AB32/Prop23 is Very Relevant to Nevada County

George Rebane

This was to be my bi-weekly KVMR commentary to be aired last night.  After recording it, I have asked Paul Emery to pull it because its inclusion of Steve Frisch by name could launch another round of ‘equal time’ broadcasts that threaten to subsume the important Prop23 issue into a seeming personal matter between Steve and me.  While I still intend to address Steve’s support of AB32 and opposition to Prop23 in detail (starting here), I consider the better venue for that is within the pages of RR and other blogs that care to participate in this debate.  I also consider Steve Frisch to be an erudite exemplar of the left’s efforts to remake California into a well-regulated socialist template, that by example can be replicated across this land.  And therefore addressing his arguments is important not only for setting the record straight, but also for understanding the progressive mind which may soon come to rule us all.

In the greater context, this piece is another appeal to the Nevada County Supervisors to take a public stand on Prop23, and in the process explain to us all what they perceive the impact of AB32 on our local economy.  They are charged with understanding such measures to a greater degree than the rank and file voter who look to their political leadership for counsel on deciding how to vote on imporant matters such as Prop23.  The least we all deserve from our Supervisors is to know their sense of this issue – good or bad for us? or to admit that even they can’t figure what the hell is going on.  Whatever it is, we deserve more than the answer we would get from asking faces drawn on five two-by-fours.

This morning John Spencer, Supervisor District #3, wrote a piece for The Union (here) laying out a pretty vanilla characterization of the AB32P23 situation.  It was so ‘balanced’ that it made no mention of the big government railroad that CARB has put AB32 implementation on by basing its regulations on the reports of a discredited ‘scholar’, ignoring California’s own Legislative Analyst's Office output, and then seeking concurrence from  the prestigious Charles River Associates.  When CRA also disagreed with CARB’s internal propaganda that would guarantee its growth and power, CARB simply ignored CRA and swept its damning conclusions under the rug.

I count John Spencer among my friends and am an unabashed supporter of his.  But friends can disagree, and I do disagree with John’s uninspired position on this entire issue.  I continue to urge him and his colleagues on the Board to seriously reconsider the impact of their impending silence on Proposition 23.

The transcript of this un-aired commentary follows -

Last Wednesday evening KVMR’s news director Paul Emery moderated a discussion of the controversial California global warming law AB32, and Proposition 23, the initiative on November’s ballot that would suspend the part of AB32 not yet implemented until unemployment again returned to 5.5%.  Discussing the issues surrounding these measures with me was Steven Frisch, president and CEO of the Sierra Business Council, an environmentally oriented non-governmental organization or NGO.

On that program I pointed out that his non-profit NGO receives the overwhelming portion of its funding through government and institutional grant monies.  Moreover, that the full implementation of AB32 would be of direct financial benefit to SBC, and to Mr Frisch as its salaried director.  In short, Mr Frisch was there promoting not only what he presumably believed, but was also there, in every sense of the word, as a professional lobbyist for that legislation.  

This allowed the listener to differentiate him from me as a retired private citizen with nothing more to gain from the passage of Prop23, than the general wellbeing of California’s economy.  Mr Frisch, of course, argued the diametrically opposite position which gave purpose, if not meaning, to the discussion.  Through the lens of some special ethic, I have been taken to task by the left, including Mr Frisch, for daring to make that revelation on the air.  Their point being that Mr Frisch should have been allowed to pass off to the listener as just another private citizen with deeply held opposing views and gains similar to mine.

During the course of the program, it was clear that Mr Frisch’s and my views concerning the impact of AB32 on California were wide afield from each other.  I believe that almost every claim Mr Frisch made concerning the issue was in error, and I will be addressing these in future commentaries and on my blog between now and November.  But one point that we both seemed to agree on was that AB32 implementation would have a significant impact on every corner of California including Nevada County.

It is for this reason that many of us, mostly of the conservative bent, have been urging the county’s Board of Supervisors to take a public stance on Prop23.  And in this stance let us know how they see AB32 impacting our local economy, and how that impact will advise and inform their future actions in our behalf.  In short, assume and exercise the leadership positions into which they all were elected.

For reasons too time consuming to cover here, the left wants the Board of Supervisors to remain silent on Prop23, in short, to duck this important issue.  Mr Frisch even attempted to give them cover by citing a resolution the Board had supposedly taken some years back to not comment on pending legislation, and that now the Board was just hewing to its previously declared position.  Here again Mr Frisch was in error – the Board has taken no such position and there exists no resolution to that effect.

What the Board has done is to avoid public discussion and positions on issues they consider irrelevant to their jurisdiction here in Nevada County – issues like, say, gay marriage or the building of a mosque at Ground Zero.  I applaud that stance.  But what I strongly disagree with is the notion that Prop23, and by extension AB32, is somehow “irrelevant to Nevada County”.  That is patently absurd, and I urge the Board of Supervisors to make known to us our county government’s assessment of the most important state law since Prop13, the property tax initiative.  It would boggle the mind to hear them pronounce this issue irrelevant to our community.  But in any event, we deserve to know where our county government stands on Proposition 23.

I am George Rebane and I also expand on these and other issues in my Union columns, on NCTV, and on georgerebane.com where this transcript appears.  These opinions are not necessarily shared by KVMR.  Thank you for listening.

Comments

[Steven Frisch]

The point I was making about our little radio address George, was that we were informed in advance about what the rules were, that Paul would introduce the issue and the people, and that we would answer questions.

I honored Paul's rules and you did not. It is that simple, period.

I am not going to even respond to the myriad of other charges--because your mid-century tactic of attacking the messenger personally, rather than addressing the issues, is not only reprehensible, it is exemplary of the consistent pattern of lying and misinformation that you engage in in order to make your point here on your blog.

[Bob Hobert]

Steve, you are a bitter man. Fess up - you ARE a paid AB32 lobbyist. If the bill is so damned good, why not be proud that you are paid to promote it, instead of impugning George's character for pointing that fact out?

[George Rebane]

There was no rule given us that we could not describe the 'discussion' we found ourselves in. Can you cite the statement I made that you considered an attack? I believe your outrage to result from not being able to pass yourself off as a private citizen with no financial interest in the matter for you or your organization. I did not attack you, I simply gave (actually read) a polite and accurate description of you and SBC. Here it is again.

"Mr Steven Frisch, on the other hand, is the president of the non-profit Sierra Business Council, a 501c3 non-governmental organization or NGO that derives the overwhelming fraction of its income from government and institutional grants. As such, Mr Frisch is a gainfully employed well-paid professional manager who directs the SBC staff in performing various environmentally related government policy proposals, analyses, and also supplying regulatory information and implementation services. SBC also lists for-profit businesses as its members whose member benefits are unknown to me. More importantly, SBC derives direct financial benefit from a rich, complex, and generally burdensome federal and state regulatory environment to which the enforcement of AB32 will significantly add. In short, I welcome the opportunity to discuss the Prop23 issue with Mr Frisch, whom I consider to be a pro-government lobbyist appearing here in his professional capacity."

[Paul Emery]

Since my name and interpretations of my instructions are being brought into this discussion I feel the need to respond. I have a busy day. Later.......

[Steve Frisch]

George, did you censor the response I sent in, or was that a tech glitch? If you are censoring me again without me having violated your previously stated rules, I am out of here for the duration of this campaign.

Of course no serious discussion actually happens here anyway since everyone has already made up their minds.

[George Rebane]

Steve – I did indeed remove your latest short comment wherein you identified me as a person of low character and called me an “ass”. I have not made any ad hominem attacks on you. While I do consider your ideas to be harmful to society, your manner and sources for cited evidence to be suspect, and your approach to debating an idea to be mostly unproductive (with some exceptions there). I think there is a structural gulf between the way we both see the world and reason about our observations. I covered this last year here
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2009/11/why-reason-fails.html
and have seen nothing to give cause in the interval to change my mind.

Regarding the threat to again depart these pages, never to return. To the extent that you avoid the grade school behavior of calling me names, you will make that decision at your pleasure. To the extent that you don’t, I will make it for you.

[Todd Juvinall]

Whenever you identify a liberal as a liberal, expose their public record and votes, or point out their obvious conflicts of interest, you are deemed to be making ad hominem attacks. Their strategy is always to deflect the truth when they are caught being the hypocrites they are. I recall a few stories ago how these lovelies from the left were attacking George and Russ for some sort of alleged conflict when they are not even paid to comment as some on the left are here. The complainers on the left went on for days. Now, we have the same complainers shown to be recipients of monies from programs the taxpayers are supporting and denying it. Typical. That is why we on the right have zip respect for people that are paid to be spokesmen/women for things they will personally benefit from.

[Paul Emery]

I am profoundly disappointed that I have to respond to the characterization of my "instructions" concerning the discussion of Prop 23 that I hosted for KVMR radio on Wed Sept 1 between George Rebane and Steve Frisch.

My biggest concern when I proposed the conversation was that it turn into a debate about other issues rather than the pro's and con's of prop 23 and I had a particular concern that callers would engage in personal attacks on my guests. In order to address that question I made it clear in all advanced promotion and description of the show that questions be general in nature for both guests and not directed to an individual guest. Also, in my conversations with my guests prior to the show I made it clear that this was not a debate but a discussion and that the program was about Prop 23 and that personal agenda's and opinions my guests have of each other was not relevant to the topic. Protecting the dignity and opinions of the guests from unfair hit and run attacks is a top priority when I do a radio show..

So when George asked if he could read an opening statement, which was not discussed as part of the format, I reluctantly, with Steve's consent, allowed. I thought that my desire for this radio show not to be confrontational was very clear. I was extremely disappointed when in George's introduction statements he launched into his characterization that Steve was a " pro-government lobbyist" among other descriptions that I won't repeat since they are already part of this blog.

That was absolutely what I was trying to avoid. It was completely unfair to Steve because he was not expecting a direct confrontation in an intro statement that was not part of the original concept. To be fair I should have stopped the show at that time and gone off air to straighten up the situation.

In all my years in radio I don't recall a guest being put to such a disadvantage and I apologized later to Steve about my lack of control in allowing this to happen.

The bottom line is that calling Steve "pro-government lobbyist" was a characterization that could not be accepted as fact and demanded a response from Steve So there we go right at the start we're off topic and engaging in a two way confrontation, which is exactly what I was trying to avoid.

I am not going into details about what is a lobbyist. Here is a pretty good description. http://www.fppc.ca.gov/legal/regs/current/18239.pdf

George, please read this and let me know if I am out of bounds by referring to your statement as one that demanded a response from Steve. Lobbyists are also required to be registered by the state.

I will not engage in a discussion of the concerns George expressed in his statement. I will express my disappointment that the expectations that I requested for the show were ignored and disregarded. It put me in an extremely uncomfortable position that I did not deserve.

[George Rebane]

Paul, thank you for making your point clear. And specifically I appreciate your confirming to RR readers that you had no intention of wanting Steve Frisch's professional position and interests regarding AB32/P23 be known to your listeners. My own sentiments about this tack are already a matter of record on these pages and I will not repeat them here. But I will remind readers and KVMR listeners that I did invite Steve to immediately correct any errors in my statement and offer his characterization of who I am. In every public 'discussion' of which I am aware - and that goes back to Buckley's early 'Firing Line' - each participant ALWAYS had an opportunity to characterize their counterparts, and they ALWAYS exercised that opportunity when they thought any one in the audience would not be fully knowledgeable about such information. No one was allowed to participate in such discussions wearing a bag with eyeholes.

[Paul Emery]

Thanks for confirming the reason I didn't want this to be a Steve -George show. You wanted to let our listeners know your opinion of Steve's professional and professional interests in P23, which is your opinion, which would require his response then you response and so on. That whole discussion is not what I agreed to do a show on and I think I made that clear before the show. if you felt uncomfortable with the format you should have told me or not done the show not waited for show time to spring this on me. It's that simple. I am taking this a little personal since I thought I expressed myself clearly on the topic.

I disagree with your statement that "each participant ALWAYS had an opportunity to characterize their counterparts" on public discussion shows. Do you ever listen to "Left, Right and Center "which we air every Friday after you're commentary. They never bring the occupation or interests of the guests into the program. Also, check out "Insight" on Capital Public Radio. I can go on and on with examples. I don't know where you got that idea. If the mission of the messenger is important information then you should include that information on you're blog when you encourage readers to subscribe to mail lists that, if you look under the hood, are easily shown to be sponsored by oil industry sponsored lobby groups.

[Steven Frisch]

If I am still allowed to comment here, I appreciate Paul's leadership and honesty on this point. Paul, and KVMR acted entirely appropriately and professionally. George violated the rules set out by Paul.

I guess the statement that got me kicked off of here, that the quality of a man's character comes out in situations like this, is even more relevant now than it was two days ago when George censored it.

Good bye.

[Todd Juvinall]

I missed the discussion but I remember George being ostracized, as well as Russ, by the Steve's the FUE and their lackey's for some bogus claim of conflict of interest. Why would they then be upset their true conflict is now exposed to the public? Is this a double standard? Seems to be. I read George's opening statement and it was pretty tame. Why the angst?

[Mikey McD]

George, it was paramount that listeners knew that the anti-prop 23 opinions were from the mouth of a tax payer funded lobbyist with his paycheck on the line. We are supposed to grab our pitchforks when the socialists rant about the oil industry pushing a proposition but turn compassionately away from a tax payer funded lobbyist pushing his proposition...Todd- double standard is an understatement... it is hypocrisy... you don't know what else to expect from an ideology which believes that higher taxes, more regulation and decreased personal liberty are fuel for a growing economy.

George, Listeners noticed that you were interrupted repeatedly (while never interrupting anyone yourself) AND that your opponent was given excessive opportunities by the moderator to voice his opinion out of turn AND that you were usually second to answer... in other words it was easy to see how the moderator plans on voting.

[Russ Steele]

Mr Firsch may not be paid lobbist, how ever he admits to working on the Dirty Oil campaign which is lobbying against Prop 23.. On August 26th I wrote in responce to a post by Mr Frisch :

Steven, I did not call you a communist, and I do not think you are one, I just pointed out that the original dirty energy manta started at web site of an avowed communist who stated he planed to use environmental laws to destroy capitalism, and that you are making a mistake by promoting the message launched on the Ella Baker Center Web Site. That message was picked up by others and put on a dedicated web site. A site which is supported by the Ella Baker Center, along with other powerful environmentalist organizations. It appears that you took much of your KVMR presentation from that web site. Information distorts the facts, Prop 23 has noting to do with gutting existing clean air regulations, including the clean diesel regulations that are having huge negative economic impact on local businesses.

Mr Frisch reponded:

Russ I have had a direct hand in creating and reviewing much of that information as a volunteer on the campaign. I will use the resources I have and help develop. The dirty oil message did not start with the Ella Baker Center web site it started with an independent Twitter feed that predated the EB sites message by about 3 months. So you are like triply wrong on this one now. If person a says "dirty oil" and person b says "dirty oil", it does not mean that person a IS person b. Come on there are educated people in the house, is this not a logical fallacy? are you all mute along with being shameless? I will take up your contention that Prop 23 has nothing to do with clean air regulations later today. I am busy raising money for the revolution.

I replied in to this above as follows:

Russ' reply: Steven I was unaware of the twitter, not being a regular user, and I was unaware that you were involved in developing the campaign materials. Was this on your own time, or on the SBC clock?

If you go to my NCMW post here you will see that Mr Frisch never answered my question. Did he work in the campaign against Prop 23 while on the SBC Clock? If so, I would say he was working as a paid consultant, preparing campaign materials.

I think that George was correct to identify Mr. Frisch's direct connection to the Dirty Oil Campaign. And, I will ask again, was the KVMR presentation on his time of on the SBC Clock? He has never answered the question and I think it is one that needs an answer. Is he being paid by SBC to lobby against Prop 23? Yes, or No!

[Russ Steele]

More follow up, Steve Frisch used an SBC e-mail address while making the above comments.

[Paul Emery]

If anyone is concerned about the "equal time" afforded to each guest I invite you to time the show and let me know. If Steve was first to answer twice in a row I accept responsibility. It didn't seem to be a huge problem. This is getting a little silly.

[Russ Steele]

Paul,

The issue is not equal time, the issue is was Mr Frisch paid to develop the material he used in KVMR discussion and was he paid while making the presentation on KVMR?

[Paul Emery]

So does that mean for every guest I have on KVMR I have to do some sort of vetting as to their income source to reveal if they might be creating an economic advantage for themselves by being on the air? One of my favorite guests that I interview frequently is Bill Bird, a very competent and accessible media representative for Senator San Anastead. So do I ask him about his source of income and whether he's on the clock whenever I interview him? I can give you a list of the guests I've interviewed of all persuasions and never have I asked them for financial information. I have no idea about Steve's work schedule and could care less just like I could care less about George's financials. He represented a No on 23 position that was the item to be discussed. His source of income is his business just as George's political contributions were his. It was just last week I had to stand my ground with Jeff P on that one.

If both sides are mad at me I must be doing something right.

[George Rebane]

My use of the term 'lobbyist' derives from the following commonly understood definition, and not necessarily having to belong to a registered Washington K Street firm. I stand by this definition and my use of it.

"Lobbying (also Lobby) is a form of advocacy with the intention of influencing decisions made by legislators and officials in the government by individuals, other legislators, constituents, or advocacy groups. A lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby. Governments often define and regulate organized group lobbying that has become influential on policy." (Wikipedia, emphasis mine)

[Russ Steele]

Paul,

Lets not go over board, but in in the case of Prop 23, the opposition is making a big deal about who is funding promotion of the proposition. So, who is funding the opposition. Who is working to defeat the proposition and who will benefit from the defeat. In this case SBC is one of these who will benefit. George will not benefit from Prop 23 passing, no more than all the other citizens who will not have to pay billion of dollars in carbon fees.

[Steven Frisch]

Hey Russ, you will not get me to divert from the key point, which Paul made abundantly clear, George broke the rules.

I am 100% within the rules for conduct on a non-profit organization.

You guys can all shove it up you you know what.

[George Rebane]

Welcome back Steve!

[Russ Steele]

Let's, not get diverted here in arguments over rule of engagement. My questions still stands. Who was paying Steve salary while he was promoting opposition to Prop 23? Does that make him a paid lobbyist? Was George correct, I think he was.

[Paul Emery]

So, according to George's definition "A lobbyist is a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest or a member of a lobby" a member of CABPRO would then be a lobbyist, despite what Todd thinks, as would representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, the ERC, oh yeah, also the TPP and all the TP derivatives. Let's include the NRA, the SPCA, any group for or against any proposition or law. Let's include PG&E, SMUD, The Sierra Club, NID, The Friends of the Library, Friends of the River, Friends of Deer Creek, SYRCL any elected legislative representative (Bill Bird} ...how far can I go.

Should I require a representative any of these groups then to do a disclosure if any member is asked to speak about any law or proposition or proposed law that they may or may not support ? I'm doing my best to follow this.

What would be a guideline that I could use to determine if who I am speaking to is require to fess up about their connections.

[Paul Emery]

And by the was Russ, I went out of my way to equally ask questions about the biggest funders of both sides of Prop 23. I'm sure you heard the show and knew that.

[Steve Frisch]

Russ , first your entire track here is a diversion. If you go back to my first post in this thread the issue I brought up was George's violation of the rules as set out by Paul, a charge Paul has confirmed here.

It is irrelevant, and perfectly legal, for me to be spending some portion of my time as a member of a nonprofit On a public policy issue. You don't know jack on this buddy. I have thoroughly vetted this issue and am 100% within my rights.

For a guy that supports freedom of speech and free association under the first amendment you sure seem to be acting like someone that wants to restrict free speech.

As to George's welcome back, I'll make him a deal, never mention me on your disgusting blog and I will never darken your door.

[Steve Frisch]

Hey Russ when did you stop beating your wife!

[George Rebane]

Paul, to answer your question as to who/what should be mentioned in such issue interviews. All of us on this side of the aisle would answer that it is anyone who stands to gain personal financial benefit from the success of the promotion (for/against) a given issue. I know that this is not an acceptable answer, but it is the way at least half the country sees the world. BTW, I just agree with Wikipedia's definition.

Steve, not to worry. We're going to be mentioning you and your assertions a lot on RR (and I suspect, other blogs) between now and November. You wanted to be on record, and you now are on record. It will be a civil discussion about you, SBC, and the ideas you and your organization promote. I and my neighbors contribute to your salary, and therefore we are very interested in how you do your job and how that affects our lives. Count on it.

[Paul Emery]

So George, I still need a little help on this. If part of someone's job depends on the success of the positions they advocate then they would be a lobbyist. If I, for example, interview or make part of a panel or discussion Gil Mathew, President/CEO of the ERC, a man who's opinion I respect, about economic development legislation that he supports I should apply the same rules to him that you require for Steve, CEO of the SBC and allow an opposing guest the freedom to characterize his involvement the same way that you did Steve's .

[George Rebane]

Correctamundo Paul, you're getting it! Gil talking publicly about NC economic development is not a private citizen. And his continued tenure, at the pleasure of the BoS who fund ERC and his salary with public funds, is a direct function of how well he executes the mission of ERC. When he promotes issues that align with and support that mission, his bona fides must be made known.

[Paul Emery]

Todd

So according to George, CABRRO is a lobby if a representative speaks in support of legislation that may benefit it's members who in turn contribute to support the organization. Pretty straight forward interpretation of the definition. Isn't that part of what CABPRO does?

CABPRO's Mission Statement
“In order to strengthen and restore California’s economic freedom and prosperity, and to maintain its healthy environment, CABPRO works for lower fees and taxes, less government regulation, and preservation of property rights for all residents, and business, property, and resource owners.”

[George Rebane]

Paul, Todd will speak for himself, but again the answer to your CABPRO query is a resounding YES. Even though they are not taxpayer supported, CABPRO should make clear that it is an organization funded by members who believe in its mission statement. CABPRO not only should, but definitely would trumpet its stand on an issue stating loudly to all who will listen that a successful stand will indeed benefit its members (and probably a lot of other people). From its point of view SBC should take a similar stand if it believes its members receive benefit. Although, if its membership is an exclusive group, then that requires additional disclosures since SBC receives public funds.

It's past bedtime for older guys like me. Good night all.

[Paul Emery]

So then to sum it up anybody who advocates to a legislative body for anything that will benefit the organization that pays his or hers salary is a lobbyist. That would include public officials, all representatives of non profits, churches, NGO's and advocacy groups who petition or speak out on any topic that is of interest to the group. Therefore, if I speak to Sheriff Royal about government grants to law enforcement that he supports and applies for he is, in fact, a lobbyist and that should be noted at the beginning of the discussion. I'm not saying I agree with this, I'm just trying to get a grasp on this line of thinking.

[Mikey McD]

George, it is scary that the liberals are having such a difficult time seeing the hypocrisy in demonizing private individuals (like you) and corporations (like Valero) for openly contributing or benefiting from campaigns while begging for exclusion from the same 'rules' for themselves. I look forward to your "liberal minds" posts.

Check out Mises' "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality"

[George Rebane]

Paul, yes, yes, and yes. In the sheriff's case, his introduction as such in a discussion of law enforcement grants already informs the audience of his role and motivations.

I catch the undertone again that you hold lobbying to be somehow evil or underhanded. I hope I am wrong. I do not view declared lobbyists in such light. It's when they attempt to misrepresent themselves that problems arise.

[Paul Emery]

I'm ready to put this to sleep. In regards to the "discussion" with Steve Frisch i conclude by expressing my disappointment that you didn't understand or respect the protocol I was trying to establish for the program. If that would have kept you from appearing, that would have been your choice and I would have found some one else to do the show.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with numerous SCOTUS decisions over the years regarding these topics. If a organization is advocating for a source of money from a governmental body, then yes they must disclose. If an organization is advocating a position or policy for the broad general publics benefit, they do not. CABPRO is described in the latter. If we went to a meeting and advocated for a policy that would directly benefit CABPRO (monetarily) , you would be correct. That is not however what CABPRO does. SBC is advocating for a law or regulation that will bring them money. They must disclose. Remember BIG GREEN? The eco groups put every organization in California as a recipient of the future bond money for pet projects if it passed. They listed all of that in 4 point font to discourage people from reading it and seeing what a bunch of tax sucking entities they were. Well, we helped defeat it and disclosure laws were changed after the eco fiasco of tryonmg to pull a fast one.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Paul I'm not sure why your having such a hard time with this point, you do appear to be very intelligent. Mr Frisch is not under any circumstances or definition an independent and non involved citizen with regards to Prop 23.

The fact that George brought that up really shouldn't have been such a big issue with either one of you IMHO, he is what he is. I know it, George knows it, you know it, why attempt to hide it from the listeners, seems rather deceptive and to make such a furor out of it, and it is very relevent to the issue.

As far as your example if you introduced the sheriff as Bob Royal, that would be decietful also - just as having a discussion on adding rail with the president of the company that in fact would supply the rail cars and not mentioning it.

If George in fact was actually heavily involved with and being paid by an organization promoting Prop 23, do you suppose you and Mr Frisch would have allowed that to pass unmentioned, I seriously doubt it.

[Paul Emery]

But doesn't CABRO advocate for positions that bring their members money? Does that not increase financial support from members by rewarding CABRO by donations and memberships? There's nothing wrong with that but under George's definition that clearly makes CABPRO lobby group.

[Barry Pruett]

There is a difference. CABPRO is a 501(c)(4) and contributions to CABPRO are not tax deductible - the memebers' money. SBC is a 501(c)(3) and contributions to SBC are tax-deductible - the public's money. That is where the disclosure rubber meets the road.

[Russ Steele]

Paul, You might want to take a few minutes to read what the IRS has to say about 501(c) organizations.

Exemption Requirements - Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues.

Social Welfare Organizations (501(c)(4)

To be tax-exempt as a social welfare organization described in Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 501(c)(4), an organization must not be organized for profit and must be operated exclusively to promote social welfare. Pursuant to changes enacted as part of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, the earnings of a section 501(c)(4) organization may not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any managers agreeing to the transaction. See Introduction to IRC 4958 for more information about this excise tax. For a more detailed discussion of the exemption requirements for section 501(c)(4) organizations, see IRC 501(c)(4) Organizations. For more information about applying for exemption, see Application for Recognition of Exemption.

To be operated exclusively to promote social welfare, an organization must operate primarily to further the common good and general welfare of the people of the community (such as by bringing about civic betterment and social improvements). For example, an organization that restricts the use of its facilities to employees of selected corporations and their guests is primarily benefiting a private group rather than the community and, therefore, does not qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. Similarly, an organization formed to represent member-tenants of an apartment complex does not qualify, since its activities benefit the member-tenants and not all tenants in the community, while an organization formed to promote the legal rights of all tenants in a particular community may qualify under section 501(c)(4) as a social welfare organization. An organization is not operated primarily for the promotion of social welfare if its primary activity is operating a social club for the benefit, pleasure, or recreation of its members, or is carrying on a business with the general public in a manner similar to organizations operated for profit.

Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. An organization that has lost its section 501(c)(3) status due to substantial attempts to influence legislation may not thereafter qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax. For more information, see Lobbying Issues .

The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6.

[Paul Emery]

Thanks for the info Russ. I'm not sure how this applies to the question at hand. Please let me know why it's important.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

I know you want, as Mr Frisch does, to mire the question in legallity and nuance - my points stand - its just unehthical to have someone paid and/or a benifactor monetarialy to pose as a uninvolved citizen in a debate or disussion without disclosure and then whine incessently when the other party points it out. As a journalist/news director you should be ashamed and emabarrased not indignent, as you should have thought of it first, thats your job - just say'in

[Steve Frisch]

Russ is making my point without even knowing it. A c3 may engage in political and legislative activity, the question is how much. As I have stated several times that between me and the IRS, I can prove it to the IRS, and I don't have to demonstrate it to anyone else. Period. That't what free association is all about.

For anyone to imply there is anything wrong with that is bull.

[Steve Frisch]

By the way, tax deductible contributions are not the publics money.

[Mikey McD]

Russ, Sierra Business Council collected over $829,318 from government grants in 2008 which WAS PUBLIC MONEY. Think about how many private sector jobs are needed just to support Sierra Business Council?

http://www2.guidestar.org/PartnerReport.aspx?Partner=networkforgood&ein=68-0397204

[Todd Juvinall]

When someone deducts the contribution from their tax return then that person is paying less in taxes. How is that not the public;s money? I must say the liberal mind is a good one for tax dodges.

[Mikey McD]

Liberals view all my money as public money :).

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Steve nobody is really argueing the fact that your doing anything wrong per the IRS, your just not an innocent bystander in the debate. Your very proud of all the lobbying efforts and organizations your contributing to on Prop 23 at Pelines blog, so why so indignent when George brings it up?

[Paul Emery]

Dixon

You are way out of line here

Do you think that Fox News should apply the same criteria for guest disclosures that you are asking of me? The intent of the program was to discuss Prop 23 not the financial involvement or professional interests of the guests. You'll find watching Fox and other Broadcast outlets that guests are introduced with a simple statement such as "John Smith is a researcher at the Big Deal Foundation and speaks to us from his office in Florida"

I stated very clearly he was with SBC when I introduced the guests.

"Steve Frisch is President and CEO of the Sierra Business Council
A 700 members regional business organization committed to the sustainable future of the Sierra Nevada."

Before you accuse me of shoddy journalism you better take a little time and study the accepted protocols for broadcast journalism.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, would you say a Congressman should disclose the source of his campaign money when he holds a hearing on a issue affecting that person or is being questioned on a radio program?

[Paul Emery]

I think that is covered by campaign disclosure laws and is public record. Pretty awkward since they may have hundreds of contributors.

[Dixon Cruickshank]

Ok Paul I'll agree that was appropriate, although I'm still not sure why the furor over Georges comment as its true. You should not have been expected go into more detail than that.

[Paul Emery]

Thanks Dixon

I was trying in my protocol for the show to avoid confrontational situations between Steve and George as well as questions directed at either of them individually. That's why I called it a discussion rather than a debate. I honestly think my moderation and questions were fair and did not favor either side nor did I take a position. The bigger picture of my ambitions for the show was to create a comfortable format for future programs that could give Conservatives in our community a chance to have their positions heard on KVMR in a respectable environment for both sides. Obviously when my journalistic integrity becomes part of the discussion I have to reconsider my ability to make that happen.

[Todd Juvinall]

Paul, I don't think it is your responsibility to even ask the question unless it is a news item. I think if a participant is ethical he should alert the listeners himself. This was apparently not done and George did it for him. Ethics is sorely lacking in many people, especially when the stand to gain from some law or policy.

[Paul Emery]

It was part of George's written intro statement that was read before Steve had a chance to speak so even if Steve would have chosen to speak to the issue George would have beaten him to it. I personally don't consider it to be a news item or relevant to the intent of the program. I invited Steve to participate in the program because I believed and still do that he would present an articulate opposition to Prop 23 just as I thought that George would offer a strong position supporting it. There's not much more to it than that.

[Todd Juvinall]

If you had invited a developer on to discuss a zoning issue before the BOS or Council, which would affect that developer personally or professionally (monetarily), would you have expected that person to disclose? Would you have said something if they did not?

[Paul Emery]

It depends on the question. If it was specifically a discussion of his project it would be obvious that he has a financial interest that he would be speaking to. If it was a general pro con discussion or a panel talk about a proposed zoning policy I would say no disclosure would be necessary.

I would say something like " And opposing new zoning restrictions we have Charlie Nailpounder who works for Big Town Developments."

[Aaron]

I've been behind on my blog reading and just read this entire comment stream now. Yes, in one sitting!

Based on George's own description of the discussion, it sounds like Steve more than held his own. From an outsider's point of view reading these conversations, it sure seems like a lot of anger and ado over very little.

It seems to me that Steve should simply have replied that George Rebane is an anti-government ideologue who believes that the laissez-faire capitalistic system is fair and balanced.

Then they'd have been even and George might even have said "thank you." :)

[George Rebane]

If you'd change "anti-" to 'small' Aaron, you would nail it.

[Aaron]

Well, I was trying to speak in Steve's voice. Like I said, you *might* have said thank you. :)

[George Rebane]

Understood ;-) welcome back Aaron.

[Michael Anderson]

Nothing like a good healthy discussion to blow out the cobwebs. The lumps and bumps incurred during this attempt by Paul and KVMR to shine light on Prop 23 will hopefully not deter future efforts.

I see nothing wrong with the BOS hashing out Prop 23 and even coming up with a recommendation, one way or another. The issue is certainly pertinent to the real lives of Nevada County citizens, which is why it deserves all possible scrutiny between now and election day.