[Editor: the AdWATCH story below only tells you how to report improper or missing disclosure of who is sponsoring a political sign or advertisement. That’s important, but the FPPC’s FILE A COMPLAINT page is much broader. It also accepts complaints regarding • Financial conflicts of interest; • Campaign money laundering; • Over-the-limit gifts and contributions; • Improper use of campaign funds, including personal use; • Campaign mass mailings at public expense; • False, inadequate, or inaccurate reporting on statements of economic interests; • campaign statements and reports; • Non-filing or late filing of such statements and reports; and • Anonymous or cash contributions of $100 or more). Let’s all be vigilant during the March 3 and November 3 2020 elections! – R.S.]

Fair Political Practices Commission resumes AdWATCH

Invites residents to participate

By Vallejo Times-Herald | January 6, 2020

SACRAMENTO — The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is reintroducing it’s successful AdWATCH program to provide the public a way to participate in making sure there is proper disclosure on political signs and other advertising, the agency announced Monday.

FPPC launched FPPC AdWATCH for the 2019 election cycle and is now resuming an updated FPPC AdWATCH for the 2020 primary election. FPPC AdWATCH on the FPPC website provides a place where anyone can upload a picture of a campaign sign or video they think may be questionable in terms of the legally required disclosure.

“FPPC AdWATCH is an easy way for the public to help determine who’s behind some of the political advertising around the State,” said FPPC Chair Richard C. Miadich in a statement released by the agency. “Not only does it help the public see who’s doing the advertising, but the public plays a vital role in helping our Enforcement Division do its job of making sure campaigns are following the rules and ensuring a level playing field.”

One of the portals allows you to upload a picture of a campaign billboard or sign, either from a desktop, laptop or from their mobile device. Another portal accepts links to videos of campaign ads, either internet or television.

The FPPC Enforcement Division is then able to quickly view the ads to determine if they contain proper disclosure and take appropriate action if they don’t. The portal allows the public the option to provide their name or remain anonymous and report the ad without filing a complaint with the FPPC.

“One of the key points of the law is the public deserves to know who’s paying for political advertising,” said FPPC Enforcement Chief Galena West in the same press release. “We rely on the public to help us make sure the correct information is out there and that campaigns follow the law.”

In its 2019 run, the public uploaded more than 150 ads to FPPC AdWATCH. In addition, FPPC Enforcement proactively reviewed 600 more ads and combined found more than 120 advertisements that were potentially non-compliant. When the FPPC Enforcement Division determines who is responsible for the ad, they are then contacted for correction or removal of the non-compliant advertisement, if feasible.

This system is now active. Visit the FPPC website www.fppc.ca.gov and you’ll find FPPC AdWATCH both on the home page and on the Enforcement tab www.fppc.ca.gov/enforcement/adwatch.html.

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is California’s governmental ethics and campaign disclosure agency.

Glyphosate (Roundup), Monsanto Pharmaceuticals, Sen. Bill Dodd

Benicia’s State Senator Bill Dodd – campaign linked to Monsanto and Roundup

January 7, 2020 Roger Straw

Dodd’s campaign accepts $2,000 from Monsanto

Vallejo Times-Herald, by John Glidden, January 7, 2020

State Sen. Bill Dodd’s re-election campaign accepted a $2,000 donation from the agribusiness giant Monsanto, according to a contributed report submitted to the California Secretary of State on Dec. 23. Monsanto, which was acquired by Bayer pharmaceutical company in 2018, developed the glyphosate-based herbicide, Roundup, which has been accused of causing cancer.

In August 2018, Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million to Dewayne Johnson, a former groundskeeper at Benicia Unified School District. The jury sided with Johnson, who is dying of cancer, saying Roundup weed killer contributed to Johnson’s disease. A judge later reduced the award to $78.5 million.

An Alameda County Superior Court jury in May 2019 awarded a couple $2 billion in punitive damages, stating that Roundup was a “substantial factor” in their getting non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The couple, 76-year-old Alva, and 74-year-old Alberta Pilliod, was expected to get an additional $55 million for pain and suffering and to pay for medical expenses.

The couple said they used the weed killed for about 30 years on residential landscaping.

When asked if Dodd feels Monsanto’s products are safe, and whether the campaign expects to keep the donation, Matthew Reilly, a consultant with the Dodd campaign issued a brief response.

“Monsanto, and Bayer who owns them, employ over 400 people in Senator Dodd’s district and those people make a wide array of products,” Reilly wrote in a response to the Times-Herald. “Your premise amounts to comparing apples to oranges.”

Dodd represents California’s 3rd State Senate district, which includes the cities of Vallejo, Benicia, Fairfield, Napa, Dixon, Davis, American Canyon, Rio Vista, and Vacaville, among others.

Monsanto’s $2,000 contribution came in two separate donations of $1,300, and $700 on Dec. 23, respectively, the campaign reported.

Dodd’s campaign experienced a healthy holiday season, receiving nearly $70,000 in cash contributions from multiple sources through the month of December and in the first few days of 2020.

State contribution rules cap the donations from individuals, businesses, and political action committees at $4,700 per election for state Senate and Assembly candidates.

Dodd’s campaign reported it received $4,700 each from attorney Elinor Leary with the San Francisco- based The Veen Firm, the Law Office of Walkup, Melodia, Kelly & Schoenberger, also located in San Francisco, and from insurance provider Blue Shield of California.

The campaign picked up numerous contributions from power and water companies.

The California Water Service Company gave two donations totaling
$4,700, while the Chicago-based Middle River Power, LLC gave $1,500, the California Water Association PAC contributed $1,700, and $1,500 each came from the San Gabriel Valley Water Company and the San Jose Water Company, respectively.

Dodd’s campaign reported receiving $1,000 each from the California American Water Employee PAC, Consumers for Clean Water, and the Golden State Water Company. Prior to his elected career, Dodd worked in the water industry owning a Culligan Water business.

Additional sizable contributions include $4,400 from Roger Trinchero, chairman of Trinchero Family Estates, $3,700 from REACH Air Medical Services, $3,000 from the Los Alamitos Race Course, $3,000 from Alexander Dean Jr., investor and chairman Hawk Hill Management, LLC, $2,500 from the McDonald’s California Operators PAC, $2,500 from the Alliance of Automobile Manufactures CA PAC, $2,000 from the entertainment company AEG and Affiliated Entities, $2,000 from the John Edward (Jed) York & Affiliated Entities, including the Forty Niners Football Company, LLC, and $2,000 from the Abbott Laboratories Employee FED PAC.

Meanwhile winegrower Daphne Araujo, of Accendo Cellars, gave the campaign $1,900, the California Association of Health Facilities PAC contributed $1,700, and $1,500 came from the California Academy of Eye Physicians & Surgeons PAC, Verizon, and Zuffa, LLC, respectively.

The campaign picked up $1,000 donations from Allstate Insurance Company, Michael Graham, business owner of Napa Valley Tours & Transportation, Walter Klenz, Donald Sodaro, CEO of Hanford Hotels, LLC, winemaker Rolando Herrera, and Google.

Michael Gallagher, cofounder of CityPASS, also gave $1,000, however, since he already donated $4,700 for the March Primary Election, and $4,050 for the November election, $350 of the recent contribution was refunded to him due.

Dodd was first elected to the State Senate in 2016 after serving in the Assembly for a term and 14 years on the Napa County Board of Supervisors.

His campaign reported receiving $330,670 in cash contributions for the first six months of 2019.

Dodd is running unopposed.

Benicia CA, Campaign finance, Fair elections, Local elections, Negative ads, Negative campaigning, Valero Benicia Refinery, Valero Services Inc.

I remember the Benicia smear campaign of 2018

January 6, 2020 Roger Straw

Benicia electoral campaign reform – 2018 is the reason for fundamental reform

By Roger Straw, January 6, 2020

Kari Birdseye, Chair, Benicia Planning Commission

For a quick review of the nasty campaign against my friend Kari Birdseye, just search the Benicia Independent for “birdseye.”

Kari ran for City Council in 2018 in a field of 4, competing for 2 seats on Council. Only she didn’t just run against her opponents. She ran against a $200,000-plus smear campaign orchestrated by Benicia Valero Refinery and its friends in organized labor.

The three major candidates’ campaigns spent less than $30,000 each, while Valero saturated our phone lines, mailboxes, newspapers and social media with misinformation and ugly photos.

All four candidates came out in opposition to Valero’s big-money dirty tactics.

Shortly after the election, almost exactly a year ago, the Benicia City Council decided – unanimously – to do something about dirty campaigns like the 2018 election. As reported by the San Francisco Chronicle on January 14, 2019:

“Valero spent $200,000 in last year’s Benicia city council election to help elect two candidates who were less critical of the company than others. That’s created tension between the oil refiner and the city, leading people to question how much influence Valero should have in local politics. On Tuesday Benicia will discuss the possibility of new campaign finance laws that could limit corporate influence in its small town.”

The Council directed its Open Government Commission (OGC) to consider updates and amendments to the City’s three campaign ordinances. The OGC appointed a subcommittee which took nearly a year to review a zillion suggestions gathered from you and me – and from Valero (!) and other local businesses and organizations.

This Tuesday, the Benicia City Council will discuss the report and recommendations of the Open Government Commission. The City Attorney recommended against some of the recommendations, perhaps with good reason: some are covered by California law, and some could be challenged in court as indefensible. Others that are not supported should be addressed by Council.

But note that the heart of the OGC recommendations are recommended by City staff, including the City Attorney, for passage. [AGENDA & Staff Reports here]

Council should not forget its unanimous desire for reform following the ugly campaign of 2018. COUNCIL SHOULD VOTE YES on Tuesday, January 7.

Benicia CA, Campaign finance, Fair elections, Local elections, Local Regulation

Benicia electoral campaign reform – report and reflections by Ralph Dennis

January 6, 2020 Roger Straw

Council to vote this Tuesday, January 7

On January 7, City Council will discuss and consider recommendations for changes to Benicia’s three campaign ordinances – Chap. 1.36, Voluntary Code of Fair Campaign Practices, Chap. 1.40, Disclosure of Contributions and Expenditures in Candidate and Ballot Measure Elections, and Chap. 1.42, Contribution and Voluntary Spending Limits. Any recommendations adopted by Council would be brought back before Council in a first reading of the ordinance(s) to be amended.

The recommendations to be considered are the culmination of a process that began almost a year ago when City Council directed its Open Government Commission (OGC) to consider updates and amendments to the three ordinances. Council acted in part due to concerns raised during campaigns in 2018 for two Benicia Council seats. Numerous comments and suggestions for changes were submitted to Benicia city officials following that election season, including almost 60 from local individuals (including Council members), businesses (like Valero), and organizations such as the League of Women Voters.

The ad hoc committee appointed by the OGC reviewed these comments and suggestions and considered other recommendations on possible changes which arose during its meetings. The committee also heard from an expert on campaign finance law, who shared early on his suggestions on what the committee “could and couldn’t do” based on current laws and Court opinions. In simplified terms, for example, I understood that the committee couldn’t propose limits on expenditures and it couldn’t control content of issue ads. We could consider limits on contributions, plus we could address disclosure requirements for contributions and information funded by PACs, including information appearing through social media platforms.

In the end, and within the legally defined parameters that exist, the committee identified 12 recommendations to the OGC to update provisions in the three ordinances. The committee also presented two additional recommendations concerning public funding for campaigns and election security measures. The OGC accepted most of the committee’s recommendations and voted to submit them to City Council for adoption. The public funding and election security recommendations were not forwarded by the OGC, upon advice of the City Attorney that the issues were outside the scope of the direction provided to the OGC, and that either would need to be proposed through separate direction from Council.

The Staff Report presented to Council for the January 7 discussion incorporates most of the recommendations that originated from the ad hoc committee. Of those, the City Attorney recommends not adopting some of proposed changes and offers no comment on others. The proposed changes not supported by the City Attorney are because either the issue is already state law or cannot be done due to state law or federal Constitutional concerns. Absent persuasive legal advice from another source, it is difficult for me to argue against the City Attorney where he recommends not to adopt a proposed change. It seems to make sense (except for one, as noted below, relating to disclosures by organizations which endorse local candidates).

The remaining proposed changes in the January 7 Staff Report which have no comment from the City Attorney came from the Benicia community, presumably surviving the City Attorney’s legal review for their viability as an ordinance provision, and therefore should be strongly supported and adopted by Council. In particular, the three push-poll related changes to Chap. 1.40 help address specific concerns raised about polls taken in Benicia during the 2018 Benicia elections. In my mind, adding this language in Benicia’s campaign ordinances is the big takeaway from this review process. The updates requiring candidates to disclose their top three donors, that the ordinances apply to recalls and initiatives, and adding the option for a second public forum earlier in the election season, were also strongly supported by public comments submitted and should be adopted by Council.

The two additional recommendations on public funding of campaigns and election security should have been forwarded to the Council as well for consideration. As recommended by the ad hoc committee, Council should direct a review of (a) whether Benicia should consider public funding of campaigns, (b) examples of other municipalities that have enacted publicly funded campaigns, and (c) the pros and cons of such an ordinance. Council should also adopt a resolution concerning election security for voting processes and tabulation and acknowledging the work performed by the Solano County Asst. Registrar of Voters in this regard.

Remaining concerns: Are Benicia’s campaign ordinances being updated regarding the use of social media platforms during campaigns? State laws enacted during the past two Legislative sessions may address this need.

Also, the City Attorney recommends not to adopt the proposed change to Chap. 1.40 requiring membership organizations which endorse a candidate to disclose if the endorsement was voted upon by all of its members and to publish the questions asked of candidates seeking endorsement. He says “it could run afoul of various constitutionally-protected interests.” Council should seek a second opinion on this matter as there may be alternative legal views on the viability of the proposed amendment.

The proposed amendments to the campaign ordinances presented in the January 7 Staff Report are very much community-based proposals. Each one comes from suggestions submitted by community members. In every sense of the word, these are proposals from the Benicia community and deserve Council support and adoption.