A famous California politician once said that “money is the mother’s milk of politics.” What is true in Sacramento appears to be equally true in Malibu. While many people may feel money should not sway political outcomes, supporters and opponents of Proposition N (the City Council’s proposition), Proposition O (the advisory ballot on the $15 million bond issue) and Proposition P (Malibu Right-to-Vote on-Development Initiative) spent a large amount of money for and against their propositions.
Mayor Tom Hasse’s language was even stronger. “It’s obscene,” he said, and it’s why he believes it is time to put limits on how much anyone can contribute to initiatives in Malibu.
The biggest spender was the Malibu Bay Company, which spent $197,225 cumulatively for the year 2000 on the initiatives, (Yes on Proposition N and No on Proposition P).
Prop. P supporters also spent a significant amount of money to push their cause to the 9,000 or so registered Malibu voters, of which less than 5,000 voted during the November elections. Yes on P supporters spent $76,271.74, and still have an outstanding debt, according to their filings.
Currently, a City Council subcommittee, composed of Councilmember Jeff Jennings and Hasse, is looking into ways to control ballot measure costs.
“It’s like a war, each side escalates and it never ends, so you need campaign finance,” said Hasse. “This situation is not unique to Malibu. It is an ongoing debate at the national level in Washington D.C.”
There are already limitations on what a candidate for City Council can receive from any one person — $100. However, the limitations don’t apply to ballot propositions.
Contributors are required to file disclosure documents with the city clerk relating to campaign expenses.
Since 1996, “any group that has a campaign account open is required to file a bi-annual campaign disclosure document,” said Virginia Bloom, city clerk.
The figures on the accompanying chart below cover the last six months of the year 2000, and include expenditures for ballot propositions in November 2000, the City Council campaign in November 2000, and the earlier City Council race in April 2000. November 2000 council candidate Robert Roy van de Hoek’s report is not included because he has not turned in the documents yet, said Bloom.