Supervisors repealed the county campaign finance reform
ordinance Tuesday, which County Counsel Claude Biddle said was
fraught with legal
”
loopholes and land mines
”
that could result in the county being sued.
Hollister – Supervisors repealed the county campaign finance reform ordinance Tuesday, which County Counsel Claude Biddle said was fraught with legal “loopholes and land mines” that could result in the county being sued.
Following a brief, at times heated, discussion of the issue, Supervisors voted 3-1 to repeal the ordinance, with District 3 Supervisor Pat Loe dissenting. District 1 Supervisor Don Marcus was not in attendance.
Attorneys and citizens recently have been calling the county seeking clarification of the ordinance – an ominous sign that it will be challenged next year during the county election, Biddle said. He added that his office would be hard-pressed to defend the ordinance because it is ambiguous.
“It’s impossible to interpret this thing if it’s challenged,” he said.
Passed by a previous board in September, 2004, the county’s finance reform ordinance put a $10,000 spending cap for county district election campaigns and a $35,000 cap on campaigns for countywide elections.
At the time it was adopted, board members hoped the ordinance would level the playing field for new candidates and reduce the possibility of fraud in county elections. In addition to establishing spending caps, the ordinance limited campaign donations to a total of $100 per individual or group. It also mandated that the names of people and groups that make donations of $50 or more be posted on the county Web site. In 2004, opponents of the ordinance were concerned that it would complicate county elections and curtail the degree to which people can participate in the political process.
Loe, who supported the ordinance last year as a member of the previous board, asked Biddle why he didn’t just bring the ordinance to the board for clarification, rather than scraping it altogether.
Biddle said that would take too much time and would not be prepared next month when candidates begin filing their intention to run for office in June.
“We feel it’s best that you kill the ordinance entirely,” Biddle said.
Loe, who will seek to retain her seat in the 2006 election, disagreed with county counsel’s assessment, hinting that she thought the whole discussion about whether the ordinance is ambiguous is just a justification for repealing it.
“If we want to get rid of it, let’s have some backbone to just get rid of it,” she said.
The ordinance’s major ambiguity, according to Biddle, is the use of the term “election cycle,” which is the time during which the ordinance would govern campaign contributions. One section of the ordinance defines the election cycle as the period between May 1 and Dec. 31 of a general election year. In a different section, the ordinance states that candidates can collect money from the time of the last election until June 30 of the present election year for primaries and from July 1 through December 31 for runoff elections.
Biddle said that, because of the confusion about when the ordinance applies, his office hasn’t been able to give an answer to attorneys who have called asking when the election cycle begins.
“There’s all kinds of loopholes and land mines,” he said. “I see nothing but trouble coming from this.”
Though she stood alone in her defense of the ordinance Tuesday, Loe wasn’t the only board member who had strong feelings about it. Calling it a “joke,” District 5 Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz was adamant in his opposition to the ordinance, saying it violated the rights of citizens because it mandates how much they contribute to a campaign, and the state already has laws governing campaign finance.
“I believe this is unconstitutional,” he said. “And I will not waste any tax dollars in defending this.”
Loe said her main concern was that information about campaign donors be available on the county Web site – a provision included in the ordinance. She asked De La Cruz if he would compromise and support measures to require donor information to be posted on the Internet.
De La Cruz refused to discuss that and said he would only deal with the issue at hand.
Chairman Reb Monaco, who was the sole dissenting vote when the previous board passed the ordinance last year, said he still opposed it because it was vague.
District 2 Supervisor Anthony Botelho agreed with Monaco and De La Cruz.
“I didn’t like this ordinance in 2004,” he said. “We have an ample reporting mechanism through state law.”
Luke Roney covers local government and the environment for the Free Lance. Reach him at 831-637-5566 ext. 335 or at
lr****@fr***********.com
.
