Skip to content

TWO MILLION AND COUNTING!

TWO MILLION AND COUNTING!
Santa Monica City Hall (File photo)
Published:

Santa Monica Elections Don’t Come Cheap

(As of October 5, 2016)

By Laurence Eubank, Santa Monica Transparency Project Member

With the November 2016 election still a month away, five City Council Candidates of the ten running have raised about $115,000 ($97,000 in monetary donations and $18,000 in loans) with a PAC primarily funded by Lexus Santa Monica providing $2,077 and the Santa Monica Employees PAC providing $340 of support to each of the four incumbents. The remaining five City Council candidates have raised $0 in the fight for the four seats.

The four SM College Board candidates (who are not limited to City’s $340 donation limit that the City Council candidates are) out raised them collecting nearly $125,000 ($111,000 in monetary donations and $14,000 in loans). These candidates are in a race for three seats.

The four Rent Control Board candidates (restricted to City’s $340 donation limit) have raised about $23,000 ($6,000 in monetary donations and $17,000 in loans) with the Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights (SMRR) PAC providing nearly $4,000 across two candidates. This is a race for two seats.

Even the three sitting School Board candidates have gathered nearly $28,000 in contributions, though one could reasonably wonder why since they are running unopposed.

The appropriately $271,000 raised by individual candidates is small ball compared to the nearly $1,778,000 ($1,765,000 in monetary and $13,000 in non-monetary donations) raised as of October 5th by fourteen Political Action Committees (PACs) which affect both candidate races and four ballot initiatives (a fifth measure is unfunded to date). The candidates’ races have had PAC support of a trivial $14,000 and the money is on the four big ballot initiatives.

Election disclosure statements indicate that of the organizations marshalling resources, seven are perennial players in Santa Monica election politics, while six are newly formed political action committees (PACs) targeted at supporting or defeating specific ballot initiatives and re-electing the four sitting Councilors. The remaining player, Residocracy, falls somewhere between the two.

Examination of legally required September 30, 2016 election disclosure statements plus review of forms (through October 5th) that must be submitted almost immediately for contributions of $1,000 or more illustrate two major factors: 1) the power of incumbency; and, 2) the big money (from all over the country) is aimed at ballot measures that generate the most controversy and have the greatest financial consequences, Measures LV, V, and GS/GSH.

Here’s the lineup, first candidates, then ballot measures:

City Council

Rent Control Board

School Board

College Board

The 2016 ballot measures include:

Measure LV puts the future skyline of the city at stake.

Measure GS and GSH

Measure V puts $345M (plus interest yielding a payback of over $700M) in bonds at stake.

Organizations assembling financial war chests but keeping their powder dry for now:

In next week’s article, we will drill down to see exactly who is donating – particularly the heavyweights – to affect the future direction of our city and determine the tax burdens and development decisions that will be borne by its citizens.

Comments

Sign in or become a SMDP member to join the conversation.
Just enter your email below to get a log in link.

Sign in