Legal Team to Probe Alleged Campaign Finance Violations

The city of Ventura has hired independent counsel to determine if first-term Councilman Neal Andrews violated a city campaign finance law in the days leading up to his narrow election.

Two Santa Barbara lawyers will look at whether Andrews controlled Pacific Action Consortium, a committee that paid for ads promoting his campaign.

If Andrews had decision-making authority over how the consortium spent its money, or communicated with the group about its plans, he could become the first city official to be fined or criminally charged under a campaign finance reform law approved by Ventura voters in 1995.

The ordinance prohibits a candidate from controlling more than one committee spending money on his or her behalf. It also allows the city to take charge of prosecutions rather than forward complaints to the state. Penalties range from fines to six months in jail.

Andrews has denied any wrongdoing.

“I’m prepared to cooperate fully,” he said. “I don’t think there’s anything that was wrong or inappropriate, certainly nothing intentional.”

Andrews said he formed the Pacific Action Consortium in 1997 as a public-policy think tank for clients in the health-care industry. It later turned into a political action committee, donating funds to candidates throughout the state.

Andrews told fellow council members in a meeting last week that the accusation against him stemmed from a politically motivated smear campaign.

The legal team met for a briefing with city officials Friday but declined to comment on the session. The team consists of former Santa Barbara Dist. Atty. Stanley M. Roden, who previously served on the state Fair Political Practices Commission; and Carpinteria City Atty. Peter N. Brown, head of a California city attorneys group and a former Santa Barbara County deputy district attorney. The city has agreed to pay $250 hour for the lawyers’ services.

Council Election Foe Brought Complaint

The allegation was raised by challenger Mike Osborn shortly after he lost to Andrews by 147 votes in November. Finance reports filed with the county elections office last week by Pacific Action Consortium show that the group spent $974 on newspaper ads supporting Andrews in the final days of the campaign.

Osborn said Friday that he had been reviewing earlier Pacific Action Consortium materials and noticed that the handwriting on committee paperwork looked like Andrews’. Further research revealed Andrews was listed as the committee’s general partner in 1997, Osborn said.

That alone would not constitute a violation, but officials say the issue is whether Andrews was involved in committee decisions at the time of last year’s race.

Andrews said he dropped out of decision-making when the group became a political action committee.

In his complaint to the city, Osborn also said he found radio scripts in which lines indicating that ads paid for by Pacific Action Consortium had been crossed out and replaced with lines saying they were paid for by Andrews’ campaign committee.

“If I would have won and found this out, it still would have been an issue to me,” Osborn said. “We all have a duty to help uphold the law.”

Andrews said that after the consortium endorsed him, one of his campaign workers suggested having the group sponsor radio ads. That plan was scrapped and the campaign ended up paying for the ads, he said.

County Supervisor Steve Bennett, who drafted the city finance law when he sat as a council member, declined to comment on the specifics of Andrews case. But he said the prohibition on candidates controlling a second committee to benefit themselves is important, because the city limits the amount that can be contributed to candidates.

“When you institute campaign contribution limits and voluntary spending limits, the incentive to launder money increases, and one of the ways to launder money is through a separate campaign committee,” Bennett said. “That’s why candidates can’t have influence over a second committee in any way.”