The event will take place on September 17th at the beautiful Alumni House which is located
right here on campus. Appetizers will be served on the Patio at 7:00 pm and dinner will be
served in the Toll Room at 8:00 pm. Cal Dems will pay tribute to our last 50 exciting years here
on campus, recognize those leaders who are making a difference today, while looking to the
future and getting a glimpse into what the next 50 years will bring.

We are excited to be honoring State Treasurer Bill Lockyer and State Senator Loni Hancock.

Bring your friends, family, significant others, not-so-significant others and whoever you think
would enjoy a night of good food, good fun, and good politics. You’ll get a chance to catch up
with old friends, but more importantly to meet many new ones! The program will include well-
known figures in local and state politics as well as some very exciting leaders of tomorrow!

Tickets are $20 for students, and $50 for general admission.

If you would like to sponsor our event and receive billing in our program, let us know and we
will make it happen! Our sponsorship opportunities include:

Grassroots Champion – $100 (2 tickets)
Leader- $250 (4 tickets)
Sponsor – $500 (7 tickets)
Host – $1000 (10 tickets/entire table)

Please RSVP to Finance Director Jonathan Uriarte (jonathan@caldems.com) and Events Director
Emily Koppel (emily@caldems.com).

Contributions should be mailed to:

ASUC/Cal Dems
c/o Millicent Morris Chaney
University of California
400 Eshleman Hall, MC 4500
Berkeley, CA 94720

Here’s one last reminder of who Cal Dems endorsed this past semester:

• Governor – No Endorsement
• Lieutenant Governor – No Endorsement
• Secretary of State – Hon. Debra Bowen
• Attorney General – Hon. Kamala Harris
• State Controller – Hon. John Chiang
• Insurance Commissioner – Hon. Dave Jones
• State Treasurer – Hon. Bill Lockyer
• State Superintendent of Public Instruction – No Endorsement
• State Board of Equalization – Hon. Betty Yee
• United States Senate – Hon. Barbara Boxer

Propostions

• Proposition 13 – No Endorsement
• Proposition 14 – Oppose
• Proposition 15 – Support
• Proposition 16 – Oppose
• Proposition 17 – Oppose

Local

• Measure C – Support

If you have any questions regarding voting procedures, click here.

Proposition 14 was placed on the ballot as the result of a backroom deal. If passed, it would replace our current election system with a so-called “open primary”. All candidates for an office, regardless of party, would appear on a single ballot. The top two vote getters would then advance to a second round, with the victor winning the election. This system would only make our elections more expensive and chaotic, and reduce Californians’ freedom to choose.

• Proposition 14 would limit voter choice. In the second round of voting, Californians would only have two choices. They would not be able to select other preferred candidates, and third parties would be excluded.

• Proposition 14 would help extremists. If mainstream candidates split up the vote, only fringe candidates may reach the second round. For example, in Louisiana’s 1991 gubernatorial election, Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke advanced to the runoff.

• Proposition 14 would make elections more expensive. Candidates would have to wage two campaigns before the entire electorate, requiring more resources and increasing the influence of money in politics.

• Proposition 14 has failed in practice. Louisiana is the only state which used open primaries for regular elections. However, they completely failed to decrease partisanship. In 2008, Louisiana returned to normal primaries for Congressional elections.

Opponents of Proposition 14 form a broad, ideologically diverse coalition, including the California Democratic Party, the California Republican Party, the Green Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, the American Independent Party, and the Libertarian Party.

While we rarely agree, we all urge you to vote NO on Proposition 14 this Tuesday. It would impose a misguided system on California, and do great harm to our electoral process.

Daniel Osborn, President, Cal Berkeley Democrats

Robert Burgren, President, Berkeley College Republicans

Casey Given, President, Berkeley Students for Liberty

–

Additional Quotes:

“”Running a campaign in California already costs more money than in any other state. If we believe that elections should be won and not bought, then we need to vote no on Prop 14 to ensure that politics in California doesn’t become an exclusive money game.”

Daniel Osborn, President, Cal Berkeley Democrats

“Proposition 14 would limit debate. Prop 14 will threaten primary voters with the prospect of divided parties, forcing them to coalesce around establishment candidates with the most money and influence rather than having the freedom to support the candidate they truly agree with.”

Robert Burgren, President, Berkeley College Republicans

“Proposition 14 is bad for California because it restricts freedom. Instead of allowing candidates from all political parties and ideologies across the spectrum to run in a general election, it reduces the voter’s choice to the two candidates with the most money and influence.”

Casey Given, President, Berkeley Students for Liberty

In an effort to elect Democrat John Laird on election day, it is vital that Cal Dems actively campaigns. One way members can do this is by phone banking in the coming weeks. You can contact Molly at molly@caldems.com to receive the login information and instructions.

Please consider making a few phone calls. Thanks and happy summer!

On May 25, several Cal Dems board members volunteered at Senator Barbara Boxer’s campaign event at the Fairmont Hotel in San Francisco – and had the honor of seeing Senator Boxer and President Obama speak!

Pictured: Christy Stanker, Jeremy Pilaar, Jonathan Uriarte, Molly Peterson, and Maxim Levet. Not pictured: Zoe Kornberg.

If you are interested in going with us, please go here to sign up: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dC12aTY0LVVqaThGWjZSWkNmMFVlX2c6MQ

On April 29th, the members of the Cal Berkeley Democrats elected their new board:

President: Daniel Osborn

Vice-President: Maxim Levet

Membership Director: Christy Stanker

Communications Director: Anais LaVoie

Political Director: Molly Peterson

Finance Director: Jonathan Uriarte

Smart Ass Editor-in-Chief: Zoe Kornberg

Tech Director: Klein Lieu

And of course, our Cal Dems Mascot: Tom Hughes

On May 8th, the new Cal Dems Board appointed:

Events Director: Emily Koppel

Field Director: Jeremy Pilaar

Congratulations to the new Board and good luck!

• Students will see increases in the Pell Grant. For the practically 30 percent of students at UC Berkeley who rely on Pell Grants, the maximum award will increase to $5,550 in 2011 from $5,350 this year. The bill provides $13.5 billion to cover the Pell Grant shortfall, which is comprised of growing need and annual underfunding, and another $22.5 billion to cover the increases. These changes are vital to the UC system, especially UC Berkeley, because according to the Center for Studies in Higher Education on campus, “the UC campuses of Berkeley, Davis, and UCLA each have more Pell Grant students than all the eight Ivy League institutions combined.”
• Another major change students will see is the closure of the Family Federal Education Loan Program (FFEL), a program where the federal government subsidizes banks billions of dollars to lend to “risky” students. What’s even worse is that the federal government even guaranteed the loans up to 97%, which left banks with little to no risk. Instead, loans will be originated through the Direct Loan Program, which will save taxpayers and the federal government close to $60 billion over 10 years.
• Community colleges will also receive a boost in federal funds. Student aid reform invests $10 billion in community colleges to focus on modernization and online education. In California, we have one of the best community college systems in the country, which allows students to receive Associate degrees as well as transfer to four-year universities. An increase in funding will only strengthen this system and allow more students to reap the benefits community colleges have to offer.
• Minority-serving institutions (MSI’s) receive $2.5 billion over 5 years as well. These institutions include historically black colleges and universities as well as tribal colleges.
• $1.5 billion will go towards the Income-Based Repayment Program, which allows students to set their monthly payments on their student loans based on their income.
• Student aid reform also simplifies the FAFSA application by removing questions regarding drug convictions and financial assets. 22 questions and 17 web screens will be removed.

Because the reforms were included in reconciliation, student aid reform also reduces the deficit by nearly $10 billion by eliminating federal subsidies to banks. With increases to many federal education programs, student aid reform puts students first and shows our country that affordable education is a right for all, not a privilege for few.

For further questions, the United States Student Association and the House Committee on Education and Labor both have more information online about student aid reform.

I think the answer here is that this isn’t really an ideal moderate Republican plan. It’s a plan that a few moderate Republicans have proposed before…but they only proposed it as an alternative to an incredibly liberal plan. Very few moderate Republicans have fought for a plan like this or even supported one. Their support was nominal.

The exception was Mitt Romney…but even he was working with a huge liberal Democratic majority (8-1 in one legislature).

In a vacuum, would any Republican actually seriously push for this plan or any other healthcare plan? No. They simply don’t care about healthcare. It’s not on their agenda. So it’s hard to really ascribe the plan to any of them and be 100% accurate. It works as a political rhetoric, but it’s a stretch in practice.

I think this is a progressive victory. We’re providing public insurance (Medicaid) for [~15] millions, spending on public health clinics, giving subsidies to millions, and we’re moving towards a system where private insurance companies are more like heavily regulated utilities. That’s a system that can work, and has worked in other countries.

There are many ways to skin the healthcare cat. There are many different systems that can work. We’re heading towards the heavily regulated private market approach. That’s fine.

One note: if progressives continue to enjoy political success for the foreseeable future, it’s likely that some kind of Medicare buy-in or public insurance option will be added to the reform structure. If this happens, I would argue that something like French system of insurance may evolve over the coming decades. All else being equal, we’re looking at a Dutch or Swiss system as a worst case scenario. Both countries acknowledge health care as a right, legally and culturally. That’s why the Affordable Care Act is an historic progressive achievement.