Council May Ease Restriction on Campaign Fundraising

The six-month limit for receiving contributions after an election could go away just prior to West Hollywood's March ballot.

The City Council voted 4-1 Monday to begin the process of changing a West Hollywood campaign finance law that prohibits fundraising six months after an election.

The council directed City Attorney Michael Jenkins to draft within 60 days an amendment that will nix the six-month deadline.

Councilman John Heilman, who proposed the fundraising rule change, said the six-month limit conflicts with state election rules. He explained the intent of the forthcoming amendment is to give candidates more time to pay off outstanding debts and close fundraising accounts in compliance with state regulations.

"Campaigns are put into this position where they can't raise money to pay off the existing debt, yet they can't close the account either," Heilman said.

According to the California Fair Political Practices Commission's campaign disclosure manual:

Q: May I terminate my committee even if I have outstanding debt owing to creditors?

A: Yes. When you file your termination statements showing outstanding debt you are declaring that you do not have the ability to discharge debts, loans, or other obligations. However, if you plan to raise additional funds, or pay the outstanding debt with personal funds, you may not terminate.

"I'm actually troubled by this," said Councilman John D'Amico, who cast the dissenting vote. "It seems like this continues the sort of practice that the whole city is for sale without end. ... I'm just really troubled that this is returning us to a policy of revolving door, take people out to lunch, ask them for money while they're trying to get something from us."

Heilman responded that his intention for revamping the law "is to give an opportunity for a campaign account that has a negative balance or an outstanding debt ... to pay off that debt so that that account can be closed."

Councilman John Duran added "the FPPC will not allow an account with debt to be closed, and yet our city ordinance is telling people that you must close it within six months. So it does seem that we're not consistent with state law and regulation."

Mayor Jeffrey Prang said the proposed amendment corrects an "administrative error" in the council's campaign finance overhaul that was approved two years ago.

"We don't want to be giving candidates who have a debt the freedom to screw over their vendors or whoever it is that they owe money to by saying 'sorry, the West Hollywood ordinance made me close down my committee, and you're out of luck because the committee owes you money and it's no longer in place,'" Prang said.

"If we agree to this, we're agreeing to a fish-lined slippery slope that stinks," D'Amico said. "We cannot have the appearance that our City Hall has a revolving door that never stops spinning."

Be sure to follow West Hollywood Patch on Twitter and "Like" us on Facebook.

Chloe Ross December 19, 2012 at 06:36 PM
I stand with Mr.Martin and ask the same question. The practices set up by the state should be followed in strict compliance. Period. Clearly the state has considered different scenarios and then written the rule to take those into consideration. I also agree with Mr. D'Amico about his concern about a stinky slippery slope; it appears this slope has become a sort of playground for some. The concept in the law of "clean hands" is still in effect. In some places...
JESS Kalinowsky Registered Voter December 19, 2012 at 08:49 PM
It really is kind of comical that the City Council gets to make their own rules???? That is laughable!!!!
Michael Dolan December 19, 2012 at 10:07 PM
I think a better rule would be all campaign expenses be paid in cash. This would prevent a debt position at the end of the campaign/election.
joninla December 22, 2012 at 07:48 AM
LOOK! Heilman speaks! Ask yourself what Mr. Heilman means by the WeHo law "conflicting" with State Election Law. Does that mean the last 25 years of WeHo candidate fundraising was illegal ..... or was there a new change in State Election Law? Or ..... Perhaps there is a "conflict" which has always been there, is perfectly legal for the City of WeHo to have such a "conflict" in their own election laws and Heilman is just BS'ing the people who care about the city and pay attention during council meetings. If history is a roadmap .....when heilman speaks, it is to misdirect the intent of what will prove to benefit him and his campaign/dictatorship over weho.
Wesley McDowell December 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM
This certainly looks like another solution in search of a problem. How many campaigns have encountered this dilemma? Probably none. It really looks like an effort to legalize perpetual campaigning. After 6 months is the money being raised for the last election or the next? Leaves one to wonder. If this is indeed a problem, then there must be something between a 6 month deadline and no deadline. By the way, when would this go into effect? Just in time for the March elections I bet!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »