Skip to main content

Long Beach city government - Google News

Open Government - Google News

Politician Sets up Bogus Committee for State Treasurer to Have Slush Fund

Money for Nothing (film)
Money for Nothing (film) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Imagine getting a solicitation to contribute to a campaign for State Treasurer and then finding out the politician had no intentions of running for State Treasurer but wanted some way to get funds that he could use on another campaign which would result in going around campaign limits!

Well it seems this is all too common. While we have specific limitations on how much an individual can contribute to a campaign there is this gimmick going around in some political circles where politicians set up a number of campaign accounts and solicit contributions for all "campaigns" and then "donate" the funds from the campaign they are not pursuing to the real campaign they are. This allows donors to essentially give twice -- once to the phony campaign and once to the real. Consequently, this has created large political slush funds. But because these campaign reports are filed separately it is difficult for the public to track the double contributions.

This practice was highlighted in the Sacramento Bee as it detailed how Assemblyman Dan Logue set up a committee for State Treasurer and then admitted to the press, that he wasn't really running for State Treasurer but in fact raising money for other campaigns. (Most politicians never publicly admit that they didn't have a chance in hell of running for a statewide office because after all it might stop the contributions.)

We need to stop this practice because it creates political slush funds and makes a mockery out of campaign contribution limits. Most importantly it fails to provide the public with transparency about campaign finance.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2013/02/dan-logue-eyes-2014-treasurer-run-leno-goes-for-lt-gov-in-2018.html
Enhanced by Zemanta

Popular posts from this blog

Four Taxpayers Step Up To Oppose The Taking of Utility Revenues

Four Long Beach taxpayers stepped up this month to write arguments in opposition to Measure M which will appear on the June ballot. (Click here to read more about Measure M)

The Measure asks voters to approve a 12% transfer of gross revenues of the City's natural gas, water and sewer utilities.

Tom Stout, Joe Weinstein, Diana Lejins and Gerrie Schipske submitted a 300 word argument in opposition to Measure M that outlines why the tax measure should be defeated:



Dear Voter,


VOTE NO. STOP THIS BLATANT MONEY GRAB. The Mayor and Council are spending more than one-half million dollars of your taxes to put this measure on the ballot. Special interests will spend hundreds of thousands in support. Why? The Mayor and Council were caught taking millions of dollars in illegal fees from the Water Department’s sewer and water pipeline budget. They raised your sewer and water bills to pay for the illegal fees. A brave taxpayer stopped them. She filed a lawsuit which forced the City to return …

Sign the Petition -- Repeal Officeholder Accounts in Long Beach

Sign the Petition to Stop Political Slush Funds in Long Beach
The Long Beach Mayor and City Council have totally changed the purpose of "officeholder accounts" by voting to triple the amounts they can raise and by voting to allow the transfer of the officeholder accounts to political campaigns. The voters of the City of Long Beach enacted campaign finance reform back in 1994 to try and stem the flow of special interest money into local elections and to "allow candidates and officeholders to spend a lesser proportion of their time on fund raising and a greater proportion of their time dealing with issues of importance to their constituents." A measure should be placed on the ballot that allows voters to repeal officeholder accounts so elected officials can get back to spending time representing their constituents, instead of doing year-round fundraising.

Things They Need to Tell Us Before They Lease Community Hospital

By: Gerrie Schipske, Author of “Historical Hospitals of Long Beach”
Before everyone gets too excited over the announced possibilities of a new operator of Community Hospital, taxpayers need to be aware that the City of Long Beach owns the deed to the property on which Long Beach Community Hospital sits. 
The actual deed has a restrictive covenant that only allows the property to be used for a “public hospital.” This is because the taxpayers paid for the land and then raised millions of dollars through bonds to pay for the construction and expansion on several occasions. Also, the City even gave money directly to keep the hospital operating. The City holds title to the property.
Historically, the hospital has been operated by the Long Beach Community Hospital Association and then Healthwest, UniHealth, Catholic HealthCare, the Community Hospital Foundation and most recently Memorial Medical.
Memorial is ending its lease because it cannot (or will not) retrofit the hospital to meet state e…