Over $13 million has gone into Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign coffers since 2013, from just five families: Broad (KB Homes, AIG “too big to fail” insurance), Hastings (Netflicks), Riordan (Republican ex-mayor of LA), Bloomfield (home-grown SoCal Libertarian-Conservatives), and Bloomberg (mayor of … NYC?). Four of these families have given over one million dollars each and the Hastings have given over seven million.
They must feel a Villaraigosa governorship will be very valuable for their personal business interests. Why?
What will a Tuck Superintendency do for them? Broad and home-grown Libertarian Bloomfield each think Tuck’s candidacy is worth more than one million dollars. Along with Bloomberg, Scully (high-tech investor), Hastings and Riordan, these six families have collectively contributed over $3m to his campaigns since 2013.
Table I shows the donations of nine select High Rollers over the past four years. The top of the chart shows targeted donations to specific individual’s campaigns. The list reads like a cheerleader section for privatization. These are the legislative army that would champion substituting a middle class of public servants in favor of private for-profit interests (even if nominally not-for-profit (NFP); that means only that profits must return to the business with no regard to equity or fairness. The CEO/money manager of Aaron Sosnick’s NFP “Community Partners”, for example, earns nearly $400,000 – for nominally half-time work).
(For a clearer view of Table I: What do Big Donors support)
Of particular note is the section on Table IB showing donations to PACs, legislative campaigns and generalized campaign support. NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg has been very attentive to California’s public health policy. His focus on public health is admirable, but finagling policy in a state 3,000 miles distant does bring new meaning to the concept of “fly-over states”.
Beyond direct contributions to specific individual political campaigns, giving is actually accomplished via myriad routes.
One (of several) monster-PACs devoted to things Educational is Edvoice; their PAC is called, reductively, “For The Kids”. Last year (2017-18), just eight families contributed nearly $8m to this PAC (see Table II),
with $2.4m coming from the Waltons. In turn this PAC contributed $7.4m to Marshall Tuck’s campaign directly (see Table III),
with more than $1m going to unspecified campaign support (see Table IV).
The same tiny crew keep boosting this same losing crowd. It does really beg the question of whether “winning” and “losing” is linked to actual policy theories and plans, ideology. Or whether instead the evidence suggests that since you can be roundly defeated and apparently just come back all over again, energizer-bunny style, with ever more money in your pocketsies to eventually nab a “win” – it just begs the question of what actually flips a vote: political platform, money, or shameless persistence?
There’s plenty of good, direct reason to reject Marshall Tuck. Please note the SD Free Press’ Jim Miller’s call-out of the underlying right-wing radical policies of Marshall Tuck (note the “Republican” expenditures in table IV to party and political organizations; Table IV expenditures overlap (are not independent of) all donations reported in Table III). And consider Marshall Tuck’s unsavory allies. But more substantively, as an educational ‘school turn-around’ administrator Marshall Tuck’s record fares no better than his failed elective efforts. Tuck’s leadership at Villaraigosa’s Partnership for LA Schools (PLAS) is characterized by metrics that lag behind LAUSD’s benchmarks.
If Tuck’s never taught, he can’t lead and he can’t even exceed a level of success that is considered base-line, then why is he being considered for the State’s highest Education post; what canhe do??
Clearly he can rake in the big bucks from the same crowd that recklessly promotes Villaraigosa. They are tied to the same failed ideology of school reform (aka “Charter Schools” or privatization of the Commons) by the same self-serving boosters of it.
This public-private partnership riff seems set to serve the private side nicely – at least they demonstrably believe so. But the public edge seems less convinced. Marshall Tuck received fewer than 2/3 the primary votes of Tom Torlakson in 2014. And Villaraigosa has been scrabbling steeply from pyramid-scheme consultant towater-carrier for the privatization class.
How to drain the Multi-Level Marketer in chief is anybody’s guess. But there’s no question about who should be Superintendent: VOTE FOR TONY THURMOND