Secessionists Exempt From Disclosure, Report Says

Due to “an anomaly” in California’s campaign laws, the group pushing for a study and possible vote on San Fernando Valley secession is not required to disclose finances, expenditures or contributors--but it could be, according to a report by the city’s Ethics Commission.

The report offers no recommendations on whether secession group Valley VOTE should be made to reveal its financial backers. However, it concludes that Los Angeles leaders have the power to force disclosure.

Councilman Mike Feuer said Monday that he would like them to do just that. He plans on suggesting two proposals to increase public disclosure of campaign contributions Wednesday when the report is considered by the Ethics Commission, which acts as the city’s campaign watchdog.

One plan would require groups collecting signatures to place measures on the ballot in Los Angeles to report the source of their funding. The other, requiring legislative approval, would require disclosure of lobbying activity at the Local Agency Formation Commission, the panel that oversees the secession process.

“If we require disclosure for far less significant matters than secession, I don’t see why we should not require it here,” said Feuer, who represents parts of the Valley. “I have not heard any good arguments, to date, about reasons not to require disclosure. This is not just about secession, but about the greater public right to know.”

Feuer’s proposals elicited an angry response from Valley VOTE, which accused him of trying to intimidate secession boosters. Valley VOTE has refused to voluntarily divulge financial backers, arguing that its benefactors fear political retribution.

“We’ve made it clear that we fear the city is going to get back at people who are supportive,” said Valley VOTE President Jeff Brain. “It’s unfortunately the way some council people work. I think this is a clear attempt by Mike Feuer to intimidate people in the Valley and other areas that want to consider [secession]. Mike Feuer is no friend of the Valley.”

After a Times story ran last month, the Ethics Commission report noted that under the state’s Political Reform Act, secession campaigns are not required to say who gave them the money they are raising and spending to promote a vote.

That differs from nearly all political campaigns: Candidates for office, and initiative and referendum drives, must report all contributions and expenditures.

The reason, according to the state Fair Political Practices Commission, is that Valley secession and others like it did not go directly to the ballot after petitions were collected. Instead, state law mandates the issue first be studied by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which decides whether to put it to a vote. Secession ultimately requires a majority vote of both the Valley and the entire city.

If an election is scheduled, secession campaigns are required to report all money raised and spent, but only from that point forward. That concerns some campaign finance watchdogs.

“I think there should be legislation at the state level that would address this in all cities,” said Robert M. Stern of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies, who helped write the Political Reform Act more than a quarter-century ago. “If not, we should at least have something in Los Angeles. This should not happen again.”

Though the Ethics Commission report stated that city leaders could enact laws requiring further disclosure, or lobby state leaders to do so, it suggested that such laws would not be applied retroactively.

Thus, contributions to the secession effort made before any new law is enacted would likely never become public. Valley VOTE estimated recently that it spent $290,000 on its signature drive to force a study of secession and about $500,000 overall. It expects to spend several times that amount during the current study phase of the campaign.

Ethics Commission President Richard Walch said he wants to hear a presentation by the Ethics Commission staff, as well as public testimony, before taking a position. Ethics Commissioner Art Mattox said Monday he had not yet read the report and did not have a firm position, but was leaning toward more disclosure.

“I think it’s generally in the public good to have disclosure of where money is coming from for these kinds of measures,” Mattox said. “Generally, that’s in the public interest.”