Introduction
The Cycle of CCPOA Influence
PACs and Contributions
Lobbying
Three-Strikes
Affiliate Groups

A new TV ad paid for the by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association is running in limited rotation in selected markets criticizing Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The CCPOA is currently in negotiations with the Schwarzenegger administration. While some speculate that the ad is a strong-arm tactic to coerce an expedited and lucrative contract, others wonder whether the guards are trying to demonstrate the power of their deep pockets at the beginning of the election season. The CCPOA has not yet thrown its support to Angelides, however the union has garnered the highest paying public contracts ever from Democratic administrations. Yet another possibility is that the guard's recognize that Schwarzenegger's current Prison Expansion Plan, a profitable venture for them, needs some backhanded support from people in traditionally Republican strongholds where the ad is running.

[Click here] to see the ad.

Introduction

Labor unions have moved consistently into realms beyond the “bread and butter” issues of wages and benefits. Union leaders realize that political muscle translates into members’ gains. Because legislators and the governor writes the checks, these political alliances are critical.

Groups such as the California Teachers’ Association (CTA), California Highway Patrol and the CCPOA contribute money and volunteers to candidates. In addition to these direct supports, labor unions began to pay for television ads, sponsor party conventions and send out voting guides for their members.

CCPOA political activity exceeds that of other labor unions. It outspent CTA in the 1998 and 2000 election cycles with only a tenth of the membership. CCPOA contributions go to both Democrats and Republicans and reach all three branches of government - Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. The CCPOA spends on bread and butter issues as well as on tougher crime legislation.

CCPOA engages in a variety of political activities. Most spending is done through political action committees, or PACs. CCPOA also hires lobbyists, public relations firms and polling groups. Don Novey, the president of CCPOA has formed close alliances and friendships with political leaders.

Each of these political components is legal and accepted as common practice. Alone, these components appear as natural extensions of unions’ growing political role. Combined, these tactics present a powerful political machine that has had a dramatic effect on the state’s correctional system. When the CTA exerts political influence, class sizes get smaller. When the CCPOA exerts power, more people are incarcerated.

The Cycle of CCPOA Influence

• 31,000 members pay $59.42 per month to the CCPOA.
• Union dues total $21.9 million per year.
• 65% of that money goes to operations.
• 35% goes of the budget funds political activities
• The political budget flows out in 6 main directions.
• CCPOA pays for public relations.
• CCPOA pays for lobbying services.
• CCPOA funds affiliate groups.
• CCPOA contributes “soft money” to political parties, political events, debates.
• CCPOA gives direct contributions to candidates.
• Election winners support the CCPOA political agenda.
• Tough on crime legislation fuels expansion of the correctional system.
• Expanded correctional system adds membership to the CCPOA.

[Click here] to see a flowchart of the political dynamics within the California criminal justice system.

PACs and Contributions

CCPOA is alleged to have as many as eleven PACs, according to Los Angeles Times reporter Dan Moraine. ¹ San Francisco public records show four PACs that clearly mention the CCPOA name. Together, they have contributed well over $9.6 million to political campaigns in two election cycles. ²

Below is a summary of the 4 primary PACs of the CCPOA. Each section describes the PAC and highlights a political influence from 1997 to late 2001, noting top single donations and notable recipients. Some periods are missing from the files of the Department of Elections. For some PACs, these periods are minimal, covering a few months here and there. For others, there are entire years missing. Thus, these figures give only a portion of the donations of each PAC. Note these characteristics of CCPOA PACs:

1. Each PAC has a unique flavor and giving function.
2.Money moves readily from PAC to PAC.
3. The four primary PACs of the CCPOA funnel money not only to candidates but to other organizations such as Crime Victims United of California (CVUC) and the Native American Peace Officers (NAPO).

__________________________________________

CCPOA PAC:
This is the primary PAC of the CCPOA.
Total giving: $4 million.

Top 10 single donations

Notable donations

Who gets money? The CCPOA takes care of its own.
One of the less familiar names from the chart above is Albert Martinez. Why would this individual receive the second highest donation total from CCPOA? He was neither an incumbent nor the leading challenger, but he was one of their own.

According to Prison Legal News:
On the night of June 26, 1998, state parole officer Albert Martinez was arrested in a Los Angeles park and charged with committing unspecified “lewd conduct.” The day before the arrest Martinez had narrowly lost a race for the Democratic Party nomination for the 62nd State Assembly seat. Martinez had received about $250,000 in campaign donations from the California Correctional Peace Officers Association for his election bid. ³

__________________________________________

CCPOA Issues Committee:
This committee funds legal services, public relations, polling and lobbying and gives to propositions.
Total giving from: $1.7 million.
**This figure does not cover a full year in an election cycle, from 7/00 to 8/01.

Top 10 single donations

Notable donations

Conflict of interest?
Steve Lucas, the treasurer of the CCPOA Local Issues PAC, is a partner with [Nielsen, Merksamer, et al.], a law firm that represents the CCPOA and was the recipient of $77,700. He is also the chairman of California's Bipartisan Commission on the Political Reform Act. ⁴ This Commission is dedicated to “investigating and assessing the effect of the fundamental law governing campaign financing and government ethics in California.” ⁵ He makes decisions about campaign financing for the CCPOA as well as for the general public.

__________________________________________

CCPOA Local PAC:
This PAC gives contributions to local candidates.
Total giving: $200,000.
**This period does not cover early 1998, nor any of 1999.

Top 10 single donations

Notable donations

__________________________________________

CCPOA Independent Expenditures Committee:
This PAC tends to pay for big-ticket items, such as the television ads for Gray Davis and the campaign against Proposition 36. It is also used to funnel money to the main CCPOA PAC.
Total giving: $3.7 million.

Top 10 single donations

Notable donations

Resources:
San Francisco Department of Election: Campaign Contribution Records

Citations:
1. Interview with Tom Quinn, January 24, 2002
2. San Francisco Department of Elections: Campign Contributions Records.
3. Prison Legal News, October, 1998, Issue 13. [http://www.prisonlegalnews.org/Issues/1098/013.htm]
4. [http://www.nmgovlaw.com/national_campaign_compliance.htm]
5. [http://www.commoncause.org/states/california/pr_review.htm]

1. Money to the Legislature
In the 1990s, CCPOA contributions to Governor George Deukmejian ($494,000) and Governor Pete Wilson ($2 million) led some to assert that the CCPOA was a, “Republic union.” Don Novey denied that claim with a utilitarian description, “proportionately, over the years, the legislature has been 59-60% Democratic and our money has gone in that direction.” ¹

Today, the CCPOA spends generously on both parties. While the union sponsored the 2002 Gubernatorial Republican primary debate, it also gave over a million dollars to progressive candidates, like John Burton and Carole Migden. ²

As Novey notes, this shift in spending makes sense. Democrats have solid majorities in both halls of the legislature: 50-30 in the Assembly and 26-14 in the Senate.

They also hold important leadership positions. Carole Migden chairs the Appropriations Committee, dispersing $100 billion of California’s budget. She is carrying two bills on the CCPOA’s 2002-03 Legislative Agenda. John Burton is the Senate Majority Leader. He sponsored Senate Bill 65, the memorandum of understanding that, if approved on February 11, 2002, will lift correctional officers’ salaries as high as $73,000, well above those of teachers, social workers and mental health counselors in the state.

Legislators who oppose CCPOA put themselves at risk. They not only deny themselves contributions from the biggest spenders in the state, they also subject themselves to public relation assaults. For example, the CCPOA initiated a direct-mail campaign sent to every member that listed the “Enemies We Face” and included Senators John Vasconcellos and Richard Polanco. ³

The result is overwhelming support for the CCPOA and legislators scramble for endorsements and contributions. As Senate Majority Leader and “Dean” of the California Legislature noted in the Capitol hallway, “We’re all for law enforcement”. ⁴

Resources:
Common Cause [http://www.commoncause.org/states/california/topten.pdf]

Citations:
1. Lucas, Greg. “Guard’s Union Impeding Prison Probe.” San Francisco Chronicle. March 18, 1998.
2. San Francisco Department of Elections, Campaign Contribution Records.
3. CCPOA Mailer, “Yes on Gold Shield”.
4. Interview with Senator John Burton, January 16, 2002.

2. Money to the Executive
CCPOA’s contributions to the chief executive reflect an understanding of his decisive impact on legislation. In 1994, the CCPOA made history with a single contribution of $425,000 to incumbent Pete Wilson. It was the largest single donation ever made to a California candidate. ¹ In Wilson’s 1990 bid for governor, CCPOA contributions totaled nearly $1 million. ² These contributions, according to CCPOA president Don Novey, “put him over the top.” ³

In the 1998 gubernatorial election, the CCPOA had to choose between two tough-on-crime candidates. Republican Dan Lungren, California Attorney General who was backed by the National Rifle Association, ran against Democrat Gray Davis. The CCPOA chose Davis and threw its monetary weight behind a Democrat for governor for the first time in 16 years.

CCPOA contributed a total of $2 million to Davis, including $946,000 for television ads to win last minute swing votes. ⁴ The CCPOA was rewarded for its contributions to Davis. He promised to build a new correctional facilitity in Delano, which will boost the number of correctional officers. He also approved a five-year contract that will raise top salaries by as much as 25% and, despite a recession, will cost California $1 billion. ⁵

As the 2002 election heats up, the CCPOA has not yet chosen a candidate to endorse, but its gears are beginning to crank. The CCPOA sponsored the GOP debate on January 22, and it also sponsored Davis’ annual Governors’ Cup Invitational Golf Tournament, which has raised as much as $356,000 for the governor. ⁶

Lance Corcoran, CCPOA Vice President, says the endorsement decision “will come in August.” ⁷ This much anticipated endorsement, late in the race, will bring crucial money to fuel the crunch months of the election.

Citations:
1. Tannenbaum, Judith, “Prisons a Growth Industry.” San Francisco Chronicle, September 27, 1999.
2. Ostrom, Mary Anne, “Prison Guards: The Union Throws Its Weight to the Democrat, Sending Lungren Scrambling,” San Jose Mercury News, October 1, 1998.
3. Butterfield, Fox, “Political Gains by Prison Guards.” New York Times, November 7, 1995.
4. San Francisco Department of Elections: Campaign Contribution Records.
5. Lucas, Greg, “Davis’ Plan Gives Prison Guards Big Pay Boost,” San Francisco Chronicle, January 13, 2002.
6. San Francisco Department of Elections: Campaign Contribution Records.
7. Interview with Lance Corcoran, January 29, 2002.

3. Money to the Judiciary
Between 1989 and 1999, 39 inmates were shot to death, and 200 more were wounded. Not one district attorney in the state prosecuted a correctional officer for any of these assaults.1

The CCPOA gave at least $108,000 to local district attorneys from 1996 to 2000. ²

“You can investigate it until you’re blue in the face but you still have the problem of who prosecutes it…To accept one of these cases would eat up everybody you have in the place, plus every red cent you’ve got to get one of these cases to court,” said Nathan Barankin, a spokesman for Attorney General Lockyer. ³

This quote illuminates the challenge of facing an opponent who is armed with a team of 20 lawyers.

Local district attorneys have good reason to hesitate before taking a position against the CCPOA’s interests. Greg Strickland, former district attorney in Kings County, home to Corcoran state correctional facilitity, attempted to take a brutality case to the grand jury. The CCPOA fueled his opponent with $30,000 in the next election, leading to Strickland’s defeat. ⁴ A similar scenario happened in Del Norte County and in Susanville. ⁴

When local district attorneys fail to prosecute charges against a correctional officer, they will refer it to the Attorney General’s office. At this time, the Attorney General’s office is too overwhelmed to respond quickly or consistently or sometimes at all.

The State Supreme Court

State supreme court justices are appointed by the governor for life. Theoretically this frees them from the ongoing distractions of running elections and creating political alliances.

The role of the supreme court is to interpret laws, not to create them. The judicial branch of the government plays a vital role in the checks and balances of the democratic system.

CCPOA contributed $25,000 to Chief Justice Ron George in October 1998. ² What can CCPOA hope to gain from such a contribution?

Citations:
1. Arax, Mark “Union crushed bid to let state prosecute guards,” Los Angeles Times, July 18,1999.
2. San Francisco Department of Elections: Campaign Contribution Reports.
3. “Guarding their Silence,” Salon.com [http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/11/22/guards/index1.html]
4. “Lockyer loses a round; Guards defeat effort to bolster prison prosecutions.” The Fresno Bee, July 18, 1999.

Lobbying

From 1999 to 2000, the CCPOA spent nearly $800,000 on lobbying fees. To communicate its legislative agenda, the union employed five lobbying firms: Jeff Thompson, McHugh and Associates, Robinson and Associates, Paula Trent, and Ackler and Associates. ¹

In addition, at least one of the CCPOA’s lobbyists worked for affiliated organizations as well. Jeff Thompson was employed simultaneously by the CCPOA, the CCPOA Benefit Trust Fund and the Crime Victims United of California. This is yet another example of how resources are shared across organizations.

Resources:
California Secretary of State, Cal-Access [http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/]

Citations:
1. Cal-Access Reports for 2000-2001 for CCPOA and CVUC.

Three-Strikes

California’s “Three-Strikes and You’re Out” law demonstrates how a politicized and publicized fear of crime has turned California into a state of incarceration.

What fueled California’s fear of crime?
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, violent crime was on the rise in California. Coverage of murders and other crimes tripled on national TV, hardwiring fear in peoples’ psyches, by providing daily, even hourly, reminders of violence. ¹

Two violent crimes, in particular, captured media and public attention. In 1992, 18-year old Kimber Reynolds was shot and killed in a purse-snatching incident. ² A year later, 12-year-old Polly Klaas, was abducted from her home and murdered. ³ The entire country was shocked and horrified as repeated images of the Polly Klaas case dominated television screens. How could citizens be safe when these crimes could be committed?

California’s elected officials reacted to the public’s cry for action. Governor Pete Wilson took advantage of Polly Klaas’s funeral by taking a moment of mourning and transforming it into a political platform. At the funeral, he delivered a speech vowing for legislation to get “tough on crime.” ⁴

Who turned Three-Strikes into Law?
Both of the well-publicized crimes were carried out by repeat offenders and Three-Strikes, previously seen as a drastic measure, now seemed politically viable.

Mike Reynolds, father of Kimber Reynolds, gathered 800,000 signatures (twice as many as necessary) to put three-strikes on the ballot. He joined forces with Mark Klaas, the other grieving father, to get political support. Together, they visibly reminded the public the need to lock offenders away in jail for a very long time.

Legislators lined up to sponsor this tough on crime bill. Assemblymen Bill Jones and Jim Costa carried the three-strikes initiative and it evolved from proposition 184 to Assembly Bill 971.

Financial support followed. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) was the second biggest donor, funneling $101,000 to the initiative. The National Rifle Association followed suit and donated $100,000. The largest contributor, however, came from Republican Congressman Michael Huffington, who donated $350,000. ⁵

On Election Day, Three-Strikes passed with a 72% approval rating. ⁶

Did you know?

• California has convicted 7,072 people for 3rd strike offenses and 34,656 people for 2nd strike offenses by December 31, 2001.
• The highest offense rate by second and third strikers is not for “violent crimes,” but for possession of a controlled substance. ⁷

• Blacks are disproportionately represented as 2nd and 3rd Strike offenders in California correctional facilities compared to California’s population, as reported by the Census bureau. **Black, White, and Hispanic are used to be consistent with the terminology used by the California Department of Corrections.

Resources:
Financial Support for More Correctional Facilities [http://www.facts1.com/reasons/money.htm]
Limitations on media exposure to inmates [http://www.facts1.com/general/inform.htm]
Perspective of The California Prison Guards' Union from the editors of Prison Legal News [http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Prison_System/CalifPrisonGuards.html]
Prison News Network’s Perspective on California’s Three-Strikes Law [http://prison.webprovider.com/essay.htm]
Three-Strikes: The Legacy of Opportunism [http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199906/three.html]
ACLU Poll Shows: Most Americans Don't Want to Throw Away the Key [http://www.aclu.org/features/f071901a.html]

Citations:
1. Schreibner, Michael. “Three-Strikes: The Legacy of Opportunism.” June 1999.
2. Vitiello, Michael. “Three-Strikes: Can We Return to Rationality?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Volume 87, Number 2. 1997, pp. 395-481.
3. Vitiello, Michael. “Three-Strikes: Can We Return to Rationality?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Volume 87, Number 2. 1997, pp. 395-481.
4. Cal Voter: [http://www.calvoter.org/archive/94general/props/184.html]
5. San Diego Alliance for Clean Elections: Clean Money 2000. [http://www.cleanelectionsandiego.org/newsletter/septnews.html]
6. Vitiello, Michael. “Three-Strikes: Can We Return to Rationality?” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Volume 87, Number 2. 1997, pp. 395-481.
7. Department of Correction’s Published Reports [http://www.cdc.state.ca.us/reports/offender.htm]

Affiliate Groups

1. Native American Peace Officers
Nothing illuminates the phrase that “politics make strange bedfellows” like United States politics. To achieve political aims, groups will align forces, even if they have no previous relationship. Unions of teachers and electricians, for example, might team up to support legislation related to an anti-smoking campaign.

The CCPOA has curried favor with a unique range of political groups in its efforts to win influence in state government. One of its strangest alliances is the relationship with Native Americans.

The California Teachers’ Association (CTA) used to be the most powerful lobby in California, channeling the dues of its 300,000 members to candidates and propositions. With the onset of legalized gambling on Native American reservations, however, a new set of players has emerged on the scene. In 1998, a variety of Native American tribes gave over $20 million in campaign contributions. Now five tribes surpass the CTA in giving. ¹

The biggest donor in California, however, is the CCPOA. Its own donations, to candidates, lobbyists and officials, have been detailed above (link to section 3-1,2,3. Its relationships with other groups, however, multiply its influence.

One of CCPOA’s affiliate groups is the Native American Peace Officers (NAPO), a shadow organization run entirely from the offices of the CCPOA. NAPO formed over 12 years ago through a personal relationship with Don Novey and the son of a slain peace officer. ² Its staff and budget is as guarded as that of the CCPOA.

NAPO’s campaign contributions, however, are public and records from 1997 to 9/2001 show that the NAPO Independent Expenditures Committee and the NAPO Issues PAC have donated at least another $200,000 to candidates. ³

Why does the CCPOA create affiliate groups like NAPO and CVUC (link to CVUC) to channel money to the same candidates and issues that its own PACs support?

Is this an attempt to show the tolerant side of the CCPOA? Is it to show a broader base of support for a “tough on crime” movement. Is it to entice candidates to receive ethnic minority backing? Are there any Native Americans who work for NAPO?

Or, is it a gimmick to increase money to key players while masking contributions?

Donations to candidates from an ethnic minority group (NAPO) evoke sympathy. The CCPOA can not only multiply its giving but make its power appear more pure. It helps contributions appear noble and less self-interested.

2. Crime Victims Groups
The CCPOA utilizes crime victims’ groups to help push its legislative agenda exploiting the crime victims’ movement as a political opportunity. As Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director of Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice said, “They have wrapped themselves in this flag of altruism and concern for public safety which masks their self-interest.” ⁴

CCPOA used a calculated tactic to assemble the crime victims’ movement from a smattering of support groups to a major statewide political force. In 1992, as the might of the CCPOA grew, president Don Novey turned his attention to crime victims’ support groups. Where many saw grieving mothers, Don Novey saw a political partner.

Both groups, for their own reasons, wanted the same things—longer sentencing, tougher laws, and more rights for law enforcement. Both brought unique strengths to the table. The CCPOA brought money; crime victims’ brought a pretty face. As Jeff Thompson, lobbyist for both CCPOA and Crime Victims United of California (CVUC), explained, “Nobody feels empathetic for prison guards, but everyone’s got sympathy for crime victims.” ⁵

The prime example of this money and sympathy partnership was three-strikes legislation. When CCPOA’s finances combined with public sympathy for victims’ families, Assembly Bill 971 went from an idea to a law.

CCPOA galvanized the crime victims’ movement through the CVUC and Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau (CVB). Before the CCPOA’s involvement, the crime victims’ movement had no voice in politics. As Harriet Salarno, President of CVUC, recalled, “In the 1980s, politicians treated us horribly, they put us last on the agenda. Nobody would listen to us.” ⁶ It is a different story today as CVUC Vice-Chair Marcella Leach explains, "We were in Sacramento for three days and we hardly had a chance to go to the bathroom. There was one candidate after another lined up waiting for our endorsement." ⁷

CCPOA support is the link that shifted the crime victims’ movement into high gear. In the words of CVUC’s Executive Director, Al Pross, "If CCPOA hadn’t helped us, we wouldn’t have CVUC. They saw a need for a statewide umbrella entity instead of individuals and local groups of victims each doing their own thing and they filled it." ⁸ The CCPOA provided office space, telephones, attorneys, lobbying staff, and 95% of the initial funding to help CVUC get off the ground. ⁹ For an example of how lobbying resources are shared, see Lobbying.

Another face for CCPOA is the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, currently undergoing a name change to Crime Victims Bureau or CVB. According to its CVB Executive Director Susan Fisher, the CCPOA pledged, "We’re going to help you do what you want to do and help you get on your feet." The CCPOA provided office space, telephones, lobbying staff, and 78% of funding for CVB in its early years. ¹⁰

But the CCPOA did not only provide money and services to the crime victims’ movement. Ms. Salarno pointed out that besides the logistical support, Don Novey "steered us in the right direction, opened the door, and taught us what to do. He educated us.” ¹¹

As CVUC has grown and developed its own funding sources, the CCPOA has replaced direct funding with full-time staff. The CCPOA now provides the CVUC with a Director of Education and Research to monitor relevant legislative committees and an Executive Director to provide political advice and candidate recommendations.

CCPOA’s Web Site explains the alliance, stating, "The CCPOA actively supports the work of Crime Victims United and the Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau, two groups dedicated to the rights of victims and the passage of more effective public safety laws." ¹²

The CCPOA uses its relationship with crime victims as a tactic. To change the face of its political activities, the CCPOA financed the creation of the two statewide crime victims’ groups. Victims’ stories are powerful and legislators understand the political sway that these stories hold over their constituency.

Inmate and author Paul Wright defines this power when he says, “When correctional officers support tough-on-crime legislation, they are selfish. When crime victims do the same thing, they are noble.” ¹³ The CCPOA continues to spend its money supporting the same legislation, with the face of crime victims, rather than the face of correctional officers.

Resources:
CCPOA and California State Politics
[http://www.prisonactivist.org/factsheets/ccpoa.pdf] (PDF)

Citations:
1. Common Cause [http://www.commoncause.org]
2. Gilmore, Craig. “Guards’ and Gambling Tribes’ Big $$$ Alliance.” California Journal, May 2000.
3. San Francisco Department of Elections: Campaign Contribution Records.
4. Butterfield, Fox, “Political Gains by Prison Guards.” New York Times, November 7, 1995.
5. Interview with Jeff Thompson, January 16, 2002.
6. Interview with Harriet Salarno, January 24, 2002.
7. Interview with Marcella Leach, January 17, 2002.
8. Interview with Al Pross, January 17, 2002.
9. CCPOA and California State Politicsm [http://www.prisonactivist.org/factsheets/ccpoa.pdf] (PDF)
10. CCPOA and California State Politics [http://www.prisonactivist.org/factsheets/ccpoa.pdf] (PDF)
11. Interview with Harriet Salarno, January 24, 2002.
12. CCPOA Web site [http://www.ccpoa.org]
13. Interview with Paul Wright, January 28, 2002.