Watchdog Agency Fines Assemblyman Over Slate Mailers : Politics: The $16,700 penalty is one of the largest since slate mailers began to be regulated in 1988. But it is much less than the $70,000 fine that had been sought.

Just two days after winning his party’s primary, Assemblyman Willard H. Murray (D-Paramount) on Thursday was fined $16,700 by the state Fair Political Practices Commission for violations of campaign laws regulating political slate mailer organizations.

The state’s political watchdog agency said that Murray, who for two decades sent out the slate endorsements to voters in predominantly black neighborhoods, failed to file campaign statements in 1988 and 1989 “despite accepting thousands of dollars in payments” for the pieces, which typically recommend a list of candidates and measures to support.

In upholding the decision of an administrative law judge, the commission said Murray failed to report late payments for mailers in 1988 and failed to identify the pieces as not being publications of “an official political party organization.”

Administrative Law Judge Paul M. Hogan said Murray’s actions did “not result from any intent to defraud the public,” but he maintained they “are a consequence of Mr. Murray’s not having taken the time and spent the money required to get up to speed with the new law and regulations affecting his business.”

Commission Chairman Ben Davidian said what Murray did “deprives people of relevant information.”

He described the fine as “one of the largest” since slate mailers began to be regulated in 1988. Still, the commission staff had urged the panel to hit Murray with a much stiffer $70,000 fine for 35 violations. Davidian said that because Hogan had recommended the smaller amount, the commission could not merely raise the fine without a potentially lengthy and costly hearing.

“Although we would have liked to have seen it (the fine) come in at a higher number, we think we made our point here,” Davidian said.

Murray referred a reporters’ questions about the case to his lawyer, Kevin Murray, who is his son.

Kevin Murray described the lower fine as “a vindication because it’s well below the $70,000 originally sought, and the judge found that (the errors) were inadvertent.” The assemblyman is considering whether to appeal the fine through the courts, his son said.

Assemblyman Murray is a veteran political insider who helped start the United Democratic Campaign Committee 30 years ago to provide an inexpensive way for candidates to communicate with voters in predominantly minority areas. In 1975 and again in 1986, he lost legislative races before finally capturing an Assembly seat in 1988. On Tuesday, Murray won the Democratic primary in the strongly Democratic 52nd District that includes Lynwood, Paramount, Gardena, much of Compton, and parts of South Los Angeles, South Gate and Long Beach.

Murray is no stranger to controversy.

In 1986, the Fair Political Practices Commission fined Murray $12,500 for seven violations of the Political Reform Act, stemming from allegations that he failed to report late contributions to his campaign committee and that his slate mailer organization failed to report a contribution to his campaign.

Four years later Murray became embroiled in litigation with Rep. Mervyn M. Dymally (D-Compton) over control of the Community Democrat--one of the political mailers published by the United Democratic Campaign Committee. In Tuesday’s election, Dymally backed one of Murray’s challengers.

According to the judge’s decision in the latest case, abuses in the slate mailer business became widespread in 1986, when many of Murray’s competitors began to send out pieces that appeared to have been mailed from an official political party organization when this was not the case. That prompted the Legislature to enact laws to require slate mailer groups to file campaign statements with state authorities.

The law went into effect in 1988, when Murray was running for office. Documents submitted in the case quote Murray as saying that he ran his slate mailer committee “under his hat.” Judge Hogan concluded “this recipe led to the chaotic record-keeping and publication errors which gave rise” to the proceedings against Murray.

Hogan said that at the time the law and the regulations went into effect, “Mr. Murray was conducting his own campaign for public office. He had too much to do unaided.”

In Murray’s favor, Hogan also said that, other than the 1986 fine, Murray “has a clear record. He has successfully carried out a legitimate and worthwhile business for over 20 years.”

But last month the commission’s enforcement counsel, Elizabeth S. Stein, argued in a legal brief that there was no justification to lower the fine.

Among other things, Stein cited the commission’s previous case against Murray. She went on to say: “The violations in this case arise from an entire failure to inform the public of the actions of the United Democratic Campaign Committee and provide information vital to prevent the public from being misled.”