Scalia commits spoiler.
Let’s cut to the chase, and leave any people, politicians and personalities out of this for now:
The 2009/10 Supreme Court decision known as “Citizens United” prohibits governments from regulating or limiting or banning Independent Expenditures (IE’s.) Or. To be more precise, 1976’s Buckley vs. Valeo prohibited the regulation of IE’s from individuals, while Citizens United [CU] extended that protection to IE’s from corporations and unions.
The “Clean Up Anaheim Act,” which nearly passed last year (with a 3-3 vote) DOES NOT DO THAT. It does not regulate, limit, or ban any Independent Expenditures.
The component of the “Clean Up Anaheim Act” dealing with IE’s prohibits an Anaheim Councilmember who has received $250 or more in help through an IE from voting on a matter affecting the parties who made that IE (who are generally referred to as Political Action Committees or PAC’s) for one year. (Some would prefer that to be half a year, some of us would prefer it to be two years, but no matter.)
I would call that “DISINCENTIVIZING” Independent Expenditures, lessening the motivation for a person or company or union or PAC to make that expenditure, as there’d be no vote to get out of it in return. It is classified as a RECUSAL law. But it is NOT regulating or limiting or banning IE’s.
What was that about Justice Scalia again?
Folks who opposed the Clean Up Anaheim Act last June argued not only that Citizens United (CU) would prevent Anaheim from doing ANYTHING in regard to IE’s (possibly under the misimpression that CU gives IE’s some kind of untouchable Superpower), but that RECUSAL LAWS (yes, they are so common they’re a category) violate individual legislators’ personal First Amendment right to vote – that a legislative body like a City Council cannot constitutionally force its members to recuse under certain circumstances.
Pero, our Anaheim City Attorney responded NO. Turns out the late, arch-conservative, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia – who had joined enthusiastically with the majority supporting CU – held that legislators “do NOT have a personal, First Amendment right to vote on any given matter,” and that recusal laws like the Clean Up Anaheim Act are perfectly constitutional.
I asked the City Attorney for more details on that Scalia opinion, and it’s Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan 564 US 117 (2011.) 2011! A year after Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that a body like our City Council COULD force its members to recuse themselves for specified conflicts. And it wasn’t just Scalia either – the Supremes ruled unanimously, including all the Citizens United Five.
“Nope, this is okay, you guys.”
Scalia even quoted Thomas Jefferson (the Sage of Monticello) from when he was President of the US Senate in 1801:
“Where the private interests of a member are concerned in a bill or question, he is to withdraw. And where such an interest has appeared, his voice [is] disallowed, even after a division. In a case so contrary not only to the laws of decency, but to the fundamental principles of the social compact, which denies to any man to be a judge in his own case, it is for the honor of the house that this rule, of immemorial observance, should be strictly adhered to.”
A Manual of Parliamentary Practice for the Use of the Senate of the United States 31 (1801)
Our City Attorney went further, telling us that in his research he’d run into numerous “academic articles that generally advocated for the EXPANSION of recusal laws to independent expenditures” – exactly what we are trying to do here. No wonder this gentleman, not given to rocking any boats, expressed certainty that he could defend the Clean Up Anaheim Act in court if anyone challenged it!
Why This is so damn important, in Anaheim
(to begin with!)
Look at this bar graph. The three blue columns on the right side, below.
Yes, there is a teensy bit of blue in the middle “column” if you lean forward and squint. That is Disney’s DIRECT contributions to Anaheim candidates, through 4 election cycles. These direct contributions, totaling $32k, have a limit of $2500 or so, and are NOW regulated by a brand-new state recusal law based on the Levine Act, SB 1439 – meaning in the future anyone who gets these direct contributions from Disney will not be able to vote on matters affecting Disney for a year.
Literally DWARFING that is the blue column on the left, which shows Disney’s REAL spending on those Anaheim campaigns – the OVER FOUR MILLION in INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES paid through their PAC “SOAR!” And that’s just Exhibit A. Close to 99% of Anaheim’s campaign spending comes through PAC’s and IE’s – Disney and the resort district, landlords, police and fire, developers and labor unions.
It’s a good bet that, now that direct contributions are “disincentivized” by the SB 1439 recusal law, while IE’s are not, our town’s special interests won’t even bother with direct contributions any more but put ALL their money into IE’s instead of just 99% of it. But one thing is very clear – ANY SO-CALLED CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM THAT DOESN’T DEAL WITH IE’S IS A JOKE NOT WORTHY OF THE NAME CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM.
And that is EXACTLY what Democratic “reformist” candidates Ashleigh Aitken and Carlos Leon, as well as OC Democratic Party chief Ada Briceño, said last year, as you can hear in this video:
So it is jarring, and the occasion for writing this article, to hear a newly elected Anaheim politician – all right, our new Mayor – claim after being elected that she “FUNDAMENTALLY” believes our Act is unconstitutional – and that she ALWAYS believed this, even though she never mentioned it before when she was praising the entire Act and urging its passage last summer.
She was very insistent about this new certainty of hers at the Feb. 2, 2023 Anaheim Democrats Club meeting, as you can hear above starting at 6:40. We really hope she reconsiders and that at least three of her colleagues join her… because it’s going to be a LOT OF WORK for us citizens to pass it ourselves.
BUT WE WILL IF WE HAVE TO.
Let’s make ANAHEIM FIRST – in reform, not graft!
It’s true that we’ll be among the first cities – maybe the first – to enact a Recusal Law affecting Independent Expenditures. Well, dirty I.E. money is a bigger problem here than in most cities our size.
Right now, Anaheim is famous for
- Disneyland;
- the FBI corruption probe and forced resignation of Mayor Harry Sidhu; and
- POLICE KILLINGS (although those are thankfully down since the bad years of 2011-18.)
We are becoming the new poster child for sleazy pay-to-play politics, the new Bell. “Anacrime,” “Anaslime,” and “Anaheist,” smartasses say, everywhere.
Wouldn’t it be great if we were known, as well, for DOING SOMETHING ABOUT THIS? Just as every other OC city is beginning to follow our lead in switching to district elections, just as Santa Ana followed our lead in creating a Police Review Board (and made it much stronger), so cities statewide and nationwide will emulate our “Anaheim-Style Campaign Finance Reform.” It’s the Anaheim Way! And something the current Mayor and Council could be mighty proud of.
What a hideous waffle by Aitken. And what a flip-flop The new Lucille Kring. I’m surprised she didn’t cite the number of “firefighters” she could hire with the money wasted on fruitless ordinance.
It would be fun to see the rats who legally challenge it.
And it has always seemed perfectly reasonable to regulate what the politicians vote on, not on the IEs themselves. The language is going to have to define what constitutes support for a candidate. Pro-candidate stuff is easy. What about hit pieces on your opponent?
Therein lies one big problem with the proposal, Zenger.
I agree that the IE exception is a HUGE problem. But it’s in exploring the consequences of deciding who is disqualified from voting in a proposal based on a IE’s opposition to other candidates — which may benefit them — where Citizen’s United (or other federal law) may become involved.
I don’t know if I should expand on that here or start a separate post (as I don’t want to take over this one); I’ll ask Vern his preference.
Go for it. First what do you mean by “I agree that the IE exception is a HUGE problem.” You agree with me and David about that?
And then, let’s work on this IE opposition question – how can that be addressed in a new improved bill, and how would it risk involving CU?
Bearing in mind that any disagreement we have here, publicly, will be happily pointed at by those who don’t want any reform.
Your diagnosis is excellent. Your treatment may be faulty.
I’ve literally been thinking about campaign finance reform since it was the national speech and debate topic in (if memory serves) 1975-76. I’ve never seen or come up with a possible fix that couldn’t be abused.
I think I’ll make it a separate post so that all of the yelling at me doesn’t disturb this one. And I might not put it up until tomorrow, because … movie night!
Greg, see the Kennedy concurrence in Carrigan. The points made there are the ones that have to be rebutted in any argument that the provision in question is constitutional.
I’ve decided to write about my concerns after the vote. I do think that the Council should pass it — and that they can find better legal scholars than me to fix any deficiencies.
I’d be glad to talk to you about what I think that those deficiencies might be elsewhere.
Those that desire power will say and do anything to get it.
You are surprised a politician changed course on an issue after getting elected?? I doubt you are Vern.
It’s a great article and your position is righteous.
Ada, Ashleigh and Carlos were scoring easy political points that night at Anaheim City Council. Free publicity for being with the citizens.
Now, it’s her fiduciary duty to follow what she believes is the holding in CU. Blah, blah, blah said the “I was a federal prosecutor.”
Btw, Veterans Day 2021, elks lodge Santa Ana, Veterans Day, in the parking lot, I had a little conversation with one Don Wagner regarding Farrah Khan. He encouraged me to drag Farrahkhan despite his silence. I believe I obliged him. Call him and confirm.
I don’t have Don’s number, have never talked to him, and he probably hates me because I’ve been writing bad stuff about him for 15 years. (Back when we used to call him “Spanky” because of his advocacy for corporal punishment.)
Anyway, I think your last two comments belonged on the open thread?
You are correct. Place as you please. Certainly the Wagner comment. Forgive me. You can email him. He reads them. I emailed him before I cornered him in the parking lot. Lol. He remembered.
We have lost course from our founding president’s vision:
“nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”
https://www.cato.org/commentary/george-washington-tried-warn-americans-about-foreign-policy-today
What would George do?? That’s the question our leaders should be asking at every critical juncture.
That quote above was the cursor to FARA. Which despite at least a 50 year dormancy Is back on the playing field with a vengeance.
Beware of you foreign friends and foes.
What would George do.
https://voiceofoc.org/2023/02/santana-washington-warned-us-to-skate-through-the-national-political-fracas/
Thanks – a fine piece in which Norberto literally skateboards to Dana Point and takes an “ironic hard left” to talk to The Pillow Guy.
Ashleigh is one of the more repugnant Democratic players in OC these days. She doesn’t even bother to hide her outright hypocrisy like most do. In the short time she’s been in office she’s already taken two trips to Washington D.C. to build her personal brand and lay the groundwork for whatever higher office she already has her eye on.
I knew she was nothing more than a public safety fluffer and didn’t buy her woman of the people routine. Truly a two bit hack politician.
She doesn’t have to. She is big machine offspring. She is different than most.
Lippy, do you ever NOT exaggerate? I’ve known big political machines, big political machines have been enemies of mine, and neither Wylie nor Ashleigh Aitken runs a “big” machine.
Who is exaggerating?? You didn’t respond for more than a week now you are flapping oh myopic booby one. Between you and Ashleigh, you are not going to be treated the same if shit hits the fan for you in this county. Easy money. You get railroaded and she won’t. She’ll be treated with kid gloves. Two sets of justice.
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2023/02/wrap-that-investigation-up-barks-panicked-new-anaheim-council/
—————————
Eric Neshanian
Feb 10 – 11:38
Reply
No she won’t. She is an Aitken. Beyond reproach.
You appreciate that she is an establishment candidate. The Anaheim cabal has nothing on the DC one. And, she is big Machine offspring.
Among other things, Daddy has a history as a Democratic Judicial Selection Committee advising the White House on federal judges appointments.
Her husband is on a committee that advises Newsom about state judge appointments.
They can accept acknowledgment from organizations steeped in a history of spying on US citizens, promoting legislation chilling free speech critical of Israel and lobbying against formal US recognition of the Armenian Genocide for Israel and Turkey. You can’t.
They believe they are just flat out different than you and entitled.
https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=8500b5d9-905b-0a1d-6d3b-28fac1447f7c
https://www.aitkenlaw.com/wylie-attorney-committee/
https://voiceofoc.org/2017/05/reiff-lawyer-ashleigh-aitken-planning-run-for-anaheim-mayor-not-for-da/?amp
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Regional-Judicial-Selection-Advisory-Committees-1.21.pdf (Find “Casey Johnson”)
I’m making a retraction. I got my wires crossed Casey Johnson is not Ashleigh’s husband. My apologies to all involved. My bad. I was wrong.
But, Johnson is an Aitken attorney and advises Newsom re judicial appointments.
And the Aitken family are ADL acolytes. For some reason they think supporting an organization with a history of spying on American citizens, supporting legislation that bans constitutionally protected speech critical of Israel and lobbying on behalf of Israel and Turkey against formal US recognition of the Armenian Genocide is a good luck for their brand. Barf.
Oh, poor Lippy! I didn’t respond to him for over a week?
Thank you for your paranoid ravings — which, as always, lead straight back to Armenia. If she was openly pro-Armenian, you wouldn’t say “boo” about her.
It has gotten boring.
Oh myopic booby, when did I saw either of them ran a big machine. They are part of the big machine. Eh. Deny that? Who do you think wields more power Ada or Wylie? There is no power to be garnered in the local party or leading the local party. Puhleeze. Which big political machines have been your enemies? Lol. You are a gnat.
You’re not arguing in good faith, you’re rude, and your ignorant. I’m putting you back on a leash.
She has? When did those DC trips take place and with what stated purposes?
The only one I recall (and I’m not even positive about it) is a trip to the National Council/Association of Mayors meeting. Sorry, but that’s a trip where I think that Aitken’s personal interests and the city’s interest are aligned. For one ticket (or two if she brought staff) and lodging, the City is potentially getting a nice bump in national clout and opportunities.
One can always argue that that is true of any junket, but in this case the benefit depends on the quality and intentions of whoever you send. It would have been worthwhile with Tait and maybe Daly; it would not have been worthwhile with Sidhu or O’Neill, and it could have been disastrous with Pringle. if Aitken makes career progress it won’t be because Resort interests pumped her up like a balloon; it will because she has dont a really good job of running Anaheim, so as I said the interests are pretty well aligned.
Excellent legal analysis unfortunately beyond the keen of a “former federal prosecutor”. Possibly understandable as the Justice Department failed to prosecute a single banker for nearly destroying the economy, largely ignored police murder and hasn’t charged Trump despite his coup being televised.
I’m going to assume Wylie’s history with Chapman University had nothing with Michael Penn being elected to their Board of Governors and then Chairman of the Board. Not a thing.
https://www.chapman.edu/about/_files/trustees-pdfs/chapman-university-governing-boards.pdf
https://www.instagram.com/p/CoqkeJAvjop/?hl=en
I just have to temper this a bit. Scalia, of course, did not say that “recusal laws like the Clean Up Anaheim Act are perfectly constitutional.” He said that a legislator’s vote is a legislative act, and not expressive speech, and therefore the vote of the legislator in Carrigan was not protected from the garden-variety conflict-of-interest recusal law involved in that case.
But in his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy said that a recusal law that aimed to prevent votes on the basis of campaign support would present constitutional issues of the “first magnitude.” In such a case, the issue would not be the First Amendment protection afforded to the vote, but rather to the campaign support. Kennedy was the author of Citizens United and was the leader of Court conservatives on IE and the First Amendment. While he is no longer on the Court, his views might still be persuasive to current Court conservatives.
And Kennedy seems way wrong. How can campaign support automatically imply obligation NOT to recuse by the elected as a mechanism to respect free speech. That’s absurd.
As Vern says, the proposed ordinance disincentivizes IE. Kennedy’s point seems to be that a government regulation that disincentivizes protected political speech is constitutionally problematic.
I disagree with Buckley v. Valeo on IE, and with Citizens United, but here we are.
On the topic of politicians recusing themselves from voting on certain matters.
https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2023-02-19/california-ags-wife-recuses-herself-from-state-doj-budget
I think it’s clearly constitutional. Citizens United only held 1st Amendment bans limiting INDEPENDENT (of candidates’ campaign) UNCOORDINATED (with candidates or their campaign) EXPENDITURES. Citizens United’s 5-justice majority and its progeny cases said it’s OK to stop corruption (tho’ they almost never found a possibility of corruption from $$ in politics).
Anaheim ordinance doesn’t stop anyone from donating to any campaign (either direct to candidates’ campaign or independent-&-uncoordinated). All it’ll do is stop corruption, donor’s ability to buy council mbr’s vote, by requiring mbr to recuse on a matter that’ll specially benefit a specific big donor. So (brilliantly!!) it’ll just remove the thing a donor might otherwise try to buy!! Council mbr’s VOTE to specially benefit the donor! –JA
Have we an update on the Council’s (in?)action in response to this?
Next meeting is the 28th. The Clean Up Anaheim Coalition has reformed (combining OCCORD, People’s Homeless Task Force, members of the Anaheim Democrats Club and the Anaheim Republican Assembly) to do several actions on this, which I won’t get into detail right now here.
As I said, Cunningham gave the Chamber view on this, which focused on the fact that Donna and I were among the activists JL interviewed. As predictable, this attracted a lot of comments attacking me and Donna, which Matt printed. I ignored all that but did submit a substantive comment, which – after a week now – Matt has not approved. Usually he does, unless an election is coming up, and he doesn’t want my point of view given any oxygen over there. I only mention all this because it’s an indication of how important it is, to the Chamber crowd he represents, for no pro-investigation voices to be heard. Here’s what Matt refused to print:
[In response to the one intelligent commenter, Dennis Tucker, who wrote: “The scope is much wider than the stadium heist, of course. The scams have been going on for years.”]
“You’re right, Dennis. You wouldn’t know from this article, but this was the actual “scope of work” assigned:
“’The review may include the following steps and more:
1. Identifying entities or individuals who made campaign contributions for all candidate/officeholder accounts for sitting Council Members and former Mayor Harry Sidhu throughout their political career in Anaheim, and other political offices, as it relates to a financial interest with the City.
2. Correlation between campaign contributions and city business and activities.
3. Identifying consultants, including lobbyists, who were selected to work for the City and made campaign contributions to Council Members.
4. Identifying payments made in connection with those engagements, and what the money was used for.
5. Investigating any serial communications/meetings in violation of the Brown Act that included financial interests and influence on voting in the context of the facts alleged in the recent federal investigation.
6. Identifying developments and/or projects under review or approved/entitled by the City where campaign contributions were made and/or improprieties that may have arisen in connections with such developments and/or projects.
7. Review the applicability of local ordinances, policies or procedures, and make recommendations as needed.
8. Evaluating to what extent, if any, staff was involved in, participated in, or party to, the illegal and unethical behaviors in the context of the federal investigation.’
“The 2022 Council picked the lowest bidder (maybe hoping for a half-assed job?) All the other firms could see how much work it’d be and bid over a million. Why did JL bid so low? Maybe they knew they’d get the job that way. Water under the bridge now, this investigation has to be completed. And $750k is pretty small next to any number of giveaways that are being investigated.”
The script was prepared for the Rubalcava person: limit the investigation to the stadium deal. That’s what the public cares about.
That mirrors the Jerb scribblings. No one wants a full investigation of the money handed out to vassals less than the Chamber of Commerce – the beneficiary of so much crony-graft.
Dennis Tucker will soon find his way to oblivion on that site.
Now that I look at this, these comments are on the wrong story. I assumed Greg was asking about council action on the investigation.
Now I know he was asking about Campaign Finance Reform. We really don’t expect any council action there. The people will have to do that on our own.
I forget what I was talking about, so just address both!
Is it constitutional for OC Housing Authority to meet in secret this morning? They posted on their website the 2/23 meeting was canceled. Then,today they met. Everyone thought it was canceled. They don’t want anyone to talk about James Mai. No public speakers showed up about anything, even other topics. This is buggery.
Is it unconstitutional? No.
Does it violate the Ralph
KM. Brown Act’s Open Meeting Law? It would surprise me if it didn’t.I don’t even think that you’d need a lawyer to go after something that blatant, presuming that you can show that this happened.
Yes, that’s a violation of meeting notice.
It’s the Ralph M. Brown Act not “K”. Second, nobody at OC Housing Commission gives a Huff about the Brown Act. They require emailed comments to be sent at noon the day before the regular meeting, which is itself illegal. They do this for the convenience of the lazy clerks.
If you want to sue for something, sue for a blatant violation like the rules on emails. The Brown Act does not explicitly say anything about a false cancellation notice.
That’s pretty brazen of them to go to those lengths of pretending the meeting was off calendar. It’s tricky because the Brown Act doesn’t address anything like the scenario you described. Go for the low hanging fruit, which is them illegally demanding written comments to be emailed by noon the day before, and add the cancelation as icing on the cake. The cancelation is maybe not the best cause of action as it sounds hard to prove. Just sayin.
PS: with Cecilia Huff as their Chair nothing illegal should come as a surprise.
PPS: Is it time to start looking into Cecilia’s Campaign Contributions?
Cecilia Huff is the head of OC Housing Commission?
I found a Cecilia HUPP, a Brea Councilwoman. Different person?
(Checks) https://www.ochousing.org/hcd-commission It IS Hupp.
Bob Huff was a powerful & corrupt north-county Republican politician for a decade or two.
Sorry, Vern it was a play on words, w/ the “huff and puff”,based on some of her behavior at Brea council. Yes, Celicia HUPP is indeed chair of OC Housing Authority Commission. Probably not a great place to put a self-described “fiscal conservative”. Here’s her City of Brea bio https://www.ci.brea.ca.us/directory.aspx?EID=3
It looks like she was appointed by Chaffee, who is responsible for the lions share of appointments to the Housing Commission.
Cecilia’s Cash Cows are who????? That is a great question…
PS: Curious if anyone went to Diane Harkey’s home on Wednesday? For the low, low price of starting at $250, you could meet Katrina Foley and donate to her reelection campaign for 2026. Republicans went nucking futs on social media, but the event proceeded anyway. Harkey is a former GOP endorsed candidate, so this is a strange type of girlcrush we’re seeing.
Yeah that’s really weird and funny. I’ve written about Harkey for a decade or more. Financial crook.
https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2013/12/the-harkey-files-south-countys-rabid-wolverine-encounters-some-setbacks/
The OC GOP chose to endorse her for Supervisor against Katrina Foley, and a lot of other Republicans (led, I’ve just learned, by the hapless Lincoln Club) were disgusted with the choice and recruited ancient Pat Bates, who beat Harkey in the primary and then was in turn beat by Katrina.
I’m guessing THAT converted Harkey into a Katrina fan, which is hilarious! But what’s all this got to do with the “Clean Up Anaheim Act?” We are far afield. You have a lot of interesting info, but let’s take this conversation over to the latest Weekend Open Thread, which is over here… https://www.orangejuiceblog.com/2023/02/late-early-weekend-open-thread-balloons-and-betrayals/
PS. Ah – located an example of the pain and anguish!
The lame-o OCGOP is in full implosion mode. How funny.
There’s gottta be something in this for Harkey, Harkey being Harkey. I wonder what. Just general revenge against the universe?
Thanks for correcting me on the middle initial. Ralph K. Brown was an excellent social scientist whom I know when active in social psychology.)
I don’t know who you are, but I take it that you don’t like Cecilia Hupp. All I’ll say is that Brea has a lot worse politicians than her. (I ended up reluctantly endorsing her husband for a water board last year or the previous cycle, as the least bad option, but he didn’t win.) If you want to suggest that there’s something important to be found in Hupp’s financial disclosure or campaign finance documents, go ahead and post it — or post a link.
I’m not going to do research or comment on your assertion about the “email by noon” assertion, but as I recall they did not use (or at least enforce) that procedure when I commented there last year. (I may have had to give notice that I was going to comment; I don’t recall, but I don’t think I did.)
I’m not going to research the Brown Act either — this is not and will not become my fight — but I believe that notice of a meeting can be rescinded, and if rescinded it is then due to the usual requirements. Otherwise, Councils, Boards, and Commissions would be pulling this sort of thing all of the time.
It also wouldn’t shock me, given that I haven’t done this work for years now, if one of the analogues of the Brown Act that applies to meetings of different actors might apply instead.
Given how much the Voice of OC cares about these issues, I’m really surprised that someone hasn’t tried to interest Norberto in this story. Do you know?
More on the topic of politicians recusing themselves from matters.
https://www.ocregister.com/2023/02/23/lawsuit-targets-new-law-forcing-elected-officials-to-recuse-on-matters-involving-campaign-donors/
Buckley v Valero is a tricky case. 1976, huh? What year was Roe v Wade decided?
Ask a soldier in public, “can you win this battle?” and that soldier must say “yes, we will find a way.” Ask a lawyer tasked with defending the city the same question in public, and that lawyer must also say, “yes, we will find a way.” But we need soldiers and lawyers to be able to say frankly somewhere what they think the costs may be to the people who need to commit to paying that price – and if those frank assessments become public, that will empower people looking to fight on the other side. Legislators need to pick the battles worth fighting.
If you want to parse Supreme Court rulings on conflicts of interest laws, there’s a vast literature on the subject – it’s incredibly complex, because the more laws are enacted to block conflicts, the more subtle workarounds people looking to influence legislators concoct. But if you want to gamble with Anaheim’s money before this Court…well, I would have preferred to face the majority for Citizens United rather than the majority we face today. Ashleigh strikes me as acting cautiously with the city’s budget – and a city attorney saying there’s a case that can be defended acts properly in pointing out the law – but both have to address the details of how to implement it – and those details are exceptionally tricky, while the consequences of error are very steep – not just in the sense of litigation costs ($300-400k), but in the sense that years get wasted on one dead end that we thought might solve the problem, only for it to backfire – making things even worse.
David Zenger
Posted February 27, 2023 at 10:06 AM
“The lame-o OCGOP is in full implosion mode. How funny.
“There’s gottta be something in this for Harkey, Harkey being Harkey. I wonder what. Just general revenge against the universe?”
Really, David? Katrina gave Harkey a commission this morning.You could have watched it for free.
Back to Cecilia, ICYMI Brea Council meets a week from tonight. Let’s see if we spot Cecilia’s Cash Cows in the crowd? Whoever said I don’t like Cecilia,it’s not about like. It’s about facts. Do your homework.
What commission is that?
Jaja probably Elderly Financial Services
Heh. Boots on the ground experience.
OK, Puffy, I’ll extend this invitation one more time.
You don’t get to assign us homework. If you have something about Hupp’s finances or fundraising that you want to bring to our attention, post it.
I only haven’t removed your post yet because you do seem to have some good information, about Harkey, although as Zenger notes it is incomplete. So tell us what you need to know. You can email it to Vern if you wish; you’ll find his email address on the bottom of the stories he writes.