Robbie Waters Campaign Funds

Looks like Robbie Waters doesn't understand the concept of CORRUPTION!:

City Councilman Robbie Waters' campaign finance records show he's paid himself $500 each month since July 2004 to house a district office for constituents in his framing shop in south Sacramento -- a potential violation of state law.

...Asked where the 7th District office is in the Rush River Drive store, Waters explained that it is hidden behind a partition -- and that the public can't go in it because of liability issues.

And just who decides what the rent is, Robbie? Who? Who? Who? And can I rent some space there too? I don't want to actually house anything there, understand I just want to spend $10,000 a month renting the space - because you are such a nice guy, and we see eye-to-eye!

Campaign finance experts, however, suggest that paying himself $6,000 a year from his campaign funds for a district office may not be a "legitimate expenditure," regardless of whether he set up the office in the leased framing shop.

State Government Code 89517 prohibits using campaign funds to purchase real property, or to lease property controlled by a candidate, a candidate's family member or a campaign member with authority to approve committee expenditures, according to Fair Political Practices Commission documents.

Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, drafted the state's Political Reform Act. "The bottom line is, you shouldn't be enriching yourself with campaign funds," Stern said.

This is a penny ante version of the same practice that got John Doolittle into so much trouble in his last campaign.

Elected to the City Council in 1994, Waters said he has been using campaign funds to pay for his district office for years and that nothing in the city codes prohibits it.

"I'm very comfortable that what I'm doing is not a violation of the city law," Waters said. "If it is a violation of state law, I'd certainly take a look at it."

Of the mayor and eight council members, Waters is the only one who paid himself from campaign funds to maintain a district office in the past three years.

Campaign records show that from July 2004 through December 2006, Waters paid his framing business $12,400 in rent for a district office. Waters would not disclose the store's monthly lease payment, saying the amount is immaterial.

In addition to the office rent, Waters paid his son, Dan Waters, $2,000 for consulting work and the councilman spent nearly $4,000 for phones, a computer, construction work and other expenses for the framing shop's district office, the records show.

Dumb, dumber, dummier....

JoAnn Fuller, executive director of California Common Cause, said Waters' expenditures offer a good reason the city of Sacramento should have an ethics commission to monitor how campaign funds are spent.

"The law prohibits these arrangements because they effectively funnel dollars from campaign donors directly into the pocket of an elected official," Fuller said. "The risk of self-dealing is compounded when the funds are not even spent on legitimate campaign purposes."

Last week, the City Council voted 5-4 to form a task force to examine creating an ethics commission or an ethics officer post, charged with investigating contributions and possible campaign violations. Waters was among those who voted no.

Vote bought and paid for? Hard to tell!

The council also approved closing some loopholes in its matching funds program for candidates accepting public money. One of the fixes bars those candidates from giving public funds to their own business or to a family member.

However, this restriction applies only to those taking matching funds -- it's not likely to include incumbents, such as Waters, or other well-funded politicians. Waters voted no on the amendment changes.

Waters said he sees a difference between what the council voted to prohibit and his own campaign expenditures. "They're using public money, I'm not," Waters said.

Campaign funds are not public money, but they aren't private money either, they are campaign money, the most radioactive kind of money. Ask yourself, Robbie, would this money be coming to you if you weren't in public office? The answer is "NO!" and hence you must NOT enrich yourself with it, or APPEAR to be enriching yourself with it, or your family members, or close associates.

Councilwoman Lauren Hammond, who heads the council's Law and Legislation Committee that reviewed the proposed amendments to the city's campaign finance code, pushed for the restriction.

Before last week's vote, she said she believed that spending campaign funds on a candidate's own business, or giving it to family members, was a conflict of interest. "People shouldn't be making money off their candidacy, with or without public funds," Hammond said.

Hammond is absolutely correct here!