"Garcetti email flap shows fuzzy line between governing, campaigning"

Christine Mai-Duc reports on this one. 

“The basic rule is, whatever happens on the taxpayer dime should be serving your constituents,” says Jessica Levinson, president of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.

Distinguishing between a candidate and an official can be complicated, and so can navigating local, state and federal law

It’s hard to say definitely where the public official ends and the campaigner begins, Levinson says.

“It’s all a line drawn in the sand on a windy day.... Those lines can be difficult because elected officials are public servants, but they’re also political animals.”

To illustrate the problem, Levinson poses a scenario: Should a mayor’s security detail be allowed to accompany him, for instance, to a fundraising event? “If we decide as a public that it’s important to protect this person and keep them safe, then that would be true regardless of what the elected official is doing,” Levinson says. “But the taxpayers are then facilitating a political activity.”

"L.A. Mayor Eric Garcetti's endorsement of Hillary Clinton hits embarrassing snag"

Good to talk to Peter Jamison for this one. 

“I think that city and state law is pretty clear that you don’t use the taxpayer dime to send out campaign endorsements,” said city Ethics Commission President Jessica Levinson. “And the taxpayer dime includes both workers and infrastructure.”

Levinson declined to comment specifically on the mayor’s presidential endorsement, saying the incident could come before her panel for consideration of possible sanctions.

How to get more Angelenos to the ballot box

Honored to have another op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. 

You can read it here.

Money Spent on Losing Candidates and Props Makes a Difference

It is estimated that over $50 million was spent on the May 21, 2013 Los Angeles City elections. Approximately 20 percent of registered voters, or 400,000 people, cast a ballot, meaning that more than $100 was spent on each voter. This should be a staggering amount.

People often ask me if money spent on behalf of losing candidates or losing ballot measures makes a difference. There is a common misconception that money spent to support candidates or ballot measures that were unsuccessful is merely wasted. I disagree.

Money spent in elections, whether for victorious or unsuccessful candidates and measures, matters. When large sums are spent in political campaigns, even when that money is used to support candidates or causes that ultimately lose, the money changes the issues discussed in the campaign. Take, for instance, the heavy spending by LADWP's union to support Wendy Greuel. She lost, but it help shape the tenor of the campaign debate throughout the last several months. Candidates responded, in advertisements and debates, to the union's stated concerns.

Additionally, heavy spenders can help dictate the issues addressed once a candidate ultimately becomes a public official. Mayor-elect Eric Garcetti is, at the very least, well versed in the needs and desires of the LADWP union, as well as those who supported him.

(The flip side here is that other issues import to less-well-funded groups were not given the same level of attention.)

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

In Los Angeles mayor's race, a big win for Eric Garcetti

Quoted in this one in the Christina Science Monitor. 

“Garcetti did not receive the vast majority of the union endorsements and may be seen now as in a good position to extract concessions from the city's labor unions,” adds Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “Many voters in this very low-turnout election saw union endorsements as toxic. Garcetti was not viewed as beholden to the unions. He will now have to negotiate with them.”

Union money looms big in L.A. mayor's race

Quoted in this one in the LA Daily News.


In race with two pro-labor candidates, with similar backgrounds, the unions' power is noticeable, say political observers.
"The outside spending is changing the campaign narrative," said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School. "It's changing the tenor and tone."
...

The flood of money concerns Levinson, who said the outside spending dilutes the "one vote, one voice" concept of the electoral process. The spending also shapes the conversation along the campaign trail, she believes.
A confusing County Fed-backed mailer promising a $15 wage if Greuel is elected forced both candidates to weigh in last week. And Greuel has spent months seeking to prove to voters that she'll be independent from the DWP, despite the union's spending.
At a recent debate in Sherman Oaks, the moderator intervened, asking the candidates to stop bickering about DWP, and move on to new topics.
Outside money "changes what issues they talk about," Levinson said. "It's not even the candidates' debate anymore."

Welcome to the Super PAC Era

Is candidate centered campaign fundraising a thing of the past?

Greetings, and welcome to the Super PAC era. Thanks in part to the Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United, we now have new entities called "Super PACs," which are organizations that can raise and spend unlimited political funds.

Contributions given directly to candidates are unlimited, but again, contributions to outside groups such as Super PACs are not. Therefore, as many predicted, individuals and entities who wish to support candidates but have given up to the legal limit, now have a new outlet for their campaign donations. This pattern, however, is nothing new. Before there were Super PACs big donors gave to political parties or other outside organizations like independent expenditure groups.

Campaign fundraising by candidates is increasingly being marginalized and fundraising by independent groups including Super PACs is coming to the forefront. We are seeing this phenomenon play out real time in the Los Angeles mayoral race where the contribution limit to candidates is $1,300 both in the primary and the runoff elections. 
While fundraising by candidates is still outpacing fundraising by Super PACs in the mayoral race, at some point in the near future that could change. In this election both candidates have raised approximately $5.7 million and independent groups have raised roughly $4.7 million for Greuel and $1.3 million for Garcetti. That means about one-third of the money raised in the mayor campaign has been raised by outside organizations. Again, the lion's share has gone to groups supporting Greuel.

Of course those giving money to outside groups are generally those who have a financial interest in what happens in City Hall. For instance, donors include real estate developers, labor unions, members of the entertainment industry, and lawyers and lawfirms. This set up raises a host of problems including corruption, the appearance of corruption, undue access and preferential treatment.

Because of the Supreme Court's misguided interpretation of limits on campaign contributions and expenditures, there is little hope, at least in the short term, of limiting how much can be given to and spent by outside groups.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Top 2 candidates for L.A. mayor share a lot in common

Quoted in this article in the Christian Science Monitor. 

Garcetti has positioned himself as the frontrunner, which you can tell in his ads because they are overwhelmingly positive,” says Jessica Levinson, professor of law at Loyola Law School and former director of political reform for the Center for Governmental Studies. “Greuel is capitalizing on her time as city controller by fashioning herself as the one who can clean the fiscal house.”

As Eight Candidates Vie to Be Los Angeles’s Next Mayor, Voters Tune Out

Quoted in this article in the Daily Beast.

Unless a candidate breaks 50 percent Tuesday, the two top contenders will face off May 21. “The expectations are it is Greuel and Garcetti in the runoff,” says Jessica Levinson, an associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School. “It is their ability to raise money, get endorsements, and garner independent expenditures on their behalf. They’re gathering the lion’s share of both.”

Garcetti, a Navy reservist and Rhodes scholar who served as council president between 2006 and 2012, is running as “a big-picture visionary,” says USC’s Schnur. His pitch is “I am going to create jobs and get the city moving,” adds Levinson.

...

[Re Greuel] “Her connections with the business community are probably better than any of the candidates’,” says Levinson.

Although Perry has been called a champion for local business interests, supported dozens of housing projects in the downtown core that led to a steady flow of jobs, and did more for Skid Row residents than any councilperson before her has done, she has had difficulty raising money and has been battered by attack ads from Greuel over long-ago financial problems. Perry admitted that she filed bankruptcy twice 20 years ago, but blamed the bulk of the problem on her former husband’s law practice.

“She has been fairly anemic in terms of fundraising,” said Levinson. “The name of the game in politics is fundraising prowess, and she hasn’t been able to match Greuel and Garcetti.”

..

[Re Kevin James] “He is the archetype of the outside candidate,” says Levinson. “The ad screams, ‘I want to go viral.’”

Debating the Mayoral Debates

In Los Angeles, elections are non-partisan and, despite the state's new top-two law, send two candidates to a run-off unless a one garners more than 50 percent of the primary vote. Considering the competitiveness this year -- five frontrunners seen in dozens of debates -- it is assumed two will move from the March 5 primary to the May 21 general.

Therefore, I'm curious how voters will decide which candidates to send to the May election. After all, what do we really know about them?

Judging by the number of debates -- some 30 of them -- we should know a lot about them. However, having watched a number of these increasingly predictable forums, I'm simply not sure if the voters are able glean tons of useful information.

It brings up questions. Are there new and better ways for candidates to reach the voters? Can't we do better? I'm not convinced that the debates so far do much more than allow the candidates to hit their talking points in different forums. Many of those talking points are, quite understandably, less than surprising by the time the 30th debate rolls around.

But there are certain groups that have benefitted from the dozens of mayoral debates held over the past couple of months. Those are the groups hosting the event. Often those groups, or the interests supporting those groups, are able to extract pledges and promises from the candidates.

Perhaps if we made the debates fewer and further between they would feel more like special events worth watching or listening to. In addition, making debates more rare would reduce the repetition we hear in the candidates' answers.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org. 

Will Money Matter in the Los Angeles Mayoral Race?

Depending on who you believe, there are five top tier candidates vying to become the next mayor of Los Angeles. Two are women. One of those women is African American. Four are Democrats; one is a Republican.
Running for the highest elected office in the City of Angels is not an inexpensive undertaking. The question is how much fundraising and spending will matter. Certainly money helps candidates get their message out to the voters. This is why the Supreme Court has long equated money with speech.

But beyond the opportunity to reach the voters, does spending beyond a certain point sway the voters? There may, however, be a tipping point, or a saturation level at which more increased spending on political advertisements does not equal an increase in support. In addition, it may matter whether a candidate is spending her own funds, or the funds of contributors. In other words, candidates who have raised money from others may have a base of support, even if that base is only comprised of people who can and want to give money to political candidates.

A second question relates to how much weight the voters give to outside spending. Spending by so-called independent groups can fill a candidate's fundraising gap. But do the voters listen to political communications by candidates more than they do to communications by outside groups? Or do voters not differentiate?

Thus far in the current mayor race those two questions are at play. Republican Kevin James, who has never held public office, spent more than any other mayor candidate in the fourth quarter of 2012. However, he raised much, much less than the top tier candidates. James raised slightly more than $42,000. City Controller Wendy Greuel raised $672,230, and City Councilman Eric Garcetti raised $727,503 during that period.

James does have the support of an independent committee, which thanks to recent court decisions can raise and spend unlimited sums. This spending could play a key role in James' bid for mayor, even though legally he is not allowed to direct that outside spending. The group may run negative advertisements against the other contenders.

Finish reading this post on KCET.org.