Friends, check out the Linda Ackerwoman campaign expense report at the California Secretary of State’s website.
We noticed this odd line item.
10/19/2009
ACKERMAN, DICK
OFFICE EXPENSES
$654.40
Ackerwoman’s campaign forked over $654 bucks to her husband under the crypric description of “office expenses.”
Heh heh. Never miss a trick.
Could Dick actually be charging his wife’s campaign for some sort of services rendered? Well, why not? She made a killing as a “consultant” on his campaigns, and what the Hell, turnabout is fair play, right? Too bad the campaign won’t turn a profit.
We do have to wonder what kind of total Dick will rack up by the time Ackerman, Inc. is done squeezing every drop out of lobbyists.
At least they said they did. We will certainly forgive you if you have your doubts. The boys in The Van were given an extra allocation of medicinal mushrooms after their last supposed Ackerman phone call coup, and, well, that’s an ingredient that could produce almost any kind of weird hallucination.
Anyway, here’s what the Undercover Surveillance Unit claims to have captured. Make of it what you will.
(phone ringing)
Dick Jones: Ahhm a comin’ (heavy panting noises) Hello?
Dick Ackerman: (a grunt) Dick Ackerman here.
DJ: Dick! (wheezing sounds) Sorry, ah’m a little winded. Long way from the privvy.
DA: Quit talking and listen. That asshole Nygren did a poll. Roski’s pulling out. Two goddam miserable weeks left and that punk Roski’s pulling out on me. They’re all out to get me. No respect. Goddammit I’m Dick Ackerman. Okay, look, I’m outta dough. We’re outta dough. Linda’s outta dough. Hitting up all my Fullerton friends. Our Fullerton friends. Linda’s Fullerton friends.
DJ: A poll (wheezing and coughing). What kinda poll? (coughing)
DA: (several guttural noises) Don’t worry about that. Forget about it. I need some dough. We need some dough. Linda needs some dough. We gotta keep hitting that bastard Norby. Right up ’til the end. At the end. After the end (distinct snarling sound followed by an apparent bark).
DJ: That Norby, boy, he’s a real troublemaker. A real Brutus. Et tu Brutus? (unattributable sputtering sounds)
DA: What?
DJ: Huh?
DA: (a series of staccato grunts) Shut up and listen. What can I put you down for? The limit, right?
DJ: Ahhumm. Well, ah ain’t gonna hide the fact, Dick. S’been a tough year. Reeeal tough! (two phlegmmycoughs)
DA: (a snarl) Why you ingrate, if it wasn’t for me you’d just be another loud-mouthed Rotarian. You’ve got more money than Croesus. Sell one of your thirteen cars and pony up, goddammit!
DJ: There was a poll? (more asthmatic wheezing)
DA: (a bark) Goddammit you jackass, forget about the poll! I’m putting you down for $1200. A guy’s coming up to Fullerton today to wash my car at Dolan’s place. I’ll send him over to pick up the check.
DJ: Norby. That sumbitch tried to stop our Redevelopment expansion. That’s a brilliant plan. He’s a trouble maker. And he’s buddies with Bushala. Suin’ his own city! Got a name fer boys like that back in Galveston: sumbitch.
DA: Yeah. I tried to shut up that punk too. Didn’t work. Everybody’s useless. Out to get me. Get us. Get Linda. (several low growling sounds) But forget about that.
DJ: (a long wheeze) Heh-heh, did ah ever tell ya about the Eye-talian family that used to run Galveston?
DA: What? Shut up and listen. My boy will be around for the check at ten or eleven. His names’s Mike. Or Matt. Or Milt. Something like that. Won’t do my tires right (a snarl).
DJ: Huh?
DA What?
DJ: There was a poll?
Unidentified Female Voice in Background: Dick, that white van is back behind the statue garden wall!
DA: Hell. Damn peacocks are gonna go off again. Okay. Get off the line you idiot. And write that check. Now.
It was a fun party with an open bar. And then Dave Lopez showed up…
We missed an Ackerwoman press release about a week and a half ago (sorry but we really hate going to that site). It touted Fullerton “educational leaders” who have endorsed Linda Ackerman: Hilda Sugarman, Ellen Ballard, Minard Duncan, and Lynn Thornley – a who’s who of Fullerton RINOs and liberal educrat types. It’s really hard to find any term other than “followers” to describe this little band, but such are the extravagances of campaign rhetoric.
Our old pal Minard was even assigned his own hilarious quotation: “I first got to know Linda when she was a member of the PTA at Rolling Hills School in Fullerton. She has been a vital member of our community for over 30 years…” A member of the PTA? Well whoop-de-doo! Is that Duncan’s threshold for being qualified to serve in the Sate Assembly? Guess so. And of course trust Minard to use the wrong (present) tense. She hasn’t lived in our community for over 30 years. She spent the last ten living in another community!
Well, we know Ackerwoman’s residency is a lie, even if Minard won’t talk about it: she lives in Irvine and rents an address in Fullerton. She also advertises herself in this press release as “an independent businesswoman” and we now know that that’s a falsehood on two counts. We have also discovered her fake charity that diverts lobbyists contributions towards Hawaiian vacations for her and her pals in the legislature, although such flagrant fraudulence seems not to have made much of an impression on Duncan and his pals on the FSD board.
It’s sort of depressing to see these folks turning a blind eye to prevarication and misrepresentation. Makes you wonder a bit about what kind of values are being passed along via the FSD.
Maybe I was just dizzy from balancing all those budgets...
UPDATE: HERE’S AN INFORMATIVE POST WE RAN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ABOUT HOW GOVT REVENUE RAISERS DO IT AND EVADE THE “TAXER” LABEL. THE OTHER GIMMICK IS ‘FEE” INCREASES. IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT ACKERWOMAN’S HOLLOW NO TAX PLEDGE.
Yesterday we published an e-mail from Joe Sipowicz about the lame-brain “no tax pledge” signed by Mrs. Linda Ackerman, presumably to shore up uncertainty about her conservative credentials. She needs to.
As Joe trenchantly pointed out, there are all sorts of ways to raise revenue without calling them taxes. Let’s cast our minds back a few months.
Back on April 14 of this year, never dreaming of ever becoming a candidate for political office, Linda Ackerman went along with the pro-government revenue crowd – voting to raise MWD water rates by an astounding 19.7%. That’s right folks. A 20% commodity increase for the water MWD provides to local water purveyors – like the City of Fullerton; and to the OC Water District for basin replenishment.
Here’s the excerpt from the April 14, 2009 MWD meeting minutes.
47859 Regarding the water rates and charges, Business and Finance Committee Chairman Grunfeld remarked on the unprecedented amount of time both Directors and staff spent on the rates and charges, keeping in mind their fiduciary duties and general responsibilities to the 19 million people that Metropolitan serves via their respective member agencies. Committee Chairman Grunfeld then moved, seconded by Director Santiago, that the Board adopt the CEQA determination and approve Option #2 set forth in the revised board letter signed by the General Manager on April 7, 2009, with an amendment to add Item (d) and:
a. Approve an 8.8 percent increase in water rates, plus a $69/AF Delta Supply Surcharge for a total average increase of 19.7 percent, effective September 1, 2009; b. Adopt Resolution 9087 to Impose the Readiness-to-Serve Charge;
Minutes -9- April 14, 2009
c. Adopt Resolution 9088 to Impose the Capacity Charge, said resolutions entitled:
Resolution 9087: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIXING AND ADOPTING A READINESS-TO-SERVE CHARGE FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2010
Resolution 9088 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA FIXING AND ADOPTING A CAPACITY CHARGE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2010
and
d. Direct staff to work with the member agencies and the Board to evaluate the historical cost-of-service methodology utilized by Metropolitan, including a review of additional fixed charges, including property taxes, with the intent to ensure that all rates and charges recover the full cost of service when the Board establishes rates for the 2010/11 fiscal year .
Comments were made by Directors for and against the motion with emphasis on the treatment surcharge and decreasing reserves. The Chair called for a vote on the motion.
The following is a record of the vote on the motion:
Ayes: Anaheim (Dir. M. Edwards, 3,466 votes), Beverly Hills (Dir. Wunderlich, 2,033 votes), Central Basin Municipal Water District (Dirs. Apodaca and Hawkins, 11,185 votes), Eastern Municipal Water District (Dir. Record, 6,731 votes), Inland Empire Utilities Agency (Dir. Santiago, 8,440 votes), Las Virgenes Municipal Water District (Dir. Peterson, 1982 votes), Long Beach (Dir. Lowenthal, 3,984 votes), Los Angeles (Ayes: Dirs. Grunfeld and J. Murray. Absent: Dirs. Quiñonez and Sutley. 40,455 votes), Municipal Water District of Orange County (Ayes: Dirs. Ackerman, Dick, and Foley. Absent: Dir. Bakall. 34,917 votes), San Diego County Water Authority (Dirs. Barrett, Lewinger, Pocklington, and Steiner, 38,213 votes), San Fernando
Minutes -10- April 14, 2009
(Dir. Ballin, 150 votes), Santa Ana (Dir. Griset, 2,169 votes), Santa Monica (Dir. Abdo, 2,332 votes), West Basin Municipal Water District (Dirs. Gray and Little, 13,663 votes), Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County (Dir. Lopez, 8,456 votes). Total 178,176 votes.
Noes: Burbank (Dir. Brown, 1,803 votes), Calleguas Municipal Water District (Dir. Grandsen, 8,160 votes), Foothill Municipal Water District (Dir. J. Edwards, 1,272 votes), Fullerton (Dir. Blake, 1,457 votes), Glendale (Dir. Kavounas, 2,226 votes), San Marino (Dir Morris, 399 votes), Three Valleys Municipal Water District (Dir. De Jesus, 5,031 votes), Torrance (Dir. Wright, 2,186 votes), Upper San Gabriel Valley Municipal Water District (Dir. Robinson, 7,257 votes). Total 29,791 votes. Not Participating: Pasadena (Dir. Brick, 2,037 votes). Total 2,037 votes. Absent: Compton (Dir. Arceneaux, 362 votes). Total 362 votes.
The Chair declared the recommended water rates and charges and resolutions to impose charges for fiscal year 2009/10 passed by 178,176 ayes, 29,791 noes, 2,037 not participating, and 362 absent.
Thanks, for that one Linda! Anything else you’d like to share with us?
In what seems to be an increasingly desperate campaign, the Ackerwoman sent out a mailer to Democrats trying to woo their unlikely votes. Nothing all that unusual there. The only problem is she says that she “is not defined by being a Republican.”
Can someone please help take my shoes off?
Oh, oh. Seriously no bueno (as Art Pedroza would say) in some circles. See, Linda is a national GOP committeewoman and is a (seemingly permanent) fixture on the OC GOP central Committee. This has caused a bit of a stir, even at the Red County blog that heretofore had been treating the Ackerman, Inc. prevarications with kid gloves. Blogger Allan Bartlett has demanded Ackerwoman’s resignation from the national committee post haste.
So now Linda has to start scrapping off the bottom of her Gucci shoes, explaining to friend and foe alike just what that mailer really did mean. If she placates the Republicans, she’s sure to offend any Dems or DTS voters stupid enough to have fallen for the ruse in the first place.
UPDATE: as absentee ballots roll in we thought it would be a useful public service to republish our run down about what we know about Linda Ackerman. If you haven’t voted please read, or read again. If you have already voted have fun reading it anyway.
We’ve been reading up on our would-be 72nd Assembly District representative, Linda Ackerman, of Irvine. We’ve done some digging, too, and have perused her website. We have had quite a bit of fun shredding the supposed testimonials by endorsers, statements so false that they hardly needed debunking.
Now, with only a month (Ed. now three weeks) to go before the Special Election primary, and with absentee ballots soon to be landing in mailboxes we have decided to do a recap of the territory we have covered. Consider it a public service.
Linda Ackerman is a carpetbagger who has lived in a gated community in Irvine for ten years.
The Ackermans have “rented” a fraudulent address on Lindendale, in Fullerton to meet the minimum enforceable election law, even though it is a violation of the State Constitution.
Despite her campaign claims of being an “experienced businesswoman” she has provided no evidence to substantiate that claim. She does sit on the Board of a collection agency whose clients are organized as Sacramento lobbyists.
She created an operation called the Pacific Policy Research Foundation, a putative “charitable” corporation; a dodge whose sole purpose is to provide politicians a free trip to Hawaii to be lobbied by big business interests.
She has received at least two $3900 contributions from bogus political campaign “slush funds,” including that of her own husband.
She was paid $76,000 by her own husband’s campaign as a “consultant.”
She is responsible for perhaps the sleaziest campaign mailer seen since her own husband ran for the Assembly in 1995.
She has zero record on any issues. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
In sum, Mrs. Ackerman is a cipher, a virtual non-entity, trading on her husband’s name and hoping to succeed by raising enough money from her Sacramento pals to smear her opponent but good. And there you have it.
We will add as an addendum that it became clear during the Dave Lopez Mike Duvall/Linda Ackerman story that Dick Ackerman “speaks for his wife.” And that blatant puppetry ought to give any conscientious citizen cause to pause, especially when we learn that Ackerman is regarded as Mike Duvall’s “political godfather.”
And the desperate hit pieces on Chris Norby by Ackerman, Inc. and its big business and Redevelopment abuser surrogates has not only gotten slimier, but incessant. A new generation of North Orange Countians now knows how low Team Ackerman will go to keep its grubby mitts on power. Any power at all, really.
Well, the voters have a clear choice. And in a democracy you always get the kind of representation you deserve!
This post was written by Joe Sipowicz and we just received it by e-mail. Joe seems pretty steamed up so we’re posting it immediately. We reproduce it unedited.
If only I knew what I was talking about maybe I could be credible...
It’s getting a little weird – not cyber-stalking scary, but pretty weird, nevertheless. Poor Matthew Cunningham seems to have developed an unhealthy obsession with your blog. Everyday brings a new charge against FFFF and its proprietor of some misfeasance, lawbreaking, or general attack. It’s true you have been pretty frank in displaying your dislike for political sycophants and stooges, and have singled out Mr. C on more than one occassion as an example of the type. But still. He seems bent on a vendetta!
Today on his blog he accused Tony Bushala of cyber-squatting on a URL address in violation of campaign laws. Here’s what Clarence Darrow Cunningham had to say:
Yesterday, I came across Section 18320of the California Elections Code, known as the “California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act.”
It says:
Political cyberfraud includes, but is not limited to, any of the following acts:
(D) Intentionally preventing the use of a domain name for a political Web site by registering and holding the domain name or by reselling it to another with the intent of preventing its use, or both.
And wouldn’t you know it — who appears to be in violation of that section but noted election scofflaw Tony Bushala of Fringe for Fullerton’s Future. In July, he reservedthe domain name “Tom Daly for Supervisor.” Since Bushala has an extremely negative view of Daly, it’s fair to assume he reserved it with the intention spelled in subsection (D). But almost I forgot — it’s Bushala and his pals who are cleaning up politics, restoring the dignity of the Republican Party, etc, etc, blah, bah. Who has time for nuisance’s like election laws?
The only problem is that Cuningham’s comprehension skills have obviously been stunted by asphyxia. It is crystal clear that Tony is using that site for (drum roll, please) political speech! As a matter of fact, Cunningham undercuts his own effort to play attorney by helpfully providing a link to the site (Tony, remember to thank him for the advertisement!) showing a political statement.
Tony is not “squatting” on it to keep anybody from using it. And he hasn’t sold it to someone else to do so. Cunningham’s precious subsection D remains unviolated and the Republic can still muddle along.
As far as cleaning up politics I have never read anything on this blog that stated such a noble purpose. But cleaning out rats like Cunningham and all the other political parasites in the Orange County Republican machine would indeed be a public service!
Thanks to red vixen from the Orange Juice blog for this discovery. Since we can’t confirm whether or not this is the same Linda Ackerman who is carpetbagging the 72nd Assembly District election, and whom we have accused of lying about being a “businesswoman,” we may owe her an apology! Dog grooming is a real business. But if it is our Linda, why didn’t she put this on her resume. It would have helped.
I grew my business in Fullerton! Well maybe it was carrots in the back yard. I seem to remember growing something in Fullerton!
We’ve already documented that Linda Ackerwoman is not, never has been (and probably never will be a “businesswoman”). And yet, here is her ballot designation:
I know, let's start our campaign off with two lies!
Okay, the businesswoman thing is a bald-faced lie. Being a “consultant” to your husband’s political campaign is a great way to shift campaign contributions into your own pockets, but it hardly constitutes a business. Which leads to the second lie: “independent.” She is most certainly not independent. She has apparently never worked for anybody but her husband as a fund-raiser. That means she’s tied at the hip to all those lobbyists who put that $76,000 in her pocket. Not to mention all those lobbyists that facilitated the Hawaiian vacations – who laundered dough through a laughably named “Pacific Policy Research Foundation.” She’s about as independent as a barnacle stuck to the bottom of a boat.
It really makes you wonder about those people who have endorsed Ackerwoman, knowing that she’s about as much of a businesswoman as Daisy Duck.
Being a two dimensional cartoon is hard job. But is it a business?
Oh, that’s right! Those endorsers are also well aware that she doesn’t live in the district either. That tells you what kind of people they are. And come to think of it, that makes three lies!
A quick perusal of Mrs. Linda Ackerman’s resume discovers her touting her “non-profit” experience. Well, we were a little curious what that might be, and boy were we somewhat surprised. It turns out that Mrs. Ackerman is co-founder and board member of something called the Pacific Policy Research Foundation located in Folsom, California, a corporation organized under the 501(c)(3) provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Check it out here. “Purpose: promote common good and welfare of community.”
The sole evident purpose of this entity with the lofty-sounding title is to solicit donations from big industry and union lobbyists to pay for a week-long retreat in Hawaii for state legislators and those very same lobbyists who support the “Foundation.” The politicians pay their way out of their excess campaign funds, and once there, are the captive audience of the selfsame parasites they see at Spataro for lunch every day of the week. The “conference” is little more than a perfunctory morning schmooze fest with afternoons off for good behavior.
In 2007 then Senator Dick Ackerman made the arduous fact-finding trek to Maui, and we wonder whether Linda went, and if so whether she paid her own way, if Dick’s campaign foot her bill, or if maybe the Foundation picked up her tab as a board member. In this Sac Bee article (search for Ackerman) we read, in response to criticism about that junket:
“…Senate Republican leader Dick Ackerman of Irvine, who is attending the conference, said it provides top-notch panel discussions on energy, health care, water and other key issues.
“It’s extremely valuable,” Ackerman said.
Uh, yeah, right Dick. Whatever you say.
Dick and Linda unwind after a tough day fighting off lobbyists
Well, Hawaii is in the Pacific. Other than that there seems to be zero relationship between the name of the group and the activity. There is no research (except, perhaps researching ways the lobbyists can stay under their gift allowances per legislator), and no charitable purpose at all. Their only other accomplishment seems to have been “updating” their website. Wow! What a busy year for the Foundation!
Hey, lobbyists need to eat, too, right?
To add insult to injury, a 2007 LA Times article describes how the other co-founder, Sharon Leonard, wife of BOE member Bill Leonard, and Leonard’s BOE Deputy, Barbara Alby, actually got paid, and paid a lot, to “organize” the annual Hawaii outings.
In the Sac Bee article the history of the Hawaiian luau of lobbyist love is outlined. Apparently the junket used to be a gig run by the fine gentlemen of the state prison guard union – until that racket was cut off; only to be taken over in 2005 by the apparently more subtle founders of the Pacific Policy Research Foundation operation. Well you have to give Mrs. Ackerman and her cohorts credit – they didn’t miss a trick.
We have to wonder just when the IRS is going to get wise and shut down this little philanthropic enterprise.
Too bad the people of the California and the 72nd wouldn’t get the kind of attention from Mrs. Ackerman that the lobbyists do. It’s a real cozy, incestuous, culture that the Ackermans are used to up there in Sacramento. Business as usual, in fact.
