Transparencyusa reported total political spending of over $76.6 billion nationwide with over $2.2 billion spent in California alone. (see the list by visiting https://www.transparencyusa.org/ca/committees). Spending by Political Action Committees alone reached over $6 billion in the 2024 election according to the Federal Elections Commission.
Unfortunately, as usual, some of the groups participated in extremely negative campaign tactics against local opponents including outright lies. Why are falsehoods allowed in political advertising and can we change that? A good discussion on this topic is available by visiting https://www.freedomforum.org/lie-political-ads/
Twelve states, including California, have laws that protect against spreading election disinformation regarding the date, time, place, or eligibility of voters, and California has three new laws about misinformation in AI-generated political advertising. But there are no laws preventing disinformation about a candidate by human political opponents or groups.
Generally, courts have ruled deception in political ads a First Amendment free speech issue and that the government cannot be in charge of deciding whether a political advertisement contains false statements. “The notion that the government, rather than the people, may be the final arbiter of truth in political debate is fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment” ruled the Washington Supreme Court in 2007 – a ruling reconfirmed by that court in 1998.
According to “Constitutional Free Speech Protection of Disinformation in Political Campaigns” by Rod Kubat, published by the American Bar Association, “the Court has fashioned an “actual malice” test in the case of defamatory falsehoods about public officials and candidates for public office, each of whom is included in the category of public figures. To prove actual malice, the defamed public figure must establish that the speaker made the statement “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” The example of the 2012 US v. Alvarez (Stolen Valor) case is given where the Supreme Court ruled that the candidate’s false claim that he had received the Congressional Medal of Honor was Free Speech. The court stated that “The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true…”
So it’s all about money and trying to fool voters. These groups seem to know what we want and pretend if we vote this way or that – we will get it. Be aware during the next election. Take an extra look at mailers coming to your home and check out the fine print and groups actually paying for the advertisement.
Some of the many groups trying to influence voters along with examples of disinformation by some of them are shown below.
Above: One of the many disinformation mailers sent out by CLF targets 45th District US Representative candidate Derek Tran.
Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF)
- Independent Expenditures in California: $215.8 million
- $199.5 million: targeting Democrats
- $15.9 million: supporting Republicans
- Local Independent CLF Expenditures: $12.1 million
- $11,363,818: Oppose Derek Tran (Tran leads Steele in close race)
- $427,500: Support Michelle Steel
- $352,875: Oppose Dave Min (Dave Min won against opponent Scott Baugh)
Negative Deceptive Ads: In our area, the group mailed large postcards and created web and video ads with misinformation and lies about 45th District House candidate Derek Tran who is running against incumbent Michelle Steel, and also targeted 47th District incumbent Dave Min running against challenger Scott Baugh. (See the example of one of the mailers above)
Funded by: CLF is a super PAC that operates across the nation and is “dedicated to electing Republicans to the House of Representatives.” The group has a related 501(c)(4) nonprofit – the American Action Network. According to its own website, CLF has the “endorsement of the entire House Republican leadership… and has spent more than any other outside group…”
========================
Above: Two of the false info mailers sent to voters by AFSCME targeting CA District 37 Senator Josh Newman
American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees Local 3299 (AFSCME)
Independent Expenditure Committee (#1459641)
Funded by: Contributors are union members, trade associations, and issue groups. The group also has a nonprofit 501(c)(5) recipient committee which raised $2.2 million
$1,286,227 Independent Expenditures: opposing California District 37 Senator Josh Newman) with negative phone calls, literature, and postcard mailers
Negative Deceptive Ads: In our area, the group distorted CA District 37 Senator Newman’s record on joining the two-thirds majority of the state legislature vote for SB1 the “Gas Tax” that is currently helping to fix roads and freeways in Fullerton and throughout California. (Newman was recalled for that vote in the 2018 election but re-elected in 2020.) The group also sent out mailers with ridiculous and totally false claims that the Senator blocked longer sentences for sex trafficking of young girls and blocked drug dealers from facing murder charges.
The union’s real problem with the Senator was that he opposed the “Basic Labor Standards at the University of California Act,” a bill sponsored by the union (which represents 30,000 UC employees) that would apply prevailing wage, overtime, equal pay, paid sick leave, and other labor standards to UC employees. The group did send out one postcard mailer with that correct claim.
========================
Above: Example of one of the false mailers sent out by NOCBAC targeting CA District 37 Senator Josh Newman.
North OC Business Alliance Council
(NOCBAC) #1223570
Negative Deceptive Ads: Mailers were sent out by NOCBAC misstating the record of California Senate District 37 incumbent Josh Newman and/or praising contender Steven Choi. All of the hit pieces on Senator Newman falsely portrayed him as a criminal degenerate.
Who is behind NOCBAC NOCBAC is a sponsored General Purpose Committee located in Brea with the stated purpose of supporting candidates with “business-friendly policies to increase infrastructure investment for improved transportation and affordable workforce housing.” Steven Vargas, a retired Chevron employee and contractor, is the principal officer and treasurer and also serves as a Brea Council member on the side.
Funded by:
- $800,000 in contributions to NOCBAC from Monument Properties LLC (a Real Estate investment company owned by Parkwest Casinos Inc. John Park is CEO)
NOCBAC Independent Expenditures
- $442,817 opposing CA Senate District 37 incumbent Josh Newman with mailers, Media (TV), and Digital Media (text)
- $690,310 supporting CA Senate District 37 candidate Steven Choi with Print, Media (TV), and Digital Ads
- Smaller Independent Expenditures in Brea, Irvine, Santa Ana, Oceanside, Tustin, & LA : supported: $1,944/Denise Ely for Brea City Treasurer; $4,431/Tom Donini and $5,018/Bill Klovstad for Brea City Council; $5,500/Peter Weiss Oceanside Council; $1000/Amy Phan West for Midway Sanitation District and opposed: $14,125/Jeff Starke Irvine D2; $15,045/Jessie Lopez Santa Ana D3; $2,000/Lee Fink Tustin D1;
(Full info at ocvote.com committee financial filings.)
========================
CA Apartment Association Issues Committee
Independent Expenditures Statewide: $110.5 million
- $77.2 million: No on 33 (local government rent control qualified for the ballot through the work of the nonprofit Aids Health Foundation (AHF) and its president Michael Weinstein. This is the third time the measure has been brought to voters by AHF. The 2018 & 2020 measures failed. If passed the measure would have allowed cities and counties greater freedom to set their own rent control caps. According to politico.com – Prop 34 was put on the ballot by CA Apartment Association and other landlord/real estate interests to try to end the rent control political activities of AHF and Weinstein by specifically targeting the AHF operations.)
- $33.3 million: Yes on 34 (restrict the spending of federal discount prescription drug revenues by certain healthcare providers who also operate multifamily housing)
Funded by:
- $120.8 million in Contributions from:
- Essex Property & Trust; Equity Residential; AvalonBay Communities; Prometheus Real Estate & Affiliated; UDR Inc; Prime Administration LLC & Affiliated Entities; R&V Management Corp & Affiliates; Jackson Square PropertiesLLC & Affiliates; Apartment Income Reit & Affiliated; Woodmont Real Estate. Services LP & Aggregated Contributions; Shea Homes LP; Carmel Partners & Affiliated; Sequoia Equities & Affiliated; Tod Spieker & Affiliated; The Blackstone Group LP; MHET PAC, and others.
========================
Above: Example of hit mailer sent out by Democratic Party targeting 45th District Representative Michelle Steele.
California Democratic Party: $50 million
Negative mailers were sent out targeting 45th District Representative Michelle Steele and others in support of opponent Derek Tran. Others targeted Republican Steven Choi in the California Senate District 37 race and supported incumbent Senator Josh Newman.
========================
California Republican Party: $31.4 million
Misleading mailers were sent out targeting California Senate District 37 incumbent Senator Josh Newman and supporting opponent Republican Steven Choi. Mailers were also sent out supporting US District 45 Representative Michelle Steele and targeting opponent Derek Tran. Other mailers were sent out opposing Prop. 33 (Local rent control) and supporting Prop. 36 (felony sentences for some drug and theft crimes now listed as misdemeanors)
Below: Example of a misleading hit mailer sent out by the Republican Party targeting candidate Derek Tran.
========================
Deceptive Slate Mailers Sent to Homes
Unfortunately, each election cycle continues a slew of mailers claiming to be from one group or another and endorsing and/or opposing a list of candidates and measures. The details are in the legally required fine print somewhere on each mailer. Aside from some candidates and campaigns buying space under their own names, there are also groups making independent expenditures space-buys for candidates.
Examples: “COPS Voter Guide” and “California Public Safety” voter guide both include fine print disclaimers “This organization does not represent any public safety personnel,” and “Appearance is paid for and authorized by each candidate and ballot measure which is designated by an *.” – Further disclosures admit that campaigns of candidates and measures appearing without stars have not necessarily endorsed or opposed those who paid to be on the “guide.” (The non-paying candidates and measures do not have to give permission or even be notified for their names to appear.) This is deceptive but so far not illegal.
=====================
•COPS Voter Guide Inc, a for-profit corporation based in Pasadena, is owned and operated by Michael Shimpock, a political consultant and owner of Haymarket Strategies Inc which according to transparencyusa.org received $5.4 million in the 2024 election from campaigns listed on the COPS mailer.
=====================
•Policy Issues Institute is a 501(c)(4) political committee (meaning they don’t pay taxes) based in Laguna Niguel. Responsible Officer Barrett Garcia is also listed as an accountant for the group. Policy Issues Institute treasurer James Lacy (”Jim Lacy’s ‘Taxifornia’ Tax Fighter’s Newsletter) also owns and is president of Landslide Communications. Policy Issues Institute’s website states its founding purpose was to impeach President Joe Biden – but now, apparently, it’s a Slate Mailer. The group produces the “California Tax Reduction Committee Newsletter, a project of Policy Issues Institute” which received $195,805 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
The group declared on its required 401 and 498 filings for the 2024 election that it received the following amounts from campaigns of candidates and measures that paid to be on its mailers:
•$114,654: “California Public Safety Voter Guide a project of Policy Issues Institute
•$166,575: “Women’s Voice, a project of Policy Issues Institute”
=====================
Landslide Communications, a political consulting corporation that received $7.2 million during the 2024 election has a. Relationship with Policy Issues Institute. The Landslide Communications website displays various slate mailers including Women’s Voice, California Public Safety, and Republican Leadership Series, and CA. Tax Reduction Committee. The group’s About page describes owner Jim Lacy’s TV, and radio appearances and the books. He. Has written including “California’s War Against Donald Trump,” and “Taxifornia: Liberals Laboratory to Bankrupt America.” Landslide, which lost a 2013 lawsuit against the State of California, argued that identifying the California Public Safety Slate mailer as representing zero public safety members would be against the First Amendment.
All of the candidates and groups buying space in the “Policy Issues Institute” slate mailers list Landslide as their agent. Some of these include:
•the campaigns of No on Prop 32, No on Prop 33, & Yes on Prop 36;
•1962 PAC of Lincoln Club buying space supporting Irvine council candidates Mai, Carroll, & Park; Tustin council candidates Nielsen & Gallagher; and Capistrano Board ED candidates Davis, Adnams, & Zollinger:
•Swing Strategies buying space to support Anaheim council candidates Balius, Campos-Kurtz, & Maahs:
•Taxpayers for Ethical Government buying space to support Newport Beach council candidates Barton, Bloom, & Weber:
•San Bernardino Business PAC buying space to support Fontana council candidate Armendarez and Board of ED candidates Rameriz & Holley:
•Victory Campaigns buying space to support Rancho Palos Verdes council candidates Chura, Lewis & Perestam.
•Californians to Protect Housing buying space to oppose No on 33
===================
•Senior Advocate, a Project of Coalition for California, a 501(c)(4) non-profit (IRS Tax ID 45-3995490), based in Torrance. Coalition for California received $976,115 from campaigns appearing on its mailers in the 2024 election in California according to transparancyusa.org. (According to IRS filings the Coalition declared less than $50,000 in gross receipts from years 2011 through 2021.) Principal officer is listed as Chris Buchanan. The address listed on its IRS paperwork is for the slate mail business “California Voter Guides” – its website calvoterguides.com boasts “Over 216,000,000 Slates Mailed…”
Pictured on the website is “Our Family of Slates” including Cal Voter (Targets Republican voters with early and late voter versions), Budget Watchdogs (Mails twice to Republicans, Decline to State, and mixed party households), Election Digest (Targets late voting Democrat and Decline to State voters), Voter Newsletter (Targets late voting Democrat and Decline to State voters), and Senior Advocate (mailed to voters age 60 plus).
•“Budget Watchdogs Newsletter” received $2,056,627 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Cal Voter Newsletter, a project of Coalition for California” received $260,604 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Voter Newsletter, a project of Coalition for California” received $231,000 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
====================
•“Californians for Affordable and Reliable Energy (CARE)” #1397855 & #1439492
registered as a nonprofit 501(c)(4) is based in San Rafael, California
$3,952,442 in activity to influence California legislation regarding gas price issues from 7/2024 to 9/2024. The Payee is listed as Applied Paradigms for advertisements about the cost of gasoline.
Funders: According to www.desmog.com members and funders of CARE include WSPA (Western States Petroleum Association) with members Chevron, BP, ConocoPhillips, Exxon, Shell, and others; The CA Manufacturers & Technology Association and the California Chamber of Commerce..
Names used by the group have included Californians Against. Higher Taxes, Fueling California for Californians, or the AB32 Implication Group (an organization charged by environmentalists of trying to weaken California’s AB32 global warming law. The group also shares an address with the California Business Roundtable. In 2019 the group was paid $102,136 by WSPA for lobbying.
==================
Other Slate Mailers
•“Asian American Pacific Islander Voter Guide” received $100,739 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Reform California Voter Guide” received $1.3 million from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•”California Slates” received $790,819 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Progressive California Voter Guide” received $512,943 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“California Voter Guide” received $300,410 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“California Homeowners Voter Guide” received $101,910 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Educate Your Vote” received $227,813 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Democratic Voters Guide” received $76,926 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Orange County Republican Leadership Voter Guide” received $39,025 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“United Democratic Club Slate Mailer Org” received $61,185 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“California Latino Voter Alliance Endorsement Guide” received $237,500 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Our California Latino Voter Guide” received $239,807 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
•“Citizens for Accountable Leadership” received $109,924 from campaigns of candidates and measures paying to be on its fliers.
###
Sources for more information:
###
DEFINITIONS
(from opensecrets.org) or (propublica.org):
Independent Expenditures: Organizations and individuals looking to do more than just write a check to their favorite candidates can spend unlimited money — independently — to buy ads, send mail or otherwise advocate for the election or defeat of specific candidates. Following a series of recent court decisions, companies, unions and other groups have joined individuals in the ability to make these independent expenditures without any limits. The spending is reported to the FEC, but sources of funds may or may not be disclosed.
Super PAC: A super PAC, also known as an independent expenditure-only committee, may raise and spend unlimited sums of money for the sole purpose of making independent expenditures to support or oppose political candidates. Unlike traditional political action committees, super PACs may not donate money directly to candidates. Super PACs are required to disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission. They are prohibited from coordinating their expenditures with those of a candidate’s campaign, although the FEC has not aggressively policed that rule and the exact parameters of what would constitute impermissible coordination remain unclear.
A 527 is a nonprofit formed under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, which grants tax-exempt status to organizations whose primary purpose is attempting to influence the election of one or more people to public office at the national, state, or local level. Unlike gifts to charities, contributions to these organizations are not considered tax-deductible.
Dark Money Group: A politically active nonprofit group that collects large contributions but doesn’t disclose the names of its donors. Examples: Americans for Prosperity on the right, Patriot Majority on the left. Nonprofits of this sort — chiefly 501(c)(a4) social welfare organizations and 501(c)(6) trade associations — aren’t supposed to use the majority of their resources for political purposes, but many come close to the line or even cross it.
Qualified Nonprofit Corporation: Since the mid-1980s, some ideological 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups have sought to be designated as “qualified nonprofit corporations” in order to legally raise unlimited amounts of money from individuals and to spend that money on independent expenditures and electioneering communications. As qualified nonprofit corporations, they could not accept money from corporations or unions. Nor could they have significant business income or have electioneering as their major purpose. Qualified nonprofit corporations are not required to disclose their donors unless the donor specifically earmarks their contribution for electioneering. In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in 2010 in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, some nonprofit groups that had previously sought this designation are no longer doing so because that ruling freed all 501(c)(4) nonprofit groups to take unlimited donations from individuals, corporations and unions to make independent expenditures and electioneering communications.
501(c) Groups: Nonprofit, tax-exempt groups organized under section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code that can engage in varying amounts of political activity, depending on the type of group. Notably, 501(c) groups are not legally required to disclose any information about their donors. There are several types, including:
501(c)(3) groups — operate for religious, charitable, scientific or educational purposes. These groups are not supposed to engage in any political activities, though some voter registration activities are permitted.
501(c)(4) groups — commonly called “social welfare” organizations. They may engage in political activities, so long as these activities do not become their primary purpose.
501(c)(5) labor and agricultural groups, and 501(c)(6) business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, and boards of trade face restrictions similar to 501(c)(4) groups regarding political activities.
Political Action Committee (PAC): A political committee that raises and spends money to elect or defeat candidates. Most PACs represent businesses, such as the Microsoft PAC; labor unions, such as the Teamsters PAC; or ideological interests, such as the EMILY’s List PAC or the National Rifle Association PAC. An organization’s PAC will solicit money from the group’s employees or members and make contributions in the name of the PAC to candidates and political parties. Individuals contributing to a PAC may also contribute directly to candidates and political parties, even those also supported by the PAC.
A PAC can give $5,000 to a candidate per election (primary, general, or special) and up to $15,000 annually to a national political party. PACs may receive up to $5,000 each from individuals, other PACs, and party committees per year. A PAC must register with the Federal Election Commission within 10 days of its formation, providing the name and address of the PAC, its treasurer, and any affiliated organizations. Some PACs also fund political advertisements designed to aid their preferred candidates. Moreover, some PACs — such as ActBlue, EMILY’s List, the Club for Growth, and some leadership PACs — act as conduits to bundle donations to targeted candidates.
Independent Expenditures: Organizations and individuals looking to do more than just write a check to their favorite candidates can spend unlimited money — independently — to buy ads, send mail, or otherwise advocate for the election or defeat of specific candidates. Following a series of recent court decisions, companies, unions, and other groups have joined individuals in the ability to make these independent expenditures without any limits. The spending is reported to the FEC, but sources of funds may or may not be disclosed.
Share this:
Discover more from Fullerton Observer
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Categories: Election, Elections, Local Government, Local News
