For years, Fullerton’s politics have been shaped by two major forces: the police and fire unions and local real estate speculator and activist Tony Bushala. These two blocs have often clashed, most notably when Bushala pushed Fullerton to explore outsourcing the police department to the Orange County Sheriff. But today, something new is happening: both groups now support the same council majority, while that majority advances a public safety tax that looks more symbolic than serious.

This article examines how political donations, consultant-driven endorsements, and high-threshold tax proposals intersect with Fullerton’s worsening fiscal conditions, and how these dynamics may ultimately undermine the long-term stability of the very public safety departments they are claimed to support.

Historically, Bushala and the Fullerton Police Officers Association (FPOA) were adversaries. Bushala’s blog routinely criticized the police department, and his allies promoted the replacement of the department with the county sheriff. But in recent election cycles, this public criticism has largely vanished. Instead, the FPOA and Bushala-aligned committees both backed the same slate of candidates: Fred Jung, Nick Dunlap, and newcomer Jamie Valencia.

In 2024, the police and fire unions spent heavily on this majority’s campaigns. In return, the council advanced a “public safety tax” for the 2026 ballot, one that was marketed as a strong commitment to police and fire services. However, the tax was structured as a special tax, requiring a two-thirds supermajority; a threshold notoriously difficult to meet even in cities with strong pro-police voting histories. In Fullerton, where public trust and satisfaction are more mixed, the measure is extremely unlikely to pass.

This raises a key question: Was this tax designed to succeed, or simply to signal political support without delivering anything substantive?

Nowhere was this political realignment more visible than in District 4. One of the most surprising developments in 2024 was public safety’s endorsement of Jamie Valencia over Kitty Jaramillo in District 4. Jaramillo, a former code enforcement officer, had deep local experience and support from labor unions and numerous community figures. Valencia, by contrast, was a newcomer to Fullerton’s political life, with a limited public record at the time of her endorsement.

Two weeks before she received the maximum donation from the police union, Valencia appeared at a City Council meeting to advocate for a pilot program for “electronic lassos”, a controversial policing tool produced by Wrap Technologies. Her public comment came despite no prior engagement from the council on the issue, prompting questions about how and why she chose that moment to raise it.

Like many unions statewide, the FPOA relies on political consultants, often individuals with no connection to Fullerton, to evaluate and recommend candidates. Endorsements are frequently based on whether a candidate will be receptive to specific policies, equipment purchases, or industry trends, not necessarily on their alignment with long-term public safety planning or citywide fiscal health.

Last year, the FPOA was represented by Joe Cameron of Modern Cartographers, a political consultant who later became the Chief Revenue Officer of Wrap Technologies, the company behind the BolaWrap “electronic lasso” device. While there is no allegation of wrongdoing, this overlap illustrates how external political consultants can shape local endorsements based on specialized commercial or policy interests rather than community-driven evaluation.

The council’s proposed “public safety tax” came from recommendations made by the ad hoc fiscal committee, where Bushala served as an appointed member. Rather than proposing a general sales tax, which requires only 50% voter approval but can be used for any purpose, the committee recommended two special taxes, each requiring a ⅔ supermajority.

Given California’s recent history, these thresholds are almost impossible to achieve. It is rare for cities to place two special tax measures on the same ballot, but the cities that did significantly underperformed at polling centers.

Fullerton faces even steeper odds due to:

● A volatile and uncertain economic climate

● Longstanding community debates around public safety

● Low civic trust following years of budget struggles and political infighting

The result is a proposal that is politically safe to support because its failure is guaranteed. The majority can say they “fought for police and fire” without incurring the fiscal responsibility that would come with a tax that actually passes. However, skirting fiscal responsibility is the opposite of fighting for police and fire.

Under the current council majority, Fullerton’s deficit has tripled. Revenue is not keeping up with inflation, and the city is experiencing stagnant growth across nearly every major industry. This is dangerous for public safety because when cities go bankrupt, police and fire are the largest expenses and therefore the first targets for cuts. Departments may face layoffs, salary freezes, or restructuring. In severe cases, entire departments are dissolved and replaced by county services.

By endorsing and electing a council majority that has supported policies accelerating Fullerton’s structural deficit, public safety unions may unintentionally be putting themselves on a path toward diminished staffing, reduced influence, or even departmental outsourcing; the very outcome they once fought against. But these effects are not limited to public safety but rather all Fullertonians, because a budget deficit means cuts to services that affect all residents.

Police and fire unions are among the most influential political actors in Fullerton. Their endorsements have historically shaped election outcomes and city priorities. When their political decisions align with long-term public safety needs, the community benefits, but when endorsements are driven by external consultants, narrow product advocacy, or political alliances, it can have unintended consequences, especially in a city already facing fiscal instability.

Scrutinizing these decisions is not anti-police or anti-fire. It is part of understanding how political incentives interact with public safety, budgets, and governance. Fullerton is approaching a breaking point. Transparent discussion is necessary if the city is to avoid deeper financial trouble and if public safety is to remain strong, stable, and locally controlled. The story emerging in Fullerton is one of misaligned incentives, short-term political signaling, and the widening gap between campaign messaging and fiscal reality. If these patterns continue, the consequences will be felt most sharply by the very departments the council claims to champion.

Public safety deserves a sustainable city, honest planning, and leaders who align endorsements with long-term outcomes, not short-term political optics.

###

Elijah Manassero is a Fullerton resident and civic researcher who runs the local accountability project called Fullerton Transparency. See more on INSTGRAM @fullertontransparency, FaceBook, and Fullerton Transparency the website which is still under construction as of this article.