Pasadena puts Santa Monica to shame

Santa Monica would have you believe it is simply a smart, green, all-inclusive, reform-minded commune by the sea.

I’m here to tell you differently, and to explain how patrician Pasadena, of all places, has stolen a page from Santa Monica’s progressive playbook.

Yes, Santa Monica is still out there on the edge in more ways than one, and if you stand on the pier and face north there is no city to the left of it. In fact there’s a proposition on the November ballot that would make marijuana all but legal in Santa Monica, directing police to go after the guy smoking a Marlboro on the beach before they bother the guy with the doobie.

You’d think elected officials in such a forward-thinking city would lead the charge in tackling the root of all evil in American politics -- campaign cash.

But no.

First, the background. Six years ago, nearly 60% of Santa Monica’s voters approved an anti-corruption law that banned a politician from accepting jobs, gifts or campaign donations from contractors or others who had benefited from that politician’s vote.

Sounds reasonable, right?

City Hall didn’t think so. The bulk of its notoriously liberal council members went on a rampage. Since the law passed, they’ve tried to subvert the will of the people and wipe the Taxpayer Protection Amendment of 2000 off the books.

This has cost taxpayers more than $400,000 in legal fees. At one point, Santa Monica officials sued their own city clerk over enforcement of the law, hoping a court would rule that it was unconstitutional.

I asked Susanne Griffin, a Santa Monica resident since 1967 and a supporter of the anti-corruption measure, what it’s like to watch as your city attorney uses your tax dollars to sue your city clerk so your vote can be invalidated.

“The city is very progressive in many ways,” she said. “But when it comes to this, I just don’t know what they’re doing.”

The argument by city officials was that restricting donors would be an infringement of their right of free speech. But the city lost in court, and then lost on appeal, and then the state Supreme Court declined to take up the case.

End of story?

Forget it.

Unable to accept defeat, the City Council ordered up Proposition W for the November ballot and shamelessly called it the Good Government Act, with only Councilman Kevin McKeown voting against it. Essentially, it would rip up the 2000 reform law and replace it with a measure that would limit the size of gifts a politician could accept, but allow him to accept a campaign donation or even a job after voting on matters affecting the donor.

There’s virtually nothing of substance in W, says Carmen Balber of Election Watchdog. For the most part, she says dismissively, it simply restates restrictions that are already covered by state law.

Regardless, Santa Monica Mayor Robert Holbrook isn’t bashful about defending the proposition. He insists Santa Monica didn’t have a corruption problem to begin with, so there was no need for the law. And yet now he’s got to take the time to make sure every nickel he raises has no connection to someone who might be on the board of, say, the Salvation Army, which might have a city contract.

“It’s a nightmare,” said Holbrook, who’s been elected to four terms and knows a lot of potential donors who might have a connection to a city contract.

“If I ... got invited to a Dodger game ... and I said, ‘OK, I’ll go with you,’ I could be facing jail time over $25, and I didn’t even know he was involved in a contract I voted on two years ago.”

So maybe it’s a bit of a hassle, but the supposedly unworkable measure hasn’t prevented Holbrook from raising roughly $75,000 for his current reelection campaign. That’s a lot of loot for a small town where you don’t have to buy TV ads and everybody already knows who you are after four terms.

Holbrook argues that renters’ rights groups put up big money for their candidates and you’ve got to put out mailers of your own to compete.

Here’s a memo to both politicians and interest groups:

We don’t read your mailers. The minute we see them, they’re out with the trash. If we had incinerators we would burn them, so please stop raising cash for them and don’t send any more, ever.

So where does Pasadena figure into all this? Voters there approved the same campaign reform in 2001. The Pasadena City Council members didn’t much care for it and also spent vast sums on the legal battle. But when their efforts failed, they were big enough -- progressive enough, I might add -- to set up a committee to investigate ways to refine and clarify the measure.

The Task Force on Good Government was headed by former state Atty. Gen. John Van de Kamp, who helped draft a November ballot measure that tweaks the 5-year-old reform.

“I think it strengthens it,” Van de Kamp said of the proposal, which was written after hundreds of hours of debate and review in Pasadena. “You’re never going to totally eliminate undue influence, but you can try to limit it as much as you can. Pasadena is trying to move in that direction.”

And Santa Monica?

“I think they made a major mistake,” Van de Kamp said.

“It’s a tale of two cities,” added Bob Stern of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles.

Stern was asked to address the Santa Monica council on the subject a few months ago and had to wonder if they were paying any attention.

“They heard my testimony for about six minutes at two hearings and didn’t ask any questions,” Stern said. “The difference between the two cities is stunning.”

In the fight to defeat City Council’s Proposition W, supporters of the 2000 reform measure put up a “Vote No on W” billboard on Olympic Boulevard in Santa Monica. It uses the familiar image of the arched sign at the Santa Monica pier and says:

Santa Monica

For Sale by City Council

Last week, Election Watchdog, which paid for the billboard, got a no-nonsense warning from the endlessly vigilant Santa Monica city attorney’s office.

“This letter is to inform your organization that it must immediately cease and desist from the unauthorized use of the Pier Sign in any form, and to remove the unauthorized advertisement immediately.”

First they lost their way, and then their sense of humor.

Santa Monica, we hardly recognize you.

*

Reach the columnist at steve.lopez@latimes.com and read previous columns at www.latimes.com/lopez.