By BILL
IN ORDER TO COUNTER INDEPENDENT “big money” influence on local elections, the City Council recently debated a staff recommendation that would grant council candidates — who meet minimum qualifications — up to $100,-000 in taxpayer money to “level the playing field.”
Never mind that this will have no effect on the amount independent Political Action Committees spend — which is made possible by the Constitution.
One issue on the table has to do with “equalizing” lavish campaign expenditures by outside interests. For example: Last year, Edward Thomas Management Company, the Beverly Hills based owner of Casa Del Mar and Shutters of the Beach, spent more than $500,000 through a PAC created out of a phony citizen issues group. Their PAC supported two City Council candidates and attacked a third. However, big spending hotels and special interests aren’t the only parties guilty of “shabby tricks” that need reforming.
Last Fall, the “Friends of Safe and Clean Santa Monica Beaches -- Yes on Proposition V" hired Santa Monica for Renters’ Rights Co-Chair, Denny Zane, to advise their ballot proposal that would implement a new “property” tax to fund projects to curb stormwater pollution of Santa Monica Bay. According to disclosure statements posted online by the City Clerk’s office, Zane’s political consultancy, Urban Dimensions, was paid $10,000 for services to “V” — not counting any commissions earned on media or referrals.
Zane was a former Councilman and mayor during the 1980s and early 1990s. Today, he still wields substantial political clout and makes a living consulting on local campaigns. His clients include Santa Monica College among others. Previous clients included 41st Assembly candidate, Julia Brownley and a variety of local organizations promoting various public school parcel taxes and school and college construction bond proposals.
Zane wins campaigns for his clients because, as SMRR co-chair, he can influence the powerful renter organization to endorse his client and/or causes. SMRR’s endorsements carry a lot of weight with voters. Nowhere in campaign mailers is it disclosed that the SMRR co-chair has a vested interest in certain measures or campaigns being endorsed — let alone that SMRR-supported revenue measures (if approved) almost always lead to tax and rent increases. I pay about $25 to $30 in charges added onto my monthly rent because of Zane-backed, SMRR-endorsed proposals approved by voters.
Parcel taxes and bond expense are passed onto tenants by landlords with the permission of the SMRR-laden Rent Control Board. Behind the scenes politicking often involves getting landlords to “buy into” a measure well before the election. Landlords are “unofficially” informed that the RCB will allow a pass-along of tax expense to tenants if the measure wins — months ahead of an official RCB vote. This may lead some to ask: “Who influences the RCB?” It is plain to see that SMRR and Zane are pulling the strings.
It’s like a restaurateur writing food reviews for the local newspaper and praising his own eatery.
It may not be illegal but it’s unethical and it stinks. If Zane wants to make a living pedaling his political prowess to local campaigns, he should resign as SMRR co-chair.
I’ll also be watching to see if the water pollution and environmental engineering and construction firms — from as far away as Colorado — who contributed tens of thousands of dollars to “Yes on V" are hired when actual wastewater mitigation work begins. All sorts of outside interests pony up money to promote candidates or measures they can profit from — and we often pay for it. This practice needs to be outlawed or be subject to full disclosure before election day.
According to year-end disclosure reports, ETMC “loaned” $45,000 to “Yes on V.” So while “V’s” consultant, Zane made cozy with hotel management supporting his client’s measure, some of these very same hotels were blowing $100,000-plus on a smear campaign targeting SMRR’s council candidate, Kevin McKeown.
The only way voters can find out about any of this is by wading through hundreds of pages of disclosures posted online — months after the election!
Grand giveaways of money to candidates is a stupid idea and a huge waste of money.
Here’s what needs to be done: (1) Require full disclosure of PAC and independent committee memberships — and in a timely manner. (2) Prohibit last minute donations within 48 hours of an election to allow time for reporting. (3) Implement term limits. And last but not least, Santa Monica’s news media must be much more vigilant.
What do you think?
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 19, 2007. Read the original PDF.