The Guss Report –In any political campaign, there are legions of highly paid professionals who know every nuanced rule about campaign finance, and it is their job to maximize that knowledge for their clients.
Sometimes, this political set makes patently absurd interpretations of those rules to give their clients an unfair and sometimes illegal advantage. When they do, the local elections arbiter is supposed to enforce the rules and rectify the transgression.
Welcome to the Los Angeles County 4th District Supervisor’s race between Republican Steve Napolitano and Democrat Janice Hahn, both of whom seek to replace incumbent Don Knabe, Mr. Napolitano’s former boss who has endorsed Mr. Napolitano, a former Manhattan Beach Councilman, in the race.
The story goes like this. For the primary season, Mr. Napolitano chose the “unlimited personal funds” option to fund his campaign, while Mr. Hahn chose the “$50,000 personal funds limit.” In Mr. Napolitano making that choice, it lifted the $1,500 limit for donations from individuals to Ms. Hahn’s campaign for the primary only. That limit would be reinstated if and when her campaign continued toward the Nov. 8 general election, which it has, and in which she will face Mr. Napolitano. The details were outlined in a March 16 letter from Dean Logan, the Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/L.A. County Clerk, the subject of which was revisited in a July 12 communique from Logan’s office.
When Ms. Hahn’s fundraising update was filed on Aug. 1, it showed hundreds of thousands of dollars raised from political action committees (PAC) beyond the limit of $150,000 for the primary and $150,000 for the General Election. Mr. Napolitano’s campaign immediately jumped on the issue and, on Aug. 10, Mr. Logan’s office advised the Hahn team that the aforementioned removal of the $1,500 individual donation limit did not lift the $150,000 PAC limits. Mr. Logan’s letter added that the Hahn campaign would not be penalized for this campaign finance violation if those funds were returned within 30 days, which was Sept. 9. The penalty for not honoring the 30-day deadline could be triple the amount of funds raised illegally.
Serving Pretzels
Since Mr. Logan’s August letter and with the Nov. 8 election rapidly approaching, the Hahn campaign (which has not responded to requests for comment for this article) has employed pretzel logic to hold on to these excess funds … apparently okay with the penalties they would face should their client win the runoff.
[Editor’s Note: A lawsuit Mr. Napolitano filed last week against Ms. Hahn quickly was dismissed in court after the Hahn campaign promised to return donations that exceeded the $150,000 limit from political action committees.]
These campaign finance rules were established in 1996’s Prop.B, the details of which can be found in Mr. Logan’s January updated pamphlet to candidates on the subject.
“The rules are the rules, the Hahn people know them, refuse to honor them, and are way past the deadline to return these illegally raised funds,” says Mr. Napolitano.
In an Aug. 31 L.A. Times article, Ms. Hahn campaign spokesman John Shallman stated that Mr. Logan’s earlier letters about the lifting of personal donation limits also applied to the $150,000 PAC limit, a sentiment that was refuted in Mr. Logan’s Sept. 19 reply to Hahn’s people.
“While we recognize that the letters sent on March 16, 2016 or July 12, 2016 do not specifically state that the aggregate PAC limit in 2.190.040 C remained in place,” Logan’s letter stated, “the letters describe the intent of LACC section 2.190.070 D, which is to remove the $1,500 individual contribution limits only.”
In other words, the Hahn campaign says that because Mr. Logan’s earlier letters did not specifically state that the $150,000 PAC limit remained, they were free to raise as much PAC money as they wish.
But by that tortured perspective from the Hahn campaign, none of the other campaign finance rules should apply either, since none of them were addressed in Mr. Logan’s letters.
In fact, there do not appear to be any circumstances which would lift the $150,000 PAC limits, a rule that may irk Ms. Hahn’s people, but that they no doubt have long since known.
Mr. Napolitano points out his frustration that Mr. Logan’s Sept. 19 letter gives the Hahn campaign even more time to cure the violation, 30 days from that date, which is 40 days past the originally established repayment date. “I am running to represent everyone in this District, regardless of whether they donated to my campaign, the Hahn campaign, someone else, or nobody at all. But we all must live by the same set of rules. Right now, those rules are not being enforced,” he said.
That lack of enforcement and extended deadlines might be due to pressure from some of Mr. Logan’s other bosses, the other County Supervisors, some of whom have endorsed Ms. Hahn in the race, showing once again that in politics, the rules don’t always apply and that influence (a friendly way to say corruption) almost always rules the day.
Mr. Guss, MBA, is a writer who contributes to CityWatchLA, Huffington Post and KFI AM-640. He blogs on humane issues at http://ericgarcetti.blogspot.com/. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport.
