Groups’ roundabout support for candidates
In California’s murky world of super PACs, just because a group is supporting a candidate doesn’t always mean that’s who its money is promoting.
These groups — which are producing much of the political advertising that’s filling mailboxes and video screens these days — are having an outsized influence in California’s primary. That’s because unlike a candidate’s campaign, they can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money.
They do the dirty work of trashing opponents while the candidates get to keep their hands clean. That’s because, by law, these outside groups are not allowed to work with the candidates they are spending millions of dollars to elect.
In the governor’s race alone, outside groups have collectively raised $29.5 million — more than any of the individual campaigns — and been responsible for most of the
attacks, many designed to misdirect voters.
Take, for example, an independent expenditure committee — the formal name for super PACs — called Families and Teachers for Antonio Villaraigosa for Governor 2018, which is run and funded by wealthy supporters of the California Charter Schools Association Advocates. It has raised $17 million-plus — more than any candidate except for polling leader Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Its main funders are billionaires including Netflix founder Reed Hastings, entrepreneur Eli Broad, venture capitalist William Oberndorf and former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
The group has spent more than $1.1 million attacking Republican John Cox, who is locked in a fight with the Democrat Villaraigosa for second place in most polls. Only the top two candidates advance to the general election.
What has raised eyebrows is the roundabout way the proVillaraigosa ads are trying to kneecap Cox with Republicans by linking him to Villaraigosa’s fellow liberals, like House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco, Sen. Bernie Sanders, independent-Vt., and billionaire philanthropist George Soros.
One mailer sent to California Republicans mocks Cox for contributing to a “pro-Nancy Pelosi PAC that elected Democrats to Congress” and “won support from Liberal Groups with ties to Bernie Sanders and George Soros during his campaign.” The connection is a tortured one: Cox gave $5,000 in 2016 to a group that then gave it to a political action committee backing candidates who would change campaign finance laws, one of whose co-founders served on boards with Soros.
Another Republican-focused ad is headlined, “Liberal Groups are Behind John Cox.” It features a giant photo of the other Republican in the governor’s race, Orange County Assemblyman Travis Allen, near the headline, “California Conservative Republican for Governor.”
So why would a group that supports a Democrat produce ads that mock Democrats and promote a “conservative Republican”? Because if Republicans think twice about voting for Cox, Villaraigosa has a better shot at one of the top two spots in Tuesday’s primary.
The pro-Villaraigosa group also has spent $241,247 saying nice things about the more conservative Allen, because he is further behind in the polls and is seen as a weaker candidate, with only $37,539 in the bank.
“We keep doing what we’re doing because it’s working,” said Josh Pulliam, strategist for the independent pro-Villaraigosa group, pointing to internal metrics showing support for the former Los Angeles mayor ticking up. “As long as Republicans feel he can win, Republicans will support Cox.”
The super PAC also has the money to defend Villaraigosa in ways his own campaign can’t. Villaraigosa has been attacked with $3.1 million worth of ads purchased by Newsom’s and state Treasurer John Chiang’s campaigns, according to Pulliam’s group. Villaraigosa’s campaign has only $2.2 million cash on hand.
Meanwhile, Pulliam pointed out, Newsom has barely faced any attack ads from opponents, and campaign finance reports show the former San Francisco mayor has $12.7 million in the bank.
Cox was seething last week over the “devious and deceptive” ads created by the proVillaraigosa charter-school group. “I haven’t voted for a Democrat since 1976,” Cox said, calling on Villaraigosa to disavow the flood of harsh ads and mailers.
Villaraigosa’s campaign, though, has a simple answer: Those attacks aren’t coming from the campaign. They’re coming from an independent group that the campaign by law can’t even communicate with.
At the same time, his campaign declined to disavow the ads. Instead, a spokesman argued that an independent proNewsom group is trying to boost Cox because it’s convinced the Republican will be an easier opponent for Newsom.
The pro-Newsom group, Citizens Supporting Gavin Newsom for Governor 2018, is another super PAC that is trying to play a political version of three-dimensional chess. It is funded primarily by the Service Employees International Union, which grew to dislike Villaraigosa when he called for layoffs and other givebacks from public employee unions during tough economic times when he was Los Angeles mayor.
Another top funder to the pro-Newsom group is Blue Shield of California. Given that Newsom is the front-runner in the polls and has promised to put single-payer health care at the top of his agenda, it wants a voice in that debate should Newsom win.
In a complaint filed with the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission last week, the Villaraigosa team argued that the pro-Newsom super PAC aired a 30-second TV commercial for the Democrat that spent half that time talking about Cox — in an attempt to build him up to Republican voters.
The ad said, “Republican John Cox says he’s glad Trump is president. Cox says we need tough border security, including Trump’s wall. Cox is a conservative businessman who supports Trump’s tax cuts.” The Villaraigosa complaint alleged that the group violated state election law by not properly disclosing that the ad was supporting Cox.
Other Democrats wondered why a group supporting a Democrat would want to do something that’s likely to help Republicans nationally. If there is a Republican candidate for governor in the November election, their argument goes, it will help boost GOP turnout — and probably hurt Democrats’ chances of flipping congressional seats in California and taking back the House.
“The race for governor has turned into a scam,” Chiang said in a new 30-second TV ad. “Gavin Newsom is trying to elect a Republican who was endorsed by Trump. And Villaraigosa is being bankrolled by a handful of billionaires. It’s everything that’s wrong with politics. And none of it is helping struggling families.”
Mike Roth, a spokesman for the pro-Newsom group, said the complaints are “coming from losing campaigns. This smacks of desperation.”
Cox was able to keep his hands clean when an independent group supporting him called Restore Our Values took shots at Newsom’s and Villaraigosa’s history of affairs while in office. One ad said “Newsom and Villaraigosa think the rules shouldn’t apply to them. They don’t want punishment — they want a promotion.” The kicker: “Californians deserve better: John Cox for governor.”
The committee’s biggest funders include Marin County businessman Ken Casey, who contributed $100,000 through his company, Professional Investors Security Fund. However, it is not nearly as well-endowed as others, having spent only $114,000.
Cox backed away from the ads when asked about them after a May 8 candidate debate in San Jose.
“That ad was not mine, and I’m not going to get into that,” Cox said. “I do disavow it, and I think we need to focus on issues.”
Focusing more on issues is unlikely, however, given the amount of money going into independent organizations.
“These well-financed (independent expenditure groups) often have way more money than the campaign has to spend,” said Darry Sragow, a former Democratic campaign strategist who now publishes the nonpartisan California Target Book. “It’s an astronomical distortion of the electoral process.”
The rapid rise of the independent committees is an unintended consequence of the effort by good-government groups to limit money in politics. While reformers used contribution limits and other methods to cut the amount of money campaigns could raise, they did nothing to limit the soaring cost of running for office in a state where the price of airing a TV ad in a major market for a week is $2 million.
The good-government groups “built walls to limit money for campaigns,” Sragow said. Super PACs “are the waters that flow around those walls.”