Krekorian Calls Out Nuch on Essel DWP Suit

The Honorable Carmen Trutanich

City Attorney of Los Angeles
800 City Hall East
200 N. Main Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

RE:      Working Californians v. City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles City Ethics Commission - CV09-8237 DDP PJWX

Dear Mr. Trutanich:

As you must know by now, “Working Californians,” a political committee controlled by the business managers of IBEW Locals 18 and 11, has filed a lawsuit against the City and the Ethics Commission in federal court seeking to overturn a significant portion of the City’s ethics laws.   IBEW Local 18, the union for Department of Water and Power electricians, is supporting my opponent in the December 8^th runoff election for City Council, Christine Essel.   Another of Local 18’s so-called “independent expenditure” committees  has already spent over $78,000 in support of Essel’s campaign and in attacks on me.  Now, in this lawsuit, it is seeking a temporary restraining order to allow it to raise unlimited sums of money so that it can spend even more.

The people of Los Angeles enacted our ethics laws in 1990 specifically to reduce the undue influence of special interest money in deciding the outcome of elections.  Among other things, the people voted to create the City Ethics Commission, on which I had the honor of serving, and to place a limitation of $500 on contributions to candidate committees and so-called “independent expenditure” committees.  It is this limitation, decided by a vote of the people, that IBEW and “Working Californians” are now trying to reverse.  Essentially, this lawsuit is demanding that the people’s will should be rejected and special interest influence should be entirely unlimited.

The ethics reform laws also provided for candidates to receive taxpayer-financed “matching funds” to encourage more small contributions.  The people determined that using taxpayer funds for this purpose would be worthwhile to give ordinary people a larger voice in campaigns.  However, the people also required that candidates accept limitations on what they may spend on campaigns in order to be eligible for matching funds.  When large “independent expenditures” are made (more than $50,000 for any candidate), however, candidates may spend an unlimited amount without refunding the taxpayers’ money.  I have pledged to abide by the spending limitations despite these independent expenditures, but Essel has already spent far in excess of the limitation she agreed to when she started taking the taxpayers’ money to finance her campaign.   Yet the taxpayers’ money, which could instead have paid for police or fire services, is still sitting in her bank account, ready to be spent on slick mailers.

It is extremely important that, as the lawyer for the City and the Ethics Commission, you ensure that the will of the people is upheld.  The people have spoken very clearly about the need to restrict special interest influence.  It is now your job to ensure that wealthy special interest committees do not use abusive lawsuits to make a mockery of the City’s ethics laws.

Unfortunately, I am concerned that your personal political considerations will prevent you from providing a vigorous defense of the will of the people.  Several months ago, you and I had a telephone conversation in which you told me directly that it would be your policy, as City Attorney, not to make endorsements in Council races because of the potential appearance of conflict of interest that such political endorsements could create.  I told you that I respected that policy.  But just last week, you violated your own policy by formally endorsing Essel, who would of course reap the direct benefit of Working Californians’ lawsuit.  IBEW’s “independent expenditure” committee admits that the entire reason for the lawsuit is that the City’s law prevents it from “raising and accepting funds in sufficient amounts necessary to finance the production and dissemination of communications supporting the election of Christine Essel for City Council,” and further admits that “donors have pledged to contribute funds” in excess of the amounts allowed by law (Complaint, ¶¶ 27-28).

Because you are actively supporting the beneficiary of this lawsuit in a political campaign, I believe you should recuse yourself and your office from representing the people’s interests in this case.  I call upon you to provide independent counsel to ensure that our ethics laws are vigorously enforced.  Without such independent representation, the people cannot have confidence that your political endorsement of Essel, and your active personal involvement with her campaign, will not taint your judgment and the zealousness of your advocacy on the people’s behalf.

Whether or not you recuse yourself, this lawsuit must be defended and the people’s will respected.  I encourage you to take all necessary steps to ensure that the City’s ethics laws are upheld.

Very truly yours,

Paul Krekorian