Friday, January 31, 2014
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Rep. Henry Waxman Announces His Retirement
Enjoyed being on NBC LA today to discuss Rep. Henry Waxman's retirement. Rep. Waxman has been a member of Congress for four decades. He is the sixth most senior member of Congress, having been elected in the wake of Watergate. He has been a staunch advocate of broadening health care coverage (he helped to write the Affordable Care Act), increased environmental protection, and many other issues.
Kings arena subsidy foes sue city to get measure back on ballot
Quoted in this article in the Sacramento Bee.
“A lot of this comes down to who the judge is,” said Jessica Levinson of Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles. She added, “The more problems (there are), the more a judge is going to be inclined to say the signatures shouldn’t qualify.”
Insisting voters should get their say, the groups fighting the proposed $258 million public subsidy for a new Sacramento Kings arena sued the city Wednesday to overturn the city clerk’s decision to disqualify their proposed June ballot measure.
Sacramento Taxpayers Opposed to Pork (STOP) and Voters for a Fair Arena Deal filed suit in Sacramento Superior Court, arguing that their signed petitions achieved “substantial compliance” with election laws.
...
“A lot of this comes down to who the judge is,” said Jessica Levinson of Loyola University Law School in Los Angeles. She added, “The more problems (there are), the more a judge is going to be inclined to say the signatures shouldn’t qualify.”
Wednesday, January 29, 2014
Los Angeles: Be and Be Seen
My latest op-ed in the Huffington Post is here.
Here is the first paragraph:
In Los Angeles there are essentially two reasons to do anything. The first is to accomplish something. The second is to be seen accomplishing something. This sounds simple, but it starts to get complicated. Is being seen accomplishing something an accomplishment in and of itself? This can get very meta indeed.
Here is the first paragraph:
In Los Angeles there are essentially two reasons to do anything. The first is to accomplish something. The second is to be seen accomplishing something. This sounds simple, but it starts to get complicated. Is being seen accomplishing something an accomplishment in and of itself? This can get very meta indeed.
Jury finds Sen. Rod Wright guilty on eight felony counts
Quoted in this one in the Sacramento Bee.
The state legislator who often says his constituents’ main concern is landing a “j-o-b” may be in need of a new one himself.
A Los Angeles jury on Tuesday convicted state Sen. Rod Wright on eight felony counts in a case that challenged whether he lived in the district he represented, potentially sending the Democratic lawmaker to prison for up to eight years. A sentencing hearing is scheduled for March 12.
Prosecutors alleged Wright did not live in the Inglewood home he listed as his address when he ran for office in 2008, and instead lived in Baldwin Hills, a swankier community outside the boundaries of his working-class district. They charged him with eight felony counts – two counts of perjury, one count of filing a false declaration of candidacy and five counts of fraudulent voting.
...
Jessica Levinson, an election law expert at Loyola Law School, said the difference in how cases are treated can reflect varying priorities among county prosecutors.
“These are very visible cases,” Levinson said. “When you bring a case against a legislator you want to be really sure you’re going to win, because it’s going to be in the paper.”
Saturday, January 25, 2014
Clerk rejects petitions for arena vote
Quoted in this article in the Sacramento Bee.
The campaign to force a public vote on Sacramento’s downtown arena plan was dealt a considerable blow Friday, when the city’s top elections official rejected the measure for “major” legal flaws and ruled it should not appear on the June ballot.
...
Jessica Levinson, an election-law expert at Loyola University in Los Angeles, said courts tend to interpret the petition requirements strictly.
“You have to dot your i’s and cross your t’s,” Levinson said. “Just because people signed (the petitions) doesn’t mean you don’t have to follow the provisions.”
She said courts have upheld decisions by city clerks to reject petitions over wording issues.
“There is absolutely case law that says, ‘This might sound picky, but we have these provisions for a reason,’ ” she said.
Thursday, January 23, 2014
McDonnell case should spark debate over corporate influence, say experts
Quoted in this article in the Guardian.
...
McDonnell's defence was dismissed on Wednesday by various experts on campaign finance regulations, who say the law still makes a clear distinction between the lavish private gifts of the type he admits accepting, and donations that are used to fund political campaigns, which are kept to certain financial limits under the law and are not supposed to be diverted for personal use.
“There is absolutely a difference between personal and private, even if it can sometimes be difficult to define in every instance,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
“The magic words are: is it used for a 'political, legislative or governmental purpose', and a Rolex is not, a dress is not. You don't get to use campaign funds as a personal piggybank.”
...
Few politicians in Washington could argue they never gave preferential personal access to donors. Barack Obama, for example, was instructed by Hollywood donor Jeffrey Katzenberg to make sure he personally spent time at each table of paying guests during a recent campaign fundraiser, according to claims recounted in a New Yorker profile of Obama published this week.
“What President Obama does is not illegal, but unquestionably those who can give large sums obtain different types of access and a different type of relationship from those who don't: that's our current legal framework,” said Levinson. “The difference here is that McDonnell kicked it over on to the illegal side, but in terms of what he provided? A lot of people do that.”
...
But politicians are often allowed to transfer funds from campaign coffers to fund other aspects of their inauguration, such as events.
“The accusations are absolutely qualitatively different from what happens elsewhere and I'm not forgiving anything,” said Levinson. “But there is an argument that if you say, 'Buy me a $50,000 watch and I'll do x for you', it's better than what happens now, which is a tacit version of that. It's at least out in the open.”
...
McDonnell's defence was dismissed on Wednesday by various experts on campaign finance regulations, who say the law still makes a clear distinction between the lavish private gifts of the type he admits accepting, and donations that are used to fund political campaigns, which are kept to certain financial limits under the law and are not supposed to be diverted for personal use.
“There is absolutely a difference between personal and private, even if it can sometimes be difficult to define in every instance,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
“The magic words are: is it used for a 'political, legislative or governmental purpose', and a Rolex is not, a dress is not. You don't get to use campaign funds as a personal piggybank.”
...
Few politicians in Washington could argue they never gave preferential personal access to donors. Barack Obama, for example, was instructed by Hollywood donor Jeffrey Katzenberg to make sure he personally spent time at each table of paying guests during a recent campaign fundraiser, according to claims recounted in a New Yorker profile of Obama published this week.
“What President Obama does is not illegal, but unquestionably those who can give large sums obtain different types of access and a different type of relationship from those who don't: that's our current legal framework,” said Levinson. “The difference here is that McDonnell kicked it over on to the illegal side, but in terms of what he provided? A lot of people do that.”
...
But politicians are often allowed to transfer funds from campaign coffers to fund other aspects of their inauguration, such as events.
“The accusations are absolutely qualitatively different from what happens elsewhere and I'm not forgiving anything,” said Levinson. “But there is an argument that if you say, 'Buy me a $50,000 watch and I'll do x for you', it's better than what happens now, which is a tacit version of that. It's at least out in the open.”
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Mark Ridley-Thomas acknowledges home improvements by county workers
I am quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times.
Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who studies governmental ethics, said it was troubling that an elected official would use government workers to perform work on a private residence, even if the official reimbursed taxpayers.
"The question becomes, 'What else would the workers be doing at that time?'" Levinson said. "Does reimbursement make the taxpayer whole? Is fair-market value paid?
"Our public officials should not appear to be using their position for their own benefit. These accusations are dispiriting to people who don't have access to county workers to improve their residences.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Work at Ridley-Thomas' residence went beyond security system
I am quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times.
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School who studies governmental ethics, said that if the work at Ridley-Thomas' residence was ultimately deemed inappropriate, the supervisor would be responsible, no matter who first suggested the improvements.
"He's not unfamiliar with what it means to be a public official or the state ethics code," Levinson said. "He's the person who said yes to the work. Whether or not the idea started with him, he OK'd the project."
BALLOT INITIATIVES GONE WILD
Here is my latest op-ed. It appears on a new site called Politix.
You can read an excerpt below:
You can read an excerpt below:
Here a ballot initiative, there a ballot initiative, everywhere in California a ballot initiative.
How did we get here? About a hundred years ago the processes of direct democracy spread across the country. States gave their citizens the ability to directly enact laws (via the ballot initiative), to directly repeal laws (via the referendum), and to oust elected officials (via the recall). The purpose of direct democracy is to empower average citizens and decrease the power than moneyed interests may have over elected officials. Sounds quaint, doesn't it?
Thursday, January 16, 2014
Two groups that used secret political donations haven't paid penalties
Quoted in this piece in the LA Times.
One of those groups, the Small Business Action Committee, disputes its $11-million penalty and had only $11,260.74 in the bank as of June 30, according to the latest reports available. The other group, the California Future Fund for Free Markets, faces a $4-million penalty but has disbanded. The penalties were levied in October by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
"I don't know if they're ever going to see the full amount," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who tracks campaign finance issues. "It can be very difficult to ever collect the money."
One of those groups, the Small Business Action Committee, disputes its $11-million penalty and had only $11,260.74 in the bank as of June 30, according to the latest reports available. The other group, the California Future Fund for Free Markets, faces a $4-million penalty but has disbanded. The penalties were levied in October by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.
"I don't know if they're ever going to see the full amount," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor who tracks campaign finance issues. "It can be very difficult to ever collect the money."
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Federal Inquiry Into Chris Christie Bridge Scandal Faces Uphill Battle
Quoted in this Huffington Post piece.
...
...
"This may fall under the category of egregious behavior which we wish is criminal, but may or may not be," Loyola Law School professor Jessica A. Levinson told The Huffington Post.
Back when he was U.S. attorney, Christie was known for his aggressive pursuit of public corruption cases, often against politicians who happened to be Democrats. At the time, he was armed with the broad "honest services" statute, which was used to go after public corruption until it was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2010. The law, which made it illegal to deprive "another of the intangible right of honest services," was deemed unconstitutional. Nowadays, there has to be some sort bribery or kickback scheme to bring a honest services charge.
Levinson confirmed that an honest service charge is out for now unless information regarding improper payments comes out. "Right now this just looks like political retribution," she said.
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Who Will Lead the California State Senate?
Quoted in this article in the Sac Bee (Kevin de León aims to move past Calderon scandal to lead Senate)
That Sen. Kevin de León remains a serious contender to become the next leader of theCalifornia Senate may seem surprising given the events of the past six months.
His name is mentioned 56 times in an FBI affidavit alleging that Sen. Ron Calderon accepted $88,000 in bribes from an undercover agent and a hospital executive.
De León himself accepted $5,000 in campaign contributions from the agent.
...
That’s the combative nature of politics, said Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law Schoolwho sits on the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.
“Is (Calderon) such a tainted figure at this point that just being associated with him is problematic, or are people really innocent until proven guilty?” she said. “The law and politics are different things. ... Politics is a lot more about appearances.”
Friday, January 3, 2014
News from Nevada re campaign finance violation: "Judge: Whittemore can stay out of prison while appeal is considered"
Quoted in this one:
In a major victory in Harvey Whittemore’s ongoing legal battles, a federal judge has ruled that the fallen power-broker can stay out of prison until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a major campaign finance case, which could affect his appeal.
In a major victory in Harvey Whittemore’s ongoing legal battles, a federal judge has ruled that the fallen power-broker can stay out of prison until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a major campaign finance case, which could affect his appeal.
...
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said she was surprised by Hicks’ ruling on the Whittemore case because McCutcheon deals with aggregate contributions, not the annual individual limit for one candidate, which was the issue in Whittemore’s case.
Levinson said she does not believe the high court will address a question that it was not asked to answer.
“I don’t think McCutcheon is going to save him,” Levinson said of Whittemore. “Even if the court struck down aggregate contribution limits on First Amendment grounds, and even if the ruling was broad enough to include the individual contributions, Whittemore has been convicted of a law that was previously in place and they would have to make the ruling retroactive.
“I think this was an abundance-of-caution ruling.”
Friday, December 20, 2013
13 Things We Learned about Money in Politics in 2013
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy blogs here. Well worth a read.
In Chacon political dynasty, deceit hits close to home
Quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times.
Montebello school board member Hector Chacon learns brother Arturo, a Central Basin Municipal Water District board member, used his name in an arrest
...
Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School specializing in election law and governance issues who was appointed to the L.A. Ethics Commission, said although the DUI arrest itself may not reflect on Arturo Chacon's ability to do his job as a public official, using his brother's identity raises serious questions.
"What you're doing is creating a narrative that's very troubling while representing an agency that's already tainted by corruption issues," she said.
Thursday, December 19, 2013
Steinberg says governors should fill CA legislative vacancies
Slippery Slope Between Campaigns And Super PACs In San Diego Mayoral Race
Quoted in this one on KPBS.
Here is the article:
There’s been a brief break from campaigning in the special election for San Diego’s next mayor, but the new year is sure to bring with it more political television ads and glossy mailers clogging up mailboxes.
Often those aren’t paid for by the candidates themselves – but by independent expenditure committees, colloquially known as super PACs.
In San Diego, the first leg of the special election was crowded. There were multiple candidates in the race and some had multiple super Political Action Committees behind them. That isn’t really a surprise, but there was one name that kept popping up in all the groups supporting Republican candidate and San Diego City Councilman Kevin Faulconer.
All those groups, even the ones that were supposed to be independent from each other, shared a treasurer -- April Boling.
Jessica Levinson is a campaign finance expert at Loyola Law School. I asked her if super PACs and campaigns had to be separate. She said a lot of people would be “surprised to know that an organization that is supposed to be independent from a candidates campaign can actually share a treasurer.”
To understand, Levinson said, you have to go back to 2010 when a new era in politics was ushered in -- the era of the super PAC. Because of the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United, super PACs could run a shadow campaign, throwing unlimited amounts of money toward a candidate’s campaign with one condition: they can’t coordinate with the candidate.
Levinson said that is proving true only in theory. “In reality super PACs are very attendant to candidates needs," said Levinson. "And this idea of independence really is all but a legal fiction.”
Levinson says its fictional nature is due, in part, to the newness of the Citizens United ruling and the super PACS it spawned. “Because they are new” she said, “we are still really writing the law as to what they can do and we still are creating and refining regulations with what exactly coordination means.”
The key word is coordination, but Levinson said it just hasn’t been well defined by regulators or by the courts.
Gary Winuk is the chief of enforcement for the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which means he oversees regulations of super PACs and campaigns.
Winuk said there are a number of factors that they look at to determine what is coordination.
"How much communication was occurring between the campaigns, do they share common staff?” said Winuk.
So sharing staff can be coordination, but Winuk says that isn’t set in stone either, especially when it comes to outside professional staff, like lawyers and treasurers.
“Sharing campaign staff can mean a lot of different things,” Winuk said. “For example, a lot of people hire professional treasurers, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re coordinating.”
The fact that April Boling is the treasurer for both the super PACs supporting Kevin Faulconer and his campaign does not necessarily mean coordination is occurring. Part of that is because a treasurer just takes in money – they don’t do strategy.
Boling choose not to talk to KPBS for this story about her role in the campaigns.
Campaign finance expert Jessica Levinson says Boling’s example is part of a larger pattern of slipperiness in what constitutes coordination. She says what it really reveals isn’t that there is any wrong doing in San Diego. It's that the idea of independence between all these groups is a political farce.
“What this situation shows,” Levinson said, “is really that candidates and super PACs can have connections and relationships, and that this idea that they can’t coordinate is really a thin idea.”
Levinson says this thin idea is allowing for a lot more money to flood into politics in the era of super PACs.
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Should we use "crowdsourcing" to craft legislation?
Monday, December 16, 2013
Will the IRS crack down on non-profits masquerading as political committees?
I discussed this issue on "Background Briefing" with Ian Masters yesterday. You can listen to the segment here.
Will the LAUSD appoint a member to fill LaMotte's vacant seat, or will they vote to hold a special election?
I discussed this issue on "Which Way, L.A.?" on KCRW tonight. You can listen here.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Special elections: They mostly just waste money
Here is my latest op-ed, which appears in the Los Angeles Times.
Here is an excerpt:
There was a special election in Los Angeles County last week. Didn't know? Didn't vote? Didn't care?
Well, you're in the majority. Less than 9% of registered voters in the 54th Assembly District bothered to show up at the polls or mail in ballots. Angelenos, a generally disunited bunch, coalesced around apathy. But what does it say about us that the one thing we can agree on is indifference?
The appalling turnout last week is a symptom of a much larger problem.
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
Thanks to Congressional Inaction, Seeking Clarity From the IRS Is No Joke
My op-ed in Roll Call is here.
Here is an excerpt:
Here is an excerpt:
A few months ago, the Internal Revenue Service was accused of improperly targeting conservative nonprofit organizations for special scrutiny. Whoops. Now the IRS and the Treasury Department have proposed new rules to curb the political influence of one type of nonprofit organization.
This is a significant step towards increasing transparency in politics. So-called “dark money” flows freely throughout our political system. Outside groups with innocuous sounding names raise and spend unlimited sums, much of it undisclosed, to influence voters.
This system of secrecy significantly hinders voters’ ability to evaluate the credibility of speech aimed at influencing their ballot box decisions. Knowing the source of the spending is arguably the most important piece of information that a voter can receive. A group called “America Now” does not convey anything useful. However, the knowledge that America Now is funded by Monsanto, General Electric, Sheldon Adelson or George Soros would provide voters with helpful information.
Friday, November 29, 2013
Thursday, November 28, 2013
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Rep. Hoyle draws pay from Democrats’ fund
Quoted in this one in the Register-Guard.
Jessica Levinson, a professor of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and member of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission, sees it as a conflict of interest.
“Obviously, it’s not rare for caucus leaders to fundraise on behalf of other candidates, and part of their agenda is getting or keeping their party in the majority,” she said. “But I think there’s still some difference between that and being essentially a paid consultant to the party.”
“Once you’re elected (to represent a district), you can’t just serve the party,” she added.
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
Despite Low Ratings, Obama Remains A Democratic Money Magnet
Interviewed for this one on NPR.
Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance expert at Loyola Law School, says money talks, or screams rather, in our current political system. She says this is the game, and everyone is playing to win — politicians and donors alike.
"I think the only point in the near future where the money will stop making a difference is if it simply turns off voters, and we're not exactly there yet," Levinson says.
Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance expert at Loyola Law School, says money talks, or screams rather, in our current political system. She says this is the game, and everyone is playing to win — politicians and donors alike.
"I think the only point in the near future where the money will stop making a difference is if it simply turns off voters, and we're not exactly there yet," Levinson says.
Replacing Filner: With Election, San Diego Looks To Move Past Scandal
Quoted in this one re the mayoral race in San Diego, CA.
“I think that everyone wants to be the anti-Filner,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles who specializes in ethics and governmental reform. “You show that every aspect of your life is open and that you don’t perform sexual assaults.”
Sunday, November 17, 2013
Nonprofits tied to legislators collect cash out of public view
Quoted in this article in the Los Angeles Times.
SACRAMENTO — A federal allegation that state Sen. Ronald S. Calderon tried to hide a $25,000 bribe in a charity run by his brother has shed light on the use of nonprofits by California legislators to collect cash out of public view.
Some nonprofits, set up with the stated purpose of aiding a charitable or social cause, are also being used to benefit an elected official's career, public image or personal finances, say advocates for open government.
Several current and former California politicians or their relatives have established nonprofits in recent years. Some spent more money on travel, meals or entertainment than on direct assistance to their causes, according to their tax filings.
"This has become a huge loophole," a way to skirt campaign finance laws, said Jessica Levinson, an elections law professor at Loyola Law School.
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Revealed: Obama's record-breaking effort to tap wealthy donors for cash
Quoted in this article in the Guardian.
Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance researcher at Loyola Law School who has studied the growing influence of wealthy donors, says recent efforts in the supreme court to remove campaign finance limits for individuals are likely to exacerbate the trend.
"The downside of all this time spent away from office is the time the president is not doing his job as chief executive, promoting legislation or working with Congress," she said.
"As more money is dropped into the political process it has become a self-perpetuating cycle, requiring politicians to spend ever more time seeking donations rather than governing. It's an imperfect use of his time."
...
"Sadly, this will get worse before it gets better," said Jessica Levinson. "In the end, it is only public outrage that may stop this never-ending need to keep raising money."
Monday, November 11, 2013
Richmond nonprofit's aid seen as front for Chevron
Quoted in this one in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Jessica Levinson, a campaign finance expert and law professor at Loyola University in Los Angeles, said Richmond voters need to be diligent about advocacy groups that don't have to reveal their donors.
"It's great that this group seems to be doing good things now," Levinson said. "But that doesn't mean that people shouldn't stay alert and ask tough questions of them."
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Author Marianne Williamson launches new chapter, targets Rep. Henry Waxman in 2014
Quoted in this article in the Daily Breeze:
Many of those views could resonate with constituents, but whether or not Williamson can win is another question, said Jessica A. Levinson, a political analyst and law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. She noted that Waxman, because of his long tenure in Congress, holds considerable sway in Washington.
“Liberal-leaning voters — who are likely Williamson’s target audience — may be weary of tossing out a senior member of the Democratic Party,” Levinson said in an email. “While Williamson is a best-selling author, Waxman has a proven track record of winning elections for almost four decades.”
Wednesday, November 6, 2013
We Need a Yelp for Politicians, with Comments and Ratings!
My latest piece on Zocalo Public Square is up.
Here is the first bit:
Here is the first bit:
Yelp is a wildly popular web service that allows customers to offer public reviews of the companies and professionals they patronize. Diners rate restaurants, patients rate their doctors, dentists, and health clinics, and shoppers rate their malls. But, at least so far, Yelp does not allow constituents to rate their politicians.
That should change. We all need more feedback on those who represent, or seek to represent, us. Since Americans are, for the most part, in between campaigns, now is the perfect time to build out a website to provide the public with something almost unheard of—useful information about politicians.
Modern campaigns are dominated by less-than-helpful advertisements. In the run-up to elections, our televisions and radios carry ads extolling the virtues, or warning of the vices, of our candidates. Our mailboxes, both real and virtual, brim with mailers explaining why we absolutely must not, under any circumstances, vote for a particular candidate. But very few of these campaign missives contain independent, factual information; campaigns, after all, aim primarily to get you to go to the polls, not to undertake a searching review of candidates.
This lack of helpful, substantive information leaves an ill-informed electorate grasping for answers. What is the solution? Here is one suggestion. Let’s create a dynamic website that would allow us to review our politicians based on a number of objective factors. And unlike well-intentioned but snoozy websites (I’m looking at you, League of Women Voters) that provide constituents with information on politicians, let’s promote a robust comment and ranking system.
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Confirmed to the Los Angeles Ethics Commission
Happy to announce that I've been confirmed as the newest member of the Los Angeles Ethics Commission. I look forward to working to make elections in Los Angeles fair and transparent.
Here is the Los Angeles Ethics Commission's press release re my appointment:
200 North Spring Street • City Hall 24th Floor • Los Angeles CA 90012
LOS ANGELES CITY ETHICS COMMISSION
N E W S
…preserving the public trust
For Immediate Release: October 18, 2013
JESSICA LEVINSON CONFIRMED AS NEW CITY ETHICS COMMISSIONER
The City Council unanimously confirmed Jessica Levinson today as the newest member of the Ethics Commission, noting her extensive professional experience with elections and campaign financing. Ms. Levinson has taught election law and campaign finance courses at Loyola Law School as an adjunct professor and an associate clinical professor since 2009. Additionally, she has lectured for various educational institutions and civic organizations on election law issues.
Ms. Levinson previously served as the Director of Political Reform at the Center for Governmental Studies, where she researched and wrote reports on election laws, campaign finance laws, ballot initiatives, term limits, primary elections systems, and redistricting. In that position, she also authored an amicus curiae brief for the United States Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of public campaign financing. Ms. Levinson holds a Bachelor of Arts degree from Loyola Marymount University and a Juris Doctor degree from Loyola Law School.
“Commissioner Levinson’s valuable experience in the field of elections and campaign financing is a natural fit for the Ethics Commission,” said Heather Holt, the Commission’s executive director. “We look forward to benefitting from her expertise.”
Ms. Levinson was appointed by City Controller Ron Galperin to a five-year term ending June 30, 2018. She succeeds former commissioner Ralph Fertig, whose term ended on June 30, 2013.
The Ethics Commission was created by voters in 1990 to administer and enforce the City laws that help ensure fair and transparent government decisions. It has five part-time commissioners, who serve staggered five-year terms and are appointed by the Mayor, the City Attorney, the Controller, the City Council President, and the City Council President Pro Tem. Ms. Levinson joins President Paul Turner, Vice President Valerie Vanaman, Commissioner Nathan Hochman, and Commissioner Erin Pak.
_______________________
The City Ethics Commission was created by Los Angeles voters in 1990 to impartially administer and
enforce the City’s governmental ethics, campaign financing, and lobbying laws.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013
Will the Supreme Court Strike Down Aggregate Contribution Limits?
Pleased to join Paul Sherman of the Institute for Justice, and Dan Roberts of the Guardian, with host Sheila MacVicar to discuss the Supreme Court's upcoming decision in McCutcheon v. FEC.
My "explainer" on the case is here.
Monday, October 7, 2013
Much Ado About McCutcheon: The Continuing Erosion of Campaign Contribution Limits
My latest piece is up in Pacific Standard magazine.
Here is an excerpt:
Shaun McCutcheon wants to make political donations to federal candidates. Allow me to clarify; McCutcheon wants to make a lot of political donations to federal candidates. The Republican National Committee, among others, wants him to be able to do so. So what’s the problem?
Currently, McCutcheon can give $2,600 per election directly to a federal candidate, a total of $48,600 per election to all federal candidates, and $74,600 per election to federal political party committees and political action committees, or PACs, that give money to federal candidates. Put another away, McCutcheon (and other individuals) are subject to a $123,200 per election aggregate contribution limit with respect to candidates, political parties, and PACs. McCutcheon, an electrical engineer living in Alabama, would like to change that. The result is the latest and greatest campaign finance question to hit the high court since Citizens United.
Here is an excerpt:
Shaun McCutcheon wants to make political donations to federal candidates. Allow me to clarify; McCutcheon wants to make a lot of political donations to federal candidates. The Republican National Committee, among others, wants him to be able to do so. So what’s the problem?
Currently, McCutcheon can give $2,600 per election directly to a federal candidate, a total of $48,600 per election to all federal candidates, and $74,600 per election to federal political party committees and political action committees, or PACs, that give money to federal candidates. Put another away, McCutcheon (and other individuals) are subject to a $123,200 per election aggregate contribution limit with respect to candidates, political parties, and PACs. McCutcheon, an electrical engineer living in Alabama, would like to change that. The result is the latest and greatest campaign finance question to hit the high court since Citizens United.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Investigation: LA Sheriff Lee Baca turned pitchman?
Here is a link to my appearance on the local ABC news.
Here is an excerpt:
Eyewitness News asked Professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School, a specialist in election law, to view the videos. "Sheriff Baca -- as Sheriff Baca -- is promoting this product," she says. "He's saying it's a good product. He's telling his guys that it's a good idea to use this product."
Sheriff Baca does not appear in uniform himself. However, graphics used to introduce his speeches and promote his overall endorsement of Yor Health do show Baca in his Sheriff's Department uniform. "So, he's very clearly there as Sheriff Baca, not just as Lee Baca, Joe Citizen off the street," says Levinson.
Eyewitness News has learned that Sheriff Baca received a $1,000 campaign donation from Yor Health in May of 2010. Three months later, Baca was a guest speaker at his first Yor Health annual conference. In 2012, Baca reported on an income disclosure statement that he accepted $527 in reimbursement from Yor Health for travel expenses to speak at their annual conference in Las Vegas.
But does Baca's endorsement of Yor Health violate L.A. County Conflict of Interest codes, which prohibit the use of "the badge, uniform, prestige or influence" for private gain?
Professor Levinson does not believe that Sheriff Baca has crossed that legal line, but she does think it raises questions about his judgment. "I'm not convinced he's kicked over that threshold, but when we look at the purpose of the conflict of interest statutes and the spirit of the law, then I think it's perfectly fair to ask questions" says Professor Levinson.
Here is an excerpt:
Eyewitness News asked Professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School, a specialist in election law, to view the videos. "Sheriff Baca -- as Sheriff Baca -- is promoting this product," she says. "He's saying it's a good product. He's telling his guys that it's a good idea to use this product."
Sheriff Baca does not appear in uniform himself. However, graphics used to introduce his speeches and promote his overall endorsement of Yor Health do show Baca in his Sheriff's Department uniform. "So, he's very clearly there as Sheriff Baca, not just as Lee Baca, Joe Citizen off the street," says Levinson.
Eyewitness News has learned that Sheriff Baca received a $1,000 campaign donation from Yor Health in May of 2010. Three months later, Baca was a guest speaker at his first Yor Health annual conference. In 2012, Baca reported on an income disclosure statement that he accepted $527 in reimbursement from Yor Health for travel expenses to speak at their annual conference in Las Vegas.
But does Baca's endorsement of Yor Health violate L.A. County Conflict of Interest codes, which prohibit the use of "the badge, uniform, prestige or influence" for private gain?
Professor Levinson does not believe that Sheriff Baca has crossed that legal line, but she does think it raises questions about his judgment. "I'm not convinced he's kicked over that threshold, but when we look at the purpose of the conflict of interest statutes and the spirit of the law, then I think it's perfectly fair to ask questions" says Professor Levinson.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
"California political watchdog sets sights on major cases"
A nice profile of the FPPC, and outgoing Chair (future FEC Commissioner) Ann Ravel.
Here is an excerpt:
Here is an excerpt:
Last fall, the panel sought to discover the source of $11 million in contributions from a mysterious Arizona group to oppose Brown’s tax increase ballot measure and support a campaign finance initiative challenging the political dominance of labor unions. In November, the commission won a lawsuit forcing the group to reveal that the donor was from Virginia. The FPPC and state Attorney General Kamala Harris are still investigating to learn the names of the financial backers.
“The Arizona case showed Californians and it showed members of the public throughout the country the shell game that corporations can play when they want to spend money in politics,” said Jessica Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. “But it also presented a real opportunity for people to try to reform that influence. What people woke up to was the head of California’s watchdog was actually pushing for this before the case and literally was at theCalifornia Supreme Court at midnight filing briefs.”
Last month, the agency moved swiftly to unmask the mystery donor behind a signature-gathering effort to force a public vote on city financial aid for a new arena for the Sacramento Kings. Under the legal scrutiny, Seattle investor Chris Hansen acknowledged contributing $100,000 to the petition drive.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Ann Ravel Confirmed to the Federal Elections Commission
A hearty congratulations to current Chair of the FPPC, future FEC Commissioner Ann Ravel, who was just confirmed today by the U.S. Senate!
A short piece I wrote for the HuffPo re Ann Ravel's nomination to the FEC is here.
A short piece I wrote for the HuffPo re Ann Ravel's nomination to the FEC is here.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
California Gives Expanded Rights to Noncitizens
Honored to have been quoted on the front page of the NYT, above the fold:
LOS ANGELES — California is challenging the historic status of American citizenship with measures to permit noncitizens to sit on juries and monitor polls for elections in which they cannot vote and to open the practice of law even to those here illegally. It is the leading edge of a national trend that includes granting drivers’ licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in some states and that suggests legal residency could evolve into an appealing option should immigration legislation fail to produce a path to citizenship.
LOS ANGELES — California is challenging the historic status of American citizenship with measures to permit noncitizens to sit on juries and monitor polls for elections in which they cannot vote and to open the practice of law even to those here illegally. It is the leading edge of a national trend that includes granting drivers’ licenses and in-state tuition to illegal immigrants in some states and that suggests legal residency could evolve into an appealing option should immigration legislation fail to produce a path to citizenship.
With 3.5 million noncitizens who are legal permanent residents in California, some view the changes as an acknowledgment of who is living here and the need to require some public service of them. But the new laws raise profound questions about which rights and responsibilities rightly belong to citizens over residents.
“What is more basic to our society than being able to judge your fellow citizens?” asked Jessica A. Levinson, a professor at Loyola Law School, referring to jury service. “We’re absolutely going to the bedrock of things here and stretching what we used to think of as limits.”
Thursday, September 5, 2013
FPPC Chair Ann Ravel comes to Loyola Law School
I am so grateful to FPPC Chair Ann Ravel for coming to Loyola Law School yesterday and today to share her thoughts and insights on political reform, disclosure, civic engagement, and many other issues.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Appearances Matter in Politics, Especially When You're Under Investigation
Here is another entry for the "politicians exercising questionable judgment" file cabinet, which, unfortunately, continues to fill up on a daily basis.
California State Senator Ronald Calderon is the subject of a federal corruption investigation. Let that sentence linger for a moment, shall we? Calderon is a public servant; by definition he should be serving the public, in this case his constituents. His first responsibility is to represent those in his state senate district. But there is now some question as to whether he is doing that, or whether he used his office for personal gain.
In this situation it would behoove any representative to be particularly thoughtful and careful, to attempt to make decisions which give no fodder to an already-distrustful public. Unfortunately, Calderon appears not to have done that.
Calderon has chosen another scandal-plagued individual, former Bell Gardens City Councilman Mario Beltran, to be the public face of Calderon's office. Beltran is his chief spokesperson. Beltran served on the Bell Gardens city council. He pleaded guilty to misusing campaign money and was convicted of filing a false police report.
Let's assume, because we must, that Calderon is innocent until proven guilty. Let's also take Beltran at his word that he is a changed man and assume he reformed. And let's do more than that. Let's believe, as I do, that people can change and mature, and therefore deserve second chances. The question still remains, is it wise for someone Calderon's position pick someone with Beltran's history to represent him when the public already looks at their representatives with a wary eye? Appearances matter in politics.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
San Diego Mayor Bob Filner to resign on Aug. 30
Quoted in this article in Reuters re San Diego Mayor Filner's resignation.
Jessica Levinson, an associate clinical professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, said Filner's only bargaining chip in discussions with the city had been his threat to remain in office.
"It sounds like it's an actual compromise, both sides get something," she said. "Ultimately what San Diego needs is for Filner to step down and for them to have a functioning mayor who's allowed in City Hall, and that the city doesn't fear that if he's allowed around women something bad is going to happen."
Tuesday, August 20, 2013
RNC doesn’t want you to hear from their presidential candidates
My latest piece appears on The Hill's Congress Blog.
Here is an excerpt:
Last week the Republican National Committee (RNC) unanimously passed a resolution to prevent NBC and CNN from hosting Republican primary debates unless those networks halt production of films about former first lady, senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In response to this news I have three words, “get over it.”
The RNC believes that both projects will essentially be endorsements of Clinton, a possible (likely? probable? almost certain?) Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential election, and that therefore NBC and CNN will not be able to fairly host Republican presidential debates. It is worth pointing out that at least in the case of NBC’s planned miniseries, the entertainment division of the network would be responsible for the project, and the news division would be in charge of any debates. Will viewers appreciate the difference? Maybe not.
Still, the RNC’s move is more than a little ironic for a number of reasons.
Here is an excerpt:
Last week the Republican National Committee (RNC) unanimously passed a resolution to prevent NBC and CNN from hosting Republican primary debates unless those networks halt production of films about former first lady, senator, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In response to this news I have three words, “get over it.”
The RNC believes that both projects will essentially be endorsements of Clinton, a possible (likely? probable? almost certain?) Democratic candidate for the 2016 presidential election, and that therefore NBC and CNN will not be able to fairly host Republican presidential debates. It is worth pointing out that at least in the case of NBC’s planned miniseries, the entertainment division of the network would be responsible for the project, and the news division would be in charge of any debates. Will viewers appreciate the difference? Maybe not.
Still, the RNC’s move is more than a little ironic for a number of reasons.
Monday, August 19, 2013
An Open Letter to San Diego Mayor Bob Filner
Dear Mayor Bob Filner,
You do not know me, but like the rest of the sane individuals following your sexual harassment scandal, let me tell you, it is time to resign. Actually, allow me to restate that: It was time to resign weeks ago.
First, let me say I do believe in the fundamental principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. You have yet to have been found liable or guilty of anything in a court of law. But here is a news flash for you: You are an elected official. Members of the electorate went to the ballot box and put their faith in you to represent them fairly and honestly. You are failing to do that.
Now, you may ask, does it set a bad precedent to tell an official to resign just because he is accused of wrong doing? The answer is, it absolutely would if that were what I'm advocating, but I am not. The sheer volume of the complaints lodged against you is stunning. The substance of the complaints -- a myriad of unwanted sexual advances -- is deplorable.
As you well know, appearances matter in politics. Appearances also matter in government. Yes, those two things are still somewhat different. When your constituents have lost faith in your ability to govern, not to mention be alone with any woman, it is time to go.
It is increasingly difficult to get members of the electorate to go to the polls and take part in local, state, and federal government. People feel disconnected from their representatives. While this is a real problem, and it is long past the time to change the public's low regard of government, I only wish more of your constituents felt more disconnected from you. Your decision to stay in office is doing nothing to help the people's view of their elected representatives.
The only silver lining here is that the complaints lodged against you are shocking. Thank goodness there is nothing routine or acceptable about what so many women now claim you have subjected them to.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
You do not know me, but like the rest of the sane individuals following your sexual harassment scandal, let me tell you, it is time to resign. Actually, allow me to restate that: It was time to resign weeks ago.
First, let me say I do believe in the fundamental principle that people are innocent until proven guilty. You have yet to have been found liable or guilty of anything in a court of law. But here is a news flash for you: You are an elected official. Members of the electorate went to the ballot box and put their faith in you to represent them fairly and honestly. You are failing to do that.
Now, you may ask, does it set a bad precedent to tell an official to resign just because he is accused of wrong doing? The answer is, it absolutely would if that were what I'm advocating, but I am not. The sheer volume of the complaints lodged against you is stunning. The substance of the complaints -- a myriad of unwanted sexual advances -- is deplorable.
As you well know, appearances matter in politics. Appearances also matter in government. Yes, those two things are still somewhat different. When your constituents have lost faith in your ability to govern, not to mention be alone with any woman, it is time to go.
It is increasingly difficult to get members of the electorate to go to the polls and take part in local, state, and federal government. People feel disconnected from their representatives. While this is a real problem, and it is long past the time to change the public's low regard of government, I only wish more of your constituents felt more disconnected from you. Your decision to stay in office is doing nothing to help the people's view of their elected representatives.
The only silver lining here is that the complaints lodged against you are shocking. Thank goodness there is nothing routine or acceptable about what so many women now claim you have subjected them to.
Finish reading this post on KCET.org.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Bites Lack of rules allow Sacramento politicians to blur private, public interests
Quoted in this one in the Sacramento News and Review:
Sacramento City Council members keep inventing new, creative ways to collect money and funnel it into their own political “brands.” And we need new rules to keep up with their inventions.
Last week, some local pro-labor Democrats asked the California attorney general and Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate Mayor Kevin Johnson’s 501(c)(3) organizations, and the collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars from Walmart, leading up to the vote on Sacramento’s contentious big-box store policy this week.
But when the Walmart battle is over, the problem will remain: These nonprofit organizations lack transparency, they lack clear rules, and they mix public resources with the council members’ political interests.
City Councilman Jay Schenirer’s organization, WayUp Sacramento, has gotten considerably less attention than the mayor’s efforts. But it blurs plenty of lines.
WayUp helps to fund programs for at-risk youth in Oak Park, and that’s a perfectly good thing to do.
But last year, Sacramento City Manager John Shirey said it was inappropriate for outside nonprofits—such as Johnson’s education nonprofit Stand Up, or his arena-booster group Think Big Sacramento—to operate out of City Hall or use city resources.
In some ways, Schenirer’s WayUp looks quite similar to Johnson’s groups. WayUp has a website, paid staff and receives big donations through the city’s “behest” system, just as the mayor’s nonprofits do—including checks from businesses like Walmart, AT&T, and Sutter Health, along with foundation support from the California Endowment. WayUp has taken in nearly $800,000 since Schenirer was elected in 2010.
So, why does WayUp get to operate in City Hall after K.J.’s nonprofits were shown the door? The short answer is that WayUp isn’t really a nonprofit, not yet. According to Schenirer, it’s a “brand.”
...
“It’s somewhat curious that ‘brand’ is the word they use,” says Jessica Levinson, professor of election law at Loyola Law School. “’Brand’ can certainly be seen as PR for the candidate.”
Like when Schenirer toured his district during National Night Out last week, handing out WayUp tote bags and buttons.
She’s not sure Schenirer is doing anything wrong, though, she adds, “The thing that feels a bit funny is that it is using government resources.”
Schenirer says “brand” applies to the community work WayUp does. But of course it’s an extension of Schenirer’s brand as a politician, and an extension of his professional brand, too.
Schenirer is an education consultant; that’s how he makes his money. Among WayUp’s stated goals are “an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy of reform” for schools in Schenirer’s district. He told Bites that school reform is “a generic term,” and that, in this case, it means noncontroversial things like school nutrition programs.
But the project description that WayUp sent to the U.S. Department of Education advocates policies that are related to the work done by Schenirer’s consulting business, Capitol Impact LLC, and its principals.
The WayUp brand seems to be where Schenirer’s interests as a public office holder, politician and professional education consultant all intersect. How much intersection is OK? That’s where some sort of city policy would be helpful.
...
They might want to keep an eye on Schenirer’s variation as well, which Levinson says makes for a “fascinating” but potentially problematic new tool for politicians.
“Until there’s more guidance, politicians will continue to do this. They’d be foolish not to,” she said.
Sacramento City Council members keep inventing new, creative ways to collect money and funnel it into their own political “brands.” And we need new rules to keep up with their inventions.
Last week, some local pro-labor Democrats asked the California attorney general and Fair Political Practices Commission to investigate Mayor Kevin Johnson’s 501(c)(3) organizations, and the collection of hundreds of thousands of dollars from Walmart, leading up to the vote on Sacramento’s contentious big-box store policy this week.
But when the Walmart battle is over, the problem will remain: These nonprofit organizations lack transparency, they lack clear rules, and they mix public resources with the council members’ political interests.
City Councilman Jay Schenirer’s organization, WayUp Sacramento, has gotten considerably less attention than the mayor’s efforts. But it blurs plenty of lines.
WayUp helps to fund programs for at-risk youth in Oak Park, and that’s a perfectly good thing to do.
But last year, Sacramento City Manager John Shirey said it was inappropriate for outside nonprofits—such as Johnson’s education nonprofit Stand Up, or his arena-booster group Think Big Sacramento—to operate out of City Hall or use city resources.
In some ways, Schenirer’s WayUp looks quite similar to Johnson’s groups. WayUp has a website, paid staff and receives big donations through the city’s “behest” system, just as the mayor’s nonprofits do—including checks from businesses like Walmart, AT&T, and Sutter Health, along with foundation support from the California Endowment. WayUp has taken in nearly $800,000 since Schenirer was elected in 2010.
So, why does WayUp get to operate in City Hall after K.J.’s nonprofits were shown the door? The short answer is that WayUp isn’t really a nonprofit, not yet. According to Schenirer, it’s a “brand.”
...
“It’s somewhat curious that ‘brand’ is the word they use,” says Jessica Levinson, professor of election law at Loyola Law School. “’Brand’ can certainly be seen as PR for the candidate.”
Like when Schenirer toured his district during National Night Out last week, handing out WayUp tote bags and buttons.
She’s not sure Schenirer is doing anything wrong, though, she adds, “The thing that feels a bit funny is that it is using government resources.”
Schenirer says “brand” applies to the community work WayUp does. But of course it’s an extension of Schenirer’s brand as a politician, and an extension of his professional brand, too.
Schenirer is an education consultant; that’s how he makes his money. Among WayUp’s stated goals are “an ambitious, rigorous, and comprehensive strategy of reform” for schools in Schenirer’s district. He told Bites that school reform is “a generic term,” and that, in this case, it means noncontroversial things like school nutrition programs.
But the project description that WayUp sent to the U.S. Department of Education advocates policies that are related to the work done by Schenirer’s consulting business, Capitol Impact LLC, and its principals.
The WayUp brand seems to be where Schenirer’s interests as a public office holder, politician and professional education consultant all intersect. How much intersection is OK? That’s where some sort of city policy would be helpful.
...
They might want to keep an eye on Schenirer’s variation as well, which Levinson says makes for a “fascinating” but potentially problematic new tool for politicians.
“Until there’s more guidance, politicians will continue to do this. They’d be foolish not to,” she said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)