Election Unfettered by Limits

THOUSAND OAKS —  When California voters approved a campaign finance reform initiative last fall, they hoped to weaken the pervasive influence of big money on elections, not invite record-setting contributions.

But that is just what has happened in Thousand Oaks, where an unusually expensive recall--a political process now exempt from Proposition 208--has been raging since January, dividing neighbors and community leaders.

Using paid petitioners and a blitz of radio, television and direct-mail advertising, the Yes! Remove Elois Zeanah committee has spent more than $288,000 to force a Nov. 4 election to oust the outspoken councilwoman, whose term expires next year anyway.

Two groups formed to defend Zeanah have also ratcheted up their campaign spending, collecting about $100,000, including a $50,000 contribution from a local attorney.

It is by far the most ever spent on a City Council race in this quiet suburban enclave of 114,000 residents.

The recall grew out of a contentious split in the city over whether to expand Thousand Oaks’ sewer plant. Zeanah and another council member opposed the sewer expansion for two years, saying it would mean more growth for the city. She eventually voted for the project this summer, but critics say the delay cost the city millions in bond costs and fines. Critics also accuse Zeanah, a two-term councilwoman, of erratic behavior.

Most of the anti-Zeanah committee’s money--more than $219,000--has come from a single person: Jill Lederer, the owner of a chain of Domino’s Pizza shops in the Conejo and San Fernando valleys.

Under Proposition 208 and its strict $250 limit on contributions, Lederer would be banned from giving even 1% of that amount in a regular election.

Concerned that the Thousand Oaks recall fight has exposed a loophole in the new law, the initiative’s backers are asking the state watchdog agency charged with implementing the measure to reconsider its decision declaring recall elections exempt.

The Fair Political Practices Commission decided that recalls are not affected by Proposition 208 because such elections fall into the category of ballot measure campaigns.

But the reform initiative’s authors and proponents contend the exemption was a mistake that has led to an abuse of the recall process, citing the Zeanah recall as a harbinger of ouster efforts to come.

“I think the situation in Thousand Oaks is a great example to use before the commission,” said Bob Stern of the private California Commission on Campaign Finances, one of the co-authors of Proposition 208. “This is the kind of thing that can happen now, and it’s not what we had intended.”

Zeanah supporters are convinced that her foes chose to recall Zeanah instead of fighting her reelection to get around Proposition 208 and its strict contribution limits.

“I don’t think this recall would have ever made the ballot if they’d been limited to $250 contributions,” said Councilwoman Linda Parks, who is managing one of the pro-Zeanah campaigns. “They’ve spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. The only way they did this was with a ton of money.”

But Zeanah’s foes deny the charges that they are, in essence, buying the election.

“That’s a slap in the face of the voters,” said Peter Turpel of the Yes! Remove Elois Zeanah committee. “Money does not buy votes or signatures. It’s a fact in today’s world that it costs money to reach individuals. People are busy. What Mrs. Zeanah is really worried about is that we’re getting information out to voters.”

To prove their point that the recall group is knowingly taking advantage of the loophole, the councilwoman’s supporters cite a letter by Thomas Cohen, son of Thousand Oaks development attorney Chuck Cohen, asking FPPC lawyers in December whether it was true that Proposition 208 did not apply to recalls.

The answer, which came in December just days before the recall was launched, was that it did not. The Cohens have said they are not involved in the recall and were merely exercising their legal curiosity, knowing that others in town were plotting Zeanah’s ouster.

The FPPC’s legal staff is reviewing its decision on recalls, which, among other things, allowed Orange County Republican Assemblyman Scott Baugh to raise large sums to defend himself against charges of campaign wrongdoing stemming from the 1995 fight to recall Assemblywoman Doris Allen. The commission is expected to revisit the issue in December.

A reversal is considered unlikely, said FPPC spokesman Gary Huckaby. But the FPPC may decide to apply Proposition 208’s contribution limits to candidates running to replace an elected official facing recall. Such candidates are currently exempt from the law as well.