Lobbyist Letter Backfires
Editorial staff

An Oct. 16 campaign letter sent to Mission Viejo voters was signed by Jim and Karen Byrne, but who wrote it? A lobbyist from Orange – John Lewis – might as well have put his name on it. He’s directly connected with issues in the letter, and he represents the special interest the letter pretends to condemn.

Who are Jim and Karen Byrne, and why would they put their names on such a poorly written and misleading screed? Council candidate Diane Greenwood formerly lived in the Byrnes’ neighborhood, but that doesn’t explain the Byrnes’ involvement with John Lewis. The Byrnes are connected with Mission Viejo Glass, a business donating to both Greenwood and Bill Barker’s campaigns. Barker has lately been driving around in a Mission Viejo Glass delivery truck adorned with his banners.

One might assume the Byrnes knew Greenwood prior to her entering the council race. The Byrnes’ support of both Greenwood and Barker, however, raises a red flag. A blog reader sent interesting information about Mission Viejo Glass, speculating why the Byrnes would want influence with two potential council members. While the reader’s speculation isn’t unreasonable, the location of the Byrnes’ home near the power lines adequately explains at least one of their motives and a connection to Lewis. Aside from donations from the Byrnes, Barker’s campaign received a $10,000 donation from a Santa Ana business, and he’s handing out a lobbyist-funded tri-fold brochure. Further examples aren’t needed.

Barker attempted to recruit a Mission Viejo resident as one of his campaign volunteers, but she declined. She said, “From the beginning, I had the impression Bill Barker would say just about anything to get a vote. He was contradicting himself every time he opened his mouth. Looking at his financial backers, I certainly wouldn't campaign for him.”

The Byrnes’ Oct. 16 letter to voters criticizes a 2004 council decision to award the city’s ambulance contract to Medix. Lewis, who represented another ambulance company, was in the audience and glaring at the council members as they voted for Medix. The letter fails to mention that Medix is based in Mission Viejo. It provides jobs for many residents and supports a wide range of community programs. All of the ambulance companies vying for the city contract had high ratings from the Fire Authority, and all – including Lewis’ client – donated to council members’ campaigns.

The Byrnes’ letter also criticizes the council regarding Edison’s 2004 addition of three overhead power lines. Again, the letter fails to mention pertinent information. The decision about the lines was in the hands of the California Public Utilities Commission, not the city council. After the CPUC voted to allow the overhead lines, residents living near the lines had the opportunity to vote on taxing themselves to pay for burying the three new lines. The vote was 84 percent against and 16 percent for undergrounding the lines. While the overhead lines are a sore point for some homeowners living near them, most other residents don’t care. As a reason for putting it into the letter, John Lewis just happens to represent an independent power provider who would now like to take over Edison’s lines. Wouldn’t that make everyone in north Mission Viejo deliriously happy to have the same lines but enriching John Lewis when a different company is using the lines?

As a final complaint, the letter mentions Councilman Lance MacLean’s vote to give the Mission Viejo Audi dealership a $2 million subsidy. By the way, John Lewis called council members, lobbying them to give the Audi dealer the $2 million subsidy. The letter doesn't mention the vote failed. It also doesn’t mention Councilwoman Trish Kelley was the guilty party who brought back the topic, causing the city to pay $600,000 instead of zero to the dealer. The Oct. 16 letter – paid for by special interest for the benefit of special interest – has the nerve to carp about special interest.

The last paragraph suggests candidates Diane Greenwood, Bill Barker and Justin McCusker are the reform candidates, and that’s laughable. Their tri-fold brochure, paid for by the lobbyist, has become their primary campaign handout. Literature paid for as an independent expenditure (by a lobbyist forming a Political Action Committee) cannot legally be distributed by the candidates themselves. Otherwise, the expenditure would have to be reported by the candidates’ campaign committee to the Fair Political Practices Commission. When it comes to ethical improvement, representation of the residents and real reform, Greenwood, Barker and McCusker are unequivocally the worst choices on the ballot.