Illegal anti-Campos flyers the subject of an ethics complaint


Several San Francisco neighborhoods over the last week have been targeted with illegal campaign flyers against Assembly candidate David Campos -- breaking both state election laws requiring the group and its funding source to be identified and local laws against placing political flyers on utility poles and other surfaces.

Former Ethics Commission Eileen Hansen this week filed a complaint about the guerilla campaigning with the California Fair Political Practices Commission, which has jurisdiction over state races.

“I am asking for the intervention of your office into what appears to be a blatant and arrogant violation of campaign finance reporting and disclosure laws in California’s 17th Assembly District Primary Election,” Hansen wrote in the April 30 letter. “As you well know, the political climate in San Francisco is quite sensitive, and nerves are raw. If this violation is allowed to continue, it will have a chilling effect on the entire election and further alienate voters, and potential voters.”

The race between Campos and David Chiu has indeed gotten more heated in recent weeks, but Chiu campaign spokesperson Nicole Derse denies that the campaign has any knowledge or involvement with the illegal campaigning: “We think everyone in this race should be transparent.”

In her letter, Hansen casts doubt on the Chiu campaign’s claims of innocence: “The wide distribution, professional design, and overnight appearance in distant locations strongly suggest that these flyers have been produced and distributed by a funded political organization aligned with Assembly candidate David Chiu, whose aim is to attack and discredit Chiu’s opponent David Campos.”

And she even identifies a leading suspect in this illegal campaigning: Enrique Pearce and his Left Coast Communications firm, which has a history of dirty tricks campaigning on behalf of Mayor Ed Lee and other establishment politicians. Hansen notes that the flyers appeared right after the registration of a new campaign committee, San Franciscans for Effective Government to Support David Chiu. Although the group hasn’t reported any fundraising yet, its contact phone number goes to Left Coast Communications and Pearce, who hasn’t yet returned our calls on the issue. [UPDATE: Pearce called back and categorically denied any involvement with the illegal flyers, and he blasted Hansen for speading what you called "scurrilous lies" with no foundation, saying he has called her directly and expects an apology.]

This campaign stunt in reminiscent of an “independent expenditure” effort in the District 6 supervisorial race in 2010, when Pearce was connected to a mailer supporting Sup. Jane Kim that was funded partially by Willie Brown, again because the supposedly independent group listed his phone number even though he was worked directly for Kim.

The anti-Campos mailers include some nasty and misleading charges, labeling Campos “City Hall’s Hypocrite” by falsely claiming Campos ignored rising evictions until he decided to run for the Assembly and that he was concerned about Google buses but wanted to charge them less than $1 per stop. A third flyer claims Campos “lets wifebeater sheriff keep his job” for his vote against removing Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi from office for official misconduct.

“This is a secretly funded shadow organization aligned with David Chiu, committing a desperate move that is as illegal and it is false in its claims,” Campos told us, saying he hopes the FPPC is able to stop and punish those involved. 


And how do you get exactly 2/3 out of 11? Maybe we should have 15 supes. It would be neater that way.

Posted by Greg on May. 06, 2014 @ 7:57 am
Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2014 @ 8:07 am

That idea goes against the concept of separation of powers. A 12th supe would do it, but then you could have 6-6 ties. 15 would be better, plus it would mean smaller districts -another plus.

Anyway, as it is, we have 11. And 7 out of 11 doesn't get to 2/3. 8/11 is the number that gets to 2/3.

Posted by Greg on May. 06, 2014 @ 9:47 am

more Supes to approve something than without. On that basis, there is really a 12th voter. However, on a recall that doesn't apply. Fair enough.

Personally I think we have far too many Supes. LA has less, I believe, and it is five times bigger.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2014 @ 10:31 am

Imagine some poor slob that isn't a yuppie like mirkarimi being caught up In them.

Mirkarimi being a sleasy progressive male feminist got everything coming to him, minutes being fired.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 12:44 am

and still did the DV class and the rest anyway.

It helps to be a privileged straight while male

Posted by anonymous on May. 04, 2014 @ 12:52 am

Indeed that is a telling sentiment. The trolls can't resist the self-revelatory twisting of a knife in its wound.

It is true that progressives are against allowing the strong to prey on the weak. This principle is manifested in DV law which prevents men from exploiting their superior physical strength in mistreating women--but it is also manifested in the progressive desire to maintain fairness in the judicial system and prevent governmental power from being abused by politicians.

In fact, the vast majority of the sheriff's support would have dissipated overnight if the case against him had been clear as those who were arrayed against him sought to portray; while, incidentally, spending well in excess of a million dollars to do so.

For a good number of reasons the claim that Mirkarimi is the sort of bad man DV law is intended to catch fell flat with his many progressive supporters.

These reasons included revelations concerning the personal motivations and behaviors of some of the central actors in the case, in addition to testimony provided by the sheriff's former mate of many years who said in no uncertain terms he had never exhibited any of the traits that were being ascribed to him.

Also it is ironic that Ross Mirkarimi is now being faulted for his "white male" priviledge, since it seems more apt to say he was treated according to his Persian bloodline as much as anything else. According to the "old San Francisco" and general right wing values, Iran is not a "white" country.

Posted by lillipublicans on May. 04, 2014 @ 4:20 am

considered white/causcasian/semitic. It is no coincidence that the British and Americans feted the Shah and, when his followers left, they mostly moved to those two nations, where they were considered successful, privileged people.

And of course Ross's progressive supporters supported him. Thats why they are called supporters. But every poll shows that most SF voters want him gone, as did most supervisors.

Oh, and the DV laws have a federal component, so progressives only get so much credit for the laws that Ross spent 200K skirting.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 4:35 am

Mirk is a colored person!


What lillipublicans correctly points out, Comrades, is that in truly progressive countries, like North Korea and East Germany, criminal charges are never considered independent of their social context!

You need to consider the social position of anyone accused before deciding whether to bring charges or not! In a well-run Prople's Court, Mirkarimi's progressive social views would have been considered **first**, and the case would have been thrown out without being considered!

Mere proles can be accused of, and convicted of, domestic violence in San Francisco, merely for verbal abuse, but that doesn't mean that senior Progressive Party members should be held to the same standards!

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 4:52 am


In this case it is decided that he is a colored person of color, in which case he clearly must be acquitted since everyone knows that non-whites commit no crime. Or, if they do, it is only because of oppression by whites.

Of course, is we worry about Arab terrorists, then that is OK too, because technically Persians are not Arabs.

Of course, only the privileged wealthy Persians were able to leave after the revolution, but that doesn't suit the narrative here.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 6:06 am

spent to ridicule Lillipublicans for making the basic point that being Iranian is not a mark of privilege in this country. All hot air aside, the point is totally valid. Being Iranian is not something that confers privilege in this country. Quite the opposite.

It's true that many Iranian immigrants who came after the revolution are wealthy. Many of the Shah's cronies had tons of oil money, and they all washed up in Beverly Hills. But that's not Ross's background. Ross was born to an Iranian immigrant father who came to this country before the revolution. He wasn't an oil crony. In any case, his parents divorced and Ross lived with his mother.

Posted by Greg on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:05 am

I don't think it's an issue for the Assembly race either way, but where it does make a difference, it favors Chiu.

You'd do well to keep some distance between you and Lilli if you wish to salvage any credibility here. You know he was "Barrier" and got banned from here, right?

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:48 am

Being banned from both SFGate and the SFBG is a mark of distinction that few others have enjoyed!

Posted by racer さ on May. 04, 2014 @ 11:08 am

I love how progressives rush to defend Mirkarimi and complain about how the charges against him are all part of some great conspiracy. If it had been Ed Lee instead of Mirk, we'd be hearing all about how Ed Lee should have resigned/be in prison/been beaten like a red-headed step-child and the only reason that he's still in office is because of a conspiracy led by Rose Pak/Ron Conway/AirBnb/Uber/George Bush/the Illuminati/and whoever the else they can think of.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 12:20 pm

It's total hypocrisy.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:02 pm

I want to see the SFPD open an investigation into this illegal flyering. That is what we pay them to do -- investigate crime.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:11 am

If Campos thinks these flyers contradict some regulation, let him present the evidence for that. so far there is none - anyone could have done these, under their first amendment rights. And that includes Campos himself, trying to tarnish Chiu since he knows that Chiu is ahead in the polls and the likely winner.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:52 am

I can't imagine any law enforcement priority more important to the San Francisco Police Department than illegal leafletting!

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 11:06 am

Only in San Francisco, we are known for two main things street people, bums, homeless that seem to be every where and the crazies. Plus the Mirkarimi mess.
Our Mayor Ed Lee and our DA Gascon made San Francisco a laughing stock over the Mirkarimi fiasco. The rest of the country looks upon SF as being inhabited by the homeless. and led by loonies.

Posted by GUEST on May. 04, 2014 @ 11:47 am

And yet it's progressive policies towards the homeless that cause them to keep flocking to San Francisco...

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 12:21 pm

The mess, and any associated embarrassment to the city, was because he didn't resign. It is considered a quid pro quo for elected officials to resign when they cop a plea.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 3:09 pm

A lot to do over nothing goes the song a lot of people posting on this article have no lives. They get there jollies by making stupid comments. Get a life people

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 3:52 pm

The mess as you like to call was created by the mayor and the DA nobody won and the city once again looked liked it was run by vindictive idiots.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 3:57 pm

Noooo... it was caused by Mirkarimi. He doesn't hurt his wife, no scandal.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 4:08 pm

@Noooo... it was caused by
every body has augments, you don't take something that the wife and Mirikarmi did and blow it all out of proportion, Ed Lee made himself look like an arsehole by pursuing Mirkarimi.

Posted by GUEST on May. 04, 2014 @ 7:21 pm

- Did Ed Lee put his hands on Mirkarimi's wife? No, Ross did.

- Did Ed Lee plead guilty to a DV-related crime? No, Ross did.

- Did Ed Lee have to take 52 weeks of DV classes? No, Ross did.

- Did Ed Lee need to have a judge step in to make him hand over his guns to the SFPD after he tried to get around it by turning them over to his subordinates? No, Ross did.

If it was Ed Lee who did what Ross did, you'd be screaming how he should resign for the good of the city, be in jail, and that he shows utter contempt for women. But because Ross is a Progressive, you're blaming the mayor for Ross's actions.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 7:54 pm

You know something else you don't do? Put your hands on a woman. But I guess that it is okay if he's one of yours, right?

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 8:01 pm

Nobody is defending Mirkarimi, its how the mayor and the DA handled it, poorly.

Posted by GUEST on May. 04, 2014 @ 8:37 pm

He can't unvote his vote. He will answer for his misogyny.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

What about if a woman puts her hands on you, just because she is a woman does not make it right.

Posted by GUEST on May. 04, 2014 @ 8:39 pm

if the mayor and the DA would of handled the Mirkarimi charges in a better way, maybe by letting the courts handle it.The mayor wouldn't have gotten all the bad PR that he did. Mirkarimi was reinstated you see him out and about town with his wife.
It was badly handled, just saying.

Posted by GUEST on May. 04, 2014 @ 8:55 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 9:14 pm

I don't know who you have been listing to, but the ones that I heard from when the Mirkarimi debacle was occurring people were pissed off more with the mayors handling than Mirkarimi.

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:17 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:47 pm

Color laser printers have unique identifying codes in microprint. Secret service technique to trace fake money

Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:18 pm
Posted by Guest on May. 04, 2014 @ 10:47 pm

@So all the polls were wrong and your anecdotal account is the
who did the polls the mayors office ?
what is written is not always true.

Posted by GUEST on May. 04, 2014 @ 11:46 pm

Most have him over 60% - some even over 70%.

And, anecdotally, most people I talk to like Lee and expect he will be re-elected.

But of course you personally do not like him and that is much more significant, right?

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 1:04 am

Ms. Hanson blanketed the Castro with illegal signs when she ran and lost against Bevan Dufty.

In fact, it was seen as a big joke at the time when she was put on the Ethics Commission.

Posted by Right Wing Top on May. 05, 2014 @ 8:21 am

Please post your polls on Ed Lee, a push poll can be made to show unreal results'.
Next years mayoral race will be interesting.

Posted by GUEST on May. 05, 2014 @ 8:24 am

Please cite a poll showing he has minority support.

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 8:56 am

Election day, 2011, Ed Lee ekes out a victory with support from only 18% of registered voters.

Posted by marcos on May. 05, 2014 @ 10:06 am

Election day, 2011, John Avalos, the strongest Progressive candidate, endorsed by the SFBG, gets the support of a full 12% of the electorate.

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 10:36 am

the interminable RCV we are put through.

AKA, landslide.

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 11:38 am

in AD 17.

This *is* the district where this race is being run, you know.

Posted by Greg on May. 05, 2014 @ 3:21 pm

Um...just curious. Exactly how do we know that Lee LOST in AD 17?

There were two ADs in the 2011 election - 12 and 13. According to the SF Gov site, Lee beat Avalos in both -- 32.9 to 12.0 in AD12 and 26.7 to 25.4 in AD13.

So exactly how do we know that Lee LOST in the new AD17?

In any event, AD 12 was close but this is an actual election, not a RCV simulation of an election..

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 6:16 pm

And Lee is now an elected incumbent with great approval numbers, so I'd expect an even bigger landslide for Lee next time around.

Posted by Guest on May. 05, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

First of all, let's cut the crap. RCV *is* a real election, not a simulation. It's basically an instant runoff, where supporters of other candidates can immediately indicate their next preferences rather than wait till the week before Christmas.

Now then... while we do not know for 100% certainty who actually won in this district because of a couple of variables, we can make some pretty good mathematical assumptions. This may be a bit beyond the IQs of some of you, but try to follow along, k?

So what are the variables? Well the first one is that AD 17 isn't exactly AD 13. But you know what? It's pretty darn close. Yes, I'm assuming the two are equal, and that's a pretty good assumption here.

The second is figuring out how the people who didn't choose Avalos or Lee voted. Well you can get a rough idea of that. Lee got 31% to Avalos's 19%, citywide, meaning that if you just count those voters, 62% voted for Lee over Avalos. But Lee won overall by 59.6% to 40.4%. Looked at another way, Lee added 24682 votes in the RCV, while Avalos added 19715. So those voters who didn't vote for either candidate as their first choice, wound up siding with Lee over Avalos by 55.5% to 44.5%, quite a bit less than the 62-38 margin among first choice voters.

But... that's citywide. As you correctly note, AD13 *first-choice* votes broke for Lee by a 51-49 margin (26.7+ 25.4 =52.1, and 26.7/52.1 =51.2%). But look at the west side: the margin was a whopping 73%-27%! So Lee won the first-choicers on the west side by 46 points, but only 2 points on the east side. On average, then, Ed Lee won the first choice votes by 24 points, or... 62-38, as we already know.

Now... let's go back to those RCV voters... they were much less likely to side with Mr. Ed than people who already voted for Mr. Ed as their first choice. (That makes sense, because after all if they really liked him, they would've been more likely to already vote for him. So the RCV yields the less enthusiastic Lee, and Avalos, voters.) So... citywide, Lee won those voters by an 11 point margin, not 24 points. But we have to assume a similarly massive disparity between east and west sides. To get a similar disparity between east and west sides, while accounting for the overall lesser support for Lee among these voters, Lee likely won those west-side RCV votes by about 33 points, and LOST them by 11 points on the East Side. (44 point disparity between the East and West sides, if it mirrors the disparity in the first choice votes. )

That would be more than enough to push Avalos over the top, overall, in AD13, and therefore very likely in the new AD17 as well, because AD17 is very similar.

Posted by Greg on May. 05, 2014 @ 11:45 pm

For a start, you assume that those who wanted Lee as mayor put him as first choice.

Not true, because he was obviously going to win anyway, and so it cost nothing to put him 2nd or 3rd. Why? Because he was the only candidate with zero risk of being eliminated, so there was zero risk that putting him down your list meant that you vote didn't count

So I put Lee third, which made it look like there was less support for Lee according to your assumption, but that is wrong.

If you wanted Avalos, you put him first, because he might have been eliminated. But if you wanted Lee, you had the luxury of putting him third.

The rest of your post is the usual fluff trying to denigrate a candidate who won with a massive 50% more votes than your candidate. That is no mandate for Campos any which way you look at it.

Posted by Guest on May. 06, 2014 @ 8:06 am

You can quibble a couple points here and there, but the basic assumptions are valid.

Posted by Greg on May. 06, 2014 @ 8:18 am

Also from this author

  • Happy May Day, San Francisco

  • The politics behind today's dueling Airbnb rallies

  • Sir Pete

    SUPER EGO Brit legend DJ Pete Tong takes on the EDM divide. Plus: Chrome Canyons, DVS1, Motown on Mondays anniversary, more parties