- Local every day in
Continuing Controversy over PAC's Fair Campaign Pledge
Yes for Walnut Creek, one of Walnut Creek's three political action committees, asked the three City Council candidates to sign a pledge of civil campaign conduct. Two candidates declined on legal, free speech grounds; police are crying foul.
In an ongoing dispute over a Walnut Creek PAC's fair campaign pledge for City Council candidates, the Walnut Creek Police Association is now raising questions about its legal soundness.
The police association, representing the department's officers and managers, believes that this pledge from the Yes for Walnut Creek Political Action Committee is a veiled attempt to censor the opinions of city employees and to show favoritism to incumbent Cindy Silva. The Yes for Walnut Creek group said it was not endorsing any of the three candidates in the November 2 race.
Yes for Walnut Creek, a self-described grass-roots non-partisan coalition made up of residents, business leaders, and supporters of the city's arts, recreation and open spaces, on Thursday asked candidates Silva, Kristina Lawson and Justin Wedel to sign the pledge. In signing this pledge, the candidates would be vowing, among other things, to focus on the issues, not misrepresent facts and refuse to engage in personal attacks on other candidates and their families.
Silva, the mayor pro tem who is running for re-election, signed the pledge, saying that it was an excellent idea because it will help ensure a campaign "that focuses on the facts and does not condone the types of negative or personal attacks has has become so commonplace in other communities."
All three candidates signed the city's voluntary fair campaign pledge, which you can read here.
But the other candidates, Lawson and Wedel, resisted signing the Yes for Walnut Creek pledge. Lawson, an attorney and planning commissioner, raised concerns about the same section of the five-part pledge that is bothering the police officers association. Lawson said she would be happy to sign the pledge but only if this section were removed because she believes it violates election law.
This section reads:
I will formally request of all local advocacy groups and PACs--business interests, public employee unions, developers or any other--to not make independent expenditures that involve negative or personal attacks on my opponents, and I promise to immediately and publicly denounce any of this activity if it occurs.
Lawson believes candidates are prohibited from dictating an independent group's expenditures in any way.
A spokeswoman for the state Fair Political Practices Commission told the Contra Costa Times she didn't see any problems with the pledge, saying there is nothing in the Political Reform Act that would prohibit a candidate from signing.
City Clerk Patrice Olds also told the Times she sees no conflict with the pledge and local law.
Wedel called the pledge an attempt to limit free speech, and the police association said its objection to the pledge is based on legal advice it received, said association spokesman Sgt. Steve Gorski. In a press release issued Friday afternoon, the association said that "it is our opinion that Mrs. Silva's act of signing this pledge is legally dubious and may be in violation of California election laws, specifically the Political Reform Act."
The association also raises similar First Amendment concerns as candidate Lawson. In its release, the association said:
"In our opinion, formally requesting local advocacy groups, PACs, and public employee unions to send or not send a particular message, constitutes an 'arrangement, coordination, or direction' from the campaign to the otherwise independent group, about expenditures that group should make on the candidate's behalf. This is in direct contrast with principles of the First Amendment and an attempt to censor public employees, who have the most intimate knowledge of the inner workings at City Hall and local government projects."
The association also said it appears that Yes for Walnut Creek "may be supporting the Silva campaign." The three co-chairs of Say Yes for Walnut Creek are listed as endorsers on the Silva campaign website. They are community activist Carole Wynstra; Emily Chang, executive director of the Walnut Creek Downtown Business Association; and Rich Carlston, of the law firm Miller Starr Regalia and Silva's campaign manager.
Wedel said he would not sign the Yes for Walnut Creek's pledge. He, too, signed the city's voluntary fair campaign pledge (which you can read below). He added that he too has concerns that backers of the Say Yes for Walnut Creek pledge have already expressed their support for other candidates, even though the self-declared non-partisan Yes for Walnut Creek political action committee says it decided not to endorse any candidates. Wynstra said Yes for Walnut Creek's only purpose with this pledge is to ensure that Walnut Creek has a clean and ethical City Council campaign.
But Wedel was not buying that argument: "This is a desperate attempt by supporters of other candidates to deflect attention from the issues caused by the City Council and the concerns and constitutional rights of Walnut Creek citizens and employees. I will focus my attention on the issues facing Walnut Creek rather than attempting to prevent free speech of the community.
Yes for Walnut Creek describes itself as a coalition made up of residents, business leaders, and supporters of the city's arts, recreation and open spaces, according to co-chair Wynstra. Yes for Walnut Creek is one of three PACS in town and was originally formed in 2009 to support the successful campaign Measure I, which paved way for construction of Neiman Marcus in downtown Walnut Creek.
Following the Measure I vote, Yes for Walnut Creek decided to maintain its political presence, "believing that other issues would surface affecting the citizens of Walnut Creek." In July 2010, the committee repurposed itself as a general purpose committee.
In a press release, Say Yes for Walnut Creek says the upcoming November 2 election for two seats on the City Council is "in the forefront," as is a "concern" regarding the developing tenor of discourse.
Yes for Walnut Creek might be referring to negative and hurtful statements made by some people commenting on the message boards of Walnut Creek Patch, the Crazy in Suburbia blog, or the Contra Costa Times. In some comments, public figures' or family members have come under personal attack or been accused of improper or unethical behavior.
Saying it wants to keep things civil in public forums, advertising and on message boards, Yes for Walnut Creek developed the five-point pledge for the candidates.
Yes for Walnut Creek's Campaign Pledge
1. I will focus on the issues in all statements, debates, advertisements, and press releases, and I will not misrepresent, distort, or otherwise falsify the facts.
2. I will at all times be prepared to provide to the media supporting evidence for statements I have made, and will issue a retraction and apology, in a timely fashion, should I find that I have been in error.
3. I will not condone personal attacks in my campaign. I will not issue any statement or communication whatsoever discussing my opponent's family, children, race, national origin, religion, personal associations, or sex.
4. I will formally request of all local advocacy groups and PACs--business interests, public employee unions, developers or any other--to not make independent expenditures that involve negative or personal attacks on my opponents, and I promise to immediately and publicly denounce any of this activity if it occurs.
5. I call on other candidates to adopt these same policies.
Here is the text for The City of Walnut Creek's Fair Campaign Pledge, which all candidates signed:
1. I shall conduct my campaign for city office openly and fairly.
2. I shall discuss the issues and participate in fair debate with respect to my views and qualifications.
3. I shall not engage in, or permit, defamatory attacks on the character of my opponents; nor shall I engage in unwarranted invasions of personal privacy unrelated to campaign issues.
4. I shall not at any time use or permit the use of any campaign material or advertisement which misrepresents, distorts, or otherwise falsifies the facts regarding any candidate or the candidate's position on issues.
5. I shall clearly identify myself, or my campaign committee (s), as the sender of all my campaign mailings.
6. I shall personally approve in writing all of my campaign materials, advertisements, or mailings, prior to their use.
7. I shall publicly repudiate support derived from any individual or group whose activities would violate this Fair Campaign Pledge.
8. I shall file all campaign statements as required by the California Political Reform Act and City ordinance on time with full disclosure of campaign contributions and exptenditures.
9. I shall not duplicate or use any lists of contributors filed by any other candidates for the purpose of compiling my own mailing lists without the permission of the other candidate.
10. I, the undersigned candidate for election to a city office in the City of Walnut Creek, hereby voluntarily endorse, subscribe to, and solemnly pledge myself to conduct my campaign in accordance with the above principles and practices.
asset[new_asset_attachment_attributes][to_id]
73317
asset[new_asset_attachment_attributes][to_type]
Article
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
Scotty Wells
11:55 am on Thursday, September 9, 2010
This is so stupid. The candidates have already signed a fair campaign pledge with the city. Who's behind this pledge and what is his/her motivation for doing this? I understand that this is a PAC, but who are the directors/leaders of this PAC?
Sadie Berkhimer
12:02 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
Well, whooptifrickendo! Now we have a new "ethics in politics" group in town who have no power of enforcement for their lofty goals.
What is the "general" purpose of this PAC?
Maybe their esteemed leaders would explain here in this forum exactly why they exist and what will they do with the money that they collected for another purpose.
Let the people decide who they will vote for without the interference of this or any other PAC. At some point candidates must stand on their own to get their message out to the public.
Jim
12:23 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
Yes for Walnut Creek is simply an arm of the Silva campaign.
Sue Doughnim
1:26 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
Is this about ethics, or about not saying anything negative about Cindy Silva? The three co-chairs of this PAC, listed on their website, are Rich Carlston, Emily Chang and Carole Wynstra. All three are listed on Cindy Silva's endorsement page.
Night School Basketball Training - Jim Croy
4:09 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
Anyone find the timing of this PAC sending out a campaign conduct statement interesting, now that the Police Associations have come out against Silva and IN SUPPORT of the other candidates. From post above appears to be Silva's campaign. The Police Associations announce two days ago their support for Wedel and Lawson and thus Silva begins to panic. She gets together with her endorsers/WC insiders and over the next 24 hours they draft the letter above and send it off via their Yes for Walnut Creek group . I hope Lawson and Wedel are smart enough to smell this out and move on / not sign. There is nothing NOTHING behind this other than insiders trying to stop the fire.
I have a funny feeling the insiders machine is beginning to crumble... and I like it.
Hoping to see some negative campaigning literature in my mail any day now... you couldn't make this stuff up. Walnut Creek let the fire works begin!
QT
4:35 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
The entire thing is redundant and frankly silly except for the statement #4 which is clearly intended to inhibit the WCPA PAC from having a voice now that they've endorsed their candidates.
The term "negative" will be very loosely interpreted and press releases decreeing the "outrage" and demands for "public denouncing" are probably already in draft form as are statements of "disappointment" should the other candidates choose not to jump into the trap.
It's a common political trick from a handful of people that don't want newcomers, be they candidates or other PAC's, messing around in city politics. It's deceptive and unethical in and of itself.
Pacman
5:53 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
It's not the "Yes for Walnut Creek POLICE Action Committee" as mentioned in the first paragraph. That probably muddied the waters a little. I sure did a double-take.
Jojo Potato
7:46 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
This is really sad, while pretending to keep the campaign civilized, these PAC folks have derailed any discussion of real issues and replaced it with debate over their pledge. A really professional political move by a group with left over money from a previous campaign. I wonder who's behind it? Look at the name listed fourth on their web site under "supporters". Yep, our friend Cindy. I can't urge you enough to cast your vote to get this group out of our city government.
Im4WC
8:34 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
I haven't seen any of the commentators on here address or offer solutions to any of the issues - just complain about what they think is or is not being done by people they, more than likely, don't even know. Are people really going to vote for Lawson or Wedel JUST because it's not Silva? (Not endorsing any of them by the way.) Do you really think Lawson or Wedel are not going to ride the coattails of this Police thing? (Rhetorical question and I'm not saying either of them are.) Talk about ironic timing... Good thing we don't have public stonings anymore.
Pacman
9:40 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
That's a great post.
I support restoring public service levels, particularly police staffing to what we've come to expect. Public safety at the federal, state, and local level should always be our top priority. I support freezing lofty capital expenditures that drain coffers, wipe out interest income, and deplete critical reserves when we're in an economic downturn. I recognize that while arts and recreation are "fun stuff" that have great value and add to the reason why we all choose where to live, they must be the first things relinquished when revenues don't support core services.
I oppose bigger government, higher taxes, overly generous benefits, and pet projects. I oppose our representatives and their friends benefiting financially or otherwise from Council decisions. I oppose the arrogance that has been prevalent in Walnut Creek politics for some time where the Council votes unanimously in favor of things that the general public did not support.
I've met Cindy Silva and others in her camp. They're not evil people. I believe that the current Council needs a course correction and they disagree. They've become very accustomed to getting their way at all cost, almost to the point of being bullies. I will not be voting for Cindy Silva because she, like others on Council, do not seem to care about my opinion as I am not in the same social circle. I frankly struggle with Kristina Lawson as well, for the same reasons, but she seems to be listening for now.
Sue Doughnim
8:46 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
It seems to me that the first step towards solving the City's financial problems is to vote out the incumbents who got us into the mess in the first place.
Beau Hunk
9:27 pm on Thursday, September 9, 2010
The concept of an Independent Expenditure (IE) Committee is that it be totally INDEPENDENT of the candidate and the candidate can take no action regarding the IE Committee to the extent of even acknowledging its existence. Therefore, to specify that a candidate should request that an IE Committee do or not do anything, such as make negative or personal attacks, is illegal.
Read the election code.
Sabrina Kramer
7:58 am on Friday, September 10, 2010
What I would like to hear from Wedel and Lawson is exactly what they would cut to make the increases to police funding--it's easy to support, in theory, these things and harder once you face making actual budgetary decisions with consequences. I'm waiting to hear this information before I make up my mind.
Also, I wonder why they would refuse to run a clean campaign, whether or not the question comes from a questionable source. I'm so tired of ugly politics. It's a total turnoff. Please just tell me where you stand and what you will do. Please don't tear down your opponents--they are irrelevant to the discussion. Most of the time they don't have any problem doing that for themselves.
Sarah White
11:30 am on Friday, September 10, 2010
Sabrina,
Have you ever been a candidate for public office? Have you seen how many pledges, questionnaires, candidate surveys etc. that candidates receive (partisan, non-partisan, left, right, center)? All of these items come with a very big litmus test that represents a particular group's special interest and believe me the way in which the questions and statements are worded there is no winning for the candidate. The old phrase, "when did you stop beating your wife" applies in most cases.
Candidates usually answer these various forms only when they think that the presenting group will influence specific voter groups OR even better yet, donate to their campaign. Donations come in many forms.....financial support, volunteer support, independent expenditures and more.
All three candidates have signed the most important pledge and that is the fair campaign pledge that the City gives them upon filing. This should satisfy everyone.
You are living in a dream world if you think that signing any special interest group's pledge form will make all of the ugly politics go away. The Press makes a living off of ugliness and quite frankly the voters revel in it. It is unfortunate that this is the kind of world in which we live.
If you truly would "like to hear from Wedel and Lawson exactly what they would cut to make increases to police funding", give them a call. Both of them have published phone numbers and I am sure would be more than happy to talk with you.
Brent Larson
9:44 am on Friday, September 10, 2010
Sounds to me like they all agree to run a clean campaign...it's the sneaky little "rider" thrown in towards the bottom that is the issue. Kind of like the state and feds do. You have a great bill that most people would support at face value, but when you read the fine print there is some excessive spending thrown in the middle that no one notices. Politics 101.
I want to vote for a candidate who knows what they are signing and takes time to read the fine print.
Ralph Hoffmann
12:18 pm on Friday, September 10, 2010
Normally, the sequence of candidate filing makes no difference in a race. I think it does in this race. The sequence of filing was Lawson, Silva, Wedel. Had Wedel not filed, there wouldn't have been a race saving ~$85,000, according to reliable sources. This money could have been used as bonuses for WC Police. I'd like to hear which other candidate each candidate supports, particularly after Wedel's remark about "the WC Council's hand-picked candidates."
Pacman
3:08 pm on Friday, September 10, 2010
Mr. Hoffman, you suggest that a candidate should choose not to run and negate the concept of representative government to save money?
I can't believe the arrogance in this thought process. It essentially suggests that we all know the pre-determined outcome of a public vote, your candidate(s) will be elected, so why not call the whole thing off? Why don't you just tell everyone that isn't in your social circle that they don't belong in Walnut Creek in the first place, their opinions don't matter, and that they should all move to Concord? Oh, and all the cops should go work in Oakland or Richmond.
I've posted a lot on this overall topic. I've even made some errors in my posts. I even probably got too personal when responding to posts I found offensive, but this statement really takes the cake. Would you prefer if none of us voted as well?
Ralph Hoffmann
12:27 pm on Friday, September 10, 2010
BTW, I endorse Cindy Silva and Kristina Lawson.
Sadie Berkhimer
12:43 pm on Friday, September 10, 2010
Ralph-
This type of faulty reasoning hardly deserves a rebuttal but I couldn't resist.
I do believe that you have been a candidate for city council in your past life......were you the first to file? When filing, did you do so with the intent of "saving" the city money or did you file because you felt that by being elected you could improve the city?
Free and open elections are the very core of our democracy. To preserve our freedom we must never subvert the election process.
Sue Doughnim
8:10 pm on Friday, September 10, 2010
Ralph - the City Council meetings would go quicker if you didn't get up at EVERY SINGLE ONE to make a public comment. They could end earlier, turn off the lights and cameras, and save energy. Since you're so hot on saving the City money ... maybe you'll consider it.
Sabrina Kramer
2:16 pm on Saturday, September 11, 2010
@Sarah White, You make your point. You know more about running for office than I do...and you are probably old enough to be my mother or maybe even my grandmother. But I am an interested young person and I really want to know what things candidates are willing to make themselves publicly accountable for...and I'd like to see more accountability and less negativity in elections from the local to national arenas.
@Sue Doughnim, you are just plain mean. Ralph is the best part of watching city council meetings. You go Ralph!
anonymous
10:48 am on Sunday, September 12, 2010
Don't be discouraged Sue. Not all of us think you're mean! I think it was a decent point (said in sarcasm) in response to a pretty silly statement by Ralph. Sarcasm and mean are vastly different.
(BUT, speaking of mean...Sabrina, isn't your poke at Sarah's age, kinda mean??) I didn't see sarcasm there...
Sarah White
11:38 am on Sunday, September 12, 2010
Thank you dear Anonymous for coming to my defense. I love the age I am and look forward to getting even older thank you very much!
Frankly, I am quite proud of being a Grandmother. I spend a lot of time with my grandchildren and their friends encouraging them to be active within their community by helping others and taking an interest in how government works. I learned much from my grandparents and I too hope to lead by example. Along the way we share kisses, cuddles and fun activities together and I wouldn't give up these special times for anything.
If Sabrina is truly is interested in seeing more accountability and less negativity in elections from the local to national arenas, then she should research a candidate and get involved in a campaign to find out what it is like from an inside perspective. Educating yourself about your representative government at any age is your responsibility. Don't let any outside groups or individuals influence your decision about who gets your vote.
Beau Hunk
8:22 am on Tuesday, September 14, 2010
The spokeswoman for the state Fair Political Practices Commission IS WRONG! As I pointed in my post of 9:27pm, a candidate must be totally isolated from an IE Committee. Someone needs to make another call to the FPPC. The Chairman is Dan Schnur and the Chief of Enforcement is Gary Winuk.
Sabrina Kramer
8:45 am on Tuesday, September 14, 2010
@Sarah...no slight intended about your age. I'm sure you're a terrific grandma. Grandmothers are important--you are a blessing to your family.
If you were less didactic in your comments, I would never have guessed or cared. BTW, I am researching and I have been involved in the past (Obama '08) and it changed my life and my dissertation topic. I would be curious to know why my comments about accountability prompted you to attack me.
Sarah White
12:34 pm on Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Sabrina,
I will say again, I love the age I am and believe me, I worked damned hard to get here! No offense taken. I strive to be not only a blessing to my family but also to the community at large.
I'm happy that you were involved in the Presidential campaign in 2008. You were very fortunate to have your first experience in campaigning produce a winner.
You misunderstand me if you think that I attacked you because of your wishes for candidates being accountable to the voters. I believe that that is one of their most important obligations as they present themselves to future constituents.
Where you may have taken a wrong turn is when I questioned the honesty and usefulness of a special interest group such as Yes for Walnut Creek setting itself up as a self proclaimed "impartial" judge and jury with their redundant fair campaign pledge. As I pointed out earlier, all three candidates signed the fair campaign pledge that the City provides which is quite thorough in its wording and that should satisfy everyone.
May I recommend for your further education that you participate in a truly local campaign at some time in your life. Totally different than a national campaign in that you actually get face time with the candidate and really learn the nuts and bolts of how campaigns are run.
Good luck on your dissertation.
Milan Moravec
5:40 pm on Friday, September 17, 2010
Here is an example of a disclosure that all WC candidates need to make. No $ for campaigne from people and organizations that are not resident in WC. Here's what I mean as an example. Senator Mark Desaulnier received 75% of the $850,000 used to get elected from Sacramento. Sacramento is not in the seventh senate district. This is why the voices of WC are not heard on the Senate floor. Senator contacts 916 651 4007 925 6082
Pass it on!