Funding for Measure S Campaign Linked to Allvision

By Mike Devlin

Image not recoveredYes-Measure-S-Money.jpg

At least $142,000 of donations to campaigns supporting Measure S can now be linked to Allvision, the Metro contractor that would stand to make millions of dollars if the measure passed.

Instead of donations coming directly from Allvision, the two pro-Measure S committees (which share the same donors, address, and treasurer) have been funded by entities with no apparent connection to Santa Clarita. Of the $284,000 these committees have received, half has come from the family, and businesses controlled by the family of Allvision CEO Greg Smith.

This comes despite the claim from the Yes on S campaign that their campaign is "funded by community leaders" while they specifically deny Allvision's involvement.

Image not recovered10665731_1494320877485385_2055337162791191298_n.png

The Allvision Connection

Allvision CEO Greg Smith is a former theater producer who married fellow producer Amanda Lipitz in 2004. Amanda Lipitz is the daughter of Roger Lipitz, the wealthy philanthropist and businessman who was listed as the principal officer of the companies that provided half of the money for the signature blockers.

Image not recoveredScreen Shot 2014-10-27 at 10.08.02 PM.png

In all, the Lipitz family and their companies have donated $142,000 to Measure S. Husband and wife Robert Horwitz and Catherine Redlich of NY are also in for $142,000, but their connection to Allvision and/or Santa Clarita is unclear. There are no donations from any other sources, much less anyone from Santa Clarita, as of this writing.

The Smith-Lipitz donations break down like so: Roger's companies combined to give $60,000 to the blockers, and the regular campaign PAC has received $49,000 from Commodore Management of Maryland (Eugene Lipitz, son of Roger), $11,000 from Home Grown Productions of Seattle (Sari Lipitz, Eugene's wife), $11,000 from Flora Lipitz (Roger's wife) and another $11,000 from Darlene Lipitz (Roger's daughter-in-law).

Interestingly, Eugene Lipitz posted this document outlining the family's wealth management approach that included this section on "Nepotistic Advantage" that may explain the family's collaborative effort.

Image not recoveredScreen Shot 2014-10-27 at 9.20.15 PM.png

The other donations came from husband and wife Roger Horwitz ($109,000 across two committees) and Catherine Redlich ($33,000).

Under the law, the top donors to a ballot measure campaign must appear in campaign-sponsored communications if they've donated $50,000 or more. Somehow, if you give over $50,000 but spread it across two committees, even though those two committees exist for the same measure, have the same pool of donors, and share an address and treasurer, you can duck that requirement.

The first committee, which paid for the blockers, was labeled as being "Sponsored by Allvision," and the current committee, which is essentially the same thing, no longer carries the Allvision designation.

In April, Metro's Inspector General investigated the signature blocking, and in their report, they ordered Allvision to cease the blocking activities on April 24. But as you may recall, blocking continued well past that date, and up until the end of the signature gathering period in early May. In fact, documents filed with the city clerk show that Granite Assets (Roger Lipitz's company) and Robert Horwitz each gave $10,000 to the blockers (PCI Consultants) on April 25th and again on April 28th.

In August, the treasurer for the Allvision-sponsored PAC started a new PAC, called "Yes on S: A Coalition of Community Leaders for Santa Clarita’s Public Safety, Fire Safety, Seniors, Transportation, and Local Businesses." But it's was a change in name only. The treasurer remains the same, as does the mailing address. On their official address, they claim a Canyon Country address, but it's just a mail box, despite the FPPC's prohibition against using PO Boxes for official campaign addresses.

Full disclosure: in recent weeks, I've volunteered a few hours for the No on Measure S campaign. I've all but sworn off campaigns, so this is unusual for me. My writing here is not an extension of that volunteer work, but the conclusion of research I started a few months ago.

Comments (7)

Steve PetzoldMonday, October 27th, 2014 at 11:11 pm

Wonderful investigative work by Mike Devlin. This piece is a labor of love because it takes a lot of time and effort to do the research. Thank you Mike from the No on Measure S Committeee #1370783 Vote No on Measure S. NoonScv.org

AbbyNormalMonday, October 27th, 2014 at 11:36 pm

The Yes on S group has been phony and crooked from the start. Thank you, Mike Devlin, for supplying us with another example of that and helping us to follow the money. The million dollar question is why are Bob Kellar, Cameron Smyth, Joe Messina and BJ Atkins so hell bent on getting Measure S passed? How are they tied into the success of these out of state Allvision people? Keep digging, Mike.

brookTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 12:44 pm

make that all the money... I looked up Robert Horwitz and according to his linked in profile he is on the Board of Directors for Allivision Founder and Managing Director RH Capital Associates 1983 – Present (31 years)Ancramdale, New York I operated a hedge fund and offshore fund 1983-2006. Now operating the family office. We invest in start ups and operating companies with strong growth and profitability characteristics. Also, we invest in distressed companies which can benefit from our expertise. I currently serve on the Board of Directors of Allvision and Smartshift Tech and on the Board of Trustees of MPN Research Foundation and Redlich Horwitz Foundation.

MikeTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:23 pm

Great catch. I was never able to view his full linkedin profile.

Coastal SageTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:17 pm

In terms of griping about violations of California's election related laws, nothing will be accomplished unless someone sends a formal complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) if you have seen a violation of the Fair Political Practices Act. The FPPC's website at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=42 lists these violations which FPPC will investigate and prosecute: "Violations of the Act include: Financial Conflicts of Interest, Campaign money laundering, Gift limit violations, Campaign mass mailing at public expense, Failure to file or report all interests on required Statements of Economic Interest Inadequate, untimely, or no filing of required campaign statements and reports, Improper campaign reporting, Improper receipt of campaign funds, including receiving funds from anonymous sources and contributions in excess of limits, Improper expenditures of campaign funds, including using campaign funds for personal use." It's an easy process to complain. Just click on the "Complaint Process" box at this link http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=42 As a complaining party, you don't have to go up to Sacramento for any hearings. You don't have to do much investigative work other than sending in any documents you think are relevant. The bottom line is that the FPPC enforcement staff cannot do anything about a campaign violation unless some Santa Claritan sends in a Complaint. Here is a general description of "campaign money laundering" which the FPPC has acted upon in the last 20+ years: A person or company "buying checks" from employees, friends, family, so that it will look like the campaign or candidate received a bunch of small donations when the reality is that one person or one company is the real donor. "Buying checks" is done both to hide the identity of the big money donor and to avoid making it look like some person or company is making big donations. An employer pays a "bonus" to its human director, officer, manager or employee with the understanding that the human will, in turn, write a check to a campaign or candidate. An employer reimbursing an employee for campaign donations after the election. This kind of violation occurs where a person who is an owner or high level executive of a company/employer affected by a campaign or candidate doesn't want the public to see that the employer is the real contributor. The use of an employer paid/reimbursed credit card to make a donation to a campaign or candidate in the name of the "employee". A business makes a big, seemingly legitimate advertising purchase, or a big, seemingly legitimate printing order, and either: (1) Has the advertising media run some legitimate business ads and some campaign ads or (2) Has the printer run some print materials for the business and some campaign signs or mailers which can be given to the campaign or candidate for distribution, And then the business' donation to the campaign or candidate is never reported. A person or business pays the entire cost of a campaign consultant's services and the campaign or candidate never reports receiving the consultant's advice. Some well known campaign/candidate violations found by the FPPC: (1) In the Hart District's school bond measure in the early 2000's, the "Yes" campaign treasurer refused to report the addresses or employer names of contributors, despite demands for that information by the County Elections Division, the citizen FPPC-complainer, and the FPPC's enforcement staff. The campaign treasurer was fined several thousand dollars which he was supposed to pay out of his own pocket, not out of campaign funds. (2) In Ventura County, a lobbyist for a building industry trade group "buying checks". The lobbyist was fined by FPPC and the lobbyist's nomination by the Governor to a state-level Commission was withdrawn. (3) The alleged best friend of a U.S. Senator "buying checks" and reimbursing family members for campaign donations. That "best friend" was sentenced to Federal jail time, because it was a Federal office campaign. Two other important points: California's Labor Code prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for their political activities. The goal of that law was to deter employers in places like Santa Clarita from disciplining employees when "the biggest business in town" is angry and requests that the employer "do something about" an employee because of the employee's political activity. The California Legislature and California appellate courts have created an "Anti-SLAPP Statute" which creates a free speech privilege for people participating in the political process. There are now 100+ appellate cases upholding, explaining and applying the statute, uniformly to protect non-slanderous speech. If a person is sued by someone they criticize in the political process, a special Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the lawsuit can be filed soon after the defendant is served. There has been at least 1 SLAPP lawsuit filed in the Santa Clarita Valley's history and the defendant's homeowners insurance provided an attorney who got the case quickly dismissed on an "Anti-SLAPP" motion. So again, if you are seeing some activity which you believe violates the California Fair Political Practices Act take the next step at the link above and complain.

David Barlavi, Esq.Tuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:27 pm

Great investigative work "Mr. Exposé." Your next task, figure out why council members who would otherwise fight against gaudy electronic billboards tooth and nail in our small town on traditional values grounds, have bought into this Faustian Bargain with Allvision. What is in it for them that has allowed them to betray their long standing conservative, old fashioned values, now to make Awesometown into a small Las Vegas? Why the contradictory behavior? What's in it for them? On NOv. 4th... vote NO on S! www.NOonScv.org

brookTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:37 pm

Steve PetzoldMonday, October 27th, 2014 at 11:11 pm
Wonderful investigative work by Mike Devlin. This piece is a labor of love because it takes a lot of time and effort to do the research. Thank you Mike from the No on Measure S Committeee #1370783 Vote No on Measure S. NoonScv.org
AbbyNormalMonday, October 27th, 2014 at 11:36 pm
The Yes on S group has been phony and crooked from the start. Thank you, Mike Devlin, for supplying us with another example of that and helping us to follow the money. The million dollar question is why are Bob Kellar, Cameron Smyth, Joe Messina and BJ Atkins so hell bent on getting Measure S passed? How are they tied into the success of these out of state Allvision people? Keep digging, Mike.
brookTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 12:44 pm
make that all the money... I looked up Robert Horwitz and according to his linked in profile he is on the Board of Directors for Allivision Founder and Managing Director RH Capital Associates 1983 – Present (31 years)Ancramdale, New York I operated a hedge fund and offshore fund 1983-2006. Now operating the family office. We invest in start ups and operating companies with strong growth and profitability characteristics. Also, we invest in distressed companies which can benefit from our expertise. I currently serve on the Board of Directors of Allvision and Smartshift Tech and on the Board of Trustees of MPN Research Foundation and Redlich Horwitz Foundation.
MikeTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Great catch. I was never able to view his full linkedin profile.
Coastal SageTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:17 pm
In terms of griping about violations of California's election related laws, nothing will be accomplished unless someone sends a formal complaint to the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) if you have seen a violation of the Fair Political Practices Act. The FPPC's website at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=42 lists these violations which FPPC will investigate and prosecute: "Violations of the Act include: Financial Conflicts of Interest, Campaign money laundering, Gift limit violations, Campaign mass mailing at public expense, Failure to file or report all interests on required Statements of Economic Interest Inadequate, untimely, or no filing of required campaign statements and reports, Improper campaign reporting, Improper receipt of campaign funds, including receiving funds from anonymous sources and contributions in excess of limits, Improper expenditures of campaign funds, including using campaign funds for personal use." It's an easy process to complain. Just click on the "Complaint Process" box at this link http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.php?id=42 As a complaining party, you don't have to go up to Sacramento for any hearings. You don't have to do much investigative work other than sending in any documents you think are relevant. The bottom line is that the FPPC enforcement staff cannot do anything about a campaign violation unless some Santa Claritan sends in a Complaint. Here is a general description of "campaign money laundering" which the FPPC has acted upon in the last 20+ years: A person or company "buying checks" from employees, friends, family, so that it will look like the campaign or candidate received a bunch of small donations when the reality is that one person or one company is the real donor. "Buying checks" is done both to hide the identity of the big money donor and to avoid making it look like some person or company is making big donations. An employer pays a "bonus" to its human director, officer, manager or employee with the understanding that the human will, in turn, write a check to a campaign or candidate. An employer reimbursing an employee for campaign donations after the election. This kind of violation occurs where a person who is an owner or high level executive of a company/employer affected by a campaign or candidate doesn't want the public to see that the employer is the real contributor. The use of an employer paid/reimbursed credit card to make a donation to a campaign or candidate in the name of the "employee". A business makes a big, seemingly legitimate advertising purchase, or a big, seemingly legitimate printing order, and either: (1) Has the advertising media run some legitimate business ads and some campaign ads or (2) Has the printer run some print materials for the business and some campaign signs or mailers which can be given to the campaign or candidate for distribution, And then the business' donation to the campaign or candidate is never reported. A person or business pays the entire cost of a campaign consultant's services and the campaign or candidate never reports receiving the consultant's advice. Some well known campaign/candidate violations found by the FPPC: (1) In the Hart District's school bond measure in the early 2000's, the "Yes" campaign treasurer refused to report the addresses or employer names of contributors, despite demands for that information by the County Elections Division, the citizen FPPC-complainer, and the FPPC's enforcement staff. The campaign treasurer was fined several thousand dollars which he was supposed to pay out of his own pocket, not out of campaign funds. (2) In Ventura County, a lobbyist for a building industry trade group "buying checks". The lobbyist was fined by FPPC and the lobbyist's nomination by the Governor to a state-level Commission was withdrawn. (3) The alleged best friend of a U.S. Senator "buying checks" and reimbursing family members for campaign donations. That "best friend" was sentenced to Federal jail time, because it was a Federal office campaign. Two other important points: California's Labor Code prohibits employers from retaliating against employees for their political activities. The goal of that law was to deter employers in places like Santa Clarita from disciplining employees when "the biggest business in town" is angry and requests that the employer "do something about" an employee because of the employee's political activity. The California Legislature and California appellate courts have created an "Anti-SLAPP Statute" which creates a free speech privilege for people participating in the political process. There are now 100+ appellate cases upholding, explaining and applying the statute, uniformly to protect non-slanderous speech. If a person is sued by someone they criticize in the political process, a special Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss the lawsuit can be filed soon after the defendant is served. There has been at least 1 SLAPP lawsuit filed in the Santa Clarita Valley's history and the defendant's homeowners insurance provided an attorney who got the case quickly dismissed on an "Anti-SLAPP" motion. So again, if you are seeing some activity which you believe violates the California Fair Political Practices Act take the next step at the link above and complain.
David Barlavi, Esq.Tuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:27 pm
Great investigative work "Mr. Exposé." Your next task, figure out why council members who would otherwise fight against gaudy electronic billboards tooth and nail in our small town on traditional values grounds, have bought into this Faustian Bargain with Allvision. What is in it for them that has allowed them to betray their long standing conservative, old fashioned values, now to make Awesometown into a small Las Vegas? Why the contradictory behavior? What's in it for them? On NOv. 4th... vote NO on S! www.NOonScv.org
brookTuesday, October 28th, 2014 at 1:37 pm
make that all the money... I looked up Robert Horwitz and according to his linked in profile he is on the Board of Directors for Allivision Founder and Managing Director RH Capital Associates 1983 – Present (31 years)Ancramdale, New York I operated a hedge fund and offshore fund 1983-2006. Now operating the family office. We invest in start ups and operating companies with strong growth and profitability characteristics. Also, we invest in distressed companies which can benefit from our expertise. I currently serve on the Board of Directors of Allvision and Smartshift Tech and on the Board of Trustees of MPN Research Foundation and Redlich Horwitz Foundation.