Wildomar candidates get a start on fundraising

By: AARON CLAVERIE - The Californian
Marsha Swanson's campaign finances dwarf challengers'
| Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:09 PM PST ∞

Wildomar candidate Marsha Swanson amassed a campaign war chest of more than $11,000 in 2007.
David Carlson Staff photographer
Order a copy of this photo
Visit our Photo Gallery

WILDOMAR - Her signs are bigger. And there's a good reason why.

City council candidate Marsha Swanson, a 61-year-old manager of a real estate office, amassed a campaign war chest of more than $11,000 in 2007, raising far more than any of the other 13 candidates running for a seat on what could be the inaugural Wildomar City Council.

Area voters will decide Feb. 5 whether to incorporate and, if so, which of the 14 candidates should serve on the inaugural five-person council. Voters also will be asked to decide if the council members should be elected on an at-large or a district basis in future elections.

The other 13 candidates on the ballot are Sheryl Ade, Gary Andre, Steve Beutz, Martha Bridges, Bob Cashman, Harv Dykstra, Scott Farnam, Roger Le Clerc, Bridgette Moore, Darrell Ruff, Michael Tierney, Tim Underdown and Paul Williams.

The majority of the candidates - Ade, Andre, Beutz, Bridges, Dykstra, Le Clerc, Ruff, Tierney and Williams - filed paperwork with the county's Registrar of Voters office saying they expected to raise less and spend less than $1,000 before Dec. 31, the last day of the first filing period of the campaign.

Financial disclosure forms detailing fundraising and spending between Jan. 1 and Jan. 19 are due by Thursday.

The three candidates running on a slate - Cashman, Moore and Underdown - all raised more than $2,800 from July 1 through Dec. 31. Farnam, who raised $4,285 from Nov. 8 through Dec. 31, was the only other candidate besides the slate candidates and Swanson to report raising more than $1,000.

Marsha Swanson

Swanson, who raised $11,107 from Nov. 8 through Dec. 31, listed $1,250 contributions from C. Rojas of Simi Valley, a housewife, and Lola Sacks, a retiree from Palm Springs. She listed $500 contributions from Charles Tunstall and Gary Brown, both of Wildomar.

The other contributions above $300 were $360 from Golden Triangle Investors of Costa Mesa, $300 from DH Holdings of Los Angeles and $300 from Robin Oxman of Huntington Beach.

Those same three contributors are listed on the forms filed by Farnam, Underdown, Moore and Cashman.

According to county documents, information provided by the candidates and the companies' Web sites, Golden Triangle is a development firm in the process of developing land near the intersection of Prielipp Road and Yamas Drive off Clinton Keith Road in southeastern Wildomar. Oxman, listed on the disclosure forms as a retired doctor, owns about 100 acres of land on the west side of Interstate 15 south of Clinton Keith. DH Holdings is the developer that built "The Shops at Clinton Keith" retail project in Wildomar and other projects in Southwest County.

The biggest contribution Swanson received was from herself, when she gave her campaign a $5,000 loan on Dec. 31.

"If I'm asking people for their commitment, I had to make that same commitment myself," she said Friday.

Talking about the contributions from Oxman, DH Holdings and Golden Triangle, Swanson said, "In the meetings we all made it clear the contributions were to get us elected, not for a favor in the end."

Swanson said the developers held a large meeting with invited candidates and asked some of them back for follow-up interviews. She said her experience with the Republican Party, which she sought for an endorsement, was similar, specifically the interview session she had with the Republicans.

Swanson listed spending $3,145.82 of her funds, $2,995.82 to a Los Angeles-based sign-making shop and $150 for buttons from a Lake Elsinore vendor, Karen Snyder. Swanson's red, white and blue signs are twice as large as the majority of the signs placed by the other candidates.

"They're the same size as Scott's (Farnam)," she noted. While the design was a bit busier than she expected, she said they stand out.

"They're doing the job," she said.

Bob Cashman

Cashman, a 65-year-old engineer, raised the second highest dollar amount, $5,253.92. In addition to his contributions from Golden Triangle, Oxman and DH Holdings, Cashman listed a $500 contribution from Vicki Long, of Temecula. Cashman loaned his campaign $2,000 on Dec. 27.

Under nonmonetary contribution, Cashman listed receiving $1,516 in signs and campaign literature from the slate's "Committee for the Incorporation of Wildomar/Support Council Candidates Cashman Moore Underdown."

Under his expenditures, Cashman listed reimbursing himself $113.14 for a campaign photo and a $38 check printing charge from Bank of America.

Talking about the slate's fundraising, Cashman said there had been plans for more slate-specific fundraisers but events that had been planned as fundraisers ended up turning into cityhood promotions.

Cashman said that wasn't a bad thing as all of the slate candidates put the cityhood vote first. To make sure his campaign doesn't run into the red, he plans on asking for more contributions from personal friends.

Talking about the meeting with the developers and landowners, Cashman said it was structured like an interview, with the candidates answering questions on their views on development and other cityhood-related topics.

There was no mention of specific details related to future projects.

"There was no, 'We need this, we need that. What do you think?,'" he said.

Scott Farnam

Farnam, a 41-year-old general contractor, raised the third highest dollar amount, $4,285. His largest contribution was $2,000 from B&B Contractors of Chino, which is a construction company that he said he's done some work for. He also received contributions from DH Holding, Golden Triangle and Oxman.

Instead of holding a fundraiser, Farnam sent an e-mail blast to his list of contacts and friends asking for contributions.

Because Farnam has been involved with construction, contracting and real estate, his list of contacts is diverse and relatively deep-pocketed.

Regarding the meeting with Golden Triangle, Oxman and DH Holdings, Farnam said he made it a point to stress to the developers that their endorsement or his acceptance of financial contributions was not going to affect his decision-making if elected.

"When I first stepped in the door, that conversation was had between us," he said.

Farnam used the same company as Swanson for his signs, Colby Poster Printing Company of Los Angeles, buying $900 worth. He spent $200 on buttons with Snyder and he's been collecting the buttons handed out by all the other candidates.

Bridgette Moore

Moore, 40, the manager of a small business, raised the fourth highest amount, $4,070. She listed contributions from Oxman, DH Holdings and Golden Triangle in addition to $300 from John Lloyd of Wildomar. Moore, like Cashman, listed $1,516 in nonmonetary contributions from the slate committee, which provided campaign literature and signs. Moore also gave herself a $1,000 loan.

Under her expenditures, she listed $2,000 paid to the slate committee's account.

Moore said her fundraising has mostly been limited to friends and family.

Talking about taking contributions from the group of developers and landowners, she said, "Just because we did accept donations we're not tied to those people."

It was important to receive the funding they provided, Moore said, because cityhood is an important message.

"You need to get that message out with yard signs and fliers and the way to do that is with money. Which we reported appropriately," she said.

Tim Underdown

Underdown, a 47-year-old equipment mechanic, raised the fifth highest amount, $2,801. He listed contributions from Oxman, DH Holdings and Golden Triangle and he gave his campaign a $500 contribution and a $100 contribution.

Under nonmonetary contributions, he listed $1,516 from the slate's committee for events, literature and signs and $84 from Kristin Lloyd for domain name registration and Web hosting of his campaign Web site.

Under expenditures, he listed a $600 payment to himself (listed as a returned contribution) and $600 to the Riverside County registrar of voters for filing fees.

Underdown said he accepted the contributions from Oxman, DH Holdings and Golden Triangle because he talked with them and found out that they were focused on supporting cityhood.

"They felt we (the candidates who received contributions) were the leaders of the community. I was made to feel like I am a leader. They feel I can make smart decisions," he said Friday.

Underdown said it makes sense that developers and landowners would want the candidates they feel will do the best job serving as the inaugural city council.

"And we made that perfectly clear to them that they realize by contributing and letting us use their property for their signs that there would be no favoritism," he said.

While the slate candidates have put up some signs as large as the signs placed by Swanson and Farnam, Underdown said they don't have as many.

"We've got 18 and they've got 50 or so. They've got them everywhere," he said.

Contact Aaron Claverie at (951) 676-4315, Ext. 2624, or aclaverie@californian.com.

Next Previous

More Stories

Ads by Yahoo!

19 comment(s)[-]Go to Top

Developer Funds wrote on Jan 20, 2008 8:24 AM:I thought in a previous article, Bridgette said she is not taking any developer money. So what is it - she is or she says she isn't.

Told you so wrote on Jan 20, 2008 8:28 AM:How much clearer can you make it? These candidates are spending big for a reason, and they will be rewarding their contributors with your tax money. Don't be fooled. Bigger signs don't make for better candidates.

It's okay to Vote No on C wrote on Jan 20, 2008 9:15 AM:If you want Wildomar to be "built out" overnight, vote Yes on C. It is far cheaper for developers to get their commercial and apartment projects approved "locally" than it is through the county. Notice that it only costs $300 per candidate, which is, ironically, about the price of a "happy ending." Once the "city" is in place, then the new council's primary motivation will be tax revenue and Wildomar will be forever changed. It's okay to vote No on C.

lessons wrote on Jan 20, 2008 9:49 AM:build out will happen either way, IF the citizens of wildomar want it- at least its not totally up to "the developer friends of county supervisors- they need contributions to, you know. The people of Wildomar need to learn a lesson from Murrieta and Temecula- if your council is run by developers, get ready for self interests first, at the expense of quality of life. Hopefully you will hold your council accountable, like Murrieta and Temecula were unable to do.

Its Okay to Vote No on C wrote on Jan 20, 2008 10:10 AM: A local Council and "local control" makes "build out" much more efficient for the developers. Notice that Wildomar hasn't changed that much in recent years, save for the bottom lands that are being covered with single-family houses, which was carved up long ago. Currently, no one locally is looking at Central and Palomar's empty land thinking, we gotta find a developer and change that to retail for the tax increment so we can pay our city employees. That, my friend, is going to change with cityhood. I'm okay with empty land.

Told you so again wrote on Jan 20, 2008 11:55 AM:You see all those big “Yes on Cityhood” signs? The developers and would-be city contractors helped pay for those too. Gatlin Development, C R &R, Waste Management as well as the others identified in this article and more to come – people and companies who expect to profit big time from their relationship with any new city and these candidates. And as to promise of “local accountability” have you got any idea how difficult it would be to get rid of city council members once they have been elected? Take a lesson from our neighboring cities – Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula. They have running histories of city corruption, malfeasance and expensive recall elections. Spare Wildomar this type of pain and trouble. Vote NO on “C”

Hook, Line, & Sinker wrote on Jan 20, 2008 1:06 PM:The sky is falling! The sky is falling! My goodness, people. If you would like to continue to stick your head in the sand and have your future controlled by persons 40 miles away in their 14 story puzzle palace, be my guest. All bow down to 4080 Lemon Street and forever be governed by them. I would suggest, and am more amenable to, giving my effort toward working locally to work to control our own destiny. I firmly believe that Mr. Claverie purposely slanted this article to incite this type of rhetorical response. Hello! Gotta’ sell papers, right? Let’s sensationalize something where is nothing. He went on a fishing trip and all he caught was a little minnow. Also for the nay-sayers and those averse to politicians and campaign financing, if you need help with a project of your own, say the purchase of an item, improvement of your home, or just to pay the rent, where do you go? You go where you might get that which you are in need of to reach your goal. If you need cash, you go to the bank, or the social services office. You don't go to a homeless person for a loan or a handout. America is based upon free enterprise, the right to choose, and the entrepreneurial spirit. Some are just better at it than others. And there is nothing wrong with that. YES on C, AT LARGE on Measure D. Simply put: YES to local governance, control and independence.

Thank You Hook Line & Sinker wrote on Jan 20, 2008 4:40 PM:What is wrong with all you guys? If we don't become a city not only will we NOT have local control, all the concerns and problems will be controlled by people that are not affected by them. Second, Wildomar will no longer exist. We would be picked over by Lk. Elsinore and Murrieta. That is the thing that bothers me the most. Third, even if we don't become a city, TAXES WILL eventually go up at some time. More people, more services needed. DUUUH. As a city we have to have a 2/3 majority vote to pass any new taxes. We would be in control. The building-out issue we would have that control as a city. We live here. Get involved. Get informed. Next meeting is at Cornerstone Church, Jan. 27 @ 2:00 pm.

To Hook, Line and Sinker wrote on Jan 20, 2008 4:54 PM:No, the sky is not falling, at least not yet, and we don't have our heads in the sand -- though it would surely please the candidates who are taking these contractors’ and developers’ contributions if we did. Your version of entrepreneurial spirit evidently allows for greed, graft, corruption and back-room dealing. We have enough of those things in Wildomar right now without compounding the situation by electing candidates who are already on the “take”. Save your ridicule for them, and let the voters make up their own minds.

You might also spare us all that stuff about the big, bad county government. The very candidates who are taking these contributions are the same people who have controlled Wildomar’s interface with the county for years. I expect we might get far better support from the folks up in Riverside if we insisted on having representatives who weren’t hell-bent on pushing this community into incorporation. As to Mr. Claverie, he seems to be coming up to speed and doing his job. There is, after all, more than one side to all these issues.

To Thank You Hook... wrote on Jan 20, 2008 6:05 PM:Oh yes, it’s not surprising that you urge people to go to the WCC meeting at CornerStone! They'll get the most outrageous pro-cityhood performance imaginable. These so-called “informational meetings” are rigged to the hilt in favor of the cityhood and certain favored candidates. I’ve never seen such a display of partisan politics?

In addition, it is entirely inappropriate that CornerStone, a church which some candidates are members of, should be the location. Hasn’t the Wildomar Community Council heard about separation of church and state? For that matter, why haven’t the candidates themselves raised the question about how inappropriate the setting is for such a meeting? I guess that’s because some of them don’t expect to run either their campaigns or any new city within either the letter or the spirit of the law. Lies and deception are not the foundation on which a successful new city can be built.

True Colors wrote on Jan 20, 2008 7:01 PM:Hey Martha is that you your showing your true colors AGAIN.

HL&S Here wrote on Jan 20, 2008 7:42 PM:"Rigged to the hilt?" "Lies and Deception?" "Better support from the folks up in Riverside?" Really? I was at the meeting at Brown. I heard the candidates answer the questions from the audience. Well, some of the ant-city candidates chose not to answer some of them. That's great leadership quality. There's video of that meeting on the internet, too, at the Wildomar Voice web site. The only true statement in your two posts above is to let the voters make up their own mind. I think they are doing just that and you are helping that more than you realize. Thank you for that.

No on C wrote on Jan 22, 2008 12:51 PM:It will be a wonderful day when Measure C goes down in defeat. The Dykstra-Cashman dog and pony show will finally come to an end.

We don't need more dirty politics in Wildomar and we certainly don't need favoritism and increased taxes as well.

Please wrote on Jan 22, 2008 1:00 PM:Someone tell me which candidates are not attached to developer money. I need 5

To Please wrote on Jan 22, 2008 8:39 PM:Here you go: Beutz, Bridges, Williams, Le Clerc, & Tierney. Let me know how that works out for ya'.

HL&S Good information wrote on Jan 23, 2008 11:48 AM: Thanks to you I watched the video on Wildomar voice web site, great information,now I have a idea of who's who.

To All Voters wrote on Jan 26, 2008 1:18 PM:The latest campaign contribution figures should now be available from the Registrar of Voters. More developers' money flowing into certain council candidates' war chests. Mmmm... What do you suppose they expect in return for their support of these candidates? It's especially interesting to see those contributions pouring in from firms and individuals completely outside the Wildomar community. Makes for interesting reading.

Residents should give some thought to just how much those slick, glossy tri-fold brochures and oversized color postcards cost to mail to registered voters...this from the same candidates who promise not to raise taxes and plan to be such careful financial managers.

Michael wrote on Feb 1, 2008 3:33 PM:I have lived here for 21 years and I like Wildomar the way it is. I see no benefit to cityhood. Also, why don't the candidates state whether they are Republican or Democrat. What are you trying to hide?

lou wrote on Feb 4, 2008 8:33 PM:just a question, If the cityhood for Wildomar fails, what becomes of us?? How soon does Lake Elsinore or Murrieta "gobble us up?"

First name only. Comments including last names, contact addresses, e-mail addresses or phone numbers will be deleted. Attempts to misrepresent your identity or impersonate any person will not be approved. All comments are screened before they appear online, so please keep them brief. Comments reflect the views of those commenting and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff writers. Click here to view additional comment policies.

Submit Comment[-]

(optional)
   

Advertisement

Videos