Originally posted at The Liberal OC.
By Chris Prevatt.

The Voice of OC’s Adam Elmahrek is probably the most despised, by Council members, reporters covering the Santa Ana political beat. He’s been uncovering and reporting on the dirty underbelly of political intrigue that lies just out of public view. In his latest report, Elmahrek has revealed that recent allegations of secret and unreported political contributions by a developer, Vineyards Development Corp., to the effort by former Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez to seek a fourth term on the Santa Ana City Council.

In 2012, Councilwoman Alvarez was the beneficiary of a lawsuit, filed by her campaign supporter Max Madrid, seeking eligibility to seek a fourth term on the city council. Her suit was based in part on a legal opinion that asserted that a 2008 charter amendment, Measure D, reset the limit on all council terms to three consecutive four-year terms, beginning in 2008, effectively permitting Alvarez to run for two additional council terms. The lawsuit failed, and Alvarez sought and won a seat on the Rancho Santiago Community College Board of Trustees.

From Elmahrek’s story:

Former Santa Ana Councilwoman Claudia Alvarez voted in favor of a proposed apartment complex after the complex’s developer paid $5,000 for a legal opinion concluding that Alvarez could run for an unprecedented fourth term, according to a developer’s expensereport submitted to the city.

This revelation was included in the same expense report handed over to the city by Barry Levine — a former investor in the project — that raised suspicions regarding an alleged illegal gift or possibly an illegal campaign contribution to Councilwoman Michele Martinez.


Depending on the circumstances, Alvarez would have been required to report the payment as an in-kind contribution to her campaign committee, according to Bob Stern, president of the Los Angeles-based Center for Governmental Studies.
Public campaign filings show that Alvarez did not report thepayment.

And if the payment counts as a campaign contribution, then it would have been illegal under city law. In Santa Ana, the maximum contribution limit from any one entity is $1,000. READ MORE.

I’ve heard speculation that the revelations by Levine, are political pay back, on behalf of Pulido, for efforts by the city council majority to place a Charter amendmenton the ballot requiring the position of Mayor to be subject to a primary election in June followed by a runoff in November if no candidate receives more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary. Mayor Pulido has failed to receive more than 50 percent of the vote in his last two elections. Maybe it’s a coincidence that the timing of Levine’s revelations are also help to distract from allegations that Pulido had failed to report a real estate swap with a city contractor that garnered Pulido a $197,000 profit. Pulido amended hisfinancial disclosure statements last week to report the transaction.

If the allegations of political payback are true, it would appear that Pulido is engaging in a scorched-earth campaign for his political survival, without a care to which friends he brings down. During her last year on the Council, Pulido was Alvarez and Pulido were political allies, but that alliance resulted in Pulido abandoning another of his allies, trustee Mark McLoughlin, in favor of her campaign for Rancho Santiago Community College District Trustee. Pulido was also instrumental in encouraging Councilwoman Martinez to run for State Assembly in 2012. According to Martinez, Pulido was supposed to assist he in her campaign. Levine’s targeted allegations against Martinez, which just happen to benefit Pulido, could possibly indicate that the alleged $10,500 in contributions to her campaign by the developer were arranged by Pulido. I am compelled to note however that there is currently no evidence linking Pulido to Levine.

One thing is clear, political intrigue in Santa Ana has not calmed down with the departure of Alvarez and Carlos Bustamante from the Santa Ana City Council at the end of 2012.