Gavin Newsom squandered his good name in this election

Gavin Newsom’s abuse of his good name in this election will slow the pace of climate action in California and make environmental leaders less likely to trust him.

I left the country on Nov. 7, 2022, the day before the US national election.  As I spent the next two weeks on a pilgrimage to the holy temples and sites of Egypt, I read the US election news greedily hanging on the balance of the Congress, enjoying the narrative that the Democratic party had beaten the odds.  

But over the course of those same two weeks, being a Californian I also paid attention to what was happening here.  Most of the results were in the direction of a world that works for everyone: Democrats held every house seat that was challenged by Republicans and they picked up seats in the state legislature. On statewide initiatives, Californians defeated a measure which would have overturned a new law to regulate the marketing of tobacco products in ways that appeal predominantly to children, defeated two ill-considered gambling initiatives while passing a constitutional right to abortion and an initiative to fund arts and music in public schools.

Perhaps the only two really affirmatively bad election results statewide in California were made more likely by California Governor Gavin Newsom lending his otherwise good name to oppose an initiative and a candidate that would have strongly favored clean air, clean transportation and more resources to fight (and prevent) wildfires in California:  Proposition 30 “Tax the Rich to Fund Clean Transportation and Prevent wildfires” and candidate for State Senate Dave Jones.  

Promoted by environmental groups, most unions and consumer protection groups and the rideshare company Lyft, Proposition 30 would have been a tremendous opportunity to clean up our air, reduce  global warming and stop catastrophic wildfire. it would have added a small (1.75%) additional tax on  incomes over $2 million, and would have used the money — $3.5 – $5 billion annually — to fund  programs to reduce harmful emissions from transportation (80% of revenues) and to prevent and  control wildfires (20%). the transportation funds would have gone to incentives for purchasers of zero emission cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats, and for vehicle charging/fueling stations, with at  least half going to disadvantaged and low-income californians. proceeds would also have funded clean  mobility for those who don’t own cars, through ev car-sharing, e-bike rebates, protected bike  lanes, and transit passes. 

With all of that going for it, Governor Newsom, who otherwise has often been a leader in climate action, chose to side with the opposition which was funded by greedy billionaires who don’t want to pay their fair share of taxes  (after benefitting from trump’s terrible tax cuts for the rich).  The opposition seized upon Newsom’s no position–using it successfully to reduce the otherwise strong natural support for the initiative statewide, mainly by hyping the fact that most of the funding for the prop 30 campaign has come from lyft. However, that was a distraction and a red herring. nothing in the measure favored lyft or any other special interest; currently, lyft drivers are eligible for electric-car  rebates, and nothing in the measure would’ve changed that. they were a tiny percentage of those who would’ve benefited from the transition to zero-emission transportation. despite the deceptive opposition  rhetoric (a sacramento judge struck one part of their ballot arguments as “false and/or misleading”), not a penny raised  by prop 30 would have come out of any other programs, because this is money that otherwise would have just stayed in the pockets of the ultra-rich. 

Newsom also took the relatively rare step of making at least two key bad endorsements in Democrat vs. Democrat down ballot races. In state senate district 8 here in Sacramento, Newsom endorsed Sacramento City councilmember Angelique Ashby against former State Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones.  The race still has a few more days before it is called but Ashby today leads by some 5,000 votes. 

Jones, our former Assemblymember and California Insurance Commissioner, is arguably the cleanest, hardest working, most progressive politician in the state.  In both roles he fought hard for working families, the environment and those without big money interests behind them.  Ashby, running with huge support from big oil and other large corporations, ran highly deceptive ads against Jones attacking him for supporting Medicare for all claiming he wanted to “take away your medicare.”   Even with Democrats holding a strong majority in both houses of the legislature, his defeat (should it be certified) matters.  As oily interests well know, in recent years strong environmental and consumer protection measures have been defeated on the state senate floor by a handful of votes. 

Fortunately, Governor Newsom was less successful in his attempt to give a new platform of Los Angeles County Supervisor to corporate centrist and state senator Bob Hertzberg.  Despite Newsom’s inexplicable intrusion into this local race on Hertzberg’s behalf and Hertzberg’s crony style politics, Bob lost to West Hollywood City Councilmember Lindsey Horvath who was strongly promoted by her predecessor in this office, progressive leader LA County Supervisor Sheila Kuehl.  Hertzberg also lost in his effort to create a Hertzberg dynasty in the Senate by demanding the voters anoint his son Daniel to his seat.  Daniel Hertzberg lost to caroline menjivar, who promises to be a very strong progressive pick-up. 

The defeat of Proposition 30 and the successful promotion of Dave Jones’ Big Oil funded opponent were both made more likely by Governor Newsom putting his thumb on the scale.  Voters in California and the US should be wary of Newsom’s motives (as he appears to be paving the way for rich donors to support him for president) and think twice before allowing his endorsement to influence them in the future.