Undue Election Influence by Public Servants

Is it in the public’s best interest for law enforcement factions to become politically active in the election of city council candidates? A close look at the activities of local police and fire associations and the district attorney in our local elections reveals some issues that taxpayers and voters should consider.

The most blatant law enforcement influence is through the active involvement of police and fire associations in electing certain candidates to their local city councils. These public safety employees, through their respective associations and/or unions, are endorsing city council candidates who favor future police and fire salary and benefit packages, and overtime allotments. The candidates who are hesitant or who refuse to commit to support demands are never endorsed.

On the other side of the coin are the candidates who use photographs of police and fire employees in their campaign literature to enhance their image as the “law and order” candidate, This is sometimes done even without the official endorsement of the police/fire association.

The Government Code of California prohibits police and fire employees from participating in political activity while in uniform, and also outlaws the political use of equipment such as police cars and fire engines. This law was intended to avoid the appearance that public employees and equipment were being used for political purposes. This law has since been interpreted by various city attorneys to allow the political use of photographs with police/fire in uniform as long as the photographs were not initially taken for political purposes. With that interpretation, clever incumbent council members arrange to have photos taken with police and fire employees at non political functions such as awards ceremonies and parades, only to have the photos show up months later in slick, multicolored campaign mailers.

The real problem, however, is not with the photographs themselves but the fact that endorsement by city police and fire associations comes with strings attached. Every taxpayer should demand an end to this insidious practice. Committing in advance to a position on union contracts by our elected officials is not only illegal but also immoral and does not assure taxpayers that union contracts are negotiated on the merits or in good faith.

The obvious way to put an end to this abuse is for city councils to enact ordinances prohibiting their police and fire departments, their associations and their unions, from endorsing council candidates and/or participating in their campaigns. Such a prohibition would not prevent the individual police and fire employees from working for city candidates of their choice, as long as they did so outside work hours and while not in uniform. It is important to make the distinction between endorsement by an association and individuals endorsing candidates (which comes with no strings attached).

Another law enforcement entity that has recently surfaced in local elections is Orange County’s elected district attorney, Tony Rackauckas, who lent his name and backing to candidates running for seats in various city council elections.

Not only is Rackauckas the first elected district attorney to use his position to endorse local candidates running for city council seats, but these endorsements were made on stationery (letterhead and envelope) containing the words “From the Office of The District Attorney, County of Orange.” This is nothing more than a slick campaign deception implying an official endorsement by a county law enforcement agency.

To start with, why did Rackauckas place himself in such an awkward “conflict of interest” position by endorsing candidates for local city office in the first place? Everyone knows that the district attorney frequently is called upon to investigate charges involving city officials (such as Orange’s trash embezzlement scandal, and potential campaign law violations by past and present council members in Yorba Linda).

Obviously, any investigation by his office would be highly suspect if it involved city councils on which his endorsed candidates were seated. To assure impartiality, such investigations would now have to be done by another agency such as the state attorney general’s office. All of this could be avoided if Rackauckas simply would distance himself from local elections, as did all the former Orange County district attorneys.

The obvious solutions to these inappropriate political activities will be difficult to accomplish. Since police and fire unions are well-entrenched in all cities and are responsible to a large degree for the election of certain council members, it is doubtful that these same council members will have the political will to enact ordinances that diminish influence over the outcome of local elections.

Rackauckas sees nothing wrong with asking employees for campaign contributions, having done so on numerous occasions when he first was elected. So it is unlikely he sees anything wrong with endorsing candidates that someday he may be required to investigate.

This may be just another one-time mistake in judgment or an indication of his true character. We’ll have to wait for the next elections to find out whether he continues these practices.