Our Day 1 post was about which organizations - PACs and NGOs - are building political power in the name of Hindu Americans.
Our Day 2 post was about how these organizations are trying to influence American policy.

Today: Let's follow the money. Why? Because political influence becomes much easier to understand when you stop looking at mission statements and start looking at campaign finance records.

The Americans4Hindus PAC and Hindu American PAC are not the same organization. They are separate political organizations with their own structures, endorsements, and spending. But they share a common objective, and they are active in Bay Area politics.

Campaign records show something worth watching: the same political organizations show up repeatedly across Fremont, San Jose, Santa Clara County, and the CA-14 congressional race.

This isn't an allegation of wrongdoing. It is a map of political activity.

💰 THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE: CA-14

The clearest example is the 2026 race for California's 14th Congressional District.

Rakhi Israni

Israni's campaign received money from both of the PACs at the center of this investigation.

• Hindu American PAC (HAPAC): $5,000
• Americans4Hindus (A4H): $5,000

That makes Israni particularly notable in this dataset because the two organizations are independently active political entities. Israni was a Democratic candidate in the 2026 CA-14 primary. The important point isn't that $10,000 determines an election.

The point is that two separate Hindu-American political organizations independently identified the same congressional candidate as someone worth financially supporting.

Melissa Hernandez

Between January 2025 and July 2026, Hindu American PAC contributed approximately $40,000 to Melissa Hernandez's political campaign in the CA-14 race. AIPAC also finances Hernandez's campaign. The Hindu-American PAC contribution is only one piece of that much larger financial picture.

🔎 WHAT THE HINDU PAC MAP ACTUALLY SHOWS

Put the documented relationships together, and a geographic pattern emerges across East Bay.

Americans4Hindus
Vin Kruttiventi, running for Pleasanton council election
→ Ethan Agarwal, congressional candidate from CA-17
→ Teresa Keng, current Fremont council member
→ Raj Salwan, current Fremont Mayor
→ Yang Shao, current Fremont council member
→ Kathy Kimberlin, current Fremont council member
→ Rinu Nair, current member of Fremont Unified School District

Hindu Americans PAC

Rakhi Israni, CA-14
Vin Kruttiventi, running for Pleasanton council election
Melissa Hernandez, CA-14
Yang Shao, Fremont City Council
Raj Salwan, Fremont Mayor
Rinu Nair, Member of FUSD

A political organization can build influence incrementally:

support a city council candidate → build relationships → support another candidate → develop endorsements → host fundraisers → cultivate elected officials → eventually have relationships at the state and federal level.

That is how political networks grow.

🔎 THE WATCHDOG QUESTIONS

Now that we know where the money is going, there are better questions to ask.

1. What issues do these candidates support that overlap with the organizations' stated priorities?

2. Which candidates receive money from more than one organization in the network?

3. Do candidates receiving these contributions also appear at A4H/HAPAC events, or at events connected to these PACs?

4. Which elected officials subsequently vote on legislation involving immigration, India-U.S. relations, caste discrimination or religious-identity issues?

5. Are the same donors, fundraisers and political intermediaries appearing repeatedly around these campaigns?

6. Does the network's political spending increase as candidates move from local office toward state or federal office?

Those questions take us beyond simply asking "Who got $5,000?"

They allow us to examine how a political network builds relationships over time.

🕵️ FOLLOW THE MONEY

The interesting story is narrower:

A group of Hindu-American political organizations has built an increasingly sophisticated political infrastructure — PACs, endorsements, fundraisers, voter guides, political training and relationships with elected officials.

Now we can see some of the money reaching actual Bay Area campaigns. And once you can see the money, you can start asking the next question:

What political access does that money buy?

The Hindu-American Political Network Is No Longer Just Funding Elections. It's Shaping Policy.

June 2023 was an unusually revealing month.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in Washington for his state visit. Congressman Shri Thanedar (Michigan 13 District) publicly welcomed Modi and said he wanted stronger U.S.-India ties. Thanedar later joined other lawmakers who met Modi during his visit.

On June 14, at a political summit organized at Capitol Hill by Americans4Hindus (A4H) founder Romesh Japra, Thanedar announced plans to establish a Hindu congressional caucus. Republican Congressman Rich McCormick (paid by AIPAC & HAPAC) attended the summit and said that Hindu Americans "have the power to truly select the next president of the United States."

So this is an organized political network helping cultivate lawmakers who will carry its legislative priorities into Congress.

The following organizations attended the summit:

• US India Relationship Council
• American Hindu Coalition (Founder Shekhar Tewari has remained an active member of the RSS)
• American Hindu Federation
• Americans for Equality PAC
• Ekal Vidyalaya (part of RSS & VHP network)
• Federation of Indian Americans
• Foundation for India and Indian Diaspora Studies
• Hindu Action
• Hindu Action PAC of Florida
• Hindu PACR
• Hindu Swyamsevak Sangha
• Hindu University of America
• Kashmir Hindu Foundation
• Patriot America
• Sewa International (part of RSS & VHP network)
• World Hindu Council of America

By September, Thanedar had launched the Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Jain American Congressional Caucus, with 27 members. Some interesting observations:

1. No Sikh, Jain, or Buddhist organizations attended the summit. Sikh organizations said they had not been consulted. The Sikh Coalition reported that Thanedar's office confirmed that no Sikh organizations, leaders, or gurdwaras had been consulted before the caucus was formed. Its conclusion was blunt: the caucus represented the Sikh community "in name only."

2. Thanedar's caucus did not include 2 religious groups that are the largest minorities in India: Muslims and Christians. These groups have been facing persecution in India by the Hindutva right-wing groups.

3. While the caucus insisted that it was organized to fight "Hinduphobia", its narrative indicated its objective to influence American politics.

These organizations are trying to influence what American politicians do.

🏛️WHEN "HINDU-AMERICAN ADVOCACY" BECOMES FOREIGN POLICY

In September 2022, the Biden administration approved a $450 million package to sustain Pakistan's existing F-16 fleet.

India objected publicly. India's defense minister raised the issue with the United States, while India's foreign minister criticized the decision. The Biden administration defended the package as maintenance for Pakistan's existing aircraft.

Around the same time, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) was lobbying Congress against the package. According to Al Jazeera's investigation, a lobbyist representing HAF approached a congressional staffer and asked the office to support a ban on the F-16 sustainment package, citing persecution of Pakistan's Hindu minority.

This wasn't an Indian government lobbyist. It was an American nonprofit representing Hindu Americans. And the overlap was striking:

India's government opposed the package.

HAF opposed the package.

The policy objective was the same.

HAF disputes any suggestion that it was acting for India and says its advocacy was independently directed by its board and undertaken on behalf of its American charitable mission.

But it doesn't make the underlying question disappear

When a U.S. organization representing a diaspora community lobbies Washington on a foreign-policy issue in a direction that closely tracks the government of that community's ancestral homeland, where does community advocacy end and foreign-policy lobbying begin?

That is a legitimate question and deserves scrutiny regardless of whether the answer ultimately involves a FARA violation.

🗣️ "HINDUPHOBIA" — THE NEW POLITICAL BATTLEGROUND

Then there is the increasingly important word:

Hinduphobia.

Thanedar has made combating Hinduphobia a central part of his political work. HAPAC explicitly praises him for founding the caucus to combat Hinduphobia, preventing "anti-Hindu legislation," strengthening U.S.-India relations, and expanding H-1B opportunities. These are America's domestic and foreign policies that the Hindu Caucus and PACs plan to influence.

And what exactly constitutes Hinduphobia?

That's where the debate becomes politically consequential.

Criticism of Hinduism?

Criticism of India's government?

Criticism of Hindutva?

Discussion of caste discrimination?

Criticism of the treatment of religious minorities in India?

Or actual discrimination against Hindu Americans?

Those are not the same thing.

Yet political organizations increasingly place some of these disputes under the umbrella of "Hinduphobia." That creates a potential political weapon:

If criticism of a government, ideology, or policy can be reframed as hatred of a religious community, legitimate political criticism becomes much easier to stigmatize.

That deserves scrutiny.

🤔THE INDIA CONNECTION IS NOT INCIDENTAL

HAPAC's own endorsement page provides another revealing window into its political priorities.

Its profile of Thanedar praises him for strengthening U.S.-India relations, engaging with Modi on medicine, energy and supply chains, expanding H-1B visas, and streamlining green-card processes.

Those aren't all "Hindu American" issues.

U.S.-India strategic relations are American foreign policy; H-1B policy is American immigration policy; green card policy is American immigration policy.

And debates over immigration and high-skilled visas have real economic consequences for American workers, employers, and communities.

So the question becomes:

How much of this political agenda is about protecting Hindu Americans in the United States—and how much is about advancing a broader political relationship between the United States and India?

🔵AND THEN THERE IS ISRAEL

The network has also developed significant relationships with pro-Israel organizations.

HAF has repeatedly partnered with StandWithUs, including programs explicitly designed to build cooperation between Hindu and Jewish communities. StandWithUs itself says that Hindu Americans are one of its major interfaith outreach targets and lists HAF, HinduPACT and the World Hindu Council of America among its Hindu-American partners. HAF has also publicly described its solidarity with American Jewish communities and cooperation against antisemitism.

Again, cooperation between communities isn't inherently problematic. But it creates another political question worth watching:

Are we seeing the construction of a broader political coalition linking Hindu nationalism, Indian strategic interests, and pro-Israel politics in the United States?

There is enough documented organizational cooperation to justify watching the issue.

What we should not do is assume that every Hindu-American organization, like Hindus for Human Rights, or every Hindu American shares that agenda.

🪸 THE PATTERN

Put the pieces together.

PACs finance candidates.

Political summits bring lawmakers into the network.

Political academies (Rajneeti Academy) train future candidates.

Voter guides mobilize voters.

Advocacy organizations lobby Congress.

Congressional caucuses turn those relationships into institutional access.

And the policy agenda extends beyond narrowly defined religious issues:

India-U.S. relations.

Pakistan policy.

Immigration.

H-1B visas.

Caste legislation.

Religious-identity legislation.

Israel.

Foreign-policy questions involving South Asia.

This is what political power looks like when it becomes institutionalized.

🔎 THE WATCHDOG QUESTION

There is nothing inherently wrong with Hindu Americans organizing, funding candidates, advocating for stronger U.S.-India relations, opposing caste legislation, building relationships with Jewish or pro-Israel organizations.

All of that is protected political activity.

The question is whether voters are paying attention to who is organizing it, who is funding it, which lawmakers are participating, and what policies they are trying to move.

It becomes dangerous when any organized interest becomes powerful enough that its political agenda escapes scrutiny. And the Hindu-American political network is now sophisticated enough that it deserves the same scrutiny routinely applied to AIPAC, labor unions, corporate PACs, evangelical organizations, trial lawyers, environmental groups, and every other organized political constituency in America.

Not because Hindu Americans are uniquely suspect.

Because organized power should never be invisible.

Disclaimer: This is based on facts and is an open-ended post.

I got an interesting campaign text message from Assemblymember Alex Lee, which got me diving into the topic. Lee is running for State Assembly from CA-24 (Fremont, Newark, Sunol, Milpitas, and parts of San Jose).

Here is a part of Lee's campaign message that caught my interest:

California party leaders, it says, recently tried to quietly undo the state's nonpartisan primary system—and that doing so would disenfranchise millions of California voters.

Lee, the campaign says, “pushed back” by supporting a constitutional guarantee that every voter can participate in every taxpayer-funded election, regardless of party affiliation. He is one of 14 California legislators supporting a constitutional amendment that his campaign calls the Right to Vote Amendment.

The issue at the center is to repeal Proposition 14 - a voter-approved measure in 2010 that opened up California's primaries to every voter regardless of party affiliation.

The proposition ensured that I don't have to be a registered Democrat or a Republican to vote in the primaries. All candidates appear on the same primary ballot. The two candidates receiving the most votes advance to November, regardless of party.

That's an important feature of California elections. It's called the Top Two election system.

Both the California Democratic Party & the California Republican Party opposed this proposition (they always have). Now their representatives are asking to repeal it and close the primaries, limiting the right to vote to partisan voters.

Just to be clear, this is only for primaries. Everyone, including non-partisan voters, gets to vote in November. So Lee's campaign rhetoric about "disenfranchising millions of California voters" is quite an exaggeration.

Guess what?

More than 5.2 million of California's voters (23% of the electorate) are registered as "No Party Preference" (45% registered as "Democrats" and 25% registered as "Republicans"). California has seen a relatively high voter turnout since Proposition 14 because voters can now choose based on a campaign agenda instead of party affiliation. The pre-Prop 14 elections were almost as though they were party-owned - political parties decided who votes and who does not. Prop 14 changed that; now the entire state votes in the primaries.

🟢So Alex Lee definitely has a legitimate argument:

Why should I have to declare myself a Democrat to have a say between two Democrats competing for an office that represents me?

If I'm eligible to vote, I'm affected by whoever ultimately becomes the nominee—and eventually the elected official.

That's essentially Lee's position: party affiliation shouldn't determine whether an eligible voter gets to participate in a publicly funded primary.

There's a pretty straightforward democratic argument there.

🔴But there's an equally legitimate counterargument:

Under the current Top Two system, two Democrats or two Republicans advance to November, leaving voters without a candidate from the other major party. It is how we have had Democrats in California for decades. This is why Republican voters in California haven't voted in the November races - they don't have a Republican candidate.

So it sounds like a trade-off, and I am very confused about where I stand on this.

That's when I came across Alaska's Non-Partisan Top Four Primary. Does it make sense to allow 4 vote-getters to advance to the general election? It gives all political parties and independents a fair chance.

🕵️ The EastBayCivicsWatchdog question

Should California's primary elections belong to all voters or should political parties have the right to decide who participates in choosing their nominees?

Californians chose one answer when it adopted Top Two.

Alex Lee - along with 14 other legislators - wants to make that principle much harder to reverse.

I'm genuinely curious where people land on this one.

Is there any agenda more important than surveillance and control of AI in today’s era? Jamie Joyce gives a damn good response and a convincing argument
u/JamieJiyceforCongress

https://news.ballotpedia.org/2026/07/13/what-is-a-strong-mayor-government-oakland-voters-will-decide-charter-amendment-to-change-citys-form-of-government/

Oakland, this is on your November 2026 ballot.

Imagine Oakland in four years.

A mayor controls the administration.

The mayor can veto Council legislation.

The mayor controls appointments.

The mayor controls the executive machinery.

Supporters say Oakland needs clearer lines of authority and accountability. Opponents worry about concentrating too much power in one elected official.

Both arguments deserve scrutiny. But there's another question that I think deserves considerably more attention.

❓What specific problem is this change supposed to solve?

That question becomes particularly important because the proposal is being championed by Mayor Barbara Lee—and she is simultaneously running for another term.

🪸First: What would actually change?

Oakland currently operates under a hybrid governing system in which authority is divided among the mayor, city administrator, and City Council.

The proposed charter amendment would make the mayor the city's chief executive officer, with responsibility for managing city affairs and city departments.

The mayor would get veto power.

The proposal gives the mayor authority to veto ordinances and resolutions passed by the City Council, along with a line-item veto over the budget. The Council could override a veto with a two-thirds vote.

The proposal also gives the Council confirmation authority over several department heads, legislative-hearing and subpoena powers, and the ability to create an independent Budget and Legislative Analyst's Office. Councilmembers would also become full-time officials.

🚨But the Veto is a big deal

Think about what a veto means.

A Councilmember votes yes on an ordinance. A majority of the elected City Council approves it.

The mayor can then say: No.

That's the end of the ordinance unless the Council manages a supermajority vote to override the mayor.

🤔Is Oakland electing a king?

Giving an elected official veto power over legislation approved by the Council means that a mayor elected by a relatively small plurality through ranked-choice voting could potentially block the decisions of a majority of the city's elected representatives.

That is a concentration of political power.

🗳️Barbara Lee

Barbara Lee became mayor in April 2025 after winning a special election following the recall of Sheng Thao. She is now running for reelection in November 2026.

Barbara Lee herself is the driving force behind this charter reform.

The measure was introduced through the Mayor's office and ultimately placed on the November ballot after the Council voted 5–4 to submit it to voters, with Lee casting the tie-breaking vote.

Why does she want this power?

There is an obvious political incentive. If voters approve the measure and then re-elect Barbara Lee, Barbara Lee becomes Oakland's first strong mayor under the new system.

It is remarkable that the person who would immediately benefit from this structural change is also the person asking voters to approve it.

I am not questioning or analyzing Barbara Lee's record as mayor. Whether she has been a good leader or not is irrelevant. There will be another mayor in a couple of years who will enjoy this power if it is passed in November. Who is to say that things won't go south?

🎯The0 EastBayCivicsWatchDog Question:

“Would you still support giving the mayor this power if Barbara Lee were not the mayor—and if you had no idea who would hold the office five years from now?”

The EastBayCivicsWatchdog analysis of the November 2026 Fremont City Council District 2 race between Desrie Campbell and Keith Parker

Disclaimer: This is an opinion analysis, not an endorsement. I am judging candidates on publicly available information, their stated agendas, relevant experience, and—most importantly for incumbents—their record. I am intentionally not giving candidates credit for plans they haven't actually explained. Feel free to do your own homework.

The Watchdog Test Criteria:

1. Realistic agenda: Can the City actually do what the candidate is promising?
2. Solution quality: Does the candidate propose a possible solution, or merely identify a problem?
3. Relevant experience: Have they successfully managed something remotely comparable?
4. Judgment & foresight: Have they identified the consequences of their proposals?
5. Accountability: If they have already held office, what does their record tell us?

THE WATCHDOG SCORECARD

🟢 Desrie Campbell

7/10 — “Show me the receipts.”

Strengths:

Experience • governing record • policy knowledge • demonstrated decision-making

Concerns:

Attribution of accomplishments • measurable outcomes • whether campaign claims match the evidence

Bottom line:

The experienced candidate. She knows how City Hall works. Now voters should ask what changed because she was there.

🟡 Keith Parker

6.5/10 — “Show me the plan.”

Strengths:

Long civic engagement • policy analysis • willingness to reconsider positions • attention to unintended consequences

Concerns:

Limited governing experience • less evidence of implementation • some proposals need much more specificity

Bottom line:

The outsider who has spent considerable time studying City Hall. The question is whether studying government translates into governing it.

Desrie Campbell's Record & Campaign

Campbell's record on homelessness:

In 2025, Campbell was the only council member who voted NO on a homeless ordinance. The Council wanted to pass an unusual ordinance that enforced a $1000 fine or 6-month imprisonment for anyone who is "causing, permitting, aiding, abetting, or concealing a violation of this chapter...". That means food and water advocates can be penalized. After public backlash, the Council backed down. Campbell had said that the city lacks adequate shelter capacity, which should be fixed first before adding penalties.

Watchdog verdict:

Independent judgement against the majority; Foresight; in-depth understanding of policy

Campbell's record on housing:

She does claim that 567 housing units were delivered, but that isn't solely her accomplishment. I couldn't find which proposals she supported and which she didn't, or if there was any direct influence.

Watchdog verdict:

No evidence of personal causation; evidence of governance.

Campbell's record on the Charter City proposal:

Campbell, along with Kimberlin, voted NO on the charter city proposal in February, 2025. The proposal was withdrawn after facing a strong public backlash.

This is the second time in just one year when Campbell's vote resonated with the people.

Watchdog verdict:

Strong foresight; Independent Decision-making; in-depth understanding of policy.

Campbell's claim of $277 million investment and supporting policies for job creation & tech innovation including AI:

I couldn't find any evidence of these claims.

Watchdog Verdict:

Vague campaign claims

Keith Parker's Records & Campaigns

Keith Parker ran for the same seat in 2022 and came 3rd place. His views can be understood through his articles.

Parker on housing & homelessness:

In 2019, Parker opposed a Niles housing development project proposed on a preserved open space across the Historic Nursery. Together with the residents of Niles, Parker compelled the city to change the venue.

In a council hearing, he supported the continued funding and operation of the Housing Navigation Center (HNC). He acknowledged that while it is one of the more expensive methods to address homelessness, it remains a crucial component of the city's multi-pronged strategy. He also supported Councilmember Shao's point about the HNC being a temporary solution and suggested utilizing Measure W funds for a more permanent facility.

Watchdog Verdict:

Unbiased analysis of measures; active civic engagement; in-depth understanding of policy.

🎯The0 EastBayCivicsWatchDog Question:

"What is the one policy you would propose in your first year of council and why do you believe it would improve Fremont?"

I'm not buying the political sales pitch of increasing taxes. So, I decided to do some research and break things down for you. Here is the pdf of the tax measure.

If Measure RTM passes, you are paying 50 cents on every $100 you spend. This applies to five counties, including Alameda County. The measure is expected to raise $98 million annually and $13.7 billion in 14 years.

Given that 64% will go to BART, what is BART trying to achieve? Why 14 years? Will this tax solve BART's continuous deficit problem?

1. Yes, BART is experiencing a genuine financial crisis: In FY26, BART earned only 25%-30% of its operational cost, so one can safely assume that revenue will never solve the financial problems. But even according to BART's FY27 budget, this tax doesn't solve the deficit problem. The tax provides BART $72 million, but it still needs an additional $302 million to meet its budget.
   

How is it planning to arrange the $302 million? Will it continue with layoffs, shutting down stations, and so on? With a large deficit despite an increase in taxes, how will BART keep the promises it claims in the measure? Will it ask for another .50% increase in tax 5 years later?

My concern: This is a band-aid solution. What BART needs is not a tax increase, but a better plan to survive the new world order that COVID-19 has established.

2. Oversight & Transparency: A Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report criticized the management's oversight of $13 billion allocated to bring a 6-mile BART extension to Santa Clara & San Jose - including its lack of a dedicated cash-flow model, reliance on uncertain funding sources, and failure to account for long-term operations and maintenance costs.

So BART wants us to pay them more money when they have a lethargic, incompetent, and probably corrupt team.

My concern: BART needs to reform its governance before it asks for more money from citizens. Why does it want to extend a route when passenger traffic has drastically reduced?

3. Capital vs Operating Funds: Capital money is used to fix a track or a station, to modernize the railway infrastructure, etc; operation money is used for salaries, benefits, electricity, administration, and so on. The measure fundamentally states that the tax increase will support operating costs.

My concern: If BART cites that the operating model needs tax to sustain, it's time to change the operating model. Salaries, benefits, and electricity costs are all going to increase with time. How is a .50% increase tax over 14 years going to solve this problem?

4. 14 years is a ridiculously long timeframe: BART is assuming that local transportation needs will be the same till 2040. Look at how things have changed in the last 14 years. Remote working, electric cars, residential relocation, crime, etc. have permanently changed local transportation needs.

My concern: BART doesn't need a 14-year guaranteed tax but a 14-year survival plan. That needs foresight, which we can't expect from our current board members.

This measure clearly does not solve BART's financial problem. It is a half-baked shortcut that leads to nothing. BART needs to provide something like a 5-year plan that showcases how BART will increase ridership, restructure services, and ensure transparency.

Till then, I vote NO to Measure RTM.

NOW what?? SL is like corruption central.

In the wake of the data center in Eden Landing, Hayward, I've noticed a lot of misinformation floating around, and one important question: Why do people oppose data centers in their communities?

In one sentence, a data center is a warehouse with thousands of computer servers arranged in racks. These servers need electricity, cooling, and backup power.

Data centers operate 24x7, 365 days. They never shut down.

Whether you tap your credit card, stream a movie, play a video game, or listen to music, a data center works to support that. So data centers aren't a new concept. The first data center was built in 1945.

So why does everyone have a problem with it now?

Answer: AI

Personal use: When you stream a movie on Netflix, a copy of the movie is delivered to your TV/laptop/phone from a Netflix data center closest to you. It involves predefined computing to find the right movie, authenticate your account, offer suggestions, track where you stop, and so on. Just like a librarian would find a book for you in a large library. The operation is predictable: store copies of a movie, retrieve a copy, play it for you. Thousands of users may be doing this simultaneously.

AI: When you use AI, you are often creating something new. "Create a movie with Tom Hanks flying from buildings; give it a happy ending; make it thrilling; MP4 format."
The AI models supported by servers at a data center are now functioning like a production house. The system performs complex and intensive computing operations, and an enormous amount of calculations to create something new. Thousands of users are giving AI different commands simultaneously.

That requires a lot of electrical energy. So backup generators are essential. Servers eventually heat up. So cooling systems are essential.

The backlash starts when this data center is built in a residential or commercial community.

1. Electricity consumption: A large data center can consume the same amount of electricity daily that a small or medium-sized city, around 80,000 houses, would use daily. High demands translate to higher electricity prices. This will affect your electricity bill no matter what the tech giant, the electrical company, or the politician says. Electricity prices in Virgina increased by 267% over the last five years; data centers have been the primary reason. All companies involved in building and running a data center offload the cost of massive energy consumption on the backs of residential consumers.

2. Water consumption: Roughly 75–90% of data centers worldwide rely on water-based cooling. The water used is potable, drinking water. Loudoun County, Virginia – the world’s largest data center hub – supplied around +/-1 billion gallons of water to data centers in 2023, mostly relying on treated potable water because reclaimed water capacity was insufficient. Data centers, like in South Carolina, have also resorted to groundwater.

3. Noise pollution: Backup power generators use diesel. A small generator can reach up to 85 decibels - a level that can harm hearing. "It sounds like someone set up a vacuum, like in your living room. And the vacuum is just... that thing needs to be cleaned ... the filter is clogged up, so it’s a high-pitch whining. And they just left it on and walked out", says a resident in Detroit. Residents in Virginia have reported constant headaches, sleeplessness, and effects on mental health.

4. Air pollution: Data centers are known to release PFAS or "forever chemicals". "Forever chemicals" can take up to 1,000 years to break down in the environment, and large concentrations are found in drinking water and food. The diesel generators used in data centers emit carbon monoxide and nitrious oxide - chemicals that are directly related to respiratory diseases.

5. Land trade-off: In 2024, the average data center site covered about 224 acres of land, about 450 football fields. A data center of that scale - or even smaller - can turn the city vibe into an industrial vibe. A 2026 George Washington University study examined homes in Northern Virginia and found that houses within 0.5 miles of an announced data center sold for approximately 2.8% less than otherwise comparable houses farther away. The question is, who would want to buy a house remotely close to a data center?

The nationwide uproar is not against a data center's technological value but its siting. A data center cannot coexist with homes, schools, and parks without causing irreversible damage.

The question is “What does this particular data center cost our community, what does it contribute, and who pays the difference?”

Hayward is the latest California city considering a step back from data centers.

Councilmembers will consider a move to ban the development of new data centers in Hayward, City Manager Jennifer Ott said in a statement.

In May 2025, the Hayward Planning Commission, without a City Council vote, approved a “hyperscale” data center by STACK Infrastructure — a 310,000-square-foot facility with an electrical capacity equivalent to providing power to approximately 76,000 homes simultaneously. Concerns about oversight for such large projects soon followed.

Listen to it. The part where he says he found out Hernandez was paying people $30 an hour to canvas with her! WHY didn't he release this?

Hey everyone!

This is a sub for all things related to civics and politics in the Bay Area - especially the East Bay, without censorship.

What to Post
Social, civic, and political discourse.

Please note that this is my original post, which I had earlier posted on another East Bay sub.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me first set some context.

Rakhi Israni and her connections to MAGA and right-wing Hindu supremacist organizations are probably old news now that she is not in the run-off. However, her candidacy was an eye-opener, which demanded my unofficial scrutiny of all local politicians of Indian origin in the East Bay area.

That led me to Mayor Raj Salwan, the mayor of Fremont. It also led me to Melissa Hernandez, the CA-14 candidate for the congressional special election in Aug 2026 and the general election in Nov 2026.

Firstly, this is not me being racist. This is me being apprehensive of the Modi cult - the Indian MAGA - seeping deeper into the Bay Area politics, especially the East Bay. Some of the characteristics of the Modi cult are as follows:

• anti-Christian
• anti-Muslim
• anti-Sikh
• anti-abortion
• pro-Israel/AIPAC
• pro-ICE
• pro-oligarch and billionaire
• love for dictatorship

Mayor Raj Salwan is one such right-leaning politician. Salwan is a wealthy landlord and a vet who, as mayor, recently proposed extending term limits and salaries of city officials through a charter city proposal. In 2019, when Raj Salwan was a vice mayor, he attended a BJP-oriented event, Namo Sangam. The article in Indicanews quotes:

https://indicanews.com/bjp-supporters-pitch-for-modi-in-california/

"Dr Raj Salwan, vice mayor of Fremont and another Modi supporter, said that he is very happy that at long last India has got Modi as a prime minister. Salwan said Modi had conviction, courage, and the will to execute things well."

Narendra Modi has been globally condemned for unofficially sanctioning brutal communal violence against Muslim, Christian, and Sikh minorities in India long before he became the Prime Minister. Ever since Modi assumed office - 12 years ago - religious hate and violence have reached dangerous levels, and India's economy has been handed over to 2 billionaire families.

For the then Vice Mayor Raj Salwan to uphold a leader like Modi in heroic rhetoric gives us a hint into his political ideology.

Raj Salwan is also endorsed by the Hindu American PAC - a PAC that aims to influence U.S. policy in the interests of Hindu Americans. Guess who else is endorsed by this PAC?

Melissa Hernandez.

By now, the entire country knows that Melissa Hernandez is heavily funded by AIPAC for her congressional race. She is also endorsed by Rakhi Israni, a Laura-Loomer-Modi-MAGA disguised as a Democrat. Now, Melissa is endorsed by the Hindu American PAC. So we have a pro-Israel, pro-Modi, MAGA in CA-14 congressional race.

What does this mean for Fremont and for the East Bay?

An increase in policy control by the Modi-RSS-inspired right-wing Indian Americans will take us down the cliffs we have just begun to climb - MAGA, AIPAC, alt-right, Super PACs, xenophobia, America-First, and endless wars. Add corruption to this combination, like the charter city proposal, and Fremont won't be as we know it today.

This man is an elected official, dude. His social media account might develop an anxiety disorder by Aug 18th and have a nervous breakdown if Wahab wins.

1. He reshared a right-wing crackpot's post that rants without facts, calls Rep Pramila Jaypal a 'radical social extremist', and highlights the Quran (that is really lame).
2. He connected this post to SB 1193 without clarifying what the association is.
3. Gave a condescending response to the Human Relations Commissioner (Union City)
4. Appealed to the Commissioner's religion to get him to vote for Melissa.

Is he planning to continue this till the general election???

Despite the Great American Awakening, which includes Americans denouncing the war with Iran and Trump voters moving away from him, Hindutva continues to support Israel. Quite vehemently.

And we can witness this in the political landscape of the East Bay.

Let me establish the basic connection for readers to understand this post. Literally every politician endorsed by American 4 Hindus PAC is a Zionist.

Hindutva is not based on Hinduism but on Hinduphobia (a deluded idea endorsed in India, a country with 80% Hindus), anti-Muslim, anti-Christian, and anti-Sikh hate, with anti-Muslim hate being their favorite. The BJP championed the hate strategy to be voted to power for 12 years now.

In the US, Hindutva found another brother with the same hate - Zionism. (the image says all but do continue reading below) https://jweekly.com/2026/08/03/inside-the-bay-areas-growing-jewish-hindu-alliance/

The Palestinian genocide in Gaza led to the Great American Awakening (that is what I like to call America's rise against Zionism and its influence on American politics). The awakening is so energetic that AIPAC-affiliated funding and condemning the genocide has become a litmus test during elections across America. And it is working because a bunch of AIPAC-funded, pro-Israel, well-known candidates have lost their seats to fairly new politicians.

Since Hindutva is governing India, India has been supporting Israel militarily and diplomatically. This is drastically different from India's decades-old stance that it stands by the Palestinian cause because it can relate to the injustices of colonization and apartheid.

Hate unites Hindutva and Zionism.

What is interesting to note is that the right wing's political campaigns in India have focused solely on Hindutva and communal hate, not policies or deliverables. The result is the drastic deterioration of India's economy and society.

Zionist politicians are doing that to America. Americans have been questioning the billions of dollars our administration is spending on wars that serve Israel's interests while Americans struggle with healthcare, infrastructure, and inflation.

Hindutva and Zionism are ideologies that are deeply rooted in hate, self-glory, and violence. Neither group cares about the welfare of the people. Right-wing Hindutva voters in the US will either vote for Hindutva-aligned politicians or pro-Israel politicians, irrespective of policies and competence.