Inequality in San Francisco breeds political unease

Good morning! We’ll get to legislative action in a second, but first we turn to San Francisco, where inequality is making for tense politics.

As San Francisco’s sharp inequality draws national attention this election year, California Democrats have begun to question how to explain their role in fostering — and reversing — the trend.

The gulf between the progressive city’s richest and poorest, and the emptying space between the two, has come to haunt Democrats worried that their almost unfettered control over state and municipal politics has left promises unfulfilled and little plan for change in the future.

“During all my years in Asia I constantly grappled with the perniciousness of poverty,” Thomas Fuller wrote in a dispatch for the New York Times Sunday Review. “Yet somehow I was unprepared for the scale and severity of homelessness in San Francisco. The juxtaposition of the silent whir of sleek Tesla electric vehicles, with the outbursts of the mentally ill on the sidewalks … .”

CalWatchdog has more. 

In other news:

• “The California Fair Political Practices Commission will investigate donations made to the California Democratic Party by privately owned utilities and other energy interests. The action was prompted by an August report. Despite the report’s heavy focus on Gov. Jerry Brown — it was entitled “Brown’s Dirty Hands” — the commission did not see fit to investigate the governor himself.” The San Diego Union-Tribune has more. 

• “More than 50 employees working inside Los Angeles County’s juvenile lockups received promotions despite a history of disciplinary problems or criminal arrests under a deal county leaders quietly cut earlier this year,” writes the Los Angeles Times.

• “State Assembly candidate Madison Nguyen appears to be dealing with at least one argumentative campaign volunteer impostor. A man posing as a campaign volunteer has been visiting San Jose homes and getting into arguments with residents, but there might be more than one person involved, Nguyen’s campaign said,” The San Jose Mercury News has more.

• “Offering relief to dogs stuck in hot cars, Gov. Jerry Brown on Saturday signed legislation letting Californians in limited cases – and without fear of civil liability – smash car windows to set them free,” reports The Sacramento Bee.

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December, but there will be a hearing on the use of psychotropic drugs in the foster care system at 1 p.m. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @ConsumerWD

Open-government groups fighting with political ethics watchdog

Good morning. Happy hump day. We start with an interesting read from the Los Angeles Times about good government groups fighting with the FPPC.

“A rare and heated dispute has erupted between California’s campaign finance regulators and open-government groups that have accused the watchdog agency of pressuring them to rescind their support for legislation designed to show who is funding political ads.

“Supporters of the bill criticized the state Fair Political Practices Commission for heavy-handed tactics that they said included pushing groups the commission has the power to investigate and fine to drop their support for the transparency bill.

“‘It’s really inappropriate for a regulator who has enormous power over organizations to call up those organizations over which they have power, and lobby them,’ said Trent Lange, president of California Clean Money Campaign. ‘It’s just inherently intimidating to have your regulator call you and ask you to do something.’

“Michele Sutter, co-founder of the group Money Out Voters In, called it ‘shocking behavior by the FPPC.'”

The Los Angeles Times has more.

In other news:

• “In addition to their six-figure salaries and benefits, California’s 120 lawmakers are compensated for their cost of living and meals when they leave home and travel to Sacramento to write and pass bills. Unlike in many other states, however, California lawmakers have over time crafted loosely worded rules for themselves that allow them to collect those payments regardless of whether they even show up to work,” reports AP/The San Jose Mercury News. 

• “Kamala Harris, in the final weeks of her U.S. Senate campaign against fellow Democrat Loretta Sanchez, released a higher education plan Tuesday calling for making public colleges and universities free for students whose families earn less than $140,000 a year. She also wants to allow borrowers to discharge student loans in bankruptcy.” The Sacramento Bee has more. 

• “The retiring forecaster for California’s largest public employee pension fund offered some final advice on Tuesday: State and local governments should be required to pay more into the system as soon as next year.” The Los Angeles Times has more.

• “A prominent group advocating for LGBT rights has withdrawn its endorsement of six state Assembly members because they abstained or voted against a bill aimed at protecting gay and transgender students from discrimination at private colleges,” reports the Los Angeles Times.

   

Legislature:

• Gone ’til December. 

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced.

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New follower: @claireconlon

The Fair Political Practices Commission found that in seven instances Yee’s state controller campaign did not file certain campaign finance disclosures in the time frame required by law — although the FPPC also found no evidence of intent to conceal.

The late disclosures were periodic reports, totaling only $68,000. By contrast, the campaign in total raised more than $1.5 million in 2014.

Earlier this month, The Sacramento Bee reported that Yee’s campaign treasurer, Jane Leiderman of Leiderman and Associates, took responsibility for the disclosure violations and agreed to pay the fine. 

“It’s always unfortunate when there is not compliance, and I do regret that the FPPC imposed the fine,” Yee told The Bee. “My treasurer has taken full responsibility, and everything has been handled responsibly.”

FBI data collection program exposed

Good morning, so close to Friday!

After years of operating under the radar, the cover has been pulled back on an FBI program, centered around Southern California, to amass iris scan information in a federal database.

CalWatchdog has more.

In other news: 

• The FPPC will consider a measure that would “allow state regulators to require suspected lobbyists to provide evidence showing whether they’re being paid to influence government officials,” reports The San Jose Mercury News/AP.
• “Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration now says it will consider requiring homebuilders to pay construction workers at rates equivalent to union wages as part of its effort to streamline housing development across California,” writes the Los Angeles Times.
• Why is Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom is having such a great time at the Republican National Convention? The answer? It’s easy to pick fights to rally supporters back in CA. The Sacramento Bee has more.  
• Who is Dean “Dino” Cortopassi, 78, the man behind Prop. 53, which would require voter approval of any public works project funded by at least $2 billion of revenue bonds? Capitol Weekly has more.

Legislature:

• Gone ’til August

Gov. Brown:

• No public events announced

Tips: matt@calwatchdog.com

Follow us: @calwatchdog @mflemingterp

New followers: @jstorres

Currently, anyone who spends $5,000 or more to influence legislative or administrative action is required quarterly to disclose payments to lobbying firms, payments to lobbyists, activity expenses and other payments to influence legislative or administrative action.

The regulation, which will go into effect July 1 — meaning it’ll start showing up in October just before the election — makes it so the fourth category “other payments to influence” will be itemized. As it stands now, that fourth category has become a catchall with no accountability.

This “other payments” classification could include hiring consultants — such as former politicians who aren’t registered lobbyists — or the cost of advertising, hiring a public affairs firm, media consulting firm, or even something simple like paying rent.

But no one really knows on a case-by-case basis, since up until now it’s just reported as a top line amount with no specificity.

And groups are more regularly relying on this ambiguous classification. For example, the 10 interest groups that regularly spend the most on lobbying have gone from 52 percent of their total amount reported as “other payments” in 2000 to 69 percent in 2014, according to the Fair Political Practices Commission report.

Total spending has increased as well, up 34 percent over that same period of time among the top 10.

“There are two main goals behind the regulation, to increase transparency and promote compliance,” said FPPC Chair Jodi Remke in a statement. “As for transparency, the public is entitled to know who is trying to influence public officials and how they are doing it. As for compliance, lobbying is largely a self-regulated industry and requiring more detailed reporting is the most effective tool to promote compliance and facilitate enforcement against improper activity.”

The threshold for itemization will be $2,500 per expense, broken out into multiple categories, including salary, lobbyist expenses, legislative-related services, consultants and government relations, public affairs, advertising, research, lobbying events and other. Disclosing the name and address of the payee will also be required.

Critics say because the $2,500 threshold is so low, the new law imposes cumbersome reporting requirements on filers, particularly now in the middle of an election cycle, and the privacy of employees whose names will be published will be violated with little value to the public.

“These are individuals within many organizations who are not registered lobbyists, and while they may engage in some direct lobbying communications, they do not qualify as lobbyists,” wrote Diane M. Fishburn and Richard R. Rios of the law firm Olson, Hagel and Fishburn, in a letter to the FPPC.

“We ask that the commission recognize that there is little if any value to the public in the disclosure of the individual names and addresses or the salaries paid to these individuals,” continued Fishburn and Rios, whose firm represents the California State Council of Service Employees, an SEIU affiliate.

A state lawmaker wants to double the reporting threshold for political campaigns in California — allowing major donors to contribute more money and campaigns to spend more money before filing a disclosure report.

Under the Political Reform Act of 1974, as modified by later laws, candidate and independent expenditure committees must file disclosure reports after accepting $1,000 or more in a calendar year. Similarly, the state requires major donors to file campaign reports after contributing $10,000 or more in a calendar year.

Assemblyman Richard Gordon, D-Menlo Park, believes it’s time to increase those disclosure limits. Assembly Bill 594 would require candidate and independent expenditure committees to file a disclosure report after spending $2,000 or more in a calendar year. The reporting threshold for major donors would increase from $10,000 to $20,000 or more.

Political amateurs punished by campaign finance laws

Since his election to the state Assembly in 2010, Gordon has carved out a special niche in campaign finance legislation with bills to increase regulation and disclosure requirements. In 2012, Gordon authored Assembly Bill 481, which added new reporting requirements for independent expenditure and major donor committees. Last year, Gov. Jerry Brown signed Gordon’s bill, Assembly Bill 800, to give the Fair Political Practices Commission “the authority to conduct immediate audits when political campaigns are suspected of illegal activity and requires subcontractors and sub-vendors to disclose their donations.”

State-level political campaigns continue to be big budget blockbusters. According to the Sacramento Bee’s analysis of campaign finance reports, “candidates and independent groups collectively spent at least $150 million on Assembly and Senate contests statewide over the two-year election cycle.”

Why would a Democratic politician with a record of authoring campaign finance laws seemingly aid money in politics? Like his previous campaign finance proposals, Gordon’s current legislation has support from the state’s campaign watchdog, which argued that low campaign spending limits reduce political participation.

In a memo obtained by the Los Angeles Times, Erin Peth, executive director of the FPPC, said that the current campaign finance rules “can be a barrier for those individuals who wish to participate, but who will not be raising or spending large amounts of money in connection with an election.” Peth also argued, “Committee qualification thresholds have not been updated since at least 1987 and the proposed increases in the bill are intended to adjust the thresholds with the rate of inflation.”

According to the Inflation Calculator of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, when adjusted for the rising in the cost of living, $1,000 in 1987 is the equivalent of $2,066 today.

The rationale for higher limits is supported by pro-freedom campaign finance experts, who strongly defend political contributions as a protected form of political speech. Complex campaign finance laws force average citizens to seek legal counsel before engaging in political organizing.

“While serving on the FEC from 2000 to 2005, I kept a file of letters from political amateurs caught in the maw of campaign-finance laws,” Bradley Smith, a law professor and former chairman of the Federal Election Commission, wrote in 2007. “Many of these people had no lawyers; none had the least intent to corrupt any officeholder; and all thought that they were fulfilling their civic duty by their involvement in campaigns.”

Top Two Primary could lead to more low-budget upsets

A higher campaign reporting threshold also increases the chances that those amateurs turn pro. Aided by California’s Top Two primary, which was passed by state voters in 2010, unknown candidates have been able to exceed political expectations, even achieve remarkable upsets, with low-budget campaigns. With higher reporting levels, these candidates will be able to operate in the dark for longer without tipping off incumbents.

Last November, unknown community activist Patty Lopez failed to report any expenditures in the primary campaign, despite spending a few thousands dollars. That failure to report resulted in a $400 fine by the FPPC. In the general election, she went on to upset fellow Democrat, Asm. Raul Bocanegra.

“I made a few mistakes, and I paid the price for that,” Lopez said after the election. “Most of the people on my team, we’re not in the political arena.”

Lopez’s campaign finances weren’t managed by a campaign professional, just a family friend who was willing to serve as treasurer. That’s exactly the type of grassroots campaign political watchdogs hope to encourage with relaxed campaign finance regulations.

Her victory is proof that low-budget long-shots have the potential to win. Although it’s unlikely that Bocanegra would have been intimidated by a few thousands dollars of campaign spending, some political observers believe the lack of campaign finance disclosure contributed to the perception that she wasn’t a serious threat.

Opportunity for political professionals to exploit

By aiding political amateurs with higher reporting levels, state regulators also could empower creative political professionals to exploit the outcome of primary races. In multi-candidate primary elections, political professionals could spend just under $2,000 in online ads or automated calls backing a decoy candidate.

Such a scenario has already played out in this year’s special election for the 7th State Senate District. A Democrat-led political action committee, the Asian American Small Business PAC, spent $46,380 on behalf of Michaela Hertle, a Republican candidate who had dropped out of the race.

By backing the lone Republican candidate, the political action committee hoped to thwart moderate Democrat Steve Glazer, who had built his campaign strategy on appealing to Republicans and independent voters. Glazer ultimately advanced to the May run-off against fellow Democrat, Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla. But Hertle had an impact, garnering 15 percent of the vote.

But Assemblyman Richard Gordon, D-Menlo Park, and the staff of the state Fair Political Practices Commission, California’s chief political watchdog, want to go in a different direction. FPPC staffers have endorsed AB 594, Gordon’s measure modifying the landmark Political Reform Act of 1974. This is from the L.A. Times:

Citing inflation, the state’s campaign finance watchdog agency is considering a proposal to raise the fundraising thresholds at which campaigns must report their financing, drawing some concerns from an advocate for fuller disclosure.

Currently, campaign committees and independent expenditure committees must report their fundraising and spending when they receive contributions of $1,000 or more in a calendar year. The state Fair Political Practices Commission staff is recommending that the panel support legislation that would raise that level to $2,000.

In addition, contributors must file special “major donor” reports disclosing all donations they make when they give $10,000 in a calendar year. The bill recommended by the FPPC staff would raise that threshold to $20,000.

Gordon depicted the measure as promoting democracy in comments to the Times:

“The proposed increases, while below what an adjustment for inflation would be, are intended to recognize that the cost of a true grassroots campaign has increased over this time and would allow those campaigns to still operate without the burden associated with filings.”

But the “burden” he cites has been diminishing for two decades, thanks to technology. At the national level, here’s where the campaign finance debate has been focused:

What’s the solution? Spending limits are off the table; like it or not, the Supreme Court is unlikely to reverse itself anytime soon. That leaves transparency as the issue to tackle. Mindful of potential First Amendment problems, Congress should revisit a policy Republicans offered in defiance of McCain-Feingold: Unlimited donations coupled with immediate transparency.

What could be a more modern, tech-fueled reform than requiring political candidates and groups to simultaneously deposit and disclose? Open-government groups could develop apps enabling voters to track donations to certain members of Congress or from specific interest groups, with customized alerts sent to their mobile devices.

That’s from the Jan. 27 column of Ron Fournier in the National Journal. Fournier is the former Washington bureau chief for The Associated Press.

The FPPC board is expected to discuss Gordon’s bill at its meeting Thursday.

“Obviously I wasn’t that surprised,” Asemblyman Adam Gray, D-Merced, a longtime aide to Calderon, told the Los Angeles Times. “I wasn’t involved in that at all.”

While there’s no evidence implicating Gray in the alleged pay-to-play behavior by Calderon, Gray learned one thing from his disgraced mentor: how to use campaign committees to fund a life of luxury.

A CalWatchdog.com analysis of Gray’s campaign finance records shows hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on five-star hotels, luxurious golf resorts, international junkets, Hawaiian vacations, world-class restaurants, award-winning wineries and limousine rental companies. Gray’s extravagant spending can’t please California Democratic Party officials, who’ve been forced to transfer hundreds of thousands of dollars in recent weeks to defend Gray’s seat.

Gray’s lavish fundraising events

Under state law, campaign funds can only be legally spent on expenses directly related to a candidate’s election.

“Moneys in the candidate’s campaign bank account shall be spent only on expenses associated with the candidate’s election to the specific elective office designated in the statement of intention and expenses associated with holding that office,” the state’s campaign finance regulations state.

But, that doesn’t stop a candidate from spending big on lavish fundraising events. Last year, a CalWatchdog.com investigation revealed Calderon spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign funds on private jets, five-star hotels, elite golf courses and extravagant meals at the country’s finest restaurants. Through Diversity PAC, Calderon spent $220,000 at luxury golf resorts, including Bandon Dunes, Pebble Beach, Indian Wells and the American Club, as well as $56,000 in luxury travel.

Gray’s campaign mimicked Calderon’s luxury spending with $21,740 in gifts at Rossini’s Menswear, $14,563 at Vista Ranch & Cellars and $2,383 at Stevensons Ranch Golf Club, all classified as expenses related to fundraising events, according to state disclosure reports.

State law bans campaign committees from making expenditures “which confer a substantial personal benefit.” However, the state’s political watchdog has carved out an exception for any activities that have a political, legislative or governmental purpose.

Gray exploited that exception to ring up $7,604 at the Ritz Carlton, $3,334 at Sheraton Hotels, $1,125 at the Hyatt Regency Indian Wells Resort and Spa and $347 at the oceanfront Terranea Resort.

“Terranea is a land unto itself,” boasts L.A.’s oceanfront resort, where Gray spent a few hundred dollars in candidate travel, lodging and meals in Nov. 2013. “As the location of many Hollywood films and television shows, all who come to Terranea feel as though they’ve walked onto the set of paradise.”

Gray’s junkets to Maui, Cuba

Gray has been no stranger to the legislative junket circuit. He billed his campaign account for thousands of dollars in expenses for trips to Maui and Cuba, which were organized by lobbyists and special-interest groups. According to his campaign finance disclosure reports, Gray paid $1,000 to Californians Building Bridges for a deposit on a 2013 trip to Cuba.

Founded by Sacramento lobbyist Darius Anderson, CBB has little to show in the way of charitable activities. CBB, according to its most recent tax return, provided no financial support to domestic or international charities.

In addition to his trip to Cuba, Gray used campaign funds to reimburse the Independent Voter Project for nearly $2,900 in expenses at an infamous conference held annually at a luxurious Maui resort. That doesn’t include another $812 in charges at the Fairmont Maui. At the annual conference, lawmakers enjoyed time at the beach, extravagant meals, fine wines and rounds of cocktails while discussing policy issues with lobbyists, business executives and union leaders.

“Limousine liberal” spent thousands at popular steakhouses

You could even say Gray is a “limousine liberal,” having rung up multiple charges with limousine rental companies and chauffeur services. The $1,332 in charges to limo rental companies included nearly $900 spent on July 3 with Baja Limo. On the same day, Gray spent several hundred dollars in meals at Chops Steakhouse and Grange Restaurant and Bar, two of his most-frequented restaurants in Sacramento.

Bars and restaurants were another common item on Gray’s campaign report, including $2,817 at the Branding Iron Restaurant, nearly $2,600 at Chops Steakhouse, $2,000 at Simon’s Cafe and nearly $1,400 each at Frank Fat’s and Grange Restaurant and Bar.

The Humane Society of the United States, which gave Gray low marks on its 2013 legislative scorecard, may want to chat with the Democrat lawmaker about his habit of eating at steakhouses. In addition to Chops, Gray’s campaign paid for meals at C2 Steak House, Morton’s and Ruth’s Chris.

Sac Bee looks at credit-cards transactions

Legislators commonly ring up thousands of dollars in ambiguous credit-card charges. According to the Sacramento Bee, “A first-ever review of lawmakers’ credit-card spending by the Sacramento Bee found that many lawmakers provided only the barest of descriptions of their expenses on state-required campaign reports – despite a 2008 rule meant to improve disclosure.”

Gray was no exception, showing $42,643 in charges to his Wells Fargo credit card labeled “travel, office supplies, meeting and event expenses.”

CalWatchdog.com analyzed campaign spending reports for both Gray’s 2014 re-election campaign committee and a second, ballot-measure committee, called Valley Solutions: Assemblymember Adam Gray’s Ballot Measure Committee Supporting Propositions 1 and 2.

Similar to Gov. Jerry Brown’s ballot-measure committee, Gray has used the second campaign account to accept larger campaign checks from special-interest groups and big corporations that lobby the Legislature, including $35,000 from the California Independent Petroleum Association, $25,000 from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and $15,000 from tobacco giant Philip Morris.

Democrats, special interests forced to rescue Gray

Gray’s extravagant campaign spending left him unprepared for a strong challenge by Republican Jack Mobley. In the past two weeks, the California Democratic Party has spent more than $235,00 on Gray’s campaign. This cycle, state and local Democratic Party committees have transferred more than $310,000 toward Gray’s reelection effort. Gray has received roughly a half-million dollars in campaign contributions in the last two weeks of the campaign, including late contributions from big business and big labor.

Gray’s luxurious lifestyle has gotten him into trouble with the state’s political watchdog.

Earlier this year, according to the Sacramento Bee, “Gray, a Democratic assemblyman from Merced who earlier worked as a Calderon staffer, agreed with the FPPC to pay a $2,000 fine for not reporting $1,900 worth of golf Yocha Dehe contributed to his campaign during a fundraiser at the tribe’s casino in December 2011.”

It wasn’t the first time Gray’s been in trouble with the state’s political watchdog. In 2010, Gray was fined $400 by the FPPC for failing to report two gifts on his annual Statement of Economic Interests.

Specifically, Form 700 is a Statement of Economic Interests required of “designated” government employees, meaning the governor’s top aides and consultants. Some, but not all, of Brown’s “designated” appointees have filed Form 700s with the Fair Political Practices Commission.

As CalWatchdog.com detailed, the FPPC included in its files Form 700 from Fish and Game Commissioner Mike Sutton.

But for new Labor Secretary David Lanier, the FPPC did not comply with CalWatchdog.com’s request for copies of his Form 700.

Because of the discrepancy, CalWatchdog.com asked Brown’s press secretary, Evan Westrup, “What is the Brown administration policy on Form 700s, gifts, travel expense claims, and conflicts of interest?”

Westrup replied:

“Pursuant to the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.), the Governor’s Office maintains a Conflict of Interest Code, which lists the designated employees that are required to file statements of economic interest. A copy of the Conflict of Interest Code is attached. All employees of the Governor’s Office maintain strict adherence to the requirements of the Political Reform Act.”

The code requires Brown administration employees first to file their statements of economic interest with the governor’s office. The governor’s office then sends only some of the statements to the FPPC, and retains others. Government Code Section 81000 et seq. can be found here.

Schwarzenegger administration

A March 2009 Los Angeles Times story found that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger banned nonessential travel in his administration. But records showed members of his administration ran up significant commuting travel expenses that were paid at the taxpayers’ expense.

In the story, Michael Josephson, president of the nonprofit Josephson Institute of Ethics in Los Angeles, accused the Schwarzenegger administration of lackadaisical oversight of its required reporting.

“Is anybody at the wheel here?” asked Josephson. “The best possible case for this, which is still not a good case, is [that] nobody is providing oversight. . . . The worst case is that you have some people who are knowingly taking advantage.”

Transparency: word du jour

When Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor 2003-2011, his administration created a transparency website that Brown shut down upon taking office in 2011.

The Schwarzenegger policy was formalized in April of 2009 with the transparency website launch. On June 4, 2009, Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-08-09, directing state agencies and departments to post audits of their operations performed by outside entities dating back to January 1, 2008, and financial and programmatic audits, as well as audits that they have performed on other government entities.

The order said:

“WHEREAS the technical definition of ‘audits’ is too narrow and there is a need to increase transparency in government by posting other types of reports and similar documents on the Reporting Government Transparency web site.”

A 2009 press release said:

“Continuing his commitment to making government more transparent to the people of California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today launched www.reportingtransparency.ca.gov. This Web site makes publicly available the Statement of Economic Interests, Form 700, and the Travel Expense claims for the Governor’s Office Senior Staff and Deputies, Agency Secretaries, Agency Undersecretaries and Department Directors.”

The press release is no longer available on the state’s website. And the transparency site has been reduced to announcing Brown pulling the plug, plus other resources that might be tried to find the information.

The press release, which only remains in a Sacramento Bee story, is pictured below.

Additionally, travel expense claims and Form 700s from the senior staff and deputies in the governor’s office were posted on the Governor’s Office Web site before it was taken down.

Schwarzenegger himself said:

“Since taking office I have taken steps to make government more accountable and responsive to the people. By making the economic, gift and travel information of the senior members of my administration easily available online, we are taking unprecedented steps to open up our government to the people — yet another critical step toward more government transparency.”

Website taken down

“‘The website eliminated more than four months ago was poorly maintained, underutilized and had not been regularly updated by the previous administration,’ Westrup said. He noted that Sunshine Review, a national nonprofit organization dedicated to government transparency, gave California an A grade in its annual report this week, praising the state for posting budgets, contracts and audits on its websites.”

CalWatchdog.com asked Westrup why the Brown administration didn’t just bring the website up-to-date?

He replied with wording similar to what he gave the Times:

“The website, eliminated more than two years ago was poorly maintained, underutilized and had not been regularly updated by the previous administration. The information that was previously posted on that website remains available to the public.”

CalWatchdog.com suggested to Westrup that, while the Sunshine Review gave California an “A” grade in its annual report, posting budgets and contracts is not in the same as reporting conflicts of interest and financial disclosures.

Westrup then forwarded CalWatchdog.com a copy of the Brown administration’s two-page Conflict of interest Code (reproduced below). And he wrote:

“Pursuant to the Political Reform Act (Government Code section 81000 et seq.), the Governor’s Office maintains a Conflict of Interest Code, which lists the designated employees that are required to file statements of economic interest. All employees of the Governor’s Office maintain strict adherence to the requirements of the Political Reform Act.

“Regarding travel, the Governor’s Office follows DGS and CalHR state travel policies (you can read more here, here and here). Regarding: the ‘transparency website,’ the statement you cite below still applies.”

He was referring to his statement about the Schwarzenegger transparency website being poorly maintained.

Meanwhile, Controller John Chiang, using no money above that already allocated to his office, was putting up a widely praised, comprehensive website listing state and local government employees’ compensation. Brown’s notice on the dismantled transparency website even pointed to Chiang’s website as a place to dig for the compensation information no longer easily available on the governor’s site.

References: The Conflict of Interest Code

The FPPC website explains:

“Assets and income of public officials which may be materially affected by their official actions should be disclosed and in appropriate circumstances the officials should be disqualified from acting in order that conflicts of interest may be avoided. No public official at any level of state or local government shall make, participate in making or in any way attempt to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he knows or has reason to know he has a financial interest.”

“The Political Reform Act prevents conflicts of interest in two ways — financial disclosure and disqualification. (See Gov. Code Sections 87100–87350.)

“Disclosure: The purpose of financial disclosure is to alert public officials to personal interests that might be affected while they are performing their official duties, i.e., making governmental decisions. Disclosure also helps inform the public about potential conflicts of interest.

“Disqualification: If a public official has a conflict of interest, the official may be required to disqualify himself or herself from making or participating in a governmental decision, or using his or her official position to influence or attempt to influence a governmental decision.”

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.