SOUNDING OFF:Hansen’s proposal boils down to a money grab

In reference to Larry Gallup’s letter (“Ask the right questions for limits,” July 26) and Michael Alexander’s previous Independent article (“Campaign limits eyed,” May 24), I am unalterably opposed to Councilman Don Hansen’s proposal to both raise local candidate campaign contribution limits and to, in effect, make the higher limit retroactive by applying it to the previous election cycle.

Hansen’s motives and reasoning are disingenuous at best.

He claims that because postal rates have increased that we should automatically raise our contribution limits. This would primarily benefit the wealthier candidates who can actually afford to do mailers.

Those candidates also line up PACs and outside support groups to do mailers on their behalf.

For every “little” candidate who bags a $500 contributor, incumbents and special interest backed candidates can probably come up with several for their side.

We should be seeking more grassroots contributions from real community constituents rather than catering to well-heeled maximum contributors with their own agendas.

Candidates who self-fund or loan their campaigns money with the expectation of getting it back quickly from large donors once they are elected are probably not acting in the best interests of the electorate, either.

There is usually no free lunch from these maximum contributors.

Hansen’s avowed reason to make the campaign contributions retroactive (going back to the 2006 election cycle) was to let past unsuccessful candidates raise more to pay down debts.

Baloney!

It would allow wealthier candidates the chance to get even more in the till from their major contributors. The rich would get richer behind this false front.

There also is the matter of papering over technical campaign violations in the past by allowing the rules to be changed after they may have been broken.

No rules should be changed until all potential violations have been investigated and dealt with.

As usual, Councilman Hansen cloaks his “modest proposal” with noble intentions when it really boils down to another money grab that ill serves our electorate, and is a brazen one at that.

These changes will be used by incumbents and special interest candidates to bury the rest of the field in elections starting in 2008.

It is hugely self-serving and I believe improper for Hansen to benefit from his own proposal, and it is especially improper if his retroactive feature is interpreted to let past violators off the hook.

A complaint to the state would be in order if such an unwise course is adopted.

Now, let’s take a look at Councilman Hansen’s population figures. From 2000 to 2005, the population of Huntington Beach increased less than 6% (5.88%).

During this same period, the county population increased by over 7% (7.4%) and the state even more (8.68%).

Hansen’s original “Statement of Issue” in his proposal (council agenda item H-1a, May 21) states “Cities such as Anaheim and Santa Ana, who are closest to Huntington Beach in population size … “

Hansen is wrong in his assertions.

Using the previous 2005 figures, Huntington Beach had a population of 200,763. Anaheim’s population was listed at 345,317 (a difference of 144,654).

Santa Ana’s population was listed as 351,697 (a difference of 150,934). The cities in Orange County over 100,000 population that are actually closer to Huntington Beach are Irvine (180,803, a difference of 19,960), Garden Grove (172,042, a difference of 28,721), Orange (137,751, a difference of 63,012), Fullerton (135,672, a difference of 65,091) and Costa Mesa (113,440, a difference of 87,323).

All of these cities are well within 100,000 of our city while Anaheim and Santa Ana are well over 140,000 in difference.

Thank God we are not as big as Anaheim and Santa Ana. We don’t have to play by their rules, either.

There are two inescapable conclusions that must be reached in evaluating Hansen’s proposal. First, it is not needed and may even be harmful if misinterpreted. Second, it is self-serving to the point of being improper.

For either or both reasons, this proposal to change our campaign contribution rules should be rejected.