D.A. looking into campaign money laundering allegations involving donations to Huizar opponent

The Los Angeles County district attorney has opened an inquiry into allegations that contributors to the campaign of District 14 City Council candidate Rudy Martinez were illegally reimbursed for their donations, an official in that office said Tuesday.

David Demerjian, head deputy for Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley's Public Integrity Division, said his office opened the inquiry into possible campaign money laundering Thursday.

Demerjian confirmed the existence of the inquiry one day after Martinez told The Times that FBI agents were investigating the private financial dealings of his opponent, incumbent Councilman Jose Huizar. Two other former Huizar staffers also told The Times that agents had questioned them.

The complaint submitted to Cooley came from Carlos Lira, who until December worked in the law firm of Nick Pacheco, a former city councilman who supports Martinez in his bid to unseat Huizar in the March 8 election. Lira said he and his wife were pressured by a business associate of Pacheco to make $500 contributions, then were reimbursed for half the amount weeks later.

Martinez said he was unaware of any reimbursements. He said he returned $6,000 -- $500 apiece to Pacheco and 11 of Pacheco’s employees -- in December, after the city Ethics Commission sent him a letter asking about the donations.

RELATED:

Los Angeles police union backs Bernard Parks' opponent

Teachers union withdraws endorsements of two candidates

L.A. Council candidate forum is tonight for San Fernando Valley seat

-- David Zahniser at Los Angeles City Hall

Comments

[Marley]

Good lawd! They really are trying to run City Hall & Los Angeles like Mexico. Is it too late to run someone other than these two crooks? Allegedly.

[Robert]

OMG!! This is getting absurb. I want to ask the DA Public Integrity what happened to the case against Mayor Villaraigosa using Laker tickets he got FREE? Where is that case? This is typical Huizar in desperation because he's received bad publicity and he doesn't know how to spin it. Its too late. Let's see DA or FBI. We would all take the FBI first

[Alice M.]

But, you see, the DA's investigation is an actual fact confirmed by the authorities, and the alleged FBI one is only a rumor started by one campaign (and denied completely by the other). So, you can't actually "choose" a rumor over fact. These two things are real "apples" vs. alleged "oranges." Plus, I don't believe you can possibly suggest one should blame Mr. Huizar for the fact that a former employee of ex-councilmember Pacheco has said he and a dozen of his co-workers were told they had to contribute the maximum amount alllowed by law to Mr. Martinez's campaign, for which they would be reimbursed by the firm - in direct violation of campaign ethics laws.

[Dan]

Alice M.

I agree with most of what you said, except that there is no "actual fact" that the "firm" was reimbursing anyone.

[Alice M.]

No one said there was. You misread. I said:

"the DA's investigation is an actual fact"

and

"the fact that a former employee of ex-councilmember Pacheco has said he and a dozen of his co-workers were told they had to contribute the maximum amount alllowed by law to Mr. Martinez's campaign, for which they would be reimbursed"

Both ARE facts according the Times story. the DA is investigating and a former employee said those things happened.

[AML]

"Martinez said he was unaware of any reimbursements" I don't believe this guy, he is now caught red handed and thinks he can get away with it just by saying that he was unaware of it???