Vote for the Best of Sonoma County finalists: Best place to get married, best fundraising event and much more!

Morain: The two faces of the dark side of political money

  • State Sen. Ron Calderon, D-Montebello, right, holds a brief news conference on June 13 during first appearance at the Capitol after the FBI raided his Sacramento offices. (RICH PEDRONCELLI / Associated Press)

The U.S. Supreme Court says money is speech. It has been especially foul-mouthed around here lately.

Sen. Ron Calderon, the Montebello Democrat who long has used campaign money to pay for his gluttonous lifestyle, now faces allegations of serious wrongdoing, based on the FBI search warrant affidavit that Al Jazeera America obtained last week and posted on its website.

The previous week, the California Fair Political Practices Commission poked at campaign organizations run by political operatives who spend millions on advertising, while cloaking themselves as nonprofit social welfare corporations and hiding the donors who fund them.

The cases are very different. But they represent different facets of dark sides of politics. One is legal, generally. A jury would have to decide whether the other one is or isn't.

The case against the nonprofits grabbed attention nationally because the FPPC focused on the secretive network headed by brothers David and Charles Koch, the oil billionaires who help fund many of the most conservative campaigns and causes.

It involved vast sums, upward of $28 million. Of that, $15 million was spent on California campaigns, mostly in a failed attempt to help win passage of Proposition 32, the initiative on last November's ballot that would have restricted labor's ability to raise campaign money.

Sacramento operatives Tony Russo and Jeff Miller explicitly promised donors that they would protect them against the unpleasantness of public disclosure. To hide their identities, Miller and Russo used a nonprofit organization in Virginia, which used a nonprofit in Phoenix, which used nonprofits in Iowa and in Phoenix.

In the end, the FPPC and the attorney general concluded that the two Phoenix groups should have disclosed more fully their role in delivering the money to the California campaign committee working on Proposition 32. For that, they paid a combined $1 million penalty. The settlement also says the violation was “inadvertent or at worst negligent.” The U.S. Supreme Court long ago concluded people can spend money to advance their arguments. It's a First Amendment right, though nonprofits increasingly abuse the law by depriving the public of the right to know who funds the ads they see during campaign season.

comments powered by Disqus
© The Press Democrat |  Terms of Service |  Privacy Policy |  Jobs With Us |  RSS |  Advertising |  Sonoma Media Investments |  Place an Ad
Switch to our Mobile View