Taxpayer group warns Fresno about illegal campaigning. Says it’s won argument before
Fresno’s plans to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on information efforts for two local November ballot measures is drawing scrutiny from a taxpayer watchdog group over the prospect of illegal campaign spending.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association notified Fresno City Manager Georgeanne White and Fresno City Councilmembers in a letter Tuesday that it “will be carefully monitoring” the city’s voter education programs for Measure M, a city sales tax to support veterans programs, and Measure C, the renewal of a Fresno County sales tax for road and transportation improvements.
The letter cautioned that Los Angeles County paid the organization more than $1.3 million “after we filed a lawsuit against the County for its illegal use of public funds advocating the passage of its own tax measure,” Jarvis senior counsel Timothy Bittle wrote. “Will Fresno be next?”
The letter follows a pair of votes last week by the Fresno City Council: one to spend up to $450,000 with Local Government Strategic Consulting LLC, a Fresno political consulting firm, to provide educational outreach on Measure M, and the other for up to $150,000 with Fresno advertising and public relations firm Jeffrey Scott Agency for Measure C.
Councilmember Miguel Arias voted against the Jeffrey Scott Agency contract because the firm is already engaged in the official Yes on Measure C political campaign. That, he said, raised his concern about potentially crossing the boundary between campaigning and education and running afoul of state law.
Blurring the line
“I don’t believe this has the ability and controls to remain a factual information initiative and it puts us as a city at significant risk,” Arias said. “If you advocate for the positives only, that crosses a line. … You can’t just clearly elevate the positives and not point out anything else, like it’s a tax.”
Arias underscored his argument by displaying a flyer that the advertising agency produced for the Fresno County Transportation Authority – the public agency which oversees Measure C spending – touting the benefits of the measure without elaborating on the costs to taxpayers.
That potential for blurring that line is the focus of the skepticism expressed in the Jarvis association’s letter to the city.
“We have reviewed the contracts between the city and its consultants, LGSC and JSA, for public ‘education’ regarding the upcoming Measure M and Measure C sales tax proposals,” Bittle wrote. He noted that the contracts call for the consultants to design and produce television and radio ads using professional film and voice talent; design and post paid social media and YouTube ads; send direct-mail flyers and text messages to voters; and do outdoor billboard advertising.
“The ‘style’ of these campaigns is probably much different from typical city communications,” Bittle added. “We assume that the city does not usually communicate with its citizens via professionally designed and produced television commercials, radio spots, YouTube reels or billboard ads.”
Bittle cited a 1976 California Supreme Court ruling, Stanson v. Mott, on the distinction between proper and improper expenditures of public funds on political issues.
“In distinguishing unlawful political expenditures from allowed ‘informational’ correspondence, (the court) held that, ‘With respect to some activities, the distinction is clear; thus, the use of public funds to purchase such items as … television and radio ‘spots’ unquestionably constitutes improper campaign activity.’”
Bittle also questioned the timing of the city’s outreach efforts “to ‘educate’ voters mere weeks before the election, while mail-in ballots are in their hands. …”
Litigation anticipated
Councilmember Mike Karbassi, in urging his City Council colleagues last week to approve the Measure C contract with Jeffrey Scott Agency, anticipated the prospect of litigation over the expenditure of city funds. “There may be groups that sue us no matter what because they’re unhappy, and that’s what we’ve found from some of these advocacy groups,” he said. “That’s a card they play, and we’re going to have to deal with that.”
White, the city manager, said she will be managing both contracts and assured councilmembers that all materials produced by the two consultants for Measure M and Measure C would be reviewed by the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that they comply with state law and California Fair Political Practices Commission guidelines against electioneering.
“We’re very clear on not only what the government code says but what the FPPC guidance says,” White told the council on Thursday. “We all want to stay out of trouble.”
LGSC and its chief, political operative Alex Tavlian, conducted feasibility research earlier this year on anticipated voter approval for Measure M, proposed as a sales tax of 0.125% for 20 years within the city of Fresno. If approved by voters on Nov. 8, the tax would generate an estimated $19.5 million each year for such efforts as affordable housing, job training and placement, reducing homelessness and other services, according to the ballot language. It would also help pay for rehabilitating existing veterans facilities such as the Veterans Memorial Auditorium in downtown Fresno or VFW or American Legion halls.
Measure C, a 0.5% sales tax for road, highway and transportation improvements, was first approved by Fresno County voters in 1986 for a 20-year duration, and was renewed in 2006 for another 20 years that will end in 2027. The measure on the Nov. 8 ballot would extend the tax through 2057 – a 30-year extension, rather than the previous 20-year terms.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association is named for Howard Jarvis, the tax reduction advocate who successfully led the effort to pass Proposition 13 in 1978 capping the amount that property taxes could be raised each year.
