Posts
By the time this is published, the deadline to veto the
recently passed office holder account ordinance will have passed and it will
have become law.
The ordinance allows council members, the Mayor, City
Prosecutor, City Attorney and City Auditor, to raise funds for their
"office holder accounts" and then to contribute those funds to other
political campaigns.
Mayor Robert Garcia should have vetoed this very bad law,
but he didn't.
Here's why.
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."
The Long Beach Campaign Reform Act was the brain-child of
the Long Beach Area Citizens Involved (LBACI that also moved the City to form
council districts instead of electing council members at large. The Act has
several parts including: limiting fund raising to the one year before the
election; limiting the amount that a
candidate can accept from each donor; and providing a system of matching funds
to those candidates who pledge campaign spending limits.
The ban on constant fundraising was removed when the City
Council allowed "office holder accounts" to be established. The funds
from these accounts are used by Council members, Mayor, City Attorney, City Prosecutor
and City Auditor to spend on "non-campaign" matters such as
constituent events.
In 2016, the City Council tripled the amount elected
officials can raise each year for their office holder account. That means the
Mayor, Attorney, Prosecutor and Auditor can raise $75,000 each of the four
years they are in office for a whopping
$300,000. Elected officials have two means of raising money from voters and
special interests: they can solicit campaign contributions in only the one year
fundraising cycle before an election and on a year round basis to fill their
"office holder account."
City Council members can now raise $30,000 each of the four
years in office for a total of $120,000.
A large problem with this new fundraising system, is that elected officials are now fundraising all the time and taking money from donors who are doing business with the City or want to do business with the City.
A large problem with this new fundraising system, is that elected officials are now fundraising all the time and taking money from donors who are doing business with the City or want to do business with the City.
Another problem with massive office-holder accounts is that
they can become "slush funds" with no accountability. Most recently,
Council passed an ordinance that allows the transfer funds to other political
campaigns. So now, without the permission of the person who contributes to help
with a Council office expenses, that Council member can turn around and give
the money to help another candidate.
The situation is even worse than it may appear for the
average voter who wants their elected officials to listen to them. In 2010, the
U.S. Supreme Court held in Citizens United vs. FEC, that independent
expenditures during an election cannot be limited. This means, that while
corporations and labor unions cannot contribute directly to a candidate or
campaign, they can contribute an unlimited amount to an independent expenditure
committee or PAC (political action committee) to support or to defeat a
candidate or ballot measure. Many corporations and unions set up "Good
Government" Committees which contribute funds to the "office holder
accounts."
The average voter in Long Beach is not wealthy and does not
make large political contributions. Moreover, because the City "reform
act" limits the amounts a donor can give to a political candidate (i.e.
$400.00 for a council candidate), the impact of that contribution pales in
comparison to the unlimited spending that is done on behalf of
candidates/incumbents favored by special interests. This gives special
interests inordinate clout and power.
The power extends to special interests "helping"
elected officials get ballot measures passed such as just happened when over
$650,000 was spent on "independent expenditures" for Measure A which
increased Long Beach sales tax to the highest in the area.
The average voters cannot complete with this type of clout
and they are feeling their voice is drowned out in the noise of "year
round" campaign cronyism.
2018 is just around the corner and most incumbents on the
City Council and or those in City-wide office such as the Mayor, Prosecutor,
Attorney and Auditor will unlikely face opposition. By allowing these incumbents to transfer
money that should only be used for non-campaign purposes, to other campaigns, is wrong and it is destructive to the campaign
finance reform Long Beach has had on the books since 1994.
This new source of political "slush funds" was
just too tempting; so no veto. Now it is up to the voters to put a repeal of
"office holder accounts" on the ballot. We need to stop year round
fundraising so elected officials can do their jobs.
Gerrie Schipske
served on the Long Beach City Council 2006-2014. She writes frequently on the
issues impacting the City of Long Beach and can be followed on
www.openuplongbeach.gov. Her e-book: Maybe We Should Break Up: The Case for
East Long Beach is available on line at: http://www.blurb.ca/ebooks/622705-maybe-we-should-break-up-the-case-for-east-long-beach
