Clariece Tally: Cunningham 'Resists Change' But Gains Council Seat With Own Funds
How Councilman Jim Cunningham got elected the old-fashioned way.
Council member Jim Cunningham speaks during a Poway City Council meeting Sept. 21, 2010.
Paul Gallaher
Photos (2)
Photos
Pdfs (2)
Pdfs
Republicans Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina donated $143 million and $5.5 million, respectively, to their own campaigns. Democrat Jeff Greene spent $24 million in Florida. Mayor Michael Bloomberg spent $108 million to gain his third term in New York, according to The American Prospect.
San Diego mayoral candidate Councilman Carl DeMaio has become his own biggest donor at $335,000, while Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher has given a more practical $1,000, according to UT San Diego.
It probably comes as no surprise to anyone that candidates donate significant amounts of personal wealth to their own campaigns. But how does Poway fare in the game of self-financed campaigns?
The big winner, according to his own campaign finance statements, is Councilman Jim Cunningham. The form shows that Cunningham flooded his campaign with nearly $23,000 in personal loans. If the loans were given to him from another individual, the disclosure form would state so.
He lists private contributions as $10,850. There is a touch of irony in the fact that the biggest “friend” in the Friends of Jim Cunningham for City Council campaign disclosure is Cunningham.
By self-financing his campaign from his own bank account, Cunningham effectively tripled his total campaign donations. I suppose the fact that he freely spent his own cash was a harbinger of how freely he would go on to spend our general funds during his tenure (for example, the WinterFest cost the city $30,698.94, the city only raised $8,250 in donations and made 3,904 in revenue).
Yet at the Feb. 7 City Council meeting, Cunningham passionately argued against increasing the current $100 limit on personal contributions to $200 saying, “This is not the time to liberalize what has been working. The more you are allowed to raise, the more money you have to spend.”
He continued, “Now is not the time to send a message that bigger money can make an influence in Poway.”
In fact, he got so caught up in making his point that he could not help but heap praise on Councilmembers Dave Grosch and John Mullin saying, “David and John did not spend extraordinary amounts of money. In fact, John didn’t spend any of his money, I believe for a very important point, because he wants an even playing field.”
And after the council meeting Cunningham trumpeted on his Facebook page and Twitter accounts: “I resist change!! Poway sticks with $100 contributions limit...”
All of which raises the question: If Mullin did not spend his own money because he believes in a level playing field, isn’t it fair to conclude the opposite—that Cunningham did not want a level playing field as evidenced by his large personal contribution to his own campaign? Cunningham cannot have it both ways. Either you are in favor of fairly controlling campaign funding in our local elections or you are not.
You cannot logically argue that infusing large sums of personal money into a campaign is anything less than a blatant attempt to influence the vote while at the same time congratulating yourself for limiting an individual’s right to fund a campaign.
It rings hollow for Cunningham to shout from the rooftops (or Facebook) about how great he is to have protected Poway from the threat of big money influencing elections in light of his disproportionate contributions to his own campaign. To be clear, it appears Cunningham did not earn his place on the council by any real merit—he bought it.
In what will undoubtedly be a heated campaign season in our town, any candidate for City Council would do well to forgo self-funding and instead invest time to build a legitimate local support base. This year in Poway let us campaign the true old-fashioned way with the examples set by Mullin, Grosch and Boyack.
These councilmembers legitimately worked hard to find their loyal support bases on shoestring budgets and have protected the interests of this community without boasting or bragging. That’s how it’s done in Poway.
Jorinka Dworkin
8:55 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
Cunningham doesn't want us to give more than $100 to our favorite candidate but he can spend $20K+ to buy a council seat?? Not right or fair. Shame on him."
Gary
8:15 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
It would seem, based on this article, that the obvious reason that Councilman Cunnigham does not want the donation rate raised to $200 is that this would give competitors more money to fight the "Old Boys" club and get elected. It IS 2012 and $100 bucks doesn't go as far as it used to...at least in my household. Maybe it does in Councilman Cunnighams.
Tom Yarnall
10:27 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
It's difficult for me to understand why a person would spend $23,000 to gain a seat on the Poway City Council.Perhaps it's an ego thing. However, he has every right to do so.
At this point, I think the more important question is his performance since being on the council. From my perspective it seems he has done a good job representing the citizens,such as his efforts to bring forth Veterans Park and his support for other important programs.
I have never been to a Council meeting and know that I am not privy to the under workings of the Council, but I would be interested in hearing from anyone with an opinion regarding his performance.
FionaM
1:22 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
No need to physically attend a council meeting. They are played several times a week on channel 24. The agendas are posted on the city website prior to a meeting. I would suggest reviewing the agenda and if something catches your eye, watch the cable replay. The viewing schedule is also on the city website. There really isn't an excuse to not be aware of what our council is or is not doing. To say "it seems he has a done a good job" isn't based on anything and I would encourage you to make the minimal effort to watch on t.v.
Tom Yarnall
3:26 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
I do review the agenda and the minutes on the website and read the papers.I believe I am generally current with what's happening in the Chamber. I have satellite and do not get channel 24.
Sorry I don't meet you standards, as many others do not.. I would bet you would be just as critical with shut ins, the deaf and blind people.
By the way, did you go to the dedication of Veterans Park and do you know of Mr Cunnimgham's involvement with that project ?.Do you know how he voted on the Oak Noll Project? Are you aware of his voting record in general?
At this point I honestly don't know if he a better candidate than the others who are running. Please tell me something I don't know.
Bob Kirk
10:52 am on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Jim is two faced. "Prohibit big money from everyone except rich candidates." it is a double standard. He has done some good things (Veteran's Park) and some dumb wasteful things (winterfest) but in this discussion those are beside the point. And if you've been to council meetings you'd know he loves to hear himself talk and talk and talk.
Tom Yarnall
6:59 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
I too, must admit I was a dummy regarding the Winter Fest.At the time I thought it was a good idea and would be an activity that would bring families together to share in the joy of the holidays and am surprised more did not participate. It may be the admission price was too much for a family during these hard economic times.
It was especially disturbing to know that Poway lost $18,000, which is 0.24 % of the budget, just to bring spirit to the community.
Of course you knew it would be income negative from the start, didn't you?
Please give me some other "dumb wasteful things" he has done. I am still trying to understand his character.
Bob Kirk
7:15 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Re Winterfest: Mr. Cunningham promised repeatedly he'd make sure there were enough sponsors to assure break even. He didn't deliver. And the City vastly overstated the attendance. The project was a nice idea but it shouldn't have been rushed to happen this year.
Sadly it is rare to see any dissenting votes on the Council. Beyond that I'd prefer to see the Council members out in the community more, not just when there's a reporter around. If they are not out among the people how can they represent them? Boyack and Grosch do pretty well at being out and available. Cunningham only shows up when his name is likely to be in the paper. Mullin turns up now and again. Higginson, never.
Tom Yarnall
8:05 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
I will take your word for it regarding Cunningham's promises. Politicians tend to do that. Just look at the promises Obama made during the 2009 election year and then compare them to what has actually happened . He will probably be re-elected in 2012 even though his performance has been dismal. He has a lock on the Nanny State vote which assures victory.
You may know that the poverty level in the US is about $22,000 dollars per year. With an annual salary of $17,000 for a Poway council member it is not surprising that most of them have a full time job to enjoy a good standard of living? Do you expect they be available at the whim of every special interest group in the city? I do know that Mr Mullins is employed full time and Mr. Grosch is retired, giving him more time to participate in extra curricular activities. I don't know about other council members.
Perhaps we should change the City by laws and only allow retired people on the council.
I do think we get our money's worth at $17 K per year.
Clariece Tally
9:53 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Generally writers are not to respond to comments - but I did feel an update to my opinion warranted posting. The Patch has a video link.
At last night's city council meeting Jim Cunningham reacted angrily to a suggestion that current and future candidates take a voluntary pledge to limit their contribution to their own campaign to $100, the same limitation that applies to anyone else who wants to support a candidate. He wasn't happy that his $23,000 investment in his 2008 campaign has drawn scrutiny.
Cunningham said "I chose to take my hard earned money and invest it in this city to make sure that I felt that somebody could be up here to help us navigate through very difficult times." He continued, "I take great offense to that [the proposed pledge]. It's a political ploy."
Mr. Cunningham, self-funding your campaign to the level you did is the only political ploy involved. Three other council members were able to help Poway "navigate through difficult times" yet they spent half as much, with little or no self-financing.
Spending so much of your own money to get elected is not in the best interest of this community. It is simply a means to an end - to create an unfair advantage over other candidates.
Tom Yarnall
10:44 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Clariece, I'm curious. After Meg Whitman spent $150M of her personal funds on her campaign would you have been as critical of her had she won the election? How about Mitt Romney? Is it not o.k. for him to contribute to his cause?
This kind of thing has been going on since 1776. Would you like to change the constitution and eliminate it? I have mixed feelings about it.
I think the biggest mistake Mr Cunningham has made was to respond to your and others criticism. Would have probably been best for him to ignore it. He just stoked the fire.
Ned
7:32 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Too late FionaM
Clariece Tally
11:49 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Ok - one last really wordy comment. And then I have to stop since this portion of the Patch is for discussion by others (not me).
The Constitution does not provide for excessive self-finance. What it does provides for is an individual's free self-expression. In 1976 (Buckley v. Valeo) the Supreme Court ruled that it's ok for candidates to self-finance under the guise of free expression. (See http://www.cfinst.org/pdf/books-reports/EAR/EAR_ch10.pdf.)
On a local level, it is inappropriate and unnecessary and it is incredibly hypocritcal for Cunningham to boast that he saved us from the largess of individuals donors only to make up and exceed the difference with his own pocketbook.
As to your other question:
As for Meg, Mitt and Carly, I am just as critical of both on this issue (DeMaio is another example of bad self-finance - nearly $350k). Both sides of the aisle are guilty of this - so I'm not saying any one party is better or worse.
Tom Yarnall
1:18 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
I know you feel obligated to not comment further and this will be my last word and I will not expect a response.
You must be saying the majority of the Supreme Court in 1976 used free expression as an excuse to allow rich people to dominate an election by using their own funds. Why would they do that if they didn't think their decision was based on the intent of the constitution? Were they in someone's pocket?
Seems to me your premise is irrational, but I must admit I'm not much of a scholar on matters such as this.
Clariece Tally
1:46 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
You call me irrational and expect me not to reply. Cunningham's refusal to state why he thinks it's ok to self-fund was his second error - sinking a ridiculous $23k into his campaign fund was his first.
The Supreme Court did not say "rich" people. I don't believe there was or is a class or income distinction to be made. Rather the court opined that if a candidate wanted to self-fund they could. Where the disconnect occurs is when Cunningham boasts about keeping a level playing field (as far as other candidates were concerned) was disingenuous in light of his personal infusion of cash into his own campaign.
Tom Yarnall
5:18 pm on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
You may knit pick my relative term about "rich" people all you want, but please don't try to deflect my basic question as to whether the 1976 Court decision was based on the intent of the constitution. Your reply implies it was based on willy- nilly opinion and not logic or precedent.
Mr Cunningham may be two faced and you should work hard to get such an evil person defeated in the next election.
The voters will have the last word, as it should be, and this is my final word.
.