Righting a Wrong, or Just Plain Wrong

By Ann K. Williams
Staff Writer

September 28 -- Does Measure W thwart the will of the people, or does it replace a badly written law? That’s what voters will have to decide when they’re asked whether the proposition on November’s ballot should replace the controversial “Oaks Amendment,” which prohibits elected officials from profiting from their position.

“We have some of the lowest campaign contribution limits in the country,” said City Council member Richard Bloom in last week’s debate on the merits of Measure W, televised by CityTV.

“When you add that up with no corruption (in Santa Monica), I really don’t believe in legislating for problems that don’t exist, and I certainly don’t believe in doing it with unconstitutional laws,” said Bloom.

Bloom, along with former Mayor Nat Trives, argued in favor of supplanting the city charter amendment passed by 60 percent of Santa Monica voters in 2000 with Measure W.

But supporters of the six-year-old Oaks Initiative, which has withstood a drawn-out legal challenge by Santa Monica officials, who had refused to implement a law they claim is unconstitutional, disagreed.

“With all due respect,” countered Harvey Rosenfeld, President of the Campaign for Consumer Rights, “many a politician has claimed that there’s no corruption where they live.

“You’re saying ‘trust us’…we don’t need this law here. I think that’s the height of arrogance.”

The debate hinged on the issue of constitutionality, though neither side explained why the original measure was – or was not – in violation of the law of the land during the debate.

In a July 12 Staff Report, The City Attorney reminded the Council of her position that the 2000 amendment is unconstitutional, primarily on free speech grounds.

“The courts, including, if I’m not mistaken, the U.S. Supreme Court, have struck down a number of campaign finance measures over the years based on their restriction of people’s freedom to express themselves,” Bloom elaborated in a phone call to The LookOut after the debate.

“Making campaign contributions falls within that category,” he said.

But Rosenfield sees Proposition W as a cynical attempt to undo one of the toughest clean government laws in the country.

“Measure W repeals every word” of the 2000 charter amendment, he said. It “guts the reforms people passed six years ago.”

Rosenfield accused the City of having pulled “a fast one” when it sued itself, hiring lawyers for both sides in an attempt to get the law declared unconstitutional. (see story)

Both sides agreed that the constitutionality of the law has yet to be adjudicated, and said they’d like to see that point resolved.

“Constitutionality is in the eye of the beholder,” said Rosenfield, adding that after the election, he would be happy to sit down with the City and either rewrite the law, as the City of Pasadena has done, or discuss a lawsuit. (see story)

Bloom countered that proponents of the Oaks Initiative have been unwilling to do what Rosenfield was offering.

“We would be thrilled to be able to sit down and have a judge adjudicate the constitutionality of this law,” Bloom said. “It’s been resisted at every turn, and that’s why it hasn’t happened to this point.”

There was also tacit agreement on the value of clean government, which supporters say Measure W will protect.

But the devil is in the details, not the intent of the original amendment, according to Bloom and Trives. They pointed to Santa Monica’s strict campaign contributions limits – capped at $250 – as evidence of the city’s commitment to clean government.

The measure passed in 2000 held officials accountable only for “yes” votes that benefited potential donors. Bloom pointed out that a “no” vote could confer just as much benefit to “corporate interests.”

And incumbents would be handicapped by restrictions on the amount of money they could raise, while candidates running for the first time would be free to take money from anyone, they argued. (see story)

Rosenfield was quick to point out flaws he sees in Measure W.

“A city council member could approve a developer’s high-rise project and then go to work for him the next day” under the provisions of Measure W, he said.

And officials could accept gifts worth more than $50 “just as soon as the city business is completed,” said Rosenfield.

The voters will be able to decide on November 7, Election Day.

The debate was co-sponsored by CityTV, the League of Women Voters of Santa Monica Education Fund and the Center for Governmental Studies.

CityTV will be making its election programming available with prime time airings on cable channel 16, 24/7 airings on cable channel 75, video-on-demand on Time Warner Cable, and on its election website www.smvote.org.