City council candidates in Anaheim may be limited in how long they can fundraise campaign debt repayments or how much money they can loan themselves as city officials gear up to overhaul campaign finance laws.
It comes against the backdrop of Orange County’s largest corruption scandal in recent history, with FBI agents and independent investigators alleging Disneyland resort interests exert undue influence over city hall.
The multi-billion dollar entertainment juggernaut has heavily financed city council elections through political action committees, spending at least $1 million every election cycle going back to 2018.
[Read: Will Mickey Mouse Continue to Cast a Big Shadow Over Anaheim’s Election Campaigns?]
Earlier this week, city council members voted 6-0 to direct staff to draw up proposals to limit personal campaign loans to $100,000 per election and to shorten debt repayment to within 12 months of the election.
Councilman Jose Diaz left the meeting before the vote.
Council members also directed staff to draw up a proposal to notify candidates within 24 hours of a political action committee sending out political mailers or digital advertising.
It’s unclear when those will come back for a public discussion.
In recent years, Anaheim’s seen candidates – like disgraced former Mayor Harry Sidhu – make large loans to their campaigns and fundraise for debt repayment years after.
Last year, Sidhu pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators about trying to ram through the Angel Stadium land sale for $1 million in campaign support from team officials.
[Read: Ex-Anaheim Mayor Sidhu Agrees to Plead Guilty to Corruption Charges]
Limiting Debt Repayments
Mayor Ashleigh Aitken, who’s brought forth a series of reform proposals since last year, said the reforms are “low level decisions we can do to make campaigns more transparent.”
Councilwoman Natalie Rubalcava, who backed reform proposals with Aitken last fall, criticized limiting the debt repayment time frame.
“I just don’t see the problem we’re trying to solve,” she said.
But Aitken said it’s been an issue.
“I can name five candidates right that we had that had multiple committees open, fundraising into all of them and you’re not really restricted on what you can do,” Aitken said during Tuesday’s meeting.
Aitken and Rubalcava – who’s likely facing a recall election later this year – have both opened their own committees for the 2026 city council elections, according to campaign finance disclosures posted on the city’s website.
[Read: Anaheim Council Members Keep Fundraising Off Resort Interests Detailed in Corruption Probe]
When Sidhu was spearheading the Angel Stadium land sale in 2019, the disgraced mayor managed to pay off his 2016 state Assembly campaign debt – along with some mayoral campaign debt – through a host of Disneyland resort interests.
The debt repayments also included donations from executives at the ball club.
[Read: Anaheim Mayor Sidhu Pays Off 2016 Assembly Debt by Fundraising While Mayor]
At the time, some of those resort interests that helped Sidhu pay off debts scored no-bid city contracts in what some local politics experts called a textbook case of undue influence.
Councilman Steve Faessel, who was part of Sidhu’s council majority and terms out later this year, said he’s on board with limiting fundraising and debt repayment.
“I’m personally ok with 12 months,” Faessel told his colleagues. “If you can’t get that paid off within a year, you may not get it paid off in 5 years. That’s just my observation, because the longer it goes, the harder it is.”
Will Unconnected Candidates Be Impacted?
Councilwoman Natalie Meeks said she worries the change could disproportionately impact people who aren’t well connected with wealthy donors.
“It’s hard to raise enough money for a campaign, especially if you don’t have a lot of rich friends,” Meeks said.
“I want to make sure that people of all income levels, our diverse community can be represented on this dais and sometimes that’s going to take a long time for them to raise money, they may have debt and do I want to burden them with $10,000 worth of debt because they didn’t raise enough money to pay it off in 12 months?” she said.
Rubalcava and Meeks were each heavily financed by Disney’s chief political spending vehicle in town – the Support Our Anaheim Resort political action committee. The committee paid for things like political mailers and digital advertising.
Meeks also warned debt repayment could be more difficult under a new state law that bars officials from voting on items that benefit donors who gave $250 or more to their campaign.
“With the Levine Act, you get $250 because you want to do your job and not be conflicted out on weighing in on important issues,” she said.
[Read: Will Pay to Play Politics Be Curbed in the New Year?]
The city council threw out the idea of a similar recusal rule that would apply to political action committee spending – something many residents have called for since the corruption probe surfaced in May 2022.
“I think it’s dangerous territory,” Rubalcava said.
In the staff report, City Attorney Rob Fabela said it’s an unprecedented idea.
“No case has ruled on the constitutionality of such recusal rules,” reads the staff report, adding it could violate donors and constituents free speech rights. “Anaheim may have justification for imposing such a rule, but it would be a ‘test case’ that would likely be decided by the courts.
Aitken expressed concerns about a potential court battle.
“I don’t want to get us into a situation where we are the test case.”
Editor’s note: Ashleigh Aitken’s father, Wylie Aitken, chairs Voice of OC’s board of directors.
Spencer Custodio is the civic editor. You can reach him at scustodio@voiceofoc.org. Follow him on Twitter @SpencerCustodio.
Reporter Hosam Elattar contributed to this story.
•••
Can you support Voice of OC with a donation?
You obviously care about local news and value good journalism here in Orange County. With your support, we can bring you more stories like these.