Skip to Content

What is an Executive? Part II

We asked the Los Angeles Times to explain their definition of an executive and to clarify how they fact-checked its use because they used the term incorrectly in two recent stories.

Instead of correcting errors, they disputed facts. They insinuated that SCE was hiding our support of AB 942 because we questioned their use of the term “executive.” Doesn’t make much sense, does it? (Especially because we told them that we supported AB 942).

In an email to SCE, the reporter stated that in documents filed with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Assemblymember Lisa Calderon’s occupation was consistently listed as “executive.” She indicated that she would write a story about these “FEC filings and how Edison is suddenly claiming that Calderon wasn't an executive.”

Wow.

Fact:

We publicly support AB 942. Earlier last week, we shared our letter of support with the reporter.

Fact:

The term “executive” on Edison International Political Action Committee (EIPAC)’s campaign reports filed with the Federal Election Commission refers to a broad class of individuals that qualify as “executive and administrative personnel” as defined by FEC regulations.

Fact:

For FEC purposes, “executive and administrative personnel” include employees paid on a salary (rather than hourly) basis and who have policymaking, managerial, professional or supervisory responsibilities. This broad class includes both executive and non-executive employees with these responsibilities. These individuals are part of the company’s “restricted” class and are eligible to be solicited by and contribute to the company’s separate segregated fund known as EIPAC.

It is inaccurate to equate the term “executives” for Federal Election Commission and Edison International Political Action Committee purposes with the commonly used definition of the term “executives” for corporate employment purposes.

People make mistakes, but it’s what you do about them once you learn about them that really counts. Unfortunately, the Los Angeles Times chose to dispute facts rather than correct their errors.

Subscribe

Back to top