Comment on this post

D’Arcy’s Kiss of Death for Chris Essel

The Dec. 8 runoff in Council District 2 between Paul Krekorian and Chris Essel shaped up as a choice between the lesser of two evils, both beholden the same City Hall political machine that for so long has betrayed the public trust and jeopardized the city’s future.

Krekorian: Liberal Democrat owned by Hollywood, the Democrats and the SEIU
Essel: Business advocate owned by Hollywood, downtown developers and DWP’s union, the IBEW.

With nearly 90 percent of the money spent in the primary to succeed Wendy Greuel in the East San Fernando Valley, they easily knocked off eight other candidates — who unlike them actually lived in the district prior to the seat opening up.

It was a tossup, as far as I was concerned, between two decent, intelligent people who would do nothing to change the political dynamic at City Hall.

Then, on Wednesday, the election calculus changed.
Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for darcy1.jpg
IBEW union boss Brian D’Arcy escalated what was already a vicious and expensive campaign against Krekorian by suing the people who, against their will, have made his union members the wealthiest utility workers in California, if not the nation and the world.

D’Arcy isn’t just greedy and selfish like most of the special interests who feed at the trough of City Hall. He’s the closest thing to a truly evil force in city politics. He’s someone who has shown utter contempt for the public interest for years, someone who has sabotaged every effort to replace the DWP’s coal-burning power plants with renewable resources, someone who has blackmailed city officials into putting ratepayers money into staggering increases in wages and benefits while the water and power systems rotted.

Using the IBEW front group Working Californians — the one that spent $800,000 in a failed attempt to pass Measure B in March so the union get rip off the billions of dollars that was supposed to buy solar energy — D’Arcy went to court Wednesday to challenge the city’s campaign financing law.

Maeve Reston in the LA Times reported that the legal challenge is to the 1985 city law that “bars political
committees from accepting contributions of more than $500 if the group
plans to use that money to make an independent expenditure for a city
“In practice, the law prevents outside groups or
individuals from contributing to each other to pay for independent
expenditures that support city candidates. Contributions that are not
earmarked for a specific city campaign are not subject to that $500
limit. (If violations are suspected, the City Ethics Commission’s
enforcement division determines whether a contribution was for an
independent expenditure).”

In other words, D’Arcy who has already spent nearly $100,000 in the runoff to elect Essel wants to lift all limits on what he can spend to buy the election outright. It’s an indication that he has polls showing the race is close and winnable, which ought to wake up voters if anything will.

His lawyer, Stephen Kaufman, the mouthpiece and campaign treasurer for
virtually every city  elected official, piously made this claim:
“Working Californians has always played by the rules in the past and
wants to play by the rules in this upcoming election, and it has filed
this lawsuit to ask the court to clarify the rules once and for all.”

D’Arcy’s plays by the rules all right, the devil’s rules.
Essel can claim all she wants that she had nothing to do with this
lawsuit and hasn’t spoken to D’Arcy since earlier in the campaign but
she’s sold her soul to the devil.

We can argue about the public
value of giveaways to downtown developers and how the city has enriched
AEG with its sweetheart deals for Staples Center, LA Live and all those
digital billboard eyesores, but there’s no ambiguity about the IBEW’s
role at the DWP.

They got 5.9 percent pay raises the last two
years, increasing the gap of as much as 40 percent IBEW workers have
over other city workers doing the same jobs. And last month they got a
sweetheart deal with huge lump sum payments and guaranteed raises of up
to 4 percent for five years when cops got nothing and the rest of the
city workforce lost money.

If there was any doubt about where
Essel stands, she cast her lot with D’Arcy by putting out a statement
after thinking things over that accuses Krekorian of raising campaign
money from lobbyists and oil companies:

“Real reform starts with holding politicians accountable for violating
our ethics laws,” she said, “I am the only candidate who has offered
voters a series of tough new ethics rules that will, among other
things, force politicians to pay fines out of their own pockets and
stop Sacramento politicians from skirting city rules by using their
state political accounts to secretly fund campaigns.”

Chris, the city doesn’t set oil prices. It sets the wages and benefits
of DWP workers and the rates the public has to pay to keep D’Arcy from
carrying out his threats to shut off our water and power.

Essel has her chance to denounce D’Arcy. Instead, she attacked Krekorian.

She’s sold her soul to the devil and that makes her without doubt the greater of two evils.


This entry was posted in City Hall, Hot Topics, Los Angeles and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to D’Arcy’s Kiss of Death for Chris Essel

  1. anonymous says:

    So, let me get this straight. My tax dollars pays union wages. Of those wages, a portion of their paycheck goes to pay the union. Then that money pays to endorse and elect candidates. Right?
    Something seems dreadfully wrong with that picture.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Essel’s statement you quote about making politicians pay out of their pockets for any violation of ethics laws – even when the Ethics Commission determines they were technical oversight and that the campaign account to repay has closed, that it’s of no consequence, etc. – is being repeated by the other union that is buying her, the Police Political League which bought that other Shallman client Trutanich for $800,000, but seems to have gotten a pretty ineffective pawn. It’s straight out of the Shallman talking points he used for Trutanich to try to make a mountain out of a molehill against Weiss. Trutanich kept trying to make a stink about how he should pay for something long deemed closed by the Ethics Commission out of pocket, a transparent grandstand ploy you loved.
    Since virtually any politician who’s run more than once has had their campaign people make a minor mishap of some kind that any opponent however unqualified can make a major mountain out of for soundbites, this is THE SOP for the untried, new candidate vs. ANY incumbent. But you were all FOR this transparent ploy when it was FOR Trutanich – who you’re still playing up as the greatest thing since sliced bread, including right on your previous thread.
    Trutanich is endorsing Essel along with IBEW, the PPL and those who supported SB1818, Measure B and the rest. Things aren’t as simple as they seem, are they?

  3. James McCuen says:

    I don’t care for Essel because to me she represents big Developer interests over the Community and small “mom and pop” businesses.
    That has also been the position Central City Association which she was a part of.
    Sometimes Unions and big business are aligned with each other. The Unions get the short-term trickle-down effect of new construction activity. And Developers become even fatter “Fat Cats.”
    In any case I wish the best for the CD-2 constituents, especially if they are burdened with Christine Essel – Good luck and Godspeed.

  4. kmw says:

    to 5:46 pm. Your tax dollars do not pay for union wages at DWP. You pay for power and water service — you are a ratepayer. The rates paid to DWP cover capital and operating costs including employee salaries. If employees choose to spend part of their salary to support a union then so be it — they are no more taxpayer funds that the money you pay for your internet service provider or cell phone company.
    Note that water and power provided outside the City are provided by private entities at a higher rate — and they also have unions and political action committees which may also be supported by the people empl0yed at these entities.

  5. anonymous says:

    to 5:46 pm. Your tax dollars do not pay for union wages at DWP. You pay for power and water service — you are a ratepayer. The rates paid to DWP cover capital and operating costs including employee salaries. If employees choose to spend part of their salary to support a union then so be it — they are no more taxpayer funds that the money you pay for your internet service provider or cell phone company.
    Note that water and power provided outside the City are provided by private entities at a higher rate — and they also have unions and political action committees which may also be supported by the people empl0yed at these entities.

  6. Anonymous says:

    9:49PM,your statement that “……..water and power provided outside the City are provided by private entities at a higher rate…” is the kind of b.s. you and hacks like you are feeding City Hall, in order to raise rates, so that the thug D`Arcy buys the Essels of City Hall in every election cycle.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Essel took a page from Greuel`s playbook and sold her soul to Don D`Arcy. Blind political ambition that has no limits. Shame to all.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Hey Ron you forgot the Police Political League cop union that threw in a ton of money to buy Essel. They send a lousy IN & Out truck once a year to every police station for their cops but spends tons on themselves. They’re having another $100,000 Xmas party for themselves and politicans, no cops invited but they’re paying for it with their dues. All these unions need to be AUDITED, Police Political League, IBEW, SEIU, Unite Here,
    Los Angeles Police Protective League PAC Los Angeles, CA 90017 (Independent Expenditure) Support Christine EsselCity Council Member – District 02Chris Essel for City Council 2009 – General (1321633)[Election: 12/08/09] 11/11/09 11/11/09 Radio Advertisement RADSC-4 $65,000.00
    Los Angeles Police Protective League PAC Los Angeles, CA 90017 (Independent Expenditure) Support Christine EsselCity Council Member – District 02Chris Essel for City Council 2009 – General (1321633)[Election: 12/08/09] 11/11/09 11/11/09
    Mailer MAIL-5 $10,201.00
    Los Angeles Police Protective League PAC Los Angeles, CA 90017 (Independent Expenditure)
    Support Christine EsselCity Council Member – District 02Chris Essel for City Council 2009 – General (1321633)[Election: 12/08/09] 11/11/09 11/11/09 Electronic opt-out, data list, series of 7 email advertisements OTHER-2 $4,800.00

  9. Anonymous says:

    It`s the height of hypocricy for our ” ethical” Controller, W. Greuel,to be part of the D`Arcy political machine, that filed a law suit against the City Ethics Dpt.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Essel should get an A+ from her teacher Greuel, in her double talk of ethical behavior. Birds of a feather.

  11. Anonymous says:

    5:46 PM,let me complete the picture. IBEW has the highest paid municipal employees,City Hall approves the highest raises and benefits,which has the cumulative effect of higher union dues in the pocket of D`Arcy to buy the likes of Greuel, Essel and all others in City Hall.Now, can you figure out why your bills are getting higher and higher?

  12. Petra F. says:

    Looks like my comment from
    is appropriate to repeat here.
    I guess the CD 2 race really is about that Hacopian dude (Krekorian) vs. that Shallman dude + that psycho D’Arcy (Essel). How completely pathetic is that?
    I’m going with Hacopian, I think. Whichever puppeteer has his hand up Krekorian’s whatever. At least Paul K. is walking Sunland and Lake View Terrace and pretending to care about our end of the CD 2 dumbbell. I kinda like Paul, where that Miss America photo of Essel pretending to fawn as she accepts her crown from LaBonge makes me want to blow chunks every time I see it.
    I voted, and it sure as hell wasn’t for the prom queen. Prepare to kiss Hacopian’s ass, Mister D’Arcy.

  13. Anonymous says:

    D’Arcy kissing Essel?
    Now there’s an image!

  14. Anonymous says:

    Trutanich Disavows Support of Delgadillo, Implied by Flier
    By ROGER M. GRACE, Editor
    City Attorney Carmen Trutanich said yesterday he is not supporting his predecessor, Rocky Delgadillo, for election as attorney general notwithstanding a flier representing that he will appear at a Dec. 1 Delgadillo fundraiser.
    How home addresses of deputy city attorneys were obtained by those who sent out the flier is now being inquired into.
    Trutanich told the MetNews that he met with Delgadillo, who “said he was holding a fundraiser that involved deputy city attorneys.” Delgadillo told him, Trutanich related, that some deputies “are a little bit concerned” about showing their political support “because you are the city attorney.”
    Trutanich, a Republican until his recent re-registration as “Decline to State,” said he assured Delgadillo—an announced candidate for the Democratic nomination for attorney general—that there would be no retaliation against any deputies who back him in his campaign.
    Livesay Recounts Conversation
    Former Chief Deputy District Attorney Curt Livesay, now chief legal adviser to Trutanich, said he was present at the meeting which, he recounted, took place “about a week ago” on the patio of the Omni Hotel in downtown Los Angeles.
    He said Trutanich assured Delgadillo that the First Amendment rights of his deputies would be respected.
    Livesay insisted that while Trutanich gave the assurance that deputies could attend the fundraiser without fear of recriminations, “there was no mention that he would appear there.”
    The flier says:
    Friends of Rocky
    with special guest
    Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen “Nuch” Trutanich
    Cordially invite you to a reception in support of
    Rocky Delgadillo
    (former LA City Attorney) and
    The next Attorney General of California
    Tuesday, December 1, 2009
    5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.
    Livesay said that he is “concerned” as to how the Delgadillo campaign committee obtained home numbers of deputy city attorneys. All he knew as of mid-afternoon yesterday, he disclosed, was that five attorneys in the office and one non-attorney reported receipt of the flier.
    He said there is in progress an internal “review to see if anything warrants an investigation.”
    Home addresses of deputies are confidential, Livesay said, and if the city attorney, himself, asked the Personnel Department for a list of all the addresses, “They’re going to say ‘no.’ ”
    Livesay noted that whether there has been any violation of Government Code §3205 will be considered. That section makes it a misdemeanor for “[a]n officer or employee of a local agency” to “directly or indirectly, solicit a political contribution from an officer or employee of that agency, or from a person on an employment list of that agency, with knowledge that the person from whom the contribution is solicited is an officer or employee of that agency.”
    E-Mails Sent
    In addition to the fliers sent by mail, e-mails from Delgadillo, with the salutation, “Dear Friends,” were dispatched, with a PDF facsimile of the flier attached. The e-mail announces:
    “Friends of Rocky will be hosting a fundraiser in Los Angeles on Tuesday, December 1. Los Angeles City Attorney Carmen Trutanich will be our special guest.”
    The e-mail was dispatched by the Alice Borden Company, a firm that advises on political strategy and stages fundraisers. The telephone number to call “for information” listed on the invitation, the e-mail, and on the Delgadillo campaign website is that of the Alice Borden Company.
    Contacted by telephone for comments, Borden insisted:
    “I’m not the person to ask about that.”
    She said the appropriate person would telephone. No call was received as of late afternoon.
    A call also was placed to Delgadillo, now an attorney at Goodwin Procter LLP. He did not return the call.
    The invitation indicates that $500 is the “suggested price per person.”
    Copyright 2009, Metropolitan News Company

  15. Anonymous says:

    Already politicing like Bratton. Dumb ass Beck is now the lapdog for Janice Hahn who is running for Lieutenant Governor. She’s the perfect example of the blonde bimbo. Janice is having a “community meeting” for Beck in San Pedro right now. Idiot, Beck is playing politics just like Bratton and he’s starting off on the wrong foot with rank and file. They want him to disconnect from the Mayor because he’s embarrassing the cops and they want him to stop all the photo ops sucking it up just like the Mayor. Words to Beck, stop screwing around and do some work and spend time in your office instead of out in TV land with the Mayor. You need to address your cops at the stations and quit wasting your time screwing around for show. Get to business and start earning that $300,000 pay check our tax dollars are giving you.

  16. Anonymous says:

    That last post just shows how desperate Rocky is.
    With the legacy he left L A over billboards, after selling himself to ClearChannel/CBS Outdoors plain and simple and way too cheap – the city of West Hollywood is getting as much as $800,000 for one giant digital billboard on the West End of the Sunset Strip, where it shines into the homes of L A hillside residents just north so what do they care (nothing worse than a dumb and CHEAP whore).
    And the marijuana pot shop mess he left instead of somehow regulating the number to a manageable amount years ago (like West Hollywood again).
    He knows Trutanich openly says how much he hates him, whatever he says to his face, and he wants to get rid of all his “Rocky scum” leftover employees by encouraging the ERIP, which he hopes will lay off as many as 60 of them so he can hire Noochies. In addition to the private investigators he needs to do Cooley’s dirty work against the city. And it’s not like Trutanich is a plus to the Democrat party – even those who had supported him realize he’s a puppet to both Cooley AND the IBEW and PPL and not a very good one.
    We don’t have to worry about Rocky as Attorney General – he’ll lose the party nomination to Kamala Harris without doubt, and she’ll face a fierce battle with the Republican challenger, especially over her position on illegal immigration and opposition to the death penalty.

  17. Attorney Kaufman, the same lawyer that sued the Solar 8 during Measure B. He has the people’s interest at heart.

  18. Anonymous says:

    11:22, let me add to your picture because Ron likes to paint everything in black and white when it’s clearly not. You’re right that IBEW jobs are the highest paid city jobs. Looking at this, it’s a shame the clerical jobs are overpaid but salaries of technical roles are on par with that of private utilities, which they should be since it’s the same work. Ron likes to ignore the engineers and linesmen and focus on the secretaries being overpaid because that stirs the pot more.
    Rates are going up because of two reasons, one good and one bad. The bad is that ratepayer dollars are sometimes diverted for political use and because the Mayor is LADWP’s ultimate boss, there’s mismanagement because the politicians have the most leverage and the least technical knowledge. The good is that money from the rate increase HAS been going to the infrastructure. Smartgrid initiatives, bringing stations into the digital world, renewable projects – these all cost money that have come from the rate increases. Ron ignores the latter because it doesn’t help him to suggest DWP is actually doing something right with ratepayer money. On top of that, DWP rates are still cheaper than private utilities and need to be in order to prevent a corporate takeover.
    Making this more complex, renewables cost a ton of money and provide little return energy-wise. They’re basically an investment where you pay more money and lose generation efficiency in order to help the environment. On top of that, there’s no way renewables can sustain LA’s needs. Only coal can which is why every utility still uses it. Ron doesn’t understand this and I don’t think he cares to understand it – he just likes to spin facts and paint everything in black and white because it helps him demonize whatever city department or official he’s attacking.
    And now you got readers who can’t tell the difference between taxpayer and ratepayer dollars.

  19. Spiffy says:

    Good blog about the election here:
    Last chance to see the two debate is at Valley College on Nov. 30.
    From what I’ve seen, Essel talks the talk but she doesn’t walk the walk. Krekorian has caught up on the issues enormously. Essel has not. She just keeps saying catchphrases she thinks will pacify the people.

  20. Anonymous says:

    9:19PM You must be eating from the renewables trough……

  21. Anonymous says:

    The activists have GOT to send out emails to all friends telling them how important it is that Essel not be elected despite the “status quo” money and endorsements. Not that Paul is not status quo himself, but he has some ethics and decency. Essel is a beauty queen Trojan Horse. A monster will crawl out if she is elected and the people will be running in the streets.

  22. Anonymous says:

    To November 19, 2009 9:19 PM:
    Who are you complaining about secretaries? They pay their dues and provide important support to the technical and field staff and deserve what is collectively gained and shouldn’t be singled out.
    How can you say that the money is going into the infrastructure? DWP promised to take care of the bursting water pipes over 10 years ago and they are not even half way through. DWP also had a series of transformer failures a few years ago. And several electrical substations are very old and out of date. And so are the power poles, transformers, and cable. Even the line voltage within the City is a odd-ball non-standard rating. These issues aren’t being addressed.
    Yes you are right by implication that DWP is a cash cow that the City Council and Mayor are looking at it like a fox eyeballing the chicken coupe. And DWP is also blatantly used by the Mayor’s office with the likes of Freeman, Knox, and Montañez.

  23. Anonymous says:

    great write up.

  24. El Quixotian says:

    By Anonymous on November 20, 2009 2:45 PM
    9:19PM You must be eating from the renewables trough…
    Actually, it appears to be the non-renewables 9:19 is defending the most. Starting with a little charcoal sketch of Ron, adding a bit of a villainous mustache, he seems to have accidentally whitewashed everything else.
    So let’s if we can add at least as much color as the sweater David Freeman wore yesterday, looking very much a proverbial bad Christmas gift, perhaps from his Measure B bunkmates.
    First of all, while it’s good 9:19 recognizes the disparity of wages between those with clerical roles as opposed to elsewhere in City hall, the issue has never been whether electricians doing the work of linemen was unfair – and of course he seems to want to resolve the whole issue of comparing wages of rates between dwp and other agencies with the usual talking points, except the part that those agencies actually have to pay tax – based on real taxes levied…we’ll get into dwp’s ‘taxes’ via transfers later.
    The problem, which even Freeman admitted, is that they keep on ignoring the wonderful job he did trimming staff in his first stint. He may not have taken the bait regarding all the incoming staff “laid off” from other departments (speaking of sweaters, Wally…the over the shoulder look is so preppy retro!) but overall, he tends to shrug and say he doesn’t set the pay. Here Freeman isn’t drawing free hand, he starts to wields a rubber stamp…”that’s the mayor/council who you have to talk to”, with just a little initials added for deflecting to the CAO.
    But what the real issue of labor costs is based on isn’t power transmission. This is where David really stepped in it. Trying to playfully deflect a question from a Laborers’ Union rep for which he didn’t have a good answer, it apparently didn’t occur to him that every stakeholder at a public meeting might not be familiar with the old joke of being asked “Do you still beat your wife?” Gerardo took it in stride, just the same, but Freeman’s unfunny point would have at least made sense if the question he was being asked really didn’t have a good possible answer. It wasn’t a damned if you do AND damned if you don’t. If the dwp wasn’t wrong on the manner, they’d be okay, but in essence, they’re damned because they do beat the ratepayers.
    To paraphrase: Do we need elite IBEW electricians to dig ditches for waterlines? Particularly since the one or two men in the hole and 3 or 4 ‘supervising’ from lawn chairs (when they get too tired leaning on shovels) together excavate a fraction of what a crew of laborers do.
    Also, does a solar connection finish work (even when powered they would pack no more wallop then a car battery) really need IBEW doing the preliminary roof work, framing and scaffolding, and mounting the cells prior to going on-line?
    This is the crux of the issue raised with D’Arcy, having leveraged the legitimate stake of front line electricians and crowded out everyone else who would diminish their monopoly of the monopoly.
    Also pointed out was the cost savings of using those laborers or professionals of other crafts on a contract basis, no doubt avoiding the pension liability (the mishandling of which by pension administrators multiplies the effect of the economic downturn has directly on the City budget) by bringing back some of the workers who had toiled alongside the existing staff prior to being forced of jobs by D’Arcy and his egg slingers.
    And of course, all this represents some of the additional cost of Solar that can indeed be avoided, resulting in less reliance on even the cleanest of coal.
    Thank God he didn’t bring up de-salinization, but someone will.
    And Freeman’s answer, as to whether IBEW will get all the solar work? “I am an honest man!” Repeated a few times, ultimately interrupting those who were anticipating equivocation, but essentially admitting up front that OF COURSE the Solar Plan (which he tried to distance from Measure B, or Son Of B) would rely heavily on dwp employees in IBEW. He knew we aren’t that stupid so as to believe it if he were to state otherwise.
    Another of Freeman’s calling cards it taking credit for ramifications of the anticipated deregulation aftermath, which as others have written here, would limit dwp’s activities anyway, and spinning that as foresight. Trimming staff and divesting from coal plants, however pragmatic at the time, is now being greenwashed to imply he was ahead of his time. Concerned that the city, and the folks which came after him, bought back into some of that obsolescent technology, he can conveintly imply he’s cleaning up the mess of people who just didn’t see his brilliant plan from ten years ago! Which was to decrease coal, but he had to be reminded that there is more to being green then just being less of a polluter. Where is all that wonderful renewable power, already peaking at 20% of the total on a good day…presumably one sunny enough for the token power to dominate during the idling the other traditional generation options, but cool enough to not require air conditioning.
    We should wind this up, but since 9:19 and 9:49 earlier ended by disparaging those who they suggest don’t know the difference between taxpayer and ratepayer dollars…we should give them (him?) the benefit of irony. In the hopes that he is a fellow concerned citizen, perhaps knowingly leaving a straight line for those of us who are in on the joke. You see, when you have transfer fees, on top of utility tax, ratepayers ARE taxpayers. Freeman admits the 18% of rates paid which go to the city. The dwp is the biggest taxpayer, and the city deserves their dividends, because they’re the owners.
    It was pointed out that the taxpayers/ratepayers own the City…but I don’t think he appreciated that.
    And so this brings in the second to last point, about the infrastructure cited. Justifying the raising of funds now for the infrastructure that was to have been fixed using previous funding is a point made elsewhere, so our devils advocate should check the index of earlier comments and stories. But the issue of the WATER transfer fees, now suspended after a successful lawsuit, was thought to still be up in the air. The court said the millions of dollars had to be returned to ratepayers (hence the need to up the POWER transfer fees, so as to feed boss man City’s Jones) but how to repay it without pulling backup tapes and calculating refunds on the dwp’s admittedly wretched customer information system? What we were told is that the dwp had permission to use that as cash for infrastructure construction. So, the “profit” previously skimmed by the city council, acting as the equivalent of fat cat majority shareholders, which arguably represents funds from fees in excess of the cost of the services being provided, would only benefit the future customers. An interest free loan, by paying higher rates then what the service justified.
    So let’s finish off with the point of Ron’s post in the first place. When people complain of this shell game, the mayor says the dwp is the one making decisions. Then the dwp GM comes on as very humble with the character of being just an old cowboy, working as a hired hand for a while…but give him a chance to justify one of his 6 digit lobbyist, and he’s sharp as a tack. But then he passes the buck to the Mayor and City Council, and suggest that they’re the ones you have to change, not the dwp which is just doing its job.
    But to vote out the mayor or City Council members, you have to outbid the IBEW for election contributions, and that’s the point of this article. Because you see, as Freeman points out, not even he can control the IBEW.
    That’s the point, and the problem…nobody can control D’Arcy, especially we would presume, the IBEW rank and file.

  25. anonymous says:

    El Quixotian wrote: “What we were told is that the dwp had permission to use that as cash for infrastructure construction.”
    Who said that the dwp had permission to use that as cash for infrastructure construction? Please tell me it wasn’t the judge.
    We really need some sort of radical campaign finance reform. It seems the provisions of the tax exempt status bestowed upon unions and their affiliates is what needs to be addressed. But, how? Or, there needs to be some sort of across the board reform that applies to unions and other corporations. They have become akin to cartels.
    Good comment El Q. Thank you.

  26. Anonymous says:

    If D’arcy is working for Essel then the rest of us should be working to bar her election. Paul K is our only choice so he must be supported and Essel driven back into the dark place from which she comes.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Didn’t Krekorian lobby for the same endorsements, IBEW, LAPPL, etc.? So if Krekorian got the IBEW endorsement, what would be different?

  28. Philadelphia SEO says:

    Your blog is so informative. keep up the good work!!!!

  29. Ludie Kopin says:

    Your writing style is captivating and left me seeking for much more.

  30. Every now and then people are layered prefer that. There’s something completely different underneath it than what’s on the surface. Yet occasionally, there’s another, possibly deeper level, and the one is similar to the top surface one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>