The White Whale of Independent Expenditures is still out there, probably bigger than ever.

And here we are, hurtling toward the next Election Season, and nothing has changed yet, in how Anaheim elections are financed. No reason to think 2024 will be any different from 2018, 2020, and 2022, when Disney/SOAR, the police and fire unions, the hotels, developers and landlords, each pooled together MILLIONS of dollars to spend on Independent Expenditures (I.E.’s) to ensure the election of the councilmembers they trust to vote their way, flooding our mailboxes with hundreds of daily glossy mailers, our TV’s and social media with stirring heartwarming ads, and our phones with text blasts and robo-calls singing these candidates’ fulsome praises. (And other ads talking shit on their opponents.)

The 2010 Supreme Court ruling “Citizens United” gives them the right to do that. They could make it a billion if they wanted to. And we have no doubt that they have chosen their candidates already for Districts 1, 4 & 5 and are preparing their plans to keep control of our Council and Planning Commission, especially as the “negotiations” over Disneyland Forward proceed.

I don’t think I can make the case for I.E. Recusal (preventing Councilmembers from voting for a certain time on matters benefitting any companies, unions, or people who donated a certain amount to an I.E. benefitting them) any better than I did LAST WEEK. And the Mayor and most of the Council read that story, and they did have a pretty long discussion last Tuesday on I.E. Recusal, with our City Attorney and their hired “expert,” the grey-bearded and very cautious Craig Steele.

But I think it’s time for:

Re-Framing the Urgency.

I think the urgency of addressing the problem of I.E.’s has been simplified wrongly to corruption or the elusive “appearance of corruption.” Votes for sale. Pay to play. That’s not EXACTLY the problem, and several Councilmembers – most vociferously Meeks and Diaz – swear up and down that they vote their conscience, vote what they think is right for Anaheim, and that the only reason Disney & Its Allies chip in hundreds of thousands of dollars to get them elected – which THEY can’t help! – is because Disney & Its Allies agree so much with their philosophies!

And who’s to doubt their sincerity?

Who can say which came first, the CHICKEN of these Independent Expenditures, or the EGG of these politicians’ steadfast, dependable adherence to Corporate Welfare and Trickle-Down Theory?

The problem is not so much these politicians’ independence and honesty. The real problem is THIS: It should not cost HALF A MILLION TO 3/4 OF A MILLION DOLLARS TO RUN FOR, AND WIN, A COUNCIL SEAT REPRESENTING 1/6 OF ANAHEIM.

The Special Interests spend that much, and will continue to spend that much – it’s worth it to them to have someone on the dais that they trust (for whatever reason) to vote their way. Another candidate, not enjoying that beneficence, cannot possibly compete. And that’s insupportable in a democracy.

With I.E. Recusal we aim to disincentivize, and discourage, that kind of extravagant, unaccountable spending. And get a lot less mailers, text-blasts, and robo-calls out of it to boot. Why would the special interests spend so much on a candidate who can’t vote for them? Are we getting through yet?

I wrote last week that, “There are several foreseeable wrinkles, all of which can be navigated with a little resourcefulness. (But which will be hauled out as excuses.)” City Attorney Fabela, aside from repeating that he still thinks I.E. Recusal is “defensible,” provided one of these wrinkles, which much of the Council found very compelling and troubling. Fabela dubbed that wrinkle, memorably, “MISCHIEF.”

“Mischief?”

“Mischief,” in this context, is if a Special Interest does NOT want a Councilmember (one they don’t trust) to vote on an issue affecting them, and forces them to recuse by sneakily donating $251 to an I.E. supporting that politician. ($251 being just over the $250 recusal threshold in the new version of the Levine Act applying to DIRECT contributions.) Meeks was particularly impressed with this “mischief” wrinkle, which seemed a little disingenuous from the Council’s largest I.E. beneficiary.

First thing I thought was also what Stalwart Councilman Carlos Leon said (GMTA) – why are we stuck at a $250 threshold for I.E.’s? I mean, we’re trying to bring these contributions down from HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, I’d say TEN THOUSAND sounds about right. If Disney/SOAR can only bankroll I.E.’s for their favored candidates up to 10,000 that’s big progress, and if they want to be assholes and spend $10,001 on someone they want to force to recuse, well, maybe there’s a way around that but at least it’d be an amount that would help that politician, not a measly $251.

Plus, if given any publicity, that’d be a really bad fucking look.

Other wrinkles the Council fretted over:

• How often are they not even gonna have a quorum of members who haven’t had to recuse themselves from voting on a matter? Well if so, blame that on the Big I.E. Spenders!
• And, what if someone from a district sues the city because they’ve been “disenfranchised” by their rep having to recuse? Well if so, they should sue the Big I.E. Spender!

The Council handed this off to their “expert,” the grey-bearded and very cautious Craig Steele, who is supposed to come back with something in January. We should keep on them, but I don’t sense a whole lot of enthusiasm from this Council for doing something as bold as I.E. Recusal. The people might need to just get this onto the ballot themselves…

Ballot Drive?

Where are the Nonprofits?

There’s a nonprofit called OCCORD, which helped us get District Elections back in the day; nowadays they talk a lot about reform, and the Voice of OC is always calling them up for quotes. There’s another nonprofit called OCCCO, and one called the Kennedy Commission. There is a UNITE-HERE and a Democratic Party of OC. Getting enough signatures to get a measure on the ballot takes a lot of PEOPLE and a reasonable amount of MONEY. And legal expertise. Who’s gonna get the ball rolling on this finally?

**************

Or is it time for PFE?

OCCORD talked, earlier this year, about Publicly Financed Elections, for what kids these days call “about a hot minute.” Duane Roberts (right), Anaheim investigative journalist and two-time Council candidate himself, thinks that’s what we should be focusing on now. Duane writes us:

I think the time has now come to have a serious discussion about creating a system of publicly-financed elections here in Anaheim, at least for council districts.

So how would that work? Here is a hypothetical model:

For a candidate to qualify, they must be able to show they have grassroots support in the community. First, they need to collect a $5 donation from at least 50 registered voters within their district. Second, they need to raise at least $5,000 from local residents and businesses, but in increments of $249 or less. Once they are able to meet that threshold, they become eligible for a 6:1 ratio in matching funds from the city.

For example, for every $100 campaign contribution they get, they would receive $600 in matching funds. The maximum that any qualified candidate would be eligible for is $100,000.

Such a system would be strictly voluntary. If a candidate wants to run with the support of the Walt Disney Company, Chamber of Commerce, hoteliers, and a myriad of special interests, they still can. And absolutely nothing would stop a wealthy person from funding their own campaign.

But under a publicly-financed system, qualified candidates who don’t have much money would be placed on a more equal footing with those who do. Such a system has the potential of lessening the grip that big money has on the city council, leading to the election of people who aren’t beholden to major donors.

Obviously, more details would need to be ironed out, such as how such a system would be funded. Not only is this constitutional at the federal level, but it is legal here in California. (However, for now, only charter cities like Anaheim can do it.) Los Angeles has already been experimenting with a system similar to what I’ve described. Other cities across the state are adopting public-financing models.

Well, what do you all think? For if we can’t get I.E. Recusal, or maybe we can even get both?

I have this inner conservative, believe it or not, that’s reluctant to spend public money.

But, if it’s for Democracy…

Our guest speaker at the Anaheim Democrats Club this Thursday night is state senator Tom Umberg, who is a great believer in public financing of elections, and is working on a bill right now to make that available to non-charter cities.

Our best Councilmember, the Stalwart Carlos Leon, is an acolyte and former employee of Senator Umberg.

Maybe it’s time for Carlos to bring this idea forward to Council.

Or does THIS have to be a people’s initiative too?

Dec. 5 – Pro-Tem

The only thing on the agenda for tomorrow’s Council meeting, Tuesday Dec. 5 – the ONLY thing – is naming a Mayor Pro-Tem for the coming year. A largely ceremonial thing that if the majority likes you they’ll give you, maybe to help you out with something, or just because they like you.

Will it be given AGAIN to Natalie Rubalcava, to help her weather her recall which seems to be driving her batty?

Will it be given to the very nice and responsive but so-far-unelected Norma Kurtz, to help her with her 2024 election?

I hope it goes to the stalwart Carlos Leon, the one who always remembers that he was elected to CLEAN UP ANAHEIM!