As I wrote up the article on the city council’s public announcement of closed section actions of referring complaints to the DA and the Fair Political Practices Commission, I took a look at the letter Alan Pryor sent earlier this week to the council.
Mr. Pryor claims to have been “unfairly and slanderously maligned and libeled and subjected to further expense to defend myself by these unwarranted and unsubstantiated allegations.”
But what really struck me was his denial that the allegations are “flat out false.”
He writes, “This is because according to the FPPC’s own campaign finance and disclosure guidelines, it would actually be illegal if the No on Measure L campaign actually used campaign funds to finance such a lawsuit.”
In other words, Mr. Pryor is claiming that they could not have broken the law because that would be illegal? Somehow I’m thinking that explanation would not hold up in court. Can you imagine, the defendant going before Judge Rosenberg and stating, your honor, that would be illegal, I couldn’t have done that?
The reality is that I don’t think anyone believes that the No on Measure L campaign as a formal organization is the one that paid the $20,000 retainer to Mark Merin. Instead, it is far more likely that an individual member of that team did so.
What I find interesting is that, with all of the allegations and counter-allegations along with the denials, there was never a statement by Mr. Pryor or anyone else that they had not individually paid for the lawsuit or that they were not involved with it whatsoever. No one has directly confronted the core issue here.
The question then moves from the black and white bright line question of legality to a more gray area, which is where I think all of this lies. Let us suppose someone from the campaign individually or a group of someones collectively paid for the retainer – is that an effort to influence the election and should that have been reported? Just as the Trump hush money *could* be considered a campaign 
expense, you have to look at litigation aimed to influence the electorate in the same light.
But that is not the end of the story here – in fact, that is just the start. The question is if the campaign violated the law here, what are we looking at?
You could make a case where if they were intentionally setting about to make and hide these contributions, that could in fact constitute felony conspiracy. The problem with a conspiracy charge – as some have suggested – is that it requires a concerted effort to conspire to break the law. Unlike other charges where ignorance of the law is no excuse, to sustain conspiracy, it is a specific intent law – not only do you have to break the law, you must have acted in concert with the specific intent of doing so. And it seems far more likely that there was no such intention here – they simply believed that a lawsuit was separate from the campaign.
It might be a good idea for the FPPC to look at such actions, especially as they are put forward in an increasing way to influence campaigns – but, realistically, it does not seem likely that the DA would need, let alone want, to get involved here.
Meanwhile, the opposition has charged that the developers also broke campaign laws for failing to disclose an ad to the Vanguard. They believe that donating food to the Vanguard fundraising event was improper, that they had used campaign funds for attorney fees improperly and that they had “laundered” funds from a non-legal entity.
It is hard to know what this all amounts to without diving a lot further into the nuances than seems necessary at this time. But I would suggest there are two likely outcomes here.
The first is that once again there are gray areas about what can and cannot be done with campaign funds and there especially gray areas with respect to the fact that campaign-related expenses may have been expended long before there was a campaign.
In the end, the result of all of this could be a fine paid by the developers on top of their huge expenditures that they will be laying out in order to not only run the campaign, but run the normal planning process and finally building the project.
As was the case involving the No side, if there were violations, it is more likely that they fall into the category of unwitting and arising from the complicated nature of campaign laws – of which David Taormino is probably less than familiar with.
The city may want to look at disclosure rules and how to more clearly delineate what constitutes a campaign expenditure and what is part of the normal development process, which itself has public outreach components.
As I suggested in a previous column – this pox on both their houses actually serves to undermine the Measure R process, as it looks like both sides are guilty of misconduct and perhaps even hiding the true extent of their campaign conduct.
In reality this could simply be run-of-the-mill campaign finance violations, most of which occur all the time due to the complexity of reporting requirements and overlapping jurisdictions, which have been blown up beyond all reasonable proportions.
My view is, as with the fiasco involving the Maria Grijalva situation, the DA will not want to touch this with a ten-foot pole and all the FPPC can and will do is issue a fine.
In the meantime, it is time to put this campaign to rest and move on to other topics with which the council and voters must grapple.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
I think the Yes on L’s allegations are more serious. If the lawsuit was filed as a part of the campaign to influence voters, it adds an additional cost that extends beyond the election, yet even Alan claims that defending it cannot be paid for with campaign funds. Instead, it’s the taxpayer money and the personal funds of the developer that is spent defending them. These lawsuits seem to be now part of the campaigns in opposition and we need much more transparency on who is is paying for them and how much.
Yep… probably ain’t gonna’ happen, though… more is the pity…
Sharla: You and Greenwald seem to be making the same broad disingenuous point in favor of ignoring campaign violations: “the developers are probably just going to have to pay a fine, so this kind of thing just makes housing more expensive.” So much for accountability. There’s a reason those rules are in place.
There is a level of sanctimoniousness here that is really extraordinary. Rik Keller is widely suspected of being involved in the lawsuit along with Alan Pryor. Both have been asked numerous times on here and have never responded leading to the obvious conclusion of their involvement. And yet, Rik has the audacity to write” “So much for accountability. There’s a reason those rules are in place.” Indeed. Too bad he’s blind to it when it’s his own stuff in question.
Yep.
Yes… appropriate venue… both sides have placed it there.
I see little purpose to keep thrashing it out here. Unproductive… except for those who like to beat their chests, rail, posture.
David Greenwald is not putting the campaign to rest and continues to do work for the WDAAC developers.
Let’s have a full disclosure of how much money the Vanguard has received from the WDAAC developers and related entities. And then let’s have the Vanguard reform its policies and practices to provide full disclosure of its funding sources, in line with the best practices of transparent, ethical nonprofit journalism organizations.
Rant on, McRik…
Since Rik Keller [edited] refuses to read my posts, here are few points others can consider:
1. Rik Keller demands transparency without providing it himself
2. He claims that the Vanguard is doing the work of the developers, but basically he’s downplaying the severity of the fractions on both sides.
3. He keeps claiming tens of thousands without proof/ evidence
Yep… spot on.
Bill Marshall: you are stating your opinion on an opinion piece by David Greenwald (and one that contains precious few facts at that) that you don’t want other people to comment. Strange comment to make.
I don’t see any indication that said he didn’t want people to comment, he just believes that this isn’t more likely to be resolved by official channels.
What a hoot, David! You just cannot stop yourself from carrying Taormino’s slop bucket, can you?
Your first allegations in this whole campaign finance disclosure brouhaha were beating the war drum to rein in “dark money” from “influencing campaigns” and bringing justice to those dastardly No on Measure L conspirators who dare to usurp Davis democracy through illegal contributions. Boutin even invoked the specter of Vladimir Putin and the Koch Bros in his first letter to the Council that you were trumping as a triumph in the fight for fair elections…and you and the Council cheered Taormino on as the the protector of what is good and right in Davis.
But now the tables have been completely turned. The No on L side has convincingly shown, using the FPPC’s own Disclosure Manuals, that what you were demanding (payment and disclosure by the No side of legal expenditures as campaign expenditures) would have actually been illegal.
But you still cannot let it go without taking a few more impotent but factually and legally incorrect swipes at the No campaign, “You could make a case where if they were intentionally setting about to make and hide these contributions, that could in fact constitute felony conspiracy ” and “It might be a good idea for the FPPC to look at such actions, especially as they are put forward in an increasing way to influence campaigns – but, realistically, it does not seem likely that the DA would need, let alone want, to get involved here.”
But at least you now acknowledge that the Yes side has been accused of potentially committing up to 5 different serious campaign disclosure violations – even including “money laundering.”
But now you’re singing a completely different tune about the seriousness of campaign finance violations, “As was the case involving the No side, if there were violations, it is more likely that they fall into the category of unwitting and arising from the complicated nature of campaign laws – of which David Taormino is probably less than familiar with.”
So your position has completely morphed from demanding retribution where the hammer needs to be brought down hard on those raging conspiring demons threatening the good but fragile democratic citizens of Davis into one in which poor ole David Taormino just didn’t understand those dang, darn complicated election campaign finance disclosures and so any violations were unintentional oversights. And maybe the City should actually clean up their own regulations so future developers like poor ole David Taormino don’t inadvertently put their foot right in the middle of the cow pie…again and again and again – “The city may want to look at disclosure rules and how to more clearly delineate what constitutes a campaign expenditure and what is part of the normal development process, which itself has public outreach components.”
Hmm, that just smells fishy and obtuse and I wondered what you were really getting at there. Well, I did not have to read much further to understand what you are really afraid of here and why you are very quickly back-stepping to try to cover your tracks, “The first is that once again there are gray areas about what can and cannot be done with campaign funds and there especially gray areas with respect to the fact that campaign-related expenses may have been expended long before there was a campaign.”
It is just a wild guess on my part, but could you be referring here to the large sums paid to you by Taormino before the campaign for ads that ran during the campaign that were not disclosed by Taormino as campaign expenditures or as non-monetary contributions by the Vanguard.
Can you spell “collusion”?
Perhaps you can show us where David personally made any allegation – you seem to be conflating his reporting of what Taormino said with his advocacy. By that token, yesterday’s article suggests him quoting you would raise to the same level.
Also, I have to admit I chuckled greatly at your assertion that you couldn’t have broken the law because that would be illegal. I notice you didn’t address that in your book here.
Alan… can you? And all the others on the No on L effort? Facts not in evidence, as many on that side obfuscate…
Rant on, McAlan…
The venue is FPPC, perhaps YC DA…
There are two posters who seem/appear to be hypocritical as to “transparency”… I will await FPPC review… but am thinking they’ll see this whole thing as a schoolyard spat. If there is merit to either claims let’s deal with those.
Right now, am thinking the conversation on this, here, is a form of “self-pleasuring”…
I hope you “satisfied” yourself
Greenwald is desperately trying to peddle “gray areas” now to try to explain and minimize campaign violations he is caught up in.
Let’s be clear, ethical, transparent non-profit journalism organizations have rules in place to avoid this. They do not accept funding from campaigns–particularly campaigns that they provide coverage on–to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. However, here we see the opposite: Greenwald is leaning in to continue waging this campaign on behalf of some of his biggest funders.
And, they both responded…
Funny… I voted ‘No’ on L…
Bill Marshall: what’s “funny” is that you desperately don’t want to discuss this issue, yet you have the most comments here.
What’s really funny is the failure of Keller to recognize a key maxim of politics: if you find yourself in a hole, quit digging.