How to make Benicia campaigns fairer and more transparent

Please attend Benicia City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 15, 7pm at City Hall.  If you can’t make it, send your thoughts by email.
Benicia’s CURRENT campaign ordinances can be viewed at codepublishing.com/CA/Benicia/. Chapters 1.36, 1.40 and 1.42 are the main election ordinances. In particular, see Chapter 1.40 “Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures in Candidate and Ballot Measure Elections.”- R.S.]

Possible improvements to Benicia’s campaign ordinance

By Roger Straw, January 13, 2019

The last Council election was dark.  Manipulated by corporate and labor interests using massive amounts of cash and smear campaign tactics, a single candidate was trashed, the voting public was deceived and a rational electoral outcome was smothered.

All four candidates denounced the actions of the Valero / organized labor Political Action Committee (the PAC “Working Families for a Safe Benicia to elect Lionel Largaespada and Christina Strawbridge and to defeat Kari Birdseye”).

In December, Benicia’s new City Council voted unanimously to review the City’s campaign ordinance.  The first discussion of possible changes will happen this Tuesday night, January 15, at 7pm at City Hall (see agenda and reports – PLEASE ATTEND!).

Many in the community have raised questions and made suggestions on how the City can get creative to prevent this kind of thing in our 2020 election.  Here are a few ideas I’ve heard, with some of my own wording and additions:

  1. Benicia’s existing campaign ordinance requires candidates to conduct their campaigns honestly. This does not evidently apply to outside PAC’s.  Should it?  PACs can, and have, lied without consequence.  Should an impartial City commission or staff person be authorized to call out lies?
  2. Should the candidate forum hosted by the Open Government Commission, and designed to counter last minute attacks and hit pieces, be moved back from the Saturday before the election to a date at least two weeks before the election?  Or to a date shortly after actions “inconsistent with the Benicia Code of Fair Campaign Practices” are noted by the Commission?
  3. Should the City be required to post the Open Government forum on its website soon after the event?
  4. The existing ordinance references various kinds of expenditures by outside PAC’s and requires PAC’s to identify who is paying for them. But the ordinance does not reference ads placed on computer platforms and social media accounts like Facebook or Google. Should these be included in the update?
  5. In the last election, city staff posted on the city website the various income and expenditure reports filed by candidates and PACs.  But staff did not offer the public ongoing cumulative summaries and final or near-final totals.  When asked for clarifications, staff  was unable to offer the public assistance in interpreting some of these documents, suggesting concerned residents should approach the FPPC.  Should we require better Benicia  staff oversight and interpretation of Forms 460, 465, 496, 497, etc.?
  6. Polling – the last election featured extensive polling paid for by an local corporation (Valero).  Data from those calls was fed to the Anti-Birdseye PAC and used by their consultants in setting campaign strategies. When a poll is paid for or designed by outsiders engaging in political activity in an attempt to influence a city election, should the polling company and/or the entity paying for the poll be required to disclose who is paying for the poll? And should we require the poll questions to be disclosed to the City to determine whether the poll itself is a campaign advertisement rather than a legitimate poll?
  7. Endorsements – Many groups make endorsements in local elections. But in some cases, those endorsements are made by a small group of leaders of those organizations without ever asking for the consent of their members.  In 2018, we heard from many upset teachers and others that the Napa-Solano Central Labor Council made endorsements without consulting local association members.  When a membership based organization makes an endorsement, should they first be required to actually poll their membership and let the majority of their members vote on an endorsement?  And should those membership results be made available for public review?  And if not, should the endorsement made in a membership organizations’s name by another entity be required to disclose that fact on a flyer or other campaign material?

Times-Herald: Benicia council to discuss changes to campaign ordinances

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald
[Editor: See also my article, “How to make Benicia campaigns fairer and more transparent.”  Please attend Benicia City Council meeting on Tuesday, January 15, 7pm at City Hall.  If you can’t make it, send your thoughts by email. – R.S.]

Benicia council to discuss changes to campaign ordinances

By JOHN GLIDDEN, January 12, 2019 at 3:53 pm

BENICIA — The City Council will discuss Tuesday night whether to pursue possible changes to the city’s campaign ordinances.

The request, from Councilman Tom Campbell, comes after the November 2018 election which saw a special committee, primarily funded by the Valero Benicia Refinery and local unions, spend thousands of dollars supporting two council candidates and opposing a third.

City Hall will provide brief information on a model adopted by the city of Santa Clara, while also seeking additional direction from the Benicia council.

“One of the changes that could be made to Benicia’s campaign ordinances include a disclosure requirement for ‘dark money,’” city staff wrote in a report to councilors. “The city of Santa Clara adopted an ordinance to require disclosure of contributions of $100 or more by any organization that ‘affect or are intended to affect’ an election.”

The city’s 2018 election season turned interesting when the refinery and several trade unions began to fund a special committee with the lengthy name — Working Families for a Strong Benicia, a Coalition of Labor, Industrial Services Companies, Public Safety and Local Leaders Supporting Christina Strawbridge and Lionel Largaespada and Opposing Kari Birdseye for Benicia City Council 2018.

Largaespada and Strawbridge eventually went on to win the two open seats on the five-person City Council. The then-incumbents, Alan Schwartzman and Mark Hughes, both declined to seek re-election to the council.

Prior to inception of the committee, Valero paid for several political-themed phone calls to local residents, which the refinery said was used as polling data. Opponents of the calls, accused the refinery of attempting to influence the city’s election.

“Another change that could be made would be to require more disclosure related to polling. In the past election, the earlier telephone poll did not have disclosures like a campaign poll would have,” staff further wrote in the same report. “It may be possible to require disclosure after the poll is complete. The post poll disclosure would help mitigate any arguments about chilling First Amendment rights.

“From the recent experience,the name of the poll sponsor and the questions would be disclosure items the public would be interested in,” staff added. “Depending on the type of polling, polling is considered core political speech so regulations will have to be carefully drafted to avoid a problem.”

Benicia currently has three campaign related ordinances, including one which requires the disclosure of contributions and expenditures in candidate and ballot measure elections, and voluntary spending limits.

The Benicia City Council will meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday inside the Benicia City Hall, located at 250 East L. St.

Council to discuss ordinances to deal with dirty campaigns and overwhelming PAC money

By Roger Straw

IMPORTANT – TUES., JAN 15… See Council’s agenda item 15.B. below and check out the various reports. This item is in response to the nasty attack ads, push polling and huge money spent by Valero and it’s labor buddies in last fall’s campaign.  They successfully smeared Planning Commission Chair Kari Birdseye and helped to elect their chosen candidates. Council and staff have been looking into any measures that can be taken to strengthen Benicia’s campaign ordinance.  PLEASE ATTEND THE COUNCIL MEETING ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 15!  Let Council and staff know that this is really important so that we don’t have this again in 2020.  (To send an email comment see WHERE TO WRITE…)

BENICIA CITY COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Benicia City Hall 250 East L. Street
January 15, 2019
7:00 PM

15.B -SECOND STEP OF COUNCIL MEMBER CAMPBELL’S 2-STEP PROCESS

REQUEST TO DISCUSS UPDATING THE CAMPAIGN ORDINANCES (City Attorney)

At the December 18, 2018 City Council meeting, Council Member Campbell’s two-step process request was presented to the Council to consider updates to the city’s campaign ordinances. The Council directed staff to agendize the item for discussion. Staff has included preliminary research on this subject.

Recommendation:

Provide direction on whether the Santa Clara model and any other proposed updates should be considered and whether updates should be discussed and reviewed by an ad hoc group or by the Open Government Commission prior to consideration by the Council.

Staff Report -Campaign Ordinance Updates -Campbell

      1. Two-Step Agenda Request Campbell -Campaign Ordinance Update
      2. Santa Clara Dark Money Ordinance -Campaign Ordinance Update
      3. Campaign Disclosure Forms and Filings City of Santa Clara Webpage -Campaign Ordinance Update
      4. Campaign Regulations City of Santa Clara Web Page -Campaign Ordinance Update
      5. Government Code 84222 Multipurpose Org -Campaign Ordinance Update
      6. Government Code 84211 Contents of Statement -Campaign Ordinance Update
      7. Other Possible Ordinance Updates -Campaign Ordinance Update

Rep. Mike Thompson introduces gun bill requiring universal background checks

Repost from the Santa Rosa Press Democrat

North Coast U.S. Rep. Mike Thompson unveils expanded gun bill requiring universal background checks

By Kevin Fixler, January 8, 2019, 6:31PM
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, right, watches as Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Chairman fellow Democratic Rep. Mike Thompson, D-St. Helena, signs the bill, accompanied by gun violence victim former Rep. Gabby Giffords, left, and others, during a news conference to announce introduction of bipartisan legislation to expand background checks for sales and transfers of firearms, on Capitol Hill, Tuesday, Jan. 8, 2019 in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

With the stroke of a pen and a stroll onto the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives Tuesday, North Coast Congressman Mike Thompson introduced the highest-profile legislation of his political career, believing the newly sworn-in Democratic majority finally will be able to deliver on the promise of requiring universal background checks on all private gun sales.

The St. Helena Democrat and House veteran of 20 years was accompanied in Washington, D.C., for the ceremonial submission of House Bill 8 by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords, D-Arizona, who nearly lost her life in a mass shooting attack in Tucson in 2011.

Tuesday marked eight years since a gunman shot and killed six people and wounded 13 others, including Giffords with a bullet in the head from close range, outside a Safeway supermarket during a public meet-and-greet event.

Since recovering, she and her husband, retired astronaut Mark Kelly, have dedicated much of their lives to advocacy work to prevent gun-related deaths.

“Stopping gun violence takes courage — the courage to do what is right, the courage of new ideas,” Giffords said during an afternoon press conference announcing the introduction of Thompson’s expanded legislation to help ensure people only get access to firearms after their backgrounds are vetted. “I’ve seen great courage when my life was on the line. Now is the time to come together, be responsible — Democrats, Republicans, everyone. We must never stop fighting.”

Not one year after the tragedy in Tucson, a 20-year-old gunman stormed Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, killing 20 young children and six adults. Thompson, a Vietnam War veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart after being wounded while serving, has been working to gain traction on enhanced gun legislation ever since that 2012 tragedy.

The latest call for background checks on all gun sales, including for the first time at gun shows, over the internet and in classified ads, is Thompson’s fourth try at getting a gun safety bill to reach the House floor for a vote. The new Democratic majority and Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, again in the key decision-making position as House speaker should allow that to happen.

“For the last six years, there was Republican control of the House, and they would not even have a hearing on the issue of gun violence prevention, let alone on the bill,” Thompson said in an interview Tuesday. “This is a new day. Every day that goes by potentially loses more lives and the whole idea is to save lives.”

His previous attempts at a law weren’t as ambitious, he said, because the congressional appetite hadn’t yet fully formed. Thompson, chairman of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force and lifelong hunter, said he needed to remain practical. Through “a natural progression,” however, he now thinks he’s garnered the necessary support across the aisle to pass the bill onto the Senate, namely as the pendulum has swung further forward with each subsequent mass shooting — Aurora, Orlando, Las Vegas and Parkland, to name a few.

“The fact of the matter is the population across the country is fired up on this,” Thompson said. “Young student leaders from one end to the other, they’re engaged and demanding that some action happen. The American people are way out in front of this and I believe the public sentiment wins out.”

The No. 8 assigned to the legislation was a symbolic decision by Pelosi to pay respect to the eight-year mark of the shooting in Tucson on Jan. 8. But the single-digit number for the bill also is used to signal its importance and level of priority for the new speaker, who spoke of the issue’s “growing crescendo” from the packed stage during Tuesday’s press conference announcing the bill.

“In communities across America, courageous survivors, families and young advocates are showing outstanding courage and persistence demanding an end to the horrific scourge of violence in our nation,” Pelosi said in a prepared statement. “Our Democratic majority will press relentlessly for bipartisan progress to end the epidemic of gun violence on our streets, in our schools and in our places of worship. Enough is enough.”

The Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2019 is actually co-sponsored by 10 members of Congress, including five Republicans. Rep. Peter King, R-New York, is for the fourth time joining Thompson in his pursuit of what’s been labeled “commonsense” and “bold” gun legislation.

A request seeking comment on the legislation from the National Rifle Association, which traditionally opposes the expansion of laws that restrict access to guns, went unreturned Tuesday. If passed by both congressional chambers as written and signed into law by President Trump, Thompson’s bill still would allow firearm transfer exceptions between families, friends and hunting partners. It does not address a Trump administration rollback of an Obama-era gun law that would have required the Social Security Administration to provide information on those with mental disorders during background checks.

Thompson bristles at the idea of maintaining inaction as the continued response to tackling the complex issue because there exists no panacea for ending mass shootings and gun deaths in their entirety in America.

“There’s no single piece of legislation that’s going to solve all the problems and address the overall issue of gun violence,” he said. “The experts say the single most important thing that yields the greatest return is expanding background checks. It’s our first line of defense in keeping people who shouldn’t have guns from having guns.”

No set timetable for when the bill might advance through a House Judiciary Committee hearing and then, if approved, onto the House floor, but Thompson said he’s confident it will pass with near-total support among the 235-member Democratic majority and at least the five Republicans who signed on as co-sponsors. He said he expects that will happen in the first 100 days of the 2019 Congress, and then it would be up to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, whether to put the bill up for a vote in the Senate.

“The Senate is a hurdle,” Thompson acknowledged. “I also think sending this bill over with a good bipartisan vote puts pressure on McConnell to allow the issue to come up in the Senate. It’s important we have success with this, pass the bill out of the House, which sends a loud message that yes we can do these things, and my colleagues in the House and Senate need to stand up for what’s right and take these issues on.”