CJ Dablo
Staff Writer
From left: Daryl Supernaw, Herlinda Chico and Richard Lindemann speak at a candidate forum hosted by the East Anaheim Street Business Alliance in February The three candidates have followed different strategies in spending and fundraising in the race to represent Long Beach’s 4th District.
Contenders Herlinda Chico, Richard Lindemann and Daryl Supernaw are looking to distinguish themselves in their attempts to fill the vacancy left behind by Patrick O’Donnell, who resigned from the Council soon after winning his bid for a seat on the California State Assembly last November.
The special municipal election is scheduled for April 14. There isn’t much time left for candidates to get noticed.
In a phone interview, Jeffrey Adler, a political consultant based in Signal Hill, predicted that much of the campaign expenditures will take place within two weeks of the election, around the time when vote-by-mail ballots become available. He described what he thought the priorities should be for a solid election strategy.
“Especially in an election without an incumbent!it’s all about name identification and who does the best job of reaching voters and turning them out at the polls,” Adler said, adding that “small groups of voters make a big difference in a low turnout.”
So far, Herlinda Chico has vastly outpaced her opponents in both fundraising and expenditures.
She raised $27,262.67, and her expenditures have totaled $21,660.68, according to her latest report for the calendar year-to-date figures. Chico’s contributors are a mix of individuals, businesses and other special-interest groups. Labor unions, Democratic clubs and the political-action committees (PACs) designated as “recipient committees” on the campaign-finance report were Chico’s biggest donor group. For the statement period, these recipient committees contributed $16,850. For this election, Chico is heavily relying on professional help to run her campaign. She has spent more than $13,000 on campaign consultants. Chico stressed the importance of having a “strong team” behind her.
“Having worked on several campaigns, I know that if I was going to do this, I was going to be very serious about running a campaign,” she said in a phone interview. “And that’s why I hired the people that I did.”
Chico’s fundraising efforts began much earlier than those of her opponents, and she raised a significant amount in the prior calendar year. As of Dec. 31, 2014, she raised a total of $8,274.90 from solely individual donors and one business entity, according to her campaign-finance report.
By contrast, Daryl Supernaw raised $11,335 and spent $4,127.38 on his campaign, according to his report for the period from the beginning of January to the end of February. Supernaw’s monetary contributions include a significant amount that he personally invested into his own candidacy. He acknowledged that he loaned his campaign $2,885, explaining that the amount represents some of the initial filing fees needed to run in the election. He said this money had to be paid out of his own pocket before he was able to form a campaign committee. Supernaw added that the amount also includes the extra fee required for a Khmer translation of his candidate statement on the ballot.
He touted his reputation in the district.
“Everyone knows me as an independent, as a grass-roots guy [and] a community advocate,” Supernaw said. “And that doesn’t change…I have a 30-year business-consulting career. I think I know a little bit about budgets, and that’s what I’m bringing to the table.”
Most of Supernaw’s contributions came from individuals and businesses. BizFed PAC, is the only political-action committee that gave to Supernaw’s campaign during the statement period from January through February. According to its website, this particular PAC focuses on supporting business-friendly candidates in Los Angeles County.
Supernaw highlighted his ability in the 2012 election to win a primary on a small budget. He didn’t have a mail campaign when he was up against two well-funded candidates during his first bid for the Council seat. Later that year, Supernaw lost to O’Donnell, who ran a write-in campaign.
“It’s just that I was able to accomplish a lot without a lot of money before, so I feel very fortunate that I have funding this time so I can get the word out to more people,” he said, adding later that he does have more money this time in the budget for a mail campaign.
Lindemann is not required to turn in campaign-finance reports because he is not planning to raise or spend more than $1,000. Poonam Davis of the city clerk’s department has confirmed this information. In his phone interview, Lindemann said he is only planning to spend about $750 of his own money on his campaign and is not seeking contributions from unions or PACs.
“If you’re being bought and paid for by the PAC, you aren’t worth it to the district, and that’s how I feel,” he said. And that’s what my whole campaign is based on!.doing whatever is right for the district.”
Lindemann acknowledged that he started his campaign by focusing on raising voter turnout, especially on the west side of the district. He said that he is walking through the district and talking to people about their concerns.
Scrutiny of the candidates’ finances was not limited to their campaign balance sheets. Chico’s personal financial problems over the last few years recently became public. Two weeks ago, LBReport.com
published a story outlining how Chico became delinquent on her mortgage. According to LBReport.com, she paid $7,732 towards the $305,000 loan for a home she purchased in 2010. In 2013, she borrowed $20,634 in a separate loan through the California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA), but in 2014 she was sent a notice of default indicating that she was delinquent in the amount of $11,164, according to the story.
Chico didn’t dispute the details as reported by the media organization, however, she provided an explanation of what had happened in the years she fought to keep her first home.
She described a difficult time in her life when she separated from her fiancé of 13 years and then faced an “immediate loss of income.” On top of that, she said she also faced unexpected medical costs and veterinarian expenses. Chico acknowledged that when she fell behind in her finances, it happened gradually, and she soon discovered that even though she had been trying to catch up with her payments, she still couldn’t do it and became delinquent.
“[It] has nothing to do with mismanaging money, like some people have tried to insinuate,” Chico said. “It was just a circumstance I found myself in. The good thing is…that through strict budgeting and working with my mortgage company, I was able to work myself out of it. I’m completely caught up. I am in good standing with my mortgage company. I am not delinquent at all! I owe no money to any third party. There is nothing like that. I am in good standing. I’m caught up.”
LBReport.com did publish Chico’s explanation of her mortgage issues.
One of her opponents isn’t sympathetic to Chico’s financial woes. Lindemann said that Chico’s explanation made “no sense,” asking why someone would be running if she couldn’t keep her finances in order.
“Your ethics or your code of living transfers into your business life too,” Lindemann concluded, “and that’s no matter what field you’re in.”
Supernaw declined to comment on Chico’s mortgage problems. Both he and Chico have stated that they want to focus on running a positive campaign.
Chico did add in her interview that while her personal financial problems are not unique, she stated that her constituents could also draw a positive conclusion about her tenacity when it comes to handling money.
“I hope that that’s what they take away…that I worked hard to find a resolution,” Chico said, “and I was resilient through the entire process.”
Adler said that personal finances are fair game in a local political race like this one, since it reflects one’s ability to manage a budget.
“Long Beach recently has had a lot of non-business people on the Council,” Adler stated, “and business-management experience is very important to the mix in the City Council.”
Chico’s story could inspire sympathy from some key constituents.
Adler added that while Chico’s financial problems may raise questions with some voters, there are also homeowners who may have gone through similar circumstances. He explained that the voters will have to decide if Chico’s situation is a one-time event or represents a pattern.
The political consultant said he is not working for any of the candidates for the 4th District.
Both Chico and Supernaw will be required to file two additional campaign-finance reports in the next few weeks leading up to the election. In a year, the winner of next month’s election will have to run for office again if he or she wants to stay on the Council dais and doesn’t mind the added scrutiny that comes along with a campaign. ß
