.

Congressional Candidate Donated to Opponent in '08

Gary DeLong contributed to re-election campaign of California legislator Alan Lowenthal, whom he now portrays as a career politician who contributed to the state's education and financial mess.

Congressional candidate and Long Beach City Councilman Gary DeLong contributed to the re-election of opponent and State Senator Alan Lowenthal that returned him to office--despite now calling him part of the problem in California's education and financial crisis.

DeLong, the Republican candidate for the new U.S. House of Representatives seat that serves most of Long Beach and numerous Orange County cities including Los Alamitos and Rossmoor, gave $100 to Lowenthal's re-election campaign for state senate on Oct. 10, 2008.

Lowenthal, the Democratic candidate for the 47th Congressional District, is a former Long Beach City Councilman and college professor who has served the area as an assemblyman and senator for more than a dozen years. On Wednesday, he decried the "phenomenal" amount of money from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other national interests. If Lowenthal's estimate is correct for the $316,000 cost of a TV attack against him, DeLong's donation is almost token.

DeLong responded to the question of why he donated to an opponent he is now portraying as pro-government, anti-business and a contributor to the state's dire financial picture, suggesting Lowenthal has changed.

"Alan has become more and more anti-business as he's lost touch with the community," DeLong e-mailed. He added dryly, "Accordingly. I will be supporting his opponent this election as our country can't afford his failed economic policies."

DeLong and Lowenthal, and their respective campaigns, have been asked for comment, and we will update the story as it may develop. 

A reader first raised the donation in comments on GreaterLongBeach.com, and another reader reposted them on Patch with the link to the public record of the donation.

A great question for Gary DeLong, who states over and over that Alan Lowenthal’s policies have been anti-business and driving the state into a financial abyss. If Lowenthal's fiscal policies are bankrupt as DeLong professes, why did DeLong himself donate to Lowenthal's campaign (not for this particular race, but for past state offices)?

You can find DeLong's contributions to Lowenthal's campaign at the below link. It is in alphabetical order. Scroll down, you’ll find it under “G” for Gary DeLong.

http://cal-access.sos.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1272281&view=received&session=2007&psort=NAME&page=*

Watts October 04, 2012 at 09:19 PM
Ouch!
John B. Greet October 04, 2012 at 10:07 PM
"A great question for Gary DeLong, who states over and over that Alan Lowenthal’s policies have been anti-business and driving the state into a financial abyss. If Lowenthal's fiscal policies are bankrupt as DeLong professes, why did DeLong himself donate to Lowenthal's campaign (not for this particular race, but for past state offices)?" What was it you said, elsewhere, Nancy? "Politics, John... : D"
Marshall Riverdale October 04, 2012 at 11:25 PM
Gary's response is fascinating, given Alan's record since 2008 - ushering through the Gerald Desmond Bridge project, the new Courthouse, the bunker fuel tax break, and so on. Everyone knows Alan has not changed. Whether you like his politics or not, he is nothing but consistent. I'm not sure how Alan has "lost touch with the community".....you're talking about someone who was awarded "Legislator of the Year" by the League of California Cities for his advocacy on behalf of local governments (according to Alan's Wikipedia page). Just like DeLongate -when Gary stole City assets/databases for his campaign use - Gary is avoiding an actual response when confronted with your questions Nancy. Why did he contribute to Alan's 2008 campaign? What particularly compelled him to contribute at that time, while he was a sitting member of City Council and only weeks before the 2008 November election? Gary seemingly is also nothing but consistent - consistenly dodgy. Is this what we want for our representative in US Congress?
Adrienne Mitrou October 05, 2012 at 12:20 AM
So let me understand this: At the time DeLong financially contributed to Alan, he had served two terms on the city council, three terms in the state assembly, and was just starting his second and final term on the State Senate. And someone, after that extensively long and full legislative career, Alan suddenly "changed" after October 2008? Huh? No Gary, the only thing that changed was that you just got caught. You realize that the only way to defeat such a well-liked and respected legislator is to impugn and sling mud. But actions speak louder than words. And your recent financial contribution to Alan speaks volumes.
Watts October 05, 2012 at 03:29 AM
"Gary's response is fascinating..." Fascinate: to attract and hold attentively by a unique power, personal charm, unusual nature, or some other special quality. Which seems particularly odd when a few sentences later you wrote; "Gary is avoiding an actual response when confronted with your questions Nancy." So basically, you are saying that you are personally fascinated by Gary's "response" of not providing a response. I remember the first time that I tried mushrooms, as well. And way back then, when all logic seemed like one of those Russian matryoshka dolls; I may have been similarly "fascinated." But let me be quite honest that after the decades that have passed and to a much more seasoned and sober mind, your post sounds like gibberish.
Marshall Riverdale October 05, 2012 at 04:45 AM
Fascinate: to arouse the interest or curiosity of; allure. I do find Gary's response to be fascinating. But maybe I can help you with another definition - Asshole: a stupid, mean, or contemptible person. Enjoy the flashbacks, asshole.
Mike Ruehle October 05, 2012 at 06:45 AM
DeLong rips Lowenthals economic policies. Unbelievable. So what ARE DeLong's economic policies? It's easy for DeLong to sling mud about the actions of others. That's all he ever does. Yet, DeLong never states what policies and actions he will undertake to improve the economy. DeLong likes to say he will create more jobs. Yet he never specifies how he will do so other than to wave his magic wand. DeLong refers to his public sector experience. Yet he fails to mention he is a trust fund baby and the company HE PURCHASED has one employee, himself as President. DeLong infers he has been a long-time Long Beach resident. Yet he fails to mention he and his family are from PV and he only recently moved to Long Beach to follow the children of his first family after getting a divorce. DeLong likes to point to his three years as Chairmanship of the Alameda Cooridor Transit Authority (ACTA) as an indicator of his leadership. Yet DeLong fails to mention the ACTA was unable make its $6 million loan repayment last month and had to receive extra funding from the Port of LA and Port of Long Beach to cover its shortfall. If there has ever been anyone to sling mud at, its DeLong.
John B. Greet October 05, 2012 at 07:27 AM
"DeLong rips Lowenthals economic policies. Unbelievable." Actually *quite* believable, given that Sen. Lowenthal has been a major player in the very same State Legislature that is responsible for some of the highest taxes, most stifling regulations, and worst overall business climate among the 50 States. There are several reasons many businesses (e.g. jobs) are leaving California for places like Texas, Florida, and North Carolina, and most of those reasons have their origins in the California State Legislature of which Sen. Lowenthal is considered a leader. http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/02/business/la-fi-mo-california-worst-state-20120502 Ruehle taking DeLong (or anyone) to task for mud-slinging is simply laughable. "DeLong infers he has been a long-time Long Beach resident." No, actually DeLong states quite directly that he has been a "Long Beach area" resident for many years. The only inference here is in Ruehle's fertile imagination. "DeLong fails to mention the ACTA was unable make its $6 million loan repayment last month and had to receive extra funding from the Port of LA and Port of Long Beach to cover its shortfall." Yes, just as Ruehle fails to mention that ACTA depends heavily upon port cargo volumes for its income, cargo volumes over which ACTA has no direct control and which have been steadily shrinking right along with the rest of our national economy http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/15/business/la-fi-ports-20120615
Mike Ruehle October 05, 2012 at 07:57 AM
So let me get this straight. DeLong is NOT responsible for failing to repay ACTA loans because of the poor state of our national economy. Yet, Lowenthal IS somehow responsible for the poor state of California's economy which occurred hand-in-hand with the poor state of our national economy. Talk about cherry picking arguments.
John B. Greet October 05, 2012 at 09:15 AM
Ruehle seems unwilling (or perhaps unable) to understand that our State Legislature, in which Sen. Lowenthal is considered a leader, enacts the very laws, taxes, and other regulations that give California one of the worst business climates in the nation. Meanwhile, ACTA cannot pass legislatiion and is entirely dependent upon cargo moving to, from, and through the ports of LA/Long Beach. Cargo movement which the State Legislature can -and most certainly does- have a significant influence upon. About all ACTA can do to affect its own budget revenues is to set rates per TEU (twenty foot equivalent unit) that are handled within the Alameda Corridor. ACTA can increase fees as revenues decrease, which it routinely does, but it must be careful to not increase them too much, else shippers will start considering the use of other ports to move their cargo (just as they could, and do, when the ports raise their own fees too much. Talk about not understanding the State Legislature's direct and adverse impact upon the business climate in our State and ACTA's limited ability to impact cargo volumes in, from, and through our ports!
Mike Ruehle October 05, 2012 at 04:35 PM
Why doesn't ACTA Chairman DeLong cut back ACTA spending to match its revenue intake rather than continuing to spend and then not have enough money to repay its loans? Especially since this was forseeable with the state of the economy and DeLong has been Chairman since 2008. That means the DeLong Chaired ACTA is outspending its revenues, one of his big complaints about Democrats handling of the economy. Its OK when he does it, but not so OK when Dems do the same thing. What a hypocrite.
Mike Ruehle October 05, 2012 at 05:20 PM
Gary DeLong has had to refund $5,200 in campaign contributions to individual people who have changed their mind about supporting him in this election. http://www.washingtontimes.com/campaign-2012/candidates/gary-delong-62283/ Meanwhile, the $1500 refunded by Lowenthal was primarily to PACs.
Nancy Wride (Editor) October 05, 2012 at 08:52 PM
Wouldn't one argue that the state's economy, one of the largest in the world, was impacted by the global impact from the U.S. financial crisis? (Speaking of politics, I love how neither Bush nor Cheney has been allowed anywhere near the campaign trail). Argument-wise, it seems you are saying that one government agency can't control its economic state due to outside influences such as trade, etc., but the other--the state--can?
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 01:49 AM
Ruehle, DeLong is not the Chairman of the ACTA Governing Board, he is its Vice Chairman and even in that leadership position, he still represents only one vote of seven. To lay all of ACTA's current budget issues solely at DeLong's feet is, I think, the height of ignorance. Have you even looked at ACTA's most recent budget document? If so, then you surely must have noted that the ACTA Board *has* cut expenses. In fact the Board has cut expenses by 36.7% over the past year. That seems a significant budget reduction to me, but perhaps you disagree.
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 02:13 AM
Those are absolutely valid arguments, Nancy. Thank you. As to Bush/Chaney, perhaps they just aren't interested in participating? I think it can also be argued that there are plusses and minuses to bring out one's party's former Presidents/VP's. For example, I think the Obama campaign loses far more than it gains (in the way of credibility) by encouraging Pres. Clinton to appear at events on its behalf. As mentioned, ACTA does have some ability and, indeed, responsibility -within its legal bounds- to make moves in response to current ecnomic conditions in our State and, as I have also mentioned, the ACTA Board has cut its expenses by over 36% in just the past year. Whether cutting more than 1/3rd of its expenses in a single year is *enough* is a different argument, but it doesn't seem to me that the ACTA Board has exactly been idle on this challenge. Our State legislature, by contrast, is not just a "government agency" it *is* our State-level legislative body. It enacts many of the very taxes and regulations that continue to stifle our State's economy. A stifling which lesser organizations like the ACTA then are left to try to deal with, despite having statutory limitations on what actions they can take. Sacramento can't control what happens in DC or elsewhere in the world, but other States in our nation have much better business climates than ours. THAT, Sacramento *can* control, but they have failed to do so.
Mike Ruehle October 06, 2012 at 02:48 AM
If I'm ignorant, how do you explain Gary DeLong's Congressional Election website where HE CLAIMS he is "chairman of the Alameda Corridor Transit Authority." Are you saying DeLong's own website is a lie, or is he also ignorant? http://www.garydelong.com/about-gary-delong/
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 02:59 AM
I can't answer for DeLong, Ruehle. Maybe the ACTA website is outdated. Maybe DeLong misspoke on his own website. Maybe there is another explanation entirely. The person to ask about that would be DeLong. What I actually *said*, however, was: "To lay all of ACTA's current budget issues solely at DeLong's feet is, I think, the height of ignorance." Can you address *that* statement or do you intend to continue to deflect and misdirect?
Mike Ruehle October 06, 2012 at 03:18 AM
Greet, please show me where ACTA has cut expenses 37% over the past year. Below are the summary budgets for ACTA for the past 3 years as per ACTA's website (below link). Operating expenses (including debt payment) is actually up from the previous year. And that doesn't include the $6 million they had to get from the Ports of LA and Long Beach because they were unable to repay their loans. .............................................$Millions.............. .....................................2012........2011............2010 Capital Expense...........12............30................26 Operating Expense.......159.........156..............161 Total Expense...............171.........186..............187 http://www.acta.org/revenue_finance/budget.asp And you call me ignorant.
Mike Ruehle October 06, 2012 at 03:27 AM
Please show everyone where ACTA has cut expenses 36% over the past year. Below are the summary budgets for ACTA for the past 3 years as per ACTA's website (below link). Operating expenses (including debt payment) is actually up from the previous year. And that doesn't include the $6 million they had to get from the Ports of LA and Long Beach because they were unable to repay their loans. .............................................$Millions.............. .....................................2012........2011............2010 Capital Expense...........12............30................26 Operating Expense.......159.........156..............161 Total Expense...............171.........186..............187 http://www.acta.org/revenue_finance/budget.asp
Mike Ruehle October 06, 2012 at 03:30 AM
Greet, you NOW claim you can't answer for DeLong. However, that has not prevented you from answering for DeLong on every other issue.
Mike Ruehle October 06, 2012 at 04:38 AM
Get ready for Greet to start deleting some more of his comments where he was again busted for not telling the truth.
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 04:48 AM
Ruehle, my number came from page 9 of the ACTA document entitled: "PROGRAM & OPERATING BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2011/2012 - Adopted. That document can be found here: http://www.acta.org/revenue_finance/budget/program_budget_fy12_final.pdf I did not call you ignorant. Please for once in your life stop mischaracterizing the things I say and then arguing from that false premise. I speak for no one but myself, Ruehle. I am not affiliated -to any degree or in any fashion- with the DeLong for Congress campaign. I am expressing my opinions on various topics and offering facts and other information in support of my opinions. Just like you. Whenever I choose, I am engaging with the opinions expressed by others. Just like you. Why do you seem to take such an issue with that? Do you truly feel so threatened by divergent points of view?
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 05:11 AM
You have now alleged that I have deleted previous comments because I have been "busted for not telling the truth." Can you prove this allegation or is this just one more to add to the long list of statements you utter as truth but which you cannot prove to be true?
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 05:54 AM
I responded to this duplicate question above. I see what you're looking at, though. You're looking only at operating expenses while I am looking at total expenses. I think looking at the total expense picture affords a more comprehensive view of the issue. You seem to disagree. I can live with that disagreement. Can you?
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 05:59 AM
Ruehle, can you point out where, in the page you linked, the data indicates *why* DeLong refunded $5200 in contributions? You claim he "had" to do this because "individual people...have changed their mind about supporting him in this election." I do not see that conclusion mentioned in the data you have linked here.
Mike Ruehle October 06, 2012 at 07:13 AM
Sorry, but your math is way off. Using YOUR 36% reduction from 2011 TOTAL EXPENSE of $186 million would have equated to a 2012 budget of $119 million. The actual 2012 TOTAL EXPENSE budget was $171 million (reduction of 8%). That's a difference of $52 million. But what the heck. To an ex-city worker with a pension like yours, who cares about $50 million here or there.
Mike Ruehle October 06, 2012 at 07:19 AM
Just precious. The guy who critisizes me for not providing proof right after I provided the links proving ACTA did not reduce espenses by 37% as he untruthfully claimed.
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 07:57 AM
Ruehle, I told you where I found the data and I linked to the document that reported it. If you're unhappy with the math, please consider taking that up with the folks who produced the report. Neither my former employer nor the pension I earned has one single thing to do with these discussions. To bring them up in the manner that you have is entirely unnecessary and just another means of deflecting from the issues we have been discussing. You really don't seem capable of simply disagreeing with someone without lacing your comments with sarcasm and implied insult. Sad.
John B. Greet October 06, 2012 at 08:02 AM
Ruehle, I told you where I found the data and I linked to the document that reported it. If you feel the figures I quoted are somehow false, please consider taking that up with the folks who produced the report. Still waiting for you to either offer proof that I have ever deleted previous comments because I have been "busted for not telling the truth" or admit that this was just one more to add to the long list of statements you utter as truth but which you cannot prove to be true?

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something