AB481- David Stafford Gilliard (and Beth Gaines) Won’t Like This Very Much

For insiders and “wonks” – we have always noticed that the Pashkenta Band in Nomilaki Indians and a couple other groups seem to always show up with “independent” expenditure money on behalf of Dave Gilliard’s Clients.

Thanks to AB481 – it will become obvious to more people.

What will happen, however, is that Gilliard and his crew will set up multiple accounts etc. in order to make the pattern harder to follow. Consultants are really good at circumventing rules regarding transparency – while attacking opponents to their clients for being scum.

Recently, the Sacrament Bee Capitol Alert posted on a new batch of rules asked for by the FPPC and written up as AB481:

• Assume liability through their principal officers for election law violations, so that the FPPC can hold someone accountable even if the committee disbands before wrongdoing is discovered or investigated.

• Report expenditures above $1,000 within 24 hours if they occur within 90 days of an election. The requirement currently applies only if the spending involves a state candidate or proposition, not a local race or ballot measure.

• Disclose on any political advertisement the committee’s name and its top two donors of $50,000 or more. Current law requires such disclosure on broadcast ads or mass mailings, but not on newspaper, billboard of other print ads.

• Verify that no unreported contributions or reimbursements have been received to make an independent expenditure, and that there is no coordination with a candidate or ballot measure committee. The provision is meant as a safeguard against money laundering.

Please note that Beth Gaines voted NO – because had AB481 been in force at the time of the 6/2012 primary, it would have forced 2/3 of the campaign mail on her behalf to have disclosed the name of Charles Munger, Jr. as the primary funder. This likely could have caused voters to start asking why one guy was sending out so many advertisements on her behalf.

Unlike AB2451 where she voted yes before drawing criticism and then changing her vote to no on the final tally – she is caught on this vote defending her self-interest versus transparency.