Q & A

Irvine City Councilman Barry J. Hammond

Barry J. Hammond cast the only dissenting vote earlier this month when the Irvine City Council approved an ordinance to limit the amount of money independent groups may spend on behalf of a political candidate. (An example of an independent expenditure would be money spent to print and distribute brochures in support of a candidate, rather than donated directly to the person’s campaign fund or political party.)

Irvine voters will be asked in March to approve or reject an increase in the cap for independent expenditures and personal contributions from $190 to $300.

Hammond, 43, who campaigned unsuccessfully last year for the Republican nomination to the 70th Assembly District seat, discussed his stand on the campaign reform ordinance with Times correspondent Russ Loar.

Q: Why did you vote against the proposal?

A: Because when there are limitations on the amount an individual can give and limits on how much a group of individuals can spend in support of a candidate, you then give an advantage to those candidates who are wealthy. You also give an advantage to incumbents, because they have a much broader base of support; and groups with an interest in local politics who have a large number of people who can make individual contributions.

Q: What groups do you think would take advantage of the new ordinance?

A: Specifically, labor unions. They are the only groups in the city of Irvine who have sufficient numbers of people who could mobilize and have an effect on a local election. The Irvine police officers union has been active in the past, and this will make them more powerful in local elections. This is a dangerous precedent.

Q: The city attorney warned council members that a lawsuit has been filed against a similar ordinance in Huntington Beach. Is there legal precedent to suggest that this ordinance may be struck down?

A: When the city attorney raises a red flag to say we may be treading on illegal territory, that flag may be one worth heeding. The courts have already ruled that an individual can spend any amount. But now we’re saying, if two people join together, they can only spend whatever that limit allows. I believe the court will eventually rule that you cannot place limits on any independent expenditures. When the candidate has no knowledge of them, when the candidate has no idea of what’s happening, how can you limit that freedom of expression?