Bustamante loses court case as federal hearing nears

AP/Sacramento Bee ^ | 09-22-03 | Beth Fouhy

[Alia]

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- As candidates waited for a court hearing Monday that could decide the date of California's recall election, the leading Democrat to replace Gov. Gray Davis lost a court case that could cripple his ability to pay for his campaign.

Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante had used his old campaign account for the 2002 election to raise money above the limits set by Proposition 34. But a Sacramento County judge said Bustamante's acceptance of more than $4 million from Indian tribes and labor unions into that account violated the constitutional amendment voters approved in 2000.

Instead of using the money to pay for ads opposing Proposition 54, the so-called racial privacy initiative on the special election ballot, Bustamante will have to return that money to his old account, Sacramento County Superior Court Loren McMaster ruled Monday. Meanwhile, Davis focused on the business of governing by introducing a plan to reduce global warming.

[Alia]

"Return that money to his old account."

..the No on Davis, Yes on Bustamante account. Oh My!

[Amerigomag]

Return that money to his old account."

Better yet .. order Bustamante to finance a like number of "Yes on 54" ads featuring his opponents (I guess that's only McClintock), then return the balance of the monies.

[longtermmemmory]

but now all those same groups will be able to donate more money to this mexcan shill. That is if they want to.

[passionfruit]

The article doesn't continue on to say if the Judge orderes Bustamonte to return the money. If he violated election law by divertiung the money in the first place, didn't he also violate the law by accepting contributions that are many times the legal limit?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I think you're on to something.

[Zack Nguyen]

Does anyone actually think that Bustamante will return the money? Or that anyone will hold him accountable if he doesn't? This election will likely be over in three weeks (assuming the 9th Circuit reverses its ruling.) There is hardly time to enforce a law.

[Amerigomag]

I was sort of hoping, in between tokes, that Bustamante would be disqualified from candidacy.

[DoctorZIn]

Join Us…Your One Thread To All The California Recall News Threads!

Want on our daily or major news ping lists? Freepmail DoctorZin

[Alia]

lol!!!!!!

You means... like... the FAIRNESS DOCTRINE! LOL!

[Alia]

I scanned the injunction (pdf)

http://www.saccourt.com/geninfo/News_Media/Docs/Johnson%20v.%20Bustamante%20decision092203.PDF

It does not appear that accepting the money was the "violation"; but rather then using/diverting the money away from the direct Bustamante campaign into "something else"; when it was "donated" specifically for Bustamante's campaign.

[Alia]

It is, certainly, their free right to do so.

[LaraCroft]

And what 'campaign' would that be, since it is an old fund for his running for lt. gov.?

[Reeses]

Instead of using the money to pay for ads opposing Proposition 54, Bustamante will have to return that money to his old account

The local SF Bay TV news played this story, then 15 minutes later aired an ad from Bustamante attacking prop 54. When a TV station airs an ad they know can't be paid for, does that constitute a campaign donation?

[ambrose]

So if they take the money back from Cruz, does that make them "Indian Givers"?

[Alia]

Aha! NO. The judge ordered Bustamante to give the money back. This makes the judge a Solomon. (Even tho he NOW says he has no money to give back.)

[Alia]

Apparently, he already spent the money on those ads - therefore he's going to continue to air them. Just read at Worldnetdaily.

[Alia]

I certainly should have read the legal pdf not as fast as I did. The judge ruled Busta to give ALL the money back to casinos. His campaign chair says those monies have already been spent.

[Alia]

My mistake. You are correct.

[Reeses]

Thanks, I just read that article also. I'm not buying it though. TV networks invoice advertisers after the fact so the money is still sitting in Bustamante's bank account. I've never heard an advertiser requiring a cashier check up front. If Bustamante must honor contracts he should do so with his legally obtained money. This is more law skirting. Socialists truly want to live in a banana republic where anything goes, rules mean nothing.

[Alia]

TV networks invoice advertisers after the fact so the money is still sitting in Bustamante's bank account.

Thank you -- I had no idea. How would one go about enforcing Bustamante returning the funds, if he'd already allocated the monies to the no on 54 funds? Another lawsuit?