Republican State Senator Joel Anderson’s campaign to dislodge fellow GOPer Dianne Jacob from her seat on the county Board of Supervisors in next June’s election has struggled to attract significant local funds, according to an inewsource analysis of campaign finance data covering the first six months of the year.
[one_half][highlight]On the radio…[/highlight]
”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/220123187″
[box type=”shadow this-matters”]State senator Joel Anderson is challenging fellow Republican Dianne Jacob, who has represented East County on the county Board of Supervisors for more than 20 years. His success may depend on large donors financing an independent committee that doesn’t have to follow local campaign contribution limits.[/box]
[/one_half]
Between Jan. 1 and June 30, Anderson raised $253,890 with 79 percent of the funds coming from a single $200,000 contribution from the San Diego County Republican Party back in early March.
Anderson’s campaign finance report, filed July 31 with the San Diego County Registrar of Voters, represents the first test of the state senator’s fundraising capacity since he filed paperwork in early February to run for the District 2 seat, which covers mostly unincorporated areas stretching from La Mesa in the west to Imperial county in the east and Julian in the north to the Mexican border in the south.
Interactive: Click here for a searchable database of campaign contributions.
Representatives for Anderson did not return calls and emails for comment.
[one_half]
The county GOP endorsed Anderson, who easily won reelection to his senate seat last November, in early February. U-T San Diego (now the San Diego Union-Tribune) reported that party leaders were upset with Jacob and three of her four fellow supervisors for approving a $25,000 per-election limit on how much political parties can contribute to county candidates (parties could previously contribute unlimited sums of money).
In addition, large developers who hold significant sway in the party have long been upset with Jacob’s aversion to high-impact development in rural East County.
The party made its $200,000 contribution on March 4, the day before the limits went into effect.
Tony Krvaric, chairman of the San Diego County Republican Party, declined a request for an interview, writing in an email that “I’m confident Senator Anderson will have the resources he needs to run a successful race, and there’s a long time between now and June.”
[/one_half]
[one_half_last][box type=”shadow”]
Key Points
1. A single contribution from the county Republican Party accounted for almost 80 percent of State Sen. Joel Anderson’s haul of $254,000 in the first six months of the year.
2. Political watchers say Anderson would likely depend on support from independent expenditure committees not bound by local campaign finance limits to run ads on his behalf.
3. County Supervisor Dianne Jacob raised $221,000 and finished the first six months of the year with $544,000 in cash on hand.
4. Sixty percent of Anderson’s funds came from people living outside the second district compared to 41 percent of Jacob’s funds.
[/box][/one_half_last]
A possible lifeline for Anderson
San Diego County imposes strict limits on direct contributions to candidates. Individuals may only contribute up to $750 per election. Contributions from corporations, labor unions, political action committees (PACs) and other non-individuals are banned. (The one exception is for political parties.)
Anderson, a state senator since 2010, has long relied on sources other than individuals for the bulk of his campaign cash.
From his failed 1998 run for state assembly through his 2014 reelection as a state senator, just 18 percent of Anderson’s contributions has come from individuals, according to data from the National Institute on Money in State Politics. The vast majority was raised in the form of contributions from PACs, corporations and other non-individuals that are banned from contributing to supervisorial candidates in San Diego.
That, say experts, leaves one avenue for Anderson to tap: the support of independent expenditure committees.
These committees cannot contribute directly to candidates. They can, however, spend money on their behalf. These “independent expenditures” are things like radio commercials, mail pieces and internet advertising that support or oppose candidates for office.
[one_half][box type=”shadow”]
Anderson’s First Half Fundraising
- Contributions (including non-monetary/in-kind): $253,890
- Expenditures: $16,194.46
- Current cash-on-hand (as of June 30): $271,720.54
[/box][/one_half]
Unlike candidates for county offices, independent expenditure committees can accept contributions in unlimited amounts from PACs, corporations, unions and practically any other source.
The only restriction on such committees is a prohibition on coordinating with candidates or political parties.
Brian Adams, a political science professor at San Diego State University, said that prohibition won’t present a big problem for Anderson.
“All it takes is a couple of big donors to form a (committee) and to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on his behalf and the playing field is level in that sense,” Adams said. “I certainly think it’s a possibility that the reason why his individual fundraising is low is that he knows—or at least he’s hoping—that some of his allies are going to form a (committee) and spend money independently on his behalf.”
Chris Crotty, a local political consultant who works primarily for Democratic candidates and is not involved in the race, said Anderson is probably already laying the groundwork for such a campaign.
“His fundraising pitches are going to be ‘I can only raise ($750) per individual but if you want to max out to me and you want to give more, then call this person’,” Crotty said.
Jacob campaign “aggressive” in fundraising
For her part, Jacob, who was first elected to the board of supervisors in 1992, pulled in about $221,000 in the first six months of the year. When combined with her sizable warchest from previous campaigns, she had $544,000 in cash on hand at the end of June.
Tom Shepard, Jacob’s campaign consultant, said the possibility of a pro-Anderson independent expenditure effort was part of the reason the supervisor had been “aggressive” in fundraising so far out from the election.
[one_half][box type=”shadow”]
Jacob’s First Half Fundraising
- Contributions (including non-monetary/in-kind): $221,456.52
- Expenditures: $52,482.30
- Current cash-on-hand (as of June 30): $543,613.41
[/box][/one_half]
“The primary election’s not until June of 2016 and Dianne was quite active in raising funds over the past six months and will continue to be,” Shepard said. “We’re doing that in the recognition that our opponent doesn’t have to play by the same rules that we do.”
In addition to the $200,000 contribution to Anderson’s campaign, the county Republican party has the option of spending an unlimited amount of money on so-called member communications. Those communications can include pamphlets and direct mailers to registered party members and they are allowed to coordinate with their endorsed candidates on the contents of these communications.
SDSU professor Adams said that Anderson isn’t in such dire straits.
“What matters with fundraising is reaching a minimum threshold to get your message out to voters,” Adams said. “I look at those numbers and I say ‘Joel Anderson is raising enough. He’s raising enough money to get his message out.’”
Out-of-district money flows into race
Both candidates received large proportions of their contributions from outside of the second supervisorial district.
Jacob raised 41 percent of her money from outside of the district, $88,731 out of $216,237 in itemized contributions (those donations for which individual contributor information, including address, must be disclosed).
Shepard chalked that number up to energized support for Jacob among women throughout San Diego county in the wake of remarks by Krvaric, the county GOP chairman, that the party’s sizable donation to Anderson was meant to push Jacob, the board’s sole woman, into retirement.
“I think part of that is a result of the fact that there’s a very active group of women who organized several events in support of Dianne’s candidacy, many of whom didn’t live in the second district but who were offended by what they perceived as an attack on the only female member of the board of supervisors,” Shepard said.
The campaign finance reports do not indicate the gender of a donor.
Anderson was even more reliant on out-of-district money. He raised 60 percent of his money from outside of the district, $31,495 out of $52,625 (excluding the $200,000 contribution from the county Republican party). Forty-four percent of that out-of-district money came from residents of the city of San Diego.
Both candidates received at least 90 percent of their contributions from within San Diego county.
A changed climate for money in local politics
Adams, who has studied the role of money in local elections, said the second district race is something of a poster child for the increasing role money plays in local races.
“Twenty years ago, if you were running for local office or even state office, almost all of your money came from individuals. You had some money from PACs and businesses and so forth,” Adams said. “Now, you have a situation where you’re getting a large amount of your financial support from independent expenditures from those PACs and unions and businesses and so forth that are spending the money independently.”
Crotty, the local political consultant, said the cost of county supervisorial races is higher than ever. And that means relying on such independent campaigns.
“I think to be competitive in a county supervisor’s race today, you almost are forced to consider an independent expenditure campaign,” Crotty said. “The districts are so large and you have to reach so many people in so many different ways…that it’s necessary to spend half a million or a million and upwards to communicate your message districtwide.”
- Editorial Standards Page
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity Statement
- Diversity Staffing Report
- Corrections Policy
- Ownership Structure, Funding
- Founding Date
- Masthead
- Mission Statement with Coverage Priorities
- Fact-checking Standards
- Unnamed Sources Policy
Editorial Standards Page
- Our Mission
- Ethics Policy
- Diversity
- Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
- Financial Documents
- Fact-checking and Verification Standards
- Unnamed Sources
- Corrections and Clarifications
- Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
- Masthead
- Byline Policy
- The Trust Project
- Privacy Policy
Our Mission
inewsource is a nonprofit, nonpartisan newsroom dedicated to improving lives in the San Diego region and beyond through impactful, data-based investigative and accountability journalism.
Our Vision
Betrayals of the public trust are revealed and rectified, wrongdoing is deterred, and inequities are illuminated thanks to inewsource’s deep, dogged, fact-based reporting.
Our Values
Truth: Above all else, we value the importance of a free and credible press. Truth is the cornerstone of democracy and the core value for inewsource.
Transparency: We build trust with our readers by adhering to the highest standards and ethics, and to reporting with facts, precision and context.
Collaboration: Our newsroom prioritizes collaboration over competition. We regularly partner with media outlets on reporting projects and to share content.
Community: Our reporting serves the San Diego region, and we strive to build relationships with our audience by getting out into the community to listen and engage.
Ethics Policy
inewsource will conduct its business with the highest standards of decency, fairness and accuracy. These standards shall apply equally to inewsource employees, freelancers and all others engaged in gathering information on behalf of inewsource. All receive a copy of these ethical standards.
In the course of our reporting, we will consistently:
● Identify our organization and ourselves fully and avoid false representations of any kind to any source.
● Obtain consent from all parties before electronically recording any interview or conversation except in extraordinary cases authorized by the Managing Editor and Editor. If a source refuses to be taped, that must be honored; no recordings are to be made without consent.
● Respect the individual’s right to privacy. inewsource will never manipulate or barter private, personal, health, financial or other extraneous information in the course of preparing its reports.
● Any source we describe or write about in any significant manner must be contacted. The employee should document all efforts to contact the source, and if unsuccessful, should summarize these efforts at contact in the body of his/her writing.
In addition, inewsource follows the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists. The latest version, revised in 2014, can be found here.
Editorial Independence Policy
We subscribe to standards of editorial independence adopted by the Institute for Nonprofit News (INN) as follows:
Our organization retains full authority over editorial content to protect the best journalistic and business interests of our organization. We will maintain a firewall between news coverage decisions and sources of all revenue. Acceptance of financial support does not constitute implied or actual endorsement of donors or their products, services or opinions.
We accept gifts, grants and sponsorships from individuals and organizations for the general support of our activities, but our news judgments are made independently and not on the basis of donor support. Our organization also may consider donations to support the coverage of particular topics, but our organization maintains editorial control of the coverage. We will cede no right of review or influence of editorial content, nor of unauthorized distribution of editorial content.
Our organization will make public all donors who give a total of $1,000 or more. We will accept anonymous donations for general support only if it is clear that sufficient safeguards have been put into place that the expenditure of that donation is made independently by our organization and in compliance with INN’s Membership Standards.
Diversity
Diverse Voices
Inclusiveness is at the heart of thinking and acting as journalists, and it supports the educational mandate of inewsource. Race, class, generation, gender, sexual orientation, ability, and geography all affect point of view. inewsource believes that reflecting societal differences in reporting leads to better, more nuanced stories and a better-informed community.
inewsource is committed to employment equity and diversity.
Diverse Staffing Report
Below is a breakdown of staffing data at inewsource. We determine the composition of our staff by asking them to self-identify. It is based on a newsroom of 11 and a total staff of 15 as of August 2020. Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns.
| All Staff Percentages are based on 15 total survey responses. The numbers include full-time and part-time staff, full-time fellows and full-time and part-time interns. | Newsroom Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | Business Percentages are based on 15 completed survey responses to this question. | |||
| Gender Identity | Gender Identity | Gender Identity | |||
| Women | 80% | Women | 82% | Women | 75% |
| Men | 20% | Men | 18% | Men | 25% |
| Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | Sexual Orientation | |||
| Straight | 87% | Straight | 82% | Straight | 100% |
| LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | LGBTQ-identifying | 7% | ||
| Not specified | 7% | Not specified | 7% | ||
| Speak a language beyond English at home | 33% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 18% | Speak a language beyond English at home | 75% |
| Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | Race/Ethnicity | |||
| White | 67% | White | 73% | White | 50% |
| Hispanic or Latinx | 20% | Two or more races | 18% | Hispanic or Latinx | 50% |
| Two or more races | 13% | Hispanic or Latinx | 9% | ||
| Age | Age | Age | |||
| 20-29 | 40% | 20-29 | 45% | 20-29 | 25% |
| 30-39 | 47% | 30-39 | 45% | 30-39 | 50% |
| 60 or older | 13% | 60 or older | 9% | 60 or older | 25% |
* The percentages in the charts have been rounded and may not add up to 100.
Ownership Structure, Funding and Grants
inewsource is a nonprofit organization, whose legal name is Investigative Newsource. It does business as inewsource. The business was incorporated on Aug. 4, 2009 in the state of California. Tax-exempt status as a 501c3 was granted by the IRS on Sept. 15, 2010. inewsource is funded primarily by individual contributions and foundation grants. We are guided by a board of directors.
Editorial independence: Journalists employed by inewsource take no editorial direction from donors whose contributions may support the organization. inewsource will not hesitate to report on its donors when events warrant. Our Editorial Independence Policy details the firewall between journalism and revenue.
To be transparent with the public, inewsource lists its donors on its website. In cases where a donor is the subject of an inewsource story, additional disclosure will be made.
Financial Documents
We do our due diligence to earn your trust in our reporting, as well as in our governance and financial sustainability. All of our financial documents are made available to view so that our supporters can trust we are sound stewards of your philanthropy. Review our IRS Form 990s, audited financial statements and annual reports:
Tax Returns
Financial Statements
Annual Reports
Fact-checking and Verification Standards
Transparency is one of our core values. Today, there is a need to build trust with our audience because new media and ways of communicating spread lies and slanted news faster than “real” news. At the same time, this era of new technologies makes it easier than ever for news organizations to be transparent. People don’t just have to believe us, they can investigate our investigations with our source materials.
Transparency is key to building credibility.
inewsource reporters have primary responsibility for reporting, writing, and fact-checking their stories. But before a story is published, the reporter reviews all facts and sources with an editor or another reporter. Facts must be traced to a primary source.
In addition, we “transparify” certain investigative stories. This process involves publishing a version of the web story with hyperlinks to all the story’s facts. This is proof that all facts have been documented with primary evidence. We do this to build trust with our readers and to be as transparent as we hope the public figures and institutions that we hold accountable will be.
Unnamed Sources
Not all sources are created equal. Some sources cannot speak authoritatively, provide proper analysis or speak specifically to every inquiry placed before them. To maintain the integrity of our reporting, inewsource reporters must select sources who can speak with validity to the topic at hand, and avoid presenting unqualified or underqualified sources as experts.
If an interviewed source has a conflict of interest, or whose qualifications may be tangential or limited, reporters will note that within the context of the story.
It is incumbent upon reporters to fully background their sources to uncover conflicts of interest or slant prior to using them in a story.
Unless discussed prior to an interview, all subjects talking to inewsource journalists are on the record. Specifically, the source is identified by name and title, and their exact or paraphrased words are attributed to them for publication. If journalists speak with sources who are not politicians, public figures or those not commonly interviewed by journalists, staff should explain clearly that information discussed will be on the record and for publication.
There are times, however, when information may be critical for a story but cannot be found or verified by other means. For example, a source may be able to confirm specific information about a series of events they may have witnessed, but have legitimate concerns about using their name or title. The repercussions to the source could be legal, job-related retribution or personal safety. The source and journalist must discuss these potential dangers and terms of use should be agreed upon by both parties.
If inewsource publishes information from an anonymous source, inewsource will explain to readers, in as much detail as possible, why we agreed to anonymity.
Corrections and Clarifications
inewsource strives for accuracy in everything we do, which is why we are committed to fact checking our content. But sometimes we make errors. When that happens, we correct them. We also clarify stories when something we’ve written is confusing or could be misinterpreted.
We endeavor to always be transparent about our commitment to correcting errors and clarifying misperceptions. When staffers see, hear or read about a possible issue with the accuracy of any inewsource content, they are expected to bring it to the attention of an editor and the web producer so it can be evaluated to determine how to proceed.
Including the web producer is key because inewsource is a multimedia news organization and shares its content with multiple partners on multiple platforms. The web producer must alert these partners about corrections and clarifications.
Corrections and clarifications should be included at the bottom of stories and dated.
Actionable Feedback and Newsroom Contacts
Our audiences know the region we cover and have a stake in maintaining and improving the quality of life in San Diego and Imperial counties. We know your knowledge and insights can help shape what we cover and how we cover it. We invite your comments and complaints on news stories, suggestions for issues to cover or sources to consult. We rely on you to tell us when we get it right and when we need to keep pushing.
Your comments, questions and suggestions can be sent to the team as a whole at contact@inewsource.org or you can contact a specific member of our staff.
Masthead
CEO, Editor and Founder: Lorie Hearn, loriehearn@inewsource.org
Lorie Hearn is the chief executive officer, editor and founder of inewsource. She founded inewsource in the summer of 2009, following a successful reporting and editing career in newspapers. She retired from The San Diego Union-Tribune, where she had been a reporter, Metro Editor and finally the senior editor for Metro and Watchdog Journalism. In addition to department oversight, Hearn personally managed a four-person watchdog team, composed of two data specialists and two investigative reporters. Hearn was a Nieman Foundation fellow at Harvard University in 1994-95. She focused on juvenile justice and drug control policy, a natural course to follow her years as a courts and legal affairs reporter at the San Diego Union and then the Union-Tribune.
Hearn became Metro Editor in 1999 and oversaw regional and city news coverage, which included the city of San Diego’s financial debacle and near bankruptcy. Reporters and editors on Metro during her tenure were part of the Pulitzer Prize-winning stories that exposed Congressman Randy “Duke” Cunningham and led to his imprisonment.
Hearn began her journalism career as a reporter for the Bucks County Courier Times, a small daily outside of Philadelphia, shortly after graduating from the University of Delaware. During the decades following, she moved through countless beats at five newspapers on both coasts.
High-profile coverage included the historic state Supreme Court election in 1986, when three sitting justices were ousted from the bench, and the 1992 execution of Robert Alton Harris. That gas chamber execution was the first time the death penalty was carried out in California in 25 years.
In her nine years as Metro Editor at the Union-Tribune, Hearn made watchdog reporting a priority. Her reporters produced award-winning investigations covering large and small local governments. The depth and breadth of their public service work was most evident in coverage of the wildfires of 2003 and then 2007, when more than half a million people were evacuated from their homes.
Managing Editor: Mark J. Rochester, markrochester@inewsource.org
Mark J. Rochester began as inewsource managing editor in April 2021, having served as editor in chief at Type Investigations, a nonprofit investigative newsroom in Manhattan. He was previously senior news director for investigations at the Detroit Free Press. Both newsrooms, he notes, shared a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and their investigative journalism often received national recognition for exposing problems impacting communities of color.
His family looks forward to returning to California, having spent more than seven years in San Francisco where Rochester was a senior manager for the Associated Press. While with the news cooperative, he led computer-assisted reporting training efforts around the West, both inside and outside of AP, and conducted a widely used analysis of the $74 million in campaign contributions that went toward the California gay marriage ballot initiative in 2008. The AP analyzed who gave and why and then made the data available to member newspapers. The resulting series of stories based on the data was AP’s 2009 Pulitzer nomination for Local Reporting.
Rochester, who served as a Pulitzer Prize jurist in 2017, also has held senior leadership positions at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, The Denver Post, Newsday and The Indianapolis Star. Rochester is vice president of Investigative Reporters & Editors Inc., the 6,000+ member international organization dedicated to improving investigative journalism. He also serves on the national advisory board of the Investigative Reporting Workshop at American University in Washington, D.C.
Byline Policy
Most of our articles carry a byline to identify the author. In some cases, inewsource will use a brand byline such as “Staff” or “inewsource” for internal or editorial information about the newsroom. In these instances, inewsource‘s Editor and Managing Editor are responsible for content that uses a brand byline.
The Trust Project
inewsource is proud to be a member of The Trust Project and support efforts to increase transparency in journalism by displaying the 8 Trust Indicators on our stories. We launched the Trust Indicators on Sep. 16, 2020.
Privacy Policy
inewsource has prepared this Privacy Policy to explain how we collect, use, protect, and share information when you use our inewsource.org website (the “Site“) or when you use any of our services (the “Services“).
By using the Site or Services you consent to this Privacy Policy.
Log Data
Like many site operators, we collect information that your browser sends whenever you visit our site (“Log Data”).
This Log Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol (“IP”) address, browser type, browser version, the pages of our site that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages and other statistics.
Cookies
Cookies are files with small amount of data, which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a web site and stored on your computer or mobile device.
Like many sites, we use “cookies” to collect information. You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our site.
Certain pages on our site may set other third party cookies. For example, we may embed content, such as videos, from another site that sets a cookie. While we try to minimize these third party cookies, we can’t always control what cookies this third party content sets.
Additionally, we may use third party services — such as those that provide social media conveniences, measure traffic, send newsletters and facilitate donations — that may place cookies on your computer. We don’t have any way of knowing how such services handle the resulting data internally. inewsource makes no claim, nor takes liability for the insecure submission of information via these applications.
Here are the services whose cookies you can find on inewsource.org:
- Sharing buttons for Facebook and Twitter. These use the standard scripts provided by each company.
- Google Analytics, which we use to measure site traffic. Google Analytics gathers certain non-personally identifying information over time, such as your IP address, browser type, internet service provider, referring and exit pages, time stamp, and similar data. We also use Facebook Pixel to measure, optimize and build audiences for advertising campaigns served on Facebook. In particular it enables us to see how our users move between devices when accessing our website and Facebook, to ensure that our Facebook advertising is seen by our users most likely to be interested in such advertising by analyzing which content a user has viewed and interacted with on our website.
- Stripe, which allows us to accept donations through our website.
- Salesforce to manage newsletter subscriber, donor, and other identifiable user data.
- Mailchimp, to manage newsletter distributions. We collect your email address if you choose to subscribe to one of our email newsletters or email news alerts. Other optional information that you enter when subscribing – such as your first and last names or city are simply so that we can deliver more personalized email newsletters. We DO NOT sell, rent or market your information to any other parties. We retain your information only as long as necessary to provide your service. When we send emails, it collects some data about which users open the emails and which links are clicked. We use this information to optimize our email newsletters and, as aggregate information, to explain what percentage of our users open and interact with our newsletters.
Personal Data
We only collect personally identifiable information such as your name and email address when you sign up for a newsletter, donate to our organization, or otherwise submit it to us voluntarily. We do not share your personal data with any third parties other than some common service providers, whose products use your information to help us improve our site, deliver newsletters, or allow us to offer donation opportunities.
inewsource limits access to all user data for the purposes of newsletter, fundraising, and customer service only. User data is not sold to or otherwise shared with anyone not working with or for the inewsource.
You may unsubscribe or opt-out of our email and mail communications at any time by hitting the “unsubscribe” button in any email you receive from inewsource, or by emailing us at contact@inewsource.org or calling us at 619-594-5100.
Donor Information
The identities of all donors will be listed on our website. inewsource does not share, trade, sell, or otherwise release donors’ personal information to any third parties.
Refunds
If you encounter errors when donating on the website, please contact us at members@inewsource.org. For example, if you submit a donation for an incorrect amount or make a duplicate transaction please email us immediately so we can reverse the charges.
Cancellation of Recurring Donations
You can cancel your monthly recurring donations free of charge by notifying us at members@inewsource.org.
Links to Other Websites
Our site may contain links to documents, resources or other websites that we think may be of interest to you. We have no control over these other sites or their content. You should be aware when you leave our site for another, and remember that other sites are governed by their own user agreements and privacy policies, which should be available to you to read.
Disclaimers and Limitation of Liability
Although we take reasonable steps to prevent the introduction of viruses, worms, “Trojan Horses” or other destructive materials to our site, we do not guarantee or warrant that our site or materials that may be downloaded from our site are free from such destructive features. We are not liable for any damages or harm attributable to such features. We are not liable for any claim, loss or injust based on errors, omissions, interruptions or other inaccuracies on our site, nor for any claim, loss or injust that results from your use of this site or your breach of any provision of this User Agreement.
Contact Us
If there are any questions regarding this privacy policy, please contact us at contact@inewsource.org or call us at 619-594-5100.
Two of the most serious, recent signs of chronic corruption and hypocrisy in the political career of Joel Anderson are so disturbing that the implications go far beyond Anderson’s insidious obsession with being a career political bureaucrat. Indeed, everyone should be asking themselves WHY are East County evangelical church leaders continuing to violate their alleged Biblical Christianity as they partner with the very unbiblical political decisions being made by Anderson? The money trail of illegal campaign contributions to Joel Anderson’s campaign coffers from church-connected construction firm Hamann Construction, his previous illegal endorsement by the conservative group California Republican Assembly and his untoward scam of mixing a prior door-to-door effort to sign up voters for a pro-life parental notification initiative with his asking those same voters to sign his candidacy registration drive to avoid paying the filing fee are demonstrative of a politician who is so chronically void of all scruples that he should be classified as a walking scandal waiting to happen as he prepares to share a prison cell with Duke Cunningham.
After being found guilty of taking illegal campaign contributions and paying some hefty fines, it is mindboggling that Anderson is again taking large campaign contributions from the very people tied to his earlier illegal campaign contributions. What kind of back room deals is Anderson making with executives at Hamann Construction so that they continue to load up his campaign with contributions, particularly since Hamann was one of the main culprits in Anderson’s earlier disgraceful illegal campaign corruption scandal?
What is so horrific about the corrupt Anderson-Hamann relationship is that Hamann and its various relational tentacles in East County are intimately involved in some of San Diego’s biggest mega-churches. Some of Hamann’s executives have held positions on the board of El Cajon mega-church Foothills Christian Church at the same time Hamann had an exclusive contract to construct the church’s new mega-church facility – while the construction company was also embroiled in the massive illegal campaign contribution scandal with Anderson’s campaign.
Equally disturbing is the utter betrayal of Christianity and public safety that Joel Anderson just participated in with his yes vote on AJR 16, a homosexual-coordinated state assembly resolution that pushes for President Obama to reverse the long standing FDA ban on homosexuals donating their blood to the public blood supply due to the CDC classifying men who engage in sex with other men as a threat to the entire public blood supply in America. Added to further concerns that homosexuality poses a grave danger to the blood supply, the CDC recently issued a bulletin that declares HIV transmission rates are skyrocketing among homosexual men and the CDC deemed homosexual men to be so opposed to practicing safe sex in their pursuit of risky sex that the CDC and the FDA have recommended that all HIV negative homosexual men start taking the expensive AIDS medication Truvada as a means of trying to stop the exploding HIV infection rate among homosexuals in the United States.
Here is the text of AJR 16: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_16_bill_20150921_chaptered.pdf
Joel Anderson’s vote on AJR 16: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/15-16/bill/asm/ab_0001-0050/ajr_16_vote_20150903_1159AM_sen_floor.html
With the new warnings from the CDC about skyrocketing rates of HIV among risk taking homosexuals, it is shocking that AJR 16 was even proposed at all. The idea that politicians are playing politics with the public blood supply by appeasing gay activists in San Francisco and West Hollywood and recommending that the FDA ban on gay blood donors be reversed is incredibly dangerous. The fact that Joel Anderson voted yes on AJR 16 to cully favor with homosexual activists because he didn’t think any Christian voters would find out what he did is the devious and politically rotten Joel Anderson on full display.