A San Diego Superior Court judge ruled earlier this month that statements made in a campaign mailer sent out to Chula Vista voters last fall about John McCann were published without malice and are protected free speech.
McCann filed a defamation lawsuit last October alleging that a political mailer sent by the San Diego Building Trade and Chula Vista Voters Against Corruption tied him in with the Sweetwater corruption scandal that indicted more than a dozen school officials across three South Bay school districts.
McCann, then a Sweetwater Union High School District trustee, was not indicted in the case that removed four of five board members from office.
The councilman, who won his election by two votes last November, also claimed the mailing insinuated that he was sentenced for a felony in the corruption probe.
But Judge Richard E.L. Strauss granted a motion by the union’s legal team saying in court papers that McCann, a public figure, could not prove that any statements in the mailer were made with malice.
Strauss wrote in court documents that McCann’s only evidence that the statements were made with malice is his declaration regarding the acrimonious history between himself and the union.
Strauss added that the declaration did not establish the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard.
McCann issued an emailed statement:
“I care about our community and ran a positive campaign based on the issues that Chula Vista residents were concerned about.
“Steve Padilla and his supporters ran the most dishonest and negative campaign in Chula Vista history. This strengthens my resolve to continue to fight for the citizens of Chula Vista against the powerful special interest groups.”
McCann did not state if he planned to appeal the judge’s decision.
The mailer showed a picture of McCann and along the top and bottom of the flier a question asks: Does School Board trustee John McCann play… The Sweetwater Corruption Game?”
The mailer makes various statements such as “board member sentenced for felony,” “15 indicted for corruption,”
“Superintendent sentenced to jail,” “Contractor guilty in pay-to-play scandal.”
Attorney Dale Larson, part of the legal team that represented the labor union, Chula Vista Voters for Corruption, a committee opposing John McCann, said the mailer puts into question McCann’s behavior.
“So what the mailer does is asks the voters an important question: If Mr. McCann was engaged in this type of conduct, which is similar to that, that was at the heart of the corruption scandal?” he said.
“It’s an important question to ask the voters. Was he part of the same corruption game?”
Larry Remer, author of the campaign mailer who was employed by Chula Vista Voters Against Corruption, was not named in the lawsuit but did say his mailing clearly wasn’t defamatory.
The mailing did not state that he was a felon, Remer said.
“All I can say is that the judge made the proper decision, and that John McCann never should’ve brought this lawsuit and I hope he’s sorry he did.”
Larson said every single statement in the mailer was true and was supported by the reporting that was done on the Sweetwater corruption scandal.
“He went so far as to say that every statement in the mailer would reasonably be interpreted as applying to Mr. McCann,” Larson said.
The statements themselves show that’s impossible because the statements refer to, for example, a contractor.
Mr. McCann was never a contractor. Statements also refer to a superintendent. He was never a superintendent.”
Larson said a second page of the mailer that featured a Monopoly diagram and identified McCann specifically are not contested. Those pieces that identify McCann state: “John McCann took $16,000 from SGI, the contractor convicted of payoffs to Sweetwater officials” and “John McCann took thousands more from Sweetwater’s vendors and contractors.”
Larson said those statements were never in question.
“Mr. McCann never challenged any of those statements where his name was used,” Larson said.
Larson said McCann will now be responsible for paying attorneys’ fees.
