Rochelle Swanson Surges into Second Place in Money Race
In the meantime, we can now put tangible numbers on the Independent Expenditure (IE) campaign by Marty West and Ruth Asmundson which has garnered a good deal of probably unwanted attention this week. As regular readers know the Vanguard has filed two complaints against that IE alleging that they had not disclosed their spending in a timely manner subject to Davis City Municipal Code section 12.01.055(c).
The letter was postmarked May 22, 2010 but there was no notice given until May 25, 2010 in the middle of the afternoon.
Given the information we received, that 1700 letters were mailed with first class postage, we estimated the cost to be a little over $1000. We now know the exact cost was $1,112.88. We now know the source of that money. $550.00 was donated by Mayor Ruth Asmundson and $455.96 by Marty West with Ms. West donating an additional $106.92 in stamps to the cause.
What has happened here has become quite clear. Davis City Ordinance limits donations to City Council candidates to $100. The Mayor and Marty West have exploited a loophole in the campaign finance system to circumvent campaign finance laws and give five and a half times what is ordinarily legally permissible. That is the reason they did an independent expenditure for what the other campaigns have used their campaign committees to do, send out a letter from prominent members of the community in support.
As Bob Dunning correctly wrote on Wednesday, “Indeed, if you want to influence an election in this town, you can contribute up to the $100 limit to a candidate’s official campaign committee, or you can form your own committee and spend however many dollars you wish – Ruth and Marty, two seasoned political pros, chose the latter course –
My sense is that a significant number of voters will see this as an end run around the $100 limit and those voters will exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech by voting for someone other than the candidate Ruth and Marty intended to help.”
We asked why they would run such a campaign, and one reason appears to be that since Ms. Vergis is not taking firefighter money her money is flagging. Released on Thursday, the Sydney Vergis for City Council campaign committee added $4075 from March 18, 2010 to May 22, 2010. In the year to date, that brings her to $5594.31 and for the entire campaign $12,208. Furthermore the campaign has accrued $10,680 in expenses including $5763 in unpaid bills which will cut into the nearly $7000 cash on hand.
That puts her in a rather distant third. Rochelle Swanson has surged into second place, raising almost $14,000 last period to put her at $17,597 for the year to date and total. Ms. Swanson has accrued $7900 in unpaid bills when compared with $9727 in an ending cash balance.
Joe Krovoza remains the leader. He brought in an addition $7600 last reporting period to bring his total to $15,829.11 for the year to date and to about $23,300 for the campaign. He too has $2400 in unpaid bills and a cash balance of $2175.
The remarkable aspect of this campaign is how much less the candidates are bringing in that they did two years ago when the leader brought in about $75,000 and other spent $57,000 and $40,000. Undoubtedly the economy is playing a role in this, but for those convinced of the huge costs as need for district elections, they might want to re-think that.
Mr. Krovoza received contributions from the following individuals: Tom Cross, Victoria Cross, Alan Pryor, Chuck Bevins, Tom Matoff, Darshan Mundy, Dave Heard, Tia Will, Ken Celli, Siva Gunda, Rental Housing Association of Sacramento Valley, Hap Dunning, Tom Wexler, Jim McElroy, Brett Moffat, Citizens for Ed Prieto, Don Brush, Sid England, Clyde Froehlich, John Garamendi, Dahlia Garas, Ken Brubaugh, Lou Grubaugh, Mike Hart, Page Kennedy, Kathleen Liebhart, Robert Medearis, Mark Rochon, Penelope Shackelford, Gerry Shelton, Mark Still, Hal Thomas, Bea Virobik, Jim Wellington, John Williams, Harry S. Truman Club, David Almy, Paul Primakoff, Jeni Veale, Carpenters Local Union No. 46, Andy Burke, Mary Jean Burke, Carolyn Chamberlain, Joshua Dratel, Michael Fullerton, Karen Hamilton, Dan Krdy, Kathleen Kaneko, Dennis Linsay, Craig Lundgren, Catherine Schwarzbach, Karin Strong, Christine Totah, Robert Traverso, Richard Walters, Ning Wan, Carri Ziegler, John Harvey, Alan Hill, Cyril Juanitas, Laura Juanitas, Monica Lillya, Jennifer Carriere, Michael Gass, Jay Gerber, Andy Hargadon, Carolyn Kopper, William Kopper, Sinisa Novakovic, Kathleen Williams-Fossdahl, Lori Joseph, Jeanne Kennedy, Alan Olmstead, Jim Provenza, Paul Teaford, Will Bey, Bruce Kutter, Paul Meyer, Tom Cahill, Judy Corbett, Dwain Fullerton, Al Hollmann, David Okita, Eileen Tutt, Amy Abramson, Maureen Brodie, Robert Sawyer, Tim Starback and Ted Hunter.
Of note, the Krovoza campaign gave back $200 in contributions to two individuals who had donated $100 but were either developers or had business before the council, thus fulfilling his pledge not to take money from individuals who do business before the city. Thus he gave back $100 donations from Chuck Roe and Mark Rutheiser.
His major expenses appears to be about $5500 in printing costs from Allied Printing Company and $2160 to the Davis Enterprise for an advertisement.
Rochelle Swanson received contributions from the following individuals: Will Arnold, Doug Arnold, Lydya Arnold, Jordan Arnold, Jeremy Brooks, Chris Stabenfelt, Ann Evans, William Kopper, Martha Arnold, Jerry Adler, Marilyn Mensfield, Jack Plasterer, Michael Harrington, James Lamont, Mark and Jennifer McNece, J&D Wholesale, Davis Commercial Prop, Janna Buccieri, Todd Storm, Elmer McNece, Justin Quam, Meridith Lamont, Arne Montano, Martin Ohera, William Streng, Karmen Streng, Gene Lamont, John Lamont, Randy Alston, Michael Pesola, Sara Pesola, Jamie McNece, Amy McNece, Edward Carr, nancy Robinson, Andrew Skaggs, Marty Morse, Lee Pflugrath, Alan Fernandez, David and Cathy Richardson, Susan Lovenberg, Ryan Brand, Dave Taormino, Bob Duer, John Hasbrook, Hallie Hubert, Monica Hubert, Dealine Eastine, Mary Taormino, Adrian Blanco, CAAPAC, Glenn Holderreed, Gina Daleiden, John Denton, Craig Allen, Patricia Green, Alan Swanson, Charles Cunningham, Manny Carbahal, Matt Busso, Renate Fry, Charles Farman, Don Saylor, Stacy Welsh, Jennifer Anderson, Janice Grahm Welsh, Felicia Spann, Dennis Lindsay, PJ Katsch, LD Katsch, Clay Mclin, Julie Hunter, James Hopp, Karen Hopp, Eric and Channa Roe, Roy Kroener, Angela Hart, Cass Sylvia, Sherry Richter Puntillo, Gerald Solley, Nancy Roe, Bob Schultz, Grace and Lee Chen, Pam Nieberg, Richard Yamagata, Norma Turner, Margaret Gerould, Monica Lillya, Steve Lillya, Jim Streng, Mary Joe Streng, Lenny Husen, Charles Husen, Peggy Oliver, Marietta Hamilton, Jacque Bartholomew, Yvonne Clinton, Lynne Yackzan, Barbara Holmes, Willis Ritter, Julie Brinley, Allison Broaddus, Jack Plflugrath, Maria Brillantes, John WHicombe, Judy Whitcombe, Eileen Samitz, David Greenwald, James Provenza, Donna Provenza, Dianne Archer, Paul Makely, Diane Makely, WIlliam Roe, David McGlocklin, Pamela Gunnell, Mary-Alice Coleman, Maryam Haghbin, Joel Friedman, Jay Feldman, John Dearborn, Ursula Heckner-Hagen, Cheryl Vargas, Kathleen Socolofsky, Robert Gregoire, Sharon Rose.
They did not file their itemized expenses and therefore will have to file an amendment on Tuesday when city offices re-open.
Sydney Vergis received contributions from Doug Arnold, Coldwell Banker, Doug Arnold Real Estate, Judith Moore, Garland Brinkley, Chris Stabenfeldt, Jim Cramer, Ken Celli, Bruce Dewey, John Denton, Elyse Drygas, Susan Lovenburg, Janellyn Whittier, Terry Whittier, Rental Housing Association of Sac Valley, John Duggan, Katherine West, Michael Nolan, Chris Parker, Ning Wan, Harry S. Truman Club, Christine Brinkley, Operating Engineer Local 3, Steve Williams, James Hopp, Karen Hopp, Helen Thomson, Della Thompson, Paul Grant, John Mott-Smith, Sidney England, Tom Cross, Victoria Cross, Cass Sylvia, Mack Walker, Katharina Streng, Carolyn Streng, Gayle Streng, Steve Lillya, Monica Lillya, Jim Streng, Mary Jo Streng, Charlse Husen, Lenny Husen, John Youmans, Greg Gibbs, Dick Bourne, Judith Corbett, Duncan Hay, Kathleen Williams-Fossdayl, Jim Mullen, Myra Gable, and Peggy Epstein.
As we have previously noted Daniel Watts and Jon Li are not accepting contributions. There is no hint of firefighter money anywhere in the council race.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
What were postal rates when the law was passed? What is the inflation adjusted value of $100 from that time? What does the recent supreme court ruling about campaign spending do to the law? Does the extra money from the independents help level the playing field for the candidate with the third largest amount of money raised? Why doesn’t the disclosure a few days late but clearly weeks in advance of the election put this to rest?
Your first two questions are irrelevant to the issue of whether the current law was followed – however they might speak to whether we ought to change it. That doesn’t impact what has happened.
Your third question, the answer is nothing (especially since it only applied to federal election and corporations).
Your fourth question I think misses the point, there is a reason why we have strict campaign limitations. Again if you want to change it, then change it. But don’t circumvent the campaign spending limits.
“Why doesn’t the disclosure a few days late but clearly weeks in advance of the election put this to rest?”
That’s for the individual voter to decide. We gained additional information from the latest disclosure in terms of where and from whom the money comes from. The voters can decide whether it should matter if the filing was late or if the IE constitutes an attempt by Marty and Ruth to donate five and a half times more than they are legally entitled to directly donate or whether it constitutes as you suggest, an attempt to level the playing field for the candidate unable to get money from as broad a sources as the other two candidates and therefore needing to go deeper into the hands of more wealthy individuals.
Toad and David you both missed a very important point. David you have made the point before in your articles, which is that Ruth is the mother of Vergis’ Treasurer and Ruth (the mayor of Davis with years of holding office) wants us to believe that she does not talk to her daughter and that it was truly an independent expenditure (IE).
“Why doesn’t the disclosure a few days late but clearly weeks in advance of the election put this to rest?”
Mr. Toad: It is clear that you would like this to be “put to rest”. The fact IS that if the Vanguard had not asked the City Clerk,as part of a remarkable journalistic work ethic, if anyone had filed for an IEC, we would never have learned of it and Marty West would, in all probability, never have notified the other candidates, as our city ordinance requires. We will see if the Enterprise carries this as part of its campaign news coverage or whether it again editorially(as it did for the
Pizzagate election law violations during the Measure X/Covell Village campaign involving the same “usual suspects”)attempts to dismiss it as insignificant and not news worthy.
Is there a requirement that this IEC reveal if private “loans” were made (or promised to be made after the election)to Marty West and Ruth Asmundson to cover the cost of this $1100?
Well, I should concede a few points about Rochelle Swanson. Really the main issue on my mind is various kinds of disreputable behavior in Davis politics. This behavior has three general sources: (1) Berkeley-style radicalism, (2) the sour economy, (3) a powerful zero-growth movement. The sort of behavior that I am talking about includes the following:
1) Topic-flipping between the firefighters and everything else there is to say about city workers and city council members.
2) Describing impasse as a “solution” to labor negotiations.
3) Arguing that the city should be punished with tax cuts for the sin of high compensation.
4) Acting pleased when the city, the county, or the university gets sued.
5) “I’m trying to teach you how to be mayor.”
6) Talking past other members of a committee with lines like, “All it takes is three votes”.
7) Demanding disclosure and transparency from everyone else while providing none.
8) Selective, hypocritical outrage over executive compensation.
Although I could go on, that is a good representative sample. But how much of this bad behavior comes from Rochelle Swanson? None!
Certainly there are issues where I might disagree or even vehemently disagree with Swanson. However, she seems to be a straightforward and honest person who is unlikely to take the city council in a crazy direction. I still prefer Krovoza and Vergis, above all because they strike me as genuinely decent people. Or I should say recommend, because this is more advice than something that I personally live for. But seriously, Swanson is okay by me. I am mightily unimpressed with the behavior of certain people who have chosen to support her, but as it stands that isn’t her fault. Also in fairness, some of the supporters of Krovoza and Vergis have their own shortcomings.
i find it fascinating that after years of screaming about developer (&family) donations as incontravertible proof of rank corruption, that the same commenters are totally cool with swanson getting donations from the usual suspects.
personally, i’ve never been that concerned with it because of the small scale of political donations in city politics (state and federal ones are a different story), but i find the sudden disinterest rather striking.
Wu: Couple of theories.
First, no “progressives” running therefore the usual suspects either have to vote protest or pick the lesser of three evils. Most seem to believe Vergis is the greatest evil, probably a poor choice of words, and therefore are swallowing their normal distaste for developer candidates.
Second, growth is really off the table for the next five years, at least.
Third, fire and fiscal issues dominate.
Fourth, really it comes down to what choice do people have? It’s basically pound and pray. When you see people like Sue Greenwald, Mike harrington, Bill Kopper, Lamar Heystek, Eileen Samitz, Pam Nieberg, etc. lining up behind certain candidates, you realize that calculations were made that they were better than Vergis. Are they correct? I don’t know.
I too will vote for Swanson and Krovoza with trepidation, it’s pound and pray. I feel that I know Vergis will vote with Saylor and that crew, both Krovoza and Swanson have broader support.
[i]”We now know the exact cost was $1,112.88. We now know the source of that money. $550.00 was donated by Mayor Ruth Asmundson and $455.96 by Marty West with Ms. West donating an additional $106.92 in stamps to the cause.”[/i]
There are a few (possibly important) unknowables with this:
1) How much did Sydney Vergis know about this “independent” expenditure on her behalf before it was made?
2) How much did other Vergis supporters–those who do business with the City of Davis and stand to gain from votes she will make–know about this before it was made?
3) Who contributed the money to the Mayor and the Professor which the “independent” committee spent?
There is no requirement for Ruth and Marty to declare where they got the money. There is no way to know how “independent” this action was from the Vergis campaign. While they clearly violated the letter of the law by not notifying others on time, spending in excess of $1,100 on behalf of Vergis, when Ruth’s daughter is the campaign treasurer, also violates the spirit of our $100 per person campaign contribution limits.
What is most interesting is that John Whitcombe is not listed as a supporter of Vergis, the candidate most associated with those who have been Whitcombe’s most loyal proxies on the Council. Her past support for Covell Village(not explained as Krovoza has done) along with her carefully crafted position on her “support” for Measure J certainly suggests that Vergis should be Whitcombe’s favorite candidate. The ethically blemished activities of Marty West and Jan Bridge in this current campaign and Whitcombe’s Yes on Measure X campaign along with their current support for Whitcombe’s senior citizen proposal, currently on tap, brings one to the same inescapable conclusion. Could it be that Whitcombe’s support is finding its way into the West/Asmundson IEC?
Were it up to me, we would have publicly financed campaigns for all offices. I should think $10,000 to $12,000 in public money would be sufficient for each candidate. If there are 5 candidates, it would cost each resident of Davis $1 each and the money would be clean.
That still does not solve the issues with regard to “independent” expenditures. And there is a tough problem with public financing–what do you do with non-serious candidates? If you are just giving away $10,000, might you not attract people to run who have no interest in the job but a lot of interest in getting that money? Seems likely.
So you might then have to have a threshold test–how many voters would support so-and-so in advance–and that creates the problem of discriminating against those who are not yet known. In other words, you cannot get the money to let yourself become known because you are not yet known. But if you are known, you get the money to become known. I’m not sure there is a perfect answer to that.
Yet I am certain that we would get better government if we avoided the problem of having elected officials appearing to act on behalf of their special interest financiers and against the public interest, the way, for example, most Democrats in our legislature will side with their public employee union financiers even when that harms the public interest, as it obviously does in this case ([url]http://www.sacbee.com/2010/05/28/2782668/plan-to-let-non-nurses-give-kids.html[/url]).
Vote NO on Proposition # 14
Vote YES on Measure ” Q ‘
Vote Bob Dunning & Sydney Vergis for city council !
Bob Dunning, perhaps a write in. Sydney Vergis? No. Swanson and Kravoza sound like a good team for council.
David… you tend to be “dismissive” of those who disagree with you… which is your right, as the ‘owner’ of the blog… the term “irrelevant” is so “whatever”… that being said, can you articulate [quote]there is a reason why we have strict campaign limitations[/quote]? As I remember it, that was a knee-jerk reaction to a specific issue many years ago… can you back up the rationale?
I think the concern that a $100 contribution limits the ability for wealthy interests to dominate local elections (unless certain employee groups resort to bundling their hundred dollar contributions to maximize their impact). I’m sure someone like Rich Rifkin can better explain how it came to be, because it was before my time. The $100 limitation also insures that a candidate has a broad sub-segment of the community supporting them. Joe Krovoza has done this very well while Sydney Vergis has struggled to go beyond her clear establishment base, at least based on her contributions thus far.
To me, as I was talking to someone else earlier, this election is probably the death-knell for the district voting movement, we have shown you can have an effective campaign for far less than what was being spent in the past. I see no reason given that fact to circumvent the current law.
i really don’t want another right wing republican on this council. i’m voting for either jon li or joe krovoza. i’m tired of seeing rochelle’s signs on public spaces. she’s violating rules and laws left right and center….and you want her on the city council now?
no way i’m voting for rochelle.
just because she’s not being bribed by public unions, she’s being bribed by someone and is a blatantly breaking rules. i don’t trust her…so who would you rather be owned by? the public unions or private industry?
is there really any distinction between the two? Just say NO TO ROCHELLE!!!
If the $100 limit keeps deep pocket contributors from having undue influence then it follows that all concern about developer money is overstated.
I said: “I think the concern that a $100 contribution limits the ability for wealthy interests to dominate local elections”
Toad: “If the $100 limit keeps deep pocket contributors from having undue influence then it follows that all concern about developer money is overstated.”
How is that you twist my words, I never said it keeps them from doing it, I said it ‘limits’, and I think it does limit the ability to dominate, on the other hand, I think it is problematic to take money from people over whom you will make decisions and therefore even with the $100 limit, if I ran for council, I would not take money from developers and city employees.
David: I think that you are missing the critical point in saying that because this election was done at a much lower cost somehow negates the need for district elections. Remember, the election 2 years ago was about who would be sitting on the Council and deciding how and in what form the mandatory measure J ballot measure would be offered to the voters. Measure R, the renewal of Measure J, appears to be on its way to victory so that issue is not in-play. In future Council elections, when issues are in play that mean “big bucks” to some special interest, you can be sure that there will be candidates who will be “drowning” in campaign contributions and attempting to overwhelm opponents with their overflowing campaign coffers.
Toad: It is well known that “bundling” of $100 contributions was not restricted to the Fire Fighters Union but was a rather common practice of
developer interests who were able to bring together contributions from their employees and financial,real estate and legal associates.