• Shirley L. Grindle

    All contributors must disclose their address at the time they make a campaign contribution and this information is disclosed on the Campaign Statements filed by the candidates. Also, transfers of campaign funds are handled usually on a last in-first out basis (LIFO). There is absolutely no difficulty or legitimate reason why Brandman can’t return the contributions to his contributors (based on the last in-first out method). In fact, most of them would probably have a lot more respect for Brandman for so doing and would be more than willing to write him a new check for his City Council campaign.

  • Cynthia Ward

    Now that’s funny, when I wrote some sizable checks to Jordan in the past, I had to offer my name, residence address, occupation, and employer, BY LAW, as well as offer my phone and email for campaign purposes for a future mailing list. There is plenty of info to get money back to people. At the very least he should send a letter asking if anyone objects to his moving the money and if they don’t, he does it and takes his lumps in court if someone calls him on it. But to assume it is OK with his donors (some of which he has royally upset since they wrote those checks) is arrogant as well as unethical. Oh wait, sorry, forgot myself. Just came from yet another Council meeting where yet more public funds were transferred to private friends. I have NO confidence in any of those 3 to do the right thing anymore. None.

  • Philmore

    According to the helpful folks at Pro Publica, (Gosh, I just LOVE that Google !)

    https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/filing/1029500/schedule/sa

    $25K is a loan from Brandman himself to his campaign, and many of the $2700 pops (max ?) are from folks named Brandman, Traut, etc. so return of most of the checks and exchange for new ones would not seem to be any insurmountable barrier, IF THE WILL EXISTED.

  • Rich Olquin

    God forbid he do the honorable and ethical thing and donate the money to local charities and help the people of Anaheim. Is he still a favorite son to those who run The House of the Mouse???

  • Bert Ashland

    David, this is a story made up from whole cloth. Shirley’s influence on Anaheim campaign finance is minimal. I bet Jordan gets to move the money…the alternatives are unworkable.

    • Philmore

      Unworkable ? How so ?

      • Philmore

        Thank you for expertly filling the silence, Ms. Grindle, and MANY thanks for your efforts!

    • Shirley L. Grindle

      Bert:
      What do you mean the alternatives are unworkable? The workable alternative is for him to refund the money to his contributors which is easily done. In fact, Tom Daley refunded the contributions he had received when he decided not to run for the Board of Supervisors several years ago. You are right, however, I have no more influence than you do on Anaheim campaign finance. The City Atty will make a decision about this matter. For me, I find it very disingenuous for any candidate to raise funds for an office that he decides later not to run for, and then transfers the funds to run for a different office rather than give it back to the contributors.

  • AJMintheOC

    The people who donated to his campaign for Congress did NOT donate for him to run for City Council. It is deceptive to use the money otherwise!

    • kburgoyne

      That’s basically my conclusion, however I’m not entirely sure what should then happen to the money. You can’t return it to the donors because some of the donors’ money was spent, so who gets back what dollars? And when I donate to a candidate, I know I’m not asked for sufficient information for the candidate to track me down again later in order to hand me a refund check.

      Should he donate it to charity? What if he donates it to a charity I don’t like? I guess it would at least hang over his head (for good or bad) should he decide to run for office in the future.

      I suspect the only viable option is the candidate should pay himself the money as income which is then taxed as income. That payment gets reported publicly and hangs over his head (for good or bad) if he tries to run for any office in the future. By taking the money as taxed income, the money effectively becomes “laundered” and he can turn around and donate the remaining (after tax) money to his other campaign.

      I guess ultimately the “solution” in a democracy is whatever happens should be publicly recorded so voters can decide whatever he did is either “good” or “bad” in their eyes.

      That leads to the next problem which is the overwhelming majority of voters in cases like this typically have ZERO clue about the candidate’s record. I suspect too many local-race voters simply vote based on a combination of whether the candidate has D or R after his/her name, and “s/he with the most campaign signs plastered all over the place wins”. Because human beings tend toward wanting to be associated with “winners”, and whoever has the most campaign signs plastered all over the place must obviously be “the winner”.

  • Paul Lucas

    Pringle will help him figure it out.

  • David Zenger

    A city councilman is a city councilman. Same job. Easy call.

    “City Attorney Michael Houston said he is considering whether the prohibition applies in Brandman’s case.”

    Any guesses as to how this legal interpretation will turn out?

  • RyanCantor

    This is a simple question of ethics.

    Jordan Brandman collected money to run for Congress. He quit. He should return what’s left of his donations to his donors.

    It’s simply unethical to take money given for a specific purpose and transfer it to another without the consent of his donors.

    That said, he does this with tax dollars regularly, so why should I be surprised?

    In any case, this is just another in a long string of examples concerning Jordan’s challenged ethics.