Joe Nelson, Staff Writer
Posted: 08/21/2012 02:50:07 PM PDT
A new ordinance approved by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday limits campaign contributions for all candidates for county elected office to $3,900, mirroring campaign-finance limits for state legislators.
The ordinance, which will go before the board again next Tuesday for adoption, also requires candidates and political-action committees to electronically report all contributions and expenditures of more than $10,000. State law requires legislative candidates and political-action committees to electronically report contributions and expenditures of more than $50,000.
Supervisor Janice Rutherford proposed the reforms last year, and her staff has been researching and drafting the ordinance ever since. Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt co-authored the ordinance.
“We recognize that contribution limits are not a panacea,” she said during Tuesday’s meeting. “If there are people, groups, organizations out there who want to do nefarious things with their money, they will find a way to do it.
“But I make this analogy: In this day and time, if we don’t have campaign-contribution limits, and mischief happens in the county, that’s on us. This is a simple, straightforward change that everyone understands, and it’s our responsibility to make it clear to the voters and taxpayers of this county that the Board of Supervisors and our other elected officials cannot be bought by large campaign donors.”
Penalties for violating the county’s campaign-finance laws are fines three times the amount of the illegal contribution or $10,000, whichever is greater.
The county has suffered a long legacy of political corruption. More recently, state and local prosecutors charged three former county officials and a Rancho Cucamonga developer in a far-reaching conspiracy and bribery case.
In that case, prosecutors allege former Supervisor Paul Biane, former Assistant Assessor Jim Erwin, and Mark Kirk, former chief of staff for Supervisor Gary Ovitt, received a collective $300,000 in bribes from developer Jeff Burum, who contributed the money to political- action committees prosecutors allege were secretly controlled by the supervisors who voted to settle a lawsuit with Burum’s Colonies Partners LP for $102 million in November 2006.
Postmus, Biane and Ovitt voted in favor of the settlement. Supervisors Josie Gonzales and Dennis Hansberger dissented.
Under a plea agreement with prosecutors, Postmus pleaded guilty to taking a $100,000 bribe from Burum and has agreed to testify against the other defendants in exchange for reduced charges.
All four defendants deny any wrongdoing.
To read entire story, click here.
This will look good on an election flyer. This has zero impact on Union or PAC contributions or spending. Just another attempt by our inept politians trying to make it appear that they are accomplishing something.
I wish I could say that the a average voter knows better, and can see through this. We will find out in November.
According to Janice Rutherford, it’s the County Supervisors “responsibility to make it clear to the voters and taxpayers” that “elected officials cannot be bought by large campaign donors.”
Two things come to mind:
1) Does she really think this is going to change a system that has been in place all over the country since 1776 or so? How about aiming slightly lower, and balancing the county budget.
2) The Bards quote in Hamlet: “The lady doth protest too much, me thinks.”
Never let it be said that The Sun and Daily Bulletin articles lack sensationalism.
In the above article, “Staff Writer” Joe Nelson uses an article about an ordinance limiting campaign contributions to once again cast aspersions on Jeff Burum, telling us how “prosecutors allege” that he disbursed “a collective $300,000 in bribes.”
Of course, he forgot to mention that all the bribery charges that the “prosecutors allege” were dismissed.
Is anybody surprised?
OOF….you must be the ying to Joe Nelson’s yang. You claim he forgot to mention that bribery charges were dropped against Burum and yet you forgot that those dropped charges are being weighed by an appellate court that has had the case for quite some time. In fact they have had the case long enough to establish the opinion that the case is actually VALID.
Anonymous #4:
All the Appellate Court is going to decide is the validity of the legal arguments that the lower court heard prior to dismissing the charges, and if other charges will be dismissed. They are not going to make any other decisions regarding “the case.”
Some people seem to think that the Appellate Court ruling could send Jeff Burum to prison, and are precisely the type of individuals that Joe Nelson is targeting with his slanted reporting. You do know that a trial occurred in The Colonies case before the settlement occurred, don’t you? Joe Nelson spent a lot of time trying to make readers believe otherwise.
Finally, you should ask a few attorneys if the amount of time a Judge or Jury takes to issue a ruling favors one side. The elapsed time may “establish” an “opinion” as to the outcome of in your mind, but not many others.
Observer of Facts:
Isn’t it also possible that the charges will be reinstated?
And isn’t that past trial ( you know the one where burum drove the judge to the airport and flew him home on his privet jet after that judge awarded him $102,000,000.00) part of the corruption probe?
And what about that little F.B.I. thing? Do you also think that will just go away?
True or not, Mr Burum’s name will forever be synonomous with bribery and corruption. If the charges get dismissed everyone but his friends will assume it was skating on a legal techniciality.
Repairman:
Yes, it is possible that the Appellate Court will reinstate all the dropped charges. However, that will put the prosecution back where they were, still having to prove their case.
As to your second sentence, the trial I am referring to took place in Superior Court. It is not part of the “corruption probe” except in the minds of those brainwashed by the local media, whacko conspiracy theorists, and Dennis Hansberger.
The retired Supreme Court Justice who flew in Mr. Burum’s jet mediated the post trial settlement, and a mediator does not “award” anybody anything, and did not do so in this case.
Hey, you forgot to mention how the county attorneys quit rather than approve the settlement agreement. Joe Nelson would not approve. Also, be sure not to read Judge Warner’s Statement of Intended Decision or the Settlement Agreement; you may get some insight into the facts, and Mr. Nelson would not approve of that either.
I’m not sure what will happen with the “little F.B.I. thing.” It may come up again and it may not. One thing I am sure about is that the FBI searched an office in Jeff Burum’s building they were not allowed to search, and got caught.
Anon #7, You state…
“Mr Burum’s name will forever be synonymous with bribery and corruption”
BUT WHY?
THE MAN ISN’T EVEN DEAD YET!?
Anon#9….George W will forever be synonymous with being a horrible president and he’s still alive.
OOf……The appellate court’s decision of validity is more than enough to re-invigorate tax payers and push for needed change. Oh, and in regards to your comments to repairman, you forgot to mention that the retired judge that signed off on the $102 million settlement stated that had he known all the facts during the time of the settlement, he would have never had signed the settlement. One has to admit that he is closer to the fact then we are and if he is showing regrets then there is much to be concerned about.
Anonymous # 11:
As a 5th generation San Bernardino county taxpayers, it’s going to take more than a ruling by the Appellate Court to “re-invigorate” me. Have you read Judge McCarville’s Tentative Order? That’s what the county is appealing, and the best that could happen for the prosecution is that the dismissed charges are reinstated. At that time, the county will finally have to start proving the case in the courtroom.
You bring up a good point about the mediator, retired Supreme Court Justice Edward Panelli, and I was curious what he knew at the time that he made that statement that he did not know when he signed the settlement agreement.
Unfortunately, he did not say, but as I recall his statement came soon after Bill Postmus plead guilty to being bribed. However, since then, Mr. Postmus has told the FBI that he was not bribed, and a Superior Court Judge has said on the record that Mr. Postmus has serious credibility issues. If the county gets the opportunity to prove their case, perhaps Mr. Panelli will testify, and we will find out what he knew when he made that statement.
Anonymous #11,
Just looked at the case on appellate court website. A tentative opinion was issued on 8/15.
It seems awfully quiet. Especially the DA.
Your thoughts?