Contra Costa Times continues campaign finance coverup
June 2, 2008
The Contra Costa Times continues to allow its political reporter, Lisa Vorderbrueggen, to avoid full disclosure concerning her complete refusal to cover the subornation of the electoral process in Contra Costa County by special interest Independent Expenditures. In an comment (#34) posted on her blog, Lisa Vorderbrueggen does nothing but dissemble and tell tall tales to avoid admitting the truth that she was either played by campaign managers posing as her friends or she is a bent reporter that lets her political bias inform her decisions about what to write about or not.
In her defense for not writing about the fortune being spent by special interests to reelect incumbent Mary Peipho, Vorderbrueggen says:
- she was going to get to it
- she has written hundreds of stories about Independent Expenditures
- her deadline kept her from getting necessary documents
- “professional journalists” don’t work weekends before an important local election
- “I’m just one person”
Well, why wait to report on the fortune special interests are spending on a single Supervisor race? Should it wait until after the election as a pointless wrapup exercise the Times is so known for?
Hundreds of stories on IEs? Whether or not this factoid is true (which I believe it isn’t), it’s not the point. For even if she had written all of those stories, then why, on her blog’s May 21 post, did she so blithely gloss over mention of the East Bay Business Coalition (see comment #1)— the elephant in the living room of Contra Costa politics—as if she knew nothing about them? Does it have anything to do with a close relationship with one of its directors?
Maybe Lisa chose not to report about the corrupting influence of $219,798 on a single race because, instead, her cohort of Democrat girl friend supporters of Mary Piepho (Bielle Moore, Tomi Vanderbrook, Mary Jo Rossi) had her ear. Why on earth write about the bigger picture when you can instead lead readers on a merry chase into the minutiae of “he- said she-said” tit-for-tat in the mailers without ever thinking to ask who is paying for them. Lisa made damn sure her readers knew the Sheriff spent $12,500 of his own money, but she didn’t report on the $219,798! What’s wrong with that picture? Yet, Vorderbrueggen insists that it is “absurd” to suggest that she “missed” the story.
As for the deadlines, Vorderbrueggen is at least disingenuous if not misleading when she says the Independent Expenditure documents were unavailable or buried in an 8-inch deep heap. The documents I used to show the originally posted amount of $215,000, were faxed to the County elections office starting May 17, on May 23, and May 28. A form 496 showing an additional $4,500 showed up 5/31 and another $23M was faxed after the 5:00 p.m. Friday deadline from Sacramento on behalf of Quality Government (read Chevron/Tesoro). But this last amount could be easily deduced from the previous forms and the very public knowledge that there were three mailings showing up in voters’ mailboxes, not the two whose expense had already been reported.
A professional reporter knows that one does not have to go through the stacks of candidate filings but go directly to the Independent Expenditure filing forms in the much smaller stack THAT ARE UPDATED CONTSTANTLY. Vorderbrueggen is trying to pull the wool over the public’s eye to make it sound so complex and daunting. It is an outright falsehood that these documents weren’t available. Vorderbrueggen could have easily had all the documents needed to write about the big-money corruption on Thursday in plenty of time for her deadline. But we got girl friend inspired “he-said she-said,” instead.
I don’t know. Maybe a Times reporter was getting hand fed “he-said she-said” from her gal pals or some tasty “wait…I will get you something quick from Bickert to counter the Sheriff’s piece.” Maybe not. Doesn’t matter. What matters is, after all the excuses, Vorderbrueggen consciously decided to report on the twigs instead of the forest burning.
I’m just one person, too. And here’s the story.
To date, BIG OIL, Developers and Realtors have contributed $219,798 to smear Guy Houston and support incumbent District 3 Supervisor, Mary Nejedly Piepho, via campaign mailers, 4×8 signs, internet sites, and e-mail blasts. This does not include monies and phone-banking from public employee unions. All of these special interests have critical business before the Contra Costa Board of Supervisors (BOS). No wonder they are going all out to make sure they continue to have Piepho’s support. Taxpayers be damned as special interests protect a BOS that will treat Chevron with kid gloves, help Tom Koch build New Farm and entertain dozens of other developer inspired Urban Limit Line loopholes, not to mention rolling over during public employee union contract negotiations.
Comments
2 Responses to “Contra Costa Times continues campaign finance coverup”
Got something to say?
Loading ...
Dear Bill Gram-Reefer,
Editor of Halfway To Concord.
And writer of the article:
In reference to:
Contra Costa Times continues campaign finance coverup, June 2, 2008
and the email blast I received from you this morning regarding the same.
I find it more than disturbing to have an editor of a news organization lean so heavily against one candidate in an election. The term “yellow journalism” comes to mind.
Special interests work independently of their chosen candidate’s wishes, and usually do more harm than good in an election.
Your numbers don’t reflect any accepted contributions to the Mary Piepho campaign. If you have proof of Mary Piepho accepting any contributions from Refineries, or Property Developers, by all means put it out there, but unless you can verify your statements please be a responsible reporter, and stick to the facts.
Please review the statement at the bottom of Mary Piepho’s Web site contribution page.
http://marynejedlypiepho.com/takeaction/contribute.html
~ EDITOR REPLIES -
1. The e-mail blast was from me as a concerned private citizen.
2. If you want to see biased journalism, just keep reading the Times.
3. I am a blogger. You don’t have to read my site, nor do I pretend to be above the fray like the pack of lies you get from so-called “professional journalists” that grind their axe under cover of “neutrality”
4. If you believe the PACs and Independent Expenditure committees work independently of candidates, you are a fool. Who told you that? David Piepho? PACs and IEs routinely work behind the scenes with candidates and campaign managers and in this case, apparently, also with the political reporter of the Times who is good chums with them all.
5. These are the facts. But don’t believe me. Check for yourself and with other knowledgeable people; maybe your pastor, or an honest civics teacher. I, unlike the topic above, am not going to stand here and say, “believe me, I am a professional journalist,” cause they can be the biggest liars and screamers of all; especially when they get caught.
6. Thank you for your kind inquiry. Have a good life. bgr
Obviously Leslie is bias to only one editor. She should look at the dirty laundry list that the times advertises in a huge ” Who should you vote for ” section of thier paper. That my dear is: “yellow journalism” .