13 out of 15 sections concerning election financial disclosures to be eliminated
By Charles Douglas
Humboldt Sentinel
When it comes to campaign finance law, less is more, according to the new class of politicians running Eureka.
In advance of the 2012 elections where Councilmembers Linda Atkins and Melinda Ciarabellini are expected to defend their second and fourth ward seats, the City Council voted unanimously this evening to introduce an amendment to its political campaign regulations which tear out 13 of the 15 sections adopted by the last set of Councilmembers in 2010.
If adopted, the only provisions left standing will be the $500 contribution limits per donor to support or oppose any candidate running for city office, as well as a $500 cap per cycle on donations to an independent expenditure committee that spends more than $500 on a municipal election. Removed will be all requirements for campaign finance disclosures to be made through the City Clerk’s office, and all criminal penalties for violating the contribution limits are also to be repealed.
The only member of the public to address Councilmembers on the issue mocked the very existence of the ordinance, comparing it to the ill-fated Measure T, an unconstitutional ban on countywide campaign contributions peddled by Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County and subsequently struck down in federal court.
“If you limit the ability of an assembly to raise and spend money, you limit their ability to engage in press activity,” Humboldt County Republican Central Committee member Parke Bostrom said. “I do not want any more of my tax dollars wasted in failed attempts to defend blatantly unconstitutional ordinances.”
Atkins agreed, and said she’d like to see the entire ordinance done away with given the apparent loopholes.
“I do have a problem with the contribution limits because they don’t work, we have contributions from five different members of the same family with one person who obviously distributes the money,” she said. “I’m very glad that we got rid of some of the other language that just made a lot more paperwork for campaigns.”
Neither the Mayor nor any other Councilmember made a single comment on the issue. The final adoption of the amendment will take place at the next City Council meeting, scheduled for Dec. 20 at 6 p.m.
Eureka Zoo — brought to you by Goldman Sachs?
Most of the public attention Tuesday night was paid to the subject of admission fees to the Sequoia Park Zoo, which is entirely owned by the City of Eureka, yet under the management of a Foundation closely tied to the political clique around Rob and Cherie Arkley, owners of Security National.
While admissions to the zoo increased from 54,000 in 2009 to 64,837 last year, preliminary figures indicate a slight decrease in the numbers for 2011, leaving some members of the public asking why the zoo was the only publicly-funded one in California without regularly-scheduled free admission days.
Frequent public speaker Richard Tollison took the dialogue in a curious direction, however, when he suggested the implementation of a corporate sponsorship program to allow the zoo to hold admission-free events.
“I’m sure Church’s Chicken would partner with them,” he said.
Councilmembers were quite receptive to the idea, although Ciarabellini said she’d want to see those sponsorships secured before holding a free day. Atkins backed the plan too, noting that when the Council originally adopted admittance fees, a free day was part of the package.
“The people of Eureka are the sponsors of the zoo,” she said. “The zoo foundation does good work on exhibits but it’s our zoo.”
Atkins went further than the rest in suggesting the direct corporate sponsorship of animals, along with a free day every month. Public Works Director Bruce Young said a free day would cost between $500 and $1,000 in lost revenues.
With other Councilmembers suggesting a once-a-quarter admission-free day system, City Manager Dave Tyson said he’d work with staff and the Sequoia Park Zoo Foundation on a sustainable plan to bring back to Council next year.
“I’d just like to remind everybody that it wasn’t too long ago that we were talking about closing down the zoo,” Mayor Frank Jager noted.
In addition
Councilmembers did split on adopting amendments to its General Plan allowing for special needs housing such as transitional housing and emergency shelters, despite the fact that these changes were mandated by Senate Bill 2, adopted by the California Legislature and signed by the Governor in 2007.
The new law will allow emergency shelters to be located in ‘service commercial’ zones without public hearings or discretionary review by the Planning Commission or the City Council. Transitional and supportive housing will likewise not be subject to special review so long as fire and safety codes are followed, and the numerical limits on how many residents can live in these facilities are to be repealed.
Atkins cast the lone dissenting vote, voicing concerns echoed by several public speakers that drug addicted persons were being warehoused in their Westside Eureka neighborhoods. Transitional and supportive housing can be located without public review in multifamily zones, while the predominantly single-family zones on the eastern end of Eureka don’t allow for ministerial approvals of new board and care homes.
The Council also adopted a sewer use ordinance amendment to bring the city into compliance with federal pre-treatment regulations. Additional attention by local regulators will be paid to the interception of fats and grease entering the sewer system, with installation and maintenance of such systems at commercial facilities like restaurants to be uniform across the city.
In his close-of-meeting report, Tyson noted the county’s progress on establishing a community forest in unincorporated timber lands just east of Eureka’s borders, and said he would be working closely with Green Diamond and county leaders to bring a full report back to the City Council in an upcoming meeting.
how embarrassing of Linda! are these monkeys your race cars to slap Esso stickers on?
i hope a real progressive will run for her seat in november. Anyone know what Patty Berg is up to?
“the ill-fated Measure T, an unconstitutional ban on countywide campaign contributions peddled by Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County”.
Don’t you mean a ban on contributions from outside the county? Let’s not let accuracy interfere with bitterness!
The measure was passed by a majority of voters for damn good reason. Yep, the same Supreme Court that should have gone to jail for appointing a U.S. President after stopping the recount!
Thanks for the coverage of Eureka council meetings.
Public funded campaigns is among the only effective reforms.
Measure T defined a company with a SINGLE employee residing beyond the county line (say, in Salyer, Klamath, Somes Bar or Piercy) as “non-local” and criminalized the donor (instead of the candidate) for making ANY donation, even a non-monetary donation of time, space or labor. It was so absurd and so flagrantly unconstitutional that not ONE jurisdiction or group of voters in any other community has ever mimicked such a useless and futile disaster of an initiative.
That being said, Eureka’s ordinance, modeled on Arcata’s, has not been constitutionally challenged — it’s being mostly repealed by its own government, and for reasons that none of the Councilmembers aside from Atkins would even utter in a public hearing on the matter.
And yet, it overwhelmingly passed.
Taking odd pleasure in the measure’s failure, and that other localities have not sought to repeat it, is bizarre.
Many other localities have variations of effective reform, why would anyone want to repeat a failure?
Decades passed between Suffrage-movement attempts to pass voting rights, they rarely repeated their failures either! Nevertheless, each attempt was pronounced more “absurd and flagrantly unconstitutional” than the last…as you have done here.
Has limited knowledge of history made you bitter?
The mere fact that Humboldt County is on record for denouncing political influence from outside is absolutely phenomenal. Most people, (at least most voters, ie, measure proponents) should find it empowering and motivating.
What purpose is served by crapping on it?
Measure T supporters made the same absurd and outrageous comparisons of their misguided campaign finance measure to the millions-dead struggle to end involuntary servitude, or to the rights of women to vote or of the rights of organized labor.
I was personally attacked by name on KMUD radio as someone who must have supported slavery, union busting and denying women’s suffrage merely because of my reporting which asked critical questions regarding the constitutionality of Measure T.
Thus, I am all too aware of the tragic history of Measure T, of the vicious and underhanded campaign tactics of the primary backers from Democracy Unlimited of Humboldt County, and how it’s more that a little unusual for a “campaign finance reform” measure to have ten times the money spent in its favor than spent to oppose it.
No need to lie about it.
Is that why you made this article disappear from your other news stories posted by date?
Measure T wasn’t a “tragic history”, it garnered a large majority of local support, which explains why there was no organized, or financial opposition.
It’s fundamental premise of undue corporate political influence remains apart of every recent popular movement before and after Measure T.
It’s petty and irrational to make sweeping generalizations about a “vicious and underhanded” campaign based upon “a caller on a radio show”.
Every movement in history has made a plethora of mistakes, and will continue to. Like it or not, attacking them for their mistakes, as opposed to encouraging their efforts, puts you in a very ugly camp…
Who would have thought that slavery…or stopping the vote-counting in a presidential race were “Constitutional”?
Disclaimer: I was only involved in Measure T via a monetary donation, and am thrilled by the support and attention it won.
Right…we re-designed our whole website because of what an anonymous commenter had to say.
Measure T was unconstitutional from the get-go. It absolutely is a ‘tragic history.’ Though it did give us one of the MOST memorable video tirades ever (see it here – and tell us what he’s smokin’ – that’s worth something.
The latest manifestation of that “movement” is in the news this week on the national level:
Anti-Corporate Totalitarian Wing of Democrat Party Proposes Constitutional Amendment to Censor Newspapers
Proposed Constitutional Amendment Would Ban Editorials About Candidates or Ballot Measures by Nearly All Newspapers
As for the $500 cap – it is ridiculous. And it makes it all but impossible for a candidate to ‘speak’ to the voters via print, radio or TV ads. Anyone who is familiar with the COST of placing an ad in the Times Standard know this. Any candidate who has purchased signs knows this. Any candidate who has had campaign materials printed knows how expensive it is.
What the $500 cap will do is make it so that only a person who has great personal wealth can afford to a.) place an ad in the local paper, b.) run ads on local radio stations, c.) run ads on local TV stations, d.) create professional looking campaign materials (brochures, walking pieces, door hangers, letters, signs, bumper stickers, buttons), e.) MAIL any communications to any voters in their districts, f.) PAY for any services rendered.
The basement dwelling pipe-dreamers imagine that all these things are free, or that they just materialize out of thin-air – or maybe people just give them to you out of the goodness of their hearts. Newsflash. The Times-Standard won’t run your ad for free. Neither will Cleary or Seabourn’s radio stations run your spots for free. Nor should they. Nor should they support a cap like this which will limit their ability to serve a candidate who needs to communicate with the voters. The sign company is not going to give you the signs for free…. and on and on and on… you get the idea.
Nor are the voters going to suddenly step up in droves to write checks for $500, because you are so noble as to limit your contributions. They won’t even step up in droves to write you a $25 check. So good luck with it.
A $500 cap truly is a limit on free speech – most importantly, the free speech of the candidates, who are no longer able to fully utilize the means at everyone else’s disposal for reaching out and communicating with people.
Two liars on this string don’t mean squat.
Measure T generated great turnout and recognition, it enjoyed a handsome majority, and it continues within the Occupy protests repeating the same issues of corporate personhood.
So where was your tirade against the $500 limit when your friend Jagger was promoting it in his city council campaign?
So let’s see, I’m going broke from not getting enough underwriting support to keep this independent non-corporate news site going…and that makes me a “liar” on behalf of evil corporations who aren’t funding me.
Maybe your going broke because you can’t separate your bitter opinions from the news.
Again, Measure T wasn’t even remotely a “tragic history” because it passed by a majority vote, focusing attention on an issue that persists today.
Why would I advertise in any kind of media that gratuitously craps on ideals because a caller on a radio show insulted you?
The Supreme Court will eventually reverse corporate personhood’s undue influence in local campaigns.
The ideals aren’t in question. Their flawed implementation, utilizing the same sorts of dirty campaign tactics and big spending that ‘campaign reform’ is supposed to ameliorate, is what’s in question.
While seeking to amend the Constitution is a campaign with slim prospects, at least it’s honest in seeking to go to the source of the issue in terms of federal constitutional principles, instead of pushing a local government into a fight against not only national but state constitutional and statutory law which it was bound to lose, and at local taxpayer expense to boot.
Two liars on this string don’t mean squat.
Measure T generated great turnout and recognition, it enjoyed a handsome majority, and it continues within the Occupy protests repeating the same issues of corporate personhood.
So where was Rose’s tirade against the $500 limit when your friend Jagger was promoting it in his city council campaign?
Your articles appear to be posted in order of date…except for his one.
Great dodge though….
There was no need to lie about Measure T.
The articles in the carousel aren’t double-posted in the feed — but if you click on ‘Eureka’ or ‘Politics’ you’ll see very plainly that they’re in reverse chronological order there.
So, some articles are routed to their categories sooner than others?
Obviously, I found your editorial bitterness in this report quite unprofessional, distasteful, and grossly inaccurate.
I have found Cobb equally arrogant from time to time.
Nevertheless, I applaud both your efforts when they appear to be honest attempts to get it right, even when strategies and tactics fail.
You have yet to point out any actual inaccuracies in the above report. Measure T was found by a federal district judge to be unconstitutional. David Cobb’s opinion doesn’t magically erase this fact, and neither does yours.