[EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
Larry Levine
larrylevine at earthlink.net
Mon Jan 25 08:35:33 PST 2016
The secret story behind this election turn around was the independent expenditure campaign done for Nury Martinez. (Full disclosure: I did that IE campaign.) There’s much to the back story of how I became involved. But the shorthand version is that with six pieces of mail, a paid precinct walk and a door hanger operation we changed the message of the Martinez campaign to one that resonated with voters. Anyone wanting to hear the full story of the disastrous Martinez Primary Election campaign and the details of the messaging that turned it around may want to contact me directly.
Larry
From: David Holtzman, Esq. [mailto:david at holtzmanlaw.com]
Sent: Monday, January 25, 2016 3:41 AM
To: 'David A. Holtzman' <David at holtzmanlaw.com>; ' [EL] ' <law-election at uci.edu>; larrylevine at earthlink.net
Subject: RE: [EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
for those interested in an account of this political upset under investigation in L.A., see this:
http://laschoolreport.com/another-shock-result-in-the-east-valley-heres-how-it-happene/
it gives the husband some credit for the win. ("many of the plaudits will go to Martinez’s husband, Jerry Guzman, a highly respected East Valley political consultant.
“Jerry was the engine that kept that campaign going,” ")
Sent from a mobile device. Forgive me.
-----Original Message-----
From: Larry Levine <larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net> >
To: "'David A. Holtzman'" <David at HoltzmanLaw.com <mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com> >, "' [EL] '" <law-election at uci.edu <mailto:law-election at uci.edu> >
Sent: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 19:45
Subject: RE: [EL] re “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
I would not be using a candidate’s defeated opponent as a source of information about what a candidate may or may not have done. For instance, Nury’s husband did not run her campaign. What’s curious to me here is how people who believe spending on campaigns is too high advocate the hiring of professional campaign staff in place of volunteers. All that aside, there is not a single redeeming feature to this requirement of 200 contributions of $5 to qualify for matching funds. A true grassroots candidate might have trouble finding 200 people who can afford a $5 political contribution. If the purpose of matching funds is to reduce the amount of funds a candidate must raise, why create even more hurdles to qualifying for those matching funds. How can people square a position in favor of public financing with a measure that has the first effect of making it more difficult for the candidate who most needs public funding to be competitive to qualify for that funding. But, then, the political “reform” industry is fraught with contradictions.
Larry
From: David A. Holtzman [mailto:David at HoltzmanLaw.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 24, 2016 3:26 PM
To: larrylevine at earthlink.net <mailto:larrylevine at earthlink.net> ; ' [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”
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> [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] On Behalf Of Edward Still
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2016 2:01 PM
To: [EL] <mailto:law-election at UCI.EDU> <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?
<http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207> “Federal investigators focus on small campaign donations to L.A. Councilwoman Nury Martinez”
Posted on <http://electionlawblog.org/?p=79207> January 22, 2016 8:42 am by <http://electionlawblog.org/?author=3> Rick Hasen
Alleged fraud in securing $5 donations to qualify for campaign financing. <http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-martinez-donors-grand-jury-20160122-story.html> Unusual.
--
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 <mailto: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 <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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20160125/0ba2dc03/attachment.html>
View list directory