|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Recently filed campaign finance statements show that the No on Measure PP committee has raised about $4,600 the entire election cycle while the pro-Measure PP camp said it is still expecting significant donations from two local unions.
Pleasanton residents will be voting next week on Measure PP, a half-cent sales tax increase measure that, if approved, would be the first-ever revenue measure of its kind in the city’s history.
The City Council approved placing the revenue measure on the November ballot earlier this year after roughly a year and a half of council meetings where staff reviewed public polling and emphasized the importance of bringing in new revenue in order to balance the city’s budget where expenditures are outpacing revenues.
If a simple majority of people vote yes on Measure PP, it would raise the city’s sales tax from 10.25% to 10.75% for the ensuing 10 years.
Supporters of the revenue measure include the police and fire unions, the association representing city employees and some everyday residents who all say the tax increase will help address the city’s structural budget deficit and deter the city from having to make deep cuts across its departments that will affect the city’s overall quality of life.
However this support, while expressed many times at several recent City Council meetings during public comments, has not clearly shown up in any recently filed campaign finance statements.
During the last filing deadline in September, the pro-Measure PP campaign failed to submit any Form 460, which is required by the state for any political campaign raising more than $2,000.
The group did not file any forms during this latest filing deadline last week, but that doesn’t mean they did not receive any contributions. According to the Alameda County NetFile website, which provides public data on campaign finance statements, the Livermore-Pleasanton Firefighters Local 1974 PAC reported donating $5,000 to the campaign.
However, that money hasn’t made its way to the campaign, according to Matthew Gray, chairperson of the committee Protect Pleasanton’s Future Supporting Measure PP, which is why the campaign did not file a campaign finance report with the city.
“Our group has not received the amount of contributions that would require us to file a form 460,” Gray said.
But that doesn’t mean the campaign won’t be receiving the contributions at all, representative Craig Freeman told the Weekly.
Freeman, a local fire captain who acts as the treasurer for the International Association of Firefighters Local 1974 and supports the Yes on PP campaign, said the firefighters union verbally pledged the $5,000 for the campaign after it was formed and those within the campaign were working to set up its bank account. However, he said the campaign never received the physical check for that contribution due to mailing issues.
“Between the slow mail system during the election cycle and/or a recipient PO Box, those physical checks weren’t received by the Yes on PP Committee prior to the close of the last reporting period,” Freeman said.
Once he learned about this, Freeman said he said he “physically cut a new check to replace that which appears to have been lost in the mail and have resent the replacement check to what we hope will be a more reliable physical mailbox.”
He also said that the pro-Measure PP campaign is expecting another $5,000 to come from the AFSCME Council 57, which is the union representing the city’s employees.
Freeman said the AFSCME Council 57 was working on mailing a check to the Yes on PP campaign on Monday and that he will also be reaching out to smaller contributors from the community to see if they “will be able to reissue their checks which were included in the lost envelope.”
“Those checks totaled about $550 including $100 from myself,” Freeman said.
Freeman said the campaign approved expenditures for signs and mailers with pledged funds from the two labor unions and that the vendors understand they will be paid once the group receives all the promised contributions. That’s why residents are still seeing signs and mailers from the pro-Measure PP campaign even though they have not reported any financial contributions.
However, some residents across the town have been very vocal in their opposition to Measure PP, citing transparency issues with current budget numbers, distrust with the council majority’s previous handling of the city’s budget and a the city not looking into other options to address the deficit as reasons why they believe it’s not the right time for a sales tax increase.
And while the No on PP campaign has not seen any considerably large donations, it has seen a good amount of residents contributing with what they can.
According to the 460 filings from back in Sept. 26 individuals — all Pleasanton residents, except for two — donated anywhere between $50 to $250 to support the campaign against the revenue measure.
In this most recent period from Sept. 22 to Oct. 19, 12 more residents contributed to the cause bringing the anti-revenue measure campaign’s total contributions this year up to just over $4,600. This latest period, the group raised nearly $1,500.
According to the recent 460 filings, some of the more notable contributions came from City Council candidates Vivek Mohan and Craig Eicher as well as former Pleasanton Unified School District board president Mark Miller. Eicher donated $250 while the other two each donated $100.
The nine other residents each donated anywhere from $50 to no more than $250.
According to the 460 filings, the campaign spent the majority of its funds during this latest filing period on yard signs, advertisements and email distribution services.
Pleasanton commission set to vote on major redevelopment project off Dublin Canyon RoadApril 21, 2026 4:30 pm
State finds Dublin day care center responsible for toddler’s death, imposes fine of $10,000April 21, 2026 10:00 pm
New retail, dining options coming to Stoneridge Shopping Center later this yearApril 19, 2026 9:24 pm
“the vendors understand they will be paid once the group receives all the promised contributions.”
That’s not how campaign finance works. You still have to file a FPPC Form 460 if material is received, but not paid for. There is a line called “Accrued Expenses” which is where you report your unpaid bills.
Yes on Measure PP transparent, I think not. Sloppy handling of financial requirements.
This proposition has been too “shady” for my vote