Illegal anti-Campos flyers the subject of an ethics complaint

|
(189)

Several San Francisco neighborhoods over the last week have been targeted with illegal campaign flyers against Assembly candidate David Campos -- breaking both state election laws requiring the group and its funding source to be identified and local laws against placing political flyers on utility poles and other surfaces.

Former Ethics Commission Eileen Hansen this week filed a complaint about the guerilla campaigning with the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which has jurisdiction over state races.

“I am asking for the intervention of your office into what appears to be a blatant and arrogant violation of campaign finance reporting and disclosure laws in California’s 17th Assembly District Primary Election,” Hansen wrote in the April 30 letter. “As you well know, the political climate in San Francisco is quite sensitive, and nerves are raw. If this violation is allowed to continue, it will have a chilling effect on the entire election and further alienate voters, and potential voters.”

The race between Campos and David Chiu has indeed gotten more heated in recent weeks, but Chiu campaign spokesperson Nicole Derse denies that the campaign has any knowledge or involvement with the illegal campaigning: “We think everyone in this race should be transparent.”

In her letter, Hansen casts doubt on the Chiu campaign’s claims of innocence: “The wide distribution, professional design, and overnight appearance in distant locations strongly suggest that these flyers have been produced and distributed by a funded political organization aligned with Assembly candidate David Chiu, whose aim is to attack and discredit Chiu’s opponent David Campos.”

And she even identifies a leading suspect in this illegal campaigning: Enrique Pearce and his Left Coast Communications firm, which has a history of dirty tricks campaigning on behalf of Mayor Ed Lee and other establishment politicians. Hansen notes that the flyers appeared right after the registration of a new campaign committee, San Franciscans for Effective Government to Support David Chiu. Although the group hasn’t reported any fundraising yet, its contact phone number goes to Left Coast Communications and Pearce, who hasn’t yet returned our calls on the issue. [UPDATE: Pearce called back and categorically denied any involvement with the illegal flyers, and he blasted Hansen for speading what you called "scurrilous lies" with no foundation, saying he has called her directly and expects an apology.]

This campaign stunt in reminiscent of an “independent expenditure” effort in the District 6 supervisorial race in 2010, when Pearce was connected to a mailer supporting Sup. Jane Kim that was funded partially by Willie Brown, again because the supposedly independent group listed his phone number even though he was worked directly for Kim.

The anti-Campos mailers include some nasty and misleading charges, labeling Campos “City Hall’s Hypocrite” by falsely claiming Campos ignored rising evictions until he decided to run for the Assembly and that he was concerned about Google buses but wanted to charge them less than $1 per stop. A third flyer claims Campos “lets wifebeater sheriff keep his job” for his vote against removing Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office for official misconduct.

“This is a secretly funded shadow organization aligned with David Chiu, committing a desperate move that is as illegal and it is false in its claims,” Campos told us, saying he hopes the FPPC is able to stop and punish those involved. 

Comments

^This.

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 8:22 am

You just have to know the formula. It largely depends on whether or not the money men need his vote, or if it's meaningless enough to give to his constituents. Don't believe me? I challenge you to give me a controversial future vote, and I'll tell you how the Chiu will vote on it.

Posted by Greg on May. 05, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

The point, however, is that Chiu can be persuaded. Campos is an intransigent identity politician.

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 11:15 pm

This is a challenge for the future. Try me. You'll be amazed. Those of you who say Chiu can be persuaded either way will think I'm clairvoyant.

Posted by Greg on May. 05, 2014 @ 11:54 pm

No, Chiu will screw people who's bought his vote if the upsides for his career call for it.

Posted by marcos on May. 03, 2014 @ 8:03 am

At least Chiu will think about issues.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 8:48 am

He is doctrinaire, the purpose of doctrine is to avoid listening to anyone.

He is the left wing version on a randist.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:20 am

But in Sacramento, he will be ostracized and achieve nothing. That is why we need Chiu in there - he can work with others, knows how to compromise, and will get things done.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:28 am

The problem is that Campos is so extreme - and inflexible - and ideological - that many groups won't even talk to Campos. They know he will not change his mind based on facts, or other legitimate concerns. His mind is made up.

Chiu has raised more money by both small donors and big donors because people know he is reasonable and pragmatic, he's not someone who only supports fringe-leftist issues like Campos.

SF needs someone who can get resources from Sacramento for housing and transportation here. Campos would be ignored in Sac AND a disaster for SF if he wins. Even Ammiano can negotiate and compromise periodically, unlike Campos.

Posted by Brady on May. 03, 2014 @ 4:53 pm

Ammiano is and always is retarded no one listens to him in SAC. HE DID NOTHING FOR SAN FRANCISCO PERIOD

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 7:51 pm

Extremists do not get listened to

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

i'm all for free speech and tactics may be taudry, but it is politics.

Between the two, I prefer Campos only because I think he's more transparrent about what he's about. Lefty yes. Slimy no. No big money behind him versus Chiu.

Chiu is also smart but between the developers and the lobbyists he's tight with, he's a wolf in sheep's clothing.

re: wifebeater: The sheriff may or may not have beat his wife. the fact remains she's still with him and looks very happy. though at the time it seemed she was up to something. a set up of some sort which ended up going way beyond whatever she had intended in making those videos. i've seen bed bug bites leave more damage than what she had claimed was a manhandling...and he is consideralby larger than her. Politics. The guy's a dick and his foes wanted him out. That's all.

Posted by Marlin Jacksun on May. 03, 2014 @ 8:05 am

always a kneejerk ideological vote based on your own personal biases.

Chiu can get things done with a variety of people. If Campos had to talk to developers, executives or landlords, he would freeze and sulk.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 8:50 am

Campos very astutely helped broker the Cathedral Hill Hospital deal with Sutter/CPMC. This is a clear indication that he can negotiate with "both sides" to a reasonable compromise in the middle, that benefits everyone.

Posted by anonymous on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:25 am

Chiu played a big role in that CPMC negotiation, Campos would've killed the deal on his own. A "reasonable compromise in the middle" is what he's always done; and what he's vilified for by SFBG, Campos, and everyone on the extreme far left. I guess you agree that compromise isn't a bad word, unless Chiu does it?

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 4:59 pm

chiu is good at placing himself in the middle of compromises that are already being hammered out and taking credit for them, while he waters them down in favor of corporations and real estate developers

it was campos who drew the line in the sand and made sure we got a good deal out of the massive Sutter "Health" chain

Posted by anonymous on May. 03, 2014 @ 6:50 pm

meaning that the developer was screwed and extorted. That is taking sides, which is exactly what Campos does.

It is not his job to be anti-business.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:54 pm

with the people over developers. Yes, "we" means the 99.9% of us who don't have millions of dollars to buy politicians.

Posted by Greg on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:06 am

can be ensuring that projects and developments get done that bring money, jobs and homes to the city.

Screwing over a developer or investor so they decide to invest elsewhere doesn't hurt the rich, because they get their returns anyway. It hurts the poor people here who lose out.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:51 am

The best way to help the poor is by helping the rich and letting the rich decide how much to trickle down.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:44 pm

city, thereby creating jobs, opportunities, homes and tax revenues.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:04 pm

It worked so well in the 80s! Reagan knew that the only way anyone would create jobs is if you throw heaps of money at the richest people. That's the only way anything is going to get done.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2014 @ 7:53 am

in the US compared with the poor in an "equal" socialist country.

In fact, two thirds of all global one percenters are Americans.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2014 @ 8:08 am

Actually, Chiu and Campos both worked on the CPMC deal, along with Sup. Mark Farrell: http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2013/03/05/unlikely-trio-supervisors-saves-cpmc-hospital-deal

Posted by steven on May. 05, 2014 @ 10:08 am

re: wifebeater: The sheriff may or may not have beat his wife. the fact remains she's still with him and looks very happy.

If the face is smiley in front of the hidden bruises, its all Okay then?

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 11:00 am

I removed one of these flyers Thursday afternoon. It was taped to a utility box at 23rd and Folsom.
I am not sure who is behind them, but it's getting thick, y'all.

Posted by Erika McDonald on May. 03, 2014 @ 9:20 am

vast right-wing conspiracy to beat a hopeless left-wing candidate who is going to lose anyway?

What happened to free speech?

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 9:33 am
Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 9:46 am
Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 12:43 pm

Illegal or not, who gave you the right to remove someone else's expression of free speech? And I bet you would be the VERY FIRST to bitch about any perceived loss of free speech.

Posted by Richmondman on May. 05, 2014 @ 10:01 am

Cameras are everywhere. On everyone's smartphones, outside every building private and public, swinging from every wrist or around every neck. Let's see some images already of the evil Chiu forces putting up these signs.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:15 am
Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:26 am

I bet Campos did it to try and make Chiu look bad. Very 'House of Cards'...

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:16 am

probably engineered this.

Yes, it was that amateurish.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:26 am

This REEKS of Campos' campaign trying to stir up more controversy and anger.

If you look at Campos' supporters, they are exactly the type that would do this - angry, loud, google bus graffiti-ing, protesters.

I wouldn't be surprised if the "former ethics commissioner" is a Campos' loyalist.

Posted by Reek on May. 03, 2014 @ 11:03 am

Blocking private buses on public thoroughfares is also illegal.

Haven't heard the SFBG complain about that yet...

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 11:54 am

Campos sponsored a waaaaay larger tax break for Twitter than Chiu. $56 million vs. $3 million? Yet progressives and SFBG don't criticize him for it, and won't even bring it up.

Consistency of morals/ideals is not a strong suit for the extreme Left - and that's why people don't trust Campos. On one hand he is ideologically rigid when common sense and practicality should prevail, on the other hand he is a hypocrite when he is campaigning for higher office.

Greg - I'd like to see you defend Campos' tax break for Twitter and defend his hypocrisy of stirring up angry workers (who are unaware of it) to protest Twitter and get some press.

For the record, I don't think either tax break for Twitter was wrong, considering they would've left anyway. Just pointing out that Campos is a hypocrite.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 4:34 pm

It could also be a guy with copy machine and some spare. Time.

This needs to be included in the progressive laws we obey or not list.

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:49 am

I keep forgetting that if it's not what Kommissar Jones tells us to think it is illegal! Thoughtcrime!

These flyers are awesome hope campos loses he sucks and not in the PC way

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 12:23 pm

Our Mayor Ed Lee and our DA Gascon made San Francisco a laughing stock over the Mirkarimi fiasco. The rest of the country looks upon SF as being led by loonies.

Posted by GUEST on May. 03, 2014 @ 10:07 pm

The tragedy was that he didn't resign as he should have done

Posted by Guest on May. 03, 2014 @ 11:00 pm

Uh... the reason that the rest of the country looks upon SF as being led by loonies is because of things like the following:

- Eric Mar and the Happy Meals dealy
- Our Sheriff trying to ban handguns for regular citizens inside the city but owning several himself
- Sanctuary City policies that allow people like that Ramos asshole to not get deported and end up killing our citizens
- People protesting tech buses by vomiting on them

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 12:09 pm

Those who don't like it don't have to live here.

Posted by anon on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:46 pm

If you don't like that, maybe you should live in a country that doesn't do that?

Oh wait, there aren't any.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:05 pm

Venezuela, to name one example, just because you hate it so much.
http://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/10599
There are 4.5 million Colombians who have now fled their capitalist paradise in search of a better life in the Bolivarean Republic, and the Chavez and Maduro government let them stay and gives them equal treatment under the law.

I don't want to get into the usual troll pissing contest about how I should move there. I live here for my own personal reasons. I may not always live here, but while I do, it is my home and I will work to make it a better place.

In any case, it won't be long now before this country is majority non-white. Deportations or not. And there's nothing you can do to stop it. So maybe you should move somewhere else.

Posted by Greg on May. 06, 2014 @ 8:15 am

CA, TX and NM are already minority white, and we're still all doing great here, thank you.

But you have me wrong. I like illegals. In fact I help them by hiring them, rather than just pay lip service like you.

That said, if they get caught, they gotta go. Everyone knows and accepts that, including them.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2014 @ 8:31 am

Maybe so, but how the mayor and the DA conducted the Mirkarimi mess came back to bite us on the ass, and gave the impression our city was run by clowns.

Posted by GUEST on May. 03, 2014 @ 11:30 pm

resigning, and the bizarre constitutional quirk that says we need 8, rather than 6, Supes to remove him.

Not that I think RossGate matters for this election. It will matter when Ross stands again, assuming he has the balls to. No doubt his wife will decide, since she has got him where she wants him now.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 12:21 am

That's generally what constitutions require to remove someone. If it were 50%+1 then officials would be removed left and right every time the opposition gains a majority in the legislature.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:50 pm

And anyway, 8/11 is more than 2/3.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:03 pm