|
Fundraising Battle for Living Wage Rematch off to Slow
Start; VERITAS Campaign in Debt
By Elizabeth Schneider and Jorge Casuso
October 9 -- Opponents of the living wage law on the November
ballot have raised $308,750, far more than the $38,099 raised by proponents
of the measure, but far short of the $880,000 raised by this time two
years ago for a business-backed initiative on the 2000 ballot.
Like the money raised by the measure's opponents, the contributions to
the pro-living wage campaign are meager compared to the money collected
in 2000, according to statements filed Monday with the City Clerk. By
the Sept. 30 filing date two years ago, proponents of the Living Wage
had raised $178,003, more than four times the amount raised this year.
Other campaigns reporting contributions were the following:
- The campaign for VERITAS (Yes on HH) -- which among other things would
carve out council districts, elect a mayor at large with veto powers
and set term limits -- raised $23,146, bringing the total raised as
of Sept. 30 to $54,250. The campaign, however, has spent $73,211, having
accrued $36,790 in unpaid bills, according to the financial statement
filed Monday. VERITAS had a cash balance of $14,454, but was $41,791
in debt.
- The Committee for Excellence in Education (EE) -- which backs a $300-a-year
parcel tax for 12 years to help fund public schools -- has raised $63,611,
all of it in the latest period, which began July 1. The campaign has
spent $36,137.
- The campaign for SMRPH (II) -- which would establish procedures for
converting apartment buildings to condominiums -- reported $13,644 in
contributions during the latest filing period, bringing the total contributions
to $15,267. The campaign has spent $10,048 to date.
Of the total money raised by September 30 for the looming Living Wage
battle, the lion's share came during the latest filing period. Opponents
of the measure -- Fighting Against Irresponsible Regulations (FAIR) --
raised $258,955 during the past thre months, compared to $24,099 raised
by the Coalition to Protect the Living Wage.
Opponents of the unprecedented measure -- the nation's first municipal
wage law covering businesses with no direct financial ties to the City
-- expect contributions to remain steady until the November 5 election.
"Unfortunately this isn't representative of the breadth of the contributions
we will be receiving," said FAIR campaign press secretary Seth Jacobson.
Money in support of the campaign is coming both from small and large businesses,
but "not everybody can afford to contribute the same," he said.
Tom Larmore, a spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce, said he was not
surprised that less money has been raised for the current campaign.
"It was a very different economy two years ago," Larmore said.
Restaurants and hotels were the biggest contributors, giving close to
$160,000 for the latest period, which ran from July 1 to September 30.
The largest chunk came from Hotel Casa Del Mar, which contributed $75,000.
Four hotels -- the Radisson Huntley, The Doubletree Guest Suites, Loews
Santa Monica Beach Hotel and the Hotel Oceana -- combined for a total
of $160,000. Among the restaurants, PF Changs contributed $10,000, while
The Lobster gave $3,500.
"Some (contributions) are disproportionately large," Jacobson
said. "But that doesn't mean they are the most impacted party."
Advocates of the Living Wage law -- which requires businesses in the
Coastal Zone that gross more than $5 million a year to pay workers $10.50
an hour if benefits are included -- were quick to renew their attacks
on the hotel spending.
"It's clear that the Santa Monica hotels are spending hundreds of
thousands of dollars to deny workers a fair wage," said Danny Feingold,
a spokesman for the pro-living wage campaign. "We believe that voters
will see through this big money effort to stop hard working housekeepers,
janitors and bus boys from making enough to support their families.
"If you look at the economic facts," said Feingold, a staff
member for the Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE), "the
majority of hotel workers who would be affected by JJ are not making a
living wage and are not receiving health benefits. That's what our campaign
is all about."
The bulk of the money spent to date by opponents of the measure -- $257,851
-- is going toward what Jacobson calls an "aggressive grassroots
door-to-door walking campaign."
"We're going to talk to every registered voter in Santa Monica at
least once," he said.
According to Jacobson, FAIR currently has four or five groups of individuals
circulating in every voting district in the city.
"These people who are going out are employees of restaurants, hotels
and small businesses and are talking about the impacts of JJ on their
jobs," said Jacobson. "We're expecting to get a lot more contributions
from a variety of organizations."
While the majority of FAIR money is coming from Santa Monica businesses
located in the Coastal Zone, Jacobson said, "few people from Santa
Monica have contributed" to the Yes on JJ campaign.
According to the financial statements, LAANE has contributed $24,549
($12,549 during the latest filing period), accounting for most of money
in the group's coffers. The state Hotel Employee and Restaurant Employee
Union has contributed $6,000 and another $1,500 in in-kind office space.
"There is a lot of outside money coming into Santa Monica, whereas
we have a lot of organizations and businesses who are impacted and who
care about the campaign," Jacobson said. "There is quite a stark
difference between the campaigns."
Prop JJ -- which is expected to cost the City $3 million to implement
-- will eat into an already bare-bones municipal budget, Jacobson said.
"Is this really what we want to do, to trade school books for what
might be a law that may or may not benefit a very narrow group of workers?"
Feingold disagrees with the reasoning.
"The city has invested tens of millions of dollars to make the tourism
industry successful," Feingold said. "Those profits are being
sent to CEO's of corporations not even based in Santa Monica. We believe
that the money should stay in the community."
As for the argument that the law will cost Santa Monica taxpayers, "Right
now tax payers are on the hook for millions and millions of dollars every
year in anti-poverty programs because workers are not paid enough to support
themselves," Feingold said. "Measure JJ would eliminate the need
for those subsidies of large corporations." |