In an attempt to stop unfair influence and mismanagement in San Diego County government, a group called the Committee for Clean Contracting is currently circulating a petition calling for an amendment to the Charter of the County of San Diego. 

The proposed measure, The Clean Contracting Charter Amendment, states that its intent is to deter unfair influence and protect against corruption in the awarding of specified service contracts by the San Diego County Board of Supervisors. 

Under the Amendment, public disclosure of all attempts to influence or lobby the Board of Supervisors will be required, including full disclosure of campaign contributions and gifts made by special interests seeking county contracts. A future contract that doesn't fully comply with this law would be considered void. 

Under current disclosure requirements, the public often learns of attempts to influence the Board after the fact or not at all. In addition it is very hard to identify any specific decision made by the Board with any specific gift (payoff?) they may have received. 

Public notice of such disclosure is assured under the proposed Amendment as the disclosures must appear as an Agenda item and be read into the record by the Clerk of the Board. In addition, all such disclosures are mandated to be posted on the County's web page within 24 hours of being made public. The disclosure requirement covers any individual, business entity or labor union who is a party, or the agent of a party, to a contract subject to the Clean Contracting Amendment. 

Literature distributed by the Clean Contracting Committee cites the example of a $1 billion contract in the process of being cut by the County, without being subjected to public scrutiny, that would contract out the County's computer and information operations. 

According to the Clean Contracting Committee our public dollars should not be spent giving contracts to companies just because they've got slick, persuasive lobbyists or because they've given campaign contributions to elected officials. The proposed charter amendment appears to have come about because of the controversy caused by the outsourcing or privatizing of services currently performed by county employees. 

The Service Employees Union is listed as the Clean Contracting Committee sponsor which means that at least 80% of the Committee's initial funds came from them. "Public Dollars should not be spent giving contracts to companies just because they've got slick, persuasive lobbyists or because they've given campaign contributions to elected officials." 

Responding to the Presidential candidates' fundraising disclosure reports filed in July, Public Campaign, a national non-profit, non-partisan organization working on behalf of comprehensive campaign finance reform, condemned the current campaign finance system as one which has effectively turned the Presidential contest into a "wealth primary." 
 

Calling them "auction block elections", Ellen Miller, executive director of Public Campaign, said, "Its a sad fact that candidates spend 100 percent of their time meeting with large donors, selling their souls--and the country--to the highest bidders." "The money it takes to have an even chance at the White House disproves what we all learned as schoolchildren--that anyone can grow up to be President," she added. "If that's true, your child's first birthday party ought to be a fund raiser." 

At present we have a committee system under which we dole out the tasks that must be accomplished if we are to have any realistic chance to bring campaign finance reform to San Diego. I think our committee system is sound in its basic structure, but I think it is failing in its execution. 

At our upcoming general meeting I will be proposing that each committee produce a written action plan that details the tasks each committee must perform to reach its goals. In addition, we must tighten up committee responsibility. I propose that we make sure each committee has a chair and vice chair who will be responsible for directing the committee's efforts. 

If we fail to get our volunteer staffed committee system up and running at an acceptable level, we will have to go to another system, that of having a paid staff to do the work that must be done. Of course, if we have to pay staff we'll have to raise a lot more money than we have to date. 

There are no easy solutions to these organizational problems. I urge each member to volunteer on a committee and to recruit new members to help out. As we all know, clean money campaign finance reform is the one reform that makes all other reforms possible. We must get that message out to our community, a community that needs our message of hope in these times of special interest dominated government of the corporation by the corporation and for the corporation.

In a July 6th. campaign appearance in Los Angeles, U..S. Senator and presidential hopeful, John McCain urged conservatives to support meaningful campaign finance reform. "I'm a conservative and I'm running for president to restore national pride and broaden our freedom by reforming the processes of government and politics," he said. "As long as special interests dominate campaigns, they will dominate legislation as well." 

 Calling the present money-driven system "shameful" and "corrupt" he went on to say that "most voters understand that 
 

McCain went on to ridicule one of the favorite arguments of conservatives that campaign finance restrictions constitute an assault on the First Amendment. "If money is free speech, then we're depriving the vast majority of the American people who don't have a lot of money of their free speech," he said. In remarks aimed at Republican voters McCain went on to say, "It is we who are the defenders of a campaign-finance system that is nothing less than an elaborate influence- peddling scheme in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder." In concluding his remarks McCain aimed squarely at his opponents saying, "I challenge my opponents to declare their independence from the political welfare state."

Dear Jim: 

I thought I needed to explain the money that we contributed to Mr. Hunt's re-election. We first met with you in Greenville, North Carolina and asked you about an appointment to the DOT. We said we would be willing to help from $10,000 to $15,000. We also talked about the new 73-74 Highway coming through Columbus County and you suggested $20,000. How would we have known how much to give if you had not told us?

At this point, we had given approximately $10,000. A few days following, Mr. Garland Garrett (N.C. secretary of transportation) called me at home and we discussed this. He said, "If you would give the balance of what you and Jim talked about, you would have a seat at the table." I sent you $10,000 more to complete the $20,000 you suggested. 

During this time, we went to Hookerton to a fundraiser and paid $1,000. We also went to the governor's golf game to help and also got other people to help. Later, Mr. Hunt called me from Charlotte and asked me for an additional $10,000. He said all of you were trying to reach your goal. I told Mr. Hunt that Mr. R.C. Soles (a state senator from Columbus County) had a meeting with a few of his supporters and agreed to give the DOT appointment to someone else. 

Mr. Hunt said, "If you will send the money, that I look out for my friends, and you are my friend." After we had given you approximately $30,000, Mr. Rhone Sasser asked me to go and talk to Mr. R.C. Soles. I went and he told me to get that appointment, I needed to ask him in the beginning. I had already paid the money, driven thousands of miles, and supported Mr. Hunt in every way possible. What was so embarrassing to us, was Mr. Soles' supporters told that we were working for the DOT appointment, but we would not get it. 

Every time we talked to you, Jim, you assured us everything was fine, even the week before the appointment, you told us everything was fine and not to worry. I called and talked to you and you said you did not make any promise, but stated the amount we suggested was too low, and you said, "We thought 

Not getting the DOT appointment was not near the disappointment as lost (sic) of confidence in the three of you. We gave $550,000 appraised value to Southeastern Community College in the last three years. Mr. Hunt worked hard for our college and I gave to help make it better. 

Have you ever contributed approximately $30,000 and someone call and say, sorry it didn't work out, after waiting six months? There is no way to change what has happened but I think you should refund our money and it would save us a lot of future embarrassment. 

Sincerely, 
J.A. Cartrette 

(Following is the text of an Aug. 25, 1997 letter from J.A. Cartrette to Gov. Jim Hunt )

Dear Governor Hunt, 

I have waited to write to see your decision about the DOT and Wildlife appointments. We have never had anything like this to happen before. Attached is a copy of a letter that was mailed to Jim Bennett. It explains what happened and the promise you, Garland and Jim made. Jim told us several times that Allen (Cartrette) would get the Wildlife appointment and I would get the DOT appointment. Jim denies this, but this promise was made to three (3) of us. I understand that Mr. R.C. Soles Jr. stopped both of these appointments. 

When I read in the Wilmington paper that Michael Mills was going on the DOT, I lost all confidence in the system. Each of you misrepresented the truth to us. We gave money and would have given more if you would have asked. We gave you the money and have supported you all through your career. We are very disappointed and feel that our money should be returned. 

Sincerely, 
J.A. Cartrette 

[Bob Hall, of the nonprofit group Democracy South, found the letters in the governor's files. Local campaign reform activists subsequently requested a formal audit of the DOT. Thanks to  Public Campaign ]