Category Archives: politics

blog, diversity, news, politics

No schlemiels here, but are Asian Americans the New Jews in battle over affirmative action? Also: One way to thwart the system

The question is raised once again in the cyclical affirmative action fight in college admissions. Those against affirmative action are saying Jews and Asian Americans have both been victimized  by race-concisous admissions.

That  may be true. But is that a reason to get rid of affirmative action?

One commenter on my sfgate.com blog says that 86 percent of blacks and Latinos who get into exclusive schools are from wealthy backgrounds. I don’t know if that fact is true or not, but what difference does that make?  That’s always been a comeback by affirmative action foes. Poor kids are cool, but don’t give affirmative action to the Cosby kids.

I’d say that the well-to-do blacks and Latinos may even be so-called “legacy” admits, i.e., their parents went to the school. I actually am all for that for minorities. Most of the time, the parents were admitted through a more race-concious process. I don’t have a problem with creating a “legacy of affirmative action” where the off-spring of grads get admitted. It does show, after all, how an institution can change by generation.

What I don’t like is that if you get rid of race-conscious programs, the non-Cosby kids, the ones most deserving of a leg up, may lose that opportunity of a lifetime.

That’s why affirmative action is worth preserving.

There’s one another issue brought up by the the “New Jews” argument. If one makes the case that by experience Asian Americans are like the Jews in terms of discrimination faced in college admissions, can you then say that one’s common experience is valid in defining ethnicity? Considering how self-identification has been a standard in the Census(it’s merely “you are what you say you are,” you don’t have to show me any DNA)  it’s not illogical for Asian Americans to check the box on any form and say they are black, or Latino, or white.

That may be a better way for you anti-Affirmative Action folks to thwart the system. 

I remember reading Dean Henry Rosovsky’s book on Harvard where he said that Filipinos’ experiences were more closely aligned to blacks.

Maybe that’s why when I was at Harvard I felt more comfortable in my Afro American Studies courses than I did in my  Romantic Poets class.

But it may also be why I remain adamant about the need for affirmative action. Asian Americans are far from a homogenous group. Disparities within the group will have a much harder time being addressed if race-concisous admissions are eliminated.

blog, journalism, news, politics

Those high-rolling bundled Asian Americans at the San Jose Obama brunch meeting were typically Asian: shy, quiet, and reserved

Maybe they were saving their encounter for their memoirs?

Or maybe they will be posting later on their Facebook pages?

The 20 or so who paid $35,000 (not $40,000 as was originally reported) to meet with Obama talked to just one reporter at the end of the event, the SF Chronicle’s Joe Garafoli.

Though it was a closed press event, apparently there was no condition placed to not talk to the media. The meeting members  just chose not to as if they were protecting corporate secrets. The only one to talk was Vinod Bhardwagm the founder of a firm called Kalpana. He told the Chronicle he asked Obama a question about the constitution and how the founders would have viewed how the document is used. 

Can you say “softball.”

What bothers me is this was billed as a high-level meeting of Asian Americans with the president. As an Asian American, wouldn’t you want to know or share in this opportunity to have this kind of access to the president in order to let him know what the Asian American community really wants and needs? 

That would be a high-minded use of the president’s time.

Instead, it was just a vanity brunch with Obama,  where the people attending didn’t want to do much showing off afterwards.

The whole closed nature of the event just felt unseemly to me. But I suppose in an era of SuperPACs and Citizens United, the whole idea behind bundling to get around individual donor limits (usually $2,500) in order to offer facetime with the president  seems like just a small hole in our democracy.

But it’s still a hole.

See the original version of my post on sfgate.com and at www.aaldef.org/blog

blog, news, politics

Bundling for Democracy and your Eggs Obama

1 Comment

(The original version of this was on the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund blog).

That  off-again, on-again morning meeting in San Jose between President Obama and a roundtable of Asian American business leaders represents the stark undemocratic reality of today’s politics.

Not only is it closed to the media, but the participants’ names are part of an exclusive list that haven’t been readily disclosed. Are they embarrassed to be one of 20 or so to pay $40,000 for the privilege of a private audience with the president? Unlikely.

Still, $40,000 for some grub and gab with the president?  If you’re on a Grand Slam breakfast budget, you’re out of luck.  (Of course, at $40k, I’m assuming with the president you get a meal.)

I figured there’s at least one person I could ask who would know the details of this elite “roundtable.” That would have to be Shefali Razdan Duggal, a 40-year-old,  Indian-born, self-employed San Franciscan who has become a big bucks go-to person for Obama in Northern California.

Naturally, she deferred to the official press team of the president.  But Shefali’s definitely high up in the campaign to know what’s going on since she’s  become what is known as a top “bundler.”

Given that the individual limit to federal campaigns is generally $2,500, people who want to get around that low ceiling, like say give $40,000 for some Eggs Obama, just simply funnel the money directly to a person like Shefali.

She becomes the ribbon and bow around the checks that are then delivered to the campaign as “bundled.”  

Compared to a Super PAC, it may seem like a small hole in the system. Nevertheless, it’s still a way to get around limits and funnel large amounts of money legally.

For 2012, Shefali has become one of the top Asian American bundlers  for Obama in the nation. Earlier this year, the Obama campaign disclosed to the Federal Electon Committee that she was responsible for between  $200,000-$500,000 in bundled contributions, with her own personal lifetime contributions at $122,177. (All the numbers come from the campaign finance watchdog, opensecrets.org).

And that’s a moderate amount among the 532 bundlers in 33 states who have raised about $106.4 million for Obama and the DNC this election year.

Among Asian American Obama bundlers is Los Angeles-based Brian Lee, the LegalZoom entrepreneur who has given $299,800 to the Obama campaign.

But it’s the number of Asian Indian bundlers that seems to be more impressive. The list includes among others, the self-help guru, Deepak Chopra ($197,000) and New York’s Deven Parekh of Insight Venture Partners ($226,100).

Asian Indians are actually the No.3  Asian American ethnic group after the Chinese and Filipinos. And yet when it comes to giving money, Indian Americans seem well represented.

I certainly didn’t see many Chinese or Filipino names on Obama’s bundlers list.  Maybe the Chinese are still reeling over the donation scandals during the Clinton years.

Being a bundler is definitely legit and has its advantages. While everyone denies there’s a quid pro quo, in politics, every penny matters—especially if you want something.

In the 2008 campaign, Hillsborough’s John Roos was a big bundler for Obama while at  the law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. And though his own personal contribution is on the books at a relatively modest $41,600, I’m sure it was mere coincidence that Roos, a Lowell High alum  was ultimately tabbed by Obama to serve as ambassador to Japan.

So my guess is the Asian American leaders at this somewhat secret “Roundtable”  meeting are likely to be made up of primarily Indian American entrepreneurs and businessmen who see nothing wrong with giving $40,000 for a little face time with the president to discuss such things as the flow of highly educated workers through immigration and special visas to work in their businesses. In other words, they’ll talk about all their special issues.

This would ordinarily be seen as a form of  “lobbying,” but since there are few things lower in the likeability scale than “lobbyist,” why impugn these wealthy private Asian American “roundtable-ists”?

Indeed, lobbyists are so disliked, Federal law requires that a campaign disclose only the bundling activity—of lobbyists.

That’s why President Obama and the Democrats, having disclosed all 532 bundlers, are actually much more open and go above and beyond the law on this point than the GOP.

Maybe bundling isn’t so bad, say compared to the current campaign finance villains, the Super-PACs.

Still, while the Obama has been upfront about his bundlers, the GOP has only disclosed that 22 registered lobbyists have bundled a measly $2.9 million.

Romney’s other bundlers?  No one knows how much has been raised by how many. Romney hasn’t disclosed them. Maybe he should. Now.

But this is how our democracy works today. There are lots of dark places where photo-ops give way to cash-ops.

And neither you nor I can have breakfast with the president in a closed-door roundtable.

Actually, I thought it would be nice if President Obama capped off Asian Pacific American Heritage Month with a nice fitting visit into the community to eat some veggie pork buns or something.

He could have visited Asian Health Services in Oakland and witnessed all the language issues they work around to provide health care to those who need it most. Or he could have visited Asian Americans for Community Involvement in San Jose.

But when the president is in campaign mode, there’s little time in democracy for the unbundled.