Oh no, another recycle bin full of Berman flyers come Oct/Nov. I feel sorry for all the trees.

I voted against Berman simply because of the insane amount of direct mail he (and related PACs) sent out. I have nothing else against him, but that one issue raises questions about his judgement. So Mr. Berman, if you read this--you may want to ease up on the mailings for the general election. The constituency around here is not impressed by excess; it just looks foolish.

A brief fact check on the PAC involved with the ridiculous quantity of unwelcome daily junk mail leads back to a member of the Walton family of Walmart fame. This same PAC used a similar approach for a candidate in southern California who ultimately lost. Why the unfettered financial backing from a Walton family member? That's the million dollar question needing an answer.

There's a very big story here, if only the MV Voice/PA Weekly/Almanac will cover it.

Berman received over a million dollars in outside support. This is unprecedented in a local Assembly primary, and I don't think it is an exaggeration to say that this massive expenditure had a corrupting effect on the election.

Here are some questions that have not been addressed in any election coverage:

1) Who precisely are the funders behind the "Independent Expenditure Committees" that funded the Berman mailers, polling, internet ads, and anti-Veenker hit pieces? These IEC's were "EdVoice," "Cooperative of American Physicians," "Californians Allied for Patient Protection," and the California Apartment Association. A little internet followup indicated to me that EdVoice is a pro-charter school, anti-CTA entity funded by right-wingers, and the two medical-sounding groups are fronts for malpractice insurance companies.

The California Apartment Association, you may recall, sent $90,000 through the shell cynically named "Neighborhood Empowerment Coalition," in support of three pro-development candidates in the 2014 MV council election.

I'd really like to see a real reporter dig a lot deeper than I could. Who exactly are the individuals or corporations behind these IEC's?

2) Exactly why were these groups convinced it was worth a million plus to get Berman elected? I watched the candidate interviews that the MV Voice/PA Weekly provided; it seemed that their answers on questionnaires given to them by various interest groups determined whether they would be supported or attacked.

So, exactly what were the answers or issues that motivated support or attack?

3) Berman said that there was "no coordination" between his campaign and these special-interest groups. I see no reason to doubt that he followed the letter of the law. HOWEVER, was there coordination between the various interest groups? The timing of the mailers tells me that there may have been. If so, exactly who arranged it?

This was an infusion of dark money on a scale that we have not seen before. I sincerely hope that the MV Voice/PA Weekly/Almanac is willing to help drag some of this information into the light.

@Mountain View Voter

You're asking for investigative journalism, which is a lot to ask out of a community paper, especially as it requires election law expertise. You may have a better chance with The Chronicle or Mercury News. But then, you're going to be competing with other districts in the Bay Area for coverage. I've heard there is much more special interest money being spent in Jim Beall's state senate district, especially as it's being used to try to knock off an incumbent.

It looks like Menlo Park Councilmember Peter Ohtaki wpuld have been in the top two as the lone registered Republican if Trump had not locked up the nomination and more Republucans had voted. But Ohtaki, as a Republican, could not have won in November. So the Veenker-Berman runoff is much better. It should be close. Word to Berman: there may be such a thing as too many mass mailers.