[PICTURED: Mr. Dogg ("The Plaintiff") in hat and shades. Embroiled '09 Mayoral Candidate Antonio Villaraiogsa ("The DEFENDANT") holding his crotch.]
Zuma Dogg was a candidate in the 2009 Los Angeles City Mayoral Election.
Antonio Villaraiogsa was also a candidate.
According to a story in October 11, 2011 Los Angeles Times, KOREATOWN Developer INDICTED: Conspired to Circumvent Contribution Limits in Villaraiogsa's '09 Campaign!
A Koreatown real estate developer faces nearly $184,000 in fines for allegedly making illegal contributions to the 2009 reelection campaign of L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Hugh traveled with Villaraigosa to Korea [where not of the above illegal activity was discussed, schemed or pondered] during the mayor's 2006 trade mission to Asia. During that trip, Villaraigosa held an event promoting the Emhurst Hotel, a development project planned by Hugh's company in Koreatown that was never completed.
The project was approved in 2007 and a year later, Hugh hosted a fundraiser for Villaraigosa's reelection campaign. Hugh asked 18 donors to give a combined $18,000 to Villaraigosa and then reimbursed each of them, according to Ethics Commission reports.
That violated city law, which limits contributions in mayoral campaigns to $1,000 per donor per election cycle. The law is designed to level the playing field for donors and avoid the appearance of corruption.
Hugh 'appears to be an accomplished person,' she wrote. 'However, his conduct threatens a political contribution system that relies on transparency and equal participation.'
Hugh 'affected the election in ways that cannot be undone,' she said." [LATimes: 10/11/11]
Follow up LA Times article on October 11, 2011 (Mr. Hugh was fined MAXIMUM FINE for this issue, called, "Money Laundering.") said: "The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission on Tuesday fined a Koreatown developer $183,750 -– the maximum penalty allowed -- for his role in an alleged money laundering scheme carried out in support of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s reelection campaign.
The Ethics Commission determined that Alexander Hugh collected $1,000 checks for Villaraigosa’s campaign from 18 contributors and then reimbursed each of those donors. That effort violated the city’s fund-raising law, which limits such donations to no more than $1,000 to a citywide candidate.
“This is about as blatant a money laundering scheme as I think I’ve encountered to date,” she said.
Ethics Commission enforcement director Deena Ghaly recommended that commissioners give Hugh a fine at or "very near" the maximum. Ghaly said, "Hugh intentionally deceived regulators and engaged in a pattern of wrongdoing, not an isolated incident.
Villaraiogsa narrowly avoided a run-off by a mere 5%. Any research expert will tell you 4% is usually considered "margin of error," and in an election with historically low voter turn out, with paper ballots sent in the mail), 5% could even fall within, "margin of error." [So it was a very close election, for an incumbent mayor.]
Zuma Dogg was a grass roots candidate, with a very high level of recognition among Los Angeles residents and voters.
Mr. Dogg spent 4 years, as a political activist, assisting people with their challenges with the City, City Hall and Mayor Villaragiosa.
Much of his effort and time was spent representing the voices and issues of the people in CD 14. CD 14 was Villaraigosa's long-time, home district, in which he was councilman when he ran in the 2005 election, in which he was elected mayor, largely due to his strong ties to the district.
If Mr. Dogg was being contacted MOSTLY by people in CD 14, it was because they were upset with Villaraigosa and his current councilmember ally, Jose Huizar.
Mr. Dogg, eventually moved into the district to be closer to the area he was constantly driving to, anyway, to appear at Neighborhood Council, Planning, Rec & Parks and other various CD 14 and CD 1 (adjacent district) meetings.
Additionally, Mr. Dogg spent countless hours on listening to people from CD 14 & CD 1 on the phone, and meeting with them, in person, to hear their grievances. Mr. Dogg would then spend countless hours blogging on these issues, in hopes of creating change, and supported the efforts with appearances at the L.A. City Council meetings, to discuss these issues with the mayor's office and CD 14 Councilman Jose Huizar (in person), and before council during public comment, and on agenda items.
AND, we have only discussed the mayor's home district. Mr. Dogg duplicated the same efforts, as described above, throughout the city, in all districts.
Hundreds and hundreds of hours, if not a 1000 hours, or more, has been spent, over the course of the years leading up to the 2009 election, working with the community.
As Mr. Dogg appeared at the council meetings, his comments and activism was televised across the city, on Time Warner cable TV 35. Each meeting (each comment by Mr. Dogg) was repeated on the TV 35, three times, adding up to four total airings, for each comment. Mr. Dogg would typically get five to seven minutes of time. This was done for three years leading up to the election.
The indicted activities of HUGH, as describe above and in the L.A. Times article, in it's entirety, damaged the campaign of Mr. Dogg, through the illegal campaign activities of HUGH.
Had HUGH not have attempted to circumvent and manipulate the 2009 Los Angeles Mayoral Election, through his illegal (excessive) contributions, Villaraigosa may not have squeaked by, and would have been forced into a run-off.
And if you do a poll across the city, you will find the candidate who shares most voter favorability/sharing patterns with Villaraigosa, is Mr. Dogg. In other words, had HUGH not funneled all that extra money into Villaraigosa's campaign, illegally, he wouldn't have been able to buy as much media time, and Mr. Dogg would have most likely been the beneficiary of votes that went to Villaraigosa, on the added exposure.
The added illegal money, most likely prevented Villaraiogsa from a run-off. Had the candidate who would have been in the run-off, been IN the run-off, not only could Mr. Dogg have been offered a position on his campaign staff, but Mr. Dogg could have been offered a position with the candidate who could have beat Villaraigosa in the run-off.
Additionally, Mr. Dogg was and continues to be damaged, by the actions of Mayor Villaraigosa, since winning the 2009 election, though the entirety of this term. Not only by his general actions as mayor, now under FBI investigation, but in his illegal violation of Mr. Dogg's rights at Venice Beach. (Mr. Dogg won a Federal decision, October 2010, based on his actions as mayor from 2009.)
Very Truly Yours,
[NOTE: Mr. Dogg is of the belief Mr. Villaraiogsa could NOT have NOT known about the contributions. What was Hugh giving the money to him for? As "Secret Santa" invisible donor? The guy was taking trips to Korea with Villaraigosa, together. The Mayor was approving his projects. Campaign contributions are a known form of political influence. Mr. Dogg is considering co-naming ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA in the lawsuit. AND,, either way, there will be subpoenas issues in the lawsuit, to get to the bottom of this all, and help sort out the extend of damage!]