Guest Column/Xandra Kayden, Ethics consultant
The Campaign Watch Commission met for the first time on Friday, March 19, to go over procedures and address the issues that have come before it. Ed Edelman withdrew last week just after the papers went to press, and his place was taken by John Jalili, retired city manager of Santa Monica, who served for many years in that city.
There were several complaints before the commission. One dealt with the question of the independent expenditures of Ozzie Silna. Wade Major sought an injunction against further spending by Mr. Silna in the Santa Monica Court, but Judge Terry Friedman denied the request, agreeing that while Silna was “an agent” for several candidates, the case should be pursued through the city attorney to determine if his actions were sufficient to enjoin him from future independent expenditures. The commission felt that, since the issue was in the courts and may be determined by law, it was inappropriate for its actions. The commission did take up other complaints, which I trust will be reported elsewhere.
Betty Ann Downing, an attorney who is representing CAN and Ozzie Silna, sent a letter about the commission itself, arguing that its very existence has a chilling affect on speech and is, therefore, undemocratic. “Nothing could be more troubling in our democratic election system,” she said, “than to have the government attempt to deter, restrain, comment upon or judge the content of political speech engaged in during a campaign.”
I would argue that this commission is not government. I was hired as a consultant by the city to help raise the ethical level of the campaign, and I came up with the idea of the commission based on my experience with the Los Angeles League of Women Voters. I was the only one who appointed its members. No one on the commission is paid by the government, nor do its actions carry the sanction of law. None of us have an interest in the outcome of the election, nor do we have any personal knowledge of any of the candidates and their supporters. Our role is not a restraint on speech, but rather another voice.
We have seen the emergence of voices similar to the commission’s in other aspects of campaigning recently. Newspapers take on the responsibility of evaluating campaign ads and correcting what their research shows to be inaccurate. Given the difficult position both local papers are in as being the primary, if not sole, vehicle for campaign ads, it is not probable that they could or would take on that role, since full-page ads must be a significant part of their income.
While I am sympathetic to the commitment advocates have to their positions on all sides in this campaign, and their uncertainty about an outside voice coming in, I think we should all consider this effort an opportunity to encourage greater accuracy in the rhetoric, and an experiment in improving the quality of local democracy. Such commissions are not new. They may be more obviously independent when created by groups such as the League of Women Voters. But in this case, we are standing on the reputations of the individuals involved, mine clearly, but also each member of the Campaign Watch Commission. They are known for their work and, in this case, also for the independence in this election.
A questionable tactic has been raised about a push poll now in the field in Malibu. According to the National Council on Public Polls, a push poll “is a telemarketing technique in which telephone calls are used to canvass vast numbers of potential voters, feeding them false and damaging ‘information’ about a candidate under the guise of taking a poll to see how this ‘information’ affects voter preferences. In fact, the intent is to ‘push’ the voters away from one candidate and toward the opposing candidate. This is clearly political telemarketing, using innuendo and, in many cases, clearly false information to influence voters; there is no intent to conduct research.”
Push polls are condemned by all the professional polling associations. They are a campaign ploy and, while it is not against the law to lie in a campaign, voters do have a right to be skeptical.
Opinions on complaints submitted to the Campaign Watch Commission are printed on page A18.