Wednesday, October 15, 2014

[Orange County] Editorial: No on O.C. Measure E, campaign finance, ethics


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: