By Geoff Lomax
Nepotism: The practice of giving patrons an unfair advantage or preferential treatment
Under the California Political Reform Act it is unlawful for elected officials to use public resources for a campaign activity. A fundamental precept is that the government may not ”take sides” in election contests or bestow an unfair advantage on one of several competing factions. Stanson v. Mott (1976). The reason for restricting activities with respect to ballot measures is that the use of taxpayer dollars distorts the debate and undermines the fairness of the election. Berkeley’s political establishment has disregarded these principles of fairness and neutrality in favor of enabling organizations receiving millions of dollars in city funds to simultaneously finance the FF campaign while censoring alternative viewpoints.
Since 2016, City Council has endorsed a series of ballot measures (O 2018, L 2022, FF 2024) intended to raise over $1 billion for infrastructure programs. However, Council has been deliberate in ensuring that these funds flow to their patron organizations. For example, Measure O restricted funds for housing development to a limited group of “qualified not-for-profit entities.” Predictably, these “qualified” organizations donated tens of thousands of dollars to individual candidates and the Council-sponsored ballot measure. After Measure O passed, these same organizations were recipients of millions of public dollars. Subsequently, when the Council placed Measure L on the ballot, they included the same restriction, and “qualified” organizations donated thousands more.
Financial Shell Game Launches Measure FF
One of the more intriguing examples of Council’s “revolving door” financing involves Walk Bike Berkeley. This “qualified” organization provided the first major cash infusion to the FF campaign, $15,000. However, these funds came from Oakland-based Bike East Bay. Walk Bike Berkeley is identified as an “intermediary” for Bike East Bay. More intriguing is the fact that Bike East Bay reports receiving over $10,000 per year over the past five years from the City of Berkeley (2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023).
In short, an Oakland organization receiving over $50,000 at City Council’s discretion served as the financial foundation of the Measure FF campaign. If this shell game was not enough, the Measure L committee soon followed suit by transferring $12,000 to the campaign. Thus, from day one, the FF campaign amassed a massive campaign budget from organizations that are direct recipients of millions in Berkeley residents’ tax dollars doled out at City Council’s discretion. Meanwhile back at City Hall, Council requested and received an opinion from the City Attorney that they could participate in the FF campaign, freeing them to use their subsidized mailers and other resources to advocate for the measure.
Weaponizing the Political Reform Act to Censor Alternative Viewpoints
At the time of this writing, FF has a five-to-one financial advantage ($85,000 vs. $17,000) over a complementary measure. Measure, EE, is a modest (by Berkeley standards) grassroots campaign financed by voluntary individual contributions. For example, the EE campaign conducted a yard sale to engage community members and raise funds. It was disclosed to those who donated items and attended the yard sale that proceeds would support the EE campaign. Proceeds from the yard sale were subsequently reported to the Fair Political Practices Commission.
The FF campaign filed a complaint claiming the contributions were not itemized. In other words the campaign did not collect paperwork from persons donating items or purchasing them at the yard sale. In the FF campaign world, receiving $15,000 from a financial intermediary that receives ten of thousands in Berkeley taxpayer dollars (unbeknownst to most residents) annually is business as usual, but the voluntary and consensual contributions of residents at a yard sale must be prosecuted.
The Rise of the Machine and the Demise of Grassroots Democracy
Such political “meddling” is not necessarily new; what is different is the scale and methodological consistency. It's a well-oiled system where the dominant political class receives tens of thousands in donations from their political patrons (many of which are direct recipients of Berkeley tax dollars), makes these funds portable from election to election through the creation of campaign committees, and weaponizes laws intended to support fair elections to silence alternative viewpoints.
This playbook has become so ingrained in Berkeley’s political culture that it has been normalized. Many elected officials, who as aspiring progressive activists decried “big money” in politics and corporations deploying strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPP), are now lending their names to a campaign of moral equivalency. It’s a perverse and corrosive system that blurs the lines between public dollars and private interests at an unprecedented scale, further empowers the powerful, and intimidates those who would otherwise engage in the political process.* Welcome to the machine.
* In performing background research for this essay, numerous individuals, who were involved in prior ballot measure campaigns, provided examples of being subject to punitive actions resulting predominantly from bookkeeping errors involving small individual contributions. The resulting administrative burdens as well as fines and diminishment of character cause many to say they would “never again” engage the process.
