The Money-Machine For Marshall Tuck And Antonio Villaraigosa Is Terrible To Behold
29 Tuesday May 2018
Written by redqueeninla in CA, Education, Privatization
Tags
Antonio Villaraigosa, CA primary elections, June 6 2018, Marshall Tuck, Tony Thurmond, Tony Villaraigosa
Share it
Over $13 million has gone into Antonio Villaraigosa’s campaign coffers since 2013, from just five families: Broad (KB Homes, AIG “too big to fail” insurance), Hastings (Netflicks), Riordan (Republican ex-mayor of LA), Bloomfield (home-grown SoCal Libertarian-Conservatives), and Bloomberg (mayor of … NYC?). Four of these families have given over one million dollars each and the Hastings have given over seven million.
They must feel a Villaraigosa governorship will be very valuable for their personal business interests. Why?
What will a Tuck Superintendency do for them? Broad and home-grown Libertarian Bloomfield each think Tuck’s candidacy is worth more than one million dollars. Along with Bloomberg, Scully (high-tech investor), Hastings and Riordan, these six families have collectively contributed over $3m to his campaigns since 2013.
Table I shows the donations of nine select High Rollers over the past four years. The top of the chart shows targeted donations to specific individual’s campaigns. The list reads like a cheer-leader section for privatization. These are the legislative army that would champion substituting a middle class of public servants in favor of private for-profit interests (even if nominally not-for-profit (NFP); that means only that profits must return to the business with no regard to equity or fairness. The CEO/money manager of Aaron Sosnick’s NFP “Community Partners”, for example, earns nearly $400,000 – for nominally half-time work).
What do Big Donors support
Of particular note is the section on the second page (use the arrows to scroll down and the “+” to magnify it) showing donations to PACs, legislative campaigns and generalized campaign support. NYC’s Mayor Bloomberg has been very attentive to California’s public health policy. His focus on public health is admirable, but finagling policy in a state 3,000 miles distant does bring new meaning to the concept of “fly-over states”.
Beyond direct contributions to specific individual political campaigns, giving is actually accomplished via myriad routes.
One (of several) monster-PACs devoted to things Educational is Edvoice; their PAC is called, reductively, “For The Kids”. Last year (2017-18), just eight families contributed nearly $8m to this PAC (see table II), Edvoice contrib received 2017-18
with $2.4m coming from the Waltons. In turn this PAC contributed $7.4m to Marshall Tuck’s campaign directly (see table III), Edvoice contrib made 2017-18
with more than $1m going to unspecified campaign support (see table IV).Edvoice IE made 2017-18
That’s a lotta love for two serially-losing public office candidates. The people have already voted against both dudes repeatedly; why are they back for more? Why are they back for more with so much money behind them???
The same tiny crew keep boosting this same losing crowd. It does really beg the question of whether “winning” and “losing” is linked to actual policy theories and plans, ideology. Or whether instead the evidence suggests that since you can be roundly defeated and apparently just come back all over again, energizer-bunny style, with ever more money in your pocketsies to eventually nab a “win” – it just begs the question of what actually flips a vote: political platform, money, or shameless persistence?
There’s plenty of good, direct reason to reject Marshall Tuck. Please note the SD Free Press’ Jim Miller’s call-out of the underlying right-wing radical policies of Marshall Tuck (note the “Republican” expenditures in table IV to party and political organizations; Table IV expenditures overlap (are not independent of) all donations reported in Table III). And consider Marshall Tuck’s unsavory allies. But more substantively, as an educational ‘school turn-around’ administrator Marshall Tuck’s record fares no better than his failed elective efforts. Tuck’s leadership at Villaraigosa’s Partnership for LA Schools (PLAS) is characterized by metrics that lag behind LAUSD’s benchmarks.
If Tuck’s never taught, he can’t lead and he can’t even exceed a level of success that is considered base-line, then why is he being considered for the State’s highest Education post; what can he do??
Clearly he can rake in the big bucks from the same crowd that recklessly promotes Villaraigosa. They are tied to the same failed ideology of school reform (aka “Charter Schools” or privatization of the Commons) by the same self-serving boosters of it.
This public-private partnership riff seems set to serve the private side nicely – at least they demonstrably believe so. But the public edge seems less convinced. Marshall Tuck received fewer than 2/3 the primary votes of Tom Torlakson in 2014. And Villaraigosa has been scrabbling steeply from pyramid-scheme consultant to water-carrier for the privatization class.
It’s a scary potential to see this pair unleashed on California but hopefully their joint priorities will be clear: just Follow The Money and the individuals putting it up.
How to drain the Multi-Level Marketer in chief is anybody’s guess. But there’s no question about who should be Superintendent:
VOTE FOR TONY THURMOND
sending...
10 Comments
May 29, 2018 at 9:54 am
It is my belief (and hope) that Mr. Villaraigosa will go down simply because he’s a d-bag that shredded Planning rules, and loved big money and hot ladies more than running L.A. I think that Herbalife is about the right speed for him.
I’m a transit advocate, and just about all transit advocates I know want nothing to do with him. He shredded the good will of the voters, and virtually ran L.A. into the ground. So he’s a Latino. He’s also a political, cheating whore who President Obama had to ditch because Villaraigosa’s political and personal scandals. There are many Latino leaders who would NEVER do what he did.
I rejoiced when Mr. Villaraigosa was elected Mayor, and will equally rejoice when he retires to political oblivion (where he belongs).
May 29, 2018 at 10:55 am
Based on my experience, I believe that the goal of this consortium is on-line learning for most California students, supported by expensive software and more expensive hardware that replaces unionized teachers where possible.
I was on the Board of Directors for Villaraigosa’s Partnership for Los Angeles Schools; I was in every meeting of this entity and heard their claims and concerns first-hand, I saw their methods in the planning and implementation phases, I heard their rationales and values. I saw and heard that data and results were the focus that kept money and participation among donors at an acceptable level. I did not ever, ever hear or see efforts to gather information from classroom-level staff; aside from image-building listening sessions, teacher experience was largely unimportant in making decisions or plans.
I worked at a PLAS high school from the inception of PLAS as a teacher and a coordinator. I saw that the so-called “graduation rate” of “80%” that Tuck and Tony V. are claiming was completely gamed using on-line “learning” in credit-recovery classes.
Nothing different was taking place in classrooms.
No students were held accountable for anything.
Students freely web-surfed, copied and pasted their way to diplomas despite the supervising teachers’ best efforts to enforce real learning. Teachers eventually revolted, resulting in tighter standards for enrollment in credit recovery classes, which diminished the “amazing results” significantly.
I saw very expensive executives burn through a revolving door of management, first in the pursuit of immediate impact, and then in pursuit of other employment. Two top executives responsible for the dramatic increase in graduation statistics lasted less than a year in the PLAS; they, like many other PLAS people, now work in San Diego or in private education-related enterprise.
The Tuck-Villaraigosa effort has nothing to do with creating whole, self-actualizing citizens who can handle the challenges of a 21st century workplace and lead happy, fulfilled lives. With John Deasy back in California and Eli Broad’s plan for charterizing California schools in full swing, the automization of public education seems to be a foregone conclusion.
May 29, 2018 at 11:03 am
Lisa’s experience and perspective is invaluable: thank you.
Reports from my children regarding the utility and actual use of online learning really confirms this: the technology enables escape and this amounts to aiding and abetting a failure of education.
In their head-long rush to up profits, de-unionize teachers and collaterally destroy the middle class, this kind of giving is killing the goose that laid its golden eggs. And it’s also immoral.
May 29, 2018 at 1:59 pm
Here’s an oldie but goodie from Robert Skeels. While he titled it “Antonio Villaraigosa: The Myth of The Progressive Mayor” I might aka it as Villaraigosa and Tuck: joined at the privatizing hip.
https://rdsathene.blogspot.com/2015/01/villaraigosa-myth-of-progressive-mayor.html
May 29, 2018 at 2:02 pm
And MRT just endorsed Tuck. He’s in there as recipient of monies from the same set too.
Robert Skeels is a font of knowledge, and a resident of ELA too – he knows whereof he writes. Thanks for the link.
June 7, 2018 at 10:33 am
http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/charter-school-industrys-stunning-loss-in-california-primaries/
https://www.groundgamela.org/