City Attorney May Test the Legality of Trial Defense Fund for Martinez

Although he lost a similar legal fight one year ago, San Diego City Atty. John W. Witt is questioning whether contributions to a defense fund for indicted Councilman Uvaldo Martinez are illegal because they violate city campaign laws.

A financial disclosure report filed last week by a defense fund established by Martinez’s supporters lists donations of more than $250, corporate contributions and incomplete information about individual donors--all of which are prohibited under San Diego’s election laws, at least as those laws apply to political candidates’ fund-raising activities.

However, when Witt mounted a similar challenge last year over the legality of donations to a legal defense fund for former Mayor Roger Hedgecock, a Superior Court judge ruled that the city’s campaign limits apply only to money raised for political races, not to defense funds to defray politicians’ legal expenses. In short, Judge Mack P. Lovett ruled that the campaign laws govern only funds raised to try to elect a politician to office, not money solicited to help legally embattled politicians remain in office.

Witt argues that the court’s ruling in the Hedgecock case was wrong, and said Tuesday that he still believes that the campaign limits do apply to defense funds.

“We still think our position is right, but the question is whether we want to test that position in court again in light of the Superior Court’s judgment last year on the same thing,” Witt said. “That’s something we’re studying now.”

The city attorney added that he expects to decide later this month whether to go to court in an attempt to impose his office’s interpretation of the campaign ordinance on Martinez’s defense fund.

In the meantime, Martinez’s supporters argue that last year’s court ruling eliminated any restrictions on how defense funds can be raised.

“His defense attorney and committee have decided that until that court ruling is overturned, there’s no reason not to follow it,” said Paul Grasso, Martinez’s administrative assistant. “They’re operating within the guidelines of the law at this point and will do so until they’re informed otherwise.”

Martinez is scheduled to go on trial next month on 24 felony charges alleging that he misappropriated public funds for personal use and falsified public records concerning his use of a city-issued credit card. Under state law, Martinez would be automatically removed from office if he is convicted on any of the counts.

To help Martinez pay his legal expenses, a group of civic leaders formed a fund-raising committee known as San Diegans for Councilman Martinez. As of June 30, the group had raised $10,320 and reported total expenses of $21,744.87, leaving a debt of $11,905.15, said Jack Fishkin, city elections officer.

Martinez, who has said that he cannot afford to defend himself, currently is represented by a county-paid attorney. A Superior Court hearing is scheduled for next week to determine whether Martinez should continue to receive free legal services or whether his finances have improved--in part because of a recent City Council pay raise--to the point that he can afford to hire a private lawyer.

Witt’s interpretation of the campaign ordinance would impose severe restrictions on Martinez’s defense fund, because the city laws prohibit corporate donations and individual contributions of more than $250. Martinez’s report lists two $1,000 corporate contributions and at least two individual contributions of $300 each, Witt noted.

In addition, the city attorney pointed out that the occupations and business affiliations of about a dozen other individual contributors are not listed on Martinez’s reports, information that is required of donors to political candidates. In the July, 1985, ruling, Lovett stipulated that contributions to defense funds must be publicly reported, with the names, addresses and businesses of donors disclosed for contributions of $100 or more.

Lovett’s decision enabled Hedgecock to block Witt’s attempt to impose the $250 limit and ban on corporate donations on a defense fund established by the then-mayor’s backers. Witt’s office appealed the judge’s ruling, but dropped the appeal after Hedgecock resigned in December following his conviction on felony conspiracy and perjury charges stemming from illegal contributions to his 1983 mayoral campaign.

“So the disagreement stands,” Witt said. “We haven’t had the final word on this yet.”