You Can't Spell SEIU Without S-U-E, But Where's the I.O.U.?
(Full Disclosure: I'm a supporter of Jay Aiyer & have done some very minor work for the campaign in the past. My own issues with Sue Lovell's campaign have been stated in previous posts here, here, here and here. Make of it what you will, but breaking the law is breaking the law.)
Well folks, it looks like we've got us a good ol' fashioned campaign violation here. Kristen Mack has the generalities:
Lovell points out that she led the field in the first round of voting Nov. 8 even though she was outspent. Aiyer raised $363,000 and had $40,000 cash on hand eight days before the election, the most recent campaign finance report. Lovell raised $107,000 and had $18,000 left in the bank.But Aiyer maintains that Lovell had outside help.
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) contributed $10,000 to Lovell's campaign and sent three mailings on her behalf. Aiyer said the mailings and automated phone calls by SEIU violate a city ordinance prohibiting "coordinated campaign expenditures" ? direct work on behalf of a candidate by an organization whose expenditures aren't listed on the candidate's campaign finance reports.
Lovell's campaign didn't send any direct mail and she said it was not expecting SEIU to send mailings on her behalf.
"We were just as surprised as anyone else," she said. "They wrote a check for $10,000 and that was the last communication we had."
SEIU, the nation's second-largest union, is battling the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees to organize city workers. Aiyer's campaign says SEIU's effort fits its national pattern of trying to gain a foothold in local government.
"No one entity should be able to influence the outcome of a race like that," Aiyer said. "They effectively were trying to buy a council seat. It allowed her to use her resources in other places."
Something about that emphasized section ought to jump out like lightening ... the Sue Lovell Campaign had absolutely NO mail in this campaign? Yet this mystery gift of $10,000 from SEIU (along with the obvious endorsement) and suddenly Sue Lovell gets about $70,000 in direct mail via an illegal donation from SEIU.
So let's go in order here ... how is this illegal? Let us count the ways (Sec. 18.38):
A "coordinated campaign expenditure," shall be considered a contribution subject to the limits set forth in subsection (a) and subject to the disclosure requirements for campaign contributions made to a candidate(s) for city office. As used in this subsection, the term "coordinated campaign expenditure" means a payment, other than a direct contribution, for any activity, service or product that contains express advocacy for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate(s) for city office and is made in cooperation, consultation, or concert, with or at the request or suggestion of, a candidate(s) for city office or a candidate's representative, agent, or employee.Coordinated campaign expenditures shall include, butnot be limited to the following:
1. Voter identification and/or get-out-the-vote activity on behalf of a specific candidate(s) for city office;
2. A public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate(s) for city office and that promotes or supports a candidates(s) for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate(s) for taht office,or is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate(s);
Where a giant leap of faith is required is in the belief that the Sue Lovell campaign planned a major, citywide campaign based on nothing but radio advertisements and personal appearances - absolutely no mail whatsoever, though. If Sue Lovell were a novice candidate, it might be believable. But considering that Sue's been around the block campaign-wise, I have a hard time believing that. Are we to suppose that it's just a lucky happenstance that some big organization comes along and fills this major void in campaign strategy?
What makes this all a little more ironic with regard to Sue is this: She's trying to stake out some ground on the issue of political corruption. Good for her. I don't quarrel with what she states that it's time to close some loopholes in the way city contractors "do business" with members of council.
But apparently, SEIU has already "done business" with Sue Lovell. Here's the investments:
front - back
Here's one payoff (so far). What other payoff does SEIU look for out of their $70,000 coordinated mailing for Sue Lovell? A google cache of an October Chronicle business section story has a few insights:
With two breakaway unions turning up the heat in Houston, there is bound to be friction between more than just workers and management.SEIU, which is making a play for 14,000 Houston city hall workers, has also antagonized many longtime local labor leaders with the AFL-CIO.
For decades, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Union has represented city workers.
"At this point, I feel betrayed," said Richard Shaw, secretary-treasurer of the Harris County AFL-CIO. "They basically stabbed another union in the back. I expected better from SEIU International."
Shaw is especially annoyed because he supported SEIU's successful Justice for Janitors campaign and introduced its organizers to many important political, religious and community leaders.
"I expected them to go after health care workers, not city workers," Shaw said.
So it looks like there's another I.O.U. coming due for S.U.E. Will she denounce the SEIU's attempt to "do business" with her campaign like she's done with city contractors? Will she take the Russ Feingold approach and demand that SEIU cease their illegal campaigning for her? Will she follow her own words of advice and "Make It Fair?" Or will she be just another politician who says one thing for election time and another when she gets sworn in? Inquiring minds want to know.
Jay's filed an ethics complaint with the city and if history is any indicator, there'll be but a slap on the wrist if anything. Bigger question is whether or not Dems, independents, and others who are voting, will take an interest in what Sue now owes the SEIU.