I really am somewhat confused and disappointed that I having to pen this blog post.  John Moorlach has been a good friend of mine for nearly twenty years, going back to our activist days in the California Republican Assembly.

Frankly, to say I was thrilled when John was elected to the Board of Supervisors is an understatement.  When you fight in the trenches with someone long enough, they practically become family.  So the pride that I felt when I watched him being sworn into the legislature was pretty high.  I'm still proud.

But I have to admit that John's embracing of this "McCain-Feingold-esque" campaign finance regulatory measure confounds me greatly.  Never mind that it is being championed by one of Orange County's enemies of free speech, Shirley Grindle.  Grindle is pretty candid about her feelings about the negative impact of money in politics

TIN CUP, as it exists today, is poor public policy.  It serves to restrain the ability of people to express their freedom of speech by donating funds to candidates.  The ordinance gives a tremendous leg-up to incumbents and to self funding candidates (the courts have ruled that you cannot limit someone's ability to fund their own campaign to any level they choose).

This latest creation by Grindle, and being quarterbacked by John, creates a whole new bureaucratic entity at the county level, that becomes some sort of free-speech tribunal, frankly taking what is already tangled web of free speech hindrance with TIN CUP, and making it even worse. 

As has been said by Matt Cunningham eloquently, and many others, the conservative response to concerns about who may be funding efforts for or against a candidate for office is thorough, speedy and readily accessible reporting of contributions.

John, I urge you to step away from this proposal.  It is a big distraction from the mandate that an all-Republican and conservative Orange County Board of Supervisors should have...  What is that mandate?  To thoroughly review every function of county government, dividing each into two parts -- what are we mandated to do?  And what are we electing to do?  In the former, if we do not believe in what we are being forced to do, we should have a strategy to lobby for a change in the laws or regulations that bind the county.  In the latter, is it a legitimate function of government?  If so, how do we do it in the most cost effective manner possible.  If not, how do we eliminate it?

The creation of a new county body specifically focused on attacking free speech rights, and providing more enforcement of an existing terrible campaign law is the wrong way to go.

In closing, it is my hope that this item will be pulled from consideration tomorrow, and shy of that, that it fails for lack of a second.

Jon Fleischman
Resident, Irvine

P.S.  This post criticizes this proposal at the macro level -- there are a lot more devils when you delve into the details.