Supreme Court decision to affect local supervisor's race
When the U.S. Supreme Court, in its controversial campaign-finance decision last month, ruled that independent expenditure committees do not create even the appearance of corruption, it effectively rendered meaningless a portion of the County of Ventura's campaign-finance ordinance.
The county ordinance, in addition to limiting contributions to candidates at $700, also sets a $700 limit on contributions to independent expenditure committees. But since the court has ruled that there is no valid government interest in regulating such committees (because the "appearance of conflict" argument didn't fly with the justices), local governments can no longer impose such restrictions.
Supervisor Steve Bennett acknowledged to me today that he has regretfully come to that conclusion and will ask the board to rescind that portion of the ordinance.
The decision will come just in time to clear the way for independent expenditure committees to potentially play a large role in Assemblywoman Audra Strickland's upcoming challenge of Supervisor Linda Parks.
The Supreme Court majority's reasoning is that since independent expenditures do not flow through the hands of a candidates, one cannot say it creates the taint of conflict if, say, the pharmaceutical industry puts together a million-dollar independent campaign to support a member of Congress who later votes to prohibit U.S. citizens from purchasing prescription drugs from Canada.
It's a puzzling argument. As FPPC Chairman Ross Johnson told me last month, it "assumes that candidates and officeholders live in caves."
Feb. 10, 2010
blogs.venturacountystar.com/therdt/archives/2010/02/supreme-court-d.html