Angels Clear Another Hurdle in Name Issue

After waging a five-month campaign to force the Angels to inform patrons that they play in Anaheim and not Los Angeles, Assemblyman Tom Umberg (D-Santa Ana) on Monday quietly dropped a bill that would have required the team to include geographic disclosures on advertisements and tickets.

With Angel President Dennis Kuhl waiting in Sacramento to speak against the bill, Umberg agreed to withdraw it before its scheduled hearing in front of the Business and Professions Committee of the state Senate.

“There were not enough votes to pass it,” said committee chairwoman Liz Figueroa (D-Fremont).

Umberg introduced the bill in response to the Angels’ name change. The city of Anaheim has sued the Angels, alleging the new Los Angeles name violates the stadium lease. Umberg and Figueroa said committee members were concerned about voting on the bill because of the pending litigation.

The trial is set to start Nov. 7. Within the last two weeks, a state appellate court has refused to overturn the name change and the Umberg bill has been withdrawn, so judicial and legislative proceedings can fade behind baseball proceedings for now.

“We’re still focused on the season,” Angel spokesman Tim Mead said. “Hopefully, it’s a clear path for getting through the season.”

The Angels did not contest the bill when it passed the Assembly. In the Senate, the Angels and the California Broadcasters Assn. lobbied against the bill, with the team arguing that the matter is properly handled in court and that ticket sales above 3 million prove that fans are not confused or deceived about where the team plays. The CBA contended disclosures mandated by the bill could make radio advertising impractical.

“What this clearly signals is, there is no support on this committee for this bill,” said Mark Powers, the CBA’s government affairs executive.

Legislative rules allow Umberg to introduce the bill again next year, an option he said he would consider if the trial does not result in the return of the Anaheim Angels name.

“It’s not dead,” Umberg said of his bill. “It’s put over until next year.”

He said he had not heard from the Angels since he introduced the bill in February and would welcome the opportunity to discuss the issue with Kuhl. He said the bill had drawn plenty of attention but would not drop the issue and consider his point made, citing the $20-million contribution toward stadium renovations that Anaheim argues it traded for the right to put the city’s name on the team.

“The fact that taxpayers have paid for the name and are not being given the benefit of that bargain remains true,” Umberg said. “The fact that they’ve lost the benefit of the bargain remains offensive to me.”