Home

H.P. City Council Takes Action in
August to Repeal Campaign Limits
Ordinance Passed In January 2005

Probably the shortest-lived ordinance in the city’s history. At 7 months old, the timing is hugely
questionable: passed 2 months before the March 2005 city council elections and now repealed 5
months after the elections.

August 15, 2005
By WatchOurCity.com

Huntington Park, CA. – Dirty politics and corrupt politics are practiced in many forms by
council members here in Huntington Park.

Take the case of council member John Noguez and the “Campaign Limits” ordinance that
he authored and spearheaded.

On August 1, 2005, council members took unprecedented action to repeal in its entirety
City Ordinance 761-NS, better known as the “Campaign Limits” law (click here to see
page 5 of the city council agenda).

For the record, this must be the shortest-lived ordinance in the city’s history: only 7
months.

The timing is ethically questionable in the highest order, since this campaign contributions
ordinance was passed two months before the March 2005 city council elections (8
candidates vied for 2 open council seats). Five months after the elections, it is scheduled
for repeal.

A report by Arnold Adler of the Wave Community Newspaper in October 2004 states:
“Noguez, who proposed the campaign contribution limit, said the aim is to prevent a
company or group from trying to influence a candidate or an election with large
donation”.

It's a neat ordinance. The actual intent of the ordinance is now evident:
1. To hurt and hinder political opponents.
2. Noguez/Gomez/Hernandez do not have to abide by the new rules.
3. Get rid of the new rules in time for their elections in 2007.
Neatest trick of all without having anybody taking close note,
4. Have public funds and public resources pay for personal political gains.

On February 7, 2005, WatchOurCity.com reported the following:

”A brazen disregard for integrity and public trust:
From the time the new ordinance was introduced in September '04 to January '05, when
Noguez's measure was voted in as a new city ordinance, Noguez seemed to speak from
both sides of his mouth.”

”Publicly he states his concern to "prevent" influence of candidates with campaign
funds. Privately, Noguez was taking contributions and making contributions, flagrantly
skirting the spirit and intent of his own proposed ordinance.”

”Public records obtained by WatchOurCity.com indicate that as the mayor was busy
making public proclamations about limiting campaign contributions to $1,000 per
individual donor, privately, he took a $5,000 "Monetary Contribution" on 11-16-04
from a single individual, one Nassar Haverim at 764 Stanford Avenue in Los Angeles.
Now, what kind of business or interest does this individual have to be compelled to give
his hard earned cash to John Noguez?”

Consider the facts based on public record:
- December 2002: M.A.N. Properties, a private business entity registered under John
Noguez, donates $1,000 each to Ofelia Hernandez and Mario Gomez, his running mates
for the March 2003 city council race. Ofelia and Mario have gone along w/ nearly all of
Noguez's council proposals. Was he trying to influence candidates with large donations?

- March 2003: John Noguez, Ofelia Hernandez and Mario Gomez received an
unprecedented sum in campaign contributions, totaling a nearly record-breaking $130,000
for a local city council race. John Noguez's "family" alone gave a combined total of
approximately $50,000 in "In-Kind" contributions to the slate of John Noguez, Mario
Gomez and Ofelia Hernandez for the March 2003 municipal election period.

- September 2004: John Noguez proposes campaign limits ordinance and goes through
various “Readings” during city council meetings into 2005 (see WatchOurCity.com
reports from 9-27-04 and 10-25-04 and 2-07-05).

- November 2004: John Noguez receives $5,000 in campaign contributions from a single
individual with a residence address in the City of Los Angeles (Mr. Nasser Haverim),
according to public records (see copy of public document).

- December 2004: John Noguez purchases $3,000 worth of campaign material from
Colby Printing company. Noguez is not a candidate for city council.

- December 2004: Posters and lawn signs stating “Elba Guerrero for City Council” start
appearing around the city. The signs state, “Enthusiastically supported by Mayor John
Noguez”. Elba Guerrero does not report any expenditure for signs.

- December 2004: Elba Guerrero files to be a candidate for city council.

- January 2005: City Council votes 4-1 to pass into law new city ordinance limiting
campaign contributions.

- March 2005: Candidate Elba Guerrero wins a council seat. Since then, she has gone
along with and voted for all of Noguez's council proposals.

- July 2005: Council member John Noguez introduces new ordinances repealing in its
entirety the old ordinance limiting campaign contributions.

The tools and mechanisms for creating city ordinances meant to impact the greater public
interest are here evidently subverted and manipulated for shameless, hypocritical, selfish
and corrupt ends.

City Council voted to repeal the campaign contribution ordinance once the election was
over, and none too soon, since, Noguez himself along with the new mayor Ofelia
Hernandez and Council member Mario Gomez, are up for reelection in March 2007.

It seems that council members are itching to start filing their campaign coffers for the
2007 campaign. Evidently, all the talk and fanfare by Noguez as noted on public record
and reported in the Wave Community Newspaper was all just a sick, dirty and deceitful
trick on the voters, and a shameless disregard for public trust.

Now John Noguez does not have to speak from both sides of his mouth any more: he can
now lie straight through his teeth.

And look you in the eye while he’s doing it as he may have done to Arnold Adler, the
intrepid and seasoned reporter from the Wave Community Newspaper. Noguez must be
practicing for higher political office.

Political Science students in academia take note: this is just one more item to add to the
anatomy-of-corruption bag of tricks to include in your studies. This political Jiu-Jitsu
move is not in any university Poli Sci text book either; it is homegrown right here in
Huntington Park. It should be patented. The seven month old campaign contribution
limits ordinance had too short a life-span to be taken seriously; but long enough to do its
intended damage. The damage, however, may have a boomerang effect.

The Mexican movie “Herod’s Law” (La Ley de Herodes) comes to mind, a Mexican
political satire movie (2000). “The story chronicles the corruption of Juan Vargas, a
tiny little peon in the PRI machine”, states one on-line review (the PRI was Mexico’s
ruling party for 70 years before President Vicente Fox, from the PAN party, broke the
spell in 2000).

The Political Film Society’s website states on its review of this movie:
“More profoundly, there is perhaps a serendipitous insight: Politicians who are less
than erudite are more likely to use crude methods to cling to power, a theory that could
also be tested north of the Río Grande. Accordingly, the Political Film Society has
nominated Herod's Law for an award as this year's best film promoting democracy as
well as best film exposé of 2003.” (click here to see full film review).

We are certainly testing this insight here, folks.

The October 25, 2004 report by WatchOurCity.com on Noguez’s campaign limits law
posits: “Will this new ordinance, which places limits on campaign contributions, be
repealed in time before Mayor John Noguez, council members Ofelia Hernandez and
Mario Gomez are up for reelection in 2007?”

Indeed, it is fully intended to be repealed.

It would be highly interesting to see the total public fund expenditures used to create this
ordinance, and on top of that the cost to repeal it. Attorney fees alone may raise some
eyebrows, to say nothing of the ordinance's anti-democratic chill.