OPINION
BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
Palo Alto just lost its representative in Congress. San Jose, which is already represented by Zoe Lofgren, Ro Khanna and Jimmy Panetta, is on the verge of getting another member of the House now that Palo Altan Joe Simitian has been defeated by five votes in the primary.
In November, the two top vote-getters in the 11-candidate field, former San Jose mayor Sam Liccardo and Campbell Assemblyman Evan Low, will battle it out for the seat that had been held since 1992 by Anna Eshoo.
I’m surprised Palo Altans gave away their influence in the federal government so easily.
How did it happen? I have some theories:
• SPOILERS — Simitian would have won if the vote in the Palo Alto-Menlo Park-Mountain View area hadn’t been splintered by a handful of candidates who had no chance of winning. Had Julie Lythcott-Haims, Greg Tanaka, Peter Dixon, Rishi Kumar or Peter Ohtaki stayed out of the race, their votes would have probably gone to Simitian rather than the two South Bay guys. I don’t know why a candidate who doesn’t have a chance jumps into a race like this. Maybe they needed the ego lift of appearing at debates and giving speeches? But each of them were spoilers, keeping a longtime public servant with an outstanding record of achievements out of Congress.
• MONEY — Simitian lost the money game. Although there were 11 names on the ballot, the three contenders were Simitian, Low and Liccardo. Liccardo raised $2.67 million; Low $1.73 million and Simitian just $1.486 million through March 31.
That doesn’t count Political Action Committees, a category Low dominated. A PG&E-funded PAC paid for those TV ads showing an animated version of Low fighting with Donald Trump.
• STANFORD — The university gave Liccardo a job in the law school, which sure looks like a campaign contribution to me. Especially if you consider that Stanford has been at loggerheads with Simitian, as a county supervisor, to protect the foothills from development and force the university to solve its housing problems on campus instead of shoving them over to the city of Palo Alto. Stanford had every reason to undermine Simitian. Palo Altans should have understood that and created a PAC to help Simitian in the campaign. I’m sure Palo Altans have asked the IRS to investigate whether Stanford breached the rules for nonprofits by helping Liccardo, but the IRS is slow and probably won’t release an outcome before the November election. And what’s the IRS going to do? Fine the university $1,000?
• OUTSIDE FUNDING — Liccardo and Low got a majority of their funds from other places than the 16th District, according to the nonpartisan election finance website OpenSecrets.com. Low got $244,147 from the Los Angeles-Long Beach area and another $86,390 from Sacramento. Simitian, on the other hand, got $216,503 out of then 94301 ZIP code in Palo Alto, and a majority of his donations came from Palo Alto or other cities in the district.
The campaign ahead
Between now and November, it will be interesting to see how Low and Liccardo campaign. Simitian had a record of solving problems, whether it was building housing or helping people with health care. Neither Low nor Liccardo will be able to run on their records. What’s Liccardo going to talk about? The astronomical increase in homeless during his time as mayor? What’s Low going to say? That he co-sponsored a bill eliminating boys and girls toy and clothing sections in department stores (AB1084), or how great it is that PG&E is raising rates again? They won’t want to talk about what they’ve actually done, so they’re just going to hurl insults at one another. Simitian would have campaigned at a higher level, talking about issues people care about. I predict we’re going to miss having a local person as our representative in Congress.
Editor Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.
Thanks for the perspective! I thought that Simitian earned it with his life of public service. As my friends would say, “Wrong again Caughlan!”