October
13, 2014
Orange
County Register
Editorial
The San Bernardino County Board
of Supervisors in 2012 approved a first-of-its-kind contract with the state’s
Fair Political Practices Commission to enforce the county’s campaign finance
ordinance limiting contributions to candidates stumping for county offices.
The two-year contract
authorized the FPPC to bill up to $493,296 for purposes of enforcing San
Bernardino’s campaign finance law. However, 13 months into the contract, the
FPPC had billed the county little more than $9,000.
That suggests to us that there
hasn’t been much enforcement of county campaign finance law since San
Bernardino’s Board of Supervisors turned over that responsibility to FPPC staff
in Sacramento.
That brings us to Measure E,
which was placed on the November ballot by the Orange County Board of
Supervisors. It would authorize a second-of-its-kind contract putting the
feckless FPPC in charge of civil enforcement of Orange County’s campaign reform
ordinance.
Supporters of Measure E,
including state Sen. Lou Correa, who carried the legislation allowing the FPPC
to get involved in local campaign finance enforcement, and Supervisors Todd
Spitzer and Shawn Nelson, characterize the FPPC as “California’s ethics
commission,” the state’s “watchdog and expert on enforcing campaign finance
law.”
Well, the FPPC may be the
latter – although its watchdogging and expertise hasn’t been much in evidence
in San Bernardino – but it certainly is not the former. And Orange County
voters should not be misled into believing that a vote for Measure E is,
effectively, a vote for a county ethics commission.
Indeed, as opponents of Measure
E point out, correctly, genuine ethics commissions in such localities as Los
Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco do more than just enforce campaign finance
law.
They also play a watchdog role
with respect to fraud and waste in local government, conflicts of interest,
nepotism, cronyism, transparency of public records and other such issues, which
would be beyond the FPPC’s contractual mandate.
Meanwhile, the 2013-14 Orange
County grand jury listed additional reasons why turning over enforcement of
local campaign finance law would be problematic.
It could possibly invalidate
current contribution limits under the county’s TINCUP ordinance. Its
independence could very well be limited because it would be under control of
the Board of Supervisors, including budget control.
It would be limited only to
civil, and not criminal, enforcement of the law. And it could undermine the
establishment of an Orange County ethics commission, which the county grand
jury has repeatedly recommended.
We share the view of those who
believe that the best way to deter campaign finance law-breaking in Orange
County is not by contracting out enforcement to the FPPC all the way in
Sacramento, but by establishing a county ethics commission right here at home.
That’s why the Register urges a
No vote on Measure E.
No comments:
Post a Comment