Politicians on both the left and the right have been guilty of this kind of spending. We have seen this in California with former assembly speaker Fabian Nuñez spending campaign cash on French wine and Louis Vuitton. This kind of expending should not be excused, and I think that Latino politicians have to be extra careful in not appearing to be “on the take.” And Rubio should be especially careful, as he has been running on the “fiscal conservative” platform and lists “spending” as the first issue on his website (under the “issues” tab). There is also this idea that Miami, where Rubio is from, is a place known for fraud, just google “fraud and Miami” to get an idea. So Rubio and his people should have definitely been on top of any spending that might look questionable in the eyes of the public.

The Democrats in Florida have already jumped on this Rubio “spending spree” with this short ad:

In concluding, I should note that Marco Rubio has agreed to pay back some of the charges to the state GOP, namely some airfare charges that he says were a “mistake.” But what are your thoughts? Should the public forgive and forget or should we be angered that our politicians think that they can get away with these expenditures, especially at the expense of one’s political party or campaign? If you donate to a party or political campaign, how do you expect those dollars to be used?

This staffing investigation has been going on since spring of this year, but I would like to see the alleged lobbying relationship between Loretta Sanchez and Jack Einwechter examined. Sources have told me that this relationship is on the rocks.

But to get back to the staffing issue, I am bothered that the Sanchez sisters would think that they could just swap staff. These sisters don’t fall in line on every issue, and it could create management problems to simply transfer some of Loretta’s staff to Linda’s office payroll. One thing that I have kept in mind as a working person is that you have to keep your boss pleased. In this scenario, who is the boss? Linda or Loretta?

This certainly is a tragic incident for a young Latina like Ms. Valdez. All of this grief and press for what amounts to rather petty theft. And Ms. Valdez now has a felony on her record, but what I find just as disturbing is this piece of information from today’s AP story:

“The native of Nogales, Ariz., quit her studies at Arizona State University in 2004 to pursue a political career in Washington at age 23. Her attorneys said she was living on her own for the first time and was struggling to pay her bills on a roughly $30,000 congressional salary with the high cost of living in Washington, student loan payments due and her irresponsible spending habits.”

Given the dire state of Latinos and education and the problems we have with getting into college and completing undergraduate degrees, I’m disappointed that Rep. Loretta Sanchez would even hire someone like Caroline Valdez, who left the possibility of earning that degree at ASU, for a political career at age 23. Geez, even Loretta herself gives the spiel to young Latinas about how she has earned a bachelor’s degree and an MBA. Our nation’s capitol is a power hungry environment, where degrees, credentials, and knowledge are slung around in nearly every formal introduction of anyone of quasi importance. I witnessed this last week, where I sat through numerous introductions listening to where people earned their bachelor’s degrees, graduate degrees, and where they completed post-graduate work (if at all). Under what kind of delusions was Caroline Valdez under that a young Latina from Nogales could have a successful political career without formal credentials?

Finally, as usual, Congresswoman Sanchez’s office offered no comment on this situation with Ms. Valdez. But I imagine that the refusal to comment has become standard operating procedure for anything that stinks coming out of this Representative’s office. All of this should make for interesting fodder in next year’s election, where Loretta Sanchez will face off with Van Tran.

“‘Twenty thousand is nothing to keep your seat,’ said Representative Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat. ‘If my colleagues are smart, they’ll pay $20,000, and Michael will draw the district they can win. Those who have refused to pay, God help them.’ By drawing these convoluted, noncompetitive districts, politicians are spared worrying about diverse constituencies; nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than in the racially directed redistricting in the South.”

This quote is obviously referencing redistricting, which occurs after every census. However, in admitting that paying twenty thousand dollars to a consultant to have a safe seat drawn, Rep. Loretta Sanchez endorses gerrymandering and signals that she doesn’t need any help from fundraisers because she can buy her district mapped in such a way so she can win. Why would anyone want to contribute to Sanchez’s campaign after she made this statement?

While following the money regarding Congresswoman Sanchez, I found this item from last week under “Dirty Money Watch” in the Washington Examiner. It is worth noting that her other congressional colleagues gave their “dirty money” to charity, while Loretta Sanchez did not respond to the paper’s request for comment. Rep. Sanchez has a pattern of not responding to hard questions.

If you want to review Sanchez’s effectiveness as a legislator, I encourage you to examine her record here and see for yourself how many of the bills she has sponsored have become law. Also worth noting is the explanation about her bill sponsorship analysis, which says, “Sanchez is a follower. Sanchez tends to cosponsor the bills of other Members of Congress who do not cosponsor Sanchez’s own bills.” I think that we need more leaders in the Latino community, not followers. If my tax dollars are funding trips that are supposed to be increasing Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s effectiveness, her record isn’t reflecting her claim. But given her reputation and judgment, should this surprise us?

Fast forward a few months, and we discover that Duvall is literally in bed with lobbyists, bragging about his conquests on an open microphone during a committee meeting earlier this summer. Allegedly, one of the lobbyists that Duvall has been with works for Sempra Energy, which is convenient since he was the Vice chair of the Assembly Utilities and Commerce Committee. When this story broke, I couldn’t help but think of Representative Loretta Sanchez, who is allegedly involved in a romantic relationship with a homeland and defense lobbyist which I have documented here.

Like Duvall, Congresswoman Sanchez’s alleged conquest lobbies in areas that are clearly related to her own committee assignments. But given that, the difference is that Rep. Sanchez has been mum on the issue, and this might be an area where being a woman is an advantage. Since there are fewer women in politics, I think that there might be some reluctance to pursue a story like hers. Also, Congresswoman Sanchez has never been one to go on a family values bender like some of her more conservative colleagues, so there really isn’t a witch hunt to catch her engaging in something “naughty.” This is a woman who has no qualms about holding a fundraiser at the Playboy mansion and who will avoid answering any questions probing her donor relationship with Hugh Hefner. Contrast Sanchez’s behavior with Duvall who was eager to kiss or in this case “spank” and tell.

Edited to Add: If you would like to see true lobbying reform in California, consider signing this petition.

Photo Credit: Former Assemblyman Duvall’s official portrait & Loretta Sanchez’s infamous 2008 Holiday Card

If you remember, Richardson was involved in an investigation of pay-to-play in regards to donations from CDR Financial Products, which in turn was given an advisory role on state transportation bond transactions.

On another note, this week Governor Richardson has been in Cuba on a state trade mission for agricultural goods. While there, he stopped by Ernest Hemingway’s home, which is now a museum and presented a replica of a vintage telephone used by Hemingway to curators. He also said that US citizens should be able to visit cultural sites such as this one.

“There’s a link between Hemingway and the United States and Cuba, and now there’s a New Mexico link,” he said. “I think enhancing cultural and artistic and educational ties is a prelude to diplomatic and commercial ties. It always happens that way.”

“I’m for enhanced tourism travel for Americans.”

I would have to agree with Governor Richardson about enhanced travel privileges to Cuba. It would promote a greater understanding. And at this point, I don’t think we or the Cuban people gain much from the existing arrangement.

Photo Credit: Aug. 26, 2009 Govenor Richardson in former home of writer Ernest Hemingway in Cuba (AP Photo/Javier Galeano)

“During the presidency of George W. Bush, Senator Kennedy fought the administration’s attempts to abolish the TRIO college-preparatory programs, arguing that college access was key to equal opportunity. Joan Becker, who directs the TRIO programs at the University of Massachusetts at Boston, said Mr. Kennedy ‘believed that if low-income students don’t have access to postsecondary education, then the democratic ideals on which this nation was founded could not be a reality.’”

One issue affecting my community in the current budget crisis is the closing of a TRIO student support services unit at UC Irvine, my alma mater. The Student Academic Advancement Services Office is funded in part by a federal grant that is awarded to meet specific proposal requirements to serve first generation and low income undergraduates. What makes this program closure problematic is that Student Academic Advancement Services receives federal funds, and changing a program abruptly without a plan in place could jeopardize those much needed dollars. Federal TRIO programs were established in the 1960s as part of President Johnson’s War on Poverty agenda. Federal grant programs, such as Student Academic Advancement Services (SAAS), have to adhere to strict proposal requirements, and ironically this program has secured federal funds to run through the next academic year, so why is it being closed?

On July 30, 2009, the Dean of Undergraduate Education at UC Irvine, Sharon Salinger, informed the Student Academic Advancement Office that it would be shut down on August 31 due to University budget cuts. This office has staff with approximately 100 combined years of experience providing services to this at-risk population of college students and has been referred to as a model program by independent auditors. First generation and low income undergraduates are often at risk of not completing college because they lack the familial support systems and networks to help them succeed. Undergraduates who come from families with parents who haven’t even been to college often don’t know where to begin to seek resources to support their educational experiences. This is where offices like SAAS come in.

SAAS provides key college acculturation programs such as Summer Bridge, peer counseling workshops, access to information about test preparation, research opportunities, and support to apply for graduate school. In addition to these services, the office staff is diverse. First generation and low income students can be any ethnicity, but often, in the Golden State, they are students of color. Having role models and counselors who come from similar circumstances is often a positive reminder of what these students can achieve.

Dean Sharon Salinger has repeatedly cited the state budget crisis as the reason for closing the SAAS offices, but funds from the federal government have already been secured for the upcoming school year under a proposal written by the existing staff. Why would the Dean jeopardize these funds by closing an office that has performed successfully for over 30 years on the UC Irvine campus with such vast experience? Isn’t this maneuver akin to GOP governors trying to refuse federal stimulus funds? I think so because Dean Salinger, a Professor of Humanities with expertise on colonial taverns and social drinking, does not prior have professional experience working with TRIO programs, as described on her official faculty profile. More importantly, Salinger has not offered an alternative plan to the existing successful program.

In speaking with Angelita F. Salas, the Senior Counselor for the soon to be closed SAAS program, about what Dean Salinger has planned for the most vulnerable of UC Irvine’s undergraduates, she offered, “The Dean keeps making reference that she is planning to have similar SAAS programs — albeit under a different administrative structure. She has shown nothing to any of us in writing or verbally to prove it or has anything in place — no staff, nothing. The students keep asking, ‘What are these plans?’ And with school starting in a month, many want to know what will be here for them when they arrive.”

First generation and low income undergraduates at UC Irvine deserve more. They have crossed many hurdles to get to the state’s premiere public higher education system. Many have been seeing SAAS counselors and mentors for a while and have established close relationships with the professional and student staff.  At a time of uncertainty in their private lives because of financial constraints and the general climate of insecurity, is closing down a federally funded support services program and restructuring with a month before the start of fall quarter a wise decision? Furthermore, can this kind of restructuring occur most expediently with a Dean who students feel acted unethically in shutting down the SAAS office?

Leandra Ordorica, a third year Chicano/Latino studies major at UCI, expressed her frustrations with Dean Salinger’s decision to terminate the SAAS program. She stated, “What Dean Salinger did was unethical, and it was a blind decision. Dean Salinger has not worked with students enough for her to know that TRIO programs such as SAAS do work. SAAS has been successful for the last 30years; I do not understand why Salinger decided to close down a successful and well know program such as SAAS. Dean Salinger’s position is to overlook the Department of Undergraduate Education. However, she does not work directly with our students for her to know the positive impact that SAAS provide for low income, first generation, and disabled students at UCI.”

Tatiana Diaz, a fourth year psychology and Chicano/Latino studies major at UCI, also added, “Dean Salinger has not given any students answers as to who we should report to once the office is officially closed. We are not sure where to go to get the guidance that we have received from the great staff that is there for us at the SAAS office. We are not sure what benefits of the program are still available and which ones aren’t.”

The students and alumni of the SAAS program have created a facebook group to address their plight. In addition, the students have produced this youtube video (posted above) to express their appreciation and desire for the program to continue. While the closing date of the office is next week, it isn’t too late to express to the UC administration and the US Department of Education Federal TRIO Office Director the dissatisfaction of abruptly changing course one month out before the start of the academic school year. You can reach the Office of Federal TRIO Programs Director Linda Byrd-Johnson at (202) 502-7600 or e-mail at linda.byrd-johnson@ed.gov. And you can e-mail the administration at UC Irvine at chancellor@uci.edu and president@ucop.edu (UC Office of the President).

Finally, I know many successful alumni who have utilized the support services offered by Student Academic Advancement Services at UC Irvine. Many of those SAAS Anteater alumni are still in contact with the current program staff and have come back to campus to share their experiences. It saddens me, as an anteater alumna, to know that current students will pay more for tuition and receive less, not having the benefits of a program with a proven track record. Another door is slammed shut in the Golden State.

Rep. Sanchez is already beginning to feel the heat for supporting health care reform, as evidenced by protests outside of the Balboa Bay Club in Newport Beach. I should note that the Bay Club is not in her district, but she goes there to raise money. She should not be phased so much by these protesters since they likely aren’t the ones in her district living without access to medical care. However, it is my hope that Rep. Sanchez does not cave in on health care and supports something comprehensive that will widen access to affordable care for more Americans. A lot of these health care protesters are saying that the government will ration care, but guess what? The insurers already do that quite successfully when they refuse to cover people with pre-existing conditions or promote certain treatments over others.

The issue that I think could prove to be more problematic with Rep. Sanchez is not so much health care or the perception that she’s going along with President Obama, but rather the allegations about a conflict of interest tryst that she has refused to address. These allegations are not the only red flags that have been raised regarding Loretta Sanchez, but also the House Ethics Committee Investigation of the staffing situation with her sister, Rep. Linda Sanchez and the thousands of dollars she has received from the infamous PMA lobbying group.

In my view, Orange County, where Rep. Loretta Sanchez’s district sits, is becoming more diverse and progressive. More articulate voices and legislatively adept leaders could have probably solidified the 47th Congressional seat after 10+ years in the House. Rep. Sanchez is known more for her holiday cards and her spat with Rep. Joe Baca than for anything substantive. So this tells me that she could be doing a better job or surrounding herself with people who will help hold herself accountable regarding ethics and her level of productivity.

We blogged about her previous actions here. California has had a ban on public officials accepting speaking fees since 1990. Marin’s actions that prompted her resignation and subsequent fine involved conflict of interest. More specifically:

“Marin resigned from the administration last March after the Los Angeles Times reported that she had accepted speaking fees, including $15,000 from Pfizer and $13,500 from Bristol-Myers Squibb while the drug companies were lobbying her agency.

The FPPC said Marin reported collecting more than $30,000 in speaking fees in 2006 and again in 2007, and more than $10,000 for speeches in 2008.”

Rosario Marin obviously was comfortable being in the pocket of big pharma, but I thought I would try to figure out why she was paid the big bucks for public speaking engagements and found this YouTube. While this is only a snippet, I don’t find Marin’s message particularly compelling. I think that she uses many trite cliches in her speech. What do you think? Is she worthy of five figure speaking fees?