In the November 2014 election, nearly 70% of Orange County voters approved the formation of the Campaign Finance and Ethics Commission. Between 1978 and 2016, Grindle had been the sole individual that audited every County Candidate’s campaign statements. Initially the District Attorney’s office took on the role of investigating and enforcing campaign violations. But when Tony Rackauckas became the District Attorney all investigation and enforcement of violations by candidates running for county office ceased.
As a result of the non-enforcement by the District Attorney, beginning in the early 2000’s Grindle made several attempts to convince the Board of Supervisors they needed to establish a Commission to take over Grindle’s auditing role including enforcement. After 12 years and many foiled attempts by Grindle to convince the Board of the need for an independent Commission, Chairman Todd Spitzer spearheaded the writing of an ordinance to put before the voters that would establish such a Commission. Ultimately the only Board member to vote against this Commission was Supervisor Michelle Steele.
Steele was not the only opponent to the formation of this Commission. Behind-the-scenes opposition also came from the County Lobbyists who acted as campaign fundraisers for individual County Supervisors. The Lobbyists claimed that the Commission would merely provide a platform for opposing candidates to file frivolous complaints against each other. In the 10 years of the Commission’s existence there has not been a single case of this happening. The real reason the Lobbyists opposed it (as told to me by one of the County Lobbyists) was that it would hinder the Lobbyists ability to advise their clients “how to get around the rules”.
What is unique about this particular Commission, compared to other so-called Ethics Commissions in California, is its primary goal of making sure that all candidates play by the same set of rules. Most Commissions fine violators, but do not make them correct the violation – violations which usually involve acceptance of illegal campaign contributions. When the Executive Director of our Commission finds a violation (through line-by-line auditing), the candidate is notified of the violation and is requested to return the illegal contribution before the pending election. To-date, no candidate has ever refused to refund an illegal contribution in the 10 years the Commission has been in existence.
Achieving “compliance” with the campaign rules (rather than “punishment by imposing fines”) results in making sure all candidates are running for office under the same set of rules.
Although the Commission’s primary function is to investigate and enforce violations of the County’s Campaign Reform Ordinance (aka TINCUP), the Executive Director also handles the enforcement of the Gift Ban, Lobbyist Registration and certain sections of the Code of Ethics and provides ethics training classes for over 300 county employees and officials (as required by AB 1234).
What the Campaign Finance and Ethics Commission is not responsible for is the handling of “Hotline” complaints. Supposedly, the hotline system is to give employees who suspect wrongdoing by others to bring it to the attention of upper management where it will be dealt with. This system is so fraught with political pressure and conflicts of interest to the point that it breeds suspicion, and is obviously not working successfully and hasn’t for many years.
The activities of former Supervisor Andrew Do have focused attention on the hotline system and its failings. It is being justifiably questioned by the public and by the Supervisors themselves.
During recent public discussions about the hotline system, Supervisor Vicente Sarmiento stated that the Campaign Finance and Ethics Commission was “toothless”. With no clarification, Sarmiento has made an insulting and unfounded statement that deserves some explanation. While the Commission has absolutely no involvement or jurisdiction over the hotline complaints, it has been very successful in chasing down illegal contributions.
The Commission has a 100% success rate in obtaining compliance with the County’s campaign rules. And the Executive Director has never had to use its right to subpoena records. This success rate is not the definition of a “Toothless” Commission.
However, there is no question the County needs to come up with a way to effectively respond to hotline complaints. This may be in the form of a new independent Commission or adding to the responsibilities of this Commission. To rely on County employees and officials for adequately dealing with hotline complaints is farcical.
The Campaign Finance and Ethics Commission and its Executive Director deserve many kudos for the success that has been achieved in the past 10 years and will likely continue to achieve in the coming years. Because of this Commission and because of the County’s Gift Ban Ordinance, Orange County no longer is referred to as the “Dirty Tricks Capital of California”.
Shirley Grindle is the author of Orange County’s Campaign Reform Ordinance (TIN-CUP – Time Is Now, Clean Up Politics). She served 4 years on the Orange County Planning Commission in the mid-1970’s where she learned how campaign contributions influenced decisions made by elected officials. She is also a retired Aeronautical Engineer who was instrumental in the Space Program.
Opinions expressed in community opinion pieces belong to the authors and not Voice of OC.
Voice of OC is interested in hearing different perspectives and voices. If you want to weigh in on this issue or others, please email opinions@voiceofoc.org.
