The Star has an update on the apparent campaign finance violations that Barbra Williamson has been receiving criticism for.
Click here or click on continue reading to see the full story.
What line stands out the most to you? Here are a few that caught my attention:
"When a local politician comes up and says 'Donate to my campaign,' I'm going to do it," Gerson said. "We make donations to have people leave us alone."
And...
City Attorney David Hirsch has said if contributions are made by separate corporations controlled by the same contributor, it could be a violation.
It could be a violation? The campaign finance rules need to clear enough that there isn't much debate over what is and is not a violation. The article also doesn't say if Simi Valley Council Member Williamson has already returned any of the donations or is planning to return them.
Most campaign violations start by sounding very serious and end up with a minor fine long after the election. The groups that oversee them are reactive and wait for a complaint or for a newspaper story, instead of looking into the statements from each campaign.
This should be an opportunity and a catalyst for reform locally. If I was advising Barbra Williamson ( and being that she reads this blog, I guess I am ) I would suggest she leads the way on providing transparency and stronger oversight to campaigning.
Here are some of my top local political reforms:
1. Stop appointing people to open seats that then run as incumbents. Many of the people might be the best candidate around, but elections, not incumbents should make that choice.
2. On campaign finance forms I want to see the donors list the name of the business they work for or own AND the type of work they do .I don't recognize all of the names but I want to know what they want from our government and this will help.
3. A database that is web based. I want to click on a name and see how much they donated to all local candidates.
This is just a quick list. I would really admire Barbra Williamson if she used this opportunity to improve our campaigns and elections. What reforms would you like to see put into place?
We might not all agree about the seriousness of this issue, but we should all agree transparency will improve local voters confidence in the system.
Political donor says he didn't know law
City to review Gerson contributions to Williamson campaign
By Anna Bakalis
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The owner of Simi Valley's The Vineyards said he was unaware that local finance laws limited him to a maximum donation of $1,000 to the committee to re-elect Barbra Williamson for City Council.
Glen Gerson donated $3,000 under the names of three separate corporations, including The Vineyards, in this year's council race. He said he gave money to Williamson after she asked him for support in her bid for a fifth term.
"When a local politician comes up and says 'Donate to my campaign,' I'm going to do it," Gerson said. "We make donations to have people leave us alone."
He said he would have given donations to any candidate who asked for it.
City Manager Mike Sedell said he will ask the city attorney to look into the donations as possible violations of campaign finance rules. The rules allow a company's owner to make separate donations under the names of each company he owns, but the donation cannot total more than $1,000.
City Attorney David Hirsch has said if contributions are made by separate corporations controlled by the same contributor, it could be a violation.
Depending on the extent of the inquiry, an outside investigation could take place, "based on facts and circumstances," Sedell said.
In addition to the $3,000 Gerson donated through three separate checks from his companies -- The Vineyards, the Malibu Conference Center and the Morris Gerson Family Co. Inc. -- he asked employees at The Vineyards to give to Williamson's campaign. Two employees each gave $1,000, recorded on the same day in July.
Williamson called again, Gerson said, asking him to raise an additional $3,000. Three more employees donated $1,000 each in October.
Gerson said he didn't feel pressured to donate to Williamson's campaign.
Williamson acknowledged she asked Gerson for donations more than once but was unaware he exceeded the maximum by donating under different business names.
"There's some things you have control over, some things you don't," she said, referring to the oversight of the donations.
"Some of the campaign finance laws can be confusing and should be reviewed and updated," Williamson said. "I don't think I've done anything wrong."
She said her campaign records show the donor's name and the amount donated, and when looking at that alone, she didn't find anything that looked suspicious.
Gerson's donations were listed under the different businesses' names, not his name. Two of the donations, from The Vineyards and the Malibu Conference Center, were listed with the same address on Stow Street in Simi Valley.
City campaign finance rules say it is the responsibility of the candidate to track all contributions and return contributions in excess of $1,000 within 15 business days of receipt. Once candidates file their campaign disclosure statements, the City Clerk's Office reviews them, as does an advisory commission, for the name, address and amount donated.
The three Gerson donations were given in July to the Committee to Re-elect Barbra Williamson. In Simi Valley, no business or individual can contribute more than $1,000 during the election cycle.
However, people who work at the same business can donate up to $1,000 each as individuals.
Williamson, 64, is the longest-serving member on the City Council and won her fifth term on Nov. 4. Each term runs for four years.
She received about $44,000 in campaign contributions this election cycle, more than any other candidate, including Mayor Paul Miller and longtime incumbent Steve Sojka.
Gerson opened The Vineyards in 2006 and has not had any project before the City Council. He said he didn't give any of his employees money to help contribute to Williamson's campaign.
Soroor Campbell, a co-owner of The Vineyards, said she donated $1,000 and said she has known Williamson for a few years.
"I don't donate for any reason other than I like the candidate," Campbell said.
She clarified why she hadn't recognized some employees named on the campaign finance disclosure documents, in an earlier interview with The Star.
Carlos Camara was listed as the CFO of The Vineyards, but it is his wife, Sky, who actually holds the title. Her husband's name was written on the $1,000 check and was somehow confused during the documentation of the donations.
Also, Alejandro "Jair" Paz donated $1,000 but hasn't worked at The Vineyards for several months, Campbell said.
Jeremy Hall, misspelled on the campaign documents, is the husband of Monica Hall, who donated $1,000 and is the bar manager, Campbell said.
"It was a simple clerical error," Williamson said.
I think we should let the lawyers sort it out, but I would think if each of the contributions were made by individuals and did not exceed $1,000 per person, it should be OK (even if they worked for the same company).
Ah-ha, now it makes sense. WM probably didn't contribute to Barbra's campaign (or Jim Dantona's) and SHAZ-AM her anti-landfill group is formed! I guess they should have contributed so she would -- "leave 'em along".
Billy McG
Ah-ha, now it makes sense. WM probably didn't contribute to Barbra's campaign (or Jim Dantona's) and SHAZ-AM her anti-landfill group is formed! I guess they should have contributed so she would -- "leave 'em along". [smirk]
Billy McG
What is Barbra smoking ??? She has been a elected official long enough to know the rules. Even if they change it is her job to make sure she and her treasurer know and understand the law. Barbra is well aware of the contribution restrictions but she is unwilling to admit it.
Were the donations so the bar Candlelite could have that obnoxious sign or to make complaints of the broken beer bottles on the lawn of the neighbors go away?
Despite Barbra's earlier strong denial on this blog and in the Star it looks like there was indeed something wrong with some of these donations. Now she is trying to plead ignorance of the campaign finance rules when she stated, "Some of the campaign finance laws can be confusing and should be reviewed and updated." But the city campaign finance rules are clear that it is the responsibility of the candidate to know the rules and to track contributions and return any excess contributions within 15 business days. I would certainly expect a five term city council member to have an understanding of the local campaign finance rules.
In the article Gersen himself acknowledges that his contributions exceeded the local finance law limits, but also pleads ignorance by by stating that he was unaware of these limits. Of course that contradicts Barbra's strong denial in her letter to the editor that stated, "The Ventura County Star has erroneously insinuated in its article of November 1, 2008 that certain campaign contributions to City Councilmember Barbra Williamson may have been in violation of campaign financing regulations of the City. This article is without factual support." Ooops!
So Barbra, are you still sticking to your story that there is no factual support of a violation, or are you now acknowledging that there may have been a violation?
Barbra please have the guts to admit you tried to pull a fast one. No one believes your ridiculous excuses. How could this error be clerical? Are you now saying it's Bob Swoish's problem. Give me a break and just admit you tried to pull a fast one and failed. People are tired of your excuses.
The only reason Ms. Williamson is trying to cover this slopy mistake up is that she raised the 40K for the purpose of trying to scare off Steve Sojka from running for Mayor. Barbara knows she can't beat Sojka head to head so she made an attempt to scare him off in the future from running. It's now common knowledge Steve and Barbra will both be running in 2 years for Mayor. Well I've had enough of Barbara going after fellow councilmembers. It's time she paid her fine and step down.
Barbra it's time to step down..........
It appears an obvious attempt was made by the parties involved to conceal their activities.
People usually get convicted with the evidence gathered from the cover-up of a crime rather than the crime itself.
The witnesses testimony; "We make donations to have people leave us alone." is very telling how the city of Simi Valley has been doing business. A owner of a rowdy bar has plenty of reasons to pay off city councill members. The citizens of Simi Valley have suffered as a result this sort of illegal activity. A message needs to be sent loud and clear to Simi Valley city government.
I heard that Tim Prenta is running for Simi Valley Mayor in two years. Any truth to that rumor?
Really? These are payoffs? Donating $1000 to a campaign? When no one serious is running against you? These City Councilmembers don't have to break the rules to get elected - nobody serious ever challenges them. I believe they really are clerical mistakes, when several donations are received from the same entities.
Why a person who is asked for a contribution, gives a contribution can't be up to the candidate to know. Are we seriously going to hold the candidate responsible for the donors frame of mind? As long as they didn't have a pending decision in front of the Council - there is nothing illegal there.
Relax people. Barbra is a trusted citizen and Councilmember of this City - if you want to go after a City Councilmember, there is at least one better target who is questionable on his best day....
Thou protest to much. It doesn't matter if there is a serious contender or not. The candidate after 12 years need to be held responsible for their campaign. Do you have any idea what clerical means ? And if there was no serious contender why do you need 40K to run ? Is it the fact that you're running for Mayor and want to scare off the competition. Barbra hasn't got a chance in a million years unless she uses her liberal buddy Dantona.
Williamson Out,
I wouldn't under estimate Dantona, he knows alot of folks and is well liked by most who know him. You may not like his politics but he's done some heavy weight campaigns and won them. If you remember he did Barbra's first campaign and many more. If anyone could help a Mayoral candidate it's Dantona. HBJ should have listened to Sacramento!
The rules you have to abide by are very complicated and these are not sophisticated Rovian campaigns. Yes, they still need to know the rules and abide by them. When they don't they suffer penalties, but to paint them as corrupt because you missed rule 123454321.123.1.2(a), is just ignorant.
The reason you raise $40k is because you are very well liked and respected in the community. You don't need to raise $40k, you do raise $40k because people want you to be there. Barbra didn't need to raise $1 to win - those dollars come because people respect Barbra...
Barbra crosses party lines for support. So yes she does stand a chance for Mayor with or without Dantona. But her chances seriously improve with her contacts and Dantona's.
If the police show up to a bar too many times or a city council member responds to "complaints" real or otherwise from the neihborhood the bars liquor license is in jeapordy. Bar owners always have something pending with the city they are in.
The contributor said he made the contributions to
"be left alone". I understand Simi Valley city officials have had a nice run with their corrupt behavior but the parties over.
I interpret the comment "to be left alone" to mean that he didn't want to receive any calls to attend fundraisers. Maybe that is your understanding too, but if you are insinuating that the donation was for police to stop enforcing the rules then that is definitely not accurate.
And no donation, not even to our most corrupt City Councilman, would stop that...
Ridiculous,
Who do you think believes that line that people just want to give Barbra Williamson money because she is so well loved. I don't see any Joe the Plummer contributions on your statement?
I do see Stan Rothbart and his wife both giving $1,000.00 (Developer for Walmart) and the Vineyard is well represented but where are all those average voters who love Williamson so much. Please don't feed me that bull. Gerson in the article said Barbra called at least 4 times (In his words, not mine)for money. Why did she have to call so much if she was so well loved?
Oh yeah and by the way the 3rd place finisher was only 10 % points behind Williamson and Sojka crushed her.
In regards to Brian's list of 3...
1 - I agree with this 100%. A special election should be held rather than an appointment.
2 - I agree with this as well. However, I think quite a few of the people donating are doing so because they believe in the candidate.
3 - I will personally put this together at no cost if the city will agree to use it.
Ridiculous,
When the owner of The Vineyards testified "WE MAKE DONATIONS TO HAVE PEOPLE LEAVE US ALONE" it was from an expert witness. Expert testimony from a business owner in Simi Valley about how business owners in Simi Valley are harassed.
How you perceive the donation as "Oh hey I can't make it to your fundraisers so here is a few thousand dollars during a recession" is utterly moronic.
Barbra is a very honest Councilmember and always has been. A reporter makes a claim and every motor mouth in town says Barbra cheats. Well get your facts straight. I've read the Campaign Finance rules and gave the document to two attorneys. Both came back with the position that none of Barbra's contributions are in violation. If you think the rules are easy to understand, you smoke too much pot. You need to know how many shareholders a corporation has, the make up of the Board of Directors, the Officers, the number of shares held by the donating individual defined as the "person" and the degree to which the "person" directed the corporation to make the contribution. With that information, the contribution limit for the "person" is either $2,000, or $1,000 for each corporation and $1,000 for the individual, as example. It's fun to point a finger at Barbra, but stupid to do so unless you know the facts. As I see it, the contributions were all legal.
A real easy solution would be to limit corporate contributions.
Or to not limit campaign funding...
Why shouldn't I be able get someone wealthy to back me? Why can't I back someone with all my money?
I can spend all my money on anything else...but I can't spend as much as I want on who I think should be in charge?
And in the end...don't the people decide in the elections?
All campaign finance reform does is maintain politicians who make more rules to maitain the same politicians...
Paul,
To point out the obvious corporations aren't people. People should be able to donate to get involved, but why should a corporation?
I guess one key distinction is whether the owner of the corporation donated money (as an individual), or if a donation was made on behalf of the corporation from the corporation's treasury. That may seem like a fine line, but I think it makes all the difference in the world in terms of how campaign finance law looks at it.
One good example would be John Lassen's donation of $27,500 to the "Yes on 8" campaign. I believe John was acting as an individual and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as opposed to a representative of his company (Lassen Stores).
Seems like it would be easy to use a personal check if it was personal money.
If the local campaign finance laws are so confusing and difficult to interpret why is it that only one of our local elected officials seems to be having a problem complying with the rules? I might feel better about this is Barbra simply came out and said it was an oversight and that she would return the excess contributions, but instead she angrily denied the accusation and attacked the credibility of the Ventura County Star. Even Gersen seems to be acknowledging that his contributions exceeded the allowed amount. I guess we'll have to let the city attorney investigate the matter.
Brian, although reasonable, not quite correct. In the definition of "person" in the Code, corporations are defined as a "person" as is a "group of people" defined as a "person". The details are important in understanding the Code and the subject contributions. You must look to the "broad" definition as called for in the opening sentence of the applicable Section.
Are we now going to be arguing over what the definition of the word "is" is?
An officer of the corporation is the "person" in a company.
All I'm hearing is excuses from Barbra Williamson, instead of simply saying I made a mistake and I'm sorry, One thing noticable is that Barbra Williamson hasn,t entered in on this discussion. Unless she is stuff it. (Not Very Lady Like) We have good councilmen like Glenn Baccerra who play by the rules and then we have Barbra.
Stuff-it,
I realize the definition of person includes corporations but that is what I am objecting to when I want to restrict corporate contributions.
Members of Congress cannot accept checks directly from corporations, so why should our city council members?
As I said, if you want to clean up campaign finance then limit campaign contributions to US citizens only. No corporations, no unions, no special interest groups....only US citizens.
It would be even better if it's only registered voters and their contributions were limited.
I believe the owner of The Vineyards would looove to tell Barbra Williamson to "STUFF-IT". The problem is he is doing business in Simi Valley and she is for lack of a better word... in control.
Looking at the big picture it's not Barbra Williamson. She is just a paun. It's the Elton's I want. I want the ones that took this "business plan" Nationwide and royally F...ed up this Country.
I don't think Barbra Williamson should step down. She should get immunity for testifying.
I agree with Brian politicians should not take money from corporations and corporations should not form PAC's that promote their special interest, it is no different than lobbying and a way around campaign contribution limits.
To be fair if corporations are not allowed to contribute neither should the unions/laborers.
If an union member wants to support an individual candidate they should do so and have their union dues reduced so that it is the choice of an individual rather than the collective.
As a stockholder of many corporations I am not happy that profits are given to politicians that I may not support. Let the CEO's that receive outrageous bonuses pay for campaign contributions out of their own pockets.
Doesn't it disturb anyone that we are bailing out companies that used some of their profits to pay for political campaigns.
BTW no one in my family currently has any intentions to run for any office.
Why is Brian turning this thread into a campaign finance reform debate rather than Barbra's dealings with the Vineyards? I thought he was big on making people stay on topic.
Unions Vote. Unions are about individual citizens combining their efforts and forming a union to accomplish a common goal. I know it bothers Republicans but it makes the little guy a little bigger.
Then, nobody, you don't mind when Wall Street banks pool their money to elect their politicians? Or when Mormons pool their money to buy a piece of California's constitution?
If only registered voters could contribute to candidates and ballot measures, unions could concentrate on issues rather than elections.
Nobody,
I agree with you, as long as the big corporate money makes donations unions will also have to donate in order to keep some kind of balance. I am not against the little guys quite the contrary.
Big corporations are breaking the unions and outsourcing jobs to foreign soil all so they can apease the insatiable greed of the CEO's and their Board of Directors that only work towards their annual bonuses and bottomline.
Their is no loyalty to steadfast American employees only to Wall Street.
As far as small privately held corporations go in regards to donations I think that is entirely up to the BOD's who are most likely the sole stockholders.
G.S.,
There are sharp contrasts between Wall Street bankers and union workers. $700 billion dollars of the tax-payers money worth.
Oh, c'mon, Donna. We're talking about three separate donations of $1,000 each here. That doesn't rise to the Exxon-Mobil level of influence-peddling.
Brian:
Regarding your three points, I agree with you strongly!
First, appointment by the remaining members of the governing body when a vacancy occurs, for whatever reason may be temporally expeditious and process efficient. But by definition it does not reflect the informed electoral judgment of the governed, but rather it reinforces the personal and political biases and preferences of the remaining governors.
In short, to paraphrase the 18th Century quote arguing against paying tribute to the Barbary Pirates, ".. Thousands for a replacement election, not one red-cent for political anointments by the remaining governors.." Of course, I do not want the ballots in that election counted by Sequoia Voting Systems,a Venezulan company, or other non-American corporations, for that matter.
Regarding your second point, again I fully agree. Complete transparency and full contributor disclosure is absolutely necessary in a 21st-Century democracy. Name, address, amount, and occupation for ALL contributions, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT, should be the reporting standard, no exceptions.
Further, with the ever-increasing ease and speed of information sharing technologies available and the global-reach of the internet, there is no reason why this can't be provided "real-time" by ALL campaigns electronically.
Now, where I do part company with some, is over both the constitutionality and moralistic hubris of restricting the amount of contributions, and the types of contributors, as proscriptive means of deterring corruption.
In my opinion, such palliative prescriptions for pusillanimous political contributions miss the essential truths of human behavior, and violate the spirit of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Read the First Amendment carefully, dear friends. Freedom of speech, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances, means nothing if the petitioners do not have the resources available to effect the purpose of the expression of free speech and to actually get government to redress their grievances.
Whether it’s circulating a petition, organizing a march, rally, or demonstration, and/or running a successful political campaign, they all require human spirit and capital, but they also consume large amounts of time and money. That’s just the way it is.
In my judgment, without a broad construction of the preeminent First Amendment Constitutional protections of political free speech, expression, and yes campaign contributions, our basic democratic freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights would be meaningless in their application, and weak in their execution.
The root of corruption is not the amount, but rather the specific motivation, conscious choice and lack of personal ethics of the corrupting contributor or contributors.
If the means, motive, and opportunity to corrupt the decision-making process are present, regardless of the limits on the amount, or restrictions as to the sources of contributors, human ingenuity will find a way around the regulatory schemes of non-elected bureaucrats, even the most well intentioned ones. Remember, the old adage, “..the road to hell is paved with good intentions..�
Further, given the recent experience of the Obama campaign, which raised nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars, mostly over the internet, does anybody really believe that it is likely that serious future candidates for President will ever again accept public financing, with its legislatively imposed limits? I don’t.
Finally, reports of campaign contributions made to any candidate for elected office should be electronically filed and by so doing, seamlessly transferred into a campaign contribution database that is easily and readily accessible, via the Internet, 24-7.
After all, if Fed-Ex Overnight tracking can send us a real-time e-mail confirming the date, time, and name of the person signing for the receipt of a letter or package, County and City Clerks and Election Officers, could make similar e-mail alert services available to anyone subscribing to the same, via the Internet.
Either all forms of democratic government, Federal, State, Regional, County, City, and/or Special District take E-Government seriously or they do not. And in the final analysis, their actual governance deeds will speak louder than their political promises, regardless of being Democrats, Republicans, or Independents.
NostraDemus
Mongo,
As I said below:
As far as small privately held corporations go in regards to donations I think that is entirely up to the BOD's who are most likely the sole stockholders. They know what is important for them to succeed and where they need to buy influence.
I did not criticize the donations that BW received, it sounds as if there is a gray area that needs to be clarified, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. It sounds as if there could have been some misunderstanding by the donor, but that is the responsibility of the candidate to educate donors about Fair Political Practices. I am sure BW will abide by whatever is right.
ND,
There are already limits in place on city council candidates in Simi Valley. If someone owns a corporation can they donate from the corporation and from their own account? That seems like an unfair loophole. If they can only donate from one, then limiting it to it coming from them and not their corporation doesn't sound like a tough restriction.
I agree politics is expensive and I agree that giving money is a form of speech.
But why should the same rights apply to legal entities as they apply to individuals.
I am not against PACS, unions, or others donating money to candidates they share values with.
Donna,
You said corporations give money to buy influence. Where locally have you seen that happen?
Brian,
To Start:
Waste Management
Colton Lee
Altria; VCRCC; Strickland, California Apartments Association (PAC)
California Apartments Association-$40,ooo suported Tony Strickland and also paid for a mailer sent with Pseudo letterhead from Simi Valley and Camarillo and possibly more that I am unaware of.
Story broke on November 1st...
23 days and counting without taking responsibility for the questionable contributions.
Donna, I sent a complaint to the City of Camarillo about Mike Morgan abusing the city name. That pseudo letter was really over the top.
If you have them scanned Donna and Katie I will post them.
If you have them scanned Donna and Katie I will post them.
How do you know these groups are trying to buy influence instead of just electing people they share common views with on issues important to them?
Maybe cigarette companies give to candidates that support them not being taxed more or limiting their marketing. If they give to a candidate that already believes in those things how would that be trying to buy influence?
Brian,
What's the difference if they are supporting them because they want influence or they have common views etc., they are helping someone to get in to office that shares their common interest to assure that those interests are protected. Whether they influence the candidate directly or "buy" influence by paying to market that candidate to voters-they are essentially buying influence over voters and public policy, directly or indirectly.
When I help a candidate and make donations I make sure that they support issues that are important to me and the people I advocate for (children, people with disabilities and young adults of limited income). We share values and I want to make sure that those values are represented by people I help to become elected.
I believe in protecting the interests of the most vulnerable in our society that can not advocate on their own behalf and have no means to persuade an electorate.
I am not against PAC's protecting their interests, that is their job, to educate those that represent them about the consequences of their legislative decisions on their industry. Hopefully the elected officials and legislators take all sides under consideration and then take it a step further and ask themselves ...who is not able to lobby them and how will this issue affect them-what is the trickle down to all constituents.
It's all about checks and balances.
I happen to know that our entire City Council is very charitable and supportive of the local non-profits, that is commendable and shows a good balance of values. I happen to trust the values and judgement of our entire City Council, I do believe they have the best interests of their consituents in mind.
Brian:
I am aware that there are contribution limits in place in the City of Simi Valley, and other local jurisdictions, but my essential functional argument is that for a number of reasons, both practical and constitutional, they simply don't work. And in support of that argument, I submit the topic of this thread, namely the "Great Gerson Gelt Gaffe," as Exhibit A. I rest my case your Honor!
Further, as to whether or not it’s fair for an individual who happens to own a corporation(s) to be able to contribute more than once, well now we're moving to the Constitutional aspects of this argument.
One of the Landmark Cases of the Supreme Court of the United States was decided in 1886, and entitled, "Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad." (See the URL link above which includes the Court's ruling for details).
The essence of that landmark case is contained in the first sentence of the Court's ruling, which stated, "The defendant Corporations are PERSONS within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Whether or not you and I agree with the current relevancy of the Supreme Court's Santa Clara decision to the Gerson-Williamson campaign contribution imbroglio is moot. It became Constitutional dicta as a result of that 1886 ruling, and has remained constitutionally valid until this very day.
Now, perhaps President-Elect Obama, the fellow you supported during the recent election, may get the opportunity to nominate, and the U.S. Senate confirms, one or more new Supreme Court justices who might supply a new majority to overturn the Santa Clara ruling. Who knows?
But until that time, like it or not, corporations enjoy the status of "personhood" for the purposes of equal protection under the laws, pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Pending such potential future Court ruling, I agree with Justice Antonin Scalia, who chastised his conservative colleagues on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, for their timidity in deciding an important case challenging the ill-conceived, omniscient reach of McCain-Feingold, "..Minimalism is an admirable judicial trait, but not when it comes at the cost of meaningless and disingenuous distinctions."
NostraDemus
I am impressed you brought up the court case dealing with this topic. I agree corporations have some freedoms, like speech to advertise their products, but just because someone incorporates they shouldn't be able to donate twice. Not that I know that to currently be the case.
In this case and the case of Lassen's there would be fewer problems if they wrote checks from their personal accounts.
Section 3: "The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety."
NostraDemus
Two fundamental structural problems with Section 3, which may or may not rise to the standard of Constitutional violations, should the ordinance be challenged in court.
First, who gets to decide what is or is not "above reproach?" The Simi Valley City Council, the very members who are subject to the code? The City Attorney, a non-elected, bureaucrat, who is appointed by the very same Council members who's political and/or legal futures rise or fall based on his ruling? The City Manager, who's salary and benefit packages, not to mention his taxpayer-funded post-retirement health care benefits were voted on by the very same City Council members who are subject to the Code. Get the inherent conflict of interest picture CofE??
Second, in who's eyes has the appearance of impropriety, been broached? One or more of the usual political suspects mentioned above? Common-Cause? the ACLU? the Chamber of Commerce? the Simi Valley Police Department?
In essence, the age-old problem with "Political Correctness" - who's politics? and who gets to decide what is or is not correct?
In my judgment, this Section of the City's Campaign Finance Code was poorly and too vaguely crafted by the City Attorney. It is ripe for a successful Constitutional attack on grounds of poor constitutional structure, ill-defined standards and too stringent restrictions on Freedom of Speech.
Regardless of whether or not the Code is challenged in Court, the voters and taxpayers of the City of Simi Valley should think long and hard on whether they want to continue to subject themselves to the sweeping powers restricting their Constitutional rights of Free Speech, by such ill-conceived campaign contribution restrictions, and other drafting defects found in the City’s Code.
Cest la guerre politique!
NostraDemus
If it is worded poorly or is confusing shouldn't some of the blame go to the council? Including the longest serving member of the council?
I am impressed that a council member is claiming a rule I assume they voted on and had many years to fix is the cause of their problem.
Mill:
Most assuredly so!
After all, the people elect the Council, the Council selects the City Attorney, and the City Attorney should be held accountable by the Council for the efficacy of his or her legal opinions.
If the City Council members fail, either individually or collectively to exercise such independent political judgment when it comes to such matters, well then it's the equivalent of the legal foxes guarding the political chicken coops.
Each member of the Simi Valley City Council, as well as every City Council in Ventura County, should remember the plaque that was on Harry Truman's desk in the White House. You know the one that said, "..The buck stops here.."
In the final analysis, the people of Simi Valley, more specifically the registered voters who choose to vote in City Council elections, are ultimately responsible for the selection of their elected representatives.
If, for whatever reason, they fail to heed Jefferson's sage warning that the "price of freedom is eternal vigilance, well then they surely deserve the City government that their lack of eternal vigilance gets them.
After all, they would be wise to remember and apply the ageless wisdom of Seneca, who said, "..Qui custodiet, ipso custodes?" Which loosely translates into, "..Who watches the watchmen?
Ciao Commendatori
NostraDemus
I find Barbra’s attempt at creative interpretation of the local campaign finance ordinance to be fundamentally dishonest and misleading. She could simply take responsibility for her mistake and return the excess contributions, but instead she chooses to perpetuate a lie by insisting that she did nothing wrong, while accusing the Star of engaging in a smear job against her.
Let's review the details of the local ordinance:
----------------------------------------------
This section makes it clear that the intent of the ordinance is to eliminate even the appearance of corruption by limiting campaign contributions:
2-5.01 Purpose and intent.
The purpose of this chapter is to eliminate the possibility of corruption or the appearance of corruption in local elections by establishing rules for the conduct of political campaigns for City offices by limiting the amount of campaign contributions and to further the City’s goal of an informed electorate by supplementing the campaign disclosure requirements and related regulations set forth in the Political Reform Act of 1974.
(§ 1, Ord. 1001, eff. July 13, 2001)
----------------------------------------------
This section is crystal clear that there is a $1,000 limit on contributions for each person:
2-5.04 Contribution limits.
(a) No person shall make any contribution to a candidate and/or the candidate’s controlled committee, with respect to any single election, which would cause the total amount contributed by such person to the candidate and the candidate’s controlled committee to exceed One Thousand and no/100ths ($1,000.00) Dollars.
(b) No candidate or controlled committee shall solicit or accept any contribution from any person which would cause the total amount contributed by such person, with respect to any single election, to the candidate and the candidate’s controlled committee to exceed the sum of One Thousand and no/100ths ($1,000.00) Dollars.
(c) Any amount in excess of One Thousand and no/100ths ($1,000.00) Dollars received from any single contributor shall be returned to the contributor within fifteen (15) business days of the candidate or controlled committee’s receipt of the excess contribution. The excess contribution and the date of its return shall be reported on forms prepared and supplied by the City Clerk.
(d) Contributions to a candidate and contributions to a candidate’s controlled committee shall be cumulated for purposes of the mandatory contribution limits of this chapter.
(§ 1, Ord. 1001, eff. July 13, 2001)
----------------------------------------------
Barbra cites this section in her defense, but, interestingly, she only quotes a portion of the language contained in this section. Below is the full text:
2-5.08 Miscellaneous regulations relating to contributions.
(d) All contributions made by a person, as broadly defined in the Political Reform Act of 1974, whose contributions or expenditure activities are financed or maintained or controlled by any corporation, labor organization, association, political party or any other person or committee, including any parent, subsidiary, branch, division, department, or local unit of the corporation, labor organization, association, political party or any other person, or by any group, of such persons, shall be considered to be made by a single person or committee, provided however, that nothing herein shall prohibit a person who directs or controls contributions of any entity from making a separate contribution from his or her own personal funds, and such contributions shall not be aggregated for purposes of the contribution limits of this chapter.
----------------------------------------------
Barbra also seems to be arguing semantics by somehow claiming that the term "person" is ambiguous. The local ordinance uses the definition of person as outlined in the Political Reform Act of 1974:
82047. Person
"Person" means an individual, proprietorship, firm, partnership, joint venture, syndicate, business, trust, company, corporation, limited liability company, association, committee, and any other organization or group of persons acting in concert.
----------------------------------------------
In 2000, the standard for determining what constitutes a “combination of persons� that “makes contributions,� commonly referred to as “affiliated entities,� was set forth in two Commission Opinions:
In re Lumsdon (1976) 2 FPPC Ops. 140; and In re Kahn (1976) 2 FPPC Ops. 150.2
According to those opinions, a combination of persons exists if they are “an alliance of persons or entities formed for the purpose of influencing voters for or against the nomination or election of one or more candidates or
the passage or defeat of one or more measures. . .�
For example, in the Lumsdon case a single family controlled four different businesses that made political contributions to a campaign committee. Those combined contributions were deemed by the court to be a violation of the Political Reform Act.
Barbra's creative interpretation of the word "person" is inconsistent with local ordinance, the Political Reform Act of 1974, and with case law. Her continued refusal to accept responsibility is not only arrogant, but will only continue to make her look bad. I guess we can wait for the City Attorney to render an opinion on this, but I'm pretty confident that the outcome will not be in Barbra's favor. She should just return the excess contributions, admit that it was a mistake and move on.
24 days and counting without taking responsibility for the questionable contributions.
Barbara should think about resigning. She knows these aren't the only violations from her campaign.
Barbara should think about resigning. She knows these aren't the only violations from her campaign.
Yes, "Betty" knows the truth. Everyone should resign based on accusations. Thank God the Bettys of the world aren't our elected officials. Same goes for "Accountability Counter". Resignation should be based on "questionable" contributions. Would we have any elected official not resigned by this logic? Oh and Bubba, I didn't hear much out of your mouth about "shall not be aggregated".
Hey Bubba, how do you evaluate the legality of the multiple contributions Mr. Sojka received from the Saperstein's under your cited definition of "persons". It appears to me that we now have two Councilmembers needing to look at returning money.
If she resigns won't someone new get appointed? How do we aviod appointment of the next person?
For the record I think the Simi Valley City Council needs a major overhaul. They are much to lovy dovy with each other. Steve Sojka is every bit as bad as Barbra Williamson and for the record Paul Miller is so bad it isn't funny. He is in WM hip pocket just like the rest of the city council. At least Williamson opposes the landfill expansion. Then on the issue of Gary Gorian and the Horse Ranch, Williamson is in Gary's hip pocket. No one on that council has any leadership ability. It's time for some major changes. Barbra step down.
In response to "Hang tough Barb',
The "shall not be aggregated" portion of the ordinance language that you cite is pretty selective reasoning. You need to read the section in it's entirety rather that choosing certain words while ignoring others. That is why it was silly for Barbra to cite only a portion of the language, and her reasons for doing so are obvious.
If you read the rest of 2-5.0 (d) it states clearly that the term "person" is defined as applied in the Political Reform Act of 1974. Based on that Act, affiliated entities are treated as a single person, which is designed to prevent an individual from circumventing contribution limits by funneling funds through separate business entities under their control. In this case, there was a clear violation of the Political Reform Act as it applies to this ordinance.
Also, if you read the first portion of 2-5.0 (d)that Barbra conveniently omitted, it contains language that clearly states that multiple organizations that are controlled by an individual are considered to be a single person with regard to campaign contributions. There is nothing ambiguous in the language. The "shall not be aggregated" portion only applies to separate personal contributions, not to contributions made from multiple businesses controlled by an individual. In this case Gersen made contributions from multiple businesses that he controlled, a clear violation of 2-5.0 (d). Barbra and her supporters are attempting to cherry pick the ordinance language to use it in a way that is contradictory to the clear intent and meaning when viewed in its entirety and full context.
I'm glad you know that the Corporations are "controlled by an individual". I suppose you, in all your wisdom, have researched the Board of Directors of each Corporation. Only then would you know that each is "controlled by an individual". You are a wiz on searching the internet, but lack in your legal ability. Keep postulating Bubba.
I don't need to research the Board of Directors for these companies, as the rules that govern these types of campaign contributions aren't that complex and are really pretty easy to understand. You are just trying to confuse the issue in order to provide cover for your gal Barbra. The ordinance is self-explanatory, and no other elected officials seem to be having a problem understanding the rules. Ever Gersen himself is using the ignorance defense since he knows that the contributions exceeded the allowable limits. These childish arguments aren't fooling anyone. Barbra needs to come clean, otherwise she just continues to make herself look stubborn and foolish to her constituents.
Same old Bubba. Can't address a response, so she keeps on with the same old chant. How about just once addressing the questions? You alone think the Code is simple. Anyone with a brain is concluding that the contribution limits are indeed open to interpretation.
Where in the world are gopher alerts when we need them?
Luckily for Barbra Williamson Greg Totten can't figure out if tackling a Pastor walking down the sidewalk is a crime. So I think her chances of getting away with this are pretty darn good.
I haven't read all of the comments above closely but I do recognize an easy to detect trend. Those that want her to resign aren't likely to post under the real names. Although I understand that not everyone has the personal freedom to post under the real name, it adds credibility if people know it isn't the same person posting over and over.
I am going to relax and wait for all of the details to come in. We would all be better served for doing the same. I have serious issues with some of the allegations in this story, but nothing so pressing that I need rushed answers from the different people involved. I am sure many people are carefully reading over the laws and seeing how they apply to this issue. Campaign finance issues normally take time to sort out, regardless of the outcome.
To Hang Tough,
I did address the questions, and went as far as citing the specific language in the local ordinances and the Political Reform Act of 1974 that completely refute your position. You are the one who is ignoring my response and cherry picking your information. The local ordinance is very clear. But I'll be happy to wait for the City Attorney to look into this. But my guess is that you will still blindly defend Barbra no matter what the outcome or evidence.
Gopher alert. This is an official alert from the Ventura County Vector Control Division. Grab your traps and poison. Gopher is out from under rock.
This is an official crap alert! Grab your toilet paper and air freshener because CAP is full of CRAP and once again starting to stink up the place.
Ah shucks, can't deal with opposition? Get off on hearing Bubba go on and on with dribble? Can't discuss the issues so babble the dogma? Loser!
I had to laugh out loud when I saw CAP call another blogger a loser for posting a crap alert. What does that make you with all of your gopher alerts? CRAP-874 is right, this guy needs to be flushed.
The gopher is trying a new attack at the County's Ventor Control Division. Fight back under several different names. Can't hide a small, furry, rodent with a short tail. A gopher in disquise is still a gopher.
Does the city have an expected timeline for figuring this out? Has it appeared on the agenda of the relevant committee? When is the next meeting that will deal with this issue?
It would not surprise me to find out that Foy/Strickland are behind this smear campaign against Barbara Williamson. The two losers Strickland and Foy are still mad that she backed Dantona. Afterall the Strickland's sent their thug out to beat up on a vietnam vet, it would not surprise me if they were behind this. Hang tough Barbara, these losers are scumbags and when the light comes on these roaches will scurry under the fridge where Bubba Kidd will already be hiding.
Predictably, the Williamson apologists are already concocting their own conspiracy theories. How did I know that all of this would somehow be pinned on Strickland and Foy? I'm surprised that George W. Bush hasn't also been implicated in this sinister plot to frame poor Barbra.
Like I have already said, she should just return the excess contributions and say it was a mistake. The local campaign finance ordinance is crystal clear on this issue. Barbra's attempt at creative re-interpretation of campaign finance laws will only become more of an embarrassment as time goes on. It won't take long for the City Attorney to issue an opinion on this that will only serve to make Barbra look even worse, and you can bet that the Star won't let this one go away after Barbra made an attack on their credibility. She's better off doing a quick mea culpa and putting this to bed, otherwise her own stubbornness and arrogance will turn this into an even bigger story than it needs to be.
A good rule of thumb to know when you are making a tragically stupid decision is when village idiots like Bubbo and CAP agree with your strategy. Proceed at your own peril, but don't say I didn't warn you.
I'd put my money on just about anyone other than the gopher. This excuse for a human always has all the answers but none of the facts. As to village idiots, may the poison and traps put an end to the vermin that comes our from under her rock every now and then to spew hate. To you dark hole, gopher.
Where's Barbra?
She's never been so silent on here before. Brian is this the first story about Barbra on your blog that she hasn't commented on?
Only a fool would get involved in this thread of a nightmare and Barbra is no fool. She should stay with those she trusts the advice of and her legal representative and not say a word. Her press release said it all. Her contributions were all legal. She has nothing to gain by babbling with a lynch mob.
Her legal representatives probably told her to shut the hell up because they realize that she violated campaign finance rules and put her foot in her mouth by trying to deny it.
I say give the money to Bottle Village and let's get back to running the city. The city can't afford the legal costs involved in litigating this matter. I hate to break the tax-paid lawyers hearts but I don't see a case here. Bubba Kidd likes trial lawyers when they are paid by the tax-payer and protecting Republican criminals. Simi Valley can't afford a prolonged trial ending with some huge settlement in the millions. This isn't our first rodeo. The tax-payers will not fall for it.
Someone should ask her about the $8,000 that was paid to her campaign consultant to run her campaign. Isn't that considered a donation and should be reported?
Someone should ask her about the $8,000 that was paid to her campaign consultant to run her campaign. Isn't that considered a donation and should be reported?
No, an expense isn't a donation. A donation is given to a campaign. If you know the figure it sounds like it was reported somewhere.
I agree give the money to bottle village! Did any one go to the open house this weekend? Hundreds of people showed up! If you've never been there look at the website. The pictures of the round house are awesome!
$8000 paid to her campaign consultant to run her campaign? She didn't have a campaign consultant. She had a group of friends helping out. What in the world are you talking about?
Just a group of friends helping out. Marc OHare would be surprised to know she didn't have a campaign consultant. He probably doesn't care if you call him a group of friends helping out as long as he got paid.
I have often said that Bubba Kidd is like one of the jurists on the original OJ trial. With Bubba regardless of the evidence he keeps his head firmly buried in Tony Strickland's behind and he follows Foy like a loyal little lemming. Guess what Bubba, you and your party had your butts handed to you in this last election and it will only get worse for you and the scum you run with!
Oh Bubbo, don't forget Gallegly's trouncing of Marta (No Gas) Jorgensen, Audra Strickland's victory, Tony Strickland's victory, Jeff Bennett's election to the Ventura County Superior Court, and Prop. 8 passing. Not so bad for Republicans locally, if you ask me.
Jerks of the world unite and fight. Barbra dedicated twenty years to the community and the nameless bloggers hide and throw mud. Yep, jerks of the world have united. Nameless jerks can't fill the shoes of Barbra, let alone the slippers of Marc O'Hare. They make up the facts and spew the nonsense as if it were truth. Bubba and Mongo Gibson are two sick puppies.
Funniest comment posted on this thread: "We have good councilmen like Glenn Baccerra who play by the rules"
First, good councilman that plays by the rules? What rule is that? The "golden rule", he who has the gold makes the rules.
Second, his name is spelled Becerra. The fact that you can't spell his name shows why you think he is honest and a good councilman - you don't pay attention.
Because clearly if you were paying attention you'd be much more unhappy with that Councilman, than you would ever be at Councilwoman Williamson.
Barbra seems to have a track record of campaign finance violations. Suddenly she has disappeared from this blog. Instead of coming clean she is now sending out her stooges to do her dirty work.
It looks like everything turned out exactly as I predicted. The City Attorney has completed their investigation and concluded that Barbra Williamson accepted illegal campaign contributions. She was also fined $2,000. Don't forget that Williamson was also fined for campaign ethics violations associated with her involvement in the so-called "Republicans for Ethical Government".
Brian, I'm surprised you haven't started a thread to cover this story since it has been so heavily discussed in the past on your blog. The story broke several days ago and this is an important local issue. Do we really need yet another Stickland bashing thread? Let's breathe some life into this blog with a heated discussion about Barbra's apparent lack of ethics.
Brian, why no thread on Barbra Williamson being fined for accepting illegal campaign contributions? If this were Tony Stickland or Peter Foy you would be all over the story. This is an important local political issue that has been heavily discussed in the past, yet you appear to be giving Barbra a free pass. What gives?
Barbra Williamson wondered into a gray area and got fined. It's done. Nothing to talk about.
The current story is how did Tony Strickland get money from a tweaker? That my friends takes somebody with negotiation skills. The Senator should write a book.
Bubba,
Stop assuming the worst motivations. I wasn't covering for Barbra Williamson, I just hadn't written an entry on any subject since the story broke until tonight. Some entries are easy to write and don't include much thought, others are more important or need more detail.
I will be posting an entry on the subject this weekend.
But before you think there is some hidden bias why not check the archives? I have written entries on this subject many times. In fact a google search for Barbra Williamson campaign finance brings up the results from this blog before any other website.
Anyways, if you want to discuss it wait and there will be an entry up this weekend. I would put it up sooner if there was some pressing event like an election or a budget being passed that is related to the story.
OK, sorry for suspecting ulterior motives. Its just that I had read the story last week and waited a few days to see when it would appear on your blog. Usually I see things posted on your blog within a day or two, so perhaps I've been spoiled by your history of being on top of things.
Bubba,
I haven't finished writing the entry because of some details I am trying to confirm. But here is the first paragraph:
The United States Supreme Court in landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo dealing with Watergate era campaign finance reforms ruled that campaign expenditures were constitutionally protected free speech and cannot be limited but that campaign donations, because of their ability to either cause corruption or because the government has a substantial interest in stopping an appearance of corruption.
Anyways, I will finish it later this week. I want to make sure I am accurate and fair to all of those involved. If there was an election coming up soon I would finish it sooner. But for now it is going to wait.
Thanks for reading and commenting on my blog, even when your arguments annoy me.
BarbraGate... a Dennert Blog production
With all of the problems in the state calling this anything more than a small infraction is silly.