An ally of San Liccardo, former Federal Elections Commission Chair Ann Ravel, has filed a complaint against Liccardo’s opponent, Evan Low, for allegedly violating federal campaign laws in the race for the House seat being vacated by Congresswoman Anna Eshoo of Palo Alto.
Liccardo, the former San Jose mayor, and Low, an state assemblyman and former Campbell mayor, are vying in November for the Congressional seat that includes Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View.
Ravel claims that Low used the email server and contact list of 501(c)(3) nonprofit Stand With Asian Americans to reach possible voters without disclosing it as an in-kind contribution — and despite federal laws barring nonprofits from directly contributing to campaigns.
Ravel’s complaint alleges Low’s campaign sent an email promoting his pro-choice voting record with an unsubscribe button that linked to a website hosted by Stand With Asian Americans. Ravel argues this signals Low’s campaign is using the nonprofit’s email list. She says this is an in-kind contribution that needs be reported since it constitutes services offered for free or at less than the usual charge.
Lam Nguyen, a spokesman for Low’s campaign, said the link was a mistake.
“Sam Liccardo is once again deploying his supporters to make false accusations against our campaign, and distract (from) his own shady conduct,” Nguyen said in a statement. “This is simply a case of a volunteer working in their personal capacity using the wrong hyperlink. The email list was purchased from the county registrar and reported by the campaign.”
Robin Logsdon, Liccardo’s campaign manager, criticized Low.
“Evan Low will do anything to further his political career, whether it’s breaking the law or taking money from oil companies, PG&E or private prisons,” Logsdon told the San Jose website Spotlight.
Nonprofits with 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status are prohibited from directly or indirectly supporting candidates for elected office under IRS rules. This includes contributions to candidate committees, political party committees or a political action committee.
Stanford University, a 501(c)(3), employed Liccardo as a lecturer in the law school during most of 2023. He stopped working for Stanford in December, about a month after he announced he was running.
Correction: An earlier version should have said that Liccardo’s employment ended at Stanford in December.
Logsdon is right about Evan Low accepting a small fortune in PG&E campaign donations. Low doesn’t understand electricity shouldn’t be a luxury item. Marc Berman takes way too much money from PG&E too.
Liccardo is just another privileged, old school politician who believes the rules apply only to others. He can’t win at the ballot box so he abuses the courts. Ravel’s claim this isn’t partisan is laughable.
This campaign is making me really question integrity and ethics in canidates running for office — this is the ultimate in a corrupted system of power and greed. I am voting for neither. I’ll write in Simitian’s name and let the cheating chips fall where they may.
They’re both such lousy choices. Shame on all the candidates who ran to satisfy their own egos even though they knew they had zero chance of winning and siphoned votes away from Joe Simitian who HAS served us well for so long.
I too will write in Simitian’s name.
The idea that Liccardo teaching at Stanford (which happened prior to Eshoo announcing retirement) somehow constitutes a 501c3 contributing to a candidate is utter nonsense. There’s a long history of city and even legislative members (Byron Sher of the Law School) employed by the university. Unless you can show that Liccardo had a no show job, this is simply someone paid to do work for a nonprofit. This is completely different than what Low is being accused of, receiving financial benefits for his campaign from a nonprofit without anything from Low in return.
Having said that, Ann Ravel is a political hack who is raising a minor issue rather than telling us why her preferred person would be best for the district and the country. When the press goes looking for SCANDAL!, however, rather than telling us how the candidates differ on issues, we shouldn’t be surprised that campaigns go down this route.
Paul D claims the press is looking for scandal and not telling us how candidates differ on issues. But when you look lower on this website, you’ll find the story headlined “Congressional race: Liccardo and Low differ on progressive issues,” dated August 15. That story gives each candidates’ view of several issues. Guess Paul D missed that one, and all the other issue-oriented stories about this race. Or maybe he’s the kind of reader who only looks for scandal?
This attack by Liccardo’s surrogate on Low is the reason why people hate politics. Liccardo thinks he can hide behind people like Ravel or Bloomberg and fool everyone. “Saratoga Sam” had big time ethics problems when he was SJ mayor and it looks like he wants to bring his lack of ethics to Congress. He’s lost me as a voter.
It’s clearly bogus to guess that Low’s campaign didn’t pay for the email distribution. They work for whoever pays. Low’s group must have paid. Ravel’s knowledge is 2nd hand which should disqualify her from the complaint in the first place.
I had fun reading Ravel’s wiki page. Read between the lines for her life’s lesson and values. I read twice the bits there on the recalled judge she at first 100% supported. A history of us v. them and political hack smear tactics. I wish we voters had more choices for this Congressional seat not just the Big Democrat, Incorporated’s jungle primary survivors.
I finally met a Low volunteer campaigner on the street last week. A college student unpaid campaign intern at a farmers market. Haven’t met any Liccardo workers so far. Received over a dozen snail mailers printed on thick big paper by March from Liccardo but only 3 small mailers from Low. Huh. Guess which one is the best funded Big D Machine and which is little D?
The Liccardo campaign thinks it’s okay to place his signs in city owned mediums and such all around Palo Alto. Dirty billion dollar politics are in tax payers dirt in the north county.
It was well-known that Liccardo would be running for this House seat more than a year before he announced. Stanford officials couldn’t stand the idea that Simitian could become the area’s congressman, given how he had held the university’s feet to the fire over the GUP.
So out of revenge, Stanford gave Licccardo a job that required him to give a lecture once or twice a week. Practically a no-show job. This enabled him to spend his days raising funds for the Congressional race.
Soon after Liccardo announced, people put two and two together and started asking questions. Liccardo’s two-year teaching assignment suddenly became one year, and he was out the door.
Stanford was worried that this blatant attempt at influencing an election would endanger its tax exempt status. Losing that status would cost Stanford billions.
Simitian is the one person who ought to be angry about this, but he’s too classy to get into that kind of fight.
One wonders if Stanford recruited local candidates to run for Congress to water down the Palo Alto vote so Simitian would lose in the primary.
At the time, Julie Lythcott Haims had a big secret that Stanford knew about. Revealing that secret would end her career as an author and DEI expert. It’s entirely possible that Stanford got her to run by threatening to reveal the affair. Stanford really hates Simitian, and Stanford can be ruthless.
It’s long been a revolving door between Palo Alto City Hall and hard-ball negotiators with the deep pocketed Stanford Land Trust office set up by Robber Baron Leland Stanford to shelter his assets when faced with defrauded railroad investors as he bribed the State legislators to give him that super-special California tax-shelter trust and similar papering-over federal laws he got passed as a US Senator. As another US Senator William Clark said in his day. “I never bribed a man who did not want to be bought.”
Hey! How about the massive Wall Street canyon-style new Stanford housing on what was Escondito Village which Simitian was doing oversight on for Stanford land taxes while a Country Supervisor? Funny, the student tenants there had to keep paying rent even when Stanford kicked then out during the lockdowns. Many undergraduates “required” to live in campus dorms. That’s in fact “Income” property, not trust “educational purposes” to be able to avoid County property taxes. Instead we get junior league fool-the-public “we’re doing something!” smoke & mirrors of “faculty” housing’s property taxes.
Simitian got his political start on what has been 40 years straight as an elected official beginning with Palo Alto Unified School District through his “last(?)” race as a Biden Delegate in March listing on County records as his address the Palo Alto’s Act Blue super big money drop.
How about this revolving door wonder who helped shepherd Stanford’s Menlo Park new super dense El Camino stack n’ pack mixed use development?
[Link deleted — Terms of Use violation]