By: CJ Dablo
Staff Writer
A few Long Beach residents, together with three members of the city council, resisted— but ultimately failed to defeat— an ordinance that was often explained away as a mere clean-up of outdated rules governing campaign finances in an election.
In a second-reading vote on April 18, the Long Beach City Council passed a key modification to a 1999 municipal campaign-finance law, with the understanding that the new rules will now align with state and federal laws.
Proponents for the change in the municipal code cited one case law as one of the main grounds for the modification— the controversial Supreme Court case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The council voted 5—3 on the new ordinance that changes the municipal rules, and one of the significant changes now allows an officeholder to transfer election campaign money from one elected official’s account to another candidate’s campaign.
There were problems with the voting equipment for at least one of the councilmembers on Tuesday, and Mayor Robert Garcia called for a voice vote. After the votes were recorded and then displayed on the screen, some in the audience interrupted the council proceedings to challenge the results.
The mayor and the city-clerk staff confirmed the tally. Councilmembers Lena Gonzalez, Jeannine Pearce, Dee Andrews, Roberto Uranga and Al Austin voted in favor of the ordinance. Councilmembers Suzie Price, Daryl Supernaw and Stacy Mungo voted against the ordinance. Vice Mayor Rex Richardson was not present for the meeting.
In a memorandum issued to the mayor and city council, Deputy City Attorney Amy Webber explained the need for the change to the laws, saying the modification was meant to align the officeholder accounts with the regulations of the state and the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Webber noted two key court decisions, which became part of case law surrounding campaign financing.
One of the court decisions is the Citizens United case, which essentially protects political spending as “free speech” under the First Amendment.
Webber specifically noted that “because contribution limitations are a limitation on political speech, they have been held to be protected by the First Amendment,” referring to the conclusions drawn by the U.S. Supreme Court.
She also cited a lesser known 1992 decision by the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit in the case of SEIU v. Fair Political Practices Commission. Webber stated that the case “invalidated state law limiting contributions and candidate transfers.”
Webber further explained in her memorandum how that court decision affected campaign-finance rules.
“These contributions are considered speech,” she stated in her memorandum, “and restrictions are therefore subject to strict judicial scrutiny and must be narrowly drawn to avoid abridgment of First Amendment rights. State law and the courts have provided candidates and elected officials with the ability to contribute funds from their campaign or officeholder accounts to other candidates. The proposed amendment eliminates the potential conflict between our municipal code and state law.”
Pearce advocated for the change Tuesday night, reiterating that the City needed to update to the municipal law in order to avoid a conflict with state and federal laws.
“This is about nothing more than eliminating a conflict and protecting the City,” the 2nd-district councilmember told her colleagues on the dais just before they voted. “And so, with that being said, I want to say that this simply aligns our rules with the current case law as well.”
However, the reference to the Citizens United case drew the scrutiny of Councilmember Supernaw. The 4th-district councilmember cited a 2015 survey by Bloomberg and said he believed the survey concluded that 78 percent of the people favored repealing Citizens United.
“So, if you wonder why the local folks aren’t for this,” Supernaw concluded, “there’s a good rationale right there.”
He also apologized to the audience, explaining that the councilmembers on both sides of the issue should have done a better job to communicate to the public that their decision was in the best interest of the City. He cited a quote from his ethics training.
“’Public-service ethics is not only about doing the right thing,” he said at the meeting, “but also about the public’s confidence that indeed the right thing is being done.’ That’s where I think we failed.”
Former city councilmember Tonia Reyes Uranga defended the changes to the municipal law during the public-comment period.
“I support this idea because it protects the City,” Reyes Uranga told the Council last Tuesday. She described how the campaign-finance laws passed by city leaders years ago need to be updated to keep pace with a changing Long Beach.
“We need policies, regulations and structures for a growing city, one of a half a million,” Reyes Uranga said, referring to Long Beach’s population. “Change is needed, and the city is growing. Let’s promote a political infrastructure that we can grow into it.”
Reyes Uranga represented the 7th District from 2002 to 2010, several years before her husband, current 7th District Councilmember Roberto Uranga, was elected to represent the same district back in 2014. In the 2016 election, she served as a delegate for Hillary Clinton’s campaign to run for president.
There is a bit of irony here. The decision regarding Citizens United dealt with an anti-Clinton commercial that the nonprofit organization wanted to air in 2007, when Clinton first ran for the top job in the country. Citizens United’s website now proudly supports President Donald Trump’s agenda.
The Signal Tribune asked City Attorney Charles Parkin if there have been legal challenges to the 1999 municipal laws surrounding Long Beach’s campaign financing and if anyone has used those two key court cases.
“As to a challenge to this section,” Parkin said in an email to the Signal Tribune, “I am not aware of a specific legal action but have heard from several campaign treasurers and candidates who have expressed their opinions that this section is out of date and unenforceable based on changes in the law on both the state and federal levels.”
Parkin did not respond before press time to the Signal Tribune’s follow-up question over whether any of these campaign representatives were running campaigns in 2016.
Several residents, like community advocate and Long Beach resident Joe Sopo, voiced sincere opposition to pass the new ordinance that would make the change.
“This looks like a conflict of interest because this will benefit you,” Sopo told the council during the public-comment period on Tuesday. “It won’t benefit us. As a person who has contributed to campaigns in the past, it really makes me not want to contribute to campaigns.”
Before she voted against the ordinance, Councilmember Price acknowledged that her colleague Pearce was in a tough position. Pearce serves as the chair of the Elections Oversight Committee, which had originally recommended examining the change in policy. Supernaw also sits on that committee. Last month, he was the lone committee member who voted against referring the issue to the council for further study.
“She is chair of a committee that is in charge of a code that’s outdated,” the 3rd-district councilmember said at the meeting, noting that there have been efforts to update the city laws for years. “I don’t think there’s any ill intent behind the item. I think it really is a clean-up item.”
Price also acknowledged her own feelings about the issue in the first place. Everyone on the city council and the city attorney all had to raise thousands of dollars to fund their election campaigns.
She said that anyone who follows her thoughts on the issue should know that she hates “the idea that fundraising is such a big part of local politics.” Price lamented how hard it is to start in politics unless one is independently wealthy or able to raise money.
“So, I have a struggle with the issue,” she concluded, “personally and morally, although I understand what the state law is and, from a legal standpoint, I understand that we’re not in compliance with state law. But I think it’s an issue, for me, that’s much, much bigger than the legal parameters.”
