Ann Ravel, the outgoing chair of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, had accused libertarian philanthropists Charles and David Koch of funneling “dark money” into ballot initiatives Proposition 30 and Proposition 32 in 2012.

The libertarian Koch brothers are reviled by the left.

Prop. 30, sponsored by Gov. Jerry Brown, was a large income tax increase on those earning more than $250,000 annually. Prop. 32 would have prohibited unions from using members’ automatic payroll-deducted funds for political campaign contributions.  Prop. 30 passed, and Prop. 32 was defeated.

At a FPPC press conference Thursday, Ravel said that Americans for Job Security “sent dark money to the Koch network, which has tentacles all over the country.”

However, during the press conference when Ravel was asked by a reporter about the $11 million donation, she admitted the FPPC had no evidence that any of the funding was actually from the Kochs. “I don’t believe we know what money was included in the $11 million, and I think that was part of the purpose of the exchange.”

Pot, meet kettle

Ravel, the outgoing chairwoman of the FPPC, held the press conference announcing the largest fine in FPPC history Thursday of last week, the day before she was leaving to become the head of the Federal Election Commission as a President Obama appointee.

The FPPC attempted to link the Koch brothers to violations of campaign finance disclosure laws, apparently without any evidence the Kochs were personally involved.

“Americans for Responsible Leadership Admits Campaign Money Laundering, Discloses $11 Million Donor,” the FPPC website headline says. “Americans for Responsible Leadership, the Arizona non-profit corporation that made an anonymous $11 million donation to a California campaign committee, today sent a letter declaring itself to be the intermediary and not the true source of the contribution. It identified the true source of the contribution as Americans for Job Security, through a second intermediary, The Center to Protect Patient Rights.”

What’s interesting is while most of the media decry the Koch brothers’ political contributions and donations, left-wing political donor George Soros is revered, despite his ties to hundreds of non-profit organizations, media outlets, and politicians. The government largely leaves Soros alone now that Barack Obama is President.

The last FEC fine handed out to a Soros organization was in 2007 by the Federal Election Commission, for $375,000.

“Numerous news reports have tried to link the Kochs to the funding, citing Sean Noble, founder of CPPR, who had worked as a consultant to Koch Industries in the past,” the Washington Free Beacon reported. “The group has no formal ties to the Koch brothers.”

Teamsters’ love the fine

“California Teamsters and allies used the power of their numbers last year to defeat Proposition 32, an anti-worker proposal secretly funded by the Benedict Arnold Koch Brothers and other anti-worker billionaires,” Teamsters Magazine reported following the press conference.

“From the Koch network, according to a story today by Dan Morain in the Sacramento Bee,” Teamster Magazine said. “Two Republican operatives cooked up Proposition 32, managed to get it on the ballot and then went looking for the money to broadcast their propaganda. There was plenty of it — many millions, in fact. The only problem was, the greedy billionaires who contributed didn’t want their identities known.”

“Ms. Ravel’s comments about Koch are unfounded and without factual basis, as she acknowledged in her press conference,” said Melissa Cohlmia, communications director for Koch Industries, in the Washington Free Beacon.

“Despite the millions of dollars rich extremists were willing to throw at Proposition 32, workers were ultimately able to prevail because they stood united against big business,” Teamsters Magazine said.

The accused

Two nonprofit groups, the Center to Protect Patient Rights and Americans for Responsible Leadership, reached a civil settlement with the FPPC, agreeing to share a $1 million fine.

The FPPC accused the non-profit groups of failing to disclose financial contributions used to oppose the union measure, which was ultimately defeated by California voters in 2012.

“The lawsuit filed against Americans for Responsible Leadership is yet another action taken by the Fair Political Practices Commission to increase political transparency and promote fairness in the election process,” the FPPC website says.

Americans for Responsible Leadership President Kirk Adams, a former Arizona lawmaker, called the fine a vindication for his group after top Democratic California officials last year made “outlandish claims of money laundering, criminal violations,” ABC news reported. Adams said ARL actions were inadvertent violations of disclosure laws.

FPPC Chairwoman Ann Ravel, a Democrat, is leaving the FPPC later this week to join the Federal Election Commission in Washington, as a President Obama appointee.

Super PACs vs. Big Labor

At issue was $11 million in Super PAC money contributed to fight the governor's ballot initiative to increase sales and income taxes through Proposition 30, and the ballot initiative which would have weakened the political power of labor unions, Proposition 32.

There was relatively little media interest in the $66 million raised by organized labor to fight passage of Prop. 32, including $20 million from the California Teachers Association.

Many charged the controversial $11 million contribution came from the despised Koch brothers, who give to conservative causes. The recipient of the  donation was Sacramento-based Small Business Action Committee PAC and its No on Proposition 30/Yes on Proposition 32 efforts.

Prop. 32 would have prohibited corporations and public employee unions from making direct contributions to political campaigns, and ban automatic payroll deductions by corporations and unions of employees’ wages to be used for politics.

The donation made headlines and generated a controversy because of its source — an unknown Phoenix group called Americans for Responsible Leadership.

The Center to Protect Patient Rights, was the other Arizona organization involved in the donation.

Ravel ordered FPPC attorneys to demand that Americans for Responsible Leadership disclose the contribution’s original donors,  a complaint by California Common Cause. When they would not, Ravel and Attorney General Kamala Harris opened a formal inquiry into the group's donation to the Small Business Action Committee.

After the California officials demanded the donors behind the contribution reveal themselves, received the refusal, they called it “campaign money laundering.”

CalWatchdog will have a follow up report immediately after the noon press conference.

California lawmakers object to “dark money,” a term for campaign contributions used to pay for an election campaign without disclosing the source of the money. But while Democratic lawmakers object to “dark money,” they don’t seem to want to talk about public employee union campaign contributions.

On Aug 13, the Assembly Elections and Redistricting Committee heard testimony on several bills that supposedly would “reform” the campaign money process.

Dark money

SB 27, by state Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, and SB-594, by state Sen. Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, were the two standout bills.

SB 27 would require state ballot measure committees and state candidate committees which raise $1 million or more for an election to maintain an accurate list of the committee’s top 10 contributors, and provide that list to the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

SB 27 was sparked by the now infamous contributions last fall from Phoenix-based Americans for Responsible Leadership, an Arizona nonprofit organization. According to Correa, ARL donated $11 million. Receiving the money were the campaign against Proposition 30, which raised Californians’ taxes $7 million; and the campaign for Proposition 32, which would have prevented labor unions from automatically deducting union dues for political campaigns.

After a court battle with the FPPC, this “dark money” nonprofit group revealed that it was not the original source of the $11 million contribution but merely an intermediary. “They disclosed the true origin of the money was another nonprofit, and another nonprofit,” Correa said at the hearing.

Correa said the purpose of his bill is to require nonprofits to reveal the true sources of campaign contributions. While Correa’s bill is sponsored by the FPPC, other groups stepped up to renounce “dark money.”

The original source of this campaign money is still unknown to the public and the matter is still the subject of an ongoing FPPC investigation, Correa added.

However, ARL lost handily on both counts. Prop. 30, backed with more than $30 million in union money, won 55-44, And Prop. 32, opposed with more than $60 million in union money, lost 57-43.

Who is allowed to lobby?

“I see this as an attempt to silence and crush out dissent,” said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks. “Government and media demonize opponents’ positions.”

Donnelly asked Correa why, if SB 27 was intended to shed light on the sources of money flowing into campaigns, the educational system was not also being scrutinized for openly lobbying on behalf of Prop. 30? State law prohibits public officials from using their offices to promote initiatives.

Donnelly said teachers and school administrators handed out flyers to students and parents, and talked in classrooms about the need for the parents to vote for Prop. 30. “It’s an illegal use of state resources,” Donnelly said. “But nobody here talked about the illegal use of K-12 grade employees and the university system being used to lobby parents on Prop. 30.”

Zackery Morazzini, counsel for the FPPC, suggested Donnelly file a complaint. Morazzini explained his department was just the enforcement arm of the FPPC and could not do anything without a complaint. But he assured Donnelly that the FPPC has gone after many public entities.

“To hear from thousands of Californians that their schools were using public resources to lobby on behalf of Prop. 30 was deeply disturbing,” Donnelly said. “But when you’re only going after one side, I can’t get behind that. We have a much more corrupt system here than just the ‘dark money.’”

California Common Cause, the League of Women Voters, and the Alliance for Justice, which “represents thousands of legitimate nonprofits,” according to its representative at the hearing, support SB 27.

The California Clean Money Campaign, also in support of SB 27, is more of a mystery. Also a nonprofit, the CCMC appears to be largely staffed with community organizers. And it is unclear where their own funding comes from.

But each of the groups in support of SB 27 was largely mum on campaign funding from public employee unions.

Classroom advocacy

I covered a situation of campaigning and lobbying in the classroom at California State University, Fresno during the 2012 election. Despite receiving a rebuke from school officials, professors and teachers had no intention of stopping.

“State college instructors and professors continue to promote Prop. 30 during class time, according to Daniel Harrison, a student at California State University, Fresno, and president of the Fresno State College Republicans,” I wrote.

“From talking about Prop. 30 during irrelevant class time, to student fees funding campaign materials, to giving an essay exam question mandating students explain the rationale and virtues of Governor Brown’s tax initiative, Fresno State is using taxpayer dollars for illegal political advocacy,” Harrison said during an interview.

During the campaign, one professor even assigned an essay question on a midterm exam, demanding that students “argue for virtues of Proposition 30 by referring to relevant parts of Jean Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophy.” The professor’s instructions included, “You will not earn any credit at all just by saying what Prop 30 is all about. Your goal is to demonstrate that you can use J.J. Rousseau’s ideas and concepts to explain the rationale for Prop. 30.”

“Prop. 30 is the poster child for a campaign that misused public resources,” Donnelly told me after the hearing. “Not only was the use of public school classrooms to campaign for the massive tax increase illegal, but the very idea of using the unlimited resources of government to lobby against the interest of hardworking taxpayer is downright immoral.”

Part 2 tomorrow.

By Katy Grimes

The U.S. Constitution is under attack again.

At issue is the controversial Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission U.S. Supreme Court decision. It basically allowed unlimited corporate contributions to political campaigns.

Two Assembly Democrats authored Assembly Joint Resolution 22 and say that it is part of a growing national grassroots movement to urge Congress to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court decision.

In March, the Assembly passed AJR 22 to urge Congress to amend the United States Constitution, and impose limits on political corporate contributions.

Assemblymen Bob Wieckowski, D-Fremont, and Michael Allen, D-Santa Rosa, presented AJR 22 to the Senate Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments Tuesday. “As the most populous state in the country, with the largest congressional delegation, California must take a stand in opposition to this misguided ruling,” Wieckowski said.

“Corporations are not people and money is not speech,” is the rally cry for those who want the case overturned.

“At a time when the people’s trust in their government is at an all-time low, Citizens United further erodes the public’s faith that the people’s interests will come before those of wealthy special interests,” the authors wrote in bill analysis.

Citizens United

In January 2010, the United States Supreme Court reached the landmark decision which reaffirmed that the First Amendment did, in fact, prohibit the government from restricting political expenditures by corporations and unions. The court said that political contributions are a form of free speech, and should not be regulated or narrowly tailored by the government for its own interest.

As part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also called McCain-Feingold, Congress prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make “independent expenditures” for “electioneering communications” within 60 days of a general election, or within 30 days of a primary election.

The AJR 22 analysis explained, “Citizens United was a controversial documentary entitled, Hillary, which was highly critical of then-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a candidate in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary. Citizens United, a non-profit corporation, wanted to make the documentary available by ‘video-on-demand’ within the 30 days of the primary election. Concerned that the broadcast might be prohibited by BCRA, Citizens United sought declaratory and injunctive relief that the BCRA did not apply to the documentary and, indeed, would be unconstitutional if applied to the showing of Hillary.”

When  the case came before it in 2o10, the court proceeded not only to strike down the related provisions of McCain-Feingold, but to overturn long-standing precedents upholding the constitutionality of federal and state efforts to regulate campaign financing. In overturning its prior decisions, the Supreme Court in Citizens United held that corporations and unions are now free to spend unlimited amounts on “independent expenditures” — even for advertisements that expressly mention the candidate by name.

One of the outcomes of the Citizen United decision was the creation of Super Committees and SuperPacs, which may accept unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, and corporations.

Despite the Supreme Court stating that the First Amendment “must protect corporations and individuals with equal vigor,” California Democrats continue to push the passage of the resolution urging Congress to amend the Constitution, and limit corporate contributions to political PACs.

Elections Today

During the Assembly floor debate of AJR 22, arguments and floor speeches by Democratic legislators only addressed corporate contributions. Democrats in the Assembly never once mentioned union contributions. The Democrats repeatedly said that AJR 22 wasn’t just a resolution, but was part of a national movement to limit and control corporate political contributions.

AJR 22, is one of 13 resolutions seeking to overturn Citizens United. All of the other 13 resolutions seek to overturn the decision in different ways. Some of the resolutions also claim that corporations are not “persons’; others would seek more congressional power to regulate campaign contributions and expenditures more narrowly.

Wieckowski said that, with his resolution, California will be part of a “grassroots movement that believes corporations are not people and money is not speech,” a quote made famous by David Kairys, the civil rights law professor who warned that the 2010 court decision would unleash “a new wave of campaign cash and adds to the already considerable power of corporations.”

Supporters of the resolution who testified at the hearing included CalPIRG, the California Public Interest Research Group, a group founded by activist Ralph Nader; Common Cause, a non-profit association often described as “the people’s lobbying association,” but which also is a liberal activist grouip; California Church Impact; California League of Conservation Voters; Public Action; and a succession of private citizens angry about the Citizens United decision.

The groups supporting AJR 22 called for “reasonable limits” for contributions. “What are reasonable limits?” asked the committee chairman, Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana. “This is window dressing.”

Correa suggested that Proposition 34, passed in 2008, would be a more effective policy. Prop 34 limits the amount of money an individual can contribute to candidates for the California State Legislature and for statewide elective offices. It also limits contributions to political parties. Prop 34 expanded financial disclosure requirements and prohibited contributions from lobbyists to the election campaigns of politicians they lobby.

But the unintended outcome of Proposition 34 allowed many other ways for officeholders, candidates and special-interest contributors to legally circumvent the measure’s contribution limits.

Republicans are opposed to the resolution and have said that the government-imposed restrictions should be removed from political campaign contributions, and complete disclosure and transparency about who is contributing should be required instead.

During the Assembly floor debate about AJR 22, the most pertinent question to the argument was asked by Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Hesperia: “What is a corporation? A corporation is an assembly of people. If you’re regulated by the government, don’t you have the right to address your government?”