LBReport.com

News

City Paid Measure M "Informational" Flier Printing Cost Using Election Savings And Says No Added Cost To Insert Flier In Utility Bills; FPPC Staff Says A Mailer Quoting City Mgr. Re Measure M Didn't "Expressly" Advocate Or "Unambiguously" Urge Result In Election


LBREPORT.com is reader and advertiser supported. Support independent news in LB similar to the way people support NPR and PBS stations. We're not non-profit so it's not tax deductible but $49.95 (less than an annual dollar a week) helps keep us online.
(June 4. 2018, 8:55 p.m.) -- The City of Long Beach paid the cost of printing a Measure M "informational" flier using General Fund election savings, and there was no extra cost to insert the flier in City utility bills as it was only a single page that didn't increase postage cost, City Public Information Officer Kevin Lee tells LBREPORT.com.

Regarding a separate City mailer re Measure M displaying a message from City Manager Pat West, LBREPORT.com has separately learned that staff of CA's Fair Political Practices Commission has declined to investigate a complaint by a LB resident who alleged that the mailer advocated passage of Measure M. The resident's complaint alleged that despite mailer verbiage reciting that it was "provided for informational purposes to describe the practical effects of Measure M" and "does not advocate a yes or no vote on the measure," the mailer's content "is clearly advocating for the passage of the measure."

To this, FPPC staff responded in a June 4 letter in pertinent part as follows [footnotes omitted]:

[Scroll down for further.]


...The [FPPC] Enforcement Division will not open an investigation on this matter. The Commission enforces the provisions of the Political Reform Act [CA Gov't Code sections 81000-91014]. The Act prohibits sending a newsletter or other mass mailing at public expense. Specifically, a mass mailing is prohibited if (1) the item is a tangible item; (2) the item expressly advocates the qualification, passage, or defeat of a clearly identified measure, or unambiguously urges a particular result in an election; (3) public moneys of $50 or more are used for the costs of distributing or designing the mailer; and (4) more than 200 substantially similar items are sent during the course of an election.

Based on a review of the documents received, the Enforcement Division found that the mass mailing concerning the City of Long Beach did not expressly advocate for or against a ballot measure or unambiguously urge a result in an election. The Enforcement Division cannot conclude the mailers in question violated the Act’s prohibition against campaign mailers at public expense. Therefore, we are closing this matter.

Sponsor

Sponsor

Sponsor


Sponsor

Sponsor


Sponsor


blog comments powered by Disqus

Recommend LBREPORT.com to your Facebook friends:


Follow LBReport.com with:

Twitter

Facebook

RSS

Return To Front Page

Contact us: mail@LBReport.com



Adoptable pet of the week:





Carter Wood Floors
Hardwood Floor Specialists
Call (562) 422-2800 or (714) 836-7050


Copyright © 2018 LBReport.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Terms of Use/Legal policy, click here. Privacy Policy, click here