Anyone can file a FPPC complaint and thousands of complaints are filed each election.Most go nowhere, and are a waste of time. The Mitzelfelt campaign treasurer Betty Presley has at least 30 counts of violations that have been upheld or enforced against her. She has paid fines of at least $46,000.00 for violating the Political Reform Act over the last 14 years. Some are listed on the homepage of paveroadsfirst.com. If anything the Mitzelfelt camp has far and away the most experience in violating the PRA. Betty Presley is also Anthony Adams campaign treasurer for his 2008 assembly committee.

The point is that in the interest of fair reporting, and if it takes an FPPC complaint to generate a newspaper story. That the local newspapers will run stories on the FPPC complaints filed against the Mitzelfelt campaign as they have on the Vogler campaign sometime before the election. I will be posting them here and sending the complaints against Mitzelfelt to the local newspapers. Lets see if they want to be fair in their reporting.

This screenshot is from the Anthony Adams filing with the Secretary of State on moving money from his 2006 committee to his 2008 committee.Compare this transfer between committees by Mitzelfelts treasurer for Adams to what the story says is a violation by the Vogler campaign.

Adams moved $26,500.00 dollars from his old committee (2006) to his new committee (2008). Below is a story on the Vogler- Mitzelfelt FPPC complaint. Read the line below from the story and ask if this interpretation of a violation of the Political Reform Act should also apply to Adams, as he and Mitzelfelts committee's have the same treasurer (Presley).

Vogler's campaign finance report shows the Committee to Elect Rita K. Vogler contributed $3,926.28 to her campaign for advertising and printing costs. The funds came from Vogler's City Council account, which is a violation.

Election boils over finance

The race between Supervisor Brad Mitzelfelt and one of his opponents is finally heating up and, as expected, it is over campaign finance issues.

But there's a twist: Mitzelfelt is accusing Rita Vogler of failing to comply with campaign finance laws by not filing the proper financial documentation with the San Bernardino County Registrar of Voters Office.

The irony centers upon the expectation that Mitzelfelt's 1st District seat could have been vulnerable to questions regarding his fundraising practices. Mitzelfelt has raised nearly $1 million - a staggering figure boosted by six-figure contributions by political action groups. Contributors should not be limited in how much they give and doing so is a violation of free speech, Mitzelfelt has argued.

So now, it's Mitzelfelt making the case against Vogler, a Hesperia councilwoman, who may well be his chief competition.

"What makes it really kind of interesting is that Rita Vogler is running as someone who among her primary issues is campaign finance reform," Mitzelfelt said. "I just think that someone who wants to campaign on that should understand the most basic rules that exist and follow them."

Vogler acknowledged that her campaign had erred by thinking she could use the Committee to Elect Rita K. Vogler as her supervisorial committee. Documents that should have been filed with the Registrar's Office were instead sent to Hesperia's City Clerk.

"Did I need to correct it?

Absolutely," Vogler said. "Did I correct it? Yes."

She has since established a Committee to Elect Rita K. Vogler for Supervisor.

Because of the campaign's error, it meant Vogler filed her financial disclosure forms late. The problem was compounded because someone in the Registrar's Office incorrectly entered her last name in the Registrar's database, she said.

That meant searches for "Vogler" came up empty, but someone looking under "Volger" could find it.

Roman Porter, spokesman for the Fair Political Practices Committee, confirmed that two sworn complaints regarding Vogler's campaign statements have been filed with his office.

One complaint came from Michael Orme, Mitzefelt's deputy chief of staff who works on the supervisor's campaign on his own time, Mitzelfelt said. Orme's complaint stated that Vogler did not disclose her income and expenditures while citing a "coordination" between her campaign for supervisor and an independent committee operated by her campaign manager, who is her husband.

The other complaint was made by an unidentified Helendale resident. The nature of it was unknown as of Thursday.

Vogler's campaign finance report shows the Committee to Elect Rita K. Vogler contributed $3,926.28 to her campaign for advertising and printing costs. The funds came from Vogler's City Council account, which is a violation.

 This is an explanation of what the rules are in a California election. The rules are contained in a document called the Political Reform Act. You can google it and download a copy for yourself if you want. My copy is from the FPPC and is 117 pages long and opens like this

POLITICAL REFORM ACT — 2008 Introduction
This 2008 version of the Political Reform Act (the “Act”) is not an official publication of the Government Code. It has been produced for use by the public and staff of the Fair Political Practices Commission. The boldface title before
each Government Code Section and the histories following some sections have been added for clarity and are not part of the Act.
Proposition 34, which was passed by the voters on November 7, 2000, added new campaign finance provisions and made some changes to the disclosure and enforcement provisions of the Act. Proposition 34 took effect on January 1,
2001, except that Section 83 of the measure deferred to November 6, 2002, applicability of portions of Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 85100) of Title 9, to candidates for statewide elective office. Uncodified Sections 83-86 of
Proposition 34 appear in Appendix I. Commission regulations implementing the Act are contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 2, Division
6 (Sections 18110-18997). References to applicable regulations and opinions follow each statute. These references were accurate as of January 1, 2008, but changes may have occurred since then. Thus, the references are provided for
convenience only and should not be relied upon. Opinion summaries appear in Appendix II. Enforcement decision citations appear in Appendix III. Enforcement decision summaries appear in Appendix IV. In addition, Commission opinions and advice letters are available on Westlaw and Lexis-Nexis.
If you need more detailed information or have questions about the Political Reform Act, please call the Fair Political Practices Commission at 1-866-275-3772. The Commission is located at 428 J Street, Ste. 620, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Web site: http://www.fppc.ca.gov.