Maienschein's Stash

Published: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:36 PM PST

E-MAIL STORY

So yesterday, I called the San Diego Ethics Commission curious about a little aspect of City Councilman Brian Maienschein's nascent candidacy for city attorney. Maienschein will obviously attempt to finance much of his effort with what's left over from his reelection in 2004. He faced no opponent then, so he didn't have to spend the money.

But the city now has, of course, a new law that restricts candidates from raising money for an election more than 12 months before that election.

So what's the deal? Does that mean Maienschein can't transfer his money over to a new committee in charge of his race for city attorney? The U-T reported the other day that Maienschein had more than $250,000 stashed away for some kind of race like this.

Stacey Fulhorst, the executive director of the Ethics Commission, told me that Maienschein would be allowed to transfer the money.

But get this, it's kind of interesting. He has to transfer the money over one contributor at a time. And he has to start from either the beginning of his contribution list or the end. In other words, if 1,000 people gave him $250 each, then he has to transfer each over one by one. And each of the people that gave him that $250 in 2004 would be considered to have given him $250 for this election.

If anyone gave him money in 2004 but now support a different candidate for city attorney, they'll still show up as contributors to this campaign.

It also means that if they wanted to give him more money this time around, they could, but only because candidates for city attorney can collect $320 from each individual contributor -- not $250. So, a contributor to his 2004 City Council campaign can give him $70 more.

But let's get back on track. Doesn't this violate the city's law against collecting donations earlier than 12 months before an election? After all, 2004 was definitely more than 12 months ago.

I think.

The 12-month rule has a raison d'etre -- it serves to prevent elected officials from raising money the moment they win election.

"(Without the rule) an incumbent would start amassing money immediately after election and discourage opponents from running. And there's an appearance of corruption when people who have business pending before you are also donating to your committee," Fulhorst said. The 12 month rule allows incumbents to still raise money while they serve in office, but limits it as much as is reasonable in the city's eyes.

Is Maienschein violating the rule if he transfers money over that he raised years ago?

Fulhorst said no.

The city can't restrict how a candidate uses money after it's collected.

"The courts have ruled that under the First Amendment, you can't restrict how a candidate spends his or her money. You can restrict contributions but not expenditures," Fulhorst said.

But the courts didn't say anything about making it simple for whoever has to do all that paperwork.

-- SCOTT LEWIS

18 Comments so far on this story...

No wonder he's looking at running for city attorney. He probably had to run for something, or he'd have to return or donate the money - whatever the rules require. It was probably inevitable that he'd run for supervisor, or city attorney, or even superior court judge - that's a heck of alot of money to start out with, and has got to give him an advantage or alot of other candidates.

Posted by That explains that | reply to this comment
January 23, 2008 9:14 pm

You should be able to restrict the transferring of money from different accounts--thats not protected by the First Amendment. Unbelievable. Is Brian part of the Axis of Virtue?

Posted by Al Davis | reply to this comment
January 23, 2008 10:37 pm

Since when have any of these council members found a rule they couldn't work around. And to them corruption is not a bad thing, it's a way of life.

Posted by Dukestir Wilkes | reply to this comment
January 23, 2008 10:42 pm

If the expenditure of money is legal, then don't try to twist it into some accusation of corruption. Seems that Aguirre was still collecting money to pay off a campaign debt from 2004 and nobody accused him of corruption, even though he was collecting from his employees and attorneys who had lawsuits against the city. This article is definitely "Scott's spin" designed to stir up suspicion unnecessarily against Maienschein.

Posted by Cheeky | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 8:38 am

The whole thing is ridiculous. Money is fungible. Suppose the candidate collected $300,000 and spent $50,000. To which contributor do you attribute the funds spent? The point of reporting contributions is for transparency. The public knows he has the money so why not let him transfer in bulk with a statement appended to his disclosure that these were the contributors in previous campaign(s)

Posted by emessess | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 8:47 am

The most disturbing part of this story is the enormous authority over campaign finance law that Fulhorst and the Ethics Commission have assumed. Who cares what Fulhorst thinks!! What power does Dick Murphy's Ethics Commission have over laws regulated by the state. Equally as disturbing, Maienschein is really thinking about running for city attorney. His legacy is going to be the re-election of Mike Aguirre. Migth want to think long and hard about that one Brian.

Posted by Givemeabreak | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 10:03 am

Suppose I gave to Brian in 2004 and I want Mike to be reelected,is it fair for my money to go to Brian for City Atty ? Why doesn't the Ethics Commission vote on this ? They are just window dressing.

Posted by keenobserver | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 10:09 am

Did it ever cross Maienschein's mind to return his unused campaign funds to the people who contributed the money, less the cost of postage? What is the interest on $250,000.00 over the last 4 years? The interest on the money should cover the cost of postage, and also help the contributors in this time of need. Any expenses Maienschein incurred during his uncontested re-election could be subtracted from the whole amount then divided by the number of contributors. This is all quite easy and very honest! The money was contributed for the election of an individual to the City Council, not to the position of City Attorney. Is it too much to ask a politician to be honest, show integrity and to take the right and principled course of action in this matter? I think all of us know what the politician will do! Again the laughs on us.Sad

Posted by Honest Abe | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 12:02 pm

8. Honest Abe wrote on January 24, 2008 1:02 PM: "Did it ever cross Maienschein's mind to return his unused campaign funds to the people who contributed the money, less the cost of postage? What is the interest on $250,000.00 over the last 4 years? ..........at 10%, not compunded, it is $100K. GOOD POINT there Honest Abe, cool handle also, would you consider a run for Mayor or City Clowncil?

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 2:50 pm

BBH, where are you getting 10% compounded?

Posted by Tigershark | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 4:08 pm

Stacey Fulhorst chooses when to interpret laws one way, when to another. Depends on who would benefit/lose from an interpretation, and who is her political favorite. She needs an ethics check on herself. She maintains a lot of authority on what goes to the commission for consideration and, more importantly, what doesn't. She's been there long enough and the power trip has gotton to her head - time to move on. Scott, you are on the right track - not about Maienschein - but about her interpretations and favoritism. Do just a little more digging and it won't be hard to connect the dots about her long history of bias.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 5:21 pm

And another thing - the City CAN restrict how candidates spend their money after elected. Check out SDMC 27.2920-27.2924. There is a conflict of interpretation here on the "transfer of funds" provision and the "carryover of contributions" which specify contributions to be used for same elective office. Fulhorst chooses that interpretation which favors Maienschein (err, negatively impacts Aguirre) because it's her choice. Fulhorst is also letting Thalheimer get away with using his surplus funds from '04 towards this election (cause she likes him, natch!).

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 5:25 pm

In using the term 'an appearance of corruption' Fullhorst is REALLY stretching case law and constitutional law... which is why the legislature actually had to recently pass a law signed by the Gov to reign her in. And which is why now both Republican and Democrat San Diego state legislators are considering serious measures to limit unelected bodies in local government and their regulatory power over political speach.

Posted by Stacey and the Law | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 8:21 pm

11. Tigershark wrote on January 24, 2008 5:08 PM: "BBH, where are you getting 10% compounded?".... ....It was just an educated guess. I would hope he could get a 10% return. BTW-I said NON compounded, to make the math easy.

Posted by Billy Bob Henry | reply to this comment
January 24, 2008 9:26 pm

BBH & Tigershark - just FYI, local political accounts typically aren't interest-bearing ones, because of their status with the IRS.

Posted by Tom S. | reply to this comment
January 25, 2008 9:10 am

Tom S. That was my thought also and that is why I asked BBH where he came up with his figure.

Posted by tigershark | reply to this comment
January 25, 2008 12:35 pm

Reader feedback

Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.