Did Chris Essel's campaign circumvent campaign finance laws in Council District 2?

from Calitics by: Dante Atkins disclosure: I have leadership positions or membership in multiple organizations affiliated with the Democratic Party that have endorsed Paul Krekorian for City Council. Forgive me for continuing to write about Los Angeles City politics on a statewide site, but this is too interesting to pass up. I've written previously about the race for Los Angeles City Council District 2 here because it has statewide implications: if Paul Krekorian wins, we will have a vacancy in AD-43. So it does matter, and since it is my hometown and I'm somewhat enmeshed here, I've been following the race. And there's something very interesting afoot. For any of this to be interesting or relevant, I want you to review two brief snippets of election-related ordinances from the Los Angeles Campaign Finance Ordinance: No candidate for City Council who files a statement of acceptance of matching funds, nor any controlled committee of such candidate, shall make qualified campaign expenditures above the following amounts: $330,000 per primary election and $275,000 per general election. And even more importantly: If a candidate who declines to accept matching funds makes qualified campaign expenditures in excess of the expenditure ceiling, or if an independent expenditure committee or committees in the aggregate spend more than $50,000 in the case of a City Council race, $100,000 in the case of an election for City Attorney or Controller, or $200,000 in the case of an election for Mayor, in support of or in opposition to any such candidate, the applicable expenditure ceiling shall no longer be binding on any candidate running for the same office. That's the applicable law. There's a $330,000 spending cap for City Council races--unless one or more IE's comes in and busts it by spending a total of at least $50,000 on the race--either for or against any candidate. So that basically means that if a candidate is up against the spending limit, all that candidate needs to do is quietly arrange for an independent expenditure of a certain amount, and then...voila! Spend away. Which is exactly what it seems Chris Essel's campaign has done. It seems intentional and coordinated, too. True, the evidence is entirely circumstantial--but when you add the evidence all up, there's only one logical conclusion. Follow me below the fold for more.

To read the rest of this story, go HERE.