October 12, 2006

City Council again defers campaign reforms; takes stance on propositions

By Carol Rosen
Staff Writer

The City Council met Tuesday night in a special study session to decide which ballot proposals to support and to vote on campaign reform legislation. While the proposition session was quick, too many questions remained on campaign reform and the eight members present—Mayor Ron Gonzales and Councilwomen Linda LeZotte and Madison Nguyen were absent—could not unanimously reach agreement on the issues.

The reform legislation required all eight members present to vote for passage. When District 8 Councilman Dave Cortese announced he could not vote for passage, all eight agreed to defer the recommendation to reinstate limits on campaign contributions to independent committees. Most council members had questions about the 30-day rule and its exact meaning, while Cortese felt that the ordinance may again violate first amendment rights.

“For me it’s not a decision as to whether the court will back the ordinance. My opinion is about whether or not the measure violates first amendment rights,” Cortese told council members and City Attorney Rick Doyle. “It’s unconstitutional to regulate speech and that’s what [these] regulations say. I have a problem with that; these are different than federal regulations. I can’t support an ordinance that puts restrictions onto PACs [political action committees] that we don’t have any jurisdiction over.”

Others on the council were hopeful that an ordinance passed Tuesday night would cover the current election for two council seats and the mayoral race. Both District 4 Councilmember Chuck Reed and District 6’s Ken Yeager appeared to want passage of the ordinance.

Reed spent a lot of time describing what he called “rampant violations of the law,” accusing unions of spending soft money. He also questioned how the potential ordinance would affect political parties and card clubs. Doyle explained that it depends on the definition of a committee. If a political party is acting as a committee, then the regulations affect it.

However, Doyle noted that even with the ordinance in place it could be difficult to determine if the law has been violated. In effect, at least up to now, unless there is a complaint registered followed by an investigation, no one is aware of any wrongdoing.

Yeager felt it important to put “something on the books even if it might get challenged,” so it’s in place for the election. “Then we will see what a judge says.” However, once Cortese said he could not support the ordinance, Yeager moved to defer it.

District 10 Councilwoman Nancy Pyle early in the discussion questioned whether the urgency was necessary. “This is time sensitive for this election cycle,” responded Doyle. “We either pass it and have it in place or we take more time to flesh it out.”

Pyle later agreed with Yeager that the measure should be put off until they can draft something the entire council could be happy with. “The last election law has been in effect for 23 years,” she said.

Doyle noted that his staff would work with the election commission to figure out rules that would cover contributions and not violate freedom of speech.

Once the eight council members agreed unanimously to that, Reed also deferred for the second week in a row his recommendation to review various provisions of Chapter 12.06 relating to the Municipal Campaign contributions.

During a public comment period, prior to the final vote, two speakers protested Reed’s condemnation of unions. One woman suggested that “It’s not OK to attack unions, because like most people we’re just trying to earn a living,” she said.

However, the second speaker called for Reed’s immediate resignation “for violating the use of taxpayer money, and for using taxpayer money for political gain” by writing personal checks and then getting reimbursed by the city. The speaker claimed that he was prepared to lodge a protest against Reed.

Ballot propositions
The meeting initially was scheduled as a study session for the council to support or oppose the eight state propositions on the Nov. 7 general election ballot.

Council members followed staff recommendations voting to support 83—residence restrictions and monitoring for sex offenders; and 84—water quality, safety and supply, flood control with natural resource protection and park improvements. Along with the staff recommendation, they opposed 85’s waiting period and parental notification before termination of a minor’s pregnancy and unanimously supported 86’s tax on cigarettes.

They had some discussion on 87, which regarding alternative energy, research, production incentives and a tax on California oil producers. The staff had suggested taking no position because the provision could negatively affect city revenues. However, LeZotte requested that District 9 Councilmember Judy Chirco note her support of the provision, as did Pyle. In the end, the council decided to support the measure.

The staff also advocated no position on 88 for education funding and real estate property parcel tax. The council agreed to take no position.

Proposition 89, regarding public financing of political campaigns, corporate tax increases and campaign contributions and expenditure limits, was opposed by District 2 Councilmember Forrest Williams and by Gonzales at last week’s council session. However, the council agreed to support the measure. Finally, the council followed the staff recommendation for Prop 90 suggesting that voters oppose the measure for government acquisition and regulation of private property.