We have been your lifeline during the pandemic, economic fallout, wildfires, protests and the election. Support us with a tax-deductible donation.
How about this for ironic twist in the world of campaign ethics: the state’s political watchdog is fining the campaign committee behind a ballot measure for a county ethics commission because it failed to disclose funding of a robocall call featuring Supervisor Todd Spitzer.
Measure A, which was approved by 69 percent of voters in last June’s primary election, was authored in part by local campaign finance watchdog Shirley Grindle and will establish a five-member commission to enforce campaign contribution limits on county officials. Spitzer was the measure’s main proponent on the county Board of Supervisors.
The recorded call, which was made 200,000 times between May 23 and May 27, featured Spitzer urging voters to support Measure A. But the recording failed to disclose that it was paid for by Citizens for an Orange County Ethics Commission.
That violates the state’s Political Reform Act, which requires all campaign recordings and literature to include the name of the campaign committee that paid for them. The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) Monday announced a $1,500 fine against the committee for the violation. The fine is still subject to approval by commissioners.
Spitzer said he was not involved in the production or distribution of the call and was only asked to read a script for the recording.
“These recordings are routine and the committee is required to format disclosure in post production or in the script provided which it did not,” Spitzer wrote in a text to a reporter Monday. “I was simply the messenger and had no affiliation with the committee.”
Grindle, who is the committee’s treasurer, also said she was not involved in the production of the call and that three volunteers for the committee — who she would not name — produced and sent the recorded call without consulting her.
Grindle said she reported the violation to the FPPC right after the press conference.
“All three of them should have known better than to put this out without the proper disclosure,” Grindle said.
Grindle added that she called the state agency “five or six times” and complained that it took the agency too long to respond.
The robocall became a flashpoint in a long-running public feud between Spitzer and District Attorney Tony Rackauckas, who called out the failure to include the disclosure during a hastily arranged press conference.
At the press conference, Rackauckas accused Spitzer of “falsely impersonating” an assistant district attorney.
Spitzer, who is widely expected to run for district attorney in 2018, was once Rackauckas’ hand-picked successor. But their relationship soured in August 2010 in a very public way after Spitzer, then an assistant district attorney, made a phone call to the county Public Guardian’s office that Rackauckas saw as overstepping his bounds.
Correction: A previous version of this story misidentified Spitzer as a senior deputy district attorney.
Contact Thy Vo at email@example.com or follow her on Twitter @thyanhvo.
Have an opinion on this story? Join the conversation… In lieu of comments, we encourage readers to engage with us across a variety of mediums. Join the open conversation on our Facebook page. Message us via our website form or staff page. Send us a secure news tip. Share your thoughts in a community opinion piece.