IEReport2 Gorilla in The Room

Independent Expenditures
The Giant Gorilla in Campaign Finance
a report by the
California Fair Political Practices Commission
June 2008
Commissioners ● Chairman Ross Johnson ● Timothy A. Hodson

A. Eugene Huguenin, Jr. ● Robert Leidigh ● Ray Remy
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 3
Introduction 5
The “Independent Expenditure” Dollars 8
The 10 Who Spent $42 Million 11

on “Independent Expenditures”
The Next 15 15
Who Funds the “Independent 21

Expenditure” Committees?
Campaigns Where “Independent Expenditures” 23

Spent More Than the Candidates
Three Races Where “Independent 37

Expenditures” May Have Assured Victory
How “Independent Expenditure” Committees 41

Make a Joke Out of Contribution Limits
Million Dollar Babies 49
Peeling the Onion 53
The 2008 Primary Election Update 60
Recommendations 82
Appendix A 84
Appendix B 85
Note on Methodology 88
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
THE PEOPLE OF CALIFORNIA have repeatedly voted to limit the size of direct
contributions to candidates for state office, most recently through Proposition
34 in November 2000. Previously, California voters approved Propositions 68
and 73 in 1988 and Proposition 208 in 1996. Very few provisions of these three
measures remain in effect today.
Despite the public’s demand to reduce the influence of special interest money in
elections, the opposite has occurred, thanks, in part, to an orgy of spending by
so-called “independent expenditures,” also known as IEs. The emergence of
“independent expenditures” has thwarted the will of the people, dramatically
undermined California’s campaign finance laws and doubtlessly influenced the
outcome of numerous statewide and legislative elections.
This report summarizes the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s

extensive study of “independent expenditures” and analyzes the impact of
“independent expenditures” on campaigns for elected state offices. In addition,
this report provides recommendations the Commission might implement under
its current authority in order to provide greater public disclosure of “indepen-
dent expenditures.” The study deals solely with candidates for state offices.
Highlights of the independent expenditure study undertaken by the Commis-

sion:
Since Proposition 34 took effect on January 1, 2001, through

the 2006 election cycle, more than $88 million was spent on
“independent expenditures” benefiting candidates for state
office.
Executive Summary ● 3
$63 million of the $88 million spent on “independent expendi-
tures” for legislative and statewide candidates from 2001
through 2006 came from just 25 “independent expenditure”
groups.
There was a 6,144% increase in “independent expenditure”

spending in legislative elections between 2000 and 2006.
There was a 5,502% increase in “independent expenditure”

spending for statewide candidates between 2002 and 2006.
In numerous legislative and state election contests,

“independent expenditures” have accounted for more than
50% of the total spent in the campaign.
If the top 25 “independent expenditure” committees had to

adhere to the same contribution limits as candidate-
controlled committees, there would have been a reduction of
$61,705,919 in special interest money in state elections from
2001 through 2006.
The majority of spending by “independent expenditure”

groups is made in primaries with open seats.
“Independent expenditure” committees often make it more

difficult to track the true source of spending on behalf of
candidates. That’s because “independent expenditure”
committees frequently make contributions to other such
committees, thus adding an additional layer that obscures the
identities of the original donors. Facilitating full disclosure is
crucial to ensuring the public’s right to know which interests
are funding political campaigns.
Information for this report was obtained from records filed with the Secretary
of State’s Office. “Independent Expenditures: The Giant Gorilla in Campaign
Finance” was prepared by Susie Swatt, Fair Political Practices Commission
Special Consultant.
Executive Summary ● 4
INTRODUCTION
CANDIDATES FOR STATE OFFICE have limits on the size of contributions they
may legally accept; however, “independent expenditure” committees have no
such limits. “Independent expenditure” committees can raise and spend as
much money as they want. Million dollar contributions to “independent expen-
diture” committees are common as are multi-million dollar expenditures made
on behalf of candidates. “Independent expenditure” committees may not
legally coordinate with a candidate or his or her campaign. Of course, such
coordination would be difficult, if not impossible, to prove.
Here’s the theory behind “independent expenditures.” The people may enact
laws limiting direct contributions to candidates in order to avoid the possibility
or appearance of undue influence over the candidate or officeholder. But
unlimited contributions to “independent expenditures” are okay—the theory
goes—because even though the money is being spent to benefit a candidate, it
isn’t being given directly to him or her. Therefore—again, according to theory
—there is no possibility of undue influence. This theory defies logic. It
presumes candidates and officeholders will remain blissfully ignorant of the
special interest money that elected them.
“ Because big money independent expenditures unduly

influence election outcomes, they inevitably influence the
legislative process because quid pro quo or not, legislators
can determine whose support they owe their elections to.
”
Derek Cressman, Assistant Director
of Election Reform, Common Cause
Introduction ● 5
In its report, “Indecent Disclosure: Public Access to Information at the State
Level,” the National Institute on Money in State Politics writes: “In an effort to
limit the increasing costs of campaigns, as well as the potential for corruption in
state politics, many states have enacted laws limiting campaign contributions.
Experience has shown, however, that when a law limits contributions from one
source, loopholes are often found that bring entirely new sources of revenue into
existence. Currently, independent expenditures are the largest loophole contribu-
tors use to circumvent state limits on direct campaign contributions.”
“ Currently, independent expenditures are the

largest loophole contributors use to circumvent
state limits on direct campaign contributions.
”
National Institute on
Money in State Politics
In addition to being able to spend unlimited amounts benefiting favored candi-

dates, there is another reason for the dramatic growth of “independent expendi-
tures.” As Kim Alexander, President of the California Voter Foundation, has
observed, there is a growing trend toward concealing the identity of contribu-
tors to “independent expenditure” committees from the public. “Independent
expenditure” committees make it easier to hide the true source of contributions.
The names sound good—Californians for a Better Government, California
Alliance for Progress and Education, Alliance for a Better California, and
Working Californians. But how are California voters to know who these
groups really are? For the average voter, it involves far too much detective
work to figure out who is really behind a particular “independent expenditure”
committee or effort.
“ As long as interest groups want to influence the

government, curbing their spending is like holding
”
back the Pacific Ocean with a chain-link fence.
Jack Pitney, Political Science Professor

at Clarement McKenna College, San
Jose Mercury News, February 15, 2008
Introduction ● 6
This Fair Political Practices Commission study clearly demonstrates the need
for increased disclosure related to “independent expenditures.” The public has
a right to know who is backing which candidates and how much money is being
spent to elect them.
Introduction ● 7
THE
“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE”
DOLLARS
THE EXPLOSION of “independent expenditures” has raised the fundraising bar

for candidates to succeed. Candidates recognize that direct contributions are
no longer sufficient to win an election.
As Derek Cressman of Common Cause has pointed out, big money “indepen-
dent expenditures” have the potential to influence who runs for office in the
first place. Mr. Cressman specifically noted the public decision by Reed
Hastings, CEO of Netflix, to support Jack O’Connell, Superintendent of Public
Instruction, if he runs for governor in 2010:
“With one single act of depositing nearly a million dollars in an

independent expenditure account to back Jack O’Connell should he
run for Governor in 2010, one person—Reed Hastings—has single-
handedly made Mr. O’Connell a viable candidate. This does not
mean that O’Connell will win, or even that he will necessarily even
run, but it does get Mr. O’Connell over the first hurdle of fundrais-
ing credibility.”
Perhaps for the first time, a contributor has announced to the world more than
two years before an election that he will be supporting a specific candidate
through “independent expenditures.” This action demonstrates the role that
“independent expenditures” are now playing in California’s electoral process.
There is no question that the influence of “independent expenditures” is at the

highest point ever in the state’s history.
The “Independent Expenditure” Dollars ● 8

Proposition 34’s contribution limits for candidates were approved by California
voters in November 2000. For legislative candidates, those limits were in effect
for the 2002 elections, but for statewide candidates, the limits did not go into
effect until after the 2002 elections.
Chart #1 shows how “independent expenditures” have skyrocketed in the past

few years.
• In 2000, when there were no contribution limits, “independent

expenditure” spending for legislative candidates totaled
$376,000. By 2006, with contribution limits in place, total
“independent expenditure” spending soared to $23.48 million for
legislative candidates—a 6,144% increase in just six years.
• In 2002, there were still no limits on direct contributions to

candidates for statewide office. The total amount of “indepen-
dent expenditures” benefiting all statewide candidates in 2002
was $526,000. By 2006, with contribution limits in place, total
“independent expenditure” spending for statewide candidates
exploded to $29.47 million—a 5,502 % increase in only four
years.
Since the enactment of Proposition 34 through the 2006 election cycle, more
than $88 million was spent on “independent expenditures” for legislative and
statewide candidates. A breakdown of the $88 million shows more than $48
million spent on legislative candidates and more than $40 million spent on state-
wide candidates. In the 2006 elections, roughly $53 million was spent benefiting
legislative and statewide candidates—that’s $53 million in one election cycle
alone. And that’s only for state candidates—not local candidates and not ballot
measure committees.
As the “National Institute on Money in State Politics” pointed out in a report

last August: “With contribution limits in place in California, independent expen-
ditures provided another vehicle for special interests to influence the outcome of
the elections.”

CHART #1
“Independent Expenditures” Spent Since
the Enactment of Proposition 34
LEGISLATIVE “INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES”

2001 – 2002 2003 2004 2005-2006 TOTAL
Assembly $6,675,000 $12,500,000 $12,450,000 $31,625,000
Senate $1,770,000 $3,600,000 $11,030,000 $16,400,000
$8,445,000 $16,100,000 $23,480,000 $48,025,000
“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES” FOR STATEWIDE CANDIDATES
2001 – 2002 2003 2004 2005-2006 TOTAL

(Recall Election)
Governor $10,588,000 $19,800,000
Lt. Governor $2,500,000
Secretary $397,000
of State
Treasurer $64,000
Controller $5,976,500
Attorney $106,000
General
Sup. of Public $22,000
Instruction
Board of $460,000
Equalization
Insurance $150,000
Commissioner
$10,588,000 $29,475,500 $40,063,500
TOTAL IE MONEY SPENT $88,088,500

THE 10 WHO SPENT
$42 MILLION ON
“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES”
AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, $88 million was spent on “independent expenditures”

since the enactment of Proposition 34 in 2001 through the 2006 election cycle.
This section of the report looks at the 10 largest “independent expenditure”
committees. The Top 10 committees accounted for $42 million of the $88
million spent on “independent expenditures” benefiting legislative and state-
wide candidates.
#1 Californians for a Better Government, A Coalition of

Firefighters, Deputy Sheriffs, Teachers, Home Builders
and Developers (ID #1285498)
Californians for a Better Government only participated in the 2006 Democratic

gubernatorial primary election. All $9,855,582 spent by the committee was for
one candidate—California State Treasurer Phil Angelides. More than 80% of
the committee’s contributions came from Angelo Tsakopoulos and Eleni
Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis. Other contributions came from the California Teach-
ers Association and the Professional Firefighters.
#2 Alliance for a Better California, Educators, Firefighters,

School Employees, Health Care Givers and Labor
Organizations (ID #1273998)
Alliance for a Better California spent $5,245,109 on “independent expendi-

tures” in the 2006 general election supporting California State Treasurer
The 10 Who Spent $42 Million ● 11

Phil Angelides, the Democratic nominee for Governor, and opposing Republi-
can Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Contributors to the Alliance for a
Better California included: California Teachers Association ($2,750,000),
California State Council of Service Employees Committee ($1,000,000) and
SEIU Local 1000 – California State Employees Association ($1,000,000).
#3 First Americans for a Better California Independent

Expenditure Committee (ID #1257891)
First Americans for a Better California only participated in the gubernatorial

recall election in 2003. The committee spent all of its money supporting Lt.
Governor Cruz Bustamante for Governor. The total spent was $4,256,754. All
of the money was contributed by the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, except
for $400,000 from the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation.
#4 JOBS PAC – A Bi-partisan Coalition of California

Employers (ID #911819)
JOBS PAC, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, spent a total

of $3,900,501 on “independent expenditures” for legislative candidates in the
2001-02, 2003-04 and 2005-06 election cycles. “Independent expenditures” were
made in 20 races—supporting Democratic candidates in 13 primary elections
and Republican candidates in seven general elections. The average expenditure
per contest was just under $200,000. The largest contributors to JOBS PAC
included ChevronTexaco Corporation ($309,800), PG&E Corporation
($190,000), and Ameriquest Capital Corporation ($177,500).
#5 California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA)

Independent Expenditure Committee (ID #902202)
CCPOA spent a total $3,536,698 in the 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2005-06 election
cycles. “Independent expenditures” were made on behalf of candidates in both
primary and general elections. CCPOA supported 18 Democratic candidates,
12 Republican candidates and one Libertarian candidate. The average expendi-
ture per contest was $114,087.

#6 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Native American Rights
PAC (ID #494203)
The Morongo Band of Mission Indians participated in the three election cycles
from 2001 to 2006. In 2001-02, they supported a single legislative candidate—
Pedro Carrillo, in the 46th Assembly District Democratic primary. In the 2003
gubernatorial recall election, they supported both Republican Senator Tom
McClintock ($2,499,509) and Democratic Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante
($475,000) for Governor. In 2006, they supported Board of Equalization
Member John Chiang for Controller ($336,812). Total “independent expendi-
tures” were $3,378,853, making the average expenditure per contest $844,713.
#7 Strengthening Our Lives Through Education, Community

Action & Civic Participation, A Coalition of Labor
Organizations – Candidate PAC (ID #1285612)
Strengthening Our Lives Through Education spent $3,306,944 on “independent

expenditures” in the 2006 elections in six legislative and three statewide
contests. In the Governor’s race, the committee spent $1,521,677 to support
California State Treasurer Phil Angelides, the Democratic nominee, and to
oppose Republican Governor Schwarzenegger. For Lt. Governor, $372,619
was spent to support Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi, the Democ-
ratic nominee, and oppose Senator Tom McClintock, the Republican nominee.
For Controller, $372,619 was spent to support Board of Equalization Member
John Chiang, the Democratic nominee, and oppose former Assemblyman Tony
Strickland, the Republican nominee. Funding for the committee primarily
came from various committees of the California State Council of Service
Employees (almost $2.5 million). Other key contributors included the SEIU
Local 1000 California State Employees Association ($540,000) and SEIU
UNITED Healthcare Workers West PAC ($271,000). The average expenditure
per race was $367,438.

#8 Team 2006, Sponsored by California Sovereign Indian
Nations (ID #1291537)
Team 2006 participated in the 2006 general elections by supporting eight legis-
lative candidates (five Republicans and three Democrats) and former Assembly-
man Tony Strickland, the Republican nominee for Controller. The total spent
on “independent expenditures” was $3,093,391, with $960,000 spent for Strick-
land and $2.13 million spent in the legislative races. The average expenditure in
the eight legislative races was just over $265,000. Contributors to Team 2006
included Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation, Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians and Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians.
#9 California Alliance for Progress and Education, An

Alliance of Professionals, Employers and Small Business
(ID #1283921)
The California Alliance for Progress and Education only participated in the
2006 elections. The total spent on “independent expenditures” was $2,953,948
in 12 legislative contests, an average of almost $250,000 per race. The largest
contributions were for $1,210,000 from the California Realtors (California Real
Estate Independent Expenditure Committee and the California Real Estate
Political Action Committee), $1,000,000 from the California Dental Association
Independent Expenditure PAC, and $344,500 from Farmers and Agents
Political Action Committee.
#10 Working Californians (ID #1288733)
Working Californians spent a total of $2,637,860 on “independent expendi-

tures” in the 2006 general election. The committee participated in two contests
—-supporting Board of Equalization Member John Chiang for Controller and
California State Treasurer Phil Angelides for Governor, an average of
$1,318,930 per race. The three top contributors to Working Californians were:
UNITE HERE TIP State and Local Fund ($450,000), Service Employees Inter-
national Union ($400,000), and California State Council of Service Employees
Political Committee ($300,000).

THE NEXT 15
THE COMMITTEES IDENTIFIED in this section round out the Top 25 “indepen-
dent expenditure” committees. “Independent expenditure” spending by these
25 committees in the 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2005-06 election cycles totaled
$63,209,719. That means more than 70% of the total amount spent on
“independent expenditures” for statewide and legislative candidates came
from just 25 committees.
#11 Opportunity PAC – A Coalition of Educators, Health Care

Givers, Faculty Members and Other School Employees
(ID #980020)
In the 2001 through 2006 election cycles, Opportunity PAC spent $2,567,764 on
“independent expenditures.” It participated in 12 legislative campaigns,
making average expenditures per contest of $213,980. Major contributions to
the committee came from the California State Council of Service Employees
($1,280,000) and the California Teachers Association/Association for Better
Citizenship ($765,000).
#12 California Dental Association (California Dental Association

Independent Expenditure PAC ID #1233321 and California
Dental Political Action Committee – Small Contributor
ID #742855)
The California Dental Association made “independent expenditures” in 25

legislative races from January 1, 2001 to December 31, 2006, from two different
committees. “Independent expenditures” totaled $2,268,164, with $1,711,943
coming from the California Dental Association Independent Expenditure PAC
The Next 15 ● 15
and $556,221 from the California Dental Political Action Committee – Small
Contributor. “Independent expenditures” averaged $90,727 per race.
#13 California Alliance, A Coalition of Consumer Attorneys,

Conservationists and Nurses (ID #1240727)
California Alliance participated in 18 legislative campaigns in the three election

cycles from 2001 through 2006. “Independent expenditures” benefiting candi-
dates totaled $2,210,112, making the average expenditure $122,784 per contest.
The vast majority of the money raised by the California Alliance came from the
Consumer Attorneys Independent Campaign Committee ($1.7 million), with the
California Nurses Association contributing $259,000, and the California League
of Conservation Voters contributing $250,000.
#14 California Realtors (California Real Estate Independent

Expenditure Committee ID #963026 and California Real
Estate Political Action Committee ID #890106)
California Realtors made “independent expenditures” in 28 legislative races

from two different committees in the 2001-02, 2003-04 and the 2005-06 election
cycles. The total amount of “independent expenditures” was $2,155,617, with
$1,859,665 coming from the California Real Estate Independent Expenditure
Committee and $295,952 coming from the California Real Estate Political
Action Committee. The average expenditure per race was $76,986.
#15 Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, A California Business

and Labor Coalition (ID #1262979)
“Independent expenditures” made by the Alliance for California’s Tomorrow

totaled $1,551,466. The committee participated in five legislative and two state-
wide races in the 2003-04 and the 2005-06 election cycles, putting the average
expenditure per contest at $221,638. The largest “independent expenditure”
was for $1 million on behalf of former Assemblyman Tony Strickland in the
2006 Controller’s general election race. Key contributors to the committee
The Next 15 ● 16
included Intuit of San Diego ($1 million), Sempra Energy ($175,000), and ACC
Capital Holdings Corporation of Orange County ($125,000).
#16 Californians for Civil Justice Reform PAC, Sponsored by

The Civil Justice Association of California (ID #821251)
Californians for Civil Justice Reform participated in eight legislative races in

the three election cycles from 2001 to 2006. “Independent expenditures” totaled
$1,525,979. The largest expenditures were in the 10th Senate District for
$576,654 and the 30th Senate District for $404,455 in the 2006 Democratic pri-
maries. The average expenditure was $190,747 per contest. The three largest
contributors were 21st Century Insurance ($166,900), the California Real Estate
Political Action Committee ($149,900), and Pfizer Pharmaceuticals ($149,900).
#17 Taxpayers for Responsible Government, A Coalition of

Professional Engineers, Firefighters, Police and School
and State Employees (ID #1291452)
Taxpayers for Responsible Government only participated in the 2006 general

election Lt. Governor’s race. “Independent expenditures” totaled $1,350,861,
with half the expenditures used to support Insurance Commissioner John
Garamendi, the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor, and the other half used
to oppose Senator Tom McClintock, the Republican nominee for Lt. Governor.
The three largest contributors to the committee were the Professional Engineers
in California Government ($502,500), Political Action for Classified Employees
of the California School Employees Association ($250,000), and Service
Employees International Union Local 1000 ($200,000).
#18 CAUSE (California Union of Safety Employees PAC –

Independent Expenditure Committee ID #970375 and
CAUSE Law Enforcement Independent Expenditure
Committee ID #1254179)
CAUSE made “independent expenditures” totaling $1,184,030 through two

committees—California Union of Safety Employees PAC – Independent
The Next 15 ● 17
Expenditure Committee and CAUSE Law Enforcement Independent Expendi-
ture Committee. The group participated in 27 legislative races and two state-
wide contests from 2001 through 2006 and was involved in primary and general
elections, supporting both Democratic and Republican candidates. The two
statewide candidates supported in the general election of 2006 were Insurance
Commissioner John Garamendi, the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor, and
Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown, the Democratic nominee for Attorney General.
The average expenditure per race was $40,828.
#19 Californians United (ID #1241102)
Californians United “independent expenditures” totaled $1,056,216 in 13 legis-

lative and five statewide races from 2001 through 2006, averaging $58,678 per
contest. The largest contributors to Californians United were Southern Califor-
nia Edison ($114,000), EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee ($75,000)
and Gary Rogers, the Chief Executive Officer of Dreyers Ice Cream ($75,000).
#20 Peace Officers Research Association of California Political

Action Committee (PORAC) (ID #810830)
PORAC made “independent expenditures” totaling $985,500 in 82 legislative

and statewide races from 2001 to 2006. The committee was involved in primary
and general elections, supporting both Democratic and Republican candidates.
The average expenditure was $12,012 per contest.
#21 Community Civic Participation Project, Sponsored by Labor

Organizations (ID #1258279)
The Community Civic Participation Project only participated in the gubernato-

rial recall election in 2003. The Committee spent $980,888 on “independent
expenditures” on behalf of Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante, seeking to replace
Governor Gray Davis. The largest contributors to the committee included the
California State Council of Services Employees ($835,000), Hotel Employees
and Restaurant Employees International Union ($700,000), Hotel Employees
The Next 15 ● 18
and Restaurant Employees International Union T.I.P. Educational Fund
($300,000), and the California Teachers Association Issues PAC ($300,000).
#22 California State Council of Service Employees Political

Committee (ID #1258324)
The California State Council of Service Employees Political Committee spent

$883,418 on “independent expenditures” participating in three statewide
general election races in 2006. The committee supported California State
Treasurer Phil Angelides, the Democratic nominee for Governor and opposed
Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. It also supported Insurance
Commissioner John Garamendi, the Democratic nominee for Lt. Governor and
Board of Equalization Member John Chiang, the Democratic nominee for
Controller. The average expenditure per race was $294,472. The vast majority
of the contributions received by the committee came from the various commit-
tees of the Service Employees International Union.
#23 Moderate Democrats for California (ID #1245445)
Moderate Democrats for California participated in seven Democratic primary

legislative races in 2004. The committee spent a total of $794,866 on “indepen-
dent expenditures,” averaging $113,552 per contest. The two largest contribu-
tors to Moderate Democrats for California were 21st Century Insurance
($230,000) and PG&E ($110,000).
#24 Fair Public Policy Coalition (Fair Public Policy Coalition,

A Committee of Horse Racing Companies ID #1271166
and Fair Public Policy Coalition, A Committee of Horse
Racing Companies, including Bay Meadows Land Co., LLC
and its Affiliates ID #1291660)
The Fair Public Policy Coalition made “independent expenditures” in the

general elections in 2004 and 2006 from two different committees—“A
Committee of Horse Racing Companies” and “A Committee of Horse Racing
Companies, including Bay Meadows Land Co., LLC and its Affiliates.” The
The Next 15 ● 19
Coalition participated in a total of 10 legislative races in 2004 and 2006 and
seven statewide races in 2006. “Independent expenditure” spending totaled
$779,724. The average expenditure per race was $45,866. All of the contribu-
tions to the Coalition came from horse racing interests—$450,000 each from
Bay Meadows and Churchill Downs California Company (DBA Hollywood
Park Race Track), $300,000 from Los Alamitos Race Course, and $200,000
each from Los Angeles Turf Club and Pacific Racing Association.
#25 Cooperative of American Physicians – Mutual Protection

Trust (CAP-MPT) State PAC (ID #760951)
The Cooperative of American Physicians participated in primary and general

election races in 2003-04 and 2005-06, spending a total of $749,974 on
“independent expenditures.” The average expenditure per race was $31,249.
The committee supported 24 legislative candidates, including 16 Democrats and
eight Republicans.
The Next 15 ● 20
WHO FUNDS THE
“INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE”
COMMITTEES?
MORE THAN 70% of the $88 million spent on “independent expenditures”

between 2001 and 2006 came from just 25 committees or groups. So, who
funded these Top 25?
Nearly 60% of all the money spent by the Top 25 “independent expenditure”
committees ($37,317,622) came from just 10 contributors. While Chart #2
provides more detailed information, all of the money contributed by the Top 10
between 2001 and 2006 came from Indian tribes, developers, labor unions and
consumer attorneys.
It is important to note that the Top 10 contributor list only shows the money
these entities contributed to the Top 25 Independent Expenditure groups. It
does not include “independent expenditures” that such entities made separately
for specific candidates or contributions to “independent expenditure” commit-
tees that did not make the Top 25 list.
See Appendix B for the Top 10’s total “independent expenditures.”
Who Funds the “IE” Committees? ● 21

CHART #2
Who’s Funding the Top 25 “Independent
Expenditure” Committees
LARGEST CONTRIBUTORS AMOUNT CONTRIBUTIONS TO TOP 25 IE COMMITTEES AMOUNT YEAR
#1 Pechanga Band of Luiseno $6,182,600 First Americans for a Better California $5,382,600 2003
Indians (ID #498071) Team 2006 $800,000 2006
#2 Angelo K. Tsakopoulos $6,130,000 Californians for a Better Government $6,130,000 2006
(ID #483152)
#3 CA Teachers Association/ $4,840,000 Alliance for a Better California $2,750,000 2006
Association for Better Californians for a Better Government $950,000 2006
Citizenship (ID #741941) Opportunity PAC $315,000 2004
Opportunity PAC $300,000 2006
Taxpayers for Responsible Government $150,000 2006
Working Californians $125,000 2006
Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $100,000 2006
#4 CA State Council of Service $3,590,000 Alliance for a Better California $1,025,000 2006
Employees Political Committee Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $1,330,000 2006
(ID #1258324) Community Civic Participation Project $835,000 2003
#5 CCPOA $3,536,698 CCPOA IE Committee $3,536,698 2001-
2006
#6 Morongo Band of Mission $3,378,853 Morongo Band of Mission Indians $3,378,853 2001-
Indians Native American Rights 2006
PAC (ID #494203)
#7 CA State Council of Service $3,086,150 Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $1,100,000 2006
Employees Small Contributor Opportunity PAC $780,000 2004
Committee (ID #831628) CA State Council of Service Employees $477,000 2006
CA State Council of Service Employees $229,150 2003-
2004
#8 Eleni-Tsakopoulos $2,570,000 Californians for a Better Government $2,570,000 2006
Kounalakis (ID #494169)
#9 Service Employees Interna- $2,270,000 Alliance for a Better California $1,000,000 2006
tional Union Local 1000 Candi- Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $540,000 2006
date PAC (ID #1273063) Working Californians $400,000 2006
#10 Consumer Attorneys Inde- $1,733,321 CA Alliance $1,708,321 2006
pendent Campaign (ID #962871) Opportunity PAC $25,000 2004
TOTAL $37,317,622
Who Funds the “IE” Committees? ● 22

C A M PA I G N S W H E R E
S P E N T M O R E T H A N T H E C A N D I D AT E
“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES” CAN PLAY a dominant role in individual

races. In descending order, this section examines 12 legislative and statewide
races from January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2006, in which “independent
expenditures” accounted for more than 50% of the total campaign spending.
Interestingly, all of the contests noted in this section were in “open” seats, where
there were no incumbents running for re-election.
The 34th Senate District 2006 Democratic primary between

Orange County Supervisor Lou Correa and Assemblyman
Tom Umberg.
The 69th Assembly District 2004 Democratic primary between

former Assemblyman Tom Umberg and Santa Ana City
Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez.
The 69th Assembly District 2006 Democratic primary among

Santa Ana City Council Members Jose Solorio and Claudia
Alvarez and businessman Armando De La Libertad.
The 32nd Senate District 2006 Democratic primary between

Assembly Members Gloria Negrete McLeod and Joe Baca, Jr.
The Controller’s 2006 general election between Board of

Equalization Member John Chiang (D) and former Assembly-
man Tony Strickland (R).
Campaigns Where “IEs” Spent More ● 23

The 76th Assembly District 2004 general election between
community college professor Lori Saldaña (D) and former
Assemblywoman Tricia Hunter (R).
The 10th Senate District 2006 Democratic primary among

former Assembly Members Ellen Corbett and John Dutra
and Assemblyman Johan Klehs.
The 11th Assembly District 2006 Democratic primary between

Contra Costa Supervisor Mark DeSaulnier and Pittsburg
School Board Trustee Laura Canciamilla.
The 30th Senate District 2006 Democratic primary between

Assemblymen Ron Calderon and Rudy Bermudez.
The 63rd Assembly District 2004 Republican primary between

orthodontist Bill Emmerson and former San Bernardino
County Republican Party Chairman Elia Pirozzi.

California Coastal Commissioner Pedro Nava (D) and
educator Bob Pohl (R).
The 43rd Assembly District 2006 Democratic primary between

Burbank Board of Education Member Paul Krekorian and
Glendale City Councilman Frank Quintero.

SPENDING
BREAKDOWN 34th Senate District
2006 Democratic Primary
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATE BENEFITING SPENT ON
CAMPAIGN SPENDING DONE
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
COMMITTEE BY IE COMMITTEE
Lou Correa $304,815 $1,142,053 $1,446,868 79%
Tom Umberg $476,592 $68,926 $545,518 13%
TOTALS $781,407 $1,210,979 $1,992,386
• The 2006 Democratic primary for the open 34th Senate District
set a record for “independent expenditures” with almost 79% of
the total spending on Lou Correa’s campaign coming from
“independent expenditures.”
• The largest “independent expenditure” on Correa’s behalf was

made by the California Alliance for Progress and Education,
funded primarily by realtors, dentists and insurance companies,
for $326,567. In addition, Correa benefited from $289,274 in
“independent expenditures” from Californians for Jobs and a
Strong Economy. This group is funded by major business inter-
ests throughout California, with $200,000 coming from
21st Century Insurance.
• All of the “independent expenditures” made on Tom Umberg’s

behalf were made by Nurses and Working Families for Better
Healthcare, sponsored by the California Nurses Association.
• Umberg outspent Correa in contributions raised under the

Proposition 34 limits, but received only a fraction of the
independent expenditures made in this race.
• Correa won the Democratic nomination 59.8% to Umberg’s

40.2%.

SPENDING
BREAKDOWN 69th Assembly District
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Claudia $289,304 $781,303 $1,070,607 73%
Alvarez
Tom Umberg $749,908 $204,388 $954,296 21%
TOTALS $1,039,212 $985,691 $2,024,903
• Nearly $1 million was spent on “independent expenditures” in

the 2004 Democratic primary for the open 69th Assembly seat.
• Claudia Alvarez benefited from almost four times more

“independent expenditures” than did Tom Umberg.
• The two largest “independent expenditures” for Alvarez were

made by JOBS PAC, sponsored by the California Chamber of
Commerce, for $230,725, and Moderate Democrats for California
for $165,490.
• Almost 95% of the “independent expenditures” spent on

Umberg’s behalf were made by the California Alliance, a
coalition of consumer attorneys, conservationists and nurses, for
$193,388.
• In a close race, Umberg beat Alvarez 51.1% to 48.9%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Claudia $262,433 $579,784 $842,217 69%
Alvarez
Jose Solorio $359,077 $416,411 $775,488 54%
Armando De $172,697 $0 $172,697 0%
La Libertad
TOTALS $794,207 $996,195 $1,790,402
• In the three-way Democratic primary election for the open 69th

Assembly District in 2006, “independent expenditures”
accounted for 69% of the total spending for Claudia Alvarez
and 54% of the total spending for Jose Solorio.
• The largest “independent expenditure” made on behalf of

Alvarez was made by JOBS PAC, sponsored by the California
Chamber of Commerce, which spent $296,242.
• For Solorio, the largest “independent expenditure” on his behalf

was made by Strengthening Our Lives Through Education,
Community Action and Civic Participation, a coalition of labor
organizations, for $379,192.
• Solorio received 52.4% of the vote to 31.9% for Alvarez and

15.7% for Armando De La Libertad.

SPENDING
BREAKDOWN 32nd Senate District
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Gloria Negrete $582,392 $1,233,326 $1,815,718 68%
McLeod
Joe Baca, Jr. $621,766 $0 $621,766 0%
TOTALS $1,204,158 $1,233,326 $2,437,484
• Almost 68% of the total amount spent on Gloria Negrete

McLeod’s campaign in the Democratic primary in the open
32nd Senate District, came from “independent expenditures.”
• The largest expenditure on Negrete McLeod’s behalf was made

by the California Alliance for Progress and Education, funded
primarily by realtors, dentists and insurance companies, for
$278,845. In addition, there were “independent expenditures”
made by Teachers United with Firefighters and Correctional
Officers Independent Expenditure Committee for $268,478.
• Joe Baca, Jr. outspent Negrete McLeod with direct contributions

raised under the Proposition 34 limits, but did not benefit from
any “independent expenditures.”
• Negrete McLeod won the Democratic nomination over Baca,

61.4% to 38.6%.

SPENDING
BREAKDOWN State Controller
2006 General Election
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
John Chiang $1,918,069 $3,530,381 $5,448,450 65%
(Dem)
Tony $1,258,742 $2,093,638 $3,352,380 62%
Strickland
(Rep)
TOTALS $3,176,811 $5,624,019 $8,800,830
• The open 2006 general election race for State Controller had the
highest percentage of “independent expenditures” of any state-
wide contest.
• For every dollar spent by John Chiang’s campaign in the general

election, “independent expenditures” spent $1.84.
• For every dollar spent by Tony Strickland’s campaign, “indepen-

dent expenditures” spent $1.66.
• The largest “independent expenditure” on Chiang’s behalf was

made by Working Californians, primarily funded by labor unions,
for $2,221,919.
• The largest “independent expenditures” on Strickland’s behalf

were made by the Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, a coalition
of business and labor interests, for $1,000,000, and Team 2006,
sponsored by Indian gaming tribes, for $959,000.
• Chiang was elected Controller with 50.7% of the vote to Strick-

land’s 40.2%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Tricia Hunter $548,297 $906,145 $1,454,442 62%
(Rep)
Lori Saldaña $1,680,117 $24,108 $1,704,225 1%
(Dem)
TOTALS $2,228,414 $930,253 $3,158,667
• More than 97% of the “independent expenditures” in the 2004

general election for the open 76th Assembly District were made
on behalf of the Republican nominee, Tricia Hunter.
• The two largest “independent expenditures” on behalf of Hunter

were made by JOBS PAC, sponsored by the California Chamber
of Commerce, for $487,363, and the California Dental Associa-
tion Independent Expenditure PAC for $212,108.
• While Lori Saldaña benefited from far less in “independent

expenditures,” she outspent Hunter by three-to-one with direct
contributions raised under the Proposition 34 limits.
• Saldaña won the race 54.2% to 41.3%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
John Dutra $1,145,315 $1,778,336 $2,923,651 61%
Ellen Corbett $594,225 $468,185 $1,062,410 44%
Johan Klehs $723,953 $43,015 $766,968 6%
TOTALS $2,463,493 $2,289,536 $4,753,029
• More than $2,000,000 was spent on “independent expenditures”

for the three candidates in the hotly contested 2006 Democratic
primary for the open 10th Senate District.
• Almost 40% of the “independent expenditures” on John Dutra’s

behalf were made by the California Alliance for Progress and
Education, funded primarily by realtors, dentists and insurance
companies, for $711,314. In addition, Californians for Civil Jus-
tice Reform PAC, funded by large business interests, including
insurance companies and realtors, made “independent expendi-
tures” totaling $576,654 on Dutra’s behalf.
• The largest “independent expenditure” on Ellen Corbett’s behalf

was made by California Alliance, a coalition of consumer attor-
neys, conservationists and nurses, for $398,978.
• All of the “independent expenditures” benefiting Johan Klehs

were made by Leaders for an Effective Government, whose main
contributors included labor unions and realtors.
• Corbett won the three-way primary election with 39.1% of the

vote. Klehs received 31% and Dutra 29.9%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Laura $252,632 $348,055 $600,687 58%
Canciamilla
Mark $553,718 $270,334 $824,052 33%
DeSaulnier
TOTALS $806,350 $618,389 $1,424,739
• Mark DeSaulnier and Laura Canciamilla were the top two

Democratic candidates in the spirited race for the 2006 primary
in the open 11th Assembly District.
• The largest “independent expenditure” for DeSaulnier was

$232,262 made by “Working Families for Mark DeSaulnier.”
This committee was primarily funded by labor unions and the
League of Conservation Voters. It was only in existence during
the 2006 election cycle and only made “independent expendi-
tures” on behalf of DeSaulnier.
• The largest “independent expenditure” on Canciamilla’s behalf

was made by JOBS PAC, sponsored by the California Chamber
of Commerce, for $288,758.
• DeSaulnier won the Democratic nomination over Canciamilla

51.7% to 39.2%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Ron Calderon $724,906 $905,571 $1,630,477 56%
Rudy $703,017 $717,777 $1,420,794 51%
Bermudez
TOTALS $1,427,923 $1,623,348 $3,051,271
• In one of the closest races in the state in 2006, Ron Calderon and
Rudy Bermudez faced one another in the Democratic primary in
the open 30th Senate District.
• Bermudez benefited from major “independent expenditures”

made by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association
Independent Expenditure Committee for $352,507, and Minorities
in Law Enforcement Independent Expenditure Committee for
$253,398.
• Calderon benefited from large “independent expenditures”

made by California Alliance for Progress and Education, funded
by realtors, dentists and insurance companies, for $454,280, and
Californians for Civil Justice Reform, funded by large business
interests, including insurance companies and realtors, for
$404,455.
• Calderon won 50.4% to 49.6% for Bermudez.

SPENDING
BREAKDOWN 63rd Assembly District
2004 Republican Primary
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Bill $447,493 $521,886 $969,379 54%
Emmerson
Elia Pirozzi $350,527 $87,780 $438,307 20%
TOTALS $798,020 $609,666 $1,407,686
• The 2004 Republican primary for the open 63rd Assembly

District was an extremely close race between the top two Repub-
lican candidates, Bill Emmerson and Elia Pirozzi.
• Emmerson received the lion’s share of the “independent expen-

ditures” in the race, with 83% ($435,265) of those expenditures
made by the California Dental Association Independent Expendi-
ture PAC.
• The largest “independent expenditure” made on Pirozzi’s behalf

was for just under $40,000 from the Inland Empire Citizens
Committee.
• Emmerson won the Republican nomination with 29.4% of the

vote to Pirozzi’s 29%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Bob Pohl $436,996 $457,904 $894,900 51%
(Rep)
Pedro Nava $865,290 $347,878 $1,213,168 29%
(Dem)
TOTALS $1,302,286 $805,782 $2,108,068
• In this hotly contested 2004 general election for the open

35th Assembly District, significant “independent expenditures”
were spent on behalf of both candidates.
• JOBS PAC, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce,

spent $446,154 on “independent expenditures” benefiting the
Republican nominee, Bob Pohl. That amount represented 97%
of all the “independent expenditures” made on Pohl’s behalf.
• The Democratic candidate, Pedro Nava, benefited from large

“independent expenditures” made by Californians for a Better
Future, funded primarily by horseracing interests and labor
unions, for $168,505, and the California Teachers Association/
Association for Better Citizenship for $162,641.
• Nava received 52.8% of the vote to Pohl’s 47.2%.

SPENDING
BREAKDOWN 43rd Assembly District
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Frank $485,471 $481,751 $967,222 50%
Quintero
Paul $436,593 $164,422 $601,015 27%
Krekorian
TOTALS $922,064 $646,173 $1,568,237
• The 2006 Democratic primary for the open 43rd Assembly

District was between Paul Krekorian and Frank Quintero.
• Almost 94% of the “independent expenditures” on Krekorian’s

behalf were made by Education Leaders Support Burbank School
Board President Paul Krekorian, Sponsored by EdVoice, Inc., for
$154,262.
• The largest “independent expenditures” on behalf of Quintero

were made by the California Correctional Peace Officers Associa-
tion Independent Expenditure Committee for $171,839, and the
California Dental Association Independent Expenditure PAC for
$83,797.
• This is one of only a few legislative races where the candidate

who raised more money and benefited from more “independent
expenditures” did not win.
• Krekorian was outspent and benefited from far less in

“independent expenditures,” but won 57.5% to 42.5%.

THREE RACES WHERE
M A Y H AV E A S S U R E D V I C T O R Y
“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES” USUALLY ARE made in open contests, where

the incumbent is not running for re-election. In the 2006 general elections,
three incumbent members of the Assembly greatly benefited from “independent
expenditures,” which may have made the difference in their re-elections.

Assemblywoman Nicole Parra and retired California
Highway Patrol Officer Danny Gilmore.

Assemblywoman Shirley Horton and college professor
Maxine Sherard.

Assemblywoman Bonnie Garcia and former Assemblyman
Steve Clute.
“IEs” May Have Assured Victory ● 37

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Nicole Parra $1,979,033 $1,255,378 $3,234, 411 39%
(Dem)
Danny $918,159 $17,755 $935,914 2%
Gilmore
(Rep)
TOTALS $2,897,192 $1,273,133 $4,170,325
• “Independent expenditures” benefiting Assemblywoman Nicole

Parra totaled 70 times more than those benefiting Danny
Gilmore.
• The largest “independent expenditures” for Parra were made by

Team 2006, funded by Indian gaming tribes, for $521,428, and
California Alliance for Progress and Education, funded primarily
by realtors, dentists and insurance companies, for $231,776.
• Parra won the election 51.6% to Gilmore’s 48.4%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Shirley $1,207,261 $563,879 $1,771,140 32%
Horton (Rep)
Maxine $1,264,954 $51,665 $1,316,619 4%
Sherard
(Dem)
TOTALS $2,472,215 $615,544 $3,087,759
• “Independent expenditures” benefiting Assemblywoman

Shirley Horton totaled more than 10 times those benefiting
Maxine Sherard.
• The largest “independent expenditures” benefiting Horton were

made by Team 2006, sponsored by Indian gaming tribes, for
$281,846, and California Alliance for Progress and Education,
funded by realtors, dentists and insurance companies, for
$146,379.
• Sherard outspent Horton in money raised under the Proposition

34 contribution limits.
• Horton won the election 50.9% to Sherard’s 45.9%.

SPENDING
TOTAL PERCENT OF
IE DOLLARS TOTAL
SPENT BY CAMPAIGN
CANDIDATES CAMPAIGN
Bonnie $1,386,711 $711,586 $2,098,297 34%
Garcia (Rep)
Steve Clute $1,800,031 $1,331 $1,801,362 Less than 1%
(Dem)
TOTALS $3,186,742 $712,917 $3,899,659
• “Independent expenditures” benefiting Assemblywoman Bonnie

Garcia totaled more than 534 times those benefiting Steve Clute.
• The largest “independent expenditures” benefiting Garcia were

made by Team 2006, sponsored by Indian gaming tribes, for
$404,323, and the California Correctional Peace Officers Associa-
tion Independent Expenditure Committee for $165,000.
• Clute outspent Garcia in money raised under the Proposition 34

contribution limits.
• Garcia won the election 51.6%to 48.4%.

HOW “INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE” COMMITTEES
MAKE A JOKE OUT OF
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS
THERE ARE NO LIMITS imposed on “independent expenditure” committees.

But what if “independent expenditure” committees were bound by the same
limits as the candidates themselves? The results would be dramatic. The
following analysis looks at how much the top 25 “independent expenditure”
groups spent supporting candidates from 2001 through 2006 and how much
that would have been reduced if they had to follow the regular contribution
limits put in place by Proposition 34. By avoiding the contribution limits, these
top 25 “independent expenditure” groups have funneled an additional
$61,705,919 into campaigns for state elective office.
#1 CALIFORNIANS FOR A BETTER GOVERNMENT spent $9,855,582 on “indepen-

dent expenditures”—all on behalf of one candidate Phil Angelides in the 2006
Democratic gubernatorial primary election. If the committee had to adhere to
the same contribution levels as candidate committees, only one contribution of
$22,300 would have been permitted. The $9,855,582 in “independent expendi-
tures” for Angelides is 442 times the Proposition 34 contribution limit for a
gubernatorial candidate in 2006.
#2 ALLIANCE FOR A BETTER CALIFORNIA spent $5,245,109 supporting Phil

Angelides and opposing Governor Schwarzenegger in the 2006 gubernatorial
How “IE” Committees Make a Joke ● 41

contest. With limitations, the committee would have been able to spend only
$22,300. The $5,245,109 in “independent expenditures” represents 235 times
the Proposition 34 contribution limit for a gubernatorial candidate in 2006.
#3 FIRST AMERICANS FOR A BETTER CALIFORNIA spent $4,256,754 in “indepen-

dent expenditures” on behalf of Cruz Bustamante for Governor in the recall
election in 2003. If the Proposition 34 limits applied, First Americans for a
Better California would have been able to spend only $21,200. The $4,256,754
in “independent expenditures” represents 201 times the Proposition 34 contribu-
tion limit for a gubernatorial candidate in the 2003-04 election cycle.
#4 JOBS PAC spent $3,900,501 on “independent expenditures” for 20 legisla-

tive races between 2001 and 2006. If limits applied to the committee, it would
have been able to spend only $63,600. The $3,900,501 in “independent expendi-
tures” represents 61 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative
candidates in the three different election cycles from 2001 through 2006.
#5 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION INDEPENDENT

EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE spent $3,536,698 on “independent expenditures”
supporting 31 legislative candidates from 2001 through 2006. If Proposition 34
limits applied to the committee, it would have been able to spend a total of
$99,300. The $3,536,698 in “independent expenditures” represents 36 times the
Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative candidates in the three different
election cycles since January 1, 2001.
#6 THE MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS spent $3,378,853 on “indepen-

dent expenditures” on behalf of four candidates since January 1, 2001. If the
group had to adhere to Proposition 34 contribution limits, it would have been
able to spend only a total of $51,000. The $3,378,853 in “independent expendi-
tures” represents 66 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits in place for
legislative and statewide candidates in the last three election cycles.

#7 STRENGTHENING OUR LIVES THROUGH EDUCATION, COMMUNITY ACTION
AND CIVIC PARTICIPATION spent $3,306,944 on “independent expenditures” in
the primary and general elections of 2006. The committee participated in six
legislative and three statewide races. If the committee had to adhere to Proposi-
tion 34 limits, it would have been able to spend $19,800 in the legislative races
and $33,500 in the statewide races for a grand total of $53,300. The $3,306,944
in “independent expenditures” represents 62 times the Proposition 34 contribu-
tion limits in place for legislative and statewide candidates in the 2006 elections.
#8 TEAM 2006 spent $3,093,391 on “independent expenditures” for eight legis-

lative races and one statewide contest in the 2006 general elections. If Proposi-
tion 34 limits applied to the committee, it would have been able to spend only
Proposition 34 contribution limits for the 2006 election cycle.
#9 THE ALLIANCE FOR PROGRESS AND EDUCATION spent $2,953,948 on

“independent expenditures” for 12 legislative races in the 2006 elections. If
Proposition 34 contribution limits applied to the committee, it would have been
able to spend only $39,600. The $2,953,948 in “independent expenditures”
represents 75 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative candi-
dates in the 2006 elections.
#10 WORKING CALIFORNIANS spent a total of $2,637,860 on “independent

expenditures” in the 2006 general election. The committee participated in two
statewide races – Phil Angelides for Governor and John Chiang for Controller.
If the committee had to adhere to Proposition 34 contribution limits, it would
have been able to spend only $27,900. The $2,637,860 in “independent expendi-
tures” represents 95 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for statewide
candidates in the 2006 election.
#11 OPPORTUNITY PAC spent $2,567,764 on “independent expenditures” for 12

legislative races in the 2001-02, 2003-04 and 2005-06 election cycles. If limits
applied to the committee, it would have been able to spend only $38,000. The
$2,567,764 in “independent expenditures” represents 68 times the Proposition 34

contribution limits for legislative candidates in the three different election cycles
from 2001 through 2006.
#12 THE CALIFORNIA DENTAL ASSOCIATION spent $2,268,164 on “independent

expenditures” for 25 legislative races between 2001 and 2006 from two different
committees. If the committees had to adhere to the Proposition 34 limits, they
would have been able to spend a total of $80,000. The $2,268,164 in “indepen-
dent expenditures” represents 28 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for
legislative candidates in the three different election cycles from 2001 through
2006.
#13 THE CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE spent $2,210,112 on “independent expendi-

tures” for 18 legislative races in three election cycles. If the committee had to
adhere to the Proposition 34 limits, it would have been able to spend a total of
Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative candidates in the three different
election cycles from 2001 through 2006.
#14 CALIFORNIA REALTORS spent $2,155,617 on “independent expenditures”

for 28 legislative races between 2001 and 2006. Those “independent expendi-
tures” came from two different committees (California Real Estate Independent
Expenditure Committee and California Real Estate Political Action Commit-
tee). The two committees participated in separate races. There was no duplica-
tion of spending by the two committees. If the committees had to adhere to the
Proposition 34 limits, they would have been able to spend a total of $88,100.
The $2,155,617 in “independent expenditures” represents 24 times the Proposi-
tion 34 contribution limits for legislative candidates from 2001 through 2006.
#15 THE ALLIANCE FOR CALIFORNIA’S TOMORROW spent $1,551,466 on

“independent expenditures” for five legislative and two statewide races in the
2003-04 and 2005-06 election cycles. If the committee had to adhere to the
Proposition 34 limits, it would have been able to spend a total of only $27,500.
The $1,551,466 in “independent expenditures” represents 56 times the Proposi-
tion 34 limits for legislative and statewide candidates from 2003 through 2006.

#16 CALIFORNIANS FOR CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM PAC spent $1,525,979 on
“independent expenditures” for eight legislative races in the 2001-02, 2003-04
and 2005-06 election cycles. If the committee had to adhere to the Proposition
34 limits, it would have been able to spend only $25,800. The $1,525,979 in
“independent expenditures” represents 59 times the Proposition 34 contribution
limits for legislative candidates in the three different election cycles.
#17 TAXPAYERS FOR RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT spent $1,350,861 on

“independent expenditures” and participated in only one race in 2006—that of
Lt. Governor, supporting John Garamendi. If the committee had to adhere to
the Proposition 34 contribution limits, it would have been able to make one
contribution of $5,600. The $1,350,861 in “independent expenditures” repre-
sents 241 times the Proposition 34 contribution limit for Lt. Governor in 2006.
#18 CAUSE spent $1,184,030 on “independent expenditures” from 2001

through 2006 from two committees—California Union of Safety Employees
PAC – Independent Expenditures and the CAUSE Law Enforcement Indepen-
dent Expenditure Committee. The two committees participated in separate
races. There was no duplication of spending by the two committees. CAUSE
participated in 27 legislative races and two statewide races. If the committees
had to adhere to the Proposition 34 contribution limits, they would have been
able to spend $97,600. The $1,184,030 in “independent expenditures” repre-
sents more than 12 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits in the three
different election cycles.
#19 CALIFORNIANS UNITED spent $1,056,216 on “independent expenditures” on

behalf of 13 legislative candidates between 2001 and 2006 and five statewide
candidates in 2006. Under the Proposition 34 limits, the committee would have
been able to spend only $86,200. The $1,056,216 in “independent expendi-
tures” represents 12 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative
and statewide candidates from 2001 through 2006.
#20 PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA spent $985,000

on “independent expenditures” in 73 legislative races from 2001 through 2006

and nine statewide races, including Governor, in 2006. Under the Proposition
34 limits, the committee would have been able to spend $321,900. The $985,000
in “independent expenditures” represents three times the Proposition 34 contri-
bution limits for legislative and statewide candidates in the last three election
cycles.
#21 COMMUNITY CIVIC PARTICIPATION PROJECT spent $980,888 on “indepen-

dent expenditures” on behalf of only one candidate—Lt. Governor Cruz Busta-
mante in the 2003 gubernatorial recall election. Under the Proposition 34
limits, the committee would have been able to spend only $21,200 on behalf of
Bustamante. The $980,888 in “independent expenditures” represents 46 times
the Proposition 34 contribution limit for Governor in 2003.
#22 CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF SERVICE EMPLOYEES POLITICAL COMMIT-

TEE spent $883,418 on “independent expenditures” in three statewide races in
the 2006 General Election. Under the Proposition 34 limits, the committee
would have been able to spend a total of $33,500. The $883,418 in “independent
expenditures” represents 26 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for state-
wide elections in 2006.
#23 MODERATE DEMOCRATS FOR CALIFORNIA spent $794,866 on “independent

expenditures” participating in seven Democratic Assembly primary races in
2004. Under Proposition 34 limits, the committee would have been able to
spend a total of only $22,400. The $794,866 in “independent expenditures”
represents 35 times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative candi-
dates in 2004.
#24 FAIR PUBLIC POLICY COALITION spent $779,724 between two committees in
2004 and 2006 on “independent expenditures.” The Fair Public Policy Coali-
tion, A Committee of California Horse Racing Companies participated in six
legislative races in 2004, while the Fair Public Policy Coalition, A Committee of
Horse Racing Companies, including Bay Meadows Land Co., LLC and its
Affiliates, participated in four legislative races and seven statewide races, inclu-
ding Governor, in 2006. There was no duplication of spending by the two

committees. Under the Proposition 34 limits, the committee would have been
able to spend only $88,300. The $779,724 in “independent expenditures” repre-
sents nine times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative and state-
wide candidates in 2004 and 2006.
#25 THE COOPERATIVE OF AMERICAN PHYSICIANS spent $749,974 on “indepen-

dent expenditures” participating in 17 legislative races in 2006 and seven legis-
lative races in 2004. Under the Proposition 34 limits, the committee would have
been able to spend only $78,500. The $749,974 in “independent expenditures”
represents almost ten times the Proposition 34 contribution limits for legislative
candidates in 2004 and 2006.

CHART #3
How “Independent Expenditure”
Committees Make a Joke
Out of Contribution Limits
STATEWIDE LEGISLATIVE IF PROP. OVER

“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE” IE
CANDIDATES CANDIDATES 34 LIMITS PROP. 34
COMMITTEE SPENDING
SUPPORTED SUPPORTED APPLIED LIMITS
Californians for a Better $9,855,582 1 $22,300 $9,833,282
Government
Alliance for a Better California $5,245,109 1 $22,300 $5,222,809
First Americans for a Better $4,256,754 1 $21,200 $4,235,554
California
JOBS PAC $3,900,501 20 $63,600 $3,836,901
CA Correctional Peace Officers $3,536,698 31 $99,300 $3,437,398
Association
Morongo Band of Mission $3,378,853 3 1 $51,000 $3,327,853
Indians
Strengthening Our Lives $3,306,944 3 6 $53,300 $3,253,644
Through Education
Team 2006 $3,093,391 1 8 $32,000 $3,061,391
California Alliance for Progress $2,953,948 12 $39,600 $2,914,348
and Education
Working Californians $2,637,860 2 $27,900 $2,609,960
Opportunity PAC $2,567,764 12 $38,000 $2,529,764
California Dental Association $2,268,164 25 $80,000 $2,188,164
California Alliance $2,210,112 18 $56,700 $2,153,412
California Realtors $2,155,617 28 $88,100 $2,067,517
Alliance for California's $1,551,466 2 5 $27,500 $1,523,966
Tomorrow
Californians for Civil Justice $1,525,979 8 $25,800 $1,500,179
Reform
Taxpayers for Responsible $1,350,861 1 $5,600 $1,345,261
Government
CAUSE $1,184,030 2 27 $97,600 $1,086,430
Californians United $1,056,216 5 13 $86,200 $970,016
Peace Officers Research Asso- $985,000 9 73 $321,900 $663,100
ciation of California
Community Civic Participation $980,888 1 $21,200 $959,688
CA State Council of Service $883,418 3 $33,500 $849,918
Employees
Moderate Democrats for $794,866 7 $22,400 $772,466
California
Fair Public Policy $779,724 7 10 $88,300 $691,424
Cooperative of American $749,974 24 $78,500 $671,474
Physicians
TOTAL $63,209,719 $1,503,800 $61,705,919

MILLION DOLLAR BABIES
FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, “independent expenditures” benefiting an individ-

ual candidate exceeded $1,000,000 in the 2006 elections. The seven candidates
that fit in this category benefited from a total of $31,871,978 in “independent
expenditures.”
• Phil Angelides, California State Treasurer, benefited from

$19,591,905 in “independent expenditures” in his campaign for
Governor in 2006.
⇒ In the Democratic primary, there were $10,015,643 in
“independent expenditures” made on behalf of Angelides.
The largest “independent expenditure” totaled $9,855,582
from Californians for a Better Government, funded primar-
ily by home builders and developers. Angelides won the
Democratic nomination with 48% of the vote to Steve
Westly’s 43.2%
⇒ In the November general election, “independent expendi-
tures” made on behalf of Angelides totaled $9,576,262. The
largest “independent expenditure” was made by Alliance
for a Better California, a coalition of labor organizations, for
$5,245,109. Angelides lost to Arnold Schwarzenegger 39%
to 55.9%.
• Board of Equalization Member John Chiang, the Democratic

nominee in the 2006 Controller’s race, benefited from $3,530,381
in “independent expenditures.” The largest “independent expen-
diture”—$2,221,919—was made by Working Californians, primar-
ily funded by labor unions. Chiang beat his Republican opponent,
Tony Strickland, 50.7% to 40.2%.
Million Dollar Babies ● 49

• Former Assemblyman Tony Strickland, the Republican nominee
in the 2006 Controller’s race, benefited from “independent expen-
ditures” totaling $2,093,638. The largest “independent expendi-
ture” was made by Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, a coalition
of business and labor interests, which totaled $1,000,000. Strick-
land lost to the Democratic nominee, John Chiang, 40.2% to
50.7%.
• Orange County Supervisor Lou Correa benefited from $2,389,014

in “independent expenditures” in his campaign for the 34th Senate
District in 2006.
⇒ In the Democratic primary, there were $1,142,053 in
“independent expenditures” made on Correa’s behalf. The
largest “independent expenditure” was made by the
California Alliance for Progress and Education, funded
primarily by realtors, dentists and insurance companies, for
$326,567. Another “independent expenditure” on Correa’s
behalf was made by Californians for Jobs and a Strong
Economy, funded primarily by large business interests and
insurance companies, for $289,274. Correa won the
Democratic primary over Tom Umberg 59.8% to 40.2%.
⇒ In the November general election for the 34th Senate
District, Correa benefited from $1,246,961 in “independent
expenditures.” The California Alliance for Progress and
Education once again provided the largest amount of
“independent expenditures” on Correa’s behalf at $449,556.
The California Real Estate Political Action Committee also
spent $214,449 on “independent expenditures” for Correa.
Correa won with 50.3% of the vote to 48.9% for the Repub-
lican nominee, Lynn Daucher, and 0.8% for the Republican
write-in candidate Otto Bade.
• Former Assemblyman John Dutra benefited from $1,778,336 in

“independent expenditures” in the 2006 Democratic primary for
the 10th Senate District. The largest “independent expenditure”
was made by the California Alliance for Progress and Education,

which totaled $711,314. “Independent expenditures” made on
Dutra’s behalf by Californians for Civil Justice Reform PAC,
funded by large business interests, including insurance companies
and realtors, totaled $576,654. In a three-way race, Dutra re-
ceived 29.9% of the vote to Ellen Corbett’s 39.1% and Johan
Klehs’ 31%.
• Assemblywoman Gloria Negrete McLeod benefited from

$1,233,326 in “independent expenditures” in the 2006 Democratic
primary for the 32nd Senate District. The largest “independent
expenditure” was made by California Alliance for Progress and
companies, for $278,845. Teachers United with Firefighters and
Correctional Officers Independent Expenditure Committee also
made an “independent expenditure” on behalf of Negrete McLeod
for a total of $268,478. Negrete McLeod defeated Joe Baca, Jr.
61.4% to 38.6%.
• Assemblywoman Nicole Parra benefited from $1,255,378 in

“independent expenditures” in the 2006 general election for the
30th Assembly District. The largest “independent expenditures”
were made by Team 2006, sponsored by Indian gaming tribes, for
a total of $521,428, and California Alliance for Progress and
companies, for a total of $213,776. Parra beat her Republican
opponent, Danny Gilmore, 51.6% to 48.4%.
In addition to the seven candidates, there were two campaigns where the candi-
dates combined benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling more than
$1,000,000.
• In the 2006 Democratic primary in the 30th Senate District,

“independent expenditures” on behalf of Assemblyman Ron
Calderon and Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez totaled $1,623,348,
with $905,571 spent on Calderon and $717,777 spent on Bermu-
dez. The largest “independent expenditure” on Calderon’s behalf
was made by California Alliance for Progress and Education,

for $454,280.
The largest “independent expenditure” on behalf of Bermudez
was made by the California Correctional Peace Officers Associa-
tion Independent Expenditure Committee for $352,507. In addition,
the Minorities in Law Enforcement Independent Expenditure
Committee, which received almost all of its funding from CCPOA,
also made an “independent expenditure” for Bermudez totaling
$253,398. Calderon won the Democratic nomination over Bermu-
dez 50.4% to 49.6%.
• In the 2006 Democratic primary in the 20th Senate District,

“independent expenditures” on behalf of Los Angeles City
Councilman Alex Padilla and Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez
totaled $1,028,489, with $575,012 spent on behalf of Padilla and
$453,476 spent on behalf of Montanez. The largest “independent
expenditures” on Padilla’s behalf were made by Education
Leaders Support City Council President Alex Padilla, sponsored by
EdVoice, Inc., for $163,613, and Californians Allied for a Prosper-
ous Economy, a coalition sponsored by the Civil Justice Associa-
tion of California and the California Motor Car Dealers Associa-
tion PAC, for $122,790.
The biggest “independent expenditure” on behalf of Montanez
was made by Vota 100%, a sponsored committee of UNITE HERE!
International Union, primarily funded by labor and some business
interests, for $259,365. In addition, the California Alliance, a
coalition of consumer attorneys, conservationists and nurses,
spent $94,253 on “independent expenditures” to benefit Monta-
nez. Padilla won the Democratic nomination over Montanez
55.8% to 44.2%.

PEELING THE ONION
THE FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION WANTS to help ensure the

public’s right to know which interests are funding political campaigns. Full
disclosure allows voters to make informed decisions before casting their ballots.
Unfortunately, the system allows “indepen-
dent expenditure” committees to shield the
true identity of contributors, making it
more difficult to determine who is actually
supporting candidates. This section offers
a few illustrations of how this can occur.
EdVoice Independent
Expenditure Committee
(ID #1261580)
During the 2006 elections, EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee

created several new committees to support four candidates in contested legisla-
tive Democratic primary elections. The effect of creating these committees was
to add extra layers to the onion, making it more difficult to uncover the actual
contributors. The four committees were:
• Education Leaders Support City Council President Alex Padilla,

Sponsored by EdVoice, Inc. (ID #1283843)
Alex Padilla won the Democratic primary in the open
20th Senate District with 55.7% of the vote.
• Education Leaders Support Fire Chief Bill McCammon,
Peeling the Onion ● 53

Mary Hayashi defeated Bill McCammon in the 18th Assem-
bly District Democratic primary 51.2% to 48.8%.
• Education Leaders Support Burbank School Board President
Paul Krekorian, Sponsored by EdVoice, Inc. (ID #1283839)
Paul Krekorian won the Democratic primary in the open
43rd Assembly District with 57.5% of the vote.
• Education Leaders Support Anthony Portantino for Assembly,
Anthony Portantino won the Democratic primary in the
open 44th Assembly District with 42.7% of the vote.
Education Leaders Support City Council President Alex Padilla made $163,613
on “independent expenditures” supporting Padilla’s campaign for the State
Senate. Information from campaign reports shows $80,000 from EdVoice
Independent Expenditure Committee, $100,000 from the Morongo Band of
Mission Indians and $49,900 from San Manuel Tribal Administration.
What is not revealed in this first layer of information is who provided the fund-
ing to EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee, and exactly who are the
“education leaders” supporting the candidate. To learn that information, one
needs to peel away another layer, which shows that virtually all the money
raised by the EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee in the 2005-06
election cycle came in the form of large contributions from wealthy individuals.
Secretary of State Record of Contributors to

EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee
CONTRIBUTOR AMOUNT EMPLOYER OCCUPATION

Ann Bowers $94,700 Self-employed Philanthropist
Lawrence Stupski $189,400 Self-employed Investor
John Walton $94,700 True North Partners Investor
Donald Fisher $189,400 Gap, Inc. Chairman/CEO
R. B. Woolley, Jr. $189,400 Self-employed Investor
Eli Broad $189,400 Sunamerica, Inc. Chairman/President/CEO
William Cronk III $189,100 Retired
Reed Hastings $94,700 Netflix.com Chairman/CEO

Education Leaders Support Fire Chief Bill McCammon spent $213,600 on
“independent expenditures” supporting McCammon’s campaign for the State
Assembly. The committee received a total of $300,000 — $100,000 from
Consumer Attorneys Independent Campaign and $200,000 from EdVoice
Independent Expenditure Committee.
Education Leaders Support Burbank School Board President Paul Krekorian

spent $154,262 on “independent expenditures” supporting Krekorian’s
campaign for the State Assembly. The committee reported receiving $183,000
in monetary contributions, of which $63,000 came from the California Teachers
Association/Association for Better Citizenship and $120,000 from EdVoice
Education Leaders Support Anthony Portantino for Assembly spent $114,853

on “independent expenditures” supporting Portantino’s campaign for the State
Assembly. The committee reported receiving $160,000—$125,000 from
EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee, $25,000 from Californians for
Jobs and a Strong Economy and $10,000 from State Building and Construction
Trades Council of California.
Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, A California

Business and Labor Coalition (ID #1262979)
In the 2006 general election, the Alliance for California’s Tomorrow made two
“independent expenditures” totaling $1,000,000 on behalf of former Assembly-
man Tony Strickland, the Republican nominee in the Controller’s race. This
was the only expenditure—independent or direct contribution—the committee
made in the two months prior to the general election.
The committee reported cash on hand of $71,548.92 as of June 30, 2006.

Between July 1, 2006 and September 30, 2006, the committee reported receiving
only one contribution of $12,500 from the Recording Industry Association of
America on July 25th. The cash on hand reported for the period ending Septem-
ber 30th was $64,936.55.

In the reporting period from October 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, the
Alliance for California’s Tomorrow reported receiving two contributions—
$1,000,000 from Intuit on October 24th and $50,000 from the Computer and
Communications Industry Association on October 27th. (The Alliance also
reported an increase to cash of $1,901.) On October 24th, the Alliance made one
$66,000 “independent expenditure” on Strickland’s behalf, followed by an
additional $934,000 “independent expenditure” on October 26th. During that
same reporting period, the committee reported regular expenses of $51,470.41,
leaving a cash on hand balance of $65,367.14 as of December 31, 2006.
The maximum contribution under the Proposition 34 limits to a candidate

running for a statewide office in 2006, other than Governor, was $5,600. Intuit
contributed $5,600 directly to Strickland on October 16th. Another way for
Intuit to assist Strickland in his election was to contribute money to an “inde-
pendent expenditure” committee, which did not have to adhere to any limits.
So, while Strickland’s campaign report shows a $5,600 contribution from Intuit,
in reality, the monetary assistance to Strickland exceeded $1,000,000. For the
public to be aware of the total amount of Intuit’s support of Strickland would
have required at least one layer of the onion being peeled away.
Tony Strickland was defeated by the Democratic nominee John Chiang 50.7%
to 40.2%.
Californians United (ID #1241102)
The 2006 Democratic primary election for the open 34th Senate District was
between Orange County Supervisor Lou Correa and Assemblyman Tom
Umberg. Californians United, a committee of large business and labor inter-
ests, spent $239,424 on “independent expenditures” benefiting Correa in that
election. Of that amount, $42,923 was spent on communications urging
Correa’s election and $196,501 urging defeat of his opponent, Tom Umberg.
Additionally, Californians United transferred $50,000 to a second committee

called Golden State Leadership Fund. Golden State Leadership Fund then
made “independent expenditures” supporting Correa totaling $42,500.85.

Correa won the primary, having benefited from $281,924.85 of Californians
United’s money.
In the general election, Correa’s Republican opponent was Assemblywoman

Lynn Daucher. By mid-October, the race between Correa and Daucher was
extremely close and clearly the hottest Senate election in the state.
Two weeks prior to the general election, a third candidate, a registered Republi-
can named Otto Bade, entered the race as a write-in candidate.
In the weeks prior to the November 7th general election, Californians United
made eight separate “independent expenditures” extolling Otto Bade to Repub-
lican voters as “the real Republican.” These Californians United “independent
expenditures” for Otto Bade totaled $92,342 and constituted his entire
campaign. Reports filed on-line with the Secretary of State indicate that Otto
Bade is the only Republican ever supported by Californians United.
On October 20, 2006, Californians United transferred another $50,000 to the

Golden State Leadership Fund. Golden State Leadership Fund then made
additional “independent expenditures” of $49,720.83 benefiting Correa.
Finally, on November 2nd, Californians United made one last “independent

expenditure” of $30,750 urging the election of Correa.
Californians United spent a total of $454,737.68 in the race for the 34th Senate
District. The committee’s unusual method of supporting of Lou Correa may
have helped to assure his victory. Correa won with 50.3% of the vote, Lynn
Daucher’s 48.9% and Otto Bade’s 0.8%.
California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA)

In the open 30th Senate District 2006 Democratic primary race, CCPOA was a
strong supporter of Assemblyman Rudy Bermudez, who was running against
Assemblyman Ron Calderon. The committee made a total of $352,507 in

“independent expenditures” supporting Bermudez between May 12 and June 2,
2006.
On May 26, 2006, just 11 days prior to the primary election, CCPOA Independ-
ent Expenditure Committee contributed $250,000 to Minorities in Law Enforce-
ment Independent Expenditure Committee (MILE IEC, ID #1276821). On that
same day, the committee made an “independent expenditure” supporting
Bermudez for $253,398.08. That was the only “independent expenditure” made
by the Minorities in Law Enforcement Independent Expenditure Committee for
all of 2006. The only contributions received by MILE IEC between January 1
and June 30, 2006, were the $250,000 from the CCPOA Independent Expendi-
ture Committee on May 26th and $20,000 from Intuit on June 5th.
By contributing $250,000 to MILE IEC for an “independent expenditure” for

Bermudez, CCPOA added an extra layer to the onion. That made it more diffi-
cult for the public to know the true source of the money that was being used to
benefit Rudy Bermudez.
California Real Estate Independent Expenditure

Committee (ID #963026) and California Real Estate
Political Action Committee (CREPAC) (ID #890106)
During the 2006 elections, the California Real Estate Independent Expenditure
Committee made “independent expenditures” totaling $559,564 for six legisla-
tive candidates. The committee further contributed an additional $1,060,000 to
other committees making “independent expenditures.” The vast majority
(72%) of those contributions from the California Real Estate Independent
Expenditure Committee went to the California Alliance for Progress and
Education, primarily funded by realtors, dentists and insurance companies.
In the 2006 primary election cycle, the California Real Estate Independent
Expenditure Committee made “independent expenditures” totaling $196,812 in
support of former Assemblyman John Dutra in the Democratic primary in the
open 10th Senate District. At the same time, the California Alliance for Progress
and Education spent $686,280 on “independent expenditures” also benefiting
Dutra.

In another race, the California Real Estate Independent Expenditure Commit-
tee spent $144,325 on “independent expenditures” to support former Assembly-
man George Nakano in the Democratic primary in the open 28th Senate District.
At the same time, the California Alliance for Progress and Education also made
$130,945 in “independent expenditures” benefiting Nakano.
During the 2006 general election, CREPAC spent $214,449 on “independent

expenditures” to support Orange County Supervisor Lou Correa in the open
34th Senate District. During the same period, the California Alliance for
Progress and Education also made “independent expenditures” benefiting
Correa, totaling $457,556. Interestingly, in the month prior to these “indepen-
dent expenditures,” CREPAC transferred $450,000 to the Alliance.
Between their two committees, the realtors were the largest contributor to the
Alliance for Progress and Education with contributions totaling $1,210,000.
By contributing money to another “independent expenditure” committee, the

realtors added extra layers to the onion, making it more difficult for the public
to determine the true identity of those supporting or opposing candidates.
In the 2004 and 2006 election cycles, both of the realtors’ committees made
contributions totaling $2,304,300 to other committees making “independent
expenditures” to benefit state candidates. That’s in addition to the $2,155,617
in “independent expenditures” the realtors made through their committees to
help elect state candidates. That brings the total amount spent on “independent
expenditures” from 2001 through 2006 to $4,459,917.

2008 PRIMARY ELECTION
U P D AT E
NEARLY $12 MILLION was spent on “independent expenditures” for legislative

races during the 2008 primary elections. That brings the total spent on
“independent expenditures” to $99,872,105 for state and legislative candidates
since January 1, 2001. Candidates are limited in the size of contributions they
may accept, while “independent expenditure” committees have no such limita-
tions. As a result, more and more “independent expenditures” are impacting
which candidates win elections.
This 2008 Primary Election Update points out an alarming new trend in
campaign finance that allows “independent expenditure” committees to signal
candidates in advance of elections that there will be additional support for
them, apart from any money they themselves raise or spend.
Keeping the public informed on which special interests are financing candidates
helps voters make informed decisions in elections. That is the reason the FPPC
made available information on its website on “independent expenditure” spend-
ing in the 26 open contested legislative races on the June 2008 ballot. The
Commission will continue to detail “independent expenditure” spending on its
website during the 2008 general election.
2008 Primary Election Update ● 60

T H E L E G I S L AT I V E P R I M A R Y
CONTESTS WITH THE MOST
“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE”
SPENDING
OF THE NEARLY $12 MILLION spent on “independent expenditures” for legis-

lative races in the 2008 primary election, 78% was spent in just 10 legislative
races. The following are those “Top 10” contests.
#1 •
Senate District 25 Democratic Primary
Total “Independent Expenditure” Spending – $1,782,901
“Independent expenditure” spending on behalf of the top two

candidates – former Assemblyman Rod Wright and Assembly-
man Mervyn Dymally—in the open 25th Senate District Demo-
cratic primary race totaled $1,782,901.
• More than 82% of that amount ($1,475,129) was spent on behalf
of former Assemblyman Rod Wright.
• The largest “independent expenditure” on Wright’s behalf
totaled $1,184,106, which was made by the Alliance for Califor-
nia’s Tomorrow, primarily funded by business interests.
• The largest “independent expenditure” on Dymally’s behalf
totaled $218,272, which was made by the Los Angeles County
Council on Political Education, funded by labor organizations.
• Wright won 43.8% of the vote to Dymally’s 34.9%.
Primaries with the Most “IE” Spending ● 61

#2
•
“Independent expenditure” spending on behalf of the three

candidates—Senator Carole Migden, Assemblyman Mark Leno
and former Assemblyman Joe Nation—in the 3rd Senate District
Democratic primary race totaled $1,445,155.
• Migden benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$271,111, with more than $200,000 coming from Fair Public
Policy Coalition, funded by horseracing interests.
• “Independent expenditures” supporting Nation ($503,822)
primarily came from business interests, while “independent
expenditures” opposing him ($466,450) primarily came from
labor unions.
• “Independent expenditures” supporting Leno totaled $95,872,
with the California Dental Association Independent Expenditure
PAC spending $36,746, while “independent expenditures” oppos-
ing him totaled $107,900.
• Leno won with 44.2% of the vote to Migden’s 28.5% and
Nation’s 27.3%.
#3
•
Assembly District 8 Democratic Primary
Total Independent Expenditure Spending – $1,153,674
“Independent expenditure” spending on behalf of Yolo County

Supervisor Mariko Yamada and West Sacramento Mayor Chris-
topher Cabaldon in the open 8th Assembly District Democratic
primary race totaled $1,153,674.
• Yamada benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$441,430. Working Families for Progressive Leadership,
primarily funded by labor unions, made the largest “indepen-
dent expenditure” on Yamada’s behalf for $423,889, which
represents 96% of the total “independent expenditures” made on
Yamada’s behalf.

• Cabaldon benefited from $712,244 in “independent expendi-
tures.” Public School Champions for Christopher Cabaldon, A
Project of EdVoice, Inc., which, in turn, was funded by wealthy
individuals, made the largest “independent expenditures” on
Cabaldon’s behalf for $389,730.
• Yamada won with 51.9% of the vote to Cabaldon’s 48.1%.
#4
•
Senate District 37 Republican Primary
Total Independent Expenditure Spending – $936,647
“Independent expenditure” spending on behalf of Assemblyman

John Benoit and former Assemblyman Russ Bogh in the open
37th Senate District Republican race totaled $936,647.
• Benoit benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$541,326, with the largest made by the California Dental Associ-
ation Independent Expenditure Committee for $359,104.
• Bogh benefited from $395,321 in “independent expenditures,”
with the largest made by Save California, A Coalition of
Highway Patrol Officers, Police and Firefighters for $274,953.
In addition to contributions from firefighters and the California
Association of Highway Patrolmen, Save California also received
$49,900 from the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians and
$49,900 from the Pechanga Band of Mission Indians.
• Benoit won 56.4% of the vote to Bogh’s 32.4%.
#5
•
“Independent expenditure” spending on behalf of the three

candidates—San Mateo County Supervisor Jerry Hill, San
Mateo County Community College Board Trustee Richard
Holober and Millbrae Mayor Gina Papan—in the open
19th Assembly Democratic primary race totaled $785,877.

• Papan benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$512,477. The largest “independent expenditure” was made by
Californians Allied for Patient Protection for $242,163. In
addition, the Cooperative of American Physicians, funded by
doctors throughout California, made “independent expendi-
tures” on Papan’s behalf for $150,000. There also was $72,293 in
“independent expenditures” opposing Papan made by California
Alliance, a coalition of consumer attorneys, conservationists and
nurses.
• Holober benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$148,305. The largest IE was made by the California Nurses
Association for $89,731.
• Hill received two “independent expenditures” for $52,802.
• Hill won with 37.1% of the vote to Papan’s 34.6% and Holober’s
28.3%.
#6
•
“Independent expenditure” spending on behalf of the top three

candidates—School Board Member Manuel Perez, Catheral City
City Councilman Gregory Pettis and Community Development
Manager Ricardo Marcos Gonzales—in the open 80th Assembly
Democratic primary race totaled $690,090.
• Perez received the lion’s share of the “independent expendi-
tures,” with “independent expenditures” made on his behalf
totaling $599,881. The largest “independent expenditure” was
made by Opportunity PAC, funded by labor unions, for
$550,697.
• “Independent expenditures” benefiting Pettis and Gonzales
totaled less than $100,000.
• Perez won with 35.5% of the vote to Pettis’s 26.3% and Gonza-
les’s 25.4%.

#7
•
“Independent expenditure” spending on behalf of the top three

candidates—Congressional District Director Bob Blumenfield,
former Assistant State Controller Laurette Healey and educator
Stuart Waldman—in the open 40th Assembly Democratic
primary race totaled $693,809.
• Blumenfield benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$323,963, with the largest “independent expenditure” made by
Valley Democrats for Change ($229,294). The two largest contri-
butors to Valley Democrats for Change were Howard Berman
for Congress ($240,000) and Michael Blumenfield ($120,000).
• Waldman benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$354,591, with 97% of those “independent expenditures”
($342,915) coming from the California Alliance for Progress and
Education, primarily funded by dentists, realtors and insurance
companies.
• Healey benefited from $15,255 in “independent expenditures.”
• Blumenfield won with 53.1% of the vote to Waldman’s 21.1%
and Healey’s 20.8%.
#8
•
“Independent expenditures” benefiting Assemblywoman Wilma

Chan and Assemblywoman Loni Hancock in the open 9th Senate
District Democratic primary race totaled $638,578.
• Hancock benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
the Professional Engineers in California Government PAC for
$48,023.
• “Independent expenditures on Chan’s behalf totaled $504,838, of
which the largest “independent expenditure” made to benefit

Chan was for $161,442 by Education Leaders for High Stand-
ards IE Committee, primarily funded by the California Tribal
Business Alliance Independent Expenditure PAC. Education
Leaders for High Standards was set up specifically to oppose
Hancock. EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee, which
supported Chan, also contributed $10,000 to the committee.
• Partners for Wilma Chan Independent Expenditure Committee,
funded primarily by the California Medical Association
($50,000) and EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee
($49,000), also made “independent expenditures” on Chan’s
behalf for $136,201.
• Hancock won with 56.7% of the vote to Chan’s 43.3%
#9
•
Independent expenditures benefiting the three top candidates—

Community College Board of Trustees Member Marty Block,
college professor Maxine Sherard and small business leader
Auday Arabo—in the open 78th Assembly District Democratic
primary race totaled $555,850.
• Block benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
the California Alliance, a coalition of consumer attorneys,
conservationists and nurses for $138,221. In addition, $99,167 in
“independent expenditures” was made by Public School Champ-
ions for Marty Block, A Project of EdVoice, Inc., funded by
wealthy individuals.
• Sherard benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$269,357, of which the largest “independent expenditure” was
for $241,461 by Californians for Balance and Fairness in the
Civil Justice System, funded by large business interests, includ-
ing insurance companies and realtors.
• Arabo benefited from “independent expenditures” totaling
$27,000.

• Block won with 36.6% of the vote to Sherard’s 34.9% and
Arabo’s 15%.
#10
•
“Independent expenditure” spending for the top two candi-

dates—Compton City Councilman Isadore Hall and community
activist Linda Harris-Forster—in the open 52nd Assembly
District Democratic primary race totaled $518,254.
• Hall benefited from 99% of all the “independent expenditures”
made in the race, with “independent expenditure” spending for
Hall totaling $515,893.
• The largest “independent expenditure” on Hall’s behalf was
made by the California Alliance for Progress and Education,
primarily funded by dentists, realtors and insurance companies,
for $227,493. Partners for Isadore Hall Independent Expendi-
ture Committee, funded primarily by the California Medical
Association ($50,000) and EdVoice Independent Expenditure
Committee ($49,000), made “independent expenditures” totaling
$116,379.
• Hall won with 56.8% of the vote to Harris-Forster’s 24.9%.

THE KEY “INDEPENDENT
EXPENDITURE” COMMITTEES IN
THE 2008 PRIMARY ELECTION
THE FOLLOWING PROVIDES INFORMATION on which special interests groups

participated in the 2008 primary elections and how much they spent.
#1 Alliance for California’s Tomorrow (ID #1262979)

The Alliance for California’s Tomorrow spent a total of $1,201,206 on

“independent expenditures” in the 2008 primary elections. Of that amount,
$1,184,106 was spent in the 25th Democratic primary race on behalf of Rod
Wright. Contributions to the Alliance included $477,000 from JOBS PAC,
sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, $150,000 from the
California Real Estate PAC and $100,000 from Sempra Energy.
Opportunity PAC – A Coalition of Educators, Health
#2 Care Givers, Faculty Members and Other School

Employees (ID #980020)
Total “Independent Expenditure” Spending – $973,078
Opportunity PAC spent a total of $973,078 on “independent expenditures” in

the 2008 primary elections. Of that amount, $573,232 was spent on behalf of
Manuel Perez in the open 80th Assembly District Democratic primary, and
$362,646 to oppose Joe Nation in the 3rd Senate District Democratic primary.
The committee also contributed $37,200 to Working Families for Progressive
Leadership. The largest contributions to Opportunity PAC came from Califor-
The Key “IE” Committees ● 68

nia State Council of Service Employees Small Contributor Committee for
$330,000 and California Teachers Association/Association for Better Citizen-
ship for $200,000.
#3 EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee (ID #1261580)

All of the money the EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee spent in the
2008 primary elections was given to other “independent expenditure” commit-
tees—with the vast majority of those funds going into newly created candidate-
specific “independent expenditure” committees. The largest contributions
made by EdVoice were to committees it created to support Christopher Cabal-
don and oppose Mariko Yamada in the open 8th Assembly District Democratic
primary. Public Schools Champions For Christopher Cabaldon received
$424,000 from EdVoice, while Democrats Against Government Waste (formed
to oppose Yamada) received $150,000. Contributions by EdVoice to other
“independent expenditure” committees included: Carbon Free Votes For Fran
Pavley $108,500; Public School Champions For Marty Block for $100,000;
Partners For Isadore Hall for $49,000; Partners For Wilma Chan for $49,000;
Leadership For Paul Hegyi 2008 for $45,000 and Education Leaders For High
Standards (formed to oppose Loni Hancock in the open 9th Senate District
Democratic primary) for $10,000. All of the contributions into the EdVoice
Independent Expenditure Committee were from wealthy individuals. The two
largest contributions were $294,400 from venture capitalist John Doerr and
$288,800 from Netflix Chairman Reed Hastings.
#4 California Alliance for Progress and Education (ID #1283921)

The California Alliance for Progress and Education spent a total of $940,875 on
“independent expenditures” in the 2008 primary elections. Of that amount,
$342,915 was spent on behalf of Stuart Waldman in the open 40th Assembly
District Democratic primary, $227,493 on behalf of Isador Hall in the open
52nd Assembly District Democratic primary, $122,222 on behalf of Dan Logue in
the open 3rd Assembly District Republican primary and $23,245 on behalf of
Norma Torres in the open 61st Assembly District Democratic primary. The

California Alliance for Progress and Education also contributed to other
“independent expenditure” committees, including $100,000 to Californians for
Balance and Fairness in the Civil Justice System, $100,000 to Californians for
Jobs and a Strong Economy and $25,000 to California Taxpayer Protection
Committee. The largest contributors to the California Alliance for Progress
and Education came from the California Dental Association Independent
Expenditure Committee for $275,000, the California Real Estate PAC for
$250,000, and Farmers Employees and Agents PAC for $249,000.
California Real Estate Independent Expenditure
#5 Committee (ID #963026) and California Real

Estate Political Action Committee (ID #890106)
The California Real Estate Independent Expenditure Committee and the Cali-
fornia Real Estate PAC spent a total of $879,275 on “independent expenditures”
in the 2008 primary elections. The California Real Estate Independent Expen-
diture Committee spent $199,275 on “independent expenditures” on behalf of
three legislative candidates, Christopher Cabaldon in the open 8th Assembly
District Democratic primary, Rod Wright in the open 25th Senate District
Democratic primary and Wilmer Amina Carter in the open 62nd Assembly
District Democratic primary. The California Real Estate PAC contributed a
total of $680,000 to other “independent expenditure” committees, including
$150,000 to the Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, $250,000 to the Alliance
for Progress and Education, $175,000 to Californians for Balance and Fairness
in the Civil Justice System, $50,000 to Californians for Jobs and a Strong Econ-
omy, $30,000 to JOBS PAC, and $25,000 to the Legislative Black Coalition
California State Council of Service Employees

#6 Small Contributor Committee (ID #831628)
The California State Council of Service Employees Small Contributor Commit-

tee spent a total of $865,746 on “independent expenditures” in the 2008 primary
elections. Of that amount, only $121,746 was spent on “independent expendi-

tures” directly benefiting candidates, with the largest contribution of $41,959
made on behalf of Assemblyman Mervyn Dymally. Contributions to other
“independent expenditure” committees included $330,000 to Opportunity PAC,
$225,000 to Strengthening Our Lives Through Education, $175,000 to Working
Families for Progressive Leadership and $14,000 to Los Angeles County Coun-
cil on Political Education.
California Dental Association Independent Expenditure

#7 Committee (ID #1233321)
The California Dental Association Independent Expenditure Committee spent a

total of $795,850 on “independent expenditures” in the 2008 primary elections.
“Independent expenditures” were made on behalf of two candidates—John
Benoit in the open 37th Senate District ($359,104) and Mark Leno in the
3rd Senate District ($36,746). In addition, the California Dental Association
Independent Expenditure Committee contributed $400,000 to other “indepen-
dent expenditure” committees – $275,000 to the California Alliance for Progress
and Education, $50,000 to Californians Allied for Patient Protection, $50,000 to
Californians for Good Jobs, Safe Streets and Schools, and $25,000 to Vote
Strong California.
JOBS PAC – A Bi-partisan Coalition of California

#8 Employers (ID #911819)
JOBS PAC spent a total of $610,661 on “independent expenditures” in the 2008

primary elections. Of that amount, the vast majority ($477,000) was contrib-
uted to the Alliance for California’s Tomorrow, which participated in the open
25th Senate District Democratic primary. JOBS PAC spent $123,661 on
“independent expenditures” participating in three open Assembly Democratic
primaries—the 19th, 52nd and 61st Assembly districts. The committee also
contributed $10,000 to Public School Champions for Christopher Cabaldon
Independent Expenditure Committee. The three largest contributions to JOBS
PAC came from Philip Morris for $80,000, Edison International for $50,000
and Chevron Corporation for $50,000.

Cooperative of American Physicians Independent
#9 Expenditure Committee (ID #970275)
The Cooperative of American Physicians Independent Expenditure Committee

spent a total of $545,496 on “independent expenditures” in the 2008 primary
elections. The committee supported candidates in five different Democratic
legislative primaries—Christopher Cabaldon in the open 8th Assembly District
for $100,000, Wilma Chan in the open 9th Senate District for $120,496, Joe
Nation in the 3rd Senate District for $100,000, Gina Papan in the open
19th Assembly District for $150,000, and Norma Torres in the open 61st Assem-
bly District for $40,000. In addition, the committee contributed $35,000 to
Californians Allied for Patient Protection. All of the contributions received by
the committee came from the Cooperative of American Physicians Mutual
Protection Trust – State Political Action Committee (ID #760951), which
received its funds from doctors throughout the state.
Californians for Balance and Fairness in the Civil
#10 Justice System, Sponsored by Civil Justice Association

of California (ID #1305489)
Californians for Balance and Fairness in the Civil Justice System spent a total
of $519,085 on “independent expenditures” in the 2008 primary elections. The
committee participated in three legislative races. The largest contribution was
made in the 3rd Senate District Democratic primary for $253,505 in support of
Joe Nation. A total of $246,080 was spent in the open 78th Assembly District
Democratic primary, with $197,901 spent supporting Maxine Sherard and
$48,179 spent opposing Marty Block. An additional $7,500 was spent in the
open 61st Assembly District primary supporting Norma Torres. An additional
contribution for $12,000 was made to Californians for Jobs and a Strong
Economy. The three largest contributions to Californians for Balance and
Fairness in the Civil Justice System were for $175,000 from the California Real
Estate PAC, and $100,000 each from California Alliance for Progress and
Education, and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Independent
Expenditure Committee.

California Teachers Association/Association for
#11 Better Citizenship (ID #741941)
The California Teachers Association/Association for Better Citizenship did not

make any “independent expenditures” directly benefiting candidates in the
2008 primary elections. The committee did contribute $300,000 to Working
Families for Progressive Leadership, which made “independent expenditures”
on behalf of Mariko Yamada in the 8th Assembly District Democratic primary.
In addition, there was a $200,000 contribution to Opportunity PAC, which did
“independent expenditures’ on behalf of Manuel Perez in the 80th Assembly
District Democratic primary, as well as opposing Joe Nation in the 3rd Senate
District Democratic primary.
Working Families for Progressive Leadership,
#12 A Coalition of Educators, Health Care Givers,

School Employees and Public Employees (ID #1306706)
Working Families for Progressive Leadership spent a total of $423,889 on

“independent expenditures” in the June primary elections on behalf of one
candidate – Mariko Yamada in the open 8th Assembly District Democratic
primary. The largest contributions received by the committee were for
$300,000 from the California Teachers Association/Association for Better Citi-
zenship, and $175,000 from the California State Council of Service Employees
Small Contributor Committee.
California Medical Association Small Contributor
#13 Committee (ID #1231460)

The California Medical Association Small Contributor Committee spent a total

of $360,000 on “independent expenditures” in the 2008 primary elections. The
committee did not make any “independent expenditures” that directly benefited
candidates, but contributed $60,000 to Public School Champions For Christo-
pher Cabaldon and $50,000 each to five other candidate-specific “independent

expenditure” committees (Carbon Free Votes For Fran Pavley, Partners For
Dan Logue, Partners For Curt Hagman, Partners For Isadore Hall, and Part-
ners For Wilma Chan). In addition, there was a $50,000 contribution to Califor-
nians Allied for Patient Protection.
Californians Allied for Patient Protection Independent
#14 Expenditure Account (ID #962938)

Californians Allied for Patient Protection spent a total of $334,163 on “indepen-

dent expenditures” in the 2008 primary elections. Of that amount, $294,163
was spent on “independent expenditures” to directly benefit candidates—
$242,163 in support of Gina Papan in the open 19th Assembly District Demo-
cratic primary, and $52,000 in support of Joe Nation in the 3rd Senate District
Democratic primary. Another $40,000 was spent on contributions to Partners
for Wilma Chan Independent Expenditure Committee. The largest contribu-
tions received by CAPP were $75,000 from Californians for Jobs and a Strong
Economy, $50,000 from the California Dental Association, and $50,000 from the
California Medical Association.
#15 Farmers Employees & Agents PAC (ID #901422)

Farmers Employees & Agents PAC did not make any “independent expendi-
tures” directly benefiting candidates in the 2008 primary elections. The
Committee did contribute to other committees making “independent expendi-
tures.” Those contributions were: $249,000 to the California Alliance for
Progress and Education, $50,000 to Californians for Jobs and Education, and
$15,000 to California Taxpayer Protection Committee.

FOLLOW THE
MONEY TRAIL
THE 2008 PRIMARY ELECTIONS ACCELERATED the trend of special interest

“independent expenditure” committees transferring funds to other “indepen-
dent expenditure” committees instead of making “independent expenditures”
benefiting candidates directly. Because of this, it becomes more difficult to
ascertain the true source of the original contributions.
Following the money trail of contributions that EdVoice Independent Expendi-

ture Committee (ID #1261580) made in the 2008 primary elections demon-
strates how the committee was able to mask the source of its contributions.
Secretary of State Record of Contributors to

EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee
2007—2008
CONTRIBUTOR AMOUNT EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
John Doerr $294,400 Kleiner, Perkins Venture Capitalist
Caufield and Byers
Reed Hastings $288,800 Netflix.com Chairman/CEO
Eli Broad $188,800 Sunamerica, Inc. Chairman/President/CEO
Donald Fisher $188,800 Gap, Inc. Chairman/CEO
Lawrence Stupski $188,800 Retired
William Cronk III $94,400 Retired
Carrie Walton Penner $94,400 Homemaker
R. B. Woolley, Jr. $94,000 Self-employed Investor
Follow the Money Trail ● 75
In the 2008 primary elections, EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee
funded newly created “independent expenditure” committees designed to sup-
port (and in two instances oppose) specific candidates, thereby making it more
difficult to follow the money trail. EdVoice Independent Expenditure Commit-
tee contributed a total of $935,500 to those candidate-specific “independent
expenditure” committees, plus an additional $20,000 to a non-candidate specific
“independent expenditure” committee.
Public School Champions For Christopher Cabaldon

A Project of EdVoice, Inc. (ID #1304067)
This committee was set up specifically to help elect West Sacramento Mayor
Christopher Cabaldon in the open 8th Assembly District Democratic primary.
“Independent expenditures” totaling $389,730 were spent on Cabaldon’s behalf,
with the largest contribution coming from EdVoice Independent Expenditure
Committee for $424,000. The second largest contribution came from the Cali-
fornia Medical Association Small Contributor Committee for $60,000. Cabal-
don lost to Yolo County Supervisor Mariko Yamada 51.9% to 48.1%.
Democrats Against Government Waste

This committee was set up within weeks of the June primary election to specifi-
cally oppose Christopher Cabaldon’s Democratic opponent Mariko Yamada.
The committee spent $147,514 opposing Yamada, with EdVoice Independent
Expenditure Committee providing all of the $150,000 raised by the committee.
Carbon Free Votes For Fran Pavley

This committee was created to help elect former Assemblywoman Fran Pavley
in the open 23rd Senate District Democratic primary. “Independent expendi-
tures” totaling $133,494 were spent on Pavley’s behalf, with the largest contri-

bution coming from EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee for
$108,500. Additional contributions included $50,000 from the California
Medical Association Small Contributor Committee. Pavley won with 65.8%
of the vote.
Public School Champions For Marty Block

This committee was created to help elect community college president Marty
Block in the open 78th Assembly District Democratic primary. “Independent
expenditures” totaling $99,167 were made on Block’s behalf. EdVoice Indepen-
dent Expenditure Committee provided the full funding to the committee of
$100,000. Block won with 36.6% of the vote.
Education Leaders For High Standards

Major Funding by the California Tribal Business
Alliance Independent Expenditure Committee
This committee was created specifically to oppose Assemblywoman Loni

Hancock in the open 9th Senate District Democratic primary. “Independent
expenditures” totaling $161,442 were spent to defeat Hancock. There were only
two contributors to the committee—EdVoice for $10,000 and the California
Tribal Business Alliance Independent Expenditure Committee for $154,000.
The California Tribal Business Alliance is funded by various Indian tribes,
including the Lytton Rancheria of California, which contributed $80,000 to the
Alliance in May 2008. Hancock won with 56.7% of the vote.
Partners For Wilma Chan

Major Funding Provided by
California Medical Association PAC (ID #1305228)
This committee was created to support Assemblywoman Wilma Chan in the

open 9th Senate District Democratic primary. “Independent expenditures”

totaling $136,201 were spent to elect Chan. EdVoice Independent Expenditure
Committee contributed a total of $49,000 to Partners for Wilma Chan. The
largest contribution was for $50,000 from the California Medical Association
Small Contributor Committee. An additional $40,000 was contributed by Cali-
fornians Allied for Patient Protection. Chan lost to Hancock 43.3% to 56.7%
Leadership For Paul Hegyi 2008

This committee was created to support Paul Hegyi in the open 10th Assembly
District Republican primary. “Independent expenditures” totaling $49,314
were spent to elect Hegyi. The largest contribution was for $45,000 from Ed-
Voice Independent Expenditure Committee. The San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians contributed $10,000. Hegyi lost to Jack Sieglock 29.2% to 43%.
Partners For Isadore Hall

Major Funding Provided by
California Medical Association PAC (ID #1305226)
This committee was created to support Isadore Hall in the open 52nd Assembly
District Democratic primary. “Independent expenditures” totaling $116,379
were spent to elect Hall. EdVoice Independent Expenditure contributed a total
of $49,000 to Partners for Isadore Hall. The largest contribution was for
$50,000 from the California Medical Association Small Contributor Committee.
An additional $20,000 was received from the American Federation of State,
County and Municipal Employees. Hall won with 56.8% of the vote.

SENDING SIGNALS
UNDER STATE LAW, “independent expenditure” committees cannot coordinate

with candidates or their campaigns. But “independent expenditure” commit-
tees are able to indirectly communicate with candidates about “independent
expenditures.” This is being done through the creation and funding of
candidate-specific “independent expenditure” committees. There is nothing in
the law that prevents the creation of such committees. However, this has resul-
ted in an alarming new trend in California elections because the creation of
candidate-specific “independent expenditure” committees lets candidates know
in advance of an election that additional support is on its way.
Contributions into the eight candidate-specific “independent expenditure”

committees that were created for the 2008 primary elections all were made in
advance of the election—legally signaling to those candidates that they could
expect “indepen-dent expenditures” on their behalf. The following chart identi-
fies the candidate-specific committees and when the contributions were
received.
Sending Signals ● 79
CHART #4
Contributions to Candidate-Specific
“Independent Expenditure” Committees
CARBON FREE VOTES FOR FRAN PAVLEY, A PROJECT OF EDVOICE, INC.

Contributor Amount Date
EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee $100,000 February 14, 2008
EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee $8,500 April 11, 2008
California Medical Association $50,000 April 28, 2008
The Doctor’s Company PAC $10,000 May 9, 2008
LEADERSHIP FOR PAUL HEGYI 2008 INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE COMMITTEE

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians $10,000 May 21, 2008
PARTNERS FOR CURT HAGMAN

MAJOR FUNDING PROVIDED BY THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
California Medical Association $50,000 May 13, 2008
California Professional Firefighters PAC $5,669 May 14, 2008
Peace Officers Research Association of CA $20,000 May 19, 2008
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians $10,000 May 21, 2008
PARTNERS FOR DAN LOGUE

MAJOR FUNDING BY THE CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
California Medical Association $50,000 May 13, 2008
CHART #4
Contributions to Candidate-Specific
“Independent Expenditure” Committees
PARTNERS FOR ISADORE HALL

American Federation of State, County and
$20,000 May 30, 2008
Municipal Employees
PARTNERS FOR WILMA CHAN

EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee $14,000 May 5, 2008
Californians Allied for Patient Protection $20,000 May 27, 2008
Californians Allied for Patient Protection $20,000 May 29, 2008
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHAMPIONS FOR CHRISTOPHER CABALDON, A PROJECT OF EDVOICE, INC.

California Building Industry Association $25,000 May 9, 2008
American Federation of State, County and May 12, 2008
$25,000
Municipal Employees
JOBS PAC $10,000 May 30, 2008
American Federation of State, County and
$20,000 May 30, 2008
Municipal Employees
California Medical Association $10,000 June 2, 2008
EdVoice Independent Expenditure Committee $50,000 June 2, 2008
PUBLIC SCHOOL CHAMPIONS FOR MARTY BLOCK, A PROJECT OF EDVOICE, INC.

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S
#1 IDENTIFY AND MAKE ALL INDIVIDUALS WHO OPERATE “INDEPENDENT

expenditure” committees responsible for their committee’s compliance
with the Political Reform Act. In addition to its treasurer, each commit-
tee is required by the Political Reform Act to identify its principal
officers. Neither the Act nor the Commission regulations define the term
“principal officer.” Defining that term will make clear who is responsible
for operation of non-candidate controlled or sponsored committees, such
as “independent expenditure” committees and, therefore, who in addition
to the treasurer is responsible for the committee’s compliance with the
Act.
#2 BAN “INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES” UNTIL APPROPRIATE COMMITTEE

names and committee treasurer/officer information are on file. Require
the Secretary of State to reject the filing of a statement of organization
for an “independent expenditure” committee if it fails to contain key
information, such as the appropriate committee name and the identities
of and contact information for the committee’s treasurer and principal
officers. Make clear that the committee cannot make additional expendi-
tures until the appropriate information has been filed, including when an
amendment is necessary to update the information.
#3 EXPLORE REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF NAMES OR ECONOMIC INTERESTS OF

major committee contributors in mass mailings and advertisements of
all committees making “independent expenditures.” Include require-
ment that major committee contributors be arranged in order from
highest to lowest.
#4 MAKE MORE READABLE THE CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION “INDEPENDENT

expenditure” committees are required to disclose in advertisements. Set
Recommendations ● 82
forth specific requirements enhancing the readability of the information
required in “independent expenditure” advertisements, such as the
committee’s name, including a description of the economic or special
interest of their contributors of $50,000 or more, and the names of their
two largest contributors of $50,000 or more.
#5 EXPLORE REQUIRING THE ELECTRONIC FILING OF STATEMENTS OF

Organization by “independent expenditure” committees.
Recommendations ● 83
APPENDIX A
Contribution Limits
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE

1/1/2001 to 1/1/2003 to 1/1/2005 to
Contributor 12/31/2002 12/31/2004 12/31/2006
Election Cycle1 Election Cycle Election Cycle
Person $3,000 $3,200 $3,300
Small Contributor $6,000 $6,400 $6,700
Committee
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR STATEWIDE ELECTED OFFICERS

1/1/2001 to 1/1/2003 to 1/1/2005 to
Contributor 12/31/2002 12/31/2004 12/31/2006
Person $5,000 $5,300 $5,600
Committee
CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR GOVERNOR

1/1/2001 to 1/1/2003 to 1/1/2005 to
Contributor 12/31/2002 12/31/2004 12/31/2006
Person $20,000 $21,200 $22,300
Committee
1
Proposition 34 contribution limits took effect on 1/1/2001 for legislators.
2
Proposition 34 contribution limits took effect on 11/06/2002 for statewide elected officers.
3
Proposition 34 contribution limits took effect on 11/06/2002 for Governor.
Appendix A ● 84
APPENDIX B
The 10 Fattest Cats
CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE TOP 25

LARGEST
AMOUNT IE COMMITTEES AND TRANSFERS TO AMOUNT YEAR
CONTRIBUTORS
OTHER IE COMMITTEES
#1 Pechanga Band of $6,832,600 First Americans for a Better California $5,382,600 2003
Luiseno Indians Team 2006 $800,000 2006
(ID #498071)
Native Americans and Peace Officer $540,000 2001-
Independent Expenditure Committee 2004
Direct Candidate “Independent Expenditures”:
Support Tom Harman for State Senate $75,000 2006
Support Dennis Hollingsworth for State $35,000 2002
Senate
#2 Angelo K. $6,130,000 Californians for a Better Government $6,130,000 2006
Tsakopoulos
(ID #483152)
#3 California Teachers $5,937,689 Alliance for a Better California $2,750,000 2006
Association/ Californians for a Better Government $950,000 2006
Association for Better
Citizenship
(ID #741941) Opportunity PAC $300,000 2006
Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $100,000 2006
Teachers United with Firefighters and $410,000 2006
Correctional Officers
Education Leaders Support Burbank School $58,000 2006
Board President Paul Krekorian
Public Safety Officers, School Employees $25,000 2006
and Professional Engineers for Chiang
Californians United $25,000 2002
Californians for a Better Future $25,000 2004
35th Assembly District: Support Pedro $162,640 2004
Nava/Oppose Bob Pohl
54th Assembly District: Support Betty $125,757 2004
Karnette/Oppose Steve Kuykendall
61st Assembly District: Support Gloria $101,292 2004
Negrete McLeod
76th Assembly District: Support Heidi Von $100,000 2004
Sziliski
11th Senate District: Support Joe Simitian $40,000 2004
Governor Race: Support Cruz Bustamante $25,000 2003
Appendix B ● 85
APPENDIX B
The 10 Fattest Cats

LARGEST
CONTRIBUTORS
OTHER IE COMMITTEES
#4 CA State Council $4,498,418 Alliance for a Better California $1,000,000 2006
of Service Employees Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $1,330,000 2006
Political Committee
Community Civic Participation $835,000 2003
(ID #1258324)
Alliance for a Better California $25,000 2006
Californians United for Karnette $25,000 2004
Support Phil Angelides for Governor $736,906 2006
Support John Chiang for Controller $73,256 2006
Support John Garamendi for Lt. Governor $73,256 2006
#5 CCPOA $4,616,198 CCPOA Independent Expenditure $3,536,698 2001-
Committee 2006
Teachers United with Firefighters and $674,500 2006
Correctional Officers
Minorities in Law Enforcement $250,000 2006
Crime Victims United $155,000 2006
#6 Morongo Band of $3,438,853 Morongo Band of Mission Indians $3,378,853 2001-
Mission Indians Native 2006
American Rights PAC Californians United $50,000 2003
(ID #494203) Californians United $10,000 2004
#7 CA State Council $3,440,258 Opportunity PAC $1,280,000 2001-
of Service Employees 2006
Small Contributor Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $1,100,000 2006
Committee CA State Council of Service Employees $477,000 2006
(ID #831628)
CA State Council of Service Employees $229,150 2003-
2004
Californians United $25,000 2002
Support John Garamendi for Lt. Governor $6,717 2006
Support Debra Bowen for Secretary of State $4,584 2006
Support Bill Lockyer for Treasurer $4,584 2006
Support John Chiang for Controller $6,717 2006
Support Jerry Brown for Attorney General $4,584 2006
Support Cruz Bustamante for Insurance $4,584 2006
Commissioner
Support Betty Yee for Board of Equalization $4,584 2006
Support Judy Chu for Board of Equalization $4,584 2006
Appendix B ● 86
APPENDIX B
The 10 Fattest Cats

LARGEST
CONTRIBUTORS
OTHER IE COMMITTEES
#8 Eleni Tsakopoulos- $2,570,000 Californians for a Better Government $2,570,000 2006
Kounalakis
(ID #494169)
#9 Service Employees $2,425,289 Alliance for a Better California $1,000,000 2006
International Union Strengthening Our Lives Through Education $540,000 2006
Local 1000 Candidate
PAC (ID #1273063)
Vota 100%, A Sponsored Committee of $20,000 2006
Unite HERE! International Union
Public Safety Officers, School Employees $25,000 2006
and Professional Engineers for Chiang
Consumers for Responsible Government $25,000 2006
Citizens for Quality Representation $10,000 2006
#10 Consumer $2,453,898 California Alliance $1,708,321 2006
Attorneys Independent Opportunity PAC $25,000 2004
Campaign
Nurses and Concerned Lawyers for Quality $207,000 2002
(ID #962871)
Health Care
Firefighters, Teachers, Nurses and Consumer $96,000 2004
Attorneys
Californians United for Karnette $25,000 2004
Direct Candidate Independent Expenditures:
20th Assembly District: Support Dennis $215,427 2004
Hayashi
47th Assembly District: Support Nate $142,294 2004
Holden
23rd Assembly District: Support Kathy $9,856 2004
Chaves Napoli
TOTAL $42,343,203
Appendix B ● 87
NOTE ON METHODOLOGY
FOR CONSISTENCY in determining the amount of money spent by candidate

committees in campaigns, the following timeframes were used:
• For general elections, the time period used was July 1st through
December 31st of the year in which the election was held.
• For June primary elections, the time period used was January 1st
through June 30th of the year in which the election was held.
• For March primary elections, the time period used was October
1st of the odd year prior to the election through June 30th of the
year in which the election was held.
* * *
The June 2008 version of this report supersedes any information contained in
previous versions. This June 2008 version should be used as the sole reference,
unless and until any newer version is published by the Commission.
Note on Methodology ● 88

IEReport2 Gorilla in The Room

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

IEReport2 Gorilla in The Room

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Independent Expenditures

The Giant Gorilla in Campaign Finance

Commissioners ● Chairman Ross Johnson ● Timothy A. Hodson

The “Independent Expenditure” Dollars 8

The 10 Who Spent $42 Million 11

Who Funds the “Independent 21

Campaigns Where “Independent Expenditures” 23

Three Races Where “Independent 37

How “Independent Expenditure” Committees 41

Million Dollar Babies 49

Peeling the Onion 53

The 2008 Primary Election Update 60

This report summarizes the California Fair Political Practices Commission’s

Highlights of the independent expenditure study undertaken by the Commis-

Since Proposition 34 took effect on January 1, 2001, through

There was a 6,144% increase in “independent expenditure”

There was a 5,502% increase in “independent expenditure”

In numerous legislative and state election contests,

If the top 25 “independent expenditure” committees had to

The majority of spending by “independent expenditure”

“Independent expenditure” committees often make it more

“ Because big money independent expenditures unduly

“ Currently, independent expenditures are the

In addition to being able to spend unlimited amounts benefiting favored candi-

“ As long as interest groups want to influence the

Jack Pitney, Political Science Professor

THE EXPLOSION of “independent expenditures” has raised the fundraising bar

“With one single act of depositing nearly a million dollars in an

There is no question that the influence of “independent expenditures” is at the

The “Independent Expenditure” Dollars ● 8

Chart #1 shows how “independent expenditures” have skyrocketed in the past

• In 2000, when there were no contribution limits, “independent

• In 2002, there were still no limits on direct contributions to

As the “National Institute on Money in State Politics” pointed out in a report

The “Independent Expenditure” Dollars ● 9

LEGISLATIVE “INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES”

“INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES” FOR STATEWIDE CANDIDATES

2001 – 2002 2003 2004 2005-2006 TOTAL

Governor $10,588,000 $19,800,000

Lt. Governor $2,500,000

TOTAL IE MONEY SPENT $88,088,500

The “Independent Expenditure” Dollars ● 10

AS NOTED PREVIOUSLY, $88 million was spent on “independent expenditures”

#1 Californians for a Better Government, A Coalition of

Californians for a Better Government only participated in the 2006 Democratic

#2 Alliance for a Better California, Educators, Firefighters,

Alliance for a Better California spent $5,245,109 on “independent expendi-

The 10 Who Spent $42 Million ● 11

#3 First Americans for a Better California Independent

First Americans for a Better California only participated in the gubernatorial

#4 JOBS PAC – A Bi-partisan Coalition of California

JOBS PAC, sponsored by the California Chamber of Commerce, spent a total

#5 California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA)

The 10 Who Spent $42 Million ● 12

#7 Strengthening Our Lives Through Education, Community

Strengthening Our Lives Through Education spent $3,306,944 on “independent

The 10 Who Spent $42 Million ● 13

#9 California Alliance for Progress and Education, An

#10 Working Californians (ID #1288733)

Working Californians spent a total of $2,637,860 on “independent expendi-

The 10 Who Spent $42 Million ● 14

#11 Opportunity PAC – A Coalition of Educators, Health Care