A television ad titled “No on Prop. 54,” which
started airing Sept. 16 and will conclude its run today, was funded
by $3.8 million from California Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante,
contributions that have since been deemed illegal.
The ad features images from Bustamante’s first campaign
rally in Fresno mixed with clips of the lieutenant governor
speaking at a podium, firmly pointing his finger and loudly asking
supporters to vote no on Proposition 54.
Proposition 54 is an initiative on the Oct. 7 ballot which would
ban the state from classifying an individual on the basis of
“race, ethnicity, color or national origin in the operation
of public education, public contracting or public
employment.”
The initiative has been met with strong opposition from nearly
all major recall candidates. Only Sen. Tom McClintock, R-Thousand
Oaks, has voiced support for it.
Bustamante’s financing of the ad came from money donated
by Indian gaming and labor interests. Critics say the ad is a way
for him to skirt new campaign reform laws, which currently limit a
candidate’s spending to roughly $20,000.
Last week, state Senator Ross Johnson, R-Irvine, filed a lawsuit
against Bustamante, claiming the lieutenant governor attempted to
“inappropriately use millions of dollars from a handful of
special interests contributors in his campaign for
governor.”
A Sacramento superior court judge ruled Monday in favor of
Johnson and ordered Bustamante to return the money to his donors.
But matters have since been at a stalemate because Bustamante has
said he cannot return the money; it was already spent.
Matt Ross, a spokesman for Johnson, said Bustamante’s
explanation was just his way of trying to get out of the court
ruling.
“Bustamante is constantly changing his story. Now he is
claiming that he cannot get out of the contract (for the
ads),” Ross said.
He added that the judge has amended his ruling, which now orders
Bustamante to return money that he possesses and controls,
including money already spent on the ads and money spent on
printing and postage.
A spokesman for Bustamante’s office confirmed that the
judge ordered the lieutenant governor to return money that he has
in his possession and that all the money has already been spent. He
declined to comment further.
Diane Schachterle, spokeswoman for Yes on Proposition 54 at the
American Civil Rights Coalition, said that the organization has
already contacted its attorney to decide on a course of action.
“We are the injured party here, and Bustamante’s
actions have already been declared the largest violation of the
Political Reform Act,” she said.
The act, established in 1974, requires detailed disclosure of
the how money is spent in California politics.
Tracy Westen, chief executive officer of the UCLA Center for
Governmental Studies, said Bustamante used a legitimate loophole to
advance his own agenda, and the lieutenant governor will probably
not be censured for spending contested funds on the ads.
“The Sacramento superior court ruled that the Fair
Political Practices Commission was wrong in its decision, and that
Bustamante acted in good faith, and as such he does not have to
give back the money already spent,” Westen explained.
In 2000, the FPPC, in an amendment to Proposition 34, which
established further contribution limits for candidates, ruled that
older committees could still raise funds over the monetary limit
imposed by Proposition 34.
Westen added that the court’s decision, in effect, closed
this loophole, but not before Bustamante took full advantage of
it.
Proposition 54’s chief sponsor, University of California
Regent Ward Connerly, was recently involved in a lawsuit in which
the FPPC demanded he disclose the sources of contributions to his
campaign. A Sept. 19 ruling by the Sacramento supreme court found
that the Connerly-backed ACRC was not violating campaign finance
laws.
Westen said now the current issue would likely be a purely
contractual one between stations airing the ad and the lieutenant
governor, who is supposed to be attempting to get his money
back.
If successful, the money will be returned to the donors. If not,
the ads will continue to run.
Westen added that the networks would probably return the funds
to save themselves legal hassle.
“In any case, Bustamante would not be fined since the
judge accepted that he acted in good faith,” Westen said.
Bustamante’s critics, however, say he is not trying hard
enough to get his money back.
His actions are “a direct violation of specific
language,” said Schachterle.