OC Political

A right-of-center blog covering local, statewide, and national politics

Author Archive

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

California Republican Party Convention in Anaheim Begins Today, Continues Through Sunday

Posted by Chris Nguyen on October 4, 2013

CAGOPThe California Republican Party’s Fall 2013 Convention begins in Anaheim at 8:30 AM today at the Hilton and continues through Sunday.

The party will hold elections for two-year terms three of the eight Regional Vice Chair positions (the other five were elected at the Spring convention).  The Vice Chair for the South region (Orange, San Diego, and Imperial Counties), Tony Krvaric of San Diego, was elected in 2011 and is now up for election, as is the Vice Chair for Los Angeles County, Adam Abrahms of Santa Monica, and the Vice Chair for the Inland Empire (Riverside, San Bernardino, Inyo, and Mono Counties), Adele Harrison of Temecula.

The Associate Representative position is also up for election, with Aaron Ginn of San Francisco and Liz Kolstad of Fresno seeking the position. This position is unique among Board of Director positions, as only the Associate Delegates can vote for this position.  All other positions are elected by the regular Delegates.  (For those less familiar with the state party structure, Associate Delegates are effectively alternates to the voting members.  While there are specific formulas for the number of Delegates that can exist, there is no limit on the number of Associate Delegates.)

The headline speaker of the convention will be Saturday’s dinner speaker, Texas Governor Rick Perry.

The more significant headline out of the convention is that earlier this week, Chairman Jim Brulte announced that the CRP’s seven-figure debt had been wiped out.  This is all the more impressive since Brulte, who was elected Chairman earlier this year, began his debt retirement drive just six months ago.

The most controversial item on the convention agenda will be the three competing proposals on how to handle CRP endorsements in a post-Prop 14 world.  A temporary arrangement was made for the 2012 elections, but that procedure expires before the 2014 election, so delegates will be implementing a permanent procedure going forward.

The three proposals are named for their authors:

  • Mike Spence and Deborah Wilder propose that in any primary where there is more than one Republican, the state party will only endorse if 2/3 of the Board of Directors votes to do so after a request is made for the state party endorsement by the Chairman of each affected County Central Committee and only if each affected County Central Committee (by a 2/3 vote) has endorsed the same candidate.  Spence and Wilder also propose that any Republican who is the sole Republican on the ballot is automatically endorsed.  Spence and Wilder’s proposal does permit the CRP Board of Directors (by a 2/3 vote) and each affected County Central Committee (by a 2/3 vote in each County) to adopt an endorsement procedure in a district wherein every Republican registered to vote in the district (including overseas military personnel) can vote on the endorsement.
  • Jon Fleischman proposes that endorsements be made by all voting delegates of the State Party and all County Central Committee members present at the state party convention in the Spring before the primary will vote to endorse a candidate, provided that “60% + 1” of those present and voting vote to endorse that candidate.  There will be no more than three rounds of balloting, and the candidate with the lowest number of votes will be dropped from the first round and again from the second round.  Should no candidate achieve “60% + 1” in the third round, there is no endorsement.  Unlike all other state delegate votes, there will be no proxy voting allowed (similarly, proxy voting is moot in the Spence/Wilder and Abrahms proposals since County Central Committees do not have proxy voting nor does the State Board of Directors).
  • Adam Abrahms proposes that in any primary where there is more than one Republican, the state party will only endorse if 2/3 of the Board of Directors votes to do so, provided that the Board of Directors may not endorse any candidate whose opponent has been endorsed by at least one affected County Central Committee.  He also proposes that a majority of any affected County Central Committee may vote to preemptively veto a state party endorsement, no later than five days before a state party endorsement meeting.  Abrahms also proposes that any Republican who is the sole Republican on the ballot is automatically endorsed.  He also defines an affected County Central Committee is one where at least 5% of the precincts in the district are in that county.

Posted in California | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Breaking News: Eric Woolery Unanimously Appointed Orange City Treasurer

Posted by Chris Nguyen on September 24, 2013

After the passing of Orange City Treasurer Helen Walker on July 30, the Orange City Council had 60 days to appoint a new Treasurer or call an expensive 2013 special election. The City of Orange issued a press release on August 28 announcing that applications would be accepted until September 12, giving candidates two weeks to apply for the appointment.

Today was the sole Orange City Council meeting between the close of applications and the deadline to make an appointment to avert a 2013 special election.

In a unanimous, bipartisan vote, the City Council appointed Eric Woolery to fill the Orange City Treasurer’s vacancy.

OC Political snagged the first interview with the newly-minted Treasurer.

“I’ve lived in Orange for almost 30 years. It’s a great pleasure to serve my hometown,” Woolery told us. “I’m looking forward to serving the citizens of Orange and helping the City Council be good stewards of our taxpayer dollars.”

Councilman Fred Whitaker made the motion to appoint Woolery, which was seconded by both Councilman Mike Alvarez and Mayor Pro Tem Mark Murphy, though Alvarez just slightly quicker on the second.  Mayor Tita Smith also joined in the vote for Woolery.  Councilman Denis Bilodeau was absent from the meeting.

A CPA for over 20 years, Woolery has been a resident of Orange County since he was in high school. He served as an elected member of the Orange County Board of Education from 1996-2000 and a volunteer member of the City of Orange Audit Oversight Committee from 1997-2007. Woolery has extensive private sector experience as a staff accountant at Ernst & Young, a corporate controller, owner of a private accounting firm, and CFO of a multimillion dollar company. Since 2008, Woolery has served as Deputy Director of Administration for the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office, in which he directed the DA’s financial and human resources.  As Councilman Whitaker noted: In that capacity, Woolery prepares and oversees a budget larger than that of the City of Orange.  (OC Political notes the Riverside County DA’s office has a $102 million budget, 11% larger than the City of Orange’s $92 million General Fund).

Woolery will earn $365 per month as Treasurer. He is now one of Orange County’s six elected City Treasurers (the other five are in Brea, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Placentia, and San Clemente). All six City Treasurers’ terms expire in 2016.

As Republican Woolery succeeds Republican Walker, the partisan count of City Treasurers remains 3 Republicans (Woolery, Huntington Beach’s Alisa Cutchen, and Placentia’s Craig Green), 1 Democrat (Brea’s Glenn Parker), 1 Libertarian (San Clemente’s Mark Taylor), and 1 No Party Preference (Laguna Beach’s Laura Parisi).

Posted in Orange | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Harkey Bill to Fix Bob Baker Problem Signed Into Law

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 27, 2013

San Clemente Mayor Robert

San Clemente Mayor Robert “Bob” Baker

Many people may recall the rather amusing saga of San Clemente Councilman Robert “Bob” Baker, who had an opponent in the November 2012 election with the same exact name of Robert “Bob” Baker, which OC Political covered here and here last year.

In a nutshell, Councilman Baker (R) was challenged for re-election by a businessman (D) with the same exact name. (In the process, we discovered ballot designations had been created in 1931 to solve this problem, but that clearly took a life of its own.) Under Elections Code 13118, which was left substantially untouched since 1927, when two candidates with the same (or very similar) names were to each select a number to be placed next to their names on the ballot if at least one of them filed a declaration that their names were confusingly similar.

Since Councilman Baker pulled and filed his nomination paperwork first, he got first pick of numbers.  Naturally, he picked the number 1. Easy enough, right? Well, no. Businessman Baker then threw everyone for a loop by picking the number 0. The San Clemente City Clerk initially determined that businessman Baker would precede Councilman Baker on the ballot since 0 comes before 1. Then, the City Clerk sought advised from the Secretary of State, who then recommended the Clerk to do a random drawing to determine who would get listed first (just like the random drawing of the alphabet for the ballot). 0 was drawn before 1, so businessman Baker was listed before Councilman Baker on the ballot.

Businessman Baker eventually dropped out (though his name remained on the ballot), and Councilman Baker was re-elected by a nearly 3% margin. Shortly after the election, his colleagues on the San Clemente City Council selected Baker to be Mayor of San Clemente for 2013.

CITY OF SAN CLEMENTE Member, City Council
Number To Vote For: 2
Completed Precincts: 46 of 46
Vote Count Percentage
CHRIS HAMM 12,308 26.2%
1 ROBERT “BOB” BAKER 10,890 23.2%
JIM DAHL 9,555 20.3%
MIKE MORTENSON 9,145 19.5%
DAVID CLEGG 3,105 6.6%
0 ROBERT “BOB” BAKER 1,995 4.2%

Well, this year, Assemblywoman Diane Harkey introduced AB 1316 in February, which sailed through the Assembly Elections Committee, the Assembly Appropriations Committee, the Assembly Floor, the Senate Elections Committee, and the Senate Floor, getting unanimous votes every step of the way. Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 1316 into law this month, and it will take effect on January 1, 2014.

Sponsored by the City Clerks Association of California, AB 1316 was supported by the Secretary of State, the California Association of Clerks and Elections Officials, and the League of California Cities. Harkey’s office specifically cited the situation in San Clemente as the impetus for the bill, and that was cited by all four official bill analyses in the Legislature (Assembly Elections, Assembly Appropriations, Senate Elections, and Senate Floor).

AB 1316 is quite straightforward.  If any candidate files a declaration declaring that the name of an opponent is confusingly similar, the elections official (the City Clerk for city offices or the Registrar of Voters for federal, state, county, school district, special district, etc.) will now select the number assigned to each candidate with a similar name. The Clerk/Registrar must start with the number 1 and assign the numbers sequentially based on the order that each candidate filed for the ballot. The ballot order will be determined by lottery. AB 1316 also fixed the annoying problem of the number’s location, moving it after the candidate’s name, as existing law had placed it before the candidate’s name.

If Harkey’s bill had been in effect in November 2012, the Councilman would have been Robert “Bob” Baker 1 while the businessman would have been Robert “Bob” Baker 2. Under the pre-Harkey law, as you’ll recall, they were 1 Robert “Bob” Baker and 0 Robert “Bob” Baker.

Due to the inherent advantage of the number 1, I wish AB 1316 had begun with the number 2 instead or that the assigned numbers for the candidates were determined by lottery in the first place.  Oh well.

Sadly (but appropriately), Harkey’s bill also closed my googol loophole: thanks to AB 1316, there can never be a candidate with the number 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District, California, San Clemente | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

SD-34: Nguyen Outraises Solorio in 2013, Solorio Dependent on Old Sacramento Money

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 15, 2013

SD-34 Candidates: Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove) and former Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana)

SD-34 Candidates:
Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove) and former State Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana)

SD-34 is one of the more complex races to calculate campaign finances for, due to the fact that Supervisor Janet Nguyen (R-Garden Grove) and former Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-Santa Ana) wield massive warchests, scattered across multiple campaign accounts.  Furthermore, independent expenditures will likely dominate the final weeks of the general election.

Nguyen wields campaign accounts for both Senate and Supervisor while Solorio has Senate, College Board, and ballot measure accounts.  Nguyen just opened her Senate account during this reporting period but already managed to obtain $105,750 for her Senate account.  She also raised $65,345 into her Supervisorial account during 2013.  Solorio raised $64,420 into his Senate account in 2013, $3,200 into his College Board account, and $2,500 into his ballot measure account.

It’s clear Solorio is depending on money from his Sacramento days, as he simply didn’t raise as much as Nguyen did during this reporting period – the first reporting period in which Solorio was no longer an Assemblyman.

The campaign contribution limit for Supervisor is $1,900 per election while the contribution limit for Senate is $4,100.  Consequently, it is quite likely that the vast majority of Nguyen’s supervisorial account ($331,704) can be transferred to her Senate account ($102,965).

Solorio has $104,339 in his ballot measure committee, which has no contribution limits, but that means he can only transfer $4,100 per donor per election into his Senate account; a chunk of that is not transferable since he has donors who gave $10,000 to the ballot measure committee, and a total transfer would violate Senate contribution limits.  Since there’s only $292 in Solorio’s College Board account, he’ll have no problem transferring all of it, but then again, it’s only $292 (I’ll note College Board has no contribution limits, though).

Refreshingly, neither candidate in SD-34 had any loans to their campaigns.

For visual learners:

Candidate 12/31/12
Cash Balance
 Contributions Unpaid
Bills		 Expenditures Cash on Hand
(COH)		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
Nguyen for Senate $0 $105,750 $1,278 $6,507 $104,243 $102,965
Nguyen for Supervisor $408,496 $65,345 $15,220 $126,966 $346,924 $331,704
Solorio for Senate $304,802 $64,420 $1,810 $16,185 $353,042 $351,232
Solorio for College Board $10,068 $3,200 $0 $13,969 $292 $292
Solorio Ballot Measure $105,636 $2,500 $229 $3,507 $104,628 $104,339
Notes: Figures may be off by one dollar due to rounding.

SD-34 is 38.4% Democrats, 35.8% Republicans, 21.0% No Party Preference voters, and 4.8% third party voters.  87.8% of SD-34 voters are from Orange County while 12.2% are from Los Angeles County.  With lower voter turnout in November 2014 due to a lack of the presidential race, this should favor the Republican (Nguyen) against the Democrat (Solorio), as Republicans tend to have higher voter turnout than Democrats do.

It appears Nguyen and Solorio sit in relatively even positions with over $400,000 cash-on-hand each, but fundraising momentum rests with Nguyen.  Furthermore, her office as a member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors is a better perch from which to raise money than Solorio’s perch on the Rancho Santiago Community College Board.

(For the record, I am not related to Supervisor Janet Nguyen. The last name Nguyen is held by 36% of Vietnamese people.)

Posted in 34th Senate District | Tagged: , | 10 Comments »

BOE-4: Harkey’s Campaign Income Higher Than Wyland’s in 2013; Wyland Ahead of Harkey in Cash-on-Hand

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 7, 2013

Senator Mark Wyland & Assemblywoman Diane Harkey

BOE-4 Candidates:
Senator Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) &
Assemblywoman Diane Harkey (R-Dana Point)

With Michelle Steel termed out from her State Board of Equalization seat and running for Orange County Board of Supervisors, there are two major contenders running for Steel’s BOE seat: State Senator Mark Wyland (R-Escondido) and State Assemblywoman Diane Harkey (R-Dana Point).  Wyland and Harkey represent overlapping districts, with Harkey representing South Orange County in the Assembly and Wyland representing both South Orange County and North San Diego County in the Senate.

The massive BOE-4 seat comprises 25% of the state’s population, consisting of all of Orange County, San Diego County, Riverside County, Imperial County, and portions of San Bernardino County.  (In redistricting, the seat was renumbered, as it was previously BOE-3, and consisted of all the territory described above plus more portions of San Bernardino County and small slivers of Los Angeles County.)

Both Wyland and Harkey have loaned their own campaigns $100,000.  Harkey made a single $100,000 loan in 2011 while Wyland loaned his campaign $35,000 in 2011 and then added a $65,000 loan on June 29 this year, just one day before the close of the reporting period.  I’ve written previously about the campaign warchest fiction of $100,000 loans in my post on AD-73 last week (and requoted in my post on AD-55 two days ago):

Generally, $100,000 loans are paper tigers.  They are used to inflate campaign finance figures to impress donors and scare opponents.  However, when the rubber meets the road, 99% of the time, the candidates do not spend their loan money and repay the loans in their entirety after the election.  (The magic of the $100,000 figure for loans is that it is the most state legislative candidates can lend themselves and still get repaid under state law.  If you’re running for the Legislature, and loan yourself $101,000, that extra $1,000 can never be repaid, per the Government Code.)

I also wrote more extensively about $100,000 loans two weeks ago in a post that included information about loans from two AD-73 candidates and one AD-55 candidate.

At the end of 2012, Wyland had $132,049 cash on hand (excluding loans) while Harkey had $10,090.  During the first half of 2013, Wyland raised $88,584 while Harkey raised $81,536 and transferred in $29,650 from her other campaign accounts, giving her a gross increase of $111,186 in non-loan money.

During the January 1-June 30 reporting period, Wyland spent $122,142, with $89,010 (72.9%) going to consultants, professional services, and web costs.  During that same time, Harkey spent $49,419, spending just over half her money ($25,000) on Landslide Communications slate mailers.  Harkey had made previous deposits to Landslide and Continuing the Republican Revolution in 2012.  Neither campaign reported expenditures for any other slate mailers in 2012 or 2013.  Wyland had $2,241 in unpaid bills while Harkey had $1,330.

While Harkey had more campaign income than Wyland and Wyland outspent Harkey in 2013, Wyland’s $121,959 cash advantage from 2012 leaves him with more cash on hand.

Although I have been critical of candidates who loan their campaigns $100,000 because they do not spend it, BOE 4 may be one of the rare exceptions.  When you subtract the $100,000 loans, Wyland still has $96,250, but Harkey has actually spent $29,472 of the loan; I’m sure she hopes to raise it back, but at this point she’s already spent a chunk of the loan.

In a demonstration of just how difficult it is to raise money for BOE and how expensive everything is for the massive district that covers 25% of the state’s population, I’ll note the BOE accounts of Tom Harman and Lou Correa.  While neither Harman nor Correa is running for BOE, they each opened BOE accounts as a place to park their campaign funds for 2014.  Harman had $76,767 at the end of 2012, raised literally nothing in 2013, spent $8,979, and has $67,788 cash on hand – or 70% of Wyland’s current cash-on-hand minus unpaid bills and loans.  Correa had $85,400 at the end of 2012, raised $55,500 in 2013, spent $11,930 ($6,924 in expenditures and $5,006 in unpaid bills), and has $128,970 cash-on-hand minus unpaid bills – or 134% of Wyland’s cash-on-hand minus unpaid bills and loans (Correa has no loans).

For visual learners:

Candidate 12/31/12
Cash Balance
Minus Loans		 Contributions Transfers Non-
Candidate
Loans		 Candidate
Loans		 Unpaid
Bills		 Expenditures Cash on Hand
(COH)		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
& Loans
Wyland $132,049 $88,584 $0 $4,100 $100,000 $2,241 $122,142 $202,591 $200,350 $96,250
Harkey $10,090 $81,536 $29,650 $0 $100,000 $1,330 $49,419 $71,858 $70,528 -$29,472
People Not Actually Running for BOE
Harman $76,767 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,979 $67,788 $67,788 $67,788
Correa $85,400 $55,500 $0 $0 $0 $5,006 $6,924 $133,976 $128,970 $128,970
Notes: Figures may be off by one dollar due to rounding.

Campaign finance reports for January 1-June 30, 2013 were due last week.

It’s early yet, but Wyland’s definitely ahead of Harkey in the money game, though Harkey’s definitely spent more efficiently than Wyland, by locking up two major slate vendors in this race, which may well be won solely on slates.

(UPDATE – August 18, 7:25 AM): An OC Political reader asked how much was available for Harkey and Wyland to transfer from other committees since both are sitting state legislators.  Once unpaid bills are accounted for, Wyland still has $2,083 in his Senate officeholder account ($7,659 if you ignore his unpaid bills) while Harkey has $71,782 in her Senate account ($75,674 if you ignore her unpaid bills) and $53,231 in her Assembly account (that account has no unpaid bills).

For visual learners:

Candidate Committee Unpaid
Bills		 Cash on Hand
(COH)		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
Wyland 2010 Officeholder $5,576 $7,659 $2,083
Harkey for Senate 2014 $3,892 $75,674 $71,782
Harkey for Assembly 2012 $0 $53,231 $53,231

I haven’t gone line-by-line to determine how much is transferable, but assuming for the sake of argument that the entire amount is transferable, Harkey has $125,013 available while Wyland has $2,083.

If both candidates clean out their legislative accounts in favor of their BOE accounts, Wyland has $98,333 cash on hand (once unpaid bills and loans are accounted for), and Harkey has $95,541.  This leaves Wyland with a $2,792 cash-on-hand advantage – in a district that is 1/4 of the State of California, an utterly meaningless cash advantage in virtually any race let alone one covering such a huge swath of the state (for comparison, imagine a statewide race where once candidate had an $11,168 cash-on-hand advantage).

What I concluded in the original post still rings true, though with one word changed: “It’s early yet, but Wyland’s definitely slightly ahead of Harkey in the money game, though Harkey’s definitely spent more efficiently than Wyland, by locking up two major slate vendors in this race, which may well be won solely on slates.”

Posted in Board of Equalization | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

RIP Helen Walker (1932-2013)

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 6, 2013

Helen Walker

Helen Walker (1932-2013) served as Orange City Treasurer from 1994-2013

Orange City Treasurer Helen Walker passed away on Thursday at the age of 80.

One of Orange County’s six elected City Treasurers (the other five are in Brea, Huntington Beach, Laguna Beach, Placentia, and San Clemente), Walker was appointed City Treasurer by a 3-0-2 vote (Mayor Gene Beyer was absent and Councilman Mark Murphy abstained for conflict-of-interest reasons, as Walker was his campaign treasurer) on November 22, 1994, after Mark Weiss resigned due to a terminal illness after the Orange County bankruptcy.  Weiss had defeated Walker in the 1992 election for Treasurer by the narrowest of margins; indeed, Walker had still been leading several days after the election.

Walker won a full four-year term as Treasurer in 1996 and was re-elected in 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012.  Walker was unopposed in 2000, won 72.5% of the vote in 2004 against CPA David Piper, won 76.6% of the vote in 2008 against businessman George Small, and 64.8% in her 2012 rematch against Small.

Born on Christmas Day 1932, Walker was a lifelong resident of the City of Orange, attending schools in the city and graduating from Orange High School.  A banker for more than three decades, Walker worked at Orange National Bank and in business development at Orange Community Bank.

An active community member even before she was City Treasurer, Walker was  the City of Orange’s 1990 Citizen of the Year and a recipient of the Rotary Club Recognition Award.  She was a board member of the Orange Historical Society, Miss Orange Scholarship Association, Orange Elderly Services, Soroptimist International of Orange, the St. Joseph Hospital Guild, Girl Scouts, PTA, Orange Women’s Club, and the Orange Centennial Committee.  She was also a member of the Order of the Eastern Star and Chapman University’s American Celebration Committee.

She and her 86-year-old husband, Jim, were regular bridge players who also toured in their antique car, a 1913 International Harvester Highwheeler, and attended the Yorba Linda Friends Church.  She is survived by her husband, their three children, and several grandchildren.

The Orange City Council must appoint a Treasurer to fill the vacancy resulting from Walker’s death by Monday, September 30, or hold a special election no later than Tuesday, January 21, 2014.  If the Council opts to act at a regular Council meeting, Tuesday, September 24 would be their last opportunity to make an appointment, or on that date, they could call for a special election, which would take place no later than Tuesday, January 14, 2014.

Posted in Orange | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

AD-55: Land of the $100,000-Loan Paper Tigers

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 5, 2013

AD 55 Candidates Phillip Chen and Ling-Ling Chang

AD-55 Candidates and Their Cash on Hand:
Phillip Chen ($219,000) &
Ling-Ling Chang ($147,108)

In OC Political’s ongoing coverage of campaign finance figures, we turn today to the 55th Assembly District, the tri-county district that includes the Orange County cities of Brea, La Habra, Placentia, and Yorba Linda.

There are two candidates who have campaign committees open for AD-55, and both are Republicans from LA County: Walnut Valley Unified School District Trustee Phillip Chen and Diamond Bar City Councilwoman Ling-Ling Chang.

Both Chen and Chang made $100,000 loans to their campaigns in the closing days of June (Chen on June 27 and Chang on June 30).  I’ve written previously about the campaign warchest fiction of $100,000 loans in my post on AD-73 last week:

Generally, $100,000 loans are paper tigers.  They are used to inflate campaign finance figures to impress donors and scare opponents.  However, when the rubber meets the road, 99% of the time, the candidates do not spend their loan money and repay the loans in their entirety after the election.  (The magic of the $100,000 figure for loans is that it is the most state legislative candidates can lend themselves and still get repaid under state law.  If you’re running for the Legislature, and loan yourself $101,000, that extra $1,000 can never be repaid, per the Government Code.)

I also wrote more extensively about $100,000 loans two weeks ago in a post that included information about Chang’s loans and loans from two AD-73 candidates.

The numbers get weirder looking at Chen’s contributions.  Technically, Chen hasn’t raised any money for Assembly.  In addition to the $100,000 loan, his Assembly account received $219,000 in transfers from his school board account, leaving behind only a few thousand dollars in his school board account.  (While Chen technically raised nothing for Assembly, I must say I’m quite impressed that he raised $231,858 for school board from February 7-June 15.  Presumably, a substantial number of his donors knew their money would eventually be transferred to Chen’s Assembly account, especially considering more than half a dozen of his contributors gave $4,100 – the maximum contribution for a legislative race.)

Chang raised $159,262 straight into her Assembly account, with no transfers from her City Council account.

Chen spent nothing from his Assembly account while Chang spent $11,064 and also had $1,090 in unpaid bills.  The majority of Chang’s spending was a single $6,800 expenditure for fundraising paid to Seafood Village RH, a restaurant in Rowland Heights.

Chen claimed $319,000 cash on hand in the press release announcing his bid for the Assembly, which OC Political’s own Allen Wilson posted here.  Specifically, that press release said, “Chen is reporting $334,000 raised through June 30, and $319,000 cash on hand in his newly formed Assembly committee.” Between the loan and his transfers, Chen only had $319,000 ever in the Assembly committee.  He never reached $334,000; that number, though, is the same amount of expenditures reported by Chen’s school board committee (the expenditures consisting of the $219,000 cash transferred, the $100,000 loan transferred, and $15,000 in various expenditures).

It’s press releases like these that make me warn people: Never trust a candidate’s press release about how much money they’ve raised.  Always check the actual campaign finance reports.  Time and again, press releases bragging about how much money is in a campaign account overinflates the numbers.  I’m not singling out Chen, as he just happens to be the one coming across my screen at this point; numerous campaigns have done this.

For visual learners:

Candidate Contributions Contribution
Transfers		 Candidate
Loans		 Unpaid
Bills		 Expenditures Cash on Hand
(COH)		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
& Loans
Chen $0 $219,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $319,000 $319,000 $219,000
Chang $159,262 $0 $100,000 $1,090 $11,064 $248,198 $247,108 $147,108
Notes: Figures may be off by one dollar due to rounding.

Campaign finance reports for January 1-June 30, 2013 were due last week.

Orange County conservatives may be displeased by four campaign contributions in this race, two each to Chen and Chang:

  • Chen received $1,500 from the community college board campaign account of former Assemblyman Mike Eng (D-Monterey Park).  During his six years in the Legislature, Eng amassed one of the most liberal voting records in the State Assembly (and that’s saying something, considering how liberal the Assembly is), gaining 100% scores from the California Labor Federation four times: in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2011 (during his other two years in the Assembly, 2010 and 2012, he fell one vote short of 100%; in other words, Eng voted against labor two times in his six-year legislative tenure).  Additionally, Eng is married to Congresswoman Judy Chu, who similarly has one of the most liberal voting records in the U.S. House of Representatives, even managing to be ranked more liberal than Nancy Pelosi in the National Journal vote ratings.
  • Chen received $500 from the Union of American Physicians & Dentists Medical Defense Fund.  The UAPD is a labor union of doctors and dentists and is affiliated with AFSCME, which bills itself as the nation’s largest public services employee union.
  • Chang received $1,000 from the Association of California State Supervisors PAC.  The ACSS endorsed 59 Democrats and 3 Republicans in last year’s elections for the State Legislature.
  • Chang received $1,000 from the water board campaign account of former Councilman Mike Tuohey (NPP-West Covina), who is a former member of Democratic Municipal Officials, a 527 group that is a constituency organization of the Democratic National Committee.

Posted in 55th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

AD-73 Surprise: Petrilla Leads Fundraising

Posted by Chris Nguyen on August 1, 2013

Jesse Petrilla, Steve Baric, Anna Bryson, Bill Brough, Paul Glaab

Republican AD-73 Candidates and How Much They Raised in the First Half of 2013:
Jesse Petrilla ($69,230), Steve Baric ($54,470), Anna Bryson ($53,052), Bill Brough ($30,899), Paul Glaab ($14,749)

In a surprise development, campaign finance reports show Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Jesse Petrilla leads the pack in fundraising in the 73rd Assembly District race.  The narrative in AD-73 had generally been that Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Steve Baric, the immediate past Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party, would be the top fundraiser in AD-73 and that Petrilla would depend on a low-budget grassroots strategy.  Indeed, throwing in former Laguna Niguel Councilman Paul Glaab’s fundraising figures, Petrilla raised more than Baric and Glaab combined.

Petrilla raised the most money from donors, with $69,230 in contributions.  Baric followed with $54,470.  Capistrano Unified School District Trustee Anna Bryson was closely behind Baric with $53,052.  Dana Point Councilman Bill Brough (former Chief of Staff to AD-73 incumbent Diane Harkey) was fourth with $30,899.  Finally, Glaab raised $14,749.  I’m only reporting numbers for the Republican candidates, as I have found no indication of a non-Republican running for AD-73 at this point.

It’s still early of course, as the election is in June 2014, and the latest campaign finance reports were for the first half of 2013.  However, these numbers are troubling for Brough and Glaab in that Bryson raised more than Brough and Glaab combined, Baric raised more than Brough and Glaab combined, and Petrilla raised more than Brough and Glaab combined.

In the land of expenditures, Bryson spent more in the first half of 2013 than all of her opponents combined.  She spent $10,570, and the rest of the field expended a combined $9,804.  More than 80% of Bryson’s expenditures went toward consultants.  Brough spent the second most, with $5,315, scattered across numerous small expenses.  Petrilla was third in spending with $3,622, also scattered across numerous small expenses.  A distant fourth in expenditures, Glaab spent $470, which was a single expenditure for appetizers for his June 6 fundraiser.  Spending the least was Baric, who expended $397, with $322 (81%) going to credit card processing fees for his donations and the remaining $75 in tiny, unitemized expenses.

Last week, I wrote about the $100,000 loans to the Baric and Glaab campaigns by the law firm of Baric & Tran and by Paul Glaab, respectively.  Generally, $100,000 loans are paper tigers.  They are used to inflate campaign finance figures to impress donors and scare opponents.  However, when the rubber meets the road, 99% of the time, the candidates do not spend their loan money and repay the loans in their entirety after the election.  (The magic of the $100,000 figure for loans is that it is the most state legislative candidates can lend themselves and still get repaid under state law.  If you’re running for the Legislature, and loan yourself $101,000, that extra $1,000 can never be repaid, per the Government Code.)

According to the Form 460 campaign finance reports, Glaab loaned himself the $100,000 on June 30, the final day of the reporting period, while the law firm of Baric & Tran loaned Baric’s campaign $100,000 also on June 30, though oddly scattered across three loans, one of which was only $48.  Bryson loaned herself $14,600 across four loans made over several months, with a $100 loan in January and loans of $4,750-$5,000, made on a monthly basis in April, May, and June.  Brough lent himself $100, one of the rare loans where I think the candidate will actually spend the money, as I just don’t think the average candidate cares about getting repaid $100.  As their $100 loans were made before receiving any contributions, I suspect the Bryson and Brough $100 loans were simply to meet the minimum deposit requirements to open their bank accounts.

I give Brough credit for taking advantage of the $50 new bank account bonus promotion at Wells Fargo.  I do not recall an instance of a campaign finance report where the candidate used one of these offers.  Although it’s only $50, I always applaud candidates who find creative (yet both legal and ethical) ways to find money for their campaigns.

For visual learners:

Candidate Contributions Other
Income		 Candidate
Loans		 Unpaid
Bills		 Expenditures Cash on Hand
(COH)		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills		 COH Minus
Unpaid Bills
& Loans
Petrilla $69,230 $0 $0 $0 $3,622 $65,932 $65,932 $65,932
Baric $54,470 $0 $100,000 $0 $397 $154,073 $154,073 $54,073
Bryson $53,052 $0 $14,600 $6,484 $10,570 $61,832 $55,348 $40,748
Brough $30,899 $50 $100 $250 $5,315 $25,734 $25,484 $25,384
Glaab $14,749 $0 $100,000 $3,495 $470 $114,279 $110,784 $10,784
Notes: Figures may be off by one dollar due to rounding.

Campaign finance reports for January 1-June 30, 2013 were due at 11:59 PM last night.

It’s still early in the campaign finance figures, and the July 1-December 31, 2013 numbers will be more telling, but it’s still surprising that Petrilla outraised Baric by 27% and that he leads the rest of the field in fundraising, as the usual AD-73 narrative was that Petrilla would struggle to raise money, relying on an aggressive ground game for his campaign rather than any significant spending.  As I noted above, Brough and Glaab’s early numbers don’t look promising, as the two of them combined raised less than Bryson, who herself raised less than either Baric or Petrilla.

Posted in 73rd Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , | 9 Comments »

$100,000 Loans Sprinkled Across OC Assembly Campaigns

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 25, 2013

Ling-Ling Chang, Paul Glaab, and Steve Baric

$100,000-Loan Club: AD-55 Candidate Ling-Ling Chang (R-Diamond Bar), AD-73 Candidate Paul Glaab (R-Laguna Niguel), and AD-73 Candidate Steve Baric (R-Rancho Santa Margarita)

$100,000 is the magical amount sprinkled in loans across campaigns for Assembly representing portions of Orange County.

  • In AD-55, OC Political’s Allen Wilson reported earlier on initial indications of $100,000 from Diamond Bar Councilwoman Ling-Ling Chang to her own Assembly campaign.  Her Form 497 shows she loaned herself $100,000 on June 30.  (Although Chang is from the LA County city of Diamond Bar, the tri-county 55th Assembly District includes the OC cities of Brea, La Habra, Placentia, and Yorba Linda.)
  • In AD-73, former Laguna Niguel Councilman Paul Glaab loaned his own Assembly campaign $100,000 on June 30, according to his Form 497.
  • Also in AD-73, the law firm of Baric & Tran loaned Rancho Santa Margarita Councilman Steve Baric‘s Assembly campaign $100,000 on July 10, according to his Form 497.

So why do candidates loan $100,000 to their own campaigns?  On rare occasions, a candidate may actually spend the money. However, 99% of the time, the candidates will not spend the money, as they are simply loaning their campaigns the $100,000 to inflate their warchests with every expectation of repaying the entire loan once the election is over.  By inflating their warchests by $100,000, the candidates hope to:

  • scare potential opponents (who would be afraid to face down another $100,000)
  • convince donors to contribute more to the campaign (donors tend to give money to candidates who show they have money in a bandwagon effect)
  • both of the above

As they are not yet due, the Form 460s (the complete campaign finance reports for each reporting period) have not been filed by any campaigns for AD-55 or AD-73 for the January 1-June 30 reporting periods.  Due to the $100,000 loans, the Chang, Glaab, and Baric campaigns had to submit their Form 497s, as those must be filed within 10 business days of receipt of more than $5,000 from any one source (in the final 90 days before an election, Form 497s must be filed within 24 hours of receipt of more than $1,000 from any one source).

Chang and Glaab both loaned their campaigns the $100,000 on June 30.  The significance of that date is that June 30 is the final date of the reporting period for the first half of 2013.  The next reporting period doesn’t close until December 31.  Due to their loans, Chang and Glaab will be able to show an additional $100,000 on their Form 460 reports and then spend the latter half of 2013 raising money before the next reports are due.

The $100,000 loan from Baric & Tran on July 10 is a puzzling case, as it is not a personal loan and it was made very early in the reporting period and won’t appear on Baric’s Form 460 until after December 31.

What is the magic of the specific $100,000 figure?  It’s the most a candidate can loan their own campaign and still get repaid.  Any amount loaned to the campaign that exceeds a $100,000 balance is considered a contribution to the campaign, rather than a loan, so it cannot be repaid to the candidate.

Specifically, Government Code Section 85307(b) prohibits candidates for state office (i.e. the Legislature, the Board of Equalization, and all statewide offices other than U.S. Senator) from having an outstanding balance of more than $100,000 in personal loans to their own campaigns.

The candidate is the only person (or entity) who can loan a campaign more than the contribution limit.  Any other person or entity is subject to the campaign contribution limit of $4,100 per election for a state legislative race (this limit is in place through the end of the 2014 General Election).

Posted in 55th Assembly District, 73rd Assembly District | Tagged: , , | 12 Comments »

Sidhu Opens Committee for 68th Assembly District

Posted by Chris Nguyen on July 15, 2013

Harry Sidhu

Harry Sidhu

Lending credibility to rumors swirling in the Spring, former Anaheim Councilman Harry Sidhu opened a new campaign committee this month: “Harry Sidhu for Assembly 2014.”

Sidhu filed a Form 501 (Candidate Intention Statement) for the 68th Assembly District when opening that committee.  On the Form 501, Sidhu also indicated he would not accept the voluntary expenditure limit of $544,000 in the primary and $953,000 in the general election.

The only catch with a 2014 bid for AD-68 is a gentleman by the name of Don Wagner.

There are four possibilities for this committee:

  • Sidhu is crazy enough to challenge Wagner, who would cream Sidhu in the June 2014 primary
  • Sidhu is banking on Wagner running for CD-45 in 2014 (win or lose, Wagner would have to give up his Assembly seat if he chose to run for CD-45 since the elections for the two seats occur concurrently)
  • Sidhu is using the Assembly committee as a placeholder to raise funds for another office (Sidhu would then presumably launch a surprise by filing for another office at the last minute and then slide the money over)
  • Sidhu is using the 2014 committee as a placeholder for a future vacancy in the AD-68 seat in 2015 (Wagner leaves the seat early) or 2016 (Wagner terms out)

Sidhu has a 2-3 record in the five times he’s sought elected office.

  • In 2010, Sidhu ran unsuccessfully for 4th District Supervisor, losing to Supervisor Shawn Nelson 63.1%-36.9%.  Just 0.1% of AD-68 voters live in the 4th Supervisorial District.
  • In the 2008 general election, Sidhu was the top vote-getter for Anaheim City Council, winning 23.2% of the vote.  16.8% of AD-68 voters live in the City of Anaheim, which is the third-largest city in AD-68.
  • In the 2008 primary election, Sidhu ran unsuccessfully for the 33rd Senate District, losing to then-Assemblywoman Mimi Walters in a 74.0%-26.0% landslide.  (For comparison, Supervisor Janet Nguyen defeated Steve Rocco 74.2%-25.8% in 2012.)
  • In 2004, Sidhu was first elected to the Anaheim City Council, winning 18.4% of the vote, coming in second behind Lorri Galloway.
  • In 2002, Sidhu made an unsuccessful bid for Anaheim City Council, winning 10.7% of the vote, coming in fourth behind Bob Hernandez, Richard Chavez, and Bob Zemel.

Posted in 68th Assembly District | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »