FPPC Applies Prop. 73 Limits to Pringle’s Suit Defense

Money raised by Assemblyman Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove) to defend himself against a lawsuit challenging his controversial 1988 election is considered a political contribution and cannot exceed new campaign donation limits, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission ruled Wednesday.

Latino groups have filed a federal lawsuit against Pringle that seeks to overturn his narrow election victory, alleging that uniformed security guards hired by the Orange County Republican Party intimidated voters in 20 predominantly Latino precincts in Santa Ana on Election Day last November.

By a 3-to-2 vote, the FPPC commissioners decided that because Pringle’s defense aims to influence the outcome of the election, any money donated to defray his legal bills can be considered “political” and must be governed by new Proposition 73 contribution limits of $1,000 for an individual and $2,500 for a political action committee.

“Once Assembly member Pringle raises funds for the litigation in an amount equal to the applicable contribution limit for a fiscal year from a single source, he may not accept other contributions for his election from the same source in that same fiscal year,” the FPPC majority said in a statement issued Wednesday.

Pringle said Wednesday that the FPPC decision would have little practical effect in how he raises money for his legal defense because he has observed the limits in anticipation of the agency ruling. But he contended that Proposition 73 restrictions do not apply to one of his fund-raising committees that was established to thwart a recall attempt. Those unrestricted donations are being used to pay legal defense bills, which have mounted to about $50,000, he said.

Pringle and Assembly Minority Leader Ross Johnson (R-La Habra) both criticized the FPPC ruling as unfair.

“It’s a ridiculous ruling because it really does cripple anybody as a candidate or a newly elected official from defending himself against whatever frivolous lawsuits that are brought against him,” Pringle said.

A spokeswoman for Johnson said the minority leader, who helped write Proposition 73, may challenge the FPPC ruling in court because it does not apply the same kind of financial limits to people who do not hold public office when they bring lawsuits against candidates.

“It’s clearly unconstitutional. It restricts the ability of officeholders and candidates while at the same time gives carte blanche to plaintiffs in these lawsuits,” said Anne Richards, Johnson’s spokeswoman.

It was a query by Johnson that prompted the FPPC’s ruling Wednesday.