Mmm . . . free burgers and free love.
**Update 10/16**
The FPOA and Fullerton Firefighter’s PAC filed additional late expenditure reports (not to be confused with filing late reports– different problem, like Mr. Bankhead.)
We’re now up to $23,707.88 for Ms. Flory, $23,707.87 for Mr. Alvarez, for a combined total of $47,415.75.
Some perspective, that’s 53% more than Fullerton Taxpayers for Reform (Bushala’s PAC. I would expect their spending totals to change quickly, but this is based on filed-to-date.)
Some better perspective, that’s almost 50% LESS than what Chevron spent on stamps to support measure W. That does not include postage on their onslaught of rent-an-ad slate mailers.
Stamps people. They cut a check for almost $90,000 to the US Post Office.
You think about that before casting a vote on building houses in West Coyote Hills.
***
(Original Post, 10/11)
Man, my optimism is taking a beating this week!
First, I find that two of the three sitting Fullerton Council members who voted to change the title of Measure W to favor Chevron in an absolutely ridiculous fashion have accepted money from Chevron’s Land and Development Project Manager.
Then, I discover that Bruce Whitaker accepted $1000 from the Slidebar, a institution heavily criticized by his supporters over at FFFF for Slidebar’s assumed involvement in Kelly Thomas’s death.
The whole time I’m thinking at least the Fullerton public safety unions are staying out of this one. That’s a very good thing– maybe they learned their lesson in the recall. This city needs to unify and move forward, to institute reform, and to restore the public’s confidence in those who are sworn to protect and serve the community.
This absolutely cannot happen when a public safety union forks over a ton of cash to their preferred candidate– a candidate who’s supposed to lead reform and heal the community. It’s just too big of a conflict of interest for the public to swallow.
At least they’re staying out of it. Maybe we’ve got a chance for some good . . .
WRONG. FAIL. AUTOMATIC-F.
Low and behold the FPOA filed a late contribution report that was posted this morning. A whopping $27617.75.
$13808.88 to in support of Jan Flory
$13808.87 to in support of Rick Alvarez (Rick, I’d be pretty pissed about that penny if I were you.)
What the hell are we doing, Fullerton? When did we say it’s OK to accept campaign funding from institutions we intend to reform, those attempting to buy destructive rezoning for their parcel, or from institutions popularly accused of instigating a murder?
Why does no one care? Where is the accountability? Where’s the transparency and honesty?
Give it back, people. Give it back.
I bet on apathy a few posts ago. So far pessimism 1 for 1, optimism 0 for 3.
More on funding in Fullerton and how it relates to Prop 32 coming soon . . .
Candidates have no control over independent expenditures.
Untrue and a lie. Rick Alvarez has not accepted a penney from the Fullerton police, fire or employees associations or federations for his campaig though I am telling him to do so to compete and WIN in November. I know you are just a blog but come on dude get it right.
I made a slight revision based on your comment. You’re correct that these weren’t “direct contributions” (assuming that’s what you meant. That’s not what you said, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.)
Hope that suits your fancy.
Please define you position. What is the source of your information? Why did you infer money was received when it was not? Please post what “indirect” expenditures have been made; for what and specifically (facts dude) when? Looks like and smells like bull put out by a wealthy developer or those his $250K put into office. Again, though a blog, lay out your evidence and facts for all of us to see and to be convinced your position is sound. Mindless pap and political babble is not what we in Fullerton want or deserve. Just the facts Jack.
John, John, John! You must have us confused with some OTHER blog (although they do excellent work from time to time.) I didn’t infer anything. I read it off an official campaign submission that required a very minimal amount of effort to find.
The FPOA posted six 496 forms this week. They’re available on the city clerk’s site. Three are for Ms. Flory and three are for Mr. Alvarez. The expenditures include signs, banners, direct mailers, e-mails, and sign placement.
You’re welcome to do your own reading here: http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/Browse.aspx?dbid=1
or direct:
Rick 1: http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/1/doc/482471/Page1.aspx
Rick 2: http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/1/doc/482472/Page1.aspx
Rick 3: http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/1/doc/482475/Page1.aspx
Jan 1: http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/1/doc/482473/Page1.aspx
Jan 2: http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/1/doc/482474/Page1.aspx
Jan 3: http://cityoffullerton.com/weblink8/1/doc/482470/Page1.aspx
Enjoy!
Tricky point. They’re certainly not supposed to. If you believe they really don’t, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you.
When a candidate publicly states they’ve accepted the endorsement of a PAC, then the PAC spends a bunch of money on their behalf, I don’t see the distinction between an independent expenditure and a direct contribution.
Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but then again maybe you are. I expect better out of my prospective leaders, particularly those charged with addressing major change in a city that badly needs it.
But as I stated– tricky point and I certainly concede it.
Name one “indirect expenditure” made, publish your facts and your evidence, otherwise, in the Court of Public Opinion, you will be labled as what (Obama’s people call Romney), a LIAR.
Put up or shut up. Your blog rivals that of Kiger’s.
I am calling you out. Your not truthful and this is not splitting hairs. In the spirit of FFFF, liar, liar pants on fire.
Now you accuse organizations of commiting a crime like Christ Thompson who at least was a man and admitted his guilt.
Dude, this kind of garbage is found on Travis’ blog….why sink so low? Speculation is usually wrong and often deceitful.
You owe Alvarez an apology sir….be a man and do it.
Absent concrete evidence, you and your blog will be called out for what you are: Fullerton’s National Enquirer.
John, let me know if you’d like me to take this last comment down. I’m more than happy to leave it up.
John, while Ryan is here for ideological balance (and interesting conversation), he’s not an FFFF type. He was Matt Rowe’s campaign manager and while we got into our share of online slap fights half a year ago he seems honest and fair.
If you look at those links that Ryan posted, you’ll see that FPOA PAC has made independent expenditures in support of Rick Alvarez and Jan Flory.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with FPOA’s making these expenditures.
These expenditures, while significant, are not at the overwhelming and focused level that would lead to “owning” of a Councilmember.
There is nothing in the documents suggesting that Alvarez or Flory solicited them, approved them, or had advance knowledge of them.
There is nothing damning towards either Flory nor Alvarez in FPOA making these independent expenditures.
FPOA might ideally want “a judge biased towards them,” as they had in the previous regime, but now they seem primarily to be interested in their not having “a judge biased against them.” If they’re spending simply to ensure that they get a fair hearing before the council before unbiased people, there’s no problem.
Where I disagree with Ryan — and this may be your problem here too — is where he says this:
This is just wrong — there’s a huge distinction. One or more of the groups that has endorsed me could come out with an IE tomorrow, for me or against Huff, and it would take me totally by surprise. Furthermore, the content of the IE may be something that I’d find offensive and might well denounce. I’m simply not responsible for it, if it happens, unless there was collusion or an implicit agreement.
Why might you know that there’s an “implicit agreement”? Tom Daly’s silence in AD-69 while a million dollars came in from business groups (mostly ones opposed to Democrats) is to me an example of giving the appearance of something rotten — but it would have been fine if he had simply denounced it. I asked him to do so publicly — and he didn’t — and it represented the lion’s share of money spent on his campaign (for which he did scant fundraising on his own.) THAT bothered me — but still, all he had to do to get me off of his back was to denounce the ads.
If your point is that Ryan should have to prove the point before implying some collusion, you’re right. If your point is that he hasn’t provided evidence of FPOA’s actions, I think that (unless someone hacked into the City’s server) those links are definitive.
I’ll admit– I didn’t provide the original links because I got a little lazy. I figured that I had accounted for a difference in one cent between the two candidates I’d get a little trust. Lesson learned.
This piece, along with the two I posted on Councilmen Kiger and Whitaker ought to be viewed in the broader context of what I will publish next week.
Prop 32 seeks to make illegal what some of us would consider unethical behavior, which is a very difficult moral position to be in. We’ll tolerate some potentially unethical contributions on one hand, but we’re going to make other potentially unethical contributions illegal on the other? The spending I’ve highlighted so far (in all three cases) as only been questionable spending (I would say unethical, but questionable isn’t nearly as contentious.)
What’s interesting is of what I’ve highlighted, what would be banned and what would not? Hopefully that sparks some interest next week.
Also, one more editorial. If I were a city council candidate in Fullerton and I had someone spending Albert Rincon, Manuel Ramos, and Jay Cincinelli’s payroll deductions on my behalf (anyone know why Wolfe isn’t on their 460 forms?), you had better believe that I’d be denouncing it loud and clear for everyone to see.
So yeah, I think there’s a big fat something wrong with the FPOA spending this money. It’s not good for Fullerton and they should stop.
Their stopping would mean leaving Tony’s possible onslaught of mail and such unopposed, right? Take that away and I’d agree with you — but how can one take that away?
Greg, I agree with you that in a normal case special interest money ought to be met with special interest money. That’s why they’re called “special interests”. If they didn’t spend their money to appose each other, they’d just be sitting at home writing on blogs like . . . me.
In this case, Tony’s membership isn’t accused of multiple felony counts against a citizen of Fullerton.
Until we get some actual healing in this town, and definitely while the FPOA lists the potential felons on its donation receipts, they shouldn’t be spending any political dollars in Fullerton. It’s just plain wrong.
The municipal federation or the firefighters? Yea, I’ll cut them some slack, but I’m still gonna look at it with some skepticism. That’s not exactly fair to them, but they can blame the FPOA as my judgmental thought it a direct result of their poor decisions.
Also, there are p-l-e-n-t-y of deep pockets in Fullerton. Ms. Flory picked up some sizable contributions from some pretty wealthy folks. It ain’t 32 grand, but it ain’t that far off either. I’m gonna call that one a wash.
If there’s a way to segregate out their money (something you’re likelier to know than I am), then returning the money from those three makes sense. If there isn’t, well, returning all money seems like a very high price to pay. (There are other ways to deal with it, such as donating it to a Police Benevolent Fund.) I would welcome hearing both of them state that while they would give the FPOA a fair hearing on issues, they would maintain their independent judgment in dealing with both police finances and with incidents of alleged misconduct. I think that it would be smart and — unlike the previous Council majority — I think that Flory and probably Alvarez actually believe it.
Segregate it? No.
Spend it wisely? Absolutely.
There’s a dude in Fullerton whose goal is to collect 1,000 sweatshirts for the homeless.
FPOA could have handled that and then some instead of wading into politics where it doesn’t belong (THIS TIME). Would have done a lot to unite the community, but apparently they’d rather win their way– by force.
What direct mail has been going out? Tony’s running out of time! What donations or IEs — pretty much same thing, in his case — have come from the Bushala camp?
$31k so far.
Thank you for finding this Ryan. You get an A in journalism and a C in photoshop. 🙂 Also 75% of Flory donors listed occupation as “retired”. Wonder how many are retired city rmployees, especially cops. Who is backing bankhead?
I can definitely state at least one former city employee and one former cop (chief of police.) That’s the next write up though. Hopefully with some candidate comments!
Also, I will GLADLY take your generous “C” grade.
The first question there is — “is anyone backing Bankhead?” The traditional Republicans seem to be backing Alvarez or Fitzgerald, plus some Levinson and some Flory. I think that by now he’s widely viewed on all sides as an embarrassment.
I dunno, Dr. D. He’s still claiming lots of endorsements on his website– still Ms. Flory actually.
Speaking of unethical behavior during an election . . . anyone aware of any laws relating to using campaign material from 2010 that’s no longer true or accurate to represent oneself to the electorate?
I asked Flory about that point-blank. She is not endorsing Bankhead in this election. She couldn’t, actually — she is endorsing Jaramillo and is obviously favoring Alvarez.
Hey man, it’s up on the web for all to see. She’s an attorney. I assume she knows exactly how to draft a cease and desist order.
Also on there? Many of Ms. Flory’s big ticket donors. I warned you when the DPOC (I always get this acronym wrong, please feel free to correct me– again) endorsed Ms. Flory that they were aligning themselves with Don Bankhead.
It’s less about party designation and more about commonality. FPOA endorsements? Same supporters and donors? Same position on development? Same position on Gennaco? Same position on the recall? Get my point?
To the casual under-informed observer, the only difference between Ms. Flory’s platform and Mr. Bankhead’s is the (D) or (R) next to their registration. That’s mostly because no one has forced Mr. Bankhead to acknowledge the history of the last 2 years.
That really sucks for Ms. Flory, but I don’t see a whole lot of effort to change the appearance. Maybe she doesn’t need to, who knows? If the election were held today, she’d probably pick up a seat . . . so who am I to start handing out advice?
Still, just my two cents.
I think that the fact that the FPOA apparently has not endorsed Bankhead speaks volumes about both him and his chances. I don’t think he’s going to win and I think that almost everyone except him wishes that he hadn’t run.