Prop. 63 Finance Infraction Alleged : English Measure Foes Fault Backers in Reporting of Loan

Opponents of Proposition 63--the November ballot measure that would declare English to be the official language of California--charged Thursday that supporters of the proposition have violated campaign financing laws by inaccurately reporting $300,000 in loans.

“The campaign reporting practices of the California English Campaign are as deceptive as the initiative itself,” said Lenny Goldberg, campaign manager of Californians United Against Proposition 63, an umbrella group that includes the American Civil Liberties Union, the California League of Women Voters and the California Labor Federation (AFL-CIO), among others.

Goldberg said campaign finance statements show that the California English Campaign received a $385,000 loan last spring from the U.S. English Legislative Task Force, a national organization that promotes such measures throughout the country, but that the national group reported a loan of only $289,600 to the California campaign.

“Thus, there is an obvious discrepancy of $95,400, a significant amount of unaccounted-for funds. . . ,” Goldberg said.

In addition, according to Goldberg, the U.S. English Legislative Task Force report does not indicate where the money for the $289,600 loan came from. It lists only an $85,200 contribution from U.S. English, the task force’s parent group, and a single contribution of $35.

“Thus, of the loan of $385,000 reported by the California English Campaign, only $85,235 is traceable,” Goldberg stated.

Calling these “major violations of campaign reporting laws,” the anti-Proposition 63 group called for an investigation by the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission.

“It seems clear all this money is from outside California,” Goldberg said. “It also seems clear these outside groups don’t think it’s necessary to comply with California’s campaign financial reporting laws.”

Stanley Diamond, chairman of the California English Campaign, said opponents “are using figures from different reporting periods.”

He said the U.S. English Legislative Task Force report covered Jan. 1 to June 30, 1986, while the report of his own organization included the period from April 17, 1985, to June 30, 1986.

Diamond said that the records were being reviewed and that he had no final answer yet but it was possible that the legislative task force made other loans to the California campaign, in addition to one for $289,600, before Jan. 1, 1986.

“These guys use scare tactics and dirty tricks,” Diamond said. “They ought to look at the records more carefully.”

But Goldberg said the U.S. English Legislative Task Force did not file a campaign statement in 1985, so it was not possible that additional loans had been made to the California campaign during that year.

“If there’s something from some other filing period, it’s not traceable,” he said.