A campaign mailer railing against Mayor Steve Tate last week was
not mailed or authorized by any local mayoral candidates, and it
might have violated state laws regulating political campaign money
disclosures.
A campaign mailer railing against Mayor Steve Tate last week was not mailed or authorized by any local mayoral candidates, and it might have violated state laws regulating political campaign money disclosures.
A spokesperson for the committee that distributed the mailers said they comply with campaign laws, but one thing that’s sure is that the double-sided cardboard flyer, which asks, “Who’s running Morgan Hill into the ground?” is a sign that “big-city politics” and machine-run campaign tactics have made their way into Morgan Hill, according to a San Jose political scientist.
The mailer, which contains a graphic of an aircraft decorated with a dollar sign crashing into the ground on one side, criticizes Tate for city policies and projects such as the construction of recreation facilities, the addition of contract amendments prior to council approval and the decline of funding for the police department in recent years. It doesn’t mention the Nov. 2 election, or even urge recipients to vote against the mayor.
The literature does not promote another candidate, and asks recipients to call Tate to “politely ask him to do a better job of protecting tax dollars and public safety.”
Tate’s opponents in the election – Marby Lee and Art College – have both denied having any prior knowledge of the mass mailing and who might have been behind it, and both said they were surprised to see the propaganda in their mailboxes.
Tate especially took issue with the claim in the mailer, cited to a June 2009 article in the Morgan Hill Times, that the city spent money on 42 contract amendments and purchases worth more than $200,000 without approval by the council. In recent weeks Lee has repeated that claim, which is based on a staff report she requested at the time, but Tate called it an “outright inaccuracy.”
“No contracts have ever been awarded without council approval, and whenever work was allowed to proceed prior to council approval, the firm doing the work for the city was informed that if the council did not approve, they would not be paid,” Tate said. “The city was never placed in any financial risk.”
The Sacramento-based Safe and Clean Schools Coalition, which distributed the mailers, is funded by “various donors,” and its purpose is to conduct research and provide commentary and education on specific issues in different communities, according to Safe and Clean Schools spokeswoman Nina Salarno. Most of the issues center around public safety, and the group is not advocating any candidates.
“We need to take hard looks at where (public officials) are spending money,” Salarno said.
Salarno said the Safe and Clean Schools Coalition is registered as a nonprofit with the California Secretary of State’s website, though according to Tara Stock, spokeswoman for the Fair Political Practices Commission, the group was not registered as of Tuesday.
The mailer is likely an “independent expenditure,” because it was funded by an entity that is not apparently associated with a candidate, Stock said.
Any committee or coalition that performs independent expenditures during election campaigns is required by state law to register a “statement of organization” with the SOS’s office no more than 10 days after “qualifying” as a committee. Qualifying simply means having spent or raised at least $1,000. Safe and Clean Schools hired political consultant McNally Temple to oversee the mailing, which likely cost “in the $10,000 to $15,000 range,” Salarno said.
At press time, Stock suggested the group might not have raised or spent enough to qualify as a committee, though she was unfamiliar with this specific case and the coalition.
A woman who answered the phone at McNally Temple offices said the consulting firm does not represent Safe and Clean Schools Coalition.
If the committee qualifies within the 16 days prior to an election, they are required to register with the state within 24 hours after qualifying, Stock added. Plus, the flyer would have to say who its sponsoring committee’s top two individual contributors are who donated more than $50,000. Such a disclosure is absent on the flyer to Morgan Hill voters.
Furthermore, flyers supporting or opposing a political candidate must contain a statement that says the independent expenditure is not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate, Stock said. The local flyer sent out last week did not contain such a statement.
Enforcement of state and federal campaign laws is driven by complaints, and any confirmed violations can result in a $5,000 fine for each violation, Stock said.
“If somebody thinks there might be a violation, they could file a complaint with our enforcement division,” Stock said.
Tate said no one has called to ask him to do a better job, despite the mailer’s plea to do so – though some have called him to ask if he knew who sent it.
“(The people who called) think it’s introducing a negative aspect to campaigning in Morgan Hill. They don’t think Morgan Hill is a place for negative campaigning, and I agree with them,” Tate said.
Morgan Hill resident Frank Gardner said he doesn’t think the mailer was fair.
“They didn’t have the guts to put their name on it,” Gardner said. “Even if it is legal, I don’t think it’s right.”
Tate also denied the substance of all the claims printed on the mailer. While the literature criticizes the city’s construction of recreation facilities at the expense of public safety, Tate said, “Recreation is part of public safety.” He added he has “no qualms” about being an advocate for those RDA-funded construction projects.
Furthermore, Tate said the mailer high-balled the amount by which police funding has fallen in recent years – an amount which he estimated at about $170,000.
The same coalition has been active in at least one other city – Stockton, where residents received a mailer hammering that city’s firefighters for budget problems.
Salarno said she is confident the mailers comply with all campaign laws.
Such campaign tactics are more common in San Jose and San Francisco, but not Morgan Hill, noted San Jose State University political science professor Terry Christensen.
“I can’t say whether it’s illegal, but it’s perfectly common,” said Christensen, who had not seen the anti-Tate mailer Monday but was familiar with similar methods used in the past. “Even if it’s illegal, we’re now two weeks away from the election – nothing would be done until months after the election is over.”
That makes it difficult to find out where the money is coming from to finance such mass mailings, at all levels of campaigning, Christensen said. A U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this year concluding that caps on campaign contributions are unconstitutional makes the existing laws even murkier.
“There are almost no rules anymore,” Christensen said.
