Some donors are getting "creative" with the $1,000 donation cap, and one candidate makes a "mistake" with the City's seal. But first, ladies and gentlemen, Stevie Wonder:
An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.
Signed, Sealed, Delivered
The seal that we know and love, is the trademark of the City of Santa Clarita. It's something of a signature, and candidates can't use the City of Santa Clarita's seal in campaign pieces. Apart from it being a violation of the city's trademark, it can be a more serious violation if a candidate uses it in such a way that confuses voters into thinking that a campaign piece came from the City. This is especially tricky for sitting councilmembers, since their official role makes it more likely that someone can make that mistake. And at a time when campaigns use city communications in their campaign materials, it isn't a stretch to imagine how some people might get confused. Elections Code 18304 spells it out:
(a) Any person who uses or allows to be used any reproduction or facsimile of the seal of the county or the seal of a local government agency in any campaign literature or mass mailing, as defined in Section 82041.5 of the Government Code, with intent to deceive the voters, is guilty of a misdemeanor.(b) For purposes of this section, the use of a reproduction or facsimile of a seal in a manner that creates a misleading, erroneous, or false impression that the document is authorized by a public official is evidence of intent to deceive.(c) For purposes of this section, the term "local government agency" means a school district, special or other district, or any other board, commission, or agency of local jurisdiction.
Image not recoveredScreen Shot 2014-04-02 at 9.48.06 AM.png
Last week, several voters reported receiving a mailer from Marsha McLean, pictured above (full scan here), which included the city seal as a separate graphic element, drop shadow and all. The seal is on top of a picture of what appears to be McLean in her official capacity posing with squad car, as well as the portrait of McLean which is also happens to be the City's go-to picture for McLean.
McLean knows better, of course. This is her fifth campaign and third as an incumbent. When a similar issue was raised during last election regarding her campaign website in the comments following an SCVTalk story in January 2010, she pledged to fix it right away, "Dear Mike, Thanks for the heads up, A different photo will appear and the City Seal will be removed very soon." (comments retrieved from an archived RSS feed) An archived version of the site from April 2010 shows that the seal and the portrait remained on the homepage.
The City has confirmed that it didn't grant permission to any campaign to use its trademarked seal. McLean has acknowledged this mistake, offering this explanation:
"Our Public Safety is very important to me and the intention was to show that the Sheriff's Vehicle is a City of Santa Clarita Sheriff's Vehicle. The Seal should have been placed so it would appear on the vehicle as it actually does appear on City Sheriff's Vehicles. I am told, if the City Seal already appears in a picture, no permission is required. Unfortunately the piece went out before it was correctly edited and depicted. It would be nice if we were all perfect, but mistakes can be made, as was done in this case."
Another McLean mailer received by voters carried neither a campaign committee name, address, or FPPC ID, which is required by law.
Image not recoveredmailer-2.jpg
McLean acknowledged this mistake last week, and while some voters have received this mailer since that acknowledgement, it's unclear whether either of these mailers have been sent after McLean was made aware of the potential violations.
An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.
More money, more problems
This is our second election since the city nearly tripled the maximum individual campaign donation cap, from $360 to $1,000 in 2010, and plenty of donors are happily giving the max (or more).
At the now-infamous February 27th fundraiser, Laurene Weste and Marsha McLean each accepted $1,000 checks from The Conservation Station, a recycling center in Canyon Country, which already gave $500 to each campaign back in August. According to the most recent forms, these campaigns have returned the extra $500 to the donor. Under the law, if the fix is made quickly enough, a refund of the excess donation. Campaigns that wait longer to correct can be forced to return the entire donation(s).
For a little while, it appeared that the Weste campaign went over the limit with a more donors. There were some discrepancies in her 497 filings (24-hour notifications of late donations of $1,000) and her 460 filing, which is the comprehensive periodic filing that was due on March 27th. Earlier, she had indicated two $1,000 donations from Brookfield Los Angeles builders, as well as $1,000 donations from Cole and Tracy Burr, of Burrtec fame – who had both given to the campaign earlier in the cycle. The campaign says that one Brookfield check was made out incorrectly and returned before cashing, and the Burr donations were to indicate that their total donations had hit $1,000, but the final donation was for just $250. In the case of Tracy Burr, the declaration was made erroneously, because she has only given $750 total.
If I just lost you, I'm sorry. Short story is both campaigns gave back $500 to a donor that gave them $1,500.
Shades of gray: when two donors might be one donor
Under the law, donations from individual and a business or organization they control are considered to come from the same source, and so they count towards the same total. But sometimes "control" is a murky question.
Dante Acosta had accepted $1,000 from Canon Recruiting Group as well as another $1,000 from its founder and president, Tim Grayem. Once alerted to a possible violation, Acosta refunded the company's donation. He later accepted a $1,000 check from Tim's wife Laurie, which is fine because donations from spouses are considered separate under the law.
Marsha McLean accepted separate $1,000 donations from developer Lance Williams, who owns Williams Family homes, and WFP Holdings, a company that Williams appears to control. He's the company's registered agent for service and Williams Homes and WFP Holdings share the same address. Of note, WFP Holdings also gave $1,000 to the political action committee California Conservatives for Ethics and Integrity in Politics, which has funded at least two mailers in support of McLean and Weste.
Additionally, in August, McLean recorded an in-kind donation of $250 from Larry and Peggy Rasmussen, identified as President/Manager of Spirit Properties, but two days later, shows a full a donation of $1,000 from Spirit Properties.
Both the Weste and McLean campaign received over $1,000 in aggregate from Valencia Acura and the Santa Clarita Auto Dealer's Association. Don Fleming, owner of Valencia Acura is also the founder and president of the association. This is a murky question, one that would benefit from some more clarity in the law. Weste's campaign manager Chris Collier sees the sources as seperate, "It is our understanding that the Association is made up of many members and that no one member controls it."
As a sidenote, and of no particular fault to the candidates, It's never sat well with me that an organization which receives direct financial assistance from the city donates so much money to council campaigns. They've given the max to at least four campaigns in this cycle alone, and they have a lobbyist on payroll.
McLean has been responsive to my questions, but apart from refunding the $500, hasn't made a determination on the other mixed donations, "We are still looking into them and I can assure you my intention is to follow all campaign rules and regulations."
Comments (22)