Fresno shouldn’t let dark money from political operatives muddy elections | Opinion
The Fresno political operative behind the sordid campaign mailer smearing a city council candidate and his wife of 30 years could be in hot water with the state agency that enforces election laws.
But regardless of the California Fair Political Practices Commission probe into Fresno Future Forward and Alex Tavlian, city officials should take steps to limit political action committee dark money from anonymously muddying future elections.
In this case, the mailer accusing Brandon Vang of statutory rape in the 1990s sent to southeast Fresno voters weeks before the March 18 special election did not have its intended effect. The shady tactic may have in fact backfired due to voter sympathy. Vang handily won a four-way contest for the District 5 seat with 50.2% of the ballots.
Responding to a complaint filed by Vang, City Attorney Andrew Janz announced March 10 that Fresno Future Forward had not filed required paperwork with the city clerk. Janz fined Riley Moore, the PAC’s listed officer, $1,000 for violating the California Political Reform Act and section 2-1105 of the Fresno Municipal Code. (The organization submitted disclosure forms the day following Janz’s press conference.)
One month later, Tavlian’s name replaced Moore’s as principal officer. The $1,000 fine due in mid June has not been paid as of Thursday, Janz said.
Tavlian is a well-known City Hall insider and political consultant who also publishes the San Joaquin Valley Sun online news site. He has worked on multiple campaigns, ballot initiatives, redistricting efforts and for local electeds including Council President Mike Karbassi and Fresno County Supervisor Luis Chavez, whose wife Elizabeth Jonasson-Rosas finished second to Vang in the special election to fill her husband’s council seat.
On Vang’s first day after getting sworn in, he canceled a $100,000 services contract awarded by Chavez in December to Tavlian’s public affairs firm, Local Government Strategic Consulting, to provide outreach services for the district.
“One hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money,” Vang replied when asked about the cancellation. “Most people who live in my district don’t make that much in a year. That’s what two people make.”
Now state election regulators have taken note of the possible irregularities.
As initially reported by Fresnoland, the FPPC notified Fresno Future Forward in an April 17 letter that it was under investigation for “potential violations of the campaign disclosure provisions of the Political Reform Act.”
A FPPC spokesperson refused further comment, citing the open investigation.
On its website, the agency posts regular updates of resolutions to enforcement cases. Based on similar past cases, the most likely outcome (if warranted) is an additional fine.
Whether Tavlian committed any violations or simply pushed to the edge of the rulebook isn’t for me to say. The chapters of the Political Reform Act that cover campaign disclosures and mass mailings are complex and require interpretation by someone with a law degree.
City code needs strengthening
By contrast, section 2-1105 of the Fresno Municipal Code is remarkably simple. The adjectives “loose” and “vague” also fit.
The relevant paragraph states that “an elected officer, candidate, committee or other person required to file statements, reports, or other documents described by Chapter 4 of the Political Reform Act … shall file those statements, reports, or other documents online or electronically with the City.”
Notice the statute only says “shall file.” It does not prescribe a timeline. For example, requiring that campaign disclosure forms be filed before engaging in election activities such as spending $4,439.51 (the amount reported by Fresno Future Forward) on an attack mailer.
The municipal code as currently written provides a wide loophole for bad actors to interfere with elections without having to reveal themselves until after the votes are counted.
If Fresno officials truly cared about the undo influence of dark money, they would give the statute more teeth. Also, the $1,000 fine is not enough deterrent. Make it $50,000 for egregious violations, and these types of shenanigans would cease.
Of course, stiffening city statutes requires political will from those currently in charge – which I’m not sure exists. Why not? Because most of the current office-holders have some association with PACs and would be reluctant to limit the hands that fund them.
There are ways to prevent political operatives from using unsavory tactics to exert influence over Fresno voters from behind a curtain of anonymity. It’s more a question of whether the powers-that-be are bothered enough to do anything.
