Tax-Paid Newsletters Illegal, Supervisors Told

County Counsel Adrian Kuyper has advised Orange County supervisors to stop mailing newsletters to their constituents at the county’s expense because the letters were made illegal by Proposition 73, the statewide campaign reform measure passed by voters June 7.

In a June 14 letter to board members, a copy of which was obtained by The Times, Kuyper advised the supervisors to seek legal opinions from other sources about the reform measure’s effect on campaign money and related issues.

But Kuyper also said that the state measure does not interfere with the county’s so-called TIN CUP ordinance, which limits the supervisors’ ability to vote on matters affecting their financial supporters.

All of the supervisors except Thomas F. Riley have used taxpayer-funded newsletters to stay in touch with their constituents.

An aide to Supervisor Don R. Roth said the new rule will force Roth’s office to drop plans for a letter that was going to notify residents about an upcoming meeting on the proposed Gypsum Canyon county jail.

Supervisor Roger R. Stanton said he was planning to send a letter this summer about the county’s new plans to regulate growth. “Now that’s out the window,” he said.

And Supervisor Gaddi H. Vasquez said he may have to abandon a periodic mailing to his constituents that he started last year.

“The purpose of the community report is to educate our constituents about what is transpiring in the community,” Vasquez said. “It will be disappointing if we don’t have that available to us.”

Proposition 73 states that “no newsletter or mass mailing shall be sent at public expense.” Kuyper said his office is still trying to determine if the rule also extends to informational brochures sent out by various county departments.

The rule is also being scrutinized by the state Fair Political Practices Commission, which is charged with implementing the law.

A key provision of Proposition 73 would prohibit the supervisors, and all other California politicians, from using any campaign money they now have bankrolled to finance races after Jan. 1, 1989, when new contribution limits take effect.

The ban on use of pre-1989 money is causing nightmares for politicians who have raised millions of dollars for future races.

Up-to-date financial disclosure statements are not due until next month, but it appears that in Orange County, only Vasquez and Stanton have significant sums.

The two supervisors said they each have almost $200,000 remaining from their successful June 7 election campaigns.

Both men do not face reelection for another four years. Thus, they said the restriction on the use of current campaign money probably will not be a major problem.

In his letter to the supervisors, Kuyper said it would be improper for him to advise them about how the proposition affects their personal campaign accounts.

Vasquez said he is reviewing the law with his own attorney to determine how the money might be spent, if not on a reelection campaign. And, like other politicians throughout the state, he said he is waiting for more information from the FPPC about how to interpret the new restrictions.

Stanton said he may use leftover campaign money to pay for the newsletters that were previously mailed at taxpayers’ expense. He said he has been advised that it may be legal to donate the money to charities.

Passed by 58% of the voters, Proposition 73 also limits campaign contributions from individuals to $1,000 per year. Organizations with more than 100 members can give up to $5,000 per year.

Those rules will also apply to county supervisorial campaigns. And statewide, they are expected to force fundamental changes in California politics, especially for candidates who have relied on a small number of large donors.

But the impact on Orange County supervisors will not be as severe as for officials elsewhere, because they have lived with strict campaign finance restrictions for 10 years. The county law prohibits the supervisors from voting on matters involving contributors to their campaigns who have given more than $1,739 over the past 48 months.

Kuyper said he does not believe that TIN CUP, which stands for Time is Now, Clean up Politics, conflicts with Proposition 73 because the county ordinance is a “restriction but not a limitation on campaign contributions.”

The county ordinance restricts a supervisor’s ability to vote but does not limit the size of campaign contributions.