That's how much money the Rupf permitholders (Contra Costa County Calif. Sheriff) collectively put into his campaign coffers. 16% of all permitholders were also donors, 66 out of 409 permitholders, the average donation was $326 but it varied all over the map.
The record was held by a family of Deli owners who collectively gave over $3,000 and had three permitholders in the bunch.
I don't feel that we're looking at large-scale trading of permits for cash. Yet the percentages are *very* statistically significant, there's about 500 - 600 campaign contributors total (guesstimate) in a county with at least 400,000 adults theoretically eligible for CCW (over 600,000 population). That gives a percent of contributors of WAY under 1% among the general population. 16% isn't a "blip", it's a SPIKE.
What's going on? There's really only four possibilities:
1) Direct payoffs for permits.
2) Permits generally only go to the "social, economic and political elite" and 16% of THOSE are Rupf campaign contributors.
3) The permitholder/donors THINK they're buying CCW.
4) Donors get increased access to the Sheriff, opportunities to "shmooze" at parties or whatever and get to snuggle up to his Majesty the Sheriff and beg for legal gun carry. "Buying access" is the oldest political fundraising measure in the book, see also Clinton, the Lincoln bedroom and the $50,000 donations. $50,000 isn't about buying a night's historic sleep, it's about catching a certain skirt-chaser's ear in private.
I've also been looking for an "elitism poster child" on the level of Don Perata but here in Contra Costa County.
So far, I've found two. The Treasurer of a group known as "The Committee to Retain Sheriff Rupf" is a Raynal Mayman, a retiree in Danville who personally donated at least $225 and has a permit.
Better: of the five current Richmond permitholders, Tom Powers is currently an attorney, he contributed $200 and he's a former member of the Board of Supervisors. He got his permit in '98 and I'd be willing to bet that contrary to policy for anyone else, he did NOT get personal permission from Richmond PD before scoring. I intend to research that point; if so, it's a 100% clear case of me getting treated differently than a fellow Richmond resident and member of the "politically connected elite". Remember that Don Perata first scored CCW as a Board of Supes member; after the incredible flack he took which caused him to eventually give up the permit voluntarily other politicians have been VERY wary of scoring a permit. Powers got his after giving up on politics, for the moment at least.
I still don't have the permitholder occupation and reason for issuance data that I'm entitled to, so I only have that sort of data from the contributor logs.
Among the "donors & permitholders" group, many were of occupation types where you wouldn't expect a specific need for a CCW to develop. MANY retirees, for example. It looks like they scored "just due to connections or social standing".
If that's true, any "special good cause requirements" for "peons" is a violation of equal protection. As in:
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
Will a court pay attention? Will the media? Dunno. I'm gonna try both. This SHOULD be a "preponderance of the evidence" for unconstitutional elitism.
This weekend I'm rebuilding and expanding the Contra Costa specifics on my site.
Also, the Marin data has been released, a preliminary version is here (so far unlinked):
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/marin.html
Jim March
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
The record was held by a family of Deli owners who collectively gave over $3,000 and had three permitholders in the bunch.
I don't feel that we're looking at large-scale trading of permits for cash. Yet the percentages are *very* statistically significant, there's about 500 - 600 campaign contributors total (guesstimate) in a county with at least 400,000 adults theoretically eligible for CCW (over 600,000 population). That gives a percent of contributors of WAY under 1% among the general population. 16% isn't a "blip", it's a SPIKE.
What's going on? There's really only four possibilities:
1) Direct payoffs for permits.
2) Permits generally only go to the "social, economic and political elite" and 16% of THOSE are Rupf campaign contributors.
3) The permitholder/donors THINK they're buying CCW.
4) Donors get increased access to the Sheriff, opportunities to "shmooze" at parties or whatever and get to snuggle up to his Majesty the Sheriff and beg for legal gun carry. "Buying access" is the oldest political fundraising measure in the book, see also Clinton, the Lincoln bedroom and the $50,000 donations. $50,000 isn't about buying a night's historic sleep, it's about catching a certain skirt-chaser's ear in private.
I've also been looking for an "elitism poster child" on the level of Don Perata but here in Contra Costa County.
So far, I've found two. The Treasurer of a group known as "The Committee to Retain Sheriff Rupf" is a Raynal Mayman, a retiree in Danville who personally donated at least $225 and has a permit.
Better: of the five current Richmond permitholders, Tom Powers is currently an attorney, he contributed $200 and he's a former member of the Board of Supervisors. He got his permit in '98 and I'd be willing to bet that contrary to policy for anyone else, he did NOT get personal permission from Richmond PD before scoring. I intend to research that point; if so, it's a 100% clear case of me getting treated differently than a fellow Richmond resident and member of the "politically connected elite". Remember that Don Perata first scored CCW as a Board of Supes member; after the incredible flack he took which caused him to eventually give up the permit voluntarily other politicians have been VERY wary of scoring a permit. Powers got his after giving up on politics, for the moment at least.
I still don't have the permitholder occupation and reason for issuance data that I'm entitled to, so I only have that sort of data from the contributor logs.
Among the "donors & permitholders" group, many were of occupation types where you wouldn't expect a specific need for a CCW to develop. MANY retirees, for example. It looks like they scored "just due to connections or social standing".
If that's true, any "special good cause requirements" for "peons" is a violation of equal protection. As in:
"A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens."
Will a court pay attention? Will the media? Dunno. I'm gonna try both. This SHOULD be a "preponderance of the evidence" for unconstitutional elitism.
This weekend I'm rebuilding and expanding the Contra Costa specifics on my site.
Also, the Marin data has been released, a preliminary version is here (so far unlinked):
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw/marin.html
Jim March
http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw