Council Recall Election Funded by Contractors Past and Present

Talk about independent expenditures usually refers to such expenditures in support, or more often in opposition to, federal candidates. At the local level, the major independent expenditures tend to come from unions, both public service unions and construction unions. There are also cases where independent expenditures come from contractors and others seeking direct benefits from the candidates they support or oppose. This can look very much like a payoff for favors done and/or for future favors, generally referred to as pay to play.

One such case has arisen in Montebello, CA, a small city of 62,000. According to an article posted yesterday evening on the Whittier Daily News website, a company that had recently obtained a no-bid $150 million, 15-year refuse hauling contract gave "close to $353,000" (or nearly $14 per registered voter) to a 2009 Say No on Recall campaign committee it created. Two of the council members were targeted for recall largely due to approval of the refuse contract. The small refuse companies that had formerly done the work provided most of the funding for the pro-recall committee, according to an article in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.

The city recently filed a suit against three council members, including the two recalled, claiming that they approved the contract in return for promises of campaign contributions. This would be bribery, and very hard to prove.

But what about the huge independent support for and against the council members? It is unlikely that their recall support was promised, but it certainly makes it look to the public as if the council members were very closely tied to the contractor, and had made decisions that benefited the contractor rather than the public.

Sadly, one of the council members is taking the usual, legal approach to the huge independent expenditure. He defends himself by insisting that he did not directly take money from the contractor for the recall election. "They did support fighting the recall, but they started their own campaign committee on their own to stop it."

More sadly, the council member has the U.S. Supreme Court in his corner. There is this idea that independent expenditures, unlike gifts and campaign contributions, do not create the appearance of corruption. There is this romantic idea that independent expenditures are a different and purer form of expenditure. One look at the Montebello contractor's independent expenditures is enough to make anyone realize this is rubbish.

With the former contractors funding the other side, the recall election turned into a battle between businesses seeking to retain or get back benefits from the city government. Does anyone really want elections to turn into battles like this?

At least the contractors' contributions to the committees were public. And it is likely that the new contractor's huge expenditure was an important element in the council members' losing the recall election. If its huge contributions had been secret, the result might have been different. Despite what many people say, who is making independent expenditures can be very important to the public and to our elections.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---