COSTA MESA : Campaign Literature Ordinance Rejected

The City Council this week rejected an ordinance proposed by Councilman Orville Amburgey that would have required council candidates to file their campaign literature with the city clerk.

The emergency ordinance--so named because it would have taken effect immediately if approved by four of the five council members--received only the support of its sponsor. Councilman Ed Glasgow was absent.

“We basically discussed it and the council majority didn’t feel it would accomplish what it was set out to do and that is to try to reduce negative campaign literature,” said Councilwoman Sandra L. Genis.

However, Amburgey, who is seeking his second four-year term on the council, said the ordinance would have given candidates an opportunity to respond to negative statements.

“What was behind it was that I received information from reliable sources that some of the opposition will be passing out ‘hit pieces’ before the election and I feel that Costa Mesa doesn’t need that,” Amburgey said.

“Hit pieces” contain negative information about opponents and are distributed shortly before an election.

Amburgey has accused candidate Jay Humphrey of distributing negative campaign information, including copies of newspaper stories concerning Amburgey’s conflict-of-interest battles over the last few months. Amburgey has been criticized for refusing to abstain from votes involving his son’s construction company and others who have donated to his campaign.

Humphrey could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The failed ordinance, modeled after similar measures passed in Newport Beach and Stanton, would have required candidates to provide the city clerk with 10 copies of any literature distributed within 14 days of an election. Mayor Peter F. Buffa, who is also seeking his second term on the council this year, said the ordinance is unnecessary because candidates find out immediately if someone is distributing information about them.

He also questioned whether the city would be interfering with the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech--an argument that has been raised in the cities that approved the campaign document ordinance.