Judge Orders Bustamante to Cancel TV Ads
$1 million of spots already paid for with Indian tribe money may be canned
Sacramento -- A state judge, rejecting Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante's claim that he cannot return political donations he accepted illegally, ordered him Friday to try to cancel television campaign advertising that was paid for with the money.
The order could mean Bustamante will have to cancel as much as $1 million in advertisements he planned to air over the next 11 days, according to representatives of the plaintiff in the case, state Sen. Ross Johnson, R- Irvine.
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Loren McMaster ordered the Bustamante campaign to return the disputed donations earlier this week, finding that it violated campaign finance laws and donation limits by trying to steer large sums to an old campaign fund account.
Richie Ross, Bustamante's campaign manager, asserted at the time that the money had already been spent.
But while the money had indeed been paid to television stations for air time, the payments covered spots over the next two weeks that had not yet aired. According to Johnson's lawyers, industry practice generally allows advertisements to be canceled up until the time they are actually aired, and some or all of the money can be refunded.
Several telephone calls to the Bustamante campaign's lawyer, campaign manager and press spokesperson were not returned.
Bustamante, who is running as a Democratic replacement candidate in the recall election, accepted $3.8 million in donations from Indian tribes with gaming interests and labor groups beginning last month, in amounts that far exceeded the new legal limit of $21,200 per donor. The Viejas Tribal Government gave $1.5 million, which some campaign finance experts believe is the largest single donation in California political history.
DONATIONS WENT TO OLD FUND
He accepted the donations into an account established in 2002, before the new donation limits were in place, in the hopes of skirting the new law. He then transferred the proceeds in a single $3.8 million lump-sum transaction to his ballot measure committee established to oppose Proposition 54.
The advertisements, though nominally opposing Proposition 54, heavily promote Bustamante.
Johnson sued the Bustamante campaign last month, alleging the tactic violated campaign finance laws, after the Fair Political Practices Commission did not undertake its own enforcement action.
Johnson's lawyers filed documents in the case earlier this week, after the judge's ruling, alleging the Bustamante campaign continued to buy air time on Monday and Tuesday, even after the judge's ruling. Bustamante's lawyers have said the new ads were paid for with new donations, rather than the illegal donations, which they say were already spent.
The controversy over Bustamante's outsized donations has overshadowed his campaign, providing the primary source of material for attacks on him by his opponents.
BUSTAMANTE HAD OTHER MEANS
It remains unclear why Bustamante used the donation gambit at all. There are several legal, and less controversial, ways he could have obtained the money -- including having the donors make independent expenditures on his behalf, or by having them donate directly to his ballot campaign against Proposition 54, in which spending limits do not apply.
The order from Judge McMaster requires the Bustamante campaign to immediately contact television stations where it bought air time with the illegal donations and try to cancel the ads, then return any refunded money to the original donors.
The order also contains a provision allowing the plaintiffs to pursue contempt proceedings against the campaign if they do not believe the campaign has made a good-faith effort to cancel the ads.
E-mail Christian Berthelsen at cberthelsen@sfchronicle.com.
See the article on San Francisco Chronicle website
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)