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.
For the government to function our elected officials must safeguard the public trust, however little it might be at times, in our institutions and the people that run them.
Elected officials must keep in mind that even if they know that large donations haven't influenced them and even if all of their supporters trust that they aren't under the influence of their donors, that doesn't mean the general public trust you. When the general public hears of large, suspicious donations their natural reaction is to trust less in government and it diminishes their desire to get involved.
For the rest of the entry click on continue reading.
Simi Valley Council Member Barbra Williamson was fined for taking illegal campaign donations from a supporter of hers.
Click here for the story from The Star.
Click here for the story from The Acorn.
The basic facts are pretty simple. Barbra Williamson took $3,000 from businesses that one man had a significant interest in each of them. Barbra Williamson argued that they were three separate businesses and the rules allow the three separate businesses to give money. Barbra Williamson argued that the rules were unclear and open to interpretation. The city attorney found she violated the rules and they settled with the penalty of Barbra Williamson donating the money to the city general fund.
Council Member Barbra Williamson is correct that campaign finance rules can be confusing, unclear, and open to interpretation. In fact, the courts often have to rule on how the laws apply. But I don't accept this as a fully valid excuse because Council Member Barbra Williamson voted to adopt the rules. If they were that confusing then the correct vote would have been a no vote.
Council Member Barbra Williamson also is against campaign donation limits. She argues that transparency solves this problem because anyone can look up where the money is coming from before they vote. I understand the sentiment but the truth is that often times donations are given purposefully shortly before an election or in some cases AFTER an election.
Add to that the problem with finding out what interests each donor may or may have in city government and this is not the only acceptable solution to the problem. Even if there wasn't late donations or donations after a campaign ended we would be back at Buckley v. Valeo that stressed that government has a substantial interest in preventing the appearance of corruption. Voters generally support limits on donations because they feel that large donations corrupts the process.
Next Council Member Williamson stated that the general public doesn't get involved or care how campaigns are run. I agree with her but the appearance of influence peddling isn't going to inspire trust and confidence enough to get involved. Many people would rather get involved in charity work because they consider politics with suspicion.
I don't have easy solutions for candidates looking to raise money without the appearance of corruption but I have suggestions. Elected Officials need to be more open and transparent. Create a website or start a blog. Ask for small donations and keep going back for small donations from the same people. Inspire people by being a policy innovator. If you bring new people into government they are going to want to support candidates they agree with for office. If city council members were even more innovative with environmental, technological, or other issues more people would be drawn in.
In the last campaign Barbra Williamson had the best mailer of the cycle that I saw locally that asked people to call her and join her anti-dump expansion grassroots group. Building groups like this should pay off as you bring more people into the process.
Overall, I am disappointed in Council Member Williamson's actions. Her actions didn't build more trust in the system. The delay in the resolution allowed for more and more press covering the story. Politically, she could have donated the money to a local charity or given it back and the story would have been over quickly.
In the past Council Member Barbra Williamson has been very transparent and has answered many questions from readers on my blog. I am thankful to her for that outreach and for her support. That type of constituent attention adds transparency and trust to our local government. Thanks for the solid public service on my blog and elsewhere.
In her defense Barbra Williamson said:
"When you start putting so many rules on top of rules, you're bound to make an error."
Barbra, I agree with you 100% that people running campaigns are going to make mistakes and that poorly drafted rules can make that more likely. Not every mistake, fine, or infraction is the next local version of Watergate and the public shouldn't treat it as such. Most successful politicians that stay in office long enough seem to get caught up and face some sort of penalty over campaign finance regulations.
When you try to draft new rules and clarify the language of the city's campaign finance rules I am more than glad to volunteer to help.
Here is a video of Barbra Williamson speaking on her ideas to update the city's campaign finance rules:
The other issue isn't just illegal campaign donations but large donations that draws suspicion.
Here is a video of Council Member Steve Sojka speaking on campaign finance reforms:
In the video Council Member Steve Sojka says that they adopted the rules ( that Council Member Barbra Williamson was found to be in violation of) because in a past election cycle Simi Valley Council Members were taking big checks from Texas and people were rightfully suspicious of why such large donations would be given from an out of the area person or group of people.
I was surprised by Council Member Steve Sojka's choice of examples because in this very election cycle he took bundled checks from Texas! Of all the examples I don't see why he would choose to bring up large donations from an out of the area family , with business addresses in Texas. During the last election cycle Steve Sojka, Barbra Williamson, and Paul Miller all took large donations from the Saperstein family.
Click here for a story from Ventura County Star reporter Anna Bakalis.
"When we have certain businesses who are giving up to $8,000 on a local city campaign, that's kind of going against what the intent of that reform was," Sojka said.
All of that said I don't think our city council is corrupt because they took money from a Texas business person and his family. David Saperstein has a legitimate business interest in developing Hummingbird Ranch into an expensive resort and spa. I don't begrudge him the right to develop his property.
But when the story broke, after the election, that the same person that helped raise money for the 3 incumbents is also the project director for the proposal of making the Saperstein property into a commercial resort it rightfully made the public suspicious of why this family had donated so much to three politicians that by all accounts were going to be winning re-election easily. An added problem is that the money came late in the campaign cycle, which limits the chances it will be scrutinized as much.
After it was public that there was a proposal to convert the ranch into a commercial resort both Council Member Sojka and Mayor Miller gave the money back, which is the right thing to do to try to defang criticisms. They said at the time that since there was a project in front of them it was the right thing to do. But it was an open secret that there were proposals being mentioned to convert the ranch months before the election. I guess the difference between trial balloon plans and officially submitted plans as far as campaign donations go.
Council Member Sojka and Mayor Paul Miller made a good choice by returning the donations relatively quickly. Even if there wasn't a conflict of interest it is best to protect the reputation of the city and promote trust in the system.
The local media and the campaigns failed to bring up the donations and the connection to a conversion of the property before the election. That means the idea that voters can look up the money sources and know the different views on proposals isn't a satisfactory solution. All of the winning candidates took some money from the family that owns the ranch, but I don't recall any of them addressing this issue, or what interest the family had in donating the most amount of money total to city candidates this past cycle.
All of that doesn't change the fact that the proposed project looks really good. It doesn't appear to have many negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods or the city. The project will stimulate the local economy with short term jobs renovating the existing property and building new facilities. In the long term there will be local jobs including maintenance, event planning, house keeping, entertainment, and more. If the project doesn't work out the City of Simi Valley is taking minimal risks. I would assume if the plans don't become economically viable then there will be other options for the property owners. All of this will be addressed by the relevant committees and city departments to see if the plan should move forward. But you can bet that critics and others of the plan will point to the money as the reason the project is going forward. The impacted neighbors against the plan aren't going to be as open minded as others over the source and influence of the money.
These issues are important because I have heard from multiple sources that Sojka and Williamson are planning to run against each other for mayor in 2010 if Mayor Paul Miller retires as he is thought to be planning to do so after this term is up.
Let's get the policies and rules done now, before the fundraising starts.
I am an appointed volunteer on a city task force and in that position I have always seen my elected leaders act with integrity and character. For all the criticisms that I and others give to the elected members of our city council I know they work hard representing the city and raising funds for local charities. Members of the city council raise funds for charities ranging from the police, to schools, the free clinic, the Samaritan Center and more. For an example of an upcoming charity event Barbra Williamson is helping to promote click on continue reading.
If the candidates are serious in their interest to clean up and clarify the campaign finance regulations there is ample opportunity to work on the issue together before the next campaign officially starts. If better regulations that bring more people in and create more trust from from citizens are created the end result of this issue will be better for all of us in Simi Valley.
Make a database that is searchable and online. Keep it up for years, even after a candidate leaves office. Allow for more transparency and more trust will be given by local citizens.
I look forward to a campaign based on policies and not personalities. But first go and update the rules. Add transparency clarity to the process and I will be glad to support it.
Sometimes our elected officials don't deserve blame for what they do and sometimes they truly are responsible and should be held to account. But either way I like to remember the quote from TR:
"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat."
Brian, Brian, Brian………..
If you are going to write an article about me, please, I request only TWO things:
1)That you spell my name right
2)You get your facts straight
Not a lot to ask, do you think? Excellent. Thank you
Barbra Williamson,
Please explain which facts aren't straight.
Barbra,
1. Funny enough but I sometimes get confused spelling Santa Barbara because of your name. I will go back and fix it.
2. Any facts that I have gotten wrong I will also fix. Let me know by email or by posting here.
Are you disappointed because Barbra didn't return the money right away? Had she done so, isn't that the same as saying accepting the donations was wrong? Barbra maintained from the beginning that she didn't believe the donations represented a violation. There is no difference between Barbra's acceptance of the Gerson donations and Miller's and Sojka's acceptance of the Saperstein donations, except they returned the funds faster.
What disappoints me is that finance reform was discussed among city council but no action was ever taken in that regard. It's as though it was nothing more than to get it on public record that Steve Sojka was concerned about the bad press.
Campaign donations are published on the Simi Valley website. Does it get more transparent?
Barbra Williamson should of done a better job authoring Simi Valley's campaign finance rules if she didn't understand them.
Mike,
No, returning money doesn't mean it is wrong. Many politicians return donations as to not distract from their message.
The fact we are discussing this is proof it distracted from her message. Barbra Williamson had the most effective local mailer of the campaign, but we are discussing this issue.
It does get more transparent. The donations should be in a html type format so it is easier to cut and paste to do research. It would also be helpful if by clicking on a person's name if it would bring up all of their donations for the last few cycles. State and federal donations works this way and makes it easier to track where the money comes from.
Do you like those ideas? I would be proud to support them regardless of who pushes for them.
Well really, only you and are I discussing it. I don't think anyone else really cares any more. Even The Star didn't follow-up on the story.
Look, my point is the data is all public and you can download it from the Simi website. I'm not going to argue usability or user interface, just that it's there. The pdf document format they used didn't stop me from browsing through each page of every candidates donation declarations.
Mike,
Did you research individual names on the list to see what their interest in city government might be? How many years did you go back?
The Star wrote updates on the story many times. I don't expect there is much else to say.
I wrote some of this after the last story but didn't finish it until recently. I agree not many care to pay attention to local government.
When are you going to have more time to give our local government a hard time again?
Lots of people care about this issue. Barbra accepted of campaign contributions that clearly violated local campaign finance rules THAT SHE VOTED FOR. For her to later claim that these rules were somehow confusing is ridiculous. It would either mean that she is unethical for violating her own rules, or incompetent for passing rules that made no sense. And yet our city attorney, mayor and other council members seem to understand those rules just fine. I also took the time to review the rules myself and found that they are are perfectly clear. Barbra's claim that the rules were somehow ambiguous is disingenuous at best, since it takes a very creative interpretation for her to even attempt to argue that the Gerson contributions were in any way appropriate.
And once again we have Barbra stubbornly insisting that she did nothing wrong, complaining that Brian somehow got the "facts" wrong. What facts are those? The city attorney investigated the matter and firmly concluded that she violated local campaign finance rules, which is the 2nd time that Barbra has been fined for ethical violations related to campaign finances. Instead of continuing this charade she should just apologize to her colleagues, to voters, and to the Ventura County Star who got the story right from the beginning.
I stated from the beginning that she should have simply returned the money and the whole issue would have gone away. This was nothing more than a display of arrogance by Barbra in thumbing her nose at her colleagues and the voters who elected her. She has lost a lot of respect within the community and, I believe, severely damaged her credibility and any hopes that she may have of being elected mayor. After reading the local campaign finance rules it wasn't difficult to predict the outcome. All of this played out exactly as I said it would.
Brian,
I recall two or three stories on The Star, but no publication of the outcome. Did I miss it?
I didn't go back farther than what was available online, which was the last election cycle. I did look at the names. Many of them were names I knew from various organizations like the Chamber and Rotary and were moderate donations. The ones that stood out were the ones from the Chamber CEO, commercial developers, Vineyards employees and Saperstein's family. The ones that stunk were the ones from every member of Saperstein's family, each at the $1000 max. I think he had his dog and his pet fish donating as well.
Who’s surprised it took so long for her to give the contributions back? Barbra Williamson has always been a fighter. Barbra Williamson's fighter instinct has served Simi Valley very well over many years. The fact that Sojka and Miller gave the money back so quickly is proof to me of their premeditation. Let's stop cannabalzing the good ones. We need Barbra Williamson focusing of fighting for the City of Simi Valley.
Barbra Williamson is the only representative the people have in regards to Waste Management, Rocketdyne, and many other important issues that face the city of Simi Valley.
Bubba Kidd...I am so sorry that I have disappointed you. As you can see, I don't walk on water and never pretended to. It was and is not my intent to "thumb" my nose at anyone, and I think that one mistake on my part shouldn't discredit all the past work. And for the record,I have NEVER been fined.(Acting City Attorney Marge Baxter made that VERY clear to Anna Bakalis when she wrote the story, but Anna decided to ignore the attorney and create her own story, so those's are the FACTS, I am referring to Bubba Kidd) That is the part of the story that is incorrect. I gave the money back, but again, there was and has never been a fine (you referred to this being the second time)I don't know what the first was so please enlighten me.
I would hope that if you believe you are in the right when making a decision or believing in something, that you don't allow someone to walk all over you for standing by your convictions.
So Bubba Kidd, you can either accept this or reject it. I give it with good spirit and intentions.
And to Nobody, thank you for truly understanding my plight. Bubba Kidd did have one thing right, I was and am stubborn (Irish) but when I am in the wrong I will always admit it and try to correct the wrong.
I am moving on and it is my hope that others will too.
Thanks
Mike,
Two newspapers reported on the final outcome:
From the Acorn:
"Williamson found in violation of city's campaign finance laws
Council member says she's ready to move on after paying $2,000 fine"
http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2009/0213/community/006.html
From The Star:
"A city investigation into contributions to Barbra Williamson’s re-election campaign concluded that two of three $1,000 checks given to the Simi Valley city councilwoman from a local business owner were unlawful.
She was fined $2,000.
In response, Williamson said Monday she doesn’t think how council candidates receive money should be regulated."
http://www.venturacountystar.com/news/2009/feb/10/simi-councilwoman-fined-over-illegal-donations/
The other incident that I am referring to is the fine from the county Campaign Finance Ethics Commission against the group that laughingly called itself "Republicans for Ethical Government". It was for the late reporting of an attack ad that you placed (suppose to be reported within 24 hours, not reported for 3 months). You used the same excuse then as now, that the rules that everybody else seemed to have no problem understanding were somehow confusing.
Barbra, you know that we have somewhat of a love/hate relationship going on. I have always voted for you, including casting my ballot for you in the last election. Which is why I am at times conflicted when it comes to you. You may find my criticism harsh, but the truth is that this latest episode involving the Gerson contributions was terribly disappointing, and I'm not going to give you a free pass like some others around here. Maybe you don't care what I think, and I guess that is your prerogative, after all, to you I'm just some anonymous blogger. But I'm also a voter who talks to a lot of people, and it simply doesn't look good when a five-term city council member can't seem to figure out how to abide by the same campaign finance rules as everybody else. And I know that there are a lot of other people that feel the same way. In this case I think your Irish temperament worked against you when it was clear early on that the best political move was to give the money back. You, of all people, should know that there is a difference between right and wrong versus politically appropriate. At least Miller and Sojka showed the political smarts to immediately hand back money that even hinted at the appearance of being inappropriate. You should have done the same, especially if you have higher political ambitions. Instead you made a mistake I would expect more from a political novice than a seasoned political veteran.
To be clear, I have never said that I agree with all of the various quirky campaign finance rules. But just like in sports, even if it is a dumb rule everybody still plays by the same rulebook. And even if the rule is unfair you accept it and move on, otherwise you just look like a poor sport. Your reputation was not worth going to battle over just a few thousand dollars in an election you were going to win anyway.
Brian,
I stand corrected. I missed both of those articles outright. And I even had a Google Newsbot scraping for updates on the topic.
My humblest apologies...
Bubba Kidd,
You give Sojka and Miller a pass because of their "political smarts"? LOL! Just give up you lost this argument. Obviously you can't be partial.
Voter, I didn't give them a pass. What I said was that they were smart enough to give the money back when it was clear that it looked bad and that they would be scrutinized by the media and the public. Politically it was a smart move since the issue quickly went away once they returned the contributions. By contrast, Barbra decided to fight it out, even when it was clear that it was a losing battle politically. In the end she had to suffer the double embarrassment of having the City Attorney rule that the contributions were illegal and then having to give back the money anyway. From the beginning I recommended that Barbra just give them money back so that the issue would go away. I wasn't trying to make any judgments as to whether it was appropriate or not to take the money, although I still believe that the local ordinance was crystal clear.
I will add, however, that the contributions that Miller and Sojka returned were perfectly legal. But, again, both were smart enough to realize that even if the Saperstein contributions were technically legal it still gave an appearance of being inappropriate so they quickly gave the money back. In Barbra's case the Gerson contributions were both politically questionable and clearly illegal. The bottom line is that had she simply returned the contributions the issue would have quickly gone away. That's how politics works.
Bubba,
You are giving Sojka and Miller a pass. They took money from someone who clearly had business with the city. It's much easier to make that decision. Barbra had a harder time because she really didn't do anything that bad.
I can't believe that I'm defending BK but his/her last post is accurate. He didn't give Miller and Sojka a pass.
All three council members should be embarassed - the time to refuse the money was before the elections.
You know you're in trouble if Katie and I actually agree on an issue. But I do have to say that I agree with her 100% that all three should have passed on the money, and it shouldn't take public humiliation for an elected official to steer clear of contributions that even hint at violating campaign finance rules or give the appearance of a conflict of interest. The only thing that distinguishes Miller, Sojka and Williamson from each other in this instance is that some were far better at damage control than others.
"The only thing that distinguishes Miller, Sojka and Williamson from each other in this instance is that some were far better at damage control than others."
Well said, BK!
Katie and Bubba,
How do you think sojka and Miller got so good at damage control? I think practice. Miller got in a fight with a church.