Lobbyist for Digital Billboard Operator Threw Fundraiser for Incumbents Last Month

By Mike Devlin

Image not recoveredallvision.gif

I'll keep this brief, while I pick up my jaw from the floor.

All Vision is the company that will run, and profit from the digital billboards for the next 30 years. They are the company that's been pushing Metro and other transportation authorities around the country to pursue swaps and conversions to digital billboards.

Arthur Sohikian, who is All Vision's lone registered lobbyist for the City of Santa Clarita, hosted a fundraiser for incumbents Laurene Weste and Marsha McLean on February 27th, just two days after the Council's first vote to approve the digital billboard deal with Metro that will all but guarantee millions of dollars to All Vision.

The host committee also included über lobbyist Hunt Braly and clients of Mr. Sohikian and Mr. Braly.

You can view the full invitation here and Sohikian's All Vision lobbyist registration here.

Comments (12)

Annette LucasMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 7:18 pm

My mouth is still on the floor but it shouldn't suprise me !!

Coastal SageMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 8:39 pm

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the circumstance described above is explicitly allowed under California election related law, as construed by the California Supreme Court. Political campaign donations in cash or in kind (such as bearing the cost of a fundraising event) DO NOT disqualify the elected beneficiary of the donations from voting on a matter from which the donor profits. The California Supreme Court case which decided that fact is Woodland Hills Residents Assn. v. City Council of Los Angeles, 26 Cal. 3d 938 (1980). The decision was written by the late Justice William P. Clark, Jr. and has been revisited by California Courts of Appeal 10 times, without the Supreme Court caring to reverse its opinion on the matter. Justice Clark later became a high level White House legal advisor to President Ronald Reagan, then National Security Advisor, and later became Secretary of the Interior in an emergency replacement of his predecessor who embarrassed the Reagan administration by making bigoted remarks to the press. As a result, one might conclude that the opinion he wrote for the California Supreme Court reflected a real world view of how politics can work. The 1980 "Woodland Hills" opinion is grounded in the First Amendment, and very aggressively gets to the point: "Council Members Are Not Disqualified by Reason of Campaign Contributions (1a) The issue most vigorously argued on appeal is plaintiffs' contention that council members who had received campaign contributions from parties having a financial interest in an application before the council are disqualified from considering and voting on that application. Plaintiffs' contention is based on the fair hearing requirement of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The trial court found real party, its law and engineering firms, and members of such firms, had "made substantial contributions of money to the campaign committees of [the council's] bare majority [of members voting to approve the proposed subdivision]. The sum of these gifts exceeded $ 9,000.00. [Real party] and representatives also made contributions of money to the campaign committees controlled by two members of [the council] who absented themselves from the Council's vote on [the subdivision], and two other members who voted against the approval." The trial court concluded that, 'The approval by members of [the council] whose campaign committees had received campaign contributions from real party in interest . . . or its representatives in the court-mandated reconsideration of [the application] did not deny petitioners a fair trial within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 or otherwise invalidate [council's] approval of [the application]. Absent a showing of bribery or conflict of interest, the law does not render it improper for members of [the council] to vote on projects of developers who have given campaign contributions to committees controlled by those members, and the law does not require such council members to disqualify themselves in such circumstances.' Expression of political support by campaign contribution does not prevent a fair hearing before an impartial city council within the meaning of section 1094.5. That section requires that on judicial review of administrative decisions the trial court's inquiry shall extend to "whether there was a fair trial" or "any prejudicial abuse of discretion." Plaintiffs' accusation that receipt of a campaign contribution inevitably results in an appearance of bias or prevents a fair hearing is unwarranted. Plaintiffs do not contend the contributions were bribes for favorable votes. Nor did all recipients vote in favor of the proposed subdivision. The contributions were lawfully made and received pursuant to laws governing campaign contributions. The Political Reform Act of 1974 ( Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.) provides for disclosure of campaign contributions by recipients of contributions rather than disqualification of recipients from acting in matters in which the contributor is interested. (See Gov. Code, §§ 81002, subd. (a), 84200 et seq.) While the act precludes an elected official from participating in a decision in which he has "a financial interest" ( Gov. Code, § 87100), it expressly excludes from definition of "financial interest" the receipt of campaign contributions. ( Gov. Code, §§ 87103, subd. (c), 5 82030, subd. (b). 6) Thus, the Political Reform Act -- dealing comprehensively with problems of campaign contribution and conflict of interest -- does not prevent a city council member from acting upon a matter involving the contributor. (2) Political contribution involves an exercise of fundamental freedom protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 2 of the California Constitution. (Buckley v. Valeo (1975) 424 U.S. 1, 14-15, 22 [46 L. Ed. 2d 659, 684-685, 689, 96 S. Ct. 612]; Hardie v. Eu (1976) 18 Cal.3d 371, 377 [134 Cal. Rptr. 201, 556 P.2d 301]; Citizens for Jobs & Energy v. Fair Political Practices Com. (1976) 16 Cal.3d 671, 674-675 [129 Cal. Rptr. 106, 547 P.2d 1386].) To disqualify a city council member from acting on a development proposal because the developer had made a campaign contribution to that member would threaten constitutionally protected political speech and associational freedoms. Governmental restraint on political activity must be strictly scrutinized and justified only by compelling state interest. (Buckley v. Valeo, supra, 424 U.S. 1, 25 [46 L. Ed. 2d 659, 691].) (1b) While disqualifying contribution recipients from voting would not prohibit contributions, it would curtail contributors' constitutional rights. Representative government would be thwarted by depriving certain classes of voters (i.e., developers, builders, engineers, and attorneys who are related in some fashion to developers) of the constitutional right to participate in the electoral process. Public policy strongly encourages the giving and receiving of campaign contributions. Such contributions do not automatically create an appearance of unfairness. Adequate protection against corruption and bias is afforded through the Political Reform Act and criminal sanctions. (Pen. Code, § 165; 8 see also Pen. Code, § 67 et seq.)" Art Sohikian and Hunt Braly have been supporters of Laurene Weste for at least 16 years. It's likely that on issues which would make money for the city, Mayor Weste would vote "Yes", even if Messrs. Sohikian and Braly didn't hold a fundraising event for her. On the night Marsha McLean was elected to the Council in 2002, with the help of the environmental community, after the election results were clear Mr. Braly came to Councilwoman McLean's election night party and congratulated her. Mr. Braly clearly knew that he has to get along with the Council members to be effective for his clients. The 4 people mentioned in the comment above know the rules, as articulated by the California Supreme Court, and appear to be willing to stay within them. While Santa Clarita activists may not like those rules, that's how the game is played and there is absolutely no move afoot in Sacramento to change those rules legislatively. On the night Marsha McLean was elected to the Council in 2002, with the help of the environmental community, once the result of the election was clear Mr. Braly arrived at Councilwoman McLean's election night event to congratulate her.

MikeMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 9:22 pm

Who said it was illegal?

Coastal SageMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 11:35 pm

Not me.

MikeTuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 9:57 am

Well, me neither. The point of (literally) highlighting this was to point out, for those who don't know the who's who of SCV insiders, that the incumbents have an outside relationship with All Vision's lobbyist, and that in turn may affect their impartiality. Of course, on the state level, donations from lobbyists are illegal.

annette LucasMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 8:58 pm

I trust you comments but to the voters this does not look good. Well, atleast in my eyes anyway.

Coastal SageMonday, March 24th, 2014 at 11:34 pm

I agree with you, but sadly California's courts do not.

DavePutnamTuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 10:44 am

Follow the money...

Leon WordenTuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 12:16 pm

That's dumb. Arthur is a smart & good guy and a lobbyist for all sorts of things. Digital billboards is absolutely the least of it. That's sort of like calling Obama the guy who makes a weekly radio speech instead of calling him the president of the United States.

MikeTuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 12:48 pm

He wouldn't have so many clients if he weren't smart, would he? And he very well may be a good guy, but a lobbyist can't be effective and innocuous at the same time. You see, he's hired to do a service, and what he does with elections is an extension of that. It isn't an extension of some activist streak where he's fighting for the candidates he feels in his heart of hearts. He's selling access and the ability to influence. It's a legal business and it doesn't look like he's working for any crooks, so that's fine. But it's the duty of the elected official to keep their distance. It's a matter of conflicted interests, in fact if not in law, to have people assisting your campaign who are also lobbying for clients that come before you. And this client isn't the neighborhood small business just trying to get a fair shake with city hall, but a very big out-of-state company looking to cement a deal where they get a big taste of the action without going to bid. I'm sure All Vision has plenty of lobbyists of their own. Why suddenly hire a guy they've never worked with before? Well, for the reasons you mention. He's a well-regarded guy who has a lot of happy clients. Able to get things done. And not to mention, he's given the max, and many of his clients have as well. As for this being insignificant to his overall thing, how do you know? Is it possible that All Vision is his highest paying client before the council this year? I have no idea, but for the moment, I'm sure this is hardly some side distraction for him.

notsoawesometwnTuesday, March 25th, 2014 at 2:12 pm

It may be legal, but it CERTAINLY is NOT ethical, and McLean & Weste should be called on the carpet for this.

michaelSaturday, March 29th, 2014 at 11:08 pm

Tony Tataglia a committee member for the fundraiser is a district manager for the Southern California Gas, the company PR guy. http://www.santaclarita.com/blog/view.php? So indirectly, as a supporter of Waste and Mclean, Tony used a portion of your natural gas bill to support these two losers. If you want to complain, call the CEO of Sempra Energy. It seems Tony has become too friendly with the good ole boy network in santa clarita, when his position should always be supporting the best interest of the gas company customers. Additionally, like others on the committee, Tony does not even live in the City.