She’s the family physician in the doctor’s smock turning up in California’s living rooms on TV spots, declaring the tobacco tax measure on the June ballot a menace.
But now Dr. La Donna Porter is coming under fire from tobacco-control groups and other doctors who are convinced the tobacco doctor — a registered Republican who once campaigned on behalf of a toxic chemical — is in it for the money and is being paid by tobacco companies. Public records show that she’s struggling to save her home from foreclosure and lift herself financially from two personal bankruptcies.
But in an exclusive interview with this newspaper, Porter’s husband defiantly defended her, denying that his wife has been paid for her work against Proposition 29.
“We don’t know anybody in the tobacco industry,” said John Porter from the couple’s home in Wilton, 25 miles from Sacramento. “They haven’t offered any money. And I’ve been with her every step of the way.”
Porter said he was “disgusted” with what he calls a “character assassination” against his wife.
The proponents for the smoking tax, California Proposition 29 have made a misstep here. The physician in the ads is not really an issue, the way the smoking tax money is spent IS.
Here is the video of the ad:
Even if Dr. Porter had received compensation for her participation in the ads, so what? Physicians and dentists are paid all of the time for professional opinions and testimonials.
As long as they are disclosed any payments to Dr. Porter are irrelevant.
Remember folks this is a political ad.
If anything, this attack on the good doctor while mentioning her financial difficulties will elicit sympathy for her position. I wonder who the consultant for the Yes on 29 campaign is?
Gov. Jerry Brown joins law enforcement officials from throughout the state at Capitol Mall to remember fallen peace officers, including eight who died in 2011.
This is the 36th year for the annual memorial ceremony. In a statement released before last year’s memorial, Brown called it “a somber reminder of the bravery and valor of the men and women behind the badge who made the ultimate sacrifice to keep our communities safe.”
Arnold Schwarzenegger has mostly stayed out of the political ring in California since packing his boxes and moving out of the state Capitol 16 months ago.
But he decided to throw a punch over the weekend at his fellow California Republicans — and the GOP faithful jabbed back. In truth, both sides doth protest too much… and have done so already. Multiple times, in fact.
Everything Schwarzenegger said in his weekend op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times had a familiar ring to it. Even his anecdote about falling in love with the Republican party in the late 1960s, via a Richard Nixon speech, was a throwback to the rousing open of his August 2004 prime time speech to the Republican National Convention.
Last November, San Jose gave the Oakland A’s an option to buy downtown land for a new ballpark. But the deal wasn’t intended simply to boost the stadium plan; it also aimed to protect the land from the state, which was seeking to nab the assets of city redevelopment agencies in order to plug its budget holes.
Now it appears the move may have come too late.
Other cities around the Bay Area made similar maneuvers to keep threatened projects alive, and they all may find those redevelopment-related deals in the state’s cross hairs as officials argue over the effective date of the law passed last year that ultimately killed the agencies.
Oakland city officials could be on the hook, although they insist they aren’t worried by their decision in March to sign a $3.5 million redevelopment-funded contract for planning work and an environmental impact review on a new coliseum project.
And in Santa Clara, officials say they are confident their contracts for the $1.2 billion 49ers stadium project that recently broke ground — and depended initially on up to $40 million in redevelopment agency funding — made it under an allowable time frame.
But state officials charged with implementing the law that shifted redevelopment agency property tax revenue from city projects to schools and other government programs say the law is clear: Any asset transferred last year from the redevelopment agencies to other government entities after Jan. 1, 2011,
about the time Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to kill the agencies became known, through June 28, 2011, must be returned. And any contracts that redevelopment agencies signed with outside parties after June 28, the date Brown signed the law, also aren’t viable.
For the third time since Californians embraced some of the strictest term limits in the nation 22 years ago, opponents are imploring voters to loosen them.
This time, a carefully crafted initiative on the June ballot — one of only two statewide measures — has fans of the term-limits law worried.
At first glance, the measure appears strict: It would reduce the overall amount of time a lawmaker can serve in Sacramento from 14 years to 12. And its greatest political selling point is it wouldn’t benefit any current politicians, unlike two previous initiatives that voters rejected.
“This design carries with it less appearance of self-dealing and self-interest,” said Lew Uhler, a leading proponent of the 1990 term-limits initiative. “It will be more difficult to defeat.”
By shaving two years off the existing lifetime limit, Proposition 28 proponents were able to list it on the ballot as “Limits on Legislators’ Terms” — an alluring title, given the public’s continuing support for limits.
It certainly sounded good to Gilroy Republican Edwin Natividad. “I’m for it because I’m for term limits,” said Natividad, a 49-year-old postal carrier.
But the measure also allows lawmakers to spend all 12 years in one legislative house, doubling the amount of time Assembly members could serve there. They’re now limited to three two-year terms; senators are restricted to two four-year terms.
Chief Executive Magazine’s annual survey of the Best & Worst states for business puts California in a familiar spot: #50. California was named the worst place to do business while Texas retained its position as the best.
The survey was conducted with 650 CEOs from across the country who were asked to evaluate states on a number of issues such as regulations, tax policies, workforce quality, educational resources, quality of living and infrastructure.
The magazine’s editor–in-chief, J.P. Donlon said, “CEOs tell us that California seems to be doing everything possible to drive business from the state.”
Enjoy your morning and here is Dan Walters Daily Video: California’s school system is languishing
College of the Canyons Trustee and Republican Assembly Candidate Scott Wilk
I suppose you would call this an endorsement of Scott Wilk, but the negatives on Patricia McKeon are also too numerous.to overlook.
In any election it is important to look at the candidates with as much objectivity as possible. To step back and look at the qualifications of the candidates and determine whether each candidate has the experience, the education, and the sheer wherewithal to actually uphold the responsibilities of the office they are running for. We as voters have to take this seriously; we must have some interest in understanding that the individual we vote for has the qualities to fully represent us in that office. The candidate must, without hesitation, be able to understand the issues that are important, not only to the constituents, but to the larger picture of the state or national arena. That candidate must be able to do so by reaching across the aisle to build bi-partisan cooperation.
There are four individuals running for the 38th District State Assembly seat, three Republicans; Patricia McKeon, Paul Strickland, and Scott Wilk, and one Democrat; Edward Headington. The one that stands out as least qualified is Patricia McKeon.
Over the last several months, Mrs. McKeon has made one misstep after another that has highlighted the obvious fact that she neither has a grasp of the issues nor does she have the political chops to represent the 38th District in Sacramento. I am not saying this lightly or to be “mean” but rather to lay out the fact that Patricia McKeon has shown us, herself, that she lacks the basic skills to be able to execute the responsibilities of the state assembly office.
The most egregious example that I can point to is a candidate forum that was held in mid-April in which Patricia was asked a question regarding managing revenue with the impact of ballot initiatives. With a deer-in-the-headlights look on her face she said; “I have no idea!”
I don’t believe that is at all an acceptable answer. It is completely fine to not have an answer to that question! But at a candidate forum, the very least Mrs. McKeon could have told the voter was that she did not have enough information to answer the question at that time and would be happy to get back to the person at a later date. The fact that she didn’t do that shows me that not only does she not have enough working knowledge of state issues but she does not have the political skills to navigate difficult situations.
“I have no idea!” When Patricia McKeon uttered those four words she basically defined her candidacy. Couple that with several of her stilted appearances, especially the one at the Simi Valley Tea Party forum, with the fact that she has not held any elected office before, appeared to have plagiarized on her Facebook page, and it all adds up to a very inexperienced candidate. We don’t need to elect a seat warmer or someone that will be getting on the job training.
I have known Scott Wilk for decades and would vote for him without any hesitation, if I lived in this Santa Clarita Valley based Assembly District.
Patricia McKeon is inexperienced, never held public office and is ethically challenged having taken many thousands of dollars in salary from her husband Congressman Buck McKeon’s campaign. This is viewed by many as a political payoff for her husband’s influence in the Congess.
Santa Clarita Valley voters have a choice in June – a clear choice – to vote for Scott Wilk.