "everyone deserves to vote" mantra is horribly misguided. Some people simply should not vote.

That's right: I said it. Some people simply should not vote.

People who are too damned ignorant to even bother to determine whether someone they're voting for is under federal indictment, or they're so warped that they don't care that someone they're voting for is under federal indictment, just don't need to be out there determining how a state or this nation is governed. People who are deciding how this nation is run should have "skin in the game." No, I'm not saying "poor people shouldn't vote," so before anyone goes there, just zip it. What I'm saying is that people who are casting votes should have an incentive to bother finding out what candidate are about before they get to vote.

In my perfect world, people would be mandated to articulate, coherently, the basic policy stances of each candidate for whom they are voting in order to cast that vote. No pulling the donkey tail or the elephant trunk because that's what your daddy's daddy did. No blindly chanting "Obama! Obama" into the voting booth without the slightest fucking clue what he stands for. No going to vote for Rick Santorum because "he's a Godly man" and your minister told you to vote for him. No voting for someone because the union said to do so. No voting for someone because the ladies' auxiliary at church said to do so. Make each and every voter specifically state, in their own words the policy reasons for why they are casting a vote a particular way.

Of course, that would unfortunately slow the voting process to an absolute crawl, plus many would consider it contrary to to Amendment XXIV, though personally I think that reasonable people can tell the difference between demanding that someone be an informed voter and a rigged "literacy test" specifically designed to prevent the "wrong" people from voting. So, my perfect world isn't practical. Next best thing: demand that people have "skin in the game" in order to vote.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

No, nor did I claim that.

The point is that this absolutist "everyone deserves to vote" mantra is horribly misguided. Some people simply should not vote.

That's right: I said it. Some people simply should not vote.

People who are too damned ignorant to even bother to determine whether someone they're voting for is under federal indictment, or they're so warped that they don't care that someone they're voting for is under federal indictment, just don't need to be out there determining how a state or this nation is governed. People who are deciding how this nation is run should have "skin in the game." No, I'm not saying "poor people shouldn't vote," so before anyone goes there, just zip it. What I'm saying is that people who are casting votes should have an incentive to bother finding out what candidate are about before they get to vote.

In my perfect world, people would be mandated to articulate, coherently, the basic policy stances of each candidate for whom they are voting in order to cast that vote. No pulling the donkey tail or the elephant trunk because that's what your daddy's daddy did. No blindly chanting "Obama! Obama" into the voting booth without the slightest fucking clue what he stands for. No going to vote for Rick Santorum because "he's a Godly man" and your minister told you to vote for him. No voting for someone because the union said to do so. No voting for someone because the ladies' auxiliary at church said to do so. Make each and every voter specifically state, in their own words the policy reasons for why they are casting a vote a particular way.

Of course, that would unfortunately slow the voting process to an absolute crawl, plus many would consider it contrary to to Amendment XXIV, though personally I think that reasonable people can tell the difference between demanding that someone be an informed voter and a rigged "literacy test" specifically designed to prevent the "wrong" people from voting. So, my perfect world isn't practical. Next best thing: demand that people have "skin in the game" in order to vote.

And how would you propose to do that?

People who voted for Yee are probably people who DO have "skin in the game." They're probably people whose loyalty if fueled by recollection of the many good things he did for his constituency in the past. Large issues, particularly ones that don't have a day-to-day impact (like a federal indictment that may or may not result in a conviction) are frequently less important to the voter on the street than who gets the potholes fixed and the crack houses shut down.

So Leland Yee publicly "stood for" gun control. That actually was a stance that would have played well to the larger SF voting demographic, but not so well with his original constituency (do you know any Asian market owners in a major city who don't keep a gun in the store?). The fact that he was a hypocrite on the gun issue probably got a pass as "meh, that's politics."

Bribes might be a different story, unless the perception was that he took money to do what he would've done anyway.

I'm not saying these attitudes are justified. I'm saying they're out there in any voter base. All politics really IS local.

[gary m]

My offhand guess is that many of those that voted for Yee could not pick him out of a 2 person line up if the other person was Diane Feinstein, but they did recognize the (D) after his name and the word "incumbent" somewhere near it.

Not saying this is exclusive to Democrats as a good number of Republicans vote the same way based on some of the results.

[scott]

No, nor did I claim that.

The point is that this absolutist "everyone deserves to vote" mantra is horribly misguided. Some people simply should not vote.

That's right: I said it. Some people simply should not vote.

People who are too damned ignorant to even bother to determine whether someone they're voting for is under federal indictment, or they're so warped that they don't care that someone they're voting for is under federal indictment, just don't need to be out there determining how a state or this nation is governed. People who are deciding how this nation is run should have "skin in the game." No, I'm not saying "poor people shouldn't vote," so before anyone goes there, just zip it. What I'm saying is that people who are casting votes should have an incentive to bother finding out what candidate are about before they get to vote.

In my perfect world, people would be mandated to articulate, coherently, the basic policy stances of each candidate for whom they are voting in order to cast that vote. No pulling the donkey tail or the elephant trunk because that's what your daddy's daddy did. No blindly chanting "Obama! Obama" into the voting booth without the slightest fucking clue what he stands for. No going to vote for Rick Santorum because "he's a Godly man" and your minister told you to vote for him. No voting for someone because the union said to do so. No voting for someone because the ladies' auxiliary at church said to do so. Make each and every voter specifically state, in their own words the policy reasons for why they are casting a vote a particular way.

Of course, that would unfortunately slow the voting process to an absolute crawl, plus many would consider it contrary to to Amendment XXIV, though personally I think that reasonable people can tell the difference between demanding that someone be an informed voter and a rigged "literacy test" specifically designed to prevent the "wrong" people from voting. So, my perfect world isn't practical. Next best thing: demand that people have "skin in the game" in order to vote.

While the idea might seem correct, the means to enforce it would be absolutely draconian and rife with massive corruption.

[Adam]

And how would you propose to do that?

Simple, easily-verified qualifications:

1. Paid at least a net $1 in federal income taxes in the last tax year. No net negatives. You can take your home loan interest deduction that takes you below $0 if you want, but if you want to vote, you still write a check for at least $1.
2. Own real property.
3. Drawing retirement, either Social Security retirement or some other investment income that is a retirement fund (not a trust fund, lottery winnings, etc.) that is either taxed now or was taxed when it was deposited.
4. Active-duty or retired military, or immediate dependents of active-duty military.

If you live your life sucking on welfare, Section 8 housing, and EITC, then sorry, but you don't get to vote yourself any more largess. If you live in the projects and draw welfare, then fill out a 1040 and write a check to the Treasury on April 15 and you can go vote.

People who voted for Yee are probably people who DO have "skin in the game."

Very doubtful.

They're probably people whose loyalty if fueled by recollection of the many good things he did for his constituency in the past. Large issues, particularly ones that don't have a day-to-day impact (like a federal indictment that may or may not result in a conviction) are frequently less important to the voter on the street than who gets the potholes fixed and the crack houses shut down.

In other words, uninformed voters, or people who simply do not care that the guy that they're voting for is under indictment and has been suspended from the big building in Sacramento.

So Leland Yee publicly "stood for" gun control. That actually was a stance that would have played well to the larger SF voting demographic, but not so well with his original constituency

I don't really care about the hypocrisy angle in this respect. It's not really relevant to the topic here.

(do you know any Asian market owners in a major city who don't keep a gun in the store?).

Actually, yes. The Korean guy who runs the little market a block away from my office flatly refuses to have a gun in his store. We got to talking about it one day when he was in my office arranging a trip to Korea to go to a niece's wedding and he noticed my gun. He was a bit upset about the fact that I had carried that gun into his store every weekday for years. I eventually promised him that I would make sure I didn't carry in his store in the future, and I don't.

The fact that he was a hypocrite on the gun issue probably got a pass as "meh, that's politics."

Perhaps.

Bribes might be a different story, unless the perception was that he took money to do what he would've done anyway.

I'm not saying these attitudes are justified. I'm saying they're out there in any voter base. All politics really IS local.

I don't really deny that all politics is local, though there are certainly exceptions to that.

[Adam]

While the idea might seem correct, the means to enforce it would be absolutely draconian and rife with massive corruption.

My "perfect world" scenario? Absolutely. It's completely un-workable. It's a fantasy. I recognize that entirely.

My much more real-world solution above? Gonna be pretty tough to game, actually.

[Celeste Chalfonte]

Simple, easily-verified qualifications:

1. Paid at least a net $1 in federal income taxes in the last tax year. No net negatives. You can take your home loan interest deduction that takes you below $0 if you want, but if you want to vote, you still write a check for at least $1.
2. Own real property.
3. Drawing retirement, either Social Security retirement or some other investment income that is a retirement fund (not a trust fund, lottery winnings, etc.) that is either taxed now or was taxed when it was deposited.
4. Active-duty or retired military, or immediate dependents of active-duty military.

If you live your life sucking on welfare, Section 8 housing, and EITC, then sorry, but you don't get to vote yourself any more largess. If you live in the projects and draw welfare, then fill out a 1040 and write a check to the Treasury on April 15 and you can go vote.

Very doubtful.

In other words, uninformed voters, or people who simply do not care that the guy that they're voting for is under indictment and has been suspended from the big building in Sacramento.

I don't really care about the hypocrisy angle in this respect. It's not really relevant to the topic here.

Actually, yes. The Korean guy who runs the little market a block away from my office flatly refuses to have a gun in his store. We got to talking about it one day when he was in my office arranging a trip to Korea to go to a niece's wedding and he noticed my gun. He was a bit upset about the fact that I had carried that gun into his store every weekday for years. I eventually promised him that I would make sure I didn't carry in his store in the future, and I don't.

Perhaps.

I don't really deny that all politics is local, though there are certainly exceptions to that.

So essentially, you want people to have to pay to vote.

[Adam]

So essentially, you want people to have to pay to vote.

I want them to have a stake in the governance and what the government does with their money, even if it's only a dollar. The working stiff bus driver gets the exact same vote as Bill Gates.