California is justly well-known for having some of the toughest campaign finance disclosure laws in the country. If you want to run a state or local political campaign anywhere in the Golden State, you had better be prepared to disclose the identities of those who are bankrolling your effort.
Apparently, though, there are some people in Cathedral City who believe that the rules just do not apply to them. Among them is outgoing lame-duck mayor Kathleen Joan DeRosa, who recently got slapped with a fairly hefty fine by California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) after getting caught engaging in some fairly severe campaign finance lawbreaking.
Of course, DeRosa, who cannot be said to be a classy individual, tried very hard to shunt the blame for her criminality onto the late city clerk Patricia Dale Hammers, whose own corrupt and unneutral conduct might well have earned her criminal prosecution and potential jail time had she not died. Nonetheless, DeRosa has a long history of playing fast and loose with the law and with the truth, and no particular embarrassment about allowing her campaigns to be substantially underwritten by local developers. But at least DeRosa is on the way out; we may hope that under a new mayor and council Cathedral City will enjoy a restoration of correct and honorable government.
But no matter how correct or honorable the government may be, any government must have the fiscal resources to be able to carry out its core functions. Here in Cathedral city, there are a number of vocal local residents who do not seem to agree with this proposition. They has been vehement in their opposition to Measure B, a reauthorization of a 1% local sales tax. To hear these opponents of Measure B tell it, the reauthorization of the sales tax is the most awful thing conceivable, and would push the city into a cesspit of “corruption.”
Still, one does not need to get into a debate over the merits of Measure B to be somewhat concerned about the way in which opponents of Measure B have fallen into the DeRosa trap of playing fast and loose with California’s campaign finance disclosure laws. Example; most of the “No on B” signs that have been popping up like weeds around the city do not contain the required disclosure of the name of the entity or committee that has paid for the signs. There is no committee identification and no FPPC identification number on the materials that had been disseminated in opposition to Measure B.
When our local Gannett newspaper disclosed these matters in an article in yesterday’s newspaper, certain opponents of Measure B were quick to attempt to push back. The nonconforming signs, for example, were printed by two local Tea Partisan activists, Alice and Tuck Broich. Now I happen to know the Broichs personally, and on a personal level they seem like perfectly nice people, even if I reprehend their politics to the nth degree. But Tuck, a sometime one-term councilman from Palm Springs, having run at least one victorious political campaign, ought to know better. Instead, Tuck seems to have taken the position that somehow the law does not apply to him. This is a position he needs to reconsider, given that there has been an uptick in both public integrity and campaign finance prosecutions in California. An FPPC that was willing to slap thousands of dollars in fines on Kathleen Joan DeRosa may feel no compunction about going after Alice and Tuck Broich, and the Commission would be within its rights to do so.
But there are more than Broichs in the troika of vocal opponents of Measure B. Among the loudest and most strident of the “No on B” contingent has been perennial gadfly and disturber-of-the-peace Jens Mueller, a naturalized immigrant from Germany with rather disturbing views about Adolf Hitler. Mueller, who runs a Facebook page called “Citizens against Corruption,” has gone on record praising the Nazi dictator for destroying the German labor union movement in 1933, declaring “[Hitler] had one good idea, then.” Mueller, who twice ran unsuccessfully for city Council, has a reputation for being loud and disruptive at council meetings, and for trafficking in claims concerning our city’s fiscal condition that can be, and have been, easily and repeatedly disproved.
The Broichs and Mueller seem to represent the core of what is essentially Tea Partisan opposition to Measure B. Indeed, the troika’s opposition does seem to be grounded in an anti-tax, “starve the beast” view of government, a nihilistic formulation first propounded by anti–tax extremist Grover Norquist, who has expressed a desire to reduce the size of government to the point where the government can be “drowned in a bathtub.” Such an ideology apparently fits Jens Mueller to a T. Mueller, when running for office, described himself as the “anti-tax, anti-union, anti-pension” candidate. It should not come as surprise that Mr. Mueller never, in either of his campaigns, was able to articulate what he was for, but could only rage against what he opposed. Indeed, Mueller has made noises about wanting to run for mayor this fall, opening himself up to legitimate questions about the extent to which he possesses the moral character or municipal loyalty to hold any political office whatsoever. If, as is expected, sitting councilmember Stan Henry seeks the mayoralty, it is anticipated that Mueller would be trounced.
Unfortunately, the anti-tax Tea Partisans who has been leading the opposition to Measure B seem to have been able to convince some residents of our Cathedral City Cove to jump on the “No on B” bandwagon, wherein some of these gullible residents have uncritically adopted much of the rhetoric we have become accustomed to hearing from people like Paul Ryan, Grover Norquist, and the Republican National Committee.
To repeat, I do not propose to argue the merits of Measure B or the extent to which the debate over measure B may be starting to take on a partisan tone. What does trouble me, however, are two separate yet not dissimilar trends with respect to the battle over B. The first is the apparent “screw you, I’ve got mine” viewpoint that seems to have animated other organized oppositions to prior revenue measures in our city’s history.
The other, somewhat related issue is the apparent belief in some quarters in our community that it really is possible to get something for nothing; if you just keep cutting, the services will keep coming. Our own history in Cathedral City teaches us that this is not the case. At a certain point, it simply becomes impossible to afford all of the Cadillac goodies that a population may want but is only willing to pay Hyundai prices for.
But, what is most troublesome about the Tea Partisan opposition to Measure B is the extent to which it has bought in to a philosophy of lawlessness espoused time and time again by our outgoing mayor. To a certain extent, DeRosa needs to take the blame for the lawless behavior of the “no on B” contingent. Over the ten winters she has been mayor, DeRosa has set a tone for borderline behavior and for playing fast and loose with California’s campaign disclosure laws. On DeRosa’s watch, Cathedral City has become something of a “Wild West” with respect to campaign finance disclosure.
It is debatable whether the Broichs and Mueller would have imagined themselves immune to California’s campaign disclosure laws if they had not taken their cue from Kathleen Joan DeRosa. Her departure cannot come soon enough, and we may hope in the meantime that the public will reject the lascivious and unlawful oglings of the “No on B” disturbers of the peace.
-xxx-
No comments:
Post a Comment