ELECTION NEWS!
POLITICAL ENDORSEMENTS
SLATE MAILERS
What you need to know about slate mailers...
2020 ELECTION
Changing Election Trends
By Mary Marlow
PAC money spent on City Council elections in Santa Monica are starting to show a new trend – downward. From 2010 through 2014, candidates for city council needed to raise more and more money to get their name and message out to voters in hopes of winning a council seat. The growing money flowed mostly from special interest PACs supporting candidates they wanted to see win.
The usual mix of money and endorsements started to change in 2014 when Sue Himmelrich, a newcomer, won an open seat along with incumbents Kevin McKeown and Pam O’Connor. Money and endorsements appeared to play a critical role in winning all council seats. All three winning candidates were endorsed by Santa Monicans for Renters Rights (SMRR), the kingmaker at the time.
In 2016 a change in both how much candidates and PACs spent shrunk by two thirds – from a total of $1,186,000 in 2014 to $405,000 in 2016. The amount was even less considering only three seats with fourteen contenders were contested in 2014 versus four seats and ten candidates in 2016.
Winners were four incumbents; Terry O’Day, Tony Vazquez, Ted Winterer, and Gleam Davis. All winners were endorsed by SMRR and Santa Monica Forward, a new pro-growth SMRR offshoot. It appeared that the incumbents won because they were better known and broadly endorsed. PACs didn’t need to spend as much on a fragmented field of little-known challengers.
In 2018, three seats were available in a field of seven candidates resulting in about half the spending, $520,000 of the high mark amount of 2014, $1,186,000. In this turning point race, two incumbents Kevin McKeown and Sue Himmelrich won along with challenger Greg Morena. Incumbent Pam O’Connor lost to Greg Morena. It was the first time in sixteen years (2002) since Mike Feinstein, an incumbent, lost a council seat. It appeared that money and endorsements behind Morena outpaced those of O’Connor paving the way for his win. This time SMRR endorsed the three winners, while Santa Monica Forward, endorsed O’Connor and Morena.
Endorsements by the usual PACs have also lost their power to persuade as voters saw the same people voting for incumbents in the same groups they control; SMRR, Santa Monica Forward, and the Democratic Club, who share membership and steering committee leaders. Santa Monica City Employees, Firefighters, and Police were seen for their self interest endorsements of the incumbents, who continue to support their high salaries and pensions.
This year, we are rethinking our previous assessment of the primary role of money and endorsements of candidates are critical to winning a city council seat. All 21 of the 2020 candidates’ committees spent only $168,140, while the PACs spent twice as much $330,170, for a grand total of $498,310. See our chart of 10 years of election spending.
The win of three challengers against four incumbents is unprecedented and historic in Santa Monica elections. The three challenger winners and their supporting PAC raised and spent the least money, $106,812 versus $246,459, by the council incumbents. Challengers had only one endorsement, from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City with no money, but frequent email support.
The three winners formed a slate of four candidates going against a slate of four incumbents. A new resident focused PAC, Santa Monicans for Change, raised and spent the least amount of any PAC, about $20,000.
The most notable difference, besides money, is the savvy use of social media by the challengers. There were everyday post’s on Facebook and Nextdoor along with emails from the candidates and their supporters. The social media posts were dedicated to issues residents care about – overdevelopment, city spending, rising crime and homelessness. In contrast, the incumbents were mostly absent from social media with the exception of virtual online candidate forums held by several neighborhood associations, and other civic organizations.
Our best guess is that social media in the form of NextDoor, Facebook, Zoom and emails allowed candidates to dialogue with voters versus the one-way communication of glossy mailers and doorhangers. Of course, the pandemic also limited canvassing neighborhoods used effectively in the past for incumbents by SMRR and Unite Here Local 11.
Only time will tell if this election is a money and endorsement game changer or a pandemic year anomaly.
PAC money spent on City Council elections in Santa Monica are starting to show a new trend – downward. From 2010 through 2014, candidates for city council needed to raise more and more money to get their name and message out to voters in hopes of winning a council seat. The growing money flowed mostly from special interest PACs supporting candidates they wanted to see win.
The usual mix of money and endorsements started to change in 2014 when Sue Himmelrich, a newcomer, won an open seat along with incumbents Kevin McKeown and Pam O’Connor. Money and endorsements appeared to play a critical role in winning all council seats. All three winning candidates were endorsed by Santa Monicans for Renters Rights (SMRR), the kingmaker at the time.
In 2016 a change in both how much candidates and PACs spent shrunk by two thirds – from a total of $1,186,000 in 2014 to $405,000 in 2016. The amount was even less considering only three seats with fourteen contenders were contested in 2014 versus four seats and ten candidates in 2016.
Winners were four incumbents; Terry O’Day, Tony Vazquez, Ted Winterer, and Gleam Davis. All winners were endorsed by SMRR and Santa Monica Forward, a new pro-growth SMRR offshoot. It appeared that the incumbents won because they were better known and broadly endorsed. PACs didn’t need to spend as much on a fragmented field of little-known challengers.
In 2018, three seats were available in a field of seven candidates resulting in about half the spending, $520,000 of the high mark amount of 2014, $1,186,000. In this turning point race, two incumbents Kevin McKeown and Sue Himmelrich won along with challenger Greg Morena. Incumbent Pam O’Connor lost to Greg Morena. It was the first time in sixteen years (2002) since Mike Feinstein, an incumbent, lost a council seat. It appeared that money and endorsements behind Morena outpaced those of O’Connor paving the way for his win. This time SMRR endorsed the three winners, while Santa Monica Forward, endorsed O’Connor and Morena.
Endorsements by the usual PACs have also lost their power to persuade as voters saw the same people voting for incumbents in the same groups they control; SMRR, Santa Monica Forward, and the Democratic Club, who share membership and steering committee leaders. Santa Monica City Employees, Firefighters, and Police were seen for their self interest endorsements of the incumbents, who continue to support their high salaries and pensions.
This year, we are rethinking our previous assessment of the primary role of money and endorsements of candidates are critical to winning a city council seat. All 21 of the 2020 candidates’ committees spent only $168,140, while the PACs spent twice as much $330,170, for a grand total of $498,310. See our chart of 10 years of election spending.
The win of three challengers against four incumbents is unprecedented and historic in Santa Monica elections. The three challenger winners and their supporting PAC raised and spent the least money, $106,812 versus $246,459, by the council incumbents. Challengers had only one endorsement, from the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City with no money, but frequent email support.
The three winners formed a slate of four candidates going against a slate of four incumbents. A new resident focused PAC, Santa Monicans for Change, raised and spent the least amount of any PAC, about $20,000.
The most notable difference, besides money, is the savvy use of social media by the challengers. There were everyday post’s on Facebook and Nextdoor along with emails from the candidates and their supporters. The social media posts were dedicated to issues residents care about – overdevelopment, city spending, rising crime and homelessness. In contrast, the incumbents were mostly absent from social media with the exception of virtual online candidate forums held by several neighborhood associations, and other civic organizations.
Our best guess is that social media in the form of NextDoor, Facebook, Zoom and emails allowed candidates to dialogue with voters versus the one-way communication of glossy mailers and doorhangers. Of course, the pandemic also limited canvassing neighborhoods used effectively in the past for incumbents by SMRR and Unite Here Local 11.
Only time will tell if this election is a money and endorsement game changer or a pandemic year anomaly.
The Year Election Money Didn’t Win
By Mary Marlow
For the past ten years the Transparency Project has researched and reported on the increasing amount of PAC money spent on Santa Monica City Council elections.
It took increasing amounts of contributions or a candidate's personal money to win. The more money spent; the better the chances of getting elected. The same with endorsements from SMRR, unions, political parties and prominent elected officials.
Until 2020, when voters upended the system ("Santa Monica Voters Usher In New Era," November 6, 2020).
The biggest players in local elections -- Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR) and Santa Monica Forward -- backed none of the winning challengers: Phil Brock, Oscar de la Torre and Christine Parra.
Only the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, a local resident organization, endorsed the tradition-breaking slate that defeated three of the four well-funded and broadly endorsed incumbents.
Overall, the total winners’ spending was less than half of the losing incumbents -- $227,553 vs. $510,165.
Brock, the top finisher in the council race, won with only $24,120 spent. Compare that with the $84,462 spent on second-place finisher Gleam Davis, the only incumbent who held on to their seat.
Parra, who heads emergency services in Culver City, finished third with $47,712 spent on her behalf, most of it by the Santa Monica Firefighters PAC.
School Board member de la Torre, finished with $38,667 in expenditures, most of which he raised in his candidate committee.
By comparison, the Santa Monica Forward PAC, funded by business and development interests, spent more $200,000 betting on five incumbents they thought would agree with their priorities of continuing commercial and residential development.
They even spent over $22,000 on newly appointed incumbent Kristin McCowan, who ran unopposed.
A new resident funded PAC, Santa Monicans for Change, spent only $18,213 on the four council challengers.
The Responsible Leadership for a Better Community PAC, spent an unknown amount on a single mailer touting the challengers. The PAC was last active in Santa Monica in the 2014 council election spending and advocating for the incumbents.
What happened? How did three challengers win against well-funded and heavily endorsed candidates Anna Maria Jara, Terry O’Day and Ted Winterer?
Most important, residents took notice of what City Council members did, not just what they said.
The pandemic forced budget cuts that mostly affected residential services -– less frequent street cleaning, library branch closures and shorter hours, less enforcement of building codes, fewer community recreation classes and shortened children's playground hours.
Residents and businesses faced new levels of fear and felt less safe. Based on NeighborhoodScout analytics, as of 2019, Santa Monica is only safer than 2 percent of all U.S. cities on a per population basis for both violent and property crimes.
On May 31, looters overran Main Street, 4th Street and the Promenade while our police tear gassed mostly peaceful protesters. Our city council told us that they were not involved nor accountable.
Residents demanded an investigation of the debacle. Six months later, there is still no report on the failure of the police to protect the city.
On July 27, the Council voted to lease public land at 4th & Arizona to a commercial developer. Residents, who paid for the land, spent hours vainly speaking against the private use of public land for development. In the end, they were forced to sue the City to compel it to follow state law.
In August, 21 Santa Monica residents qualified as city council candidates, a record number of challengers that showed widespread dissatisfaction with current city leaders.
Meanwhile, the incumbents ran their usual campaigns dependent on high profile endorsements and money from the usual special interest groups.
The message of the election is clear: When voters decide to make a change, change happens.
By Mary Marlow
For the past ten years the Transparency Project has researched and reported on the increasing amount of PAC money spent on Santa Monica City Council elections.
It took increasing amounts of contributions or a candidate's personal money to win. The more money spent; the better the chances of getting elected. The same with endorsements from SMRR, unions, political parties and prominent elected officials.
Until 2020, when voters upended the system ("Santa Monica Voters Usher In New Era," November 6, 2020).
The biggest players in local elections -- Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR) and Santa Monica Forward -- backed none of the winning challengers: Phil Brock, Oscar de la Torre and Christine Parra.
Only the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City, a local resident organization, endorsed the tradition-breaking slate that defeated three of the four well-funded and broadly endorsed incumbents.
Overall, the total winners’ spending was less than half of the losing incumbents -- $227,553 vs. $510,165.
Brock, the top finisher in the council race, won with only $24,120 spent. Compare that with the $84,462 spent on second-place finisher Gleam Davis, the only incumbent who held on to their seat.
Parra, who heads emergency services in Culver City, finished third with $47,712 spent on her behalf, most of it by the Santa Monica Firefighters PAC.
School Board member de la Torre, finished with $38,667 in expenditures, most of which he raised in his candidate committee.
By comparison, the Santa Monica Forward PAC, funded by business and development interests, spent more $200,000 betting on five incumbents they thought would agree with their priorities of continuing commercial and residential development.
They even spent over $22,000 on newly appointed incumbent Kristin McCowan, who ran unopposed.
A new resident funded PAC, Santa Monicans for Change, spent only $18,213 on the four council challengers.
The Responsible Leadership for a Better Community PAC, spent an unknown amount on a single mailer touting the challengers. The PAC was last active in Santa Monica in the 2014 council election spending and advocating for the incumbents.
What happened? How did three challengers win against well-funded and heavily endorsed candidates Anna Maria Jara, Terry O’Day and Ted Winterer?
Most important, residents took notice of what City Council members did, not just what they said.
The pandemic forced budget cuts that mostly affected residential services -– less frequent street cleaning, library branch closures and shorter hours, less enforcement of building codes, fewer community recreation classes and shortened children's playground hours.
Residents and businesses faced new levels of fear and felt less safe. Based on NeighborhoodScout analytics, as of 2019, Santa Monica is only safer than 2 percent of all U.S. cities on a per population basis for both violent and property crimes.
On May 31, looters overran Main Street, 4th Street and the Promenade while our police tear gassed mostly peaceful protesters. Our city council told us that they were not involved nor accountable.
Residents demanded an investigation of the debacle. Six months later, there is still no report on the failure of the police to protect the city.
On July 27, the Council voted to lease public land at 4th & Arizona to a commercial developer. Residents, who paid for the land, spent hours vainly speaking against the private use of public land for development. In the end, they were forced to sue the City to compel it to follow state law.
In August, 21 Santa Monica residents qualified as city council candidates, a record number of challengers that showed widespread dissatisfaction with current city leaders.
Meanwhile, the incumbents ran their usual campaigns dependent on high profile endorsements and money from the usual special interest groups.
The message of the election is clear: When voters decide to make a change, change happens.
2018 ELECTION
The 2018 council election, for three council seats, was an outlier in anticipation of a decision on the lawsuit challenging the current at-large city council elections. Several potential candidates decided to await a decision on district elections. Only eight residents ran for city council, including three incumbents and two candidates who collected less than $2,000 in contributions. This election was the smallest candidate field in twenty years.
Four ballot measures, three Council seats, four College Board, three Rent Control Board and four School Board seats were contested. Notable was the loss of 24 year council incumbent Pam O’ Connor to newcomer Greg Morena. The opposition of Unite Here Local 11, hospitality campaign workers and the Term Limits ballot measure influenced her defeat. Two incumbents, Himmelrich and McKeown, retained their seats with local endorsements a money advantage in both candidate and PAC spending. The exception was Ashley Powell, who raised more individual contributions than any single candidate; she received no PAC endorsements or money. Candidates Scott Bellomo and Geoffrey Neri collected less than $2,000 in contributions and thus did not have to file election contributions paperwork.
PACs are continuing to tip the council election outcome by using endorsements, campaign workers, and a blitz of advertising to push their chosen candidates. PAC spending on incumbents and Greg Morena totaled $153,000 with $0 for all challengers. All candidates raised and spent $243,000. PAC money was directed toward incumbents Himmelrich, McKeown and O’Connor along with challenger Morena. Morena gained the endorsements and support of local police and fire unions, Santa Monica for Renters Rights (SMRR), Unite Here Local 11 and Santa Monica Forward. Most PACs hedged their bets by supporting Morena along with the three incumbents for the three available seats.
The Rent Control Board election was won by the SMRR backed candidates, Nicole Phyllis, Steve Duron and Naomi Sultan. SMRR domination has been the case in most elections for the past forty years. Incumbent re-election continued for the school Board with Lieberman, Foster, De La Torre and Tahvildaran-Jesswein keeping their seats. The SMC board added Sion Roy for the open seat along with re-electing incumbents Greenstein, Jaffe and Snell.
All four-ballot measures passed. Only one Measure TL had an opposing ballot argument and political opposition from SMRR and Santa Monica League of Women Voters (full disclosure – Santa Monica Transparency Project co sponsored Measure TL with Councilmember Sue Himmelrich). Two of the four ballot measures raised and spent significant funds; Measure TL, Term Limits for City Council ($119,000) and Measure SMS, the $485 million School Bond ($280,000). Most of the money raised and spent by on behalf of Measure TL was for gathering signatures to get on the ballot. The school bond had no formal opposition, yet raised significant funds primarily from businesses looking to profit from physical school upgrades. Neither Measure RR, a change in requirement for service on a city board or commission; and Measure SM, that requires changes to the General Plan by a super majority of five council votes, had any opposition.
The District vs. At-Large lawsuit was decided in favor of District elections shortly after the November election. New elections based on a seven-district map of the city drawn by the winning side had been ordered by the judge by July 2 with the Council considered not legitimate if an election did not occur by August 15th . The City asked and received approval from the Appeals Court to allow Council to continue as is until the City has submitted a formal appeal. The City’s appeal could take up to a year to submit. Stay Tuned.
Four ballot measures, three Council seats, four College Board, three Rent Control Board and four School Board seats were contested. Notable was the loss of 24 year council incumbent Pam O’ Connor to newcomer Greg Morena. The opposition of Unite Here Local 11, hospitality campaign workers and the Term Limits ballot measure influenced her defeat. Two incumbents, Himmelrich and McKeown, retained their seats with local endorsements a money advantage in both candidate and PAC spending. The exception was Ashley Powell, who raised more individual contributions than any single candidate; she received no PAC endorsements or money. Candidates Scott Bellomo and Geoffrey Neri collected less than $2,000 in contributions and thus did not have to file election contributions paperwork.
PACs are continuing to tip the council election outcome by using endorsements, campaign workers, and a blitz of advertising to push their chosen candidates. PAC spending on incumbents and Greg Morena totaled $153,000 with $0 for all challengers. All candidates raised and spent $243,000. PAC money was directed toward incumbents Himmelrich, McKeown and O’Connor along with challenger Morena. Morena gained the endorsements and support of local police and fire unions, Santa Monica for Renters Rights (SMRR), Unite Here Local 11 and Santa Monica Forward. Most PACs hedged their bets by supporting Morena along with the three incumbents for the three available seats.
The Rent Control Board election was won by the SMRR backed candidates, Nicole Phyllis, Steve Duron and Naomi Sultan. SMRR domination has been the case in most elections for the past forty years. Incumbent re-election continued for the school Board with Lieberman, Foster, De La Torre and Tahvildaran-Jesswein keeping their seats. The SMC board added Sion Roy for the open seat along with re-electing incumbents Greenstein, Jaffe and Snell.
All four-ballot measures passed. Only one Measure TL had an opposing ballot argument and political opposition from SMRR and Santa Monica League of Women Voters (full disclosure – Santa Monica Transparency Project co sponsored Measure TL with Councilmember Sue Himmelrich). Two of the four ballot measures raised and spent significant funds; Measure TL, Term Limits for City Council ($119,000) and Measure SMS, the $485 million School Bond ($280,000). Most of the money raised and spent by on behalf of Measure TL was for gathering signatures to get on the ballot. The school bond had no formal opposition, yet raised significant funds primarily from businesses looking to profit from physical school upgrades. Neither Measure RR, a change in requirement for service on a city board or commission; and Measure SM, that requires changes to the General Plan by a super majority of five council votes, had any opposition.
The District vs. At-Large lawsuit was decided in favor of District elections shortly after the November election. New elections based on a seven-district map of the city drawn by the winning side had been ordered by the judge by July 2 with the Council considered not legitimate if an election did not occur by August 15th . The City asked and received approval from the Appeals Court to allow Council to continue as is until the City has submitted a formal appeal. The City’s appeal could take up to a year to submit. Stay Tuned.
O'Connor Out, Morena In; Term Limits Wins in Landslide
Santa Monica Lookout, November 7, 2018
Santa Monica Lookout, November 7, 2018
Santa Monica Municipal Ballot Measures
By Sam Catanzaro, Santa Monica Mirror, November 7, 2018
Measure TL passed with 73.60% of the vote (18,999 votes), limiting Santa Monica City Councilmember to three four year terms. Under prior city law there were no term limits of any sort for Councilmembers. Measure TL limits Councilmembers to three total terms, whether they are consecutive or not.
Measure SM passed with 71% of the vote (17,387 votes). With the passage of this measure, a supermajority approval will be required by City Council for any projects within either the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) or Downtown Community Plan (DCP) that exceed the existing height or floor area ratio limits specified in the City’s zoning code. Exempt from this supermajority requirement are 100 percent Affordable Housing Projects and developments on property owned by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD).
Measure SMS passed with 70.36% of the vote (19,037 votes), authorizing $485 million of bonds to “improve, repair, and modernize outdated Santa Monica classrooms, science labs, libraries, instructional technology and other school facilities.”
Measure RR passed with 77.59% of the vote (19,023 votes), changing the eligibility requirement for service on the City’s Library Board, Personnel Board, and Airport Commission from that of “qualified elector” of the City to “resident” of the City. This measure brings the service requirements for these three City Boards and Commissions into line with all the other Boards and Commissions in Santa Monica.
For full election results, visit https://www.smvote.org/.
By Sam Catanzaro, Santa Monica Mirror, November 7, 2018
Measure TL passed with 73.60% of the vote (18,999 votes), limiting Santa Monica City Councilmember to three four year terms. Under prior city law there were no term limits of any sort for Councilmembers. Measure TL limits Councilmembers to three total terms, whether they are consecutive or not.
Measure SM passed with 71% of the vote (17,387 votes). With the passage of this measure, a supermajority approval will be required by City Council for any projects within either the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) or Downtown Community Plan (DCP) that exceed the existing height or floor area ratio limits specified in the City’s zoning code. Exempt from this supermajority requirement are 100 percent Affordable Housing Projects and developments on property owned by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD).
Measure SMS passed with 70.36% of the vote (19,037 votes), authorizing $485 million of bonds to “improve, repair, and modernize outdated Santa Monica classrooms, science labs, libraries, instructional technology and other school facilities.”
Measure RR passed with 77.59% of the vote (19,023 votes), changing the eligibility requirement for service on the City’s Library Board, Personnel Board, and Airport Commission from that of “qualified elector” of the City to “resident” of the City. This measure brings the service requirements for these three City Boards and Commissions into line with all the other Boards and Commissions in Santa Monica.
For full election results, visit https://www.smvote.org/.
2016 ELECTION
The 2016 Santa Monica elections continued a development/quality of life battle between economic/commercial interests and anxious residents concerned about ongoing development and related traffic. Local voter participation was expected to be higher than usual due to national presidential politics. The projections were accurate with 73% of registered voters participating in the election.
Five ballot measures, four City Council seats, three College Board members, and two Rent Control Board seats were contested, with money pouring in to affect votes. Nearly $6M was spent in the contest with commercial and incumbent interests handily trouncing the contributions of residents, partly as a result of campaign laws - individual donations to candidates are limited to $340, while political action committee contributions (PAC ‘s) remain unlimited.
Money mattered: four City Council incumbents retained their seats after crushing opponents in both candidate and PAC fund-raising tallies. The Land Use Voter Empowerment slow-development initiative (Measure LV) fell in a 13:1 contribution PAC fueled drubbing; the $345M SM College bond (Measure V) sailed with $438K gusting against a non-existent $0 headwind; a 50:50 split of $15M in new taxes for a schools/affordable housing (Measures GSH/GS) enjoyed similar weather, $276K-$0. School Board nominees ran unopposed and Rent Control board seats, with one exception, went to the highest fund raiser.
The one anomaly to cash buying political power was Measure SM, which strengthens enforcement of the City’s anti-corruption Oaks ordinance. While the year’s Santa Monica election results almost invariably reflected who spent the most money, Measure SM represented the will of citizens who expect high standards of behavior and accountability for actions of elected and appointed City officials when carrying out the people’s business.
Five ballot measures, four City Council seats, three College Board members, and two Rent Control Board seats were contested, with money pouring in to affect votes. Nearly $6M was spent in the contest with commercial and incumbent interests handily trouncing the contributions of residents, partly as a result of campaign laws - individual donations to candidates are limited to $340, while political action committee contributions (PAC ‘s) remain unlimited.
Money mattered: four City Council incumbents retained their seats after crushing opponents in both candidate and PAC fund-raising tallies. The Land Use Voter Empowerment slow-development initiative (Measure LV) fell in a 13:1 contribution PAC fueled drubbing; the $345M SM College bond (Measure V) sailed with $438K gusting against a non-existent $0 headwind; a 50:50 split of $15M in new taxes for a schools/affordable housing (Measures GSH/GS) enjoyed similar weather, $276K-$0. School Board nominees ran unopposed and Rent Control board seats, with one exception, went to the highest fund raiser.
The one anomaly to cash buying political power was Measure SM, which strengthens enforcement of the City’s anti-corruption Oaks ordinance. While the year’s Santa Monica election results almost invariably reflected who spent the most money, Measure SM represented the will of citizens who expect high standards of behavior and accountability for actions of elected and appointed City officials when carrying out the people’s business.
City Council Candidates Sources of Funds
Rent Control Candidates Sources of Funds
College Board Candidates Sources of Funds
Measure LV Sources of Funds
Measure V Sources of Funds
Rent Control Candidates Sources of Funds
College Board Candidates Sources of Funds
Measure LV Sources of Funds
Measure V Sources of Funds
2014 ELECTION
Competing visions on development and its effects on the quality of life in Santa Monica were of paramount concern of voters in the 2014 election. Two competing ballot measures on the future of the airport and a city council sponsored initiative to raise money for more affordable housing caused residents to question how much more we can grow while still retaining our essential beach culture vibe. The perception of out of control growth with its accompanying crowding and traffic problems played into a packed field of council candidates all vying to share their vision of smart growth.
Fourteen candidates vied for only three City Council seats resulting in two incumbents, Kevin McKeown and Pam O’Connor winning reelection and Sue Himmelrich taking the open seat.
The ballot fight over airport land is illustrative. While money buys public awareness, it can’t overwhelm a perception of outsiders trying to take control of local decisions. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) sponsored initiative, Measure D, raised the specter of a Playa Vista clone of mega development of homes and offices on former airport land if the airport was allowed to close. The supporters of the City Council initiative, Measure LC, sought to allow development only after voter approval of an Airport Specific Plan. Measure LC ultimately won the day with 60% voting ‘Yes’. Together the fight cost close to $1 million – almost $800,000 by AOPA and $137,000 by the grass roots Local Control PAC.
The City Council sponsored initiative H and its advisory initiative HH sought to raise funds for more affordable housing through a triple increase in real property transfer tax from $3 for properties under one million dollars and $9 for properties over one million. In a city dominated by renters, the idea of taxing about 30% of the residents and almost all of the commercial property owners when they sold their properties was defeated soundly with 57% voting ‘No’.
Fourteen candidates vied for only three City Council seats resulting in two incumbents, Kevin McKeown and Pam O’Connor winning reelection and Sue Himmelrich taking the open seat.
The ballot fight over airport land is illustrative. While money buys public awareness, it can’t overwhelm a perception of outsiders trying to take control of local decisions. The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) sponsored initiative, Measure D, raised the specter of a Playa Vista clone of mega development of homes and offices on former airport land if the airport was allowed to close. The supporters of the City Council initiative, Measure LC, sought to allow development only after voter approval of an Airport Specific Plan. Measure LC ultimately won the day with 60% voting ‘Yes’. Together the fight cost close to $1 million – almost $800,000 by AOPA and $137,000 by the grass roots Local Control PAC.
The City Council sponsored initiative H and its advisory initiative HH sought to raise funds for more affordable housing through a triple increase in real property transfer tax from $3 for properties under one million dollars and $9 for properties over one million. In a city dominated by renters, the idea of taxing about 30% of the residents and almost all of the commercial property owners when they sold their properties was defeated soundly with 57% voting ‘No’.
City Council Candidate Sources of Funds
Measure H and HH Sources of Funds
Airport Propositions D and LC Sources of Funds
Measure H and HH Sources of Funds
Airport Propositions D and LC Sources of Funds
2012 ELECTION
Fifteen candidates vied for four City Council seats in 2012. Only eight of the hopefuls raised serious money for their own candidacy. However, outside money raised by a new developer funded PAC, Santa Monicans United for a Responsible Future (SMURF), easily surpassed all candidates fund raising both individually and as a group. The developers funding the PAC had projects pending before council or projects that would soon be proposed that would require City Council approval. While all council candidates raised a total of $402,000, the SMURF PAC raised almost $497,000. The PAC supported three incumbents, Gleam Davis, Terry O’Day, Pam O’Connor, and challenger Ted Winterer, who ran in 2008 and 2010, won the contested seats.
The new PAC, Santa Monicans United for a Responsible Future, supported incumbents Gleam Davis, Terry O’Day, and challengers Shari Davis and Ted Winterer raised over $497,000. Over $100,000 was spent for three candidates: incumbents Davis, O’Day, and challenger Shari Davis in mailers, phone banks and canvass workers. Winterer received about $80,000 of support. The unprecedented developer-funded money bought slick mailers, phone banks, political canvassers, and give away shopping bags at local events. The PAC succeeded in gaining critical name recognition of the candidates they supported and an appearance of broad community support.
Two ballot measures, Measure GA, which set a range of rent control adjustment limits and Measure ES, asked for approval of $385 million in bonds to repair and upgrade schools for earthquakes and fire safety both passed by over 60%.
The new PAC, Santa Monicans United for a Responsible Future, supported incumbents Gleam Davis, Terry O’Day, and challengers Shari Davis and Ted Winterer raised over $497,000. Over $100,000 was spent for three candidates: incumbents Davis, O’Day, and challenger Shari Davis in mailers, phone banks and canvass workers. Winterer received about $80,000 of support. The unprecedented developer-funded money bought slick mailers, phone banks, political canvassers, and give away shopping bags at local events. The PAC succeeded in gaining critical name recognition of the candidates they supported and an appearance of broad community support.
Two ballot measures, Measure GA, which set a range of rent control adjustment limits and Measure ES, asked for approval of $385 million in bonds to repair and upgrade schools for earthquakes and fire safety both passed by over 60%.
Santa Monicans United for a Responsible Future (SMURF) Contributions by Contributor
Top 8 City Council Candidates Sources of Funds
Top 8 City Council Candidates Sources of Funds
2010 ELECTION
The 2010 election was unusual because the scheduled contest – three seats for four-year terms - had to be expanded due to the untimely deaths of Council Members Herb Katz and Ken Genser. The unfortunate events had required two temporary appointments, which were now to be filled for the remaining two years of the original terms. In the four-year races, incumbents Bob Holbrook, Kevin McKeown and Pam O’ Connor faced off against seven challengers. Gleam Davis and Terry O’Day, appointed to fill the unexpected vacancies, ran to retain their seats against three challengers.
For the first time in Santa Monica, an outside developer- funded Slate Mailer Committee, Santa Monicans for Quality Government (SMQG), run by the manager of O’Connor and Davis campaigns, raised over $108,000 and spent $98,500 to elect some of the specific City Council candidates endorsed by local civic organizations. The developers funding SMQG backed incumbents Pam O’Connor, Bob Holbrook, Gleam Davis, and Terry O’Day. The only incumbent not backed by SMQG was Kevin McKeown.
SMQG sent misleading Slate Mailers promoting Davis, Holbrook, O’Connor and O’Day to Santa Monica voters while excluding Kevin McKeown from their slate of endorsed candidates. The Police and Firefighters Associations, the Santa Monica Democratic Club, the Community for Excellent Public Schools and the nine City sanctioned Neighborhood Associations, described the SMQG mailers as “deceptive” because of their similarities - logos, colors, and overall design - to existing candidate endorsement mailers, causing confusion about valid endorsements vs. paid for “advertising” endorsements.
All incumbents won including the left-out McKeown. SMQG accepted over $94,000 for paid slate advertising from hotel, office and housing developers for candidates Holbrook and O’Day’s re-elections. These large contributions earmarked for Holbrook and O’Day came from development interests with current projects proposed or later proposed that required City Council approval.
Two ballot measures passed: Measure Y and its advisory YY, a one-half percent transaction use tax to fund fire, police and schools with proceeds evenly split between public safety and schools; and Measure RR, which strengthened tenant eviction rights.
For the first time in Santa Monica, an outside developer- funded Slate Mailer Committee, Santa Monicans for Quality Government (SMQG), run by the manager of O’Connor and Davis campaigns, raised over $108,000 and spent $98,500 to elect some of the specific City Council candidates endorsed by local civic organizations. The developers funding SMQG backed incumbents Pam O’Connor, Bob Holbrook, Gleam Davis, and Terry O’Day. The only incumbent not backed by SMQG was Kevin McKeown.
SMQG sent misleading Slate Mailers promoting Davis, Holbrook, O’Connor and O’Day to Santa Monica voters while excluding Kevin McKeown from their slate of endorsed candidates. The Police and Firefighters Associations, the Santa Monica Democratic Club, the Community for Excellent Public Schools and the nine City sanctioned Neighborhood Associations, described the SMQG mailers as “deceptive” because of their similarities - logos, colors, and overall design - to existing candidate endorsement mailers, causing confusion about valid endorsements vs. paid for “advertising” endorsements.
All incumbents won including the left-out McKeown. SMQG accepted over $94,000 for paid slate advertising from hotel, office and housing developers for candidates Holbrook and O’Day’s re-elections. These large contributions earmarked for Holbrook and O’Day came from development interests with current projects proposed or later proposed that required City Council approval.
Two ballot measures passed: Measure Y and its advisory YY, a one-half percent transaction use tax to fund fire, police and schools with proceeds evenly split between public safety and schools; and Measure RR, which strengthened tenant eviction rights.