Special interests have poured nearly $100 million of independent expenditures into statewide campaigns races since voters adopted direct candidate contribution limits in 2001, reports the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

So-called independent expenditures have grown significantly as outside groups seek to influence the outcome of elections without worrying about those pesky contribution limits.

“The emergence of independent expenditures has thwarted the will of the people, dramatically undermined California’s campaign finance laws and doubtlessly influenced the outcome of numerous statewide and legislative elections,” the FPPC report says.

The FPPC’s report, Independent Expenditures: The Giant Gorilla in Campaign Finance, also offers details into the Top 10 groups when it comes to spending money on statewide campaigns. The list included groups advocating for former Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. It also includes political action committees for the California Chamber of Commerce, California Peace Officers Association, Indian tribes and other labor organizations. (This lovely gorilla picture comes from http://www.gotpetsonline.com/gorilla/gorilla-fact/gorilla-fact.html)

The $100 million does not, however, take into account the numerous independent expenditures in local races, which has become commonplace in East Bay contests and elsewhere in California has contribution limits have become more widely deployed.

Independent expenditures were made in the two Contra Costa County supervisor races, for example. Some candidates have even come to count on the influence of outside money even though they cannot, by law, coordinate or direct the expenditures of these groups.

Read more for the FPPC press release: Read the rest of this entry »

UPDATE 5:03 P.M. Deputy District Attorney Steve Bolen has determined that Contra Costa County supervisor candidate Erik Nunn is a self-funded candidate and as a result, his opponents qualify to collect $5,000 per person rather than $1,675.

Contra Costa County supervisor candidate Erik Nunn of Oakley and his relatives have contributed or loaned his campaign more than $25,000 and triggered a hike in his opponents’ contribution limits.

Incumbent Supervisor Federal Glover of Pittsburg and challengers Gary Agopian, Mary Rocha and Don Parscal are now permitted under the county’s election law to receive up to $5,000 per person rather than $1,675 for the June 3 election.

But Nunn called it a mistake and said he has refunded the money that pushed him over the limit.

“My family did not know the rules, or how much I had already lent the campaign,” said Nunn, a chief financial office for a general contracting company. “It definitely was something that my treasurer and I missed. … I have already sent the contributions back to my family members and the correction will be made on my next campaign report.”

It may be too late for Nunn change his mind. (It is too late. See update above.)

Glover’s campaign argues that it’s unfair to allow candidates to flip-flop back and forth and put the opponents fund-raising in limbo.

“I think the Glover campaign makes a reasonable argument,” said Deputy District Attorney Steve Bolen. “ I’m going to get the supporting documents, talk to the campaigns and determine whether Nunn can reverse course.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Opensecrets.org, a site dedicated to shining light on the link between money and campaigns for journalists and the public, has redesigned its web pages.

The site has a more modern appearance and new features. Check it out.

Read more for the press release.

Read the rest of this entry »

Presumed GOP congressional nominee Nick Gerber of Moraga, a considerable underdog in the race against six-term Democratic incumbent Ellen Tauscher in a heavily Democratic district, is making up for what he lacks in cash with excessive creativity.

Gerber will host the free goGerber.org Earth Day Event on April 19, 11am - 3 p.m., in Civic Park in Walnut Creek.

Bring the kids, he says, for bead making, face painting, paper airplane contests, crafts and games, a raffle and a giveaway of 500 reusable grocery store bags.

He doesn’t mention it but I’m pretty sure Gerber wants you to bring along your checkbook, too.

This is the same guy who is raising money for charity at the same time he collects for his own campaign.

This is the same guy who also offered to shave his beard if his supporters raised $100,000 for his campaign.

But the last time I saw Gerber, he still sported quite a bit of facial hair. If he expects to get his face painted — a nice shade of green in honor of the day, perhaps? — he’ll have to step up that fund-raising.

Presumed GOP presidenial candidate John McCain, R-Ariz., will be campaigning and fund-raising in California this week.

McCain’s events web page lists eight fund-raisers in a state known as the ATM of presidential politics. He will also host a town hall meeting today in Chula Vista with military families. On Tuesday, he travels to Santa Ana for the Orange County Hispanic Small Business Roundtable.

His travels include one Bay Area stop: A fund-raiser in San Francisco at the Ritz Carlton on Stockton Street beginning at 6 p.m.

If you want to attend, get out your checkbook. It will cost you $2,300 per person, the maximum contribution allowed under federal campaign laws.

But it you pledge to raise $50,000, you and seven friends of your choice will attend the host committee reception and have four photo opportunities of two people per photo. Or if that sounds too dear, promise to raise $25,000 and you’ll get tickets for four to the reception and two photos. Click here for McCain’s reservation web site.

Is this the first nasty salvo in the Senate campaign between former Assemblyman Joe Canciamilla and incumbent Assemblyman Mark DeSaulnier?

Check out www.joeforjoe.com, an anonymously posted web site that slams Canciamilla (pictured on the left) for taking tobacco company contributions while he was in the state Assembly.

Canciamilla has said he willingly took the money because Assembly leaders asked him to do it. He was in a safe seat, so he handed over the money to party leaders and other Democratic candidates who could then claim no connection to the dollars.

The “Joe” in the web site title refers to Joe Camel, the cartoon character used in cigarette advertising.

This again illustrates the double-edged sword of campaign contributions: Candidates need money to run but nearly every one of those dollars come with baggage.

As for the origins of this web site, we may never know. Unless the person or group that created the site raised or spent more than $1,000 — the expenditure threshold — it will never be disclosed.

But here’s what a search of www.godaddy.com, a domain registry search, found:

Registrant:
c/o JOEFORJOE.COM
P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682

Registrar: NAMESDIRECT
Domain Name: JOEFORJOE.COM
Created on: 06-FEB-08
Expires on: 07-FEB-09
Last Updated on: 11-FEB-08

Administrative Contact:
aXct69@privacypost.com
c/o JOEFORJOE.COM
P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682
1.360-449-5933

MediaNews Sacramento Bureau reporter Steve Geissinger will report shortly about a new study of California campaign finances, which shows that 2001 restrictions on direct contributions to candidates has led to a massive outpouring of cash into unchecked, special interest-led efforts.

The story will move on-line within minutes but here’s an advance look:

By Steve Geissinger/Mercury News Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - One of the most extensive campaign finance studies in state history showed today that when voters restricted direct contributions to candidates in 2001, special-interest donations flowed around that curb, swelling into an unchecked, largely undetected $88 million torrent.

The study, compiled by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, showed indirect contributions to legislative candidates _ from special interests _ shot up from $376,000 to $23.5 million, or by 6,144 percent, through the 2006 races.

Indirect donations from wealthy groups to statewide candidates increased from $526,000 to $29.5 million, or by 5,502 percent, during the five-year period.

California is in another election cycle that will boost the figures by tens of millions of dollars, according to the FPPC.

Commission Chairman Ross Johnson said that “the astounding increase in independent expenditures benefiting candidates for state office is clearly thwarting the will of the people to limit campaign spending.”

The FPPC, the state’s top political campaign watchdog, released the report as the board began a hearing on how to address the skyrocketing donations to independent-expenditure committees.

Proposition 34 capped individual contributions to candidate-run funds at $3,600 per election.

Monied stakeholders began donating instead to independent campaigns to elect certain candidates. The study showed they have been successful in affecting the outcome of Senate and Assembly races much of the time, often outspending the candidates themselves.

But tracking the independent campaign contributions as they occur is difficult, despite current reporting requirements and Internet posting on a state Web site.

The report showed the top 10 groups that have funded the biggest independent-expenditure committees, with contributions totaling more than $33 million, include Indian tribes with gambling casinos, the California Teachers Association, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and labor unions.

Johnson, a former lawmaker, said he is seeking a way to use existing law to force greater disclosure of the contributions so the public will have a better understanding of who is backing who, how much they are pumping into the effort , and for what reason.

Campaign finance reform advocates, who support the FPPC effort, said the contributions provide powerful groups undue influence over issues. As a result, they said, legislation and ballot propositions dealing with donations to campaigns remain one of the most contentious issues in Sacramento.

Contact Steve Geissinger at sgeissinger@bayareanewsgroup.com or 916-447-9302.

A Federal Election Commission audit of former congressman Richard Pombo’s campaign committee revealed allegations of violations in eight areas of campaign finance reporting law but the 20-page document also spelled out the lawmaker’s efforts to either correct the problems or contest the federal agency’s conclusions.

To read the audit, click here.

The FEC concluded that Pombo’s campaign committee, between Jan. 1, 2003 and Dec. 31, 2004, among other findings, failed to report $18,752 in salary to his wife, Annette; received excessive and prohibited contributions, made accounting errors; failed to disclose the required occupation and name of employer on nearly a third of its contributors; did not report $42,336 in debts; and inaccurately reported the receipt date of some contributions.

Pombo’s committee responded to the FEC on each of the allegations with amended forms, documentation that showed a refund of the prohibited or excessive contributions or provided the required information. The lawmaker also challenged the agency’s assertions about the nature of some of the contributions.

In the allegations involving payments to Annette, the FEC concluded that she wrote checks in 2003 to herself in the amount of $18,752 that were not reported as salary. Auditors concluded that it was an illegal payment of campaign funds for personal use. Pombo’s committee subsequently filed amended forms that reflect the added salary.

The report doesn’t mention it specifically but some of the accounting violations probably rested with Randall Pombo, the former congressman’s brother and the campaign’s treasurer through July 2004. New campaign reporting laws coupled with the growing complexity of the job apparently outstripped Randall Pombo’s abilities and the campaign replaced him with a professional campaign treasurer, David Bauer.

In an article today in Roll Call, the Capitol’s newspaper, the Pombo audit was linked to recent comments made by officials of the Justice Department and the Federal Election Commission about a fresh wave of investigations into campaign finance activities spurred by the high-profile corruption convictions in the Jack Abramoff scandal of last year. (Click here to read the story as posted by Citizens for Responsible Ethics in Washington.)

Pombo was one of 23 members of Congress whose 2002-2003 campaign finance reports have been audited and the results posted on the FEC web site. (Click here for the page of links to all the audits.)

In Roll Call, Pombo was quoted as saying that the discrepancies with his wife’s income involved lost or insufficient receipts for computer equipment and other expenses, which resulted in the campaign reporting the funds as salary.

The audit does not recommend any enforcement actions such as fines but it states that it may do so in the future.

Pombo, a seven-term incumbent in Congressional District 11, was defeated in November 2006 by Pleasanton Democrat Jerry McNerney.

Read Sacramento Bee columnist Steve Wiegand’s helpful holiday advice if you happen to feel like buying a nice present for your favorite elected official. Here’s a bit of his column:

With the holiday season breathing down our necks, it’s appropriate that the Fair Political Practices Commission has ratcheted up the value of gifts you can give public officials.

The FPPC also raised per-person campaign contribution limits. For legislative hopefuls, the limit goes from $3,300 to $3,600 per election. Max totals to would-be governors go from $22,300 per election to $24,100, and for other statewide office wannabes, from $5,600 to $6,000.