voiceofsandiego.org: Slop... Maienschein Can Spend
an independent nonprofit |
Support This Service

Maienschein Can Spend

Published: Tuesday, February 5, 2008 5:04 PM PST



When I talked to Ethics Commission Executive Director Stacey Fulhorst recently about whether City Councilman Brian Maienschein could transfer his stash of money from a previous campaign into his nascent run for city attorney, she said she could only talk about the law not specifically about him.

Now, she can talk about his issue specifically.

The Ethics Commission just issued an advice letter opining that Maienschein can very much use the stash for his run.

Remember, the issue brought up by former Poway Mayor Jan Goldsmith was whether that was legal considering Maienschein built that stash in 2004, and the city has a law prohibiting people from raising money for a campaign more than a year before the election. Goldsmith even went so far as to accuse Fulhorst and the Ethics Commission of trying to protect Maienschien's candidacy after Fulhorst talked about the law with me. Goldsmith then jabbed at the city for not having prepared for this eventuality.

The Ethics Commission said, yes, the city has that law prohibiting donations prior to a year before the election, but it only applies if the donations were specifically meant for that election. If they came to the candidate as part of a previous campaign, they are clean.

Soliciting or accepting campaign contributions to support your 2008 candidacy, however, is not equivalent to transferring contributions from an earlier committee. The funds in the 2004 Committee were solicited and accepted for a 2004 Council District race; they were not collected for the 2008 City Attorney race.

The only thing that's odd about this is that the Ethics Commission doesn't consider Maienschein's 2004 City Council donations part of this 2008 effort in order to hold that they weren't raised illegally.

But then the commission goes on to opine that those donors from 2004 can't give to Maienschein again because they'll already be counted as donors to this new campaign ...

And that brings us to the fun part. This is what Maienschein and his accountant have to do to make the transfer.

... if an individual makes a contribution to support you in the 2008 primary election prior to a transfer of funds from the 2004 Committee, the amount attributed to that individual in a transfer may not cause the total amount of contributions from that individual to exceed the $320 contribution limit applicable to the primary election. For example, if someone gives you a $100 contribution for the 2008 primary election, you may attribute no more than $220 to that individual when transferring funds from the 2004 Committee to the 2008 Committee for the 2008 primary election. In addition, if you transfer $250 from the 2004 Committee and attribute it to a particular individual for the 2008 primary election, that individual may not subsequently give the 2008 Committee more than $70 in additional contributions for the 2008 primary election without exceeding contribution limits.

He should set aside a few thousand dollars for the inevitable Ethics Commission fines he'll have to pay when he screws that up.

-- SCOTT LEWIS




8 Comments so far on this story...

This would all be hilarious if it wasn't so serious! Get out the hoops, and start jumping!

Posted by Robert | reply to this comment
February 5, 2008 6:16 pm

This result seems absurd and contrary to law. Obviously, for the sake of consistency, the rule should be that funds raised in one campaign can be used in another so long as that campaign, at least in a city election, can lawfully commence within one year of raising the funds. Otherwise the funds must be expended in some other lawful manner. Such a result would seem to be dictated by the general rule relating to the interpretation of legislation that a specific provision relating to a particular subject will govern a general provision, even though the general provision standing alone would be broad enough to include the subject to which the specific provision relates See California Civil Code §3534.

Posted by Bruce | reply to this comment
February 5, 2008 10:40 pm

Thank you ethics commission and thank you Jesus; now if Mrs. Peters will let Scotty come out and play, we will have loads of fun!

Posted by jorgeelgato | reply to this comment
February 6, 2008 7:49 am

I feel sorry for Brian "Missing in Action" Maienschein. It's painfully obvious that he's a can or two short of a six pack when it comes to intelligence. There's no way he'll be able to do this bit of math.

Posted by Larry | reply to this comment
February 6, 2008 9:48 am

An unfair aspect of this scenario is that someone who might have supported Mr Maienshein's campaign for City Council, will be supporting his campaign for city attorney, whether they want to or not.

Posted by Steve K | reply to this comment
February 6, 2008 10:58 am

Trust me, they have records of who exactly gave exactly what. A high school C student in math could do the books. I'd go so far as to say his campaign workers are ready to call those donors who are still "elligible" to give more. How this whole transfer of funds 4 years appart can pass ethical muster is beyond me. And the "ruling" conflicts with itself. If those funds aren't considered to have been raised for the CA race more than 12 months out from the election, then the donors can argue their constitutional right to support their candidate with direct donations to this campaign is being violated. Sorry, you supported him for council, you can't support him for CA...Hello litigation

Posted by D | reply to this comment
February 6, 2008 11:34 am

So, if I gave to Brian in 2004 when he ran for election for his City Council Seat can he tell me if he spent my money on that election or is my money still on deposit? So if he raised $50,000 and spent $25,000... who's $25,000 did he spend? Just wondering...

Posted by Sparky | reply to this comment
February 7, 2008 4:19 pm

Ask Stacey Fulhorst if Maienschein's wife can claim some of that 2004 leftover campaign money as a part of her divorce settlement with Brian.

Posted by Ricardo | reply to this comment
March 1, 2008 1:39 am


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.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
7507fbb

Scott Lewis on Politics

The Scott Lewis on Politics blog, abbreviated cleverly as SLOP, is a collection of observations, insights and the occasional scoop on public affairs in San Diego. Please feel free to e-mail Scott at scott.lewis@voiceofsandiego.org.


Listen to voiceofsandiego.org's radio program on AM 600 KOGO: Latest Episode (November 8): Scott Lewis and Michael Zucchet talk about the city's budget

Subscribe to the Podcast Feed



MOST POPULAR STORIES:



MOST POPULAR STORIES:


Copyright © 2009 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.