8th District Council Seat Race : Candidates Trade Barbs on Financing Methods

Accusing each other of trying to either buy or sell the San Diego City Council 8th District seat, candidates Michael Aguirre and Neil Good on Monday sharply criticized each other--and a third contender--over the method each has used to finance his campaign.

At back-to-back news conferences outside City Hall, Good faulted Aguirre and candidate Bob Filner for spending tens of thousands of dollars of their own money in the race, while Aguirre countered by criticizing his two major opponents for failing to disclose the source of many of their campaign contributions.

In the end, after some testy verbal exchanges and a few conciliatory gestures between the two, Good pledged to disclose the names of every contributor to his campaign--even though he is not required to do so by law; Aguirre admitted that he intends to add more of his personal funds to the $95,000 that he already has loaned his campaign, and both candidates agreed that the dispute points up the need for public financing of local races.

The origins of what Aguirre jokingly described as Monday’s “tag-team news conference” were campaign finance reports filed last week showing that Aguirre and Filner have spent $95,000 and $34,000 respectively of their own money in their bids for the 8th District seat now held by appointed Councilwoman Celia Ballesteros.

“Lust for Power”

“It is obvious that (Aguirre and Filner) are using their personal fortunes to try to buy the 8th District Council seat in an effort to camouflage their lack of popular support within the district,” Good charged Monday. “While the Constitution calls this freedom of speech, you and I can call it what it really is: a lust for power.”

When Aguirre had learned of Good’s planned news conference, he scheduled one of his own 45 minutes earlier at which he sought to deflect some of the anticipated criticism by trying to put Good on the defensive over his own campaign finances.

Flanked by one of his prominent supporters, Rep. Jim Bates (D-San Diego), Aguirre noted that the source of 41% of Good’s $52,051 in contributions and 23% of Filner’s $27,484 total is not identified on the finance reports.

Under city election laws, candidates are not required to disclose the names and occupations of contributors who donate less than $100. Nevertheless, Aguirre, emphasizing that he had disclosed the source of “every last cent” in his own campaign, accused Good and Filner of “taking advantage of a loophole . . . to conceal where their money is coming from.”

“Neil may be concerned about me trying to buy the election, but I’m just as concerned about whether he’s trying to secretly sell it,” said Aguirre, a lawyer. “He’s clearly within the law, but I’m concerned that this is a way for a lot of special-interest money to be hidden from the voters.”

Although Aguirre’s news conference ended a few minutes before Good’s began, he lingered outside City Hall to await his opponent’s arrival. Aguirre’s uninvited presence led to some acrimonious moments, tinged with humorous overtones, between the two candidates.

Speaking with Aguirre standing a few feet away, Good, now on leave from his position as county Supervisor Leon Williams’ administrative assistant, termed Aguirre’s charges “ludicrous, a smoke screen.” However, to eliminate any possible questions about the source of his campaign funds, Good pledged to “go beyond what the law requires” by filing a list of more than 800 contributors with the city clerk’s office today.

When Aguirre pressed Good to join him in agreeing not to accept contributions from developers, Good, visibly weary of Aguirre’s intrusions into his event, caustically reminded him, “It’s my news conference.” Then, Good resumed his attack on Aguirre with renewed vigor.

“Who defines a special interest?” Good asked Aguirre. “I think your special interest is a lot narrower than any other special interest in the community, because you just want to be in office, period. . . You’ve put in $95,000 of your own money so far. You’ll probably, at the rate you’re going, put in close to $120,000 . . . just for you to have a seat in the City Council.”

Aguirre shot back: “You and I both started off in life at the same place. And I went out and I made money. I didn’t inherit it . . . I didn’t marry into it. By spending my own money, I’m not beholden to anyone but myself.” (Earlier, Aguirre conceded that he plans to spend more than $100,000 of his own money in the Sept. 15 primary, but said that he did “not have a current expectation” of precisely how much.)

Good angrily responded: “I’ll switch my years of public service where I didn’t make money suing deep pockets for yours . . . You run your campaign. I’ll run mine. And then on Sept. 15, the people will decide.” Then, saying that he did not “want people to think that this is international wrestling,”--and with his unplanned debate with Aguirre becoming repetitious--Good departed.

Before leaving, however, Good proposed that the City Council adopt an emergency ordinance similar to one recently approved by the county Board of Supervisors that would lift the city’s $250-per-person contribution limit for candidates whose opponents spend more than $25,000 of their own money. Under the county’s ordinance, a candidate is allowed to raise, without limits, an amount equal to the personal funds that any of his opponents loans to his campaign above $25,000.

But a spokesman for San Diego Mayor Maureen O’Connor said that the council is unlikely to satisfy Good’s desire to see such an ordinance in place before the November citywide general election. The top two vote-getters among the nine candidates in the 8th District primary will face each other in the citywide runoff.

Called Inappropriate

“The mayor’s position is that it would be inappropriate to change the rules of the game at this stage of the campaign,” said O’Connor press secretary Paul Downey. Instead, Good’s proposal will be referred to a special task force currently reviewing local election laws “to see whether it deserves a look down the road,” Downey explained.

Meanwhile, Filner, drawn into the fray by his two opponents’ charges, later bitterly criticized both of them while vigorously defending his own campaign-spending policies as “absolutely, completely proper, to the ‘T.’ ”

Good’s charges, Filner said, “give me the impression of my adolescent kids who, when playing a game they are about to lose, knock over the board.”

“I’m strongly in favor of spending limitations,” said Filner, a history professor at San Diego State University. “But the rules don’t have that now. We all entered the game knowing the rules and now that Neil sees that he’s losing, he wants to change the rules.”

And Aguirre, Filner charged, committed more than 25 technical violations on his financial reports by failing to properly disclose the names, addresses or other data about contributors.

“Until Mike Aguirre learns how to fill out his own forms in full compliance with the law, he shouldn’t be attacking people whose forms are in full compliance,” Filner said. “I’m not going to act defensive about this because we don’t have the problem. Mike Aguirre has the problem.”