Leader mysteriously omits news of Springer’s big business PAC contribution


You’d think that when the local newspaper does a pre-election wrap-up of campaign contributions they’d at least mention a few of the bigger ones? No? Especially if they are from out of town and somewhat controversial?

Apparently not in Burbank.

This was the big news in their Springer segment, which actually headlined how she had received the most money:

During the filing period from Feb. 23 to March 25, Springer received $6,909 in campaign contributions, which included a $100 non-monetary contribution — an email blast from former City Council candidate David Nos, according to campaign disclosures.

Leave it to BurbankViewpoints to fill in the particulars:

According to public records, BizFed, a self-described “pro-business” PAC, which helped defeat a ballot measure aimed at curbing development in Los Angeles last month — and whose efforts to block clean air and water protections have been widely-criticized by environmental groups — gave Sharon Springer’s campaign the maximum donation allowed by law on March 15th.

According to the LA Times, environmentalists “expressed outrage” over the group’s successful campaign to keep the Southern California Air Quality Management Board from tightening restrictions on trucks and other “mobile polluters” in February of this year. The PAC lobbied to make compliance by polluters voluntary instead of mandatory.

Environmentalists told the Times, the rollback on proposed anti-pollution laws would “hurt millions of people, including many suffering from asthma, lung, and heart disease and other pollution-related illnesses.”

The Leader goes out of its way to cite a well-known friend’s email blast, who’s quite popular with the booster class. But not the above?

How come?





Filed under Uncategorized

45 responses to “Leader mysteriously omits news of Springer’s big business PAC contribution

  1. Tom

    Maybe for the same reason that I watched Springer last night on my TV say the Leader misquoted her, like I believe that one. The real answer is simple, never trust the Leader as your news source it is only good for the bottom of the bird cage.

  2. Anonymous

    Yeah. $400. Really makes a difference.

    I don’t doubt that most of the commenters here would sell their soul for $400, but I don’t think Springer would.

    • semichorus

      Oh, but it made a difference for Gordon when the Cusumanos “donated” the same amount. Got it.

      The point is, a mention is a mention. But there was no mention of this in an article that was supposedly about mentioning campaign contributions. Instead, we got the innocuous one.

      • Anonymous

        A difference here is that Gordon sought the same endorsement and the same money.

        How can you criticize Springer when both Gordon and Guillien asked for the same money and endorsement?

        • semichorus

          He didn’t solicit anything from them. Neither one did.

          You people are disgustingly dumb or dishonest. Or both.

          Is this the new lie going around? Part of the whispering campaign?

          • A. Hastings

            I heard Dr Gordon and Bob Frutos speak at the council meeting. From what I heard this pro development and anti environment group emailed and begged then to respond, they did not contact the group.

            I guess it was the same for Springer because she was reading some really vague answers she claimed to have given to this crazy endorsing group. Did not understand why she kept referring to answers she sent to an enail as an interview but figured she is just that out of touch with reality.

            BUT the real question is why did they endorse her. To me it is obvious, it is because Springer is pro development. Did we hear Springer is or has returned the money ? Hell no she kept it. Big difference from the Cusumano money donation.

        • Anony Miss

          Was I daydreaming when I heard Guillien deny all of it at City Council?
          Springer is more of the same CULTURE problem Burbank is experiencing.
          It’s almost incredulous to watch all of this unfold.
          I think David Spell should run for City Council. He is the one who used the “culture” reference. Very appropriate.

          • Al in SoCal

            Why do you think he grandstands and plays political commercials at the Tuesday night podium? I have no doubt we will see Mr. Spell’s name next election in place of Mr. Guillen – if Guillen understands that after run #3 – it’s time to understand that the people of Burbank have spoken – he should listen.

            • Anonymous

              “Al in SoCal
              April 6, 2017 at 8:18 pm
              …it’s time to understand that the people of Burbank have spoken – he should listen”
              Indeed, dweeb! We all understand you are a gadfly for the establishment. When I figure out who you are, I will let all know so they can understand how your ilk is extinct and needs to die or modify to the the current trends of what is best for Burbank. The days of the “good ole’ buddy system” are over, dude,…deal with it!

        • For me, the difference is that this pro-business (pro-development) lobby group decided that Springer was the candidate who would most likely advance their agenda.

  3. Another anonymous

    It really doesn’t matter if it’s $400, $4 million dollars or 4 cents. It is a matter of principle. You can either say you are an environmentalist — or you can take money from a group that blocks clean air and water protections. You can’t do both. And I didn’t hear her say she would give it back last night either.

    In fact, she seemed rather proud of her association with the group even once it was brought to light that this PAC worked tirelessly to roll back environmental protections on more than one occasion — and, earlier this year — lobbied vigorously help unleash unfettered development in Los Angeles. Okay. At least now she is being honest. As a voter, the fact that she is proud to be funded by a pro-business lobby group tells me a whole lot about who Sharon Springer REALLY is.

    I hope the rest of Burbank gets the message. And by all means, check out the campaign disclosures on the city’s website. See who her other donors are. (There are quite a few names on that list which might be familiar to some of you). Depending upon what you think you know about her — and what you’ve heard her say — you might be surprised to see who is behind her campaign.

  4. When Sharon spoke last night she claimed Ikea Way was the only time she suggested we sell naming rights to our city streets. She clearly forgot her letter to the Leader (linked on her campaign website) that says: “Burbank could use the significant amounts of money naming rights partnerships can generate and could at least partially replace funds that came from redevelopment agencies.”

    Her statement that it was only Ikea Way is complete BS. And BizFed PAC is bad news for environmental causes. Stupid to take their money and then have a surrogate sing their praises. Hello? Google anyone??

  5. a voter

    I personally heard Sharon say before that we can balance the budget by selling off naming rights to our streets. That was not street it was the plural streets. That idea made me laugh because it tells me that Sharon would sell off anything for money and she has no principles.

    • semichorus

      What a silly idea. Craven, really. And how much money could you possibly get for it?

      Thank god state law forbids selling naming rights to K-12 schools. Otherwise with her around we’d have Bugs Bunny Elementary School and Cusumano High.

  6. yet another anonymous

    I have been paying attention to who is behind Springer and while I always thought she was a nice lady the company she keeps and the info from her campaign have made me realize she is just part of the problem and not any solution to any problem.

  7. Sal

    an email blast from David Nos, now that is a laugh. Nos the man who became fondly known as NO S due to the fact that his NOS campaign signs were popping up when the yeas on Measure S signs popped up.

    Stories abound about how bad he was as a Burbank School Board Member but wait Springer somehow gets into the High School to exploit students for well supposedly service hour credits and her own statement televised was when she got caught errr found out she could not do that she offered to pay the students for their time !

    Now the info comes out a former school board member NOS is contributing email blasts ? Also Springer is miss environment yet she is getting cash from a business group that has been identified in the Los Angeles Times as one of the anti environment groups in LA County. oh wait a guy speaks at council that it can’t be anti environment after all Woodbury is a member. Springer and her campaign just seem to be filled with contradictions and trails that keep leading to just more and more downright bad connections.

  8. Anonymous

    Well, I was given a lead that Dave Golonski was calling all the shots for Sharon Springer’s campaign….that would explain all the back-stabbing, mug-slinging. Anyway, check this….go to his Facebook page, OMG….it’s a Springer PUMP site.


    See, a dear friend of mine told me Golonski likes to play the puppet master behind the scenes, feels he has more influence….hence his support of Will Rogers as his puppet…I’m sure Will doesn’t even wipe his butt before checking with Golonski.

    Obvious, knowing what I know and feel about Springer, this is a match made in heaven and hell. The devil and Miss Jones if you will.

    • Al in SoCal

      and Burbank Viewpoints is not for Gordon? Just be honest with yourselves – ALL the complaints you have against Sharon Springer – Dr. Gordon has already done – or in the process of doing in this campaign or previous campaigns. There are ZERO halos in Burbank politics – and that is one of the few facts on this board.

      • Anonymous

        “Al in SoCal
        April 6, 2017 at 8:15 pm
        and Burbank Viewpoints is not for Gordon? Just be honest with yourselves – ALL the complaints you have against Sharon Springer – Dr. Gordon has already done – or in the process of doing in this campaign or previous campaigns”

        LMAO, oh you poor miscreant. Indeed, let’s be “honest”. You’re just not that good at misdirect. Here, let me school you, fool. Why did you change the subject? And, please, YOU school us, what are “ALL the complaints you have against Sharon Springer – Dr. Gordon has already done”? And, what does Bur View being or not for Gordon have to do with the topic? See, dummie, when you do stuff like that you come across like that little weasel Harrop or his master Rogers. Good Lord!

  9. Al in SoCal

    Completely disingenuous as usual. Go ahead and legitimately (make a note everyone) attack Sharon for the contributions, etc etc – but the street naming is the most idiotic, dishonest attack I’ve seen in some time.

    Basically she said rather than GIVING the street away to Ikea they should have charged them for IT. The one street. She said “streets” because if OTHER developments also get a free ride from even your GLORIOUS hero Dr. Gordon, Sharon would charge them for it – which most common sense people would agree with …

    • semichorus

      She said STREETS renaming was something to look into for income purposes. Not just one, and not just project related.

      She has a series of bad ideas. This let’s build more bike paths to justify more apartments being built thing is just one of them. Yeah, we can bike through all the new traffic.

      I love how Springer’s become the darling of the Burbank establishment. What does that tell you. Her real estate/money/futurism background is troubling.

      • Dina

        When hollering and yelling emanates from Sharon’s row at Council meets the Mayor fails to react???
        The same creeps defending her are known Golonski hacks.
        Many sincere long time proud Democrats have distanced themselves from
        the new and improved Democrat Club in Burbank due to their antics.
        Sad but true.

        • semichorus

          Yeah, I don’t like that crowd. They’re not real Democrats either. If they were, they’d know that these council critics they despise so much are actually their anti-establishment allies.

          But, these Dems are really company boys at heart. On the most part they’re not bothered at all by the lies and commercial/corporate goings on. If so, then they wouldn’t be so hateful to Gordon.

          Dems need to find common ground with these people. There’s plenty there– if they’re real Dems. Instead, they let their self-righteousness and sense of moral superiority reign supreme.

          It’s the same problem nationally.

          • Jan

            Semichorus I could not agree with you more on these “democrats”. As of late I have been shocked and dismayed by the local Burbank Democrats and the local establishment democrat party faces running around Burbank. I think they have really formed a new party, appointed themselves head of it and it is called the party that serves the elite group.

        • Anonymous

          ” Dina
          April 7, 2017 at 12:01 am
          When hollering and yelling emanates from Sharon’s row at Council meets the Mayor fails to react??? The same creeps defending her are known Golonski hacks.”


        • Al in SoCal

          City politics transcend national politics. So much so that this board is chock full of Libertarian “Freedom caucus” folks who support Dr. Gordon and Democrats who support Bob Frutos.

    • Al, there’s this thing called Google.

      Quoting Sharon Springer: “Naming rights can be extremely valuable. We should consider responsibly and reasonably leveraging such rights to generate revenue/benefits for our residents. We certainly shouldn’t give them away just because we can’t be bothered to responsibly explore the possible pros and cons to such a plan. Other entities use sponsorship specific guidelines that provide a way for these types of transactions to take place.”

      Source is from an Op-Ed written by Sharon and linked on her CAMPAIGN WEBSITE: http://www.latimes.com/socal/burbank-leader/opinion/tn-blr-me-opedspringer-20160226-story.html

      I’ll find a video of her saying it for you as well.

      • Here’s a video of her saying the same thing – she must have “forgot” about this at the podium at City Council last week.

      • semichorus

        I wonder what and where those other communities are. I haven’t seen much renaming going on.

        I wonder too if it’s even legal to do in California. As I said, it’s illegal to have sponsored names for K-12 schools (that’s why you never see any). The “Cusumano” Plaza at Burroughs for instance raises alarm bells. Where else is there such a thing in K-12?

        And sponsorship is indeed what she’s talking about here. It’s tit for tat, not just a rename based upon a nearby project. The new IKEA street in fact seems more a convenient accommodation for both parties than a freebie gift.

        Where else in Southern California have there been ANY kind of paid for name changes, whatever the angle used to excuse them? She’s also talking about this city SOLICITING such a plan. If it were legal to do so, wouldn’t they be all over the place by now? The Thomas Guides would be a mess.

        Her ideas are as impossibly bad as that Konstantine guy’s. No wonder he likes her.

        • Al in SoCal

          Reagan Democrats had their chance … and it is apparent where they have gotten us as of late. While I liked what they did in the past – it is just that – in the past. Pelosi and most of the Dem national ‘leaders’ are well past 70. Konstantine and those like him bring some fresh ideas.
          Definitely time for some changes to the national Democratic scene.

      • Al in SoCal

        Yes – exactly. Giving the street name away to Ikea rather than charging them for it was L-A-M-E. We should have nickel and dimed them to-death. Anything extracted would have been for the good of the city and its citizens.

        • What street would you like to live on? Walmart Way or Best Buy Blvd?

          • Al in SoCal

            Really – so you agree giving them the street that they NOW HAVE and that Dr. Gordon voted for was better than charging for? That is what you are saying – correct? You won’t, in fact, admit that charging them for that right would have been better than giving it to them without ANY concession, or charge?

            Got it – thanks for letting us know your thoughts on the matter – free corp give-a-way vs. monetary (or better yet annual) charge. Check.

            • semichorus

              They all voted for it!

              Maybe we should charge for Lockheed View Drive while we’re at it. Or Warner Blvd.

              It’s a dumb idea, and one that would only pollute our streets with more commercial flak. There’d be no end to it.

            • Nope. I was against them renaming the street to Ikea Way for any reason and to be clear, when I heard about that at a town hall meeting at Luther Middle school that was the moment I got involved in Burbank politics. Later I found out it was not Ikea’s suggestion but Ralph Herrman’s.

  10. Anonymous

    You can’t be a green / environmentalist candidate if you’re in bed with BIG BUSINESS (BizFed) who is known for crushing environmental attempts for clean air and water and moderate growth!

    • semichorus

      They seem to revel in inconsistencies, don’t they?

      “Gordon’s completely ineffective … but he’s responsible for all this traffic and money problems!”

      That’s not just dishonest. It’s stupid.

  11. Al in SoCal

    Tuesday we’ll see what happens. Honestly if Gordon gets re-elected I will wish him all the good will possible.
    In the end I care more for Burbank than political strife – it always gets somewhat ugly during election season.

Leave a Reply- (comments take a while to appear)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s