I think that in a climate where so many of us are penny pinching, asking students to make sacrifices or go without summer school, Cal Grants, and face fee increases at public colleges and universities, it certainly leaves a bad taste in the mouths of Californians to have to foot the bill for luxury cars for the state’s already well compensated elected leaders. I do want to note that Assemblyman Juan Arambula and Senator Gloria Romero are two noted Latinos who have declined a district car. Gracias Assemblyman Arambula and Senator Romero for not taking advantage of your benefits at our expense. You give me a bit of faith that perhaps the others will see the light.

Latinos were not the only legislators with fancy wheels, as others have taken advantage too. However, given the Southern California car club culture in our communities, these revelations play to a certain stereotype that we are materialistic and not very serious about our jobs and how we conduct ourselves.

On page two of the LA Times piece, I was particularly disturbed by this:

“Californians have paid for several accidents in the last three years that happened when lawmakers’ relatives were behind the wheel.

Maria Robles, the wife of then-Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez, was driving his official vehicle in October 2006 when it struck the rear of another vehicle, costing the state $19,000.

Then-Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia’s son Javier “made a right turn in front of oncoming traffic” in a December 2006 accident that cost the state $22,000, state records say.”

Some argue that Californians are already over-taxed, and a few weeks ago, we witnessed the governor’s ballot measures fail at the polls, which would have helped close the gap in the state budget. UCLA economists expect that unemployment will rise to 12.1% by the end of the year and not go back to single digits until late 2011, yet some of our leaders are content to continue living the high life taking full advantage of every tax payer funded perk.

While car expenses can be viewed as a drop in the proverbial bucket, I believe that we should not turn a blind eye to these kinds of abuses. Every penny adds up. The $3.2 million that state legislators’ cars cost tax payers for three years could have been used to purchase textbooks, hire teachers, buy supplies in public health clinics. Why should we be paying for Maria Robles’s fender benders (wife of Fabian Nuñez) or for the son of former Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia’s accidents? How can anyone reasonably justify these costs?

Photo: Cadillac STS, the most costly vehicle driven by Sen. Ron Calderon (D-Montebello)

So much for Congressman Baca telling us, “It’s a Hispanic seat. We should not lose that seat.” It’s nice to know that Joe Baca has designated California’s 32nd Congressional District as a “Hispanic seat,” never-mind that we can be effectively represented by people other than our own kind. I wonder what he would say about a Latino running in a white or some other ethnicity dominant district.

And those Sanchez sisters are at it again. This time Reps. Linda and Loretta Sanchez face questions by the House ethics committee over payroll and staff sharing. It looks like Linda Sanchez put three of her sisters aides on her own payroll because of budget shortfalls in Loretta’s office. I’m sure that her staff didn’t mind as long as they continued to get paid, but one of the rules in business is to keep whomever is responsible for cutting your checks happy or satisfied. I could see how this little staff shuffle could create some confusion in terms of loyalties and even performance, especially in areas where the two sisters differ.

There are two particularly interesting blog posts at SiTV about this race profiling both Cedillo and Pleitez. I encourage you to read them and chime in with your own thoughts.

The latest from the fundraising totals as of the end of March reveal that Chu has raised the most money, followed by Cedillo and then Pleitez. We have addressed the piece (what some are calling as hit piece) that came out regarding Cedillo’s campaign expenses for his state senate seat last week, but it should be noted that aside from the spending revealed in the LA Times article, Senator Cedillo has donated money from his campaign stash to charitable causes and other candidates. In fairness, I do think that comparing Cedillo’s campaign spending to that of Judy Chu’s is a bit like examining apples vs. oranges because he is a state senator with a leadership role in the Latino Legislative Caucus, while she is a member of the state Board of Equalization (the tax commission). State senators, in my view, are more high profile. I would doubt that most Californians could not name who is on the state Board of Equalization.

Cedillo is saying that no aberrations occurred and that he has complied with the law that says campaign spending must serve “a political, legislative, or governmental purpose.” That may be the case, but in dismal economic times, this kind of campaign spending doesn’t go over well with his donors and creates the impression that he is enriching himself and his aides at the expense of his supporters.

Robert Stern, head of the nonpartisan Center for Governmental Studies says, “It sounds like he is using campaign funds to supplement his lifestyle.”

This story is particularly damaging to Gil Cedillo because he is in a race for Congress to represent California’s 32nd District, which was the seat left vacant by now Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis. And Cedillo’s main opponent, Judy Chu, is rather economical in comparison. The LA Times reports:

“Cedillo’s spending, detailed in reports he filed with the secretary of state, contrasts with the frugal record of Judy Chu, his chief rival for the San Gabriel Valley congressional seat. A former Monterey Park assemblywoman elected to the state Board of Equalization in 2006, Chu has spent no campaign money on shopping or entertainment, and less than $5,000 on meals and travel over six years.”

According to the LA Times, over the course of six years in California’s State Senate, Cedillo has spent approximately $77,000 on restaurants, $29,000 on hotels and $21,000 on airline tickets.

The final kicker is how Cedillo’s Chief of Staff Dan Savage describes his boss as being “very into clothes.” (I wonder why Savage decided to advertise his boss’s penchant for garments…)

My thought is that Cedillo could certainly trim these travel and dining costs, which would free up more campaign money and build goodwill with the public and his donors. It should be noted that money collected for his congressional race is raised separately and subject to stricter campaign finance rules. Cedillo sells himself as a champion of working people having been a leader of SEIU, yet he lives large. I would imagine that much of his international travel could be cut and handled via webinar or Skype. In general, the trend of public servants and their staffers taking advantage of high end hotel stays and meals plagues both political parties and all ethnic groups. However, stories like this have more bite when it comes to Latino politicians and especially those who advocate on behalf of populations that don’t have much political capital such as the undocumented immigrant community.

It will be interesting to see how voters in California’s 32 district factor Cedillo’s campaign spending into their decision on who to vote for, if at all, come May 19.