California’s new redistricting author, Paul Mitchell, told lawyers during his deposition that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent its payment to his accountant, who also appears to be the chief financial officer of a political consulting firm that aided efforts opposing Proposition 50.
Democrats’ Prop 50 drama began in July after Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom formally proposed a constitutional amendment to allow legislative redistricting in response to Texas’ redistricting. After the DCCC unveiled the maps to the Legislature in August, Mitchell’s role in the chaos was confirmed. But questions surrounding his title and the details of his involvement intensified after the Department of Justice (DOJ) joined state Republicans in suing the DCCC and others connected to the maps. (RELATED: ‘X-Acto Knife Job’: Court Hears Claims Newsom Gerrymandering Maps Were Sliced By Race)
During the DOJ and state GOP’s case before a three-judge panel in downtown Los Angeles beginning Dec. 15, Mitchell notably declined to testify before the judges and attorneys regarding his experience crafting the maps. However, while he turned down in-court testimony, Mitchell did sit for an hours-long deposition, answering questions about the timeline and certain details surrounding the requests tied to the maps.
Mitchell told lawyers during questioning that he was paid a total of $325,000 for his services redrawing the maps, with an estimated $108,000 coming from the DCCC. Public DCCC payment records from this year show Mitchell’s firm, Redistricting Partners, was paid $108,333.33 on Aug. 20, with additional payments collected later.
Notably, the invoice from the DCCC listed the same address as a Sacramento-based campaign and public affairs consultancy known as Swing Strategies. When asked about the apparent discrepancy, Mitchell told lawyers the invoice was issued to his company, but his accountant is Swing Strategies’ chief financial officer, Ken Andres.
Swing Strategies, a top political consulting firm, describes itself as having an 88% win rate on California statewide ballot propositions by running “successful campaigns” that allow the firm to “lead and collaborate to deliver victories” for its clients. The firm’s past work is bipartisan, having aided figures such as former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy and former Democratic California Assembly Majority Leader Ian Calderon.
In an aerial view, a Yes on 50 sign is posted on a walkway over Highway 101. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
According to Andres’ biography on the firm’s website, he previously co-owned a bookkeeping services company with his wife for more than five years, serving clients across industries including construction, medicine and nonprofit organizations. In his current role at Swing Strategies, Andres oversees all financial management aspects of the company’s operations.
Mitchell explained in his deposition that Andres has served as his accountant since 2011, adding that the two became personal friends after being introduced by Republican consultant Matt Rexroad, who formed Meridian Pacific Inc., a Republican political campaign consulting firm.
“He’s a good friend,” Mitchell described Andres.
Andres did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.
But while Swing Strategies has worked on a mix of ballot propositions in the deep-blue state, the company also appeared on public payment records tied to the “No on Prop. 50” campaign. According to state records, one of the leading PACs, Protect Voters First, paid more than $30 million to Meridian Pacific Inc., doing business as Swing Strategies.
The first payments to the firm began Aug. 19, with five transactions made that day. One payment totaled $3,661,523.07, a second $5,600,124.12, a third $90,000, a fourth $55,000 and a final payment for that day of $5,000.
When asked about Andres serving as the bookkeeper for both Swing Strategies and Redistricting Partners, Mitchell confirmed the arrangement, adding that Swing Strategies “was the no campaign.”
“Small world,” Mitchell said.
Speculations over the efforts from the state’s GOP and the “No” campaign was brought into question following the passing of Prop 50. At the height of the fight McCarthy reportedly pledged to fellow party members he would help raise up to $100 million to help defeat the “Yes” campaign. However, his PAC, No on 50: Stop the Sacramento Power Grab, only raised $11.6 million, with $1 million coming from the former House Speaker’s defunct congressional campaign account, according to Cal Matters.
McCarthy reportedly led the second PAC with the help of former California GOP Chairwoman Jessica Patterson, who was allegedly paid half a million by the “No on 50” committee, according to the California Globe.
A report from the SoCal Daily Pulse, which has since been taken down, initially alleged Patterson “personally steered” media contracts to have the “No” PACs work with Swing Strategies. The arrangement to work with the company allegedly had her negotiate a 1% cut of the total ad buy spend for herself, which would have her potentially profiting roughly $310,000 from the estimated $31 million. The total from the alleged cut and payment from the committee potentially puts Patterson at almost $1 million in compensation for efforts that failed Republicans in the state.
The efforts made by Swing Strategies were also called into question as donors allegedly expressed their concerns regarding the quality of the mailers used for the “No” campaign. Voters reportedly also received “No” campaign mailers after Election Day, with some allegedly receiving as many as three in one day, the California Globe reported.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Read the full article here
