Labor Board Battles Law on Campaign Donations

The San Diego-Imperial Counties Labor Council has filed suit against the City of San Diego, claiming that City Atty. John Witt’s interpretation of a municipal ordinance regulating campaign contributions violates unions’ right to free speech.

Witt said Friday that if the city’s election law is struck down, political action committees (PACs) will have free reign to funnel campaign funds from numerous sources to city races, virtually nullifying local control over political contributions.

“If the language is broad enough that we cannot restrict PACs from making political contributions, then the only question is whether they can spend as much as they want in uncontrolled contributions,” Witt said.

The labor council filed the suit in Superior Court this week on behalf of the Committee on Political Education (COPE). In November, Witt ruled that COPE had inadvertently violated the city’s election law by accepting money from San Diego Firefighters Union Local 145 and spending it on television and radio advertising for Mayor Roger Hedgecock’s reelection campaign.

The dispute began after mayoral challenger Dick Carlson charged that the Hedgecock campaign had received illegal contributions from COPE. According to the city’s Campaign Control Ordinance, enacted in 1973, “No person, other than an individual, shall make a contribution to any candidate or committee.”

As interpreted by Witt, the ordinance permitted Firefighters Union Local 145--an “individual”--to spend money on behalf of a political campaign, but prohibited COPE--a “committee” from making the same expenditure.

Witt ruled that the violations did not appear to be “willful” and thus would not be prosecuted. However, he did warn COPE that “future compliance (would) be monitored carefully.”

Joseph Francis, the labor council’s executive secretary-treasurer, said the suit was filed to clear up ambiguity in the ordinance’s language, which, as now interpreted, “unfairly restricts labor’s participation in the election process.”

“Our concern is with the part of the ordinance dealing with the terms ‘group’ and ‘individual’ and their definitions,” Francis said.

“The crux of the case is that COPE wants to be treated as an individual,” said attorney Michael Crowley, who filed the suit. “Under the spirit of the ordinance, the definition of a ‘committee’ is one that is controlled by the candidate. COPE is independent.”

However, Witt said he sees little ambiguity in the ordinance, which defines a “committee” as “any person or combination of persons who . . . makes expenditures . . . for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the actions of voters.”

“I don’t think it’s very ambiguous,” he said. “What it comes down to is that it keeps them (COPE) out of municipal elections, and the question is whether that’s constitutional.”

Both sides in the dispute agree that the case’s outcome will hinge largely on the applicability of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions involving the Federal Election Commission’s attempts to restrict campaign contributions by political action committees. The court has consistently ruled that the right of these committees to make independent campaign contributions is protected by the First Amendment.

Crowley said the court’s opinion on this matter is merely an application of First Amendment principles to the demands of modern campaigning.

“Two hundred years ago, you could distribute a pamphlet and that would be a potent political device,” he said. “Today, you would probably need the money to sponsor commercials to have the same impact.”

But Francis maintains that without some clarification of the election ordinance, COPE will not be able to represent labor’s interests in municipal elections.

“In effect, we could not operate (if the current interpretation is upheld),” he said. “We would hope that the matter could be expedited so that we could participate in local elections and know what fund work we can and cannot do. I think it would be to the public’s benefit to clarify the matter in court.”