Assembly candidate and Rancho Santa Margarita Mayor Neil Blais is getting hammered by this piece on Red County (and subsequently printed this Blais rebuttal). I’ve been trying to cut through the hyperbole for a couple days now — here’s what the real situation looks like.
Blais and his wife, Destin, run a grant-writing consultancy. That’s at the root of his opponent’s attack, which claims that Blais is helping raise money for to benefit illegal immigrants. Three of the agencies and foundations with which Blais is contracted benefit, among others, illegal immigrants in Los Angeles County.
Blais does not dispute that is has “on-call” contracts with the three or that they do, at times, benefit illegal immigrants. But he presents persuasive evidence that he has done virtually no work for the groups, and that he has received just $2,800 from one group and nothing from the other two.
Of course, sentiment in areas such as the 71st Assembly District is strongly anti-illegal immigrant — it’s the top issue for many voters. So any vulnerability on the issue can help sink a candidacy.
The attacks from opponent Jeff Miller’s campaign include a mailer and a press release. Unless you’re paying close attention, you might think LA County’s spending on illegal immigration is Blais’ doing — and that he’s getting rich doing it.
The mailer, which hit earlier this week, reads, “How one candidate for Assembly helped Los Angeles County waste over $1 billion on services for illegal aliens!”
Inside the mailer, it reads, “Neil Blais has been paid thousands of dollars to help the city get tax money - dollars spent on services for illegal aliens.”
The basis for the charge is Blais’s Form 700, the statement of financial interest he’s required to file with the state. In it, he says he’s received at least $10,000 from the Community Development Commission of the County of Los Angeles, the Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles county Community Development Foundation.
However, Blais also has an email from the agencies stating that while he has a contract with the first two, he was never asked to provide services for them. For the third, he made grant requests in an effort to fund the executive director’s job. He says he was paid $2,800 for that.
He says he listed all three on the disclosure form because of the clause in the form instructions that says:
“Disclose the name of each source of income which is located in, doing business in, planning to do business in, or which has done business during the previous two years in your agency’s jurisdiction.”
Blais says it was the “planning to do business in” portion that prompted him to list the three, because there was a possibility to that the “on-call contract” would lead to paid business.
The attack goes over the top, as many attacks ads do. But Blais was associated with agencies with a policies that often don’t check the residency status of those it helps. It’s hardly the primary mission of those groups to help illegal immigrants, but Blais doesn’t dispute that such help occurs.
Blais’ “planning to do business” explanation, if true, means he misread the instructions, which refer to actual income received — not income that might arrive.
Blais may have done little business with these groups, but he never said he turned the work down. Rather, it appears that the groups never called on him to perform, with a small exception. It seems as though he was ready and willing to do the work.
I never received a rebuttal from the Blais campaign.
Apparently, one of my other bloggers did earlier, and has since posted it.
I’m sorry, but Miller was way over the top on this. I guess anything goes in a campaign for Miller now. Truth is the casualty.
Martin just spelled this out - Neil was ready and willing to do their work… A little over the top? Maybe.
But it’s a campaign.
It’s definately fair ball.