Chronicle Continues Attacks on Mak

by Paul Hogarth, 2006-09-18

Last Thursday’s Chronicle article about District 4 candidate Jaynry Mak’s belated filing of her financial disclosure forms created quite a stir. It’s been the talk of the political-chatting circuit this week, and has predictably caused a ripple in the blogosphere. One local blogger has dubbed it “Mak’s $6 million mistake.” Expect Matier & Ross to follow up for the next few weeks with more juicy gossip. Why is the Chronicle going out of its way to undermine Mak’s campaign? Many believe it is because the Chronicle and the Chamber of Commerce allies favor candidate Doug Chan, and they fear that a Supervisor Mak would put the interests of District 4 residents ahead of downtown interests.

Nobody disputes that Mak did technically break the law. Section 3.1-150 of the City’s Campaign and Government Conduct Code requires all Supervisor legislative aides (and many other government employees) to file an annual Statement of Economic Interest that includes any real estate interests they may have acquired. And Mak was two years late in disclosing property that she had acquired with her mother. But it does raise a question about the Chronicle’s priorities as to what it considers “newsworthy.”

First, consider that Mak was late in filing her disclosure form – rather than intentionally skirting the law – and it didn’t even become a news story until after she had complied with the requirements. Second, consider that Mak was a legislative assistant – and not an actual Supervisor who had any decision-making authority -- and so the potential impact of “corruption” from her non-compliance was negligible. Third, consider that Mak was out of the office on maternity leave during much of the period of non-compliance, and so even if her position as an aide to Fiona Ma could have affected legislation, any undue influence is minimal or suspect at best.

As a former elected official, I can personally attest that delays in filing of Statements of Economic Interest are routine and not uncommon – albeit technically illegal. While city employees are required to file them once a year, it generally does not get noticed until the person in question turns them in belatedly. But it does raise a question as to why the Chronicle finds it newsworthy to expose Mak’s late filing. If former Supervisorial aides Rob Black or Sean Elsbernd (who have both run for Supervisor) had been late in filing such a report themselves, would the Chronicle have chosen to cover it??

This also isn’t the first time that the Chronicle has pursued Jaynry Mak this election season. In August, Matier and Ross reported that Mak received large contributions from various friends and family members with questionable employer/occupation designations. But every election cycle, local landlords contribute to anti-rent control candidate by listing their official occupation status as “retired” or “self-employed.” The Chronicle’s eagerness in exposing Mak’s discrepancy raises doubts about the paper’s objectivity in the race.

From the perspective of a District 4 voter, a more significant question should be who is funding each candidate’s campaign. Mak’s primary opponent, Doug Chan, has already received significant contributions from real estate interests outside of the district, whose impact for corruption are more pervasive than the fact that Mak purchased property with her mother and didn’t disclose it on time. A cursory look at the Ethics Commission’s website reveals that Chan has gotten large checks from the Pier 39 Limited Partnership, the California Association of Mortgage Brokers, local millionaire Warren Hellman, the Ferry Plaza Limited Partnership, and Redevelopment Commissioner Benny Yee – all of whom have significant financial interests in the City beyond the interests of the Sunset District. While these contributions are legal, it raises more questions of “corruption” than a late filing on Mak’s part.

Meanwhile, the Chronicle didn’t breathe a word about how last week, the Bayview referedum has qualified for the ballot, and voters next year will have an up-or-down vote on the largest redevelopment project area in San Francisco history.