Ethical culture
New commissioner wants ethics panel to crack down on campaign cash violations

By Rachel Brahinsky

On the eve of this week's hotly contested election – in which several candidates were accused of campaign finance violations – a longtime ethical watchdog joined the city panel charged with overseeing election spending rules.

The appointment of Joe Lynn – a former city staffer who resigned in protest Dec. 1 complaining of lackluster city oversight of campaign spending laws – could shake up the Ethics Commission and radically impact the role of money in San Francisco politics.

Within hours of his swearing in, Lynn took his former boss, Ethics Commission executive director Ginny Vida, to task for failing to advocate for the department to elected officials who have starved the agency's budget for years.

"Of all the cities in the country, San Francisco is the most supportive of [campaign finance rules]," Lynn said during his first meeting as a commissioner Dec. 8. "And we have not tapped into that.

"If you read our annual report, we are a great institution with no problems. Yet we are in a crisis. The executive director should not be certifying that we have adequate funds when we do not."

The significance of the agency's budget woes loomed over the recent election, in which district attorney candidate Kamala Harris broke spending limits designed to even the playing field among contenders. While Harris could have been subject to a fine of $300,000 for breaking a pledge to limit her campaign kitty, the commission dinged the campaign with only a $34,000 fine, prompting a lawsuit by District Attorney Terence Hallinan (see Campaign Watch, 10/8/03). Charges were also lobbed against mayoral candidate Matt Gonzalez when he failed to properly identify some of his donors. And tactics used by some Gavin Newsom backers, particularly the California Urban Issues Project, have raised concerns that could prompt an ethics complaint.

The commission's budget problems are clearly linked to its inability to track down and fine finance law scofflaws. With only one investigator and mounting complaints, Vida is unable to carry out her mandate. Vida told the Bay Guardian last month that this election season she received twice the number of complaints as she did last fall.

"The word's out on the street about us," Lynn said at the meeting, noting that violators believe they are not likely to be fined.

In a letter announcing his resignation, Lynn charged that under Vida, the agency has failed to conduct mandatory evaluations of its own effectiveness and has failed to focus on impending budget cuts of "as much as $90,000 this year and an additional $140,000 next year."

He has also called for the commission to close a regulatory loophole that allows candidates to raise extra cash if they are in debt, a rule that he said favors candidates with wealthier funders. The Newsom for Mayor campaign took advantage of that loophole this year (see "Tainted Dough?" 12/3/03).

Vida admitted to us last month that her agency is unable to effectively investigate campaign finance violations because of a funding and staffing shortage. She added during the Dec. 8 meeting that she has not "been able to reach revenue projections" and conceded that the agency is in "crisis."

But she defended herself against Lynn's charge that she has been weak. "I have made forceful [budget] presentations in the past," she said. "There hasn't been neglect." She also disputed Lynn's budget estimates and said the shortfall will probably be only about $13,000.

Lynn, who began working at the commission in 1997, has clashed with Vida in the past. In 2002 he exposed Pacific Gas and Electric Co. for failing to report an $800,000 contribution to a committee against public power. Vida reprimanded Lynn for releasing information about the filing without her approval. One year later PG&E still has not been fined for the violation.

Lynn was appointed by Hallinan to replace Paul Melbostad, who resigned after eight years on the panel.

Melbostad echoed Lynn's charges that, under Vida, the commission is sometimes ineffectual. "The commission has not been effective at enforcing compliance during the campaign," he told us. "It is not political to be enforcing the law as it's stated, and if it's not enforced, it encourages candidates to break the law."

E-mail Rachel Brahinsky