[EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
David A. Holtzman
David at HoltzmanLaw.com
Sun Jan 24 15:26:08 PST 2016
When the local League of Women Voters first interviewed Councilmember
Martinez as part of the League’s periodic legislative interview project,
I was on the interview team, and remember her saying she was convinced
that she would not have won election without the considerable amount of
public matching funds unlocked by the small donations.
Now Nury Martinez's main opponent in the election at issue told me today
that insiders put the "200 in-district $5 contributions" requirement
into the public financing system to keep grassroots candidates out.
She also mentioned that a professional, Martinez's husband, was running
Martinez's campaign.That dashed my hopes that all this could be written
off to the naivety of volunteers.(Because I like Nury Martinez.)But
Lillie Coney’s point (and Mark Scarberry’s amplification, posted
separately) about the importance of professional campaign staff still
resonates.(Maybe you shouldn’t hire your husband?)(And I heard something
else today about a candidate’s aunt getting him in trouble.)
Isn’t this a story of unintended consequences?Didn’t everybody (except
those aforementioned insiders) think 200 in-district $5 contributions
would be pretty easy to obtain?And was anybody thinking that receiving a
$5 contribution would be a burden, as Larry Levine points out?(Now it
seems receiving and documenting and reporting $5 costs more than $5 in
time and expenses!)And who thought the requirement would ever attract
attention from the FBI?I mean, the FBI!!
And besides giving money to terrorist organizations, what else other
than campaign finance rules more perfectly gives the lie to the
wonderful sentiment, “My money is my money, and I can do whatever I want
with my money”?
- d
On 1/23/2016 5:19 PM, Larry Levine wrote:
>
> Until the FBI gets involved and starts knocking on doors. This isn’t
> an Ethics Commission (random) audit. It’s the feds and they rarely
> walk away and say “everything’s OK, we were wrong.” Once they invest
> time and resources, they file something on someone.
>
> Larry
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On Behalf Of
> *Edward Still
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 23, 2016 2:01 PM
> *To:* [EL] <law-election at UCI.EDU>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign
> donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
>
> Re Larry Levine's point: audits are generally done by checking a
> random sample of transactions.
>
>
> Edward Still
> Edward Still Law Firm LLC
>
> 429 Green Springs Hwy, STE 161-304
>
> Birmingham AL 35209
> 205-320-2882
> still at votelaw.com <mailto:still at votelaw.com>
> www.votelaw.com/blog <http://www.votelaw.com/blog>
> www.edwardstill.com <http://www.edwardstill.com>
> www.linkedin.com/in/edwardstill <http://www.linkedin.com/edwardstill>
>
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Larry Levine
> <larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
> I would imagine that the $5 threshold causes a number of cash
> contributions, which are legal but present difficulties when it
> comes to providing the necessary documentation to the Ethics
> Commission. It also is an open invitation to mischief. It would be
> an administrative nightmare for the commission to track down a
> verify the accuracy and honesty of these small contributions.
>
> Larry
>
> *From:*Lillie Coney [mailto:coney at lillieconey.net
> <mailto:coney at lillieconey.net>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, January 23, 2016 12:03 PM
> *To:* larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>
> *Cc:* David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com
> <mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com>>; [EL] <law-election at uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small
> campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
>
> Enforcement could be very costly.
>
> The forms and methods of payment are no longer predominately check
> or credit cards.
>
> There are gift cards, which would be my preference for small
> dollar single purchases or in this case contributions. I would
> view it like a purchase from a street fair--if the card is
> compromised it's only a few dollars, it is also great for privacy.
>
> The other issue is determining that the billing addresses and the
> voters' residential addresses are the same. The credit card
> information on bills makes them a target for thrives who may not
> be deterred by the mailbox lock if you have one--it makes it
> easier for some credit or debit card users to get a PO Box instead
> of a home address to protect against ID theft.
>
> Could this ordinance create other problems--like challenges to
> voting because the method of payment address does not match
> registration information?
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 23, 2016, at 1:12 AM, Larry Levine
> <larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net>> wrote:
>
> The issue here seems to be whether some of these people may
> not actually have contributed. A local ordinance requires a
> candidate to collect 200 contributions of at least $5 from
> people living within the city council district to become
> eligible for matching public funds for the campaign. The
> inference from the L.A. Times article, though I don’t see an
> express accusation, is that some of those contributions may
> have been faked – people listed who never contributed. One of
> the many problems with this is that some, if not many, people
> might not even recall having made such a small contribution.
>
> On another front, this ordinance is driving campaign
> fundraisers and treasurers crazy. For a $5 contribution they
> may have to spend hours verifying that the donor actually
> lives in the district and providing proof to the city ethics
> commission. And if someone who lives in the district writes a
> check from the account of a business that is out of the
> district the problem of time and expense in verification is
> compounded.
>
> Then there is the matter of the vast disparity in the economic
> levels of people living in various council districts. $5 to
> someone in the wealthier districts is far different than $5
> from someone in the poorer districts. Of all the crazy
> campaign reforms that have been foisted on our political
> system across than nation this one would be a leading
> competitor for the title of the craziest.
>
> Larry Levine
>
> *From:*law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>
> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] *On
> Behalf Of *Lillie Coney
> *Sent:* Friday, January 22, 2016 9:35 PM
> *To:* David A. Holtzman <David at HoltzmanLaw.com
> <mailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com>>
> *Cc:* [EL] <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small
> campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
>
> If campaign contributions are viewed as speech then smaller
> donor speech in the form of contributions has the same
> protection as large dollar donors.
>
> What are the rules for what donors can get in exchange for
> contribution? In recent elections donors contributing to
> campaign fundraising drives are offered opportunities to be in
> lotteries to win time with the candidate.
>
> These are putting in to the small donor arena activity that
> large donors routinely experience and expect.
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On Jan 22, 2016, at 3:55 PM, David A. Holtzman
> <David at HoltzmanLaw.com <mailto:David at holtzmanlaw.com>> wrote:
>
> My favorite quote in here: "My money is my money, and I
> can do whatever I want with my money"
> Prompts a question: Can the FBI ask *any* reported
> campaign donor why she gave money? (Or do they have to
> have a reasonable suspicion the donor got something in
> return?)
> And a question about honesty in reporting: Can a campaign
> accept and report lots of donations (to boost its apparent
> support) with a promise to (wink, wink) return them if the
> campaign doesn't spend the money?
>
>
>
> “Federal investigators focus on small campaign
> donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207>
>
> Posted on January 22, 2016 8:42 am
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207> by *Rick Hasen*
> <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>
>
> Alleged fraud in securing $5 donations to qualify for
> campaign financing. Unusual
> <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-martinez-donors-grand-jury-20160122-story.html>.
>
>
>
> --
> David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
> david at holtzmanlaw.com <mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com>
>
> Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with
> it) may be confidential, for use only by intended
> recipients. If you are not an intended recipient or a
> person responsible for delivering this email to an
> intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
> email in error and that any use, dissemination,
> forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this email in error,
> please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> <mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
--
David A. Holtzman, M.P.H., J.D.
david at holtzmanlaw.com
Notice: This email (including any files transmitted with it) may be
confidential, for use only by intended recipients. If you are not an
intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this email to
an intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in
error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying
of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email
in error, please immediately notify the sender and discard all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160124/edc5a928/attachment.html>
View list directory