Hot on the heels of the record $350,000 fine levied against Sen. Migden, the Fair Political Practices Commission is now suing her for $9 million "for her consistent and deliberate failure to follow California's campaign laws."
The commission's filings indicated that Migden's actions hid the true nature of her campaign accounts from state regulators, potential opponents, the media and the public generally. She failed to report a number of large transactions entirely, while reporting other large transactions which simply never occurred.
"For years, Senator Migden has been deceiving the voters of California by filing inaccurate campaign statements, fabricating the elimination of committees and concealing campaign funds," said FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson. "The sophisticated and pervasive pattern of deception by her various controlled committees has been ongoing for more than five years."
Earlier this month, Migden was fined $350,000 by the commission and admitted to 89 violations of the Political Reform Act. During the months-long investigation that resulted in that record fine, the enforcement division also uncovered multiple illegal transfers of approximately $1 million of surplus campaign funds that occurred over several years and were funneled through multiple committee accounts controlled by the senator. Additionally, the investigation found the filing of untrue campaign statements and a pattern of concealment through consistent misreporting of campaign information.
The commission maintains that nearly $1 million in Migden's 2000 Assembly re-election committee became surplus by operation of law when she left the lower house in December of 2002 and are not legally available for her to use in her current Senate re-election campaign. The surplus funds law has been on the books for nearly 30 years; however, Migden sued the FPPC arguing she should be allowed to use $647,000 of those funds that remain.
This is a countersuit to the Migden lawsuit noted in the last paragraph. Obviously this isn't good news for her, coming on the heels of that already-substantial fine. And this is going to make what was an uphill campaign that much more difficult for her to win.
One of my favorite tidbits to tell people about our fair governor is that he doesn't really reside in Sacramento. He most certainly does not live in a governor's mansion. Instead he resides in the Hyatt Presidential Suite. He takes a motorcade to work...across the street (how very green of him). But who pays for that full time hotel bill? The answer is that we don't know. The governor set up a legal structure where he does not have to disclose who is paying his hotel tab and refuses to voluntarily name them. SacBee
The governor's backers formed the Governor's Residence Foundation of California as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in 2004 after the FPPC determined Schwarzenegger could not use campaign funds to pay for his room at the Hyatt after his first year in office.
The Governor's Office considers the foundation payments as gifts to the state and believes it is in compliance with FPPC regulations, said Schwarzenegger spokesman Aaron McLear. The Governor's Office is relying on a 1984 FPPC advice letter that says a governor does not have to report the contribution on his personal gift form.
The governor is arguing that the wealthy donors who are paying for his swanky hotel room are giving a gift to the state, therefore the taxpayers do not have the right to know who is ponying up the big bucks. That is a bunch of crap. If someone wants to pay for our governor to stay in a fancy hotel we should know who it is and how much they are giving. What does he have to hide?
Senator Jeff Denham(R-SD12), who is facing a possible recall in his moderate district, is raising money. Lots of it. In fact, he found a loophole a mile wide. A loophole so wide as to make a recall attempt possibly a good thing.
According to Sen. Dehnham, there are no contribution limits to an anti-recall account. I've not verified this, but, I have no reason to doubt it. At any rate, I'm sure we can ask some of Gray Davis' old campaign staff. So, in today's Capitol Morning Report, we get this announcement for a fundraiser for Monday:
Jan. 28, Friends of Jeff Denham, Against the Recall (12th SD), reception, Sponsor $25,000, Patron $10,000, Individual $5000, "CA state law does not limit contributions to recall accounts." 5:30 p.m., Mikuni, 1530 J St. Contact: 916 498 9223.
Feel free to give Sen. Denham's campaign staff a call, if you so desire, but I can't imagine there's a whole lot of interesting conversation to be had there. But, if you offer him money, say $25K, you might get a very receptive audience. While I don't doubt that this is legal, it should be. Both pro-recall, and anti-recall, campaigns should be limited to contribution limits. One person, yes, I'm looking at you Mr. "Step Away From the Vehicle", should not be able to recall an elected official by himself. Similarly, one person should not be able to finance the defense of said elected official. The same thing could be said of ballot props, regarding the fact that these were supposed to be populist tools, rather than tools of the wealthy. I suppose I would agree with that statement (and the regulation of funds for props), as well.
I just saw the first ad for Yes on 93 on cable; you can view it here. The No on 93 folks also have a couple ads cut; they're available here.
Unfortunately, it's going to be very hard for both sides to get their message out. Not only are we going to start seeing at least some resources from the Presidential candidates at some point, but the tribal gaming initiatives are due to swamp every other ballot measure and take all of the oxygen out of the room. I'm already sick of their ads.
On Friday, the Pechanga Band of Temecula, one of the big four tribes who stand to gain from passage of Propositions 94 to 97 and 17,000 new slot machines, contributed $30.8 million in support of these propositions. This brings the total to the yes on 94-97 campaign to $68 million dollars, dwarfing not only the amount raised by opponents who seek to overturn the legislature's approval of the slot machine compacts. But all contributions made on the other ballot measures being considered February 5, 2008-including term limits.
This may be only the beginning of money spent, almost exclusively by the tribes on the yes side.
The second largest amount of money on ballot propositions in this cycle is on the "no" side of the Prop 94-97 gambling propositions, and most of it also comes from tribes-those who are not part of the arrangement with the four tribes. At least $11.5 million of the opposition funding comes from "Tribes for Fair Play" out of what appears to be $28 million raised in opposition. There is substantial money- millions each from race tracks and labor that make up the balance. A significant portion of the money raised by opponents was spent on qualifying the four referenda for the ballot.
Russo moved the number down to $54.5 million after further study. But that's still at least five times of what any other proposition has.
So it's unclear who this helps, but to the extent that people are thinking about the ballot initiatives at the polls, it won't be Props. 92 or 93, it seems.
There's been a lot of noise about campaign expenditures, travel expenses, etc being too costly. Well, one way to avoid that: Don't disclose. And that's just what Arnold is doing. It's hard to imagine anything much worse for democracy than what was profiled in the LA Times today:
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office has avoided fully disclosing payments of $1.7 million in nonprofit funds for private jets, hotel suites and support staff for his trips overseas, according to state documents and interviews. Record-keeping for many of the governor's luxury-class jaunts has been by word of mouth. Asked how the staff tracks the costs, subject to public disclosure laws, Schwarzenegger attorney Daniel Maguire said: "Orally."
In late 2004, the multimillionaire governor stopped reporting the travel expenses on state disclosure forms that itemize gifts to elected officials. Instead, Schwarzenegger's top aides recorded some of the costs -- and made only general references to others -- in memos they wrote to themselves and filed away in the governor's legal affairs office. (LAT 12.10.07)
Uh, so let's see here, how many things are wrong in this picture. Well, let's start off with the obvious thing: They keep the costs orally? Are you freaking kidding me here? By word of mouth. Oh, there's some real sunshine. Do I have to personally speak to Susan Kennedy to know what hotels he's staying at and how much they cost? What expensive restaurants is he going to? All of this is hidden away in some black box somewhere deep within the bowels of the "horseshoe" in Sacramento?
What's next? Oh, right, the non-profit, California Protocol Foundation, that funds most of his lavish expenses doesn't disclose its donors, doesn't really itemize its expenses, and as a kicker, is a 501c(3). Yup, that means all the donations to keep Arnold in his swanky Hollywood action hero lifestyle of the rich and famous are TAX-DEDUCTIBLE. So, if you're a Chamber of Commerce regular (which is tied to the CPF) and you want to reduce your taxes, you can choose to give your money to some Opera or something. Or you could get a little return and contribute to the purchase of a big-time politician. Which do you choose?
Oh, and if you want to talk about expensive hotel suites, don't forget about the $65,000/year suite where the Governator resides while in Sacramento. Oh, yup, that's paid for by the CPF as well (PDF). But perhaps Trent Stamp, president of Charity Navigator , says it best when he describes Arnold's use of charity dollars as "beyond the pale."
UPDATE: by Brian, I changed the title of this thread based on Christine's comment.
This email, originally from Christine Pelosi, was forwarded to me yesterday.
From: Christine Pelosi
Dear Everyone,
It's Veterans Day and here we are with the freedom to debate the future of our democracy thanks to the sacrifice of our service members. Thanks to all of them past and present.
On the issue of Prop 93, I have been reading the posts with great interest (and respect). FWIW, here are my thoughts:
We CA Democrats rightly opposed the term limits initiative - it was anti-progressive, pro-privatization - and in part it worked. It entrenched top-level insiders and lobbyists, and made incumbents more reliant on these entrenched interests to learn their way around the Capitol and get things done. We can't change this "imbalance of power" in our state government unless we remove artificial term limits and promote competitive election and ethics reform.
ARTIFICIAL TERM LIMITS break the pipeline of new people coming forth to serve and remove the people from the decision - if I want my legislator to serve 2 or 20 years that should be my choice as a voter.
In a story printed in today's Sacramento Bee, Republican Congressman Darrell Issa is said to be "sending out letters to the same voters who signed the recall position in 2003".
But that's against the law. California Elections Code 18650 states clearly that, "No one shall knowingly or willfully permit the list of signatures on an initiative, referendum, or recall petition to be used for ANY PURPOSE other than qualification of the initiative, referendum or recall". [Emphasis added] Violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
That's pretty clear, isn't it? Wouldn't you expect a Member of Congress to know the law? Well, maybe we can't expect a Republican Member of Congress to obey the law??
Somebody alert Jerry Brown. Darrell Issa is breaking the law, and look what the result could be:
While the violation involving the use of the data is only a misdemeanor, providing the signatures, database, and anything else owned by the Recall Committee is an "in kind contribution"-- an unreported contribution. The Recall committee needs to approve it in order to provide this asset to the "California Counts" committee that is trying to qualify the Electoral College scheme on the ballot. Such a use could be in violation of the trust provisions that govern ballot measure expenditures (felonies). And the unreported contribution and the person controlling the committee could be prosecuted under the criminal misdemeanor provisions of the political reform act. (Where the penalty is loss of office) (emphasis mine)
I don't think that you could remove someone from federal office at the state level, right? But dare to dream. Would that be some sweet justice for the architect of the California recall, or what?
Over the last few days, we've spend a lot of time talking about the great bills that were signed, and those that were vetoed. But because of the Dem-tilt to the Legislature we rarely get real stinkers passing and heading to the Governor's desk. Well, congratulations Legislators, you let a real stinker move. So, without further ado, I give you the freshly minted California law formerly known as AB 1430 (Leg. Analysts's Summary): (Bill info here)
Existing law provides that, for the purposes of contribution limits imposed by the Political Reform Act of 1974, payments for communications to an organization's members, employees, shareholders, or their family members, to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure are not contributions or expenditures if not made for general public advertisements, such as broadcasting, billboards, or newspaper ads. However, existing law requires that payments by a political party for communications to registered party members that would otherwise qualify as contributions or expenditures be reported in accordance with provisions governing the filing of periodic campaign reports, and governing the filing of reports online or electronically with the Secretary of State.
Existing law provides that the Political Reform Act does not nullify contribution limitations or prohibitions of any local jurisdiction that apply to elections for local elective office, except the limitations and prohibitions may not conflict with these provisions regulating payments for communications.
This bill would provide that certain restrictions and limitations by a local jurisdiction on payments for a member communication, as defined, would conflict with these provisions and would be prohibited..
So, basically, this would effectively neuter local campaign finance law. It's a little blurry about that, but once you think about it for a while, you realize that's what it does. It allows you to fundraise for some organization and then funnel money around in such a way as to create a loophole on local legislation that would blow away any rules.
I would like to be able to say that at least some Dems put up a fight on this, but ultimately, few did. It passed the Assembly unanimously, and only 9 senators (Alquist, Florez, Kuehl, Lowenthal, Migden, Scott, Simitian, Steinberg, and Yee) voted against it. In defense of the Assembly folks, this bill was passed under the nose of the Common Cause, etc type of groups with no objection raised. As for the Senators? No such excuse can be made, Clean Money Campaign blasted the bill before the Senate vote, yet 16 Dem Senators voted for it. And then, of course, Arnold signed it. Hooray for democracy!
SACRAMENTO -- As leader of the California Assembly, Speaker Fabian Nuñez has traveled the world in luxury, paying with campaign funds for visits to some of the finest hotels and restaurants and for purchases at high-end retailers such as Louis Vuitton in Paris.
It is not clear how these activities have related to legislative business, as state law requires, because the Los Angeles Democrat refuses to provide details on tens of thousands of dollars in such expenditures.
The spending, listed in mandatory filings with the state, includes $47,412 on United, Lufthansa and Air France airlines this year; $8,745 at the exclusive Hotel Arts in Barcelona, Spain; $5,149 for a "meeting" at Cave L'Avant Garde, a wine seller in the Bordeaux region of France; a total of $2,562 for two "office expenses" at Vuitton, two years apart; and $1,795 for a "meeting" at Le Grand Colbert, a venerable Parisian restaurant.
Nuñez also spent $2,934 at Colosseum Travel in Rome, and paid $505 to the European airline Spanair.
Other expenses are closer to home: a $1,715 meeting at Asia de Cuba restaurant in West Hollywood; a $317 purchase at upscale Pavilion Salon Shoes in Sacramento; a $2,428 meeting at 58 Degrees and Holding, a Sacramento wine bar and bistro; and $800 spent at Dollar Rent a Car in Kihei, Hawaii.
The Speaker characterized these expenses as "not only justified but necessary for the decisions I need to make on a daily basis." And the evidence for that was... well, his say-so, having refused to supply the Times with any specifics. Fine by me, right, Isn't the word of a politician good enough? It does give pause, however, that Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata's expenses include no overseas travel for the last three years. But hey, they're in entirely different chambers of the same legislature, right?
Look, I've been to Asia de Cuba and managed to keep the check down to $250 or so, but I don't know how many were in Nuñez' party. Plus I was paying for it myself instead of out of my campaign kitty, so I guess I had more of a frugality incentive.
There's a big debate raging in the Senate as to whether Senate candidates should have to file online. You can read more about that at places like BigOrange. What doesn't appear in those posts is that we are having the same battle in Sacramento.
Secretary of State Debra Bowen and the state Fair Political Practices Commission are reviewing the state's online public access system for political finance information and considering whether campaigns that file reports electronically can be exempted from submitting disclosure statements on paper. On Wednesday, attorneys for both Republican and Democratic campaigns argued that they are burdened with excessive staff costs in submitting paper copies of political spending reports under California's disclosure laws. (SacBee 9/27/07)
As a filer myself, I know it can be a real pain to fill out all of those forms by hand, and e-filing, if done properly, could expedite the process. There are drawbacks, however. Flip.
The Clean Money Campaign has a great fax-your-legislator tool. Right now, the good folks over there are trying to stop AB 1430, a bill that would end local campaign finance restrictions at the municipal and county level in favor of the state restrictions. This would eliminate several publicly financed campaign laws, including ones in both SF and LA. This is a really bad idea.
Unfortunately, AB 1430 (Garrick, R-Carlsbad), passed the Assembly last month. It will soon be taken up by the Senate, so the Senators need to hear how much we oppose this measure. Sorry to nag twice in one day...but hey, that's kinda the point of blogs, right? To tell the quiet story, and all that? Well, this bill needs to be stopped before it gets to Arnold's desk. So, here I am nagging you to write the letter. Please?
Lots of posts in the California blogs in the last 24 hours, almost all of them on Bush commuting Scooter Libby's sentence (it's good to be the king -- or his friend). Actual California stuff I found below the fold. As always, if I missed something, post it in comments.
Incidentally, I noticed that for some reason the links sometimes appear as plain text in the RSS feed. They do seem to show up as hyperlinks in the emailed roundup. I'll see what I can do about that. Until then, just click through for hyperlinking.
At the state level, Republican infighting. John Benoit (R-Riverside) introduced a bill to prevent candidates from simultaneously running for and raising money for both state and local office. The culprit? Russ Bogh (R-Beaumont) who's running for state Senate and Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Tricky tricky...
And locally here in Sunny San Diego, Mayor Sanders has announced that he will sign the city's $2.88 billion budget. But oh by the way, he's nixing funding for homeless shelters that has been at the center of budget back-and-forth all year. The funding will be taken up again in September, and Democratic council president Scott Peters and my own councilwoman Toni Atkins are optimistic. I'm not. So city council, you get what you want, if by "you" one means "Mayor Sanders."
Tonight I'm going to The Casbah to see Deep Rooted, Strange Fruit Project, and Lifesavas. Unfortunately, you probably can't come with me. To ease your pain, delight: Strange Fruit Project - Pinball
"Sometimes we win big, sometimes we win small"
UPDATE by Brian: I wanted to toss a few things in this open thread:
There will be a town hall meeting with Board of Equalization Chair Betty Yee and Senate Pres. Pro Tem Don Perata in Oakland Tomorrow. Its in the events section, but there are lots of events tomorrow. If you're in the East Bay, check it out.
On Friday, the League of Young Voters is having a benefit art auction in San Francisco. Event Listing here
[Orange] County Supervisor Janet Nguyen is 50 days late so far in complying with a county oridinace [sic] on campaign donations. Some time after the Feb. 6 election, she accepted three contributions in excess of the county's $1,500 limit and put them into a legal trust fund set up by her lawyer. Turns out county code prohibits such trust funds, so the money was moved out of there and the excess donations, they say, were returned.
Arnie, the man who said he didn't need any money from special interests because he already has as much money as he could ever want, is still raising money from special interests, to fund his travel, a ridiculously lavish inaugural ball, etc. Campaign's over, he's going to be termed out, but the fundraising machine has a life of its own.
Yet another reason we need clean money. When is the general public going to notice that its right to self-government has been subjected to competitive bidding?
Today, the scoreboard reported that $3,144,950 was raised for California state races -- just yesterday. This brings the year-to-date total to $303,771,114.
Today's California Blog Roundup is on the flip. Teasers: Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA-04, CA-11, CA-41, Jerry Lewis, John Doolittle, Republican corruption, clean money, voting, lots of other stuff.
Today's California Blog Roundup is on the flip. I'm having a hard time keeping up: more people are writing as the election approaches. Teasers: Angelides, Westly, Schwarzenegger, Bowen, Paid-For Pombo, Francine Busby, Winograd v. Harman, Props 81 and 82, Jerry Lewis / CA-41, discussion of various reforms,immigration, and recent legislative actions.
H/T to Mike Lawson at