The Curry-Team Newport battle heats up

“The lady doth protest too much, methinks,” is a classic line from “Hamlet.”

The quote describes a situation in which a person vehemently tries to convince others of something, but the opposite is true.

So is the “lady” in this case Newport Beach Mayor Diane Dixon and her “Team Newport” cohorts, Councilmen Scott Peotter and Marshall Duffield?

Are they protesting too much about Councilman Keith Curry’s efforts for campaign finance reform?

They certainly are doing everything they can to discredit him. At the last council meeting Team Newport tossed him off as chairman of the city’s Finance Committee, although he remains a committee member.

Afterwards I asked Curry about it.

He said Dixon was “exercising political retribution because she did not like to see her political fundraising discussed in the press.”

And he reiterated his concerns about the direction the Finance Committee is heading in speculating on the stock market with city money.

“This is exactly the strategy used by Fairfield, Conn., when they lost $40 million with Bernie Madoff,” he said. “It is one of a series of bad proposals coming from Peotter and Dixon that have the potential of costing the taxpayers millions.”

Curry tells me he will continue to speak up “against this kind of reckless financial risk. “

I urge readers to watch the last meeting — on the city’s webpage at bit.ly/237d4S2 — where Dixon and Curry really get into it.

In June county voters will have the opportunity to amend the county charter to create a nonpartisan, nonpolitical Ethics Commission, Measure A.

The intent of the commission is to enforce county ethics laws: the County Campaign Reform Ordinance (TINCUP); the Gift Ban Ordinance; the Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Ordinance.

Measure A would also let cities contract with the commission rather than creating one of their own, something Curry suggested unsuccessfully in Newport.

Like Measure A, Curry proposed lobbyists and their clients register with the city as they do on a state, county and federal level, along with campaign finance reform.

Well, it didn’t take a crystal ball to predict Curry’s ideas wouldn’t go over well with Team Newport.

Dixon originally proposed creating a citizens working group to study the issue. At the time I wrote that I felt it was just a stall tactic so Dixon’s supporters and political consultants could figure out how to play their next move.

Apparently they did, as was evident to me at least in her April 14 Daily Pilot commentary.

Not only did she question the validity of Curry’s proposed campaign finance reform, saying it smacked of “electioneering and score-settling,” but also questioned if, in fact, the issue was even a problem.

“Curry sees a problem that needs to be addressed,” she wrote. “Others, notably a majority on the council, are not so sure.”

I guess Dixon and her team haven’t been paying any attention to TINCUP author Shirley Grindle’s efforts for the last 38 years countywide on campaign finance reform, or to the current Measure A proposal.

And talk of campaign finance reform has dominated the presidential candidates’ rhetoric nationally on both sides of the aisle.

Guess they missed that too.

Thank goodness Newport resides in an alternate universe, where this isn’t an issue.

Kidding aside, Curry won’t let this die and came out swinging, defending his position in an op-ed.

Team Newport hit back.

On April 19 Curry was the subject of one of Peotter’s infamous email blasts to his supporters.

“CAMPAIGN REFORM = GOVERNMENT CONTROLLED SPEECH,” he wrote, “ After Curry has raised his money, he tries to shut down everyone else under the guise of campaign reform.”

Peotter states that “Curry’s reforms are really a thinly veiled attempt at stopping free speech. He makes it sound like money equals dirty politics. Reality is that money allows a candidate to get his message out.”

And, he said, “campaign restrictions usually benefit incumbents and self-funders.”

What he doesn’t mention is that Dixon’s already started fundraising for her 2018 election.

Then, April 22, Duffield jumped in the fray writing a letter to the editor regarding Curry’s commentary.

Curry’s piece mentioned some of Dixon’s campaign supporters, paring them with decisions on council, which didn’t sit well with Duffield.

He stuck up for Dixon, calling Curry’s attacks on her “reprehensible” and “unprovoked.”

“He has done all he can to accuse our mayor of corruption — an absolutely baseless charge,” wrote Duffield.

Fighting words from a guy who hasn’t said much since being elected to council in 2014, but obviously a team player.

Now it’s important to point out, as this war of words continues, that Curry’s no angel here either.

During his term in office I’ve questioned his allegiances to his campaign contributors — as I have pretty much every council member over the years.

But now Curry’s termed out. He has nothing to lose by exposing those same loopholes in campaign fundraising from which he benefited.

So why not listen to the guy who probably knows better than anyone else where reform is needed?

Though the mayor and her team would like us to believe there isn’t a problem, obviously there is, and watching the last council meeting amplifies the fact that tensions will continue to run high.

Curry won’t go away quietly, and more fireworks will certainly be on hand as egos and power struggles mount in this city.

--

BARBARA VENEZIA lives in Newport Beach. She can be reached at [email protected].