This column appeared in today's Auburn Journal (link here).  I missed a number of Central Committee meetings and can not deny or confirm this.  The author is a Republican that moved from Orange County to Placer County.

Fair political practices investigators look at Placer

Looking Behind the Scenes

By Jim Ruffalo

Although it has not broken any laws in this particular matter, the Placer County Republican Central Committee nevertheless finds itself part of an investigation of campaign contributions sent and later received by a San Diego-area assemblyman.

A Fair Political Practices Committee (FPPC) investigation spotlights Joel Anderson, a Republican from La Mesa who, earlier this month, sent the Placer County Central Committee a check for $32,400.

Exactly two weeks later, the Central Committee sent a $31,400 check to Anderson.

One important difference was the original check came from Anderson’s 2008 campaign funds, while the latter check was made out to his 2010 committee.

What’s important about that is the law allows officeholders to use holdover funds should they decide to run again for that same office.

However, if the next race is for a different office, then those holdover funds cannot be used.

Anderson, who has already filed for re-election for the 77th Assembly District race, is also rumored to be a candidate for a state Senate seat, although not for the one in the district in which he currently resides. By filing for re-election, Anderson can circumvent — for now — the holdover rule.

One thing required by the FPPC for such holdovers is identification of “the true source” of funds contributed to races for one office subsequently being utilized to make a try for another office.

Anderson doesn’t have to prove “attribution” of those funds for now.

Besides the transferring of checks involving Placer County, Anderson also sent similar amounts for Republican central committees at Stanislaus and Fresno counties.

He also reportedly did the same thing with three other counties last year.

Records show that Stanislaus waited only a day before dispatching a check (minus $500, no doubt for postage) to Anderson.

Fresno is another matter. Although it, too, sent $31,400 (withholding $1,000) back to Anderson, it also may have been used to facilitate other transfers.

According to a San Diego Union-Tribune article (which first reported on Anderson’s transfers), Fresno was also used as a conduit for a $30,000 check “from the Hammon Family.” The newspaper said that $28,500 of that was soon sent to Anderson.

The newspaper also reported on a $10,000 check sent to the Fresno Central Committee by the Barona Band of Mission Indians (Lakeside), of which $9,500 was soon sent south to Anderson.

Tom Hudson, who chairs the Placer Central Committee, said his committee has “helped candidates all over the state. We’ve been very involved in state politics and don’t feel we should ignore those races.”

There is an FPPC requirement that there cannot be any communication between Anderson and the involved counties.

So what I was looking for was a reason for the coincidence of the assemblyman sending money to Placer, only to have it returned just a fortnight later.

“I never spoke to (Anderson) about this contribution. There have been no prior agreements nor contingency communication,” Hudson said, then added that the assemblyman was an old friend through other state party functions. “He’s been to Placer County several times.”

The exchanges of checks has not gone down well with some central committee members.

In fact, one of them resigned from the executive committee, citing the transfers as the final straw.

“I felt this transaction just didn’t smell right,” said Jerry Simmons, who remains on the central committee main body.

Simmons said the matter was brought to the executive committee by Hudson, where it narrowly passed on a 3-2 vote, with Dave Patterson reportedly abstaining.

“For me, it didn’t pass the smell test, and having served in public office (the local college district), I’m very aware of how things like this can be perceived by the public,” Simmons said. “I don’t know Joel, and wonder how can a vote like this possibly be explained.”

Such matters used to have to be approved by the central committee’s full membership, but Hudson changed that to executive committee approval back in 2007.

Simmons was one of the two “no” votes, the other coming from treasurer Lynn Kymne, who did not return phone calls as of press time.

Cheryl Bly-Chester declined to be interviewed for this column.

Auburn City Councilman Kevin Hanley, who was appointed to the executive committee a few weeks after the vote, says he’s also bothered by the matter.

“I checked on (the legality) of such transactions afterward, and while it’s perfectly legal, it just doesn’t look right,” he said.

Auburn Mayor Mike Holmes, a central committee member, also expressed queasiness about such transactions, as did fellow central committee member Jon Green.

“I think what the central committee did was legal, and certainly did not violate any FPPC laws,” Green said. “But I also would say it’s something I wouldn’t have done. In fact, some of us questioned the legality of it when it was announced to the (overall) central committee, after which the legality was explained to us by Tom Hudson.”

And if you want to know how Green really feels, consider this quote: “I think the Republican Party should not go around looking like ACORN.”

Jim Ruffalo’s column runs on Sundays. Reach him at jimruffalo@yahoo.com.