Responding to the recent post by Patrick Batten’s campaign donor, Brian Brady, “Joe Leventhal, is you or is you ain’t a candidate?” — Brady puts to question the ethic of Joe Leventhal by defining the term “candidate” in a fashion not enumerated in the City of San Diego’s Municipal Code.
We don’t have the privilege of creating our own definition of “candidate.”
Here is the link governing the definition:
San Diego’s Municipal Code Section 27.2903
Candidate means any individual who:
(a) Is listed on the ballot. (Leventhal is not.)
(b) Has circulated nominating petitions. (He has not.)
(c) Has received contributions or made expenditures. (Leventhal has not.)
(d) Is a City officeholder subject to recall. (He is not.)
Note the absence of any reference to “declaring candidacy.”
Does Leventhal know who his consultant will be? Of course, but that’s a long way from making expenditures to them or having them act on his behalf.
Can Leventhal write his own “professional” endorsement pieces? Of course. (He married his PR staffer). What he cannot do is violate (a) through (d) above.
Is the Batten campaign suggesting Leventhal is so foolish as to act in a way unbecoming to the San Diego Ethics Commission? I will leave it to Rostra readers to determine whose action is unbecoming of an officer.
Brady isn’t acting alone in the spread of misinformation. I’ve heard it from Patrick Batten and from members of the 71st Assembly District Republican Caucus.
Batten needs to publicly put an end to this and move the conversation toward policy.
* * *
Full disclosure: Author Eric Andersen has met individually with both candidates. He was present when Leventhal was privately introduced to the 71st Caucus. He has given neither a dollar nor an endorsement.